Talk:Kim Davis

Divorces and children

I'm opening this section to discuss the removal of content pertaining to the subject's multiple marriages which was removed because "... we don't normally list BLP subjects' divorces or who fathered which of their children".

In fact, we almost always include such information, especially if covered in reliable sources and especially if it's relevant. In this case, she has refused to issue marriage licenses claiming a higher authority, which strikes commentators as odd given the prohibition against divorce by the very same supreme being. I am open to removing the detailed content about her children, other than perhaps mentioning how many she has.- MrX 01:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see how it's relevant to Obergefell, to discrimination, or to the contempt of court motion. It looks to me like it serves no other purpose than to insinuate hypocrisy in the subject's religious views. I think that's problematic. I don't dispute that sources are RS. Geogene (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not relevant to those three things, but it is relevant to her taking a stand on religious grounds. It does insinuate hypocrisy, but that's an aspect that several sources have focused on. This very reliable source (which I think you removed for some reason), discusses it in quite a bit of detail. - MrX 02:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that subject is a "Bad Christian", on account of her sexual history? Sorry about deleting that source. Geogene (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we can have our cake and eat it too by changing "lives with her current husband" to "lives with her fourth husband". I don't think the line detailing the dates of her divorces is relevant to the core subject of the article. --Captain Infinity (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, using "previously" with "prior" is redundant and, I have a feeling, POV inclined. --Captain Infinity (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Doable, but the best option is to find a respectable commentator that says that about the subject, and quote it, so we aren't sneaking anything in in Wikipedia's voice ( WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ) Even if there's no such source already, there should be by Thursday or so. Geogene (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a possibility. Perhaps the Washington Post Editorial Board. - MrX 02:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Geogene: No, I'm not saying that she's a bad Christian. I'm saying that our sources are portraying her as flexible with regard to how she follows her faith.

@Captain Infinity: I don't object to removing the years of her divorces for now, and rewording as you suggest. If sources later expand on her previous marriages, we should consider putting some of that detail back in. - MrX 02:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following that distinction, which appears to be one of semantics but not meaning. But I think that removing the years of her divorces, and possibly choosing not to list them individually in the Infobox, will take away the last of the undue emphasis on them, so it's no worse than a typical BLP. Geogene (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think part of the problem with the tone is the way the section is structured. Her faith, which is the origin of the entire issue, is overshadowed by the information on the divorces. Putting that last line there by itself gives it an importance it may not deserve. I suggest the following, switching things around. "Davis describes herself as an Apostolic Christian[3] and attends church services three times a week. She lives in Morehead, Kentucky with her fourth husband, Joe. Her previous marriages ended in divorce." That really says it all, the dates are of no relevance, her faith is out in front, and lets the reader make his own determination of hypocrisy. --Captain Infinity (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem with that. Geogene (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with that. - MrX 02:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(←) Sorry, I spotted the tautology before reading this discussion. I'm good with the change as well; the dates of her divorces really are unimportant here. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 02:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Marriages and children are normally covered in Personal life sections of BLP. There is no need to make an exception for her here. Victor Victoria (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that is where they are normally covered. I think there are different views about how much detail is covered in this article. We need to observe WP:BLPPRIVACY when it concerns uninvolved people, especially children. I don't think we have crossed a line, but we're getting very close. - MrX 13:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how we are even approaching WP:BLPPRIVACY. No names or any other identifying information is given for uninvolved participants. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Just as a note, this [1] is pretty much a rebuttal to what I've argued here recently. I won't oppose mention of an issue that Guardian has headlines on. Geogene (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It's also worth noting here that her checkered marital history all happened *prior* to her religious conversion, a pretty important detail regarding the claim in the media that she is essentially a "bad Christian." 70.15.35.76 (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Same thought here; she had a religious experience in 2011 according to the article; in Christianity, especially that geographical region, that is a point of change.Howardd21 (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Reactions

I've added a sentence about notable comparisons of Davis' activism with that of George Wallace 52 years ago. I would suggest that we do not include any commentary from politicians, especially presidential candidates. Although I think it would make for some amusing reading, it would definitely turn this article into a COATRACK. Does anyone think we should take a different tack? - MrX 14:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I generally oppose inclusion of anything a politician says, in any article except one about politics. It's self-serving grandstanding by definition of the word "politician" and therefore not noteworthy. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly my thinking. Let them speak to the wind. - MrX 14:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I've moved it into the "reaction" section, as that's where it belongs. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This a bio, not a political soapbox. A reaction section does not make sense int he context of a bio. Perhaps as a sub section of 'Contempt hearing'. We should not be giving any airplay to any politicians in this article. I have no objection to creating a new article if warranted. - MrX 15:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, again. Also SuperCarnivore591 you are confusing two issues, the one about Wallace and the politicians' comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think any political reactions should go into Miller v. Davis and not this article. And it should be done with due weight given to the various responses, for and against what's happening. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please be careful not to start adding content to Miller v. Davis which belongs here. Keep the two very sharply separated. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This may be a bio, but our articles allow anything about the subject (Kim Davis) which is from RS. Thus it isn't like a biography anywhere else. We are not allowed to disallow content because we want to keep it strictly biographical, in the sense of a bio elsewhere. Controversies, commentaries, reactions, etc., are all fair game. Notable reactions are especially relevant, and politicians, like it or not, are notable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

