Talk:Kim Davis

Which Apostolic Christian Church?

There are several "Apostolic Christian" articles on Wikipedia, and many of them have been recently visited by editors wishing to disclaim any and all affiliation with Davis. Apparently she is also not related to the Apostolic Church (denomination) linked in the infobox. But this raises the question: which church is she actually affiliated with, and do they have a Wikipedia article? The National Review seems to think that this does indeed refer to the Apostolic Christian Church of America, despite a couple editors' strenuous yet unsourced objections. Does anyone have more WP:RS supporting a definitive conclusion of any kind? Elizium23 (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This question is certainly worth pursuing. We need to get it right. Let's take a look at the evidence:

1. According to a New York Times article (which we already use)[1] and a Washington Post[2] article, she is an "Apostolic Christian". Since both sources capitalize both words, one could mistakenly assume that the name of her church would be "Apostolic Christian", but that isn't necessarily the case, since "Christian" would be capitalized, no matter what. She may just be a "Christian" who is a member of any of a number of churches using the term "Apostolic" in their name. I think the following will support that conclusion.
2. According to a different New York Times article, she worships at "Solid Rock Apostolic Church". It is located in Morehead, KY.[3]
3. According to "Apostolic-Churches.com", which is the "Worldwide Directory of Apostolic Pentecostal Churches & Ministries", there is an associated "Solid Rock Apostolic Church" in Morehead.[4]
4. That makes it clear she's a member of a Pentecostal church body.
5. That "Apostolic Church" directory links to the local church's website - www.solidrockapostolicchurch.org - and identifies the Pastor as Daniel Carter. That link is dead, but Internet Archive has an archived link, which identifies the Pastor as Daniel Carter. There is no question that we're dealing with the right church. We have the right name and location.
   "About Us: Solid Rock Apostolic Church is an Apostolic/Pentecostal church near Morehead Kentucky."

So her church is an "Apostolic/Pentecostal Church", specifically the "Solid Rock" ministry in Morehead, and thus the full and specific name is "Solid Rock Apostolic Church".

Based on this information, we could write:

• Davis describes herself as an "Apostolic Christian" who worships at the Solid Rock Apostolic Church three times a week.

What think ye? I'm going to add this so we can actually see the result. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: this

@BullRangifer: Ok, I'll bite. I examined both sources carefully and I see nothing that supports the statement, "Davis describes herself as an "Apostolic Christian" who worships at the Solid Rock Apostolic Church...". If it's that hard to find in the source given, it fails WP:V. Maybe you can help me out here. I'm not objecting to the content, which is sourced adequately without those refs. I'm objecting to the refs. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, thanks for asking....AND questioning! I wouldn't want to make any mistakes here. Since the first ref doesn't really show here (because I copied the short version from the article), here's the version above with the full first reference:

• Davis describes herself as an "Apostolic Christian" who worships at the Solid Rock Apostolic Church three times a week.

Are you objecting to references 3 & 4? No. 2 is the secondary ref for the name of the church, and 3 & 4 are primary refs confirming and supporting the claim for the name of the church found in the secondary ref. Are you suggesting that 3 & 4 are superfluous? Maybe, but they definitely "support the content that precedes" them.

My research should be seen as an attempt to thoroughly answer the original question at the top of this thread. My research shows which denomination and local congregation she belongs to, and it's not the Apostolic Christian Church of America. These refs are relevant to that question and remove all confusion for editors and readers. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: As I've indicated, I'm objecting to any ref that does not support the content. As far as I can see, the two refs that you added in the diff I linked to above don't say anything about Davis and so do not support the content that precedes them. To show that such a church exists in Morehead does not support the content, unless you commit OR/SYNTH. Per WP:V, "...must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Emphasis mine. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, it supports the identity of the denomination of that church. There was question about that. It doesn't apply to the identity of Davis. That's already clear. A reference may apply to one part of a sentence without applying to another part. As I said, I'm not wedded to those refs, but felt the need to provide them as a help to editors and readers who were confused about the proper identity of the denomination of that church. We need that because we've already had edit warring over the matter, so we increase the level of referencing when that happens. If it were a simple and uncontroversial matter, that wouldn't be necessary, but the edit warring and questions proved that it needed more sourcing on that point. If we find better references, we can substitute them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Not all questions need be, or should be, answered with just a reference. You have two refs with absolutely no explanation for why they are there. A reader will likely look at them and say, oh that's providing information about the church. But that's the function of External links, not references. If you want to address the denomination of the church, and you feel that's relevant, write some content about that and source it with these refs. I still think you're misusing refs, but will wait for other opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah! I think I see what you mean. Let me give it a whirl and see if it works. Then we can discuss it. Thanks for the good input, and for your patience. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I made several changes which justify the links, fill in gaps, and correct some sloppy and inaccurate wordings. We mentioned her denomination in the info box (I fixed that), but had no source for it. Now the sources serve their purpose. Her religion is very important to her and the whole issue, so it should be mentioned. I also rearranged the sentences for better flow. I hope that meets your approval. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it that both refs are needed to support that one little sentence. Looks ok to me as to use of refs, but I'm agnostic as to the relevance of the sentence. You're on your own there. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Oneness Pentecostal