We are allowed to exclude anything in RS that we feel is not noteworthy. You can claim it's noteworthy, but you can't claim that RS coverage alone justifies inclusion; it does not. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Political commentaries tend to be about the case in which Davis is involved. At any rate, you must give due weight to the various responses, or it's a no-go. This article will not become a campaign brochure for any particular presidential aspirant. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Huckabee was left in by mistake. No one is suggesting to include only him, or only anyone else. The issue is whether or not politicians' comments are noteworthy. See above. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, this comes down to editorial discretion. I'm on record as strongly opposed to giving politicians a soapbox in this article. If consensus requires that we do, we are going to be spending considerable time debating what commentary merits inclusion versus what doesn't. If I'm lucky, I'll have an internet outage at that time. - MrX 16:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC);

Oh, I don't think there would be much debating. If you let any of it in, you have to let in pretty much whatever anyone wants to put in, provided no one gets significantly more space than anyone else the viewpoints are roughly balanced (assume RS coverage is roughly balanced). Otherwise I still agree with you 100%. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a feeling that this section, wherever it goes, is going to become bloated very fast. All kinds of notable figures are weighing in. Couldn't we just boil it down to a few sentences by saying some Republican political candidates are supportive of her actions for such-and-such reason (with cites), while Democrats and other Republicans (including candidates) are saying this is a "rule of law" matter (with cites)? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Still a soapbox, larger scale. Still meaningless. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's a soapbox, as it's normal to include reactions in the cases of politically-charged events such as this. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about "normal". Neither of us has seen enough different articles to claim we know how a majority of the Wikipedia community feels about it, and your experience has been different from mine. As MrX said, this specific situation is not covered by policy and it's a matter of editorial discretion, which will vary from article to article and from one mix of editors to another. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

In a user talk page discussion with @Stevietheman:, [2] I was able to post three reliable sources mentioning the Republican candidates that are more or less supportive of Davis in less than five minutes. Any Google news search should produce enough to easily overcome any concerns about Weight. For some reason that discussion went nowhere and I've been assured that any addition of politician comments will be "checked, as always". I see that as a challenge. How hard will it really be to get consensus on this? Geogene (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Geogene: you seem very intent on writing WP:UNDUE content. I guess I didn't get it wrong, after all. You seem to pin everything on WP:RS, but it doesn't work that way. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Quit pinging, I'm watching the page. As I said, you just don't seem to understand Weight. Do your own news search and count the sources that are reporting on this. Geogene (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

All you want to add is content from one side of the debate. That's WP:UNDUE. Also, search counting isn't the only standard we go by. Voices from both sides are being reported on widely. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I resent your casting aspersions, and reiterate my request for opinions from other editors on whether this qualifies per WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise, I'd still be arguing on your talk page. Geogene (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not casting aspersions. You are saying clearly you only want to add content from one side of the issue. You have not said anything to contradict that reading of what you want to do here. You wish to present the reactions in a lop-sided manner. Why? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Aren't there discretionary sanctions in effect here? Geogene (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one pushing to violate Wikipedia policy. Disagreement with such is not anywhere close to being handled by discretionary sanctions. Goodness. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is any dispute about the number of available sources. I believe the issue at hand is relevance. If the article were about an event, such as a shooting, then a political reaction section would make sense. Political commentary is way off topic for a biography, in my opinion. - MrX 20:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it'd be unusual not to mention that certain politicians are lining up to support (or at least be symapathetic towards) Davis, but you could argue--and I might agree--that Wikipedia in general pays too much attention to these kinds of soundbites. Geogene (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

To both of you, I said this before, but Miller v. Davis and decisions emanating from it are what's being reacted to, essentially. Also, what is the issue with having content with certain politicians are lining up to stay she is wrong and/or she needs to follow the law? Why should that be left out? I am not grokking that. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Who's arguing that? I'm not, and you should quit claiming that I am. Geogene (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, so you intend to add content about the widely discussed politicians against Davis' position then? If so, I'll eat all my previous responses and apologize profusely. Seriously, though, I think I'm being toyed with here, because all I've seen you state is the intention to add only content from one side of the debate. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You owe me an apology for casting aspersions regardless of what you think my intentions might be. Geogene (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see what content you actually push before considering that. As I said, you have presented to me a lop-sided approach. I should get some salve for being toyed with on this matter. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody here is (or ever has been) under any obligation to "push" any kind of content. Period. Geogene (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm done. {sigh} Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Geogene: True. They are mostly empty soundbites. Of course, Huckabee's rather hysterical "criminalization of Christianity" comments that seem to inversely correlate with his 4% poling numbers, probably deserve its own article. - MrX 21:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Only to the extent that Huckabee is still notable. That 4% remark is the best argument against inclusion so far. Geogene (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Jeb and Hillary, with higher numbers (esp. Hillary) put out a statement that Davis needed to follow the law. [3] Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is edit warring to keep that out of the article, are they? Geogene (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope not. But again, if all you've told me is that you want to add content from one side, what am I supposed to believe? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want to put that in the article, then put in the damn article. I have neither said nor implied that it should not be put in the article. I don't care either way. Quit complaining about things I haven't done. Geogene (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine. But if this content is going to be added by anyone, there had better be an effort to keep it usefully balanced based on the notability of those making the comments about this case. Adding unbalanced material in the hopes of others coming by to add the balance is really not how it's done here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

After being insulted by you for over an hour for something I never said and putting up with your arguments that have no basis in policy, including your bizarre concept of "balance" that you seem to be making up on your own, I lack the energy to improve the article. If I did, some troll/vandal (or some "respected user", logged out) would just revert it for lulz. But that's exactly how Wikipedia works, isn't it? Geogene (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been in a sleep period. This has descended into counterproductive bickering between two editors and I'd suggest that you just stop talking to each other. Nothing is being accomplished. Since Stevie said, "Why should that be left out? I am not grokking that," I'll try again to explain my position. As I said previously, politicians' comments on things like this are always self-serving grandstanding. It's not necessarily what they believe, but rather what they believe will help get them re-elected or further their party's agenda. I don't see what value that information has to our readers. Again, we don't include content solely because RS reports on it, even if they report widely on it; that is a misinterpretation and misapplication of WP:DUE. As MrX has said, we apply a relevance filter to RS coverage. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Stevietheman, you wrote: "Adding unbalanced material in the hopes of others coming by to add the balance is really not how it's done here." No, that's actually how we often develop content. No editor is required to present all sides of an issue, or wait until all sides have spoken before adding content, and then only adding all or none.

Wikipedia is based on the idea that "no one knows everything, but everyone knows something." We each bring our little "something". Alone it will be unbalanced. Fine. Others bring their "something" and balance things up. If the mainstream POV found in RS is more to one side, then that's the angle the article will take. Fine. We are not required to seek a false balance just to even things up.

We just search sources and bring whatever we find. As more editors bring more content, we get a fuller picture. That picture may (figuratively) "look like" the Salvador Dali painting of a melting watch (The Persistence of Memory) so off-balance that it drips off a table, but that's the picture, and we do not seek to make that watch appear to be in the middle of the table. We must accurate portray it in its one-sided position. The same applies to other subjects, whether they be alternative medicine scams or politics. Building of content does not require balance at every stage. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No the way we tend to work is some idiot puts seriously WP:UNDUE material in, then someone else goes in and removes it. Then all the people with a WP:BIAS come out and cry WP:NPOV and then and edit war breaks out, it goes before ArbCom, and we get a big-ass notice on the talk page that anyone editing the page could be Arbitrarily (that's what Arb in ArbCom seems to stand for) punished, scaring off any new editors that have anything relevant to add. Jerod Lycett (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In over two years and 16,000 edits, I've yet to be scared off by the possibility of discretionary sanctions or hit with one, so of course I'm clueless as to what you're talking about. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