Twice now, the religion in the article has been changed to Oneness Pentecostal without any significant explanation or sources provided. The existing, reliable sources, list the church she attends, and it does not appear to be Oneness Pentecostal. The only sources I see that suggest Oneness are blog-like, which are not reliable sources. If the sources we have got it wrong, that's fine, but we need to find equally reliable sources that indicate Oneness Pentecostal and preferably offer some justification for why that's correct and Solid Rock Apostolic is wrong. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 04:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Without sources, that change was wrong. Thanks for fixing it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, unless and until there are reliable mainstream sources backing up the religion change, it should be reverted. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 08:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Having read the recent change, I see no proof that the church is Oneness Pentecostal. It only claims to be "Apostilitic/Penecostal" on its site. I think either Pentecostal or maybe to just Apostolic, even though it is an DAB. Anyone care to try to reach out to the church and ask them what they are? Jerod Lycett (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we'd need RS for such a radical change of church denomination. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This article in The Courier-Journal seems to indicate she's Oneness Pentecostal ...[5] 02:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HangingCurve (talk • contribs) 02:02, 7 September 2015

It does not. It says "Apostolic Pentecostal". Elizium23 (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Oneness" and "Apostolic" are used interchangably in those circles. I know--I was married to a UPCer for three years.HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 02:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yet, we know for sure which church she attends and we also know for sure it is not Oneness. Elizium23 (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, see WP:NOR. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Elizium23 is correct. Working backwards, we know which local church she worships at "three times a week", and we know that that church is listed in the directory of "Apostolic-Churches.com", which is the "Worldwide Directory of Apostolic Pentecostal Churches & Ministries". They list "Solid Rock Apostolic Church" in Morehead.[6] That makes it clear she's a member of a Pentecostal church body. That "Apostolic Church" directory links to the local church's website - www.solidrockapostolicchurch.org - and identifies the Pastor as Daniel Carter. That link is dead, but Internet Archive has an archived link, which identifies the Pastor as Daniel Carter. This source confirms that he is still her Pastor. There is no question that we're dealing with the right church. We have the right name and location: "About Us: Solid Rock Apostolic Church is an Apostolic/Pentecostal church near Morehead Kentucky."

That should settle the issue, and no change is needed. We have the right information in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Several editors have been going to the article Apostolic Christian Church of America as well as Apostolic Christian Church and placing "disclaimers" that these churches are not affiliated with Kim Davis. I have been reverting them, primarily because these assertions are poorly-sourced, but also because it seems to me totally irrelevant to say that such-and-such denomination is not affiliated with Davis. We might as well go around to Catholic Church and Jehovah's Witnesses and say they're not affiliated either... Elizium23 (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Good work. I suspect that most of those attempts are OR. This would only be relevant content if RS have made the connection and documented the confusion. If so, then add it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Remind me again how we decided to link to Apostolic Church (denomination)? Because this RNS article confirms she is part of Oneness Pentecostalism and links to United Pentecostal Church International, not as a direct example of her denomination, but as "the largest and most influential Apostolic Pentecostal denomination". This precludes Apostolic Church (denomination), which is not Oneness but Trinitarian. I'm not sure where we should link, but for lack of a specific denomination I would say Oneness Pentecostalism. Elizium23 (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific. Pointing to an article and mentioning what it guesses ("The term could refer to any one of a few different groups") isn't good enough. Do you have more specific wording which is aligned with our sources? See them above and in the article. Your RNS article also links to the same directory which mentions the church where Davis worships. Oneness Pentecostalism doesn't use that directory, at least I don't see it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I'm definitely open to other possibilities. Are there other sources which identify the Solid Rock group in Morehead as part of their denomination? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Organizations link lists Oneness Pentecostal denominations. 60 Questions on the Godhead clearly outlines Oneness, non-Trinitarian beliefs. Elizium23 (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a nice web directory. Which one of those lists her local church? If you can identify that, I'll be convinced. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably one without a Wikipedia article. Can you at least concede that it cannot possibly be Apostolic Church (denomination)? Elizium23 (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Why can't it be? The directory which lists Solid Rock Apostolic Church is from the Apostolic-Churches.com website, right? It says right there "Apostolic Churches". The closest article I could find here was the Apostolic Church (denomination), and it's also Pentecostal. The directory includes Pentecostal congregations, so it also uses this description: Apostolic Pentecostal Churches & Ministries.