None of the statements above from my fellow competent editors proclaiming this article must not include any reactions makes any sense. Yes this article is a biography (a very well-written one) and information is clearly missing from this biography. This portion of her life is not taking place in a vacuum. The reactions of notable observers has made shock waves across multiple reliable sources. It is a matter of public record, everywhere except this Wikipedia article, that four notable candidates and others have spoken out on her situation. While their motives are out of scope, their reactions themselves are factual, encyclopedic, and need to be here. An entire section is too much, but a sentence or two in the Contempt hearing section would be appropriate. Prhartcom (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which fellow competent editors you're referring to, or which reactions. I stand by my opposition to politicians' statements. I have no issue with reactions from others who have some credentials. I'm not interested in something some unknown person wrote on their personal blog, even if some RS source mentioned it because it was so outrageous. This is within editorial discretion, and that's mine. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom, there are several reactions already in the article from ACLU, ADL, Washington Post, New York Times and Kentucky Attorney General. Can you point to one or more reactions that you think we should include, that increases the encyclopedic understanding of this subject? - MrX 14:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, sorry Mr; you're absolutely right. I was referring to the reactions of notable politicians. Mandruss, you are one of many fellow competent editors I have worked together before; I only wished to honor your contributions. Can I believe my eyes, did you just say you are the final authority on editorial discretion on this matter? I'm sorry, but no, please don't make this a clear case of WP:OWN. Now, you are right if you believe we should leave out politicians because their motives are purely political. They clearly are, and I have no wish to feed their political ends. However, you can't censor the article. These politicians have made these statements and they are quite notable; their comments have helped escalate this article in the U.S. consciousness. This notability deserves a quick mention and then we move on; that's all I'm proposing. Prhartcom (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I know I'm rather late to this party, having other duties in life, but I noticed Prhartcom's comment and agree. A prior censorship refusal to include notable (sorry, but even using that word here is against policy, since only article "creation" is governed by notability!) political commentary has no basis in policy. That content is directly related to this subject and found in myriad RS. We are allowed some editorial discretion, but it doesn't extend to deliberate and total omission. Such a refusal is actually editorial censorship, and thus a clear violation of NPOV. That it was even declared boggles the mind.

How such content is included is another matter, but it needs to be included. I see that an RfC has been started below, so I'll take a look. This type of subject matter must not be disallowed by an editor's ownership declaration. It must be considered, formulated properly, and then added. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You're going to have to find consensus for adding political reactions. That will be hard to do since you haven't yet proposed anything specific. - MrX 16:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Do we really want every Tom, Dick and Mary coming to this article to add a political reaction? At least while this story is hot, that's exactly what will happen. I say we either summarize the type of reactions with healthy citations, or don't add them at all. Otherwise, we'll get to have fun with "political reactions" becoming half of the article virtually overnight. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No, we don't want that. I am proposing we state the reactions of three U.S. presidential candidates who share the same religious views as Davis: Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee. Their statements have been widely covered in reliable sources and are clearly missing here; one reason I came to the article is to read their statements and was quite surprised to find that editors are censoring them. If you agree, I will propose the specific statements. Prhartcom (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Also widely reported are reactions from Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton taking the view (essentially) that Davis should do her job. Just adding reactions from supporters when we know there are reactions from non-supporters is not something I will sign onto. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Let's ensure we stay neutral, while not straying into undue weight. I suggest a couple of sentences like, "Politicians a, b, and c released statements of support for Davis; Mike Huckabee said "x". Other politicians such as x and y maintained Davis should follow the law; Jeb Bush said "z." Prhartcom (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Generally that's what I was thinking of, although I'm unsure Huckabee is the best representative because he's very low in the polls and his response seemed to be more on the right fringe of conservative thought than what has been heard by other Republican candidates. I'm trying to be objective here. :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine; obviously I was trying to leave blank the actual politician names and what they said. Although for that side it probably should be either Huckabee, Santorum, or Cruz, and they are all polling low. I think we may want the extreme views; they are good high-water marks. Prhartcom (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

(so as I don't break flow above) I concur with Jerod Lycett's reply to BullRangifer above. What you describe is the normal editing process. This article isn't normal, and that's painfully obvious, I hope. Anything that's added needs to be balanced from the start. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have started an RfC below so that we can determine if there is consensus for including political commentary or reactions in this article. - MrX 16:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Nosfartu just made a reasonably balanced attempt at political reaction coverage, although, like I was mentioning before, it's pretty large and I'm afraid will attract a lot of IP editors to keep expanding and expanding. Perhaps we should have a spot on this talk page where we figure out what this content says, and figure out a way to keep it brief and non-attractive to additions. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If you see a good way to tighten this up, perhaps propose it. Were you thinking one sentence listing the people in each camp? --Nosfartu (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean something like this

• The marriage license debate also found its way out of local politics. The White House, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, and some other candidates stated they believed Davis should follow the orders of the court. On the other hand, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Matt Bevin and others argued Davis should not be forced to take a position against her conscience.

Stevietheman? That was a first pass, I assume there would be tweaking of the wording of each side's argument, as well as debate about who gets included and who doesn't in the attribution list.--Nosfartu (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not seeing the dicussion here first. Perhaps the RFC can establish some kind of criteria for inclusion

• none at all
• strict
• loose, with larger reaction split off in to a different article

and then we can use that material as a starting point for pruning or adding out--Nosfartu (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Even though I reverted the political reactions section, I do appreciate the quality of your edits and your effort to balance the material. - MrX 17:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Term of Office?