I just don't see why "it cannot possibly be Apostolic Church (denomination)". Am I missing something here? Let's get input from others. Maybe they can see your point. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, you'll have to justify why it should be Apostolic Church (denomination), other than just some words match the name. Second, that article describes a Trinitarian belief, in direct contradiction of the Oneness beliefs described on Apostolic-Churches.com. Third, there is no link from any directory of Apostolic Church (denomination) to Solid Rock in Morehead. So why again has it been chosen out of a hat? Elizium23 (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Above you wrote: "Yet, we know for sure which church she attends and we also know for sure it is not Oneness. Elizium23 (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)" Why the change of mind, or are you just in doubt now?

I just noticed something: Apostolic-Churches.com is a .com, and the web host for Solid Rock's website, but that doesn't necessarily make it the official website for the denomination, which would probably be a .org. It has lots of advertising for website creation. Many denominations do provide such a service, but what if this is just a commercial website creator which will list any variety of Apostolic church which uses it as their webhost? This makes me less likely to place all my eggs in that basket.

You also wrote above: "Probably one without a Wikipedia article." That's actually a good possibility. These small churches are often unaffiliated, or their organization may not have a Wikipedia article, and so we've latched onto the article which has the same name as the web host for Solid Rock's website. This may be a mistake, and I'm backing off this for awhile. I'll be traveling anyway and out of range for a few days, so see if you can convince other editors.

You've got me wondering. It would really help if Solid Rock identified itself as Oneness. I wonder if Pastor Daniel Carter has written more anywhere? This all may end up hanging on an interpretation of their Trinitarian beliefs, which can be a bit tricky, and we might get into OR. We may end up just having to drop any mention of which denomination, and also drop linking to any Wikipedia article. Just stick to what their website says without getting into more detail. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This article at Religion News Service seems to prove what I have long contended ... that for Pentecostals of Davis' persuasion, "Apostolic" and "Oneness" are interchangable. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That's the article I brought into this discussion, and then used as a reference for an article update, which BullRangifer reverted. Elizium23 (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Saying she's Oneness Pentecostal would be original research, anyway. She says she's Apostolic, that's what the RS's say, and that's what we go with. Besides, she's never going to call herself "Oneness" since that is pretty much a derogatory moniker given to Oneness Pentecostals by non-Oneness Pentecostals and other Christian denominations critical of Oneness theology. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a RS saying she is Oneness, HangingCurve and I both put it in this talk page, and it is in the article now! Elizium23 (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

News to watch

FYI only: Not enough reliable sources and too early to include at this point, but news to watch: Oath Keepers, the assault-rifle-carrying group that stationed themselves in Ferguson and other conflict areas, has now said that Davis had been illegally detained and is now forming a presence in Rowan County to protect her from American law enforcement if she defies the law and is arrested again, according to Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes. (Oath Keepers On Their Way To 'Protect' KY Clerk Kim Davis From US Marshals Official statement: Oath Keepers Offers Kim Davis Protection From Further Imprisonment by Judge) Although, I personally doubt Davis will be defying the law again anytime soon. Prhartcom (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the main subject matter of the article warrants inclusion in the article, but there is also this:[7] (the part I am speaking of is some Davis supporters calling for her deputies to resign) --Nosfartu (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I may be add a sentence about that. It starting to get coverage in other reliable sources. - MrX 13:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Nosfartu and MrX, good find; agreed; a single mention of that is appropriate for this article. Since I just added some deputy clerk information; I have just made this change (it includes a source from Australia that any of us can change later when a U.S. source appears). Prhartcom (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to take a moment, stray from the rules a bit, and add my opinion: This article is looking good. I also am predicting that this story is about to wind down. There may be news to watch in the coming days, but I doubt much of it will be more than a murmur in comparison to what we have covered here. Now that Davis has got one of the two things she wanted (her name off the gay marriage licences) she won't be making another stand to get the other thing she wanted (no gay marriages), as she doesn't want to return to jail. We get to go back to our lives. ;-) Best, Prhartcom (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Folks, let's keep in mind that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, but an encyclopedia. Just because it's "covered", even in reliable sources, that doesn't make it inclusion-worthy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Right now, it's little more than rhetoric from the Oath Keepers, so I guess I'm inclined to leave it out. If they do deploy "boots on the ground", and especially if it interferes with federal LEOs or people trying to get marriage licenses, then that would be of historical significance. Given Oath Keepers activities in Ferguson and the standoff in Nevada, anything is possible. - MrX 15:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

All replies make accurate points. As I said, I only mentioned it to let ourselves know about it should be become necessary to include it, not to include it. Thanks again to Nosfartu and MrX for the protester reaction source above. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

WV, just saying "WP:NOTNEWS" is unhelpful unless you explain what section of the standard relates to this article. Are you saying that because Kim Davis is only notable because the news media reported about her that this article should be deleted? If so, take it to AfD. TFD (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As stated above, if all we have is talk and speculation about the Oath Keepers group, then it shouldn't go. If Kim Davis chooses to go back to forcing other clerks against their will to stop issuing marriage licenses (naturally, you can't tell for sure what someone is thinking deep down just from looking at them or asking them, this applies to everyone in the world including Davis), then it will become an issue. If we have Oath Keepers actively harming somebody, then it will of course be a major news event. However, that's all mere speculation right now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

According to the Oath Keepers site their offer was politely rejected: [8]. While the offer has been noted on the OathKeeper page, and I'll update it with the refusal, does it pertain here? As I've said on another aspect, do we really need to report when nothing happens? 人族 (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Split?

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

---

PROPOSED: Split the part not closely related to Davis into a separate article, title to be determined separately from this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Split survey

• Support as proposer. For a rationale, I think we need look no further than the fact that, after massive amounts of discussion, we still have a hybrid article with a bio title. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - A lot of issues will be solved by spliting this into an article about the wider controversy and reaction, and the biography of the ersatz Rosa Parks.- MrX 17:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Although determining the title of the split article is going to probably be difficult, even with all the previous discussion of it here. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Ever since I saw a respected administrator comment that they were surprised we had chosen to make this a biography article instead of an article of a controversial event, I have been thinking seriously about this. Caution: I have a serious concern; please see the discussion below. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Thanks for starting discussion. The current version is COATRACK and needs to be split. While I acknowledge that Davis herself is inextricably tied to the controversy, we need to separate place to discuss the controversy itself. I think as this continues to develop (esp. when she returns Monday) there's going to be increasing need for a controversy page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support as this should have never been a bio article. The situation/circumstances are notable, Kim Davis is 1E. The split will, hopefully, make a good case for deletion of the bio article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Naturally, an article that's about the controversy will discuss Davis herself in some reasonable detail. However, that will make organization make more sense. The details about the controversy itself can be expanded as well. I do feel that, though, strict caution should be maintained as to editorial standards in what new information gets included. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – Since this is a biographical article about her and what she has done in her life, and what makes her notable, it is common sense to include this controversy in the bio article, a split is unnecessary, and seems to be just a backdoor attempt to get this bio article deleted. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - The controversy is more notable than Kim Davis and has greater carrying power. She's notable for being a part of it, but a bio article does not give adequate coverage or scope to the controversy. Evensteven (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support although the hard part might be how the separate article would be summarized here, unless we decide to treat that as "See also". I'm just relieved that this bio article will no longer be the magnet for every Tom, Dick and Mary wanting to hang their little political hat by way of RS. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Split discussion