If anyone can find when her term ends, that probably should be added to the article.

If she continues to refuse the court's order, and continues to refuse to resign, when her term expires she will no longer have the power to issue licenses (assuming she isn't re-elected). At that point, the issue will be moot, and the court can no longer hold her in contempt. So the date her term expires seems rather relevant to this article.

Unfortunately, Google searches regarding the county and its elected officials are so flooded with articles about this case, that I haven't found this info. Her own office's website (http://rowancountyclerk.com/) doesn't seem to list this either. Plvt2 (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

All I can find is a reader comment on this page which says it's a "four-year term of office" but doesn't say how they know that. She took office in January according to our infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Assuming this is still current:

"Kentucky’s Constitution of 1850 was the first to mention the office of county court clerk, providing for a clerk’s election in each county for a term of 4 years (Art. VI, sec. 1). The current constitution requires the election of a county court clerk in each county for a term of 4 years (Ky. Const., sec. 99)."
— p.53, Duties of Elected Officials

- MrX 14:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I lived in Kentucky for almost three years and can attest that not much has changed in eastern Kentucky since 1850. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 14:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The dates are from January 2015 to January 2019, that's how long her term will be. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

MrX: Thanks for the info, I've added the date her term expires to the infobox, with a citation from the relevant section of the Kentucky Constitution as posted by the State Legislature.Plvt2 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure Plvt2, and thanks for making the edit. - MrX 21:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone deleted it from the infobox (saying it didn't belong in that field), so I've added the date and source within the article's "2014 election" section.Plvt2 (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Licenses in other counties?

Could residents of Rowan County, Kentucky go to other Kentucky counties to obtain and use a marriage license?--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but what is the relevance of your query to this article? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Those persons filing the lawsuit are pursuing a political point, the County Clerk is pursuing a religious point, and that is why we have a court to resolve the dispute. No one in Kentucky is being prevented from getting married.--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Since this is WP:NOTAFORUM, I won't discuss whether I agree or not. All I care about is what does this mean for the article. How do we fit your concern into this article and stay encyclopedic? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. The court ruled that they have a right to be treated fairly by their county officials. That's really all there is to it. Geogene (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that it's irrelevant. If RS covers that aspect, I think we could consider it, either here or in Miller v. Davis. But I haven't seen that. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

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)[4] and a Washington Post[5] 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.[6]
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.[7]
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 ...[8] 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.[9] 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)

Does this adhere to WP:NEWSEVENT?

Reading through the above guideline for notability of events, I have questions about whether this article meets the criteria for inclusion. Especially whethe it will have lasting significance. I encourage everyone to read through WP:NEWSEVENT and then share your thoughts on whether this woman will have lasting notability. Perhaps putting this article up during the thick of things was too hasty, and it was better suited for Wikinews. Mmyers1976 (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate the article for deletion if you wish - it may help to clarify the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant to do so without a little bit more discussion first, from experience I've found that nominating an article for deletion can sometimes arouse strong feelings in people who've put a lot of work into an article very recently. But from what I see right now, this article falls under WP:BLP1E and is probably not notable. Mmyers1976 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

You can't currently nominate this article for deletion, as it just passed an AfD as keep just three days ago. You'll have to wait much more longer. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I just saw that a few minutes ago, the template for that being buried under all the other templates on the talk page. For what it's worth, I think too many people are too emotionally caught up in this to have objective perspective on it and were too hasty to decide it needed to be kept, but we'll see in a couple weeks when the media coverage has sputtered out, the article will probably be able to be ashcanned once everyone moves on to the next newsflash. Though, you should be aware there is not actually any policy on how long someone must wait before renominating an article for deletion, so I don't "have to wait much more (sic) longer", but in this case I will wait a week or so. Mmyers1976 (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Never mind people's feelings, Mmyers1976. If you think nominating the article for deletion again is the right thing to do, then do it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it makes it past BLP1E, since the event is significant and Kim Davis' role is obviously the key role in the event. Even going by NEWSEVENT criteria, I think it's fair to say that this will have a lasting effect among a large group of people, since people across the US (and, really, around the world) are speaking either for or against her. Given that this whole thing is almost certain to come up again in January—the first possible chance to impeach her, short of a special session—I think it'll be lasting from that viewpoint as well. The rest of the criteria are very easily dealt with, since this story has received international coverage in a wide variety of sources. Having said all that, I think it's probably appropriate to reassess in a month or so, on the probably very slim chance that the furor all suddenly dies down and this somehow turns into a non-event. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 06:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:RobinHood70, I suspect you meant to write "do think" rather than "don't think" above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh...I don't know anymore, I give up! :P BLP1E is confusing, because it's written as disqualifying criteria rather than qualifying criteria. Just to be completely clear, I think this should be an article. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 15:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The article had 18,661 page views yesterday. The subject has been widely and persistently covered across the globe, appearing in US national news for around eight weeks. Google news has nearly 2.5 million news pages indexed on the subject. The subject has initiated political discussion, protests, litigation, petitions, and commentary from the highest levels of government. Wikipedia's notability guideline is rife with contradictions, confusion, and ambiguity, yet some people treat it as a set of rules without much consideration for the practical benefit of deleting otherwise good content. This puzzles me, because each day, I see hundreds of articles cross our threshold about albums, football players, TV shows, beauty contests, tennis stats, small businesses, obscure authors, ghost sightings, yoga teachers, and cow towns. If we are promoting this encyclopedia as a resource of all knowledge, then why on earth would we not have an article on someone who defied the US Supreme Court on a major, historically-unique constitutional rights issue? Frankly, it defies common sense and I'm stunned that editors would pursue it so doggedly. - MrX 14:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