I believe that once this split is supported and the controversy article is created, readers will only require the controversy article and will not see the point of the biography article. An AfD will then be next, with arguments that the controversy is the only reason Davis is notable, which will be unanimously agreed upon and the biography article will be deleted. Honestly, what would be in the biography article that is notable? Only her election history and her personal life, the latter of which will be thoroughly covered in the controversy article. I'm afraid we should instead be talking about renaming this article. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That's kind of the point. We have been talking about renaming this article, ad nauseam et exhausteum, and have gotten precisely nowhere. There's no light at the end of that tunnel that I can see, so this is what's left. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, honestly, call me a pessimist or whatever, I am all but certain that she is going to be a significant player in the next year or so in terms of the US Republican presidential primaries. A somewhat similar example I know of is Jennifer Zeng, an article I created because of her autobiographical book years ago. Since then, she has become involved in a film production, been a regular and vocal activist, and basically become notable for other things. It is hard, if not impossible, for me to imagine that Ms. Davis is going to stay simply notable for this one event much longer. Honestly, although she hasn't, so far as I can tell, returned to work today, when she does, I have little if any doubt that there will be further events, be they more denials of marriage licenses or, even, issuing of marriage licenses, with or without her consent or approval. And, for all we know, the lawsuit might continue and maybe even be heard, which would probably be sufficient for another instance in and of itself. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That's also my view. I don't think she is going to quickly fade into obscurity, and I would bet all my barnstars that there will be a forthcoming book and talk show appearances that will keep her in the media well beyond these current events.- MrX 18:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Even if the split now results in a rather small-scale article for Davis's BLP, she is notable enough to warrant the page. That notability will almost certainly increase in the short-term. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

These are excellent points. You'll have to rehash them at the AfD so that you win. I hope you do, otherwise the biography will be deleted only to be resurrected the following season when she's on Oprah. But if that's how it plays out, it is even more important that we split this article out now, as I predict the controversy will probably simmer down this month or the next. Prhartcom (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not an article about Kim Davis herself, personally, is going to be AfD-ed and then deleted is far from certain. There could very well be no consensus to get rid of it. There could also very well be a majority viewpoint to keep it. Things depend on what Davis chooses to do in the future, as stated above. We can't see into future, so we shouldn't try. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't make predictions about the future. If the article is split, that's no indication that the biography will be deleted. She's still holds a notable political position, which is that of a clerk of a county with over 23,000 people, plus her connections to this controversy will definitely result in a consensus to keep. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 05:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The remark about backdoor attempt, in your !vote, seems moot if such an AfD would be extremely unlikely to succeed, as you say above. It's also a bit non-AGF. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This is looking a lot like a snow pass, but let's give it at least another 24 hours. Some others who might care to !vote are @BullRangifer, Nosfartu, Stevietheman, and Evensteven: (sorry for any slight, that's based solely on edit counts to the article and this page). ―Mandruss ☎ 08:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I've just been taking a break from this as this has become the most controversial thing I've touched in a long time, and it was wearing me out. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree about not predicting the future, but I don't foresee any AfD. Controversy about gay marriage in general has been around a considerable time already. It's in history; the only question is how long it will continue to generate more news, but that doesn't matter as to the durability of material for articles. Kim Davis has already had enough notability for being a part of that history that a bio article on her would have reason to stay, even if it may be short. But surely the issue of gay marriage (and related issues/controversies) is something worth article coverage, and that requires context, the collection of multiple events, and eventually synthesis. As this particular incident recedes into the past, it will find its place in writing of a less media-driven nature, and it will increasingly become possible to make the articles more encyclopedic. Both kinds of article cover the history of other topics, and I see no reason why they shouldn't for this topic either. Evensteven (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, Davis crossed the line into permanent notability when Huckabee raised her hand. No matter what happens in the Presidential race, and no matter what anyone thinks of the politics of it, that scene at the jail was a historical moment connecting a very notable figure (and a very notable segment of religious activists) to Davis. Permanent 'Keep' vote from me. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Does anyone know if we can request that the history be copied to the new article? It seems like that would be appropriate given that there is such a large amount of content to copy, and 114 contributing editors. I'm not entirely sure if WP:HISTMERGE applies. WP:CFORK doesn't really address it either. WP:SPLIT says to use an edit summary noting "split content from article name". - MrX 17:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• I guarantee that if this article is split and the bio AfD'd, if the result is not Keep it will be merge back to the controversy, which will mean the entire history ending up in one article anyway. So I'd not worry about the history until we get to that point. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, I guess it would have to, to comply with attribution requirements. - MrX 18:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  I also agree. In that case, it's the bio info that would need to be copied to a new page, but that's a smaller set where attribution history can be documented (pointed to) in the requisite edit comments, perhaps at talk. Evensteven (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  Oops. I was rather off the mark just above. But apply it to the case where the bio remains and the controversy is added. Some sort of attribution origin should be documented at the new page. I was suggesting that it be kept simple. Evensteven (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Split next step

So, thinking ahead to the next step, we should try for a consensus on the new article's title before creating it. The alternative is for the creator (oops, sorry God!) to just take their best shot at a title, which would almost certainly end up in an RM. We stand a better chance of avoiding an RM if we collaborate on the title here. Am I somewhat on track here? If so, should we continue the existing discussion, or start fresh with a new one? We definitely want to leave redirects out of it at this stage; we're just trying to get the article started, and that would unnecessarily complicate matters. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me personally that the big issue is regarding whether to start the title with her name or with "Kentucky". I guess the deciding factor would be something we can't know yet, specifically, how far this will go. Tentatively, and I mean extremely tentatively, because it could change even by late Monday, I'd go with starting the title with her name, like maybe Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy, and hope that so many other people don't get heavily involved that the name has to be changed later. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so I gather you're for collaborating here, and starting fresh. I'd suggest that we not do that in this subsection. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• I second John Carter's suggestion of Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. As a distant second, I would support Rowan County, Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. I do not support any title with the word "issuance" or "2015", or any title that does not include the words "same-sex marriage". (If a more organized titling discussion is started elsewhere, feel free to copy my !vote there.) - MrX 19:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Doesn't 2015 help clarify things? Why oppose a date? And since I love playing devil's advocate, why not hijack\repurpose the Rowan County freedom of religion controversy page. True it lacks a date so if others prefer Rowan County(or Kentucky) 2015 Freedom of Religion Controversy I'm good with that too :-D 118.208.65.221 (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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

ivn.us

I see no evidence that ivn.us is a reliable news source. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I presume this pertains to my referencing them? They're listed in Wikipedia as hosting a US presidential debate. Suggests they're not totally fringe. I've no problem with better sources being used though. 人族 (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Death Threats?

Should the reports of death threats against Kim Davis be mentioned? They're something already mentioned in some of the linked references, but not in the article itself. Threats of arson and rape has also reportedly been made. I'm aware this article recognizes the issues involved are contentious, but if criminal threats have been leveled do they deserve a mention? 人族 (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Davis made a statement that she received death threats. I also see here that one of the couples and Judge Bunning received death threats. As far as I can tell, none of it rises to the level of significance for inclusion in this article. - MrX 17:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Notable for only one event

Does this person, notable for only one event, merit a biography? See Wikipedia:BLP1E. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, I see this was asked above in #RFC: On the many problems in this article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

That was just archived, here's the permalink. Yeah, that question has arisen in multiple discussions. At this point we're looking at a split (see #Split?), and that will obviously change the nature of this article. There's some agreement in #Split discussion that her notability will increase. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Spinoff title

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

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

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

Spinoff title survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 1 or 2 - Option 4 is too long/tedious. Option 2 might be too broad to be honest, but it seems good enough. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• 2 - Kentucky, as Rowan County and Kim Davis are both too limiting. It started with her, and in Rowan County, but the controversy is spreading, and includes legal actions contemplated at the state level, both wrt Davis, and wrt changing the law. Evensteven (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• 1 or 2. Perhaps both? In fact this is already set up, so why not just use that?--Nosfartu (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Spinoff title discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spinoff ready to close?

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

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

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

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

United States versus U.S.

There seems to be some feeling that "United States" needs to be spelled out in many cases that seem unnecessary to me. While it's justified in a few situations, in my opinion most cases should favor brevity and readability over formality. I think enough readers know what U.S. means that we don't need to say, "United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky", for example. Yes, that's the true name of the court, but I don't think knowing that the true name says United States rather than U.S. benefits our readers, that many of them care, or that the ones who do care can't figure it out that we're abbreviating. This is an appeal to common sense. It's a Wikipedia article, not a legal document. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. With the caveat that we can't be vague just for the sake of brevity because of non-American readers. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

We're only discussing U.S. versus United States in this thread. I am not proposing any kind of extrapolation to other things. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest changing "U.S. Supreme Court" to "Supreme Court of the United States", which is widely used even in U.S. media. But I think that readers will understand in which country the "U.S. Court of Appeal" is, unlike for example, the EWCA (England and Wales Court of Appeal). TFD (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

US or America(n) is fine. United States is much less common I think. 人族 (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