↑ Not bad. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely worth keeping. Threatening renewed attempts to delete it is downright disruptive behavior. Any unnecessary AfDs are time wasting disruptive procedures. We had a very clear SNOW decision. If it had been a borderline keep it would be another matter, but it wasn't.

Refusal to be informed by that AfD and change one's mind is worrying and brings up competency concerns. Just revise your (mis)understanding of WP:BLP1E and WP:NEWSEVENT and drop the stick. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Commentary needs Removal!

This passage: And all for a foolish mission aided by out of state charlatan lawyers trying to raise money for their 'religious liberty' mission."[23] needs removal. It is skewed political commentary not WP:NPOV 人族 (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV's nutshell: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." That is an attributed quote which explains one of the sides, so cannot be excluded on NPOV grounds. My only reservation about that quote is that I read somewhere that the author is a disbarred lawyer who has some commentary about every verdict issued in the state of Kentucky. "The Kentucky Trial Court Review" may well be window dressing for what is little more than a blog, and anybody can set up a blog and write anything they want. Even if they have their own website, that means nothing; I have my own website. I'd prefer quotes from people who have some verifiable credentials. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The source of the quote is a Facebook page. Is Facebook considered a reliable source by Wikipedia? 人族 (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I have definite concerns about that quote as well. As 人族 says, the Kentucky Trial Court Review is simply a Facebook page, and an unverified one at that. The image presented could be anything, and we only have KTCR's word for it that the deputy clerks felt terrorized. I have no issues presenting that side of things, and I even think it might be right from some of the follow-up coverage I've seen, but if indeed that's how they felt, we definitely need a stronger source for that kind of quote. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 06:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

There's this website, too (actually just part of a larger site that includes other "publications"). Again, I have my own website. The contact phone number gives nothing at one "reverse phone number lookup" site, indicating a probable cell phone, and is "hidden" at another. Why would a legitimate publication use only a cell phone or unlist their land line? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Since that site shows nothing published since June 2014, it's possible he just moved his operation to Facebook to save money. Life's tough when nobody is willing to pay for your product. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the NPOV argument is simply based on a misunderstanding. We include plenty of biased opinions and commentary all the time. People who don't understand Wikipedia think that NPOV means neutral, blah content. No, it doesn't mean that at all.

It means that EDITORS remain neutral in their editing: they do not include their own unsourced opinions; they do not give content a slant not present in the source; they do not censor or whitewash content by deleting it or neutering the slant which exists in a source; they seek to reproduce the spirit and wording (whether by quoting or paraphrasing) of the original source, regardless of how offensive they think it is. Wikipedia is uncensored in every way, not just in regard to sexual content and images.

Wikipedia would be a fourth its size and a boring encyclopedia not worth reading if we failed in our job to document "the sum total of human knowledge" as found in RS. A large part of that knowledge is biased, and even highly offensive, commentary. NPOV requires that we include it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The source is Salon, not Facebook. That makes it a secondary source and legitimizes that particular use of any source it quotes, even Facebook. Regardless of who they quote or where they get their information, we don't reject them on that basis. If they claim actual facts, and they are absolutely wrong (they totally goofed), then we may not use them because they are inaccurate in that instance. In that case they are not a "reliable" source, even if they are generally considered to be so.

If they are quoting opinions, we are not allowed to violate NPOV by not using them because we do not agree, or because we find the opinion offensive. Actually, we like to find such strong opinions from all significant angles. They make our content worthwhile and interesting, and we're doing our duty to document the sum total of human knowledge. That "sum total" must necessarily include the edges far away from the blah middle ground. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point, BullRangifer. My concern, though, is that it's unclear just by reading the article what the Kentucky Trial Court Review is. We're reporting what they said as though it were fact, but as far as I can tell, it's just one person's Facebook page and website, and there has been no fact-checking of the assertion, only checking that statement was made by some anonymous person. I think it would be more accurate to clarify that it's not an official news source that reported the original finding, just someone's Facebook page that purports to chronicle local events. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 15:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's the Salon source. We don't second guess a RS like Salon when their columnists and journalists publish opinions. Kaufman identifies his source and its author, Shannon Ragland. No one is anonymous. Ragland is certainly provocative and controversial, but anything but unnotable. As a judicial expert their opinion is considered valuable enough for other lawyers to pay $175 for a newsletter subscription. Regardless, that is no concern of ours. We are using Salon as our source for the opinion. It is probably accurate, since only Davis' son sides with her. The other clerks would have issued marriage licenses if she hadn't ordered them to refrain. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a case where a second, stronger citation is called for. Salon has a particular bias (nothing wrong with that by itself) but I think something more mainstream would help bolster that content. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. More content and sourcing is usually welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources for birthday?

Is there any source for her birth date of September 1965? The very first ref in the article next to her full name only supports that, her full name, but mentions nothing about a birthdate. We need to get a source for it. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Her birthdate is listed on her marriage licenses, which are available here. 108.28.231.29 (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

That would seem to be a sufficiently good source for something as uncontentious as a birthdate.- MrX 21:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This source also confirms her birthday. She'll be 50 on Sept. 17, 2015. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice find. Beats BuzzFeed, so I substituted it. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Facebook video

I just noticed that the video in the External Links section is a Facebook video. Since Facebook requires a membership to view, WP:ELNO suggests that we not use that. Does anyone have another link handy to the same or similar video? – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 06:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

removed.prokaryotes (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The video on WKYT's Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/WKYTTV/videos/10153002714665766/) appears the same as one posted on that station's YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O1Cb4O3dQs). It's a video that's gotten wide coverage, and the raw video should probably be linked to.

Note: As I was editing this comment, someone else added in a YouTube link to a shorter (more edited) version of the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xg1Dh2xhXg). The station also has on its YouTube channel a news story about the incident, but video of the incident is short and heavily edited: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xu0gRYIw_Q. Do others feel one of these is more appropriate? (Personally, I'll take the raw video over the edited ones, or maybe both that, and the news story.)Plvt2 (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I was the editor who added the YouTube video after an editor removed the Facebook video. My preference would be to use raw, unedited footage, without any news commentary. - MrX 14:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I always aim for the rawest I can find. Readers can jump forward if they don't want to watch the whole thing, and some readers see conspiracy in any editing. The footage they don't want you to see!! ―Mandruss ☎ 14:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This are 2 different camera versions. However we do not link to facebook per WP:ELNO. I think the current version is a good middle ground but i personally would remove that too.prokaryotes (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Is the Facebook video the original upload by the creator(s) of the video? If so, then it's not a normal situation. Jerod Lycett (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

As I noted above, the video is from a news organization (WKYT-TV), and was posted on both their Facebook page, and their YouTube channel. The exclusion of Facebook appears to be an issue of reliability, but there's a difference between a Facebook page operated by some unknown individual, and one run by a professional news organization, as one more avenue for publishing their material. (And besides, if the Facebook page is not okay, the (apparently) identical YouTube video could be linked to.Plvt2 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no issues with the reliability, only that ELNO says at point #6 to exclude sites that require registration to view the content. FB, even if free, does require you to register before you can view the content. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 15:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI, the Facebook page hosting the video linked above does not require registration to view the video. - MrX 16:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

There are exceptions to every rule and guideline. When FB and YouTube are used as official channels by recognized institutions, they may be okay if there are no other sources for the content in question. I would favor YouTube. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

(←) MrX: Apparently, you're right. I was under the impression that all Facebook content required membership to view, but I was wrong. The video is viewable even when logged out. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 18:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Known for