How about spelling out "U.S." once, perhaps in the lead, and using the abbreviation elsewhere? For the purposes of this article, maybe using the construction "Supreme Court of the United States," at least to my eyes, makes it a bit clearer that the United States is the area in question here, so spelling that out once in the lead, and using the abbreviation thereafter, might be the best alternative, at least to my eyes. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean first reference in the lead? It wouldn't work very well to go from a shorter form to the longer form. As the first reference currently is used, that would read, Supreme Court of the United States decision. Does that sound right to you? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I meant in the first reference in the lead, and I guess "decision of the Supreme Court of the United States" might be less grammatically awkward. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thus increasing the word count by 5 (U.S. reads as one word), in a sentence that is very long and growing. Three words were already added today alone. In my opinion, we should split the first sentence if we want to do as you suggest. I personally favor U.S. Supreme Court throughout, except where we already have enough context to drop the U.S. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As it stands now, the first sentence reads at grade level 12.8. Experts say that content written for the general public should aim for grade level 8. Would you agree that Wikipedia is written for the general public? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I would say that WP content aims at a variety of audiences within the general public. Depending on the article, some aim considerably above grade level 8. This one, however, seems well-suited to grade 8 (or whatever's average for media news). Evensteven (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I stand self-corrected. The program was mistaking the periods in U.S. and v. as the end of sentences, making the average sentence length far smaller. After removing those periods, it becomes grade level 25.5. I've had good experience with this site in the past, but that seems so outlandish that I'm disregarding it. As to news media, a recent New York Times article on a scientific topic got a 9.9 at the same site. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Grade-level 25.5? WTF? Is that, like, postdoctorate or something? If the grade level is that high, drop it as much as required to make it something the average reader could easily understand. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just a number, the output of a mathemetical algorithm. More accurately, it's the average of the outputs of five different recognized algorithms. I don't think they're suggesting that grade level 25.5 actually exists in the real world. Looking at our current first sentence, and comparing that to stuff I've evaluated at this site before, I'd probably give it something like a 16, and I'd favor splitting it. On the other hand, the contributors of the greater part of the content in this article are not writing for the general public but rather for people at their own level. As long as that has tacit consensus, there's little point in splitting the first sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel somewhat wary about putting a lot of stock into these algorithmic results when it comes to something as subjective as readability. I'm reminded of one of those 'Golden age of science fiction' novels, where (say) an android would scan a fellow before beeping "You are ←38.5%→ dead, please report to the authorities for additional killing until you are ←100%→ dead". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't suggest they should be the final arbiter, but it beats nothing but subjective perceptions. Ideally, we would have a panel of tenth graders read it and say whether they found it accessible. Myself, I'm seeing a lot of sentences that seem excessively and unnecessarily long, as well as a lot of cases where a long word was used where a shorter one would have the same meaning (or close enough for our purposes); compensation and pay, for example. And I'm not feeling WP:BOLD enough to make widespread edits in these areas, since I'm the only one who seems to feel this way. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

More important things to do

Occasionally, discussions initiated here are underwhelming arguments for unimportant non-issues. While these discussions of minutia rage, there are more important matters of policy. Prose not supported by its referenced source had gone unnoticed. Passages of text had no cited source. Factual details from sources had been stated in the prose incorrectly. Events of the timeline had been presented out of order. An editor had inserted their opinion into the text and it was allowed to stand. As far as I know, these issues were resolved today, but we must be vigilant. Let us, as time in our lives allow, return to Wikipedia:Verifiability: Read each of the sources cited to each sentence and ensure the facts stated in the article are correct and that the most important facts from the sources were gathered. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's some cheese to go with that.  :) (had to come back sometime) Seriously, what you say describes the challenge all over this site, not just this article. Solution: WP:FIXIT. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Point taken! I did! :-) I made this plea after a lengthy editing session that made many corrections. If anyone else has any comments or suggestions for improvement, feel free to leave them below. Or if you prefer, take my caution to heart and make no comment, while vowing to take better care of the article going forward. Prhartcom (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

More important things are more important; that goes without saying. No editor should assert that an issue is too minor to be discussed by editors who choose to discuss it. No one is forced to participate in any discussion, and no one should presume to dictate how others spend their unpaid time at Wikipedia (unless they are violating policy or behavioral guideline, needless to say). ―Mandruss ☎ 02:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You and I finally agree on something. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well we agreed that Hawtpeppers is (was?) a pain in the ass (arse). ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggest Removing 2.2.1 Reactions Section

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

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

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

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

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

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