I'm honestly not sure what's the appropriate way to go here, so I'm bringing it up just so that there's a clear consensus. Currently, in the "known for", it says that Kim Davis didn't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. While that was initially true, she later extended it to not issuing marriage licenses to anybody at all due to the legalization of same-sex marriage. Which is more appropriate for the infobox? This would presumably also affect the disambiguation page. (I brought up the topic there, but the response base is obviously limited on a dab page and there have been no responses at all so far.) – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 18:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I would say "denying marriage licenses" period. She didn't discriminate by continuing to issue licenses to straight couples. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, it can be seen she was denying marriage licenses to all so as to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. If that wasn't the rationale, what other possible rationale could there be? Given sources have clearly reported that is why she denied them to all, then I think we should concentrate on Davis' core purpose. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording is not quite complete or accurate, but I'm not sure what the ideal wording is. Whatever wording someone comes up with, just remember that the infobox should provide a brief and succinct summary of the information in the article (avoid expanding it beyond necessary), and needs to be kept NPOV.Plvt2 (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The current wording is pretty accurate: "Refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following Obergefell v. Hodges" I suggest we leave it as is. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BullRangifer. While she did refuse to issue any marriage licenses, she's known for refusing to issue them to same-sex couples. - MrX 21:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MrX and BullRangifer. If she had just said I'm not issuing marriage licenses, we wouldn't have an article. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Since it's technically inaccurate how about: Kim Davis (county clerk) (born 1965), Kentucky official jailed for her refusal to issue marriage licenses following Obergefell v. Hodges. It's up to the user to investigate what OvH is and investigate why that would have triggered the end of license issuing. 118.208.116.242 (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"technically inaccurate"? Please explain. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's be honest, she's known for failure to do her elected job. That's the reason she's been put through court, that's the reason she was originally found in contempt (she's now in contempt for not agreeing to allow others to do their job basically). Jerod Lycett (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Picture

The picture of Kim Davis in this article should be replaced. It shows her photographed while under arrest. An appropriate picture would be more neutral. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any free non-copyrighted photos? --DrBat (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm simply raising the issue of the inappropriateness of the current picture. Granted that part of the reason Davis is notable was her being arrested, it's still wrong, for obvious reasons, to show a picture of her in a police photograph. Effectively, that identifies her as a criminal and nothing but. That, frankly, is how I think most people would respond to a picture like that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If the image were actually public domain, it possibly could be used in the article per WP:MUG, in the appropriate context. Using it as a lead or infobox image is inappropriate. - MrX 00:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It's what she's most known for, being arrested for defying the court order that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. --DrBat (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with MrX. It needs to move down to "Contempt hearing" if it stays. DrBat, there is no consensus for inclusion, let alone consensus for inclusion in the infobox. You are being disruptive by asserting your view as the indisputable truth and re-adding the photo. Please stop. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I added a different version, because the first version was incorrectly labeled. --DrBat (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A BLP lead image should represent the subject, not the controversy that the subject is known for. Portraying the subject in a negative light runs afoul of WP:NPOV. - MrX 01:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I suspect we'll reach consensus for inclusion in "Contempt hearing", but we haven't yet and that's not where you added it anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've done a bit of cropping. The image is File:KimDavis.jpg by the way. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see that image as ideal. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree - I would rather use a fair-use photo than a mugshot. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 02:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the suggestion by Mandruss is the best solution. Move it down to "Contempt hearing". She is certainly known for a potential crime, and this image is perfectly proper for that section, but it's too strong for the info box. Restore it to the other spot. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

What potential crime? As I understand it contempt of court is a civil matter not a criminal one. I heard of her because her jailing made international headlines. Nelson Mandela was also jailed, and yet while he was convicted of at least one crime (I've not looked up the specifics of his record) he's classed variously as a saboteur, a politician convicted of crimes, a prisoner and someone apparently charged with treason, but not a criminal. To focus or promote Kim Davis' "criminal" status would not only be inconsistent but at this stage pure fiction. 人族 (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: said is notable was her being arrested, it's still wrong, for obvious reasons What are the obvious reasons? If a photo goes towards notabiity, why is it wrong? Especially if it is not in fact libelous. Could you suggest what Wikipedia policy is violated by the picture? --Bejnar (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

May we assume that said policy is NPOV? The argument is not completely without merit. I agree that the image is not ideal (I assume they meant because it's a mug shot, not because of the poor photographic quality or my cropping, correct me if I'm wrong). But I feel it's acceptable in "Contempt hearing". I could go find some examples where mug shots have been used for individuals who are not full-blown criminals, but that would only be countered with Wikipedia:Other stuff exists so I won't. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Even on the image the fair use rationale states that it's used in the section on the person's arrest. I see no issue with it illustrating her arrest and confinement, especially since she's now got potential criminals charges. Jerod Lycett (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The NPOV argument is valid but largely a matter of interpretation and editorial judgment. So we're left to simple numbers, and it's 6 to 3 for inclusion, including one weak include (MrX). But the includes are split 4-1-1 as to placement, DrBat for infobox and Bejnar unspecified. If those two could support "Contempt hearing", we would have a consensus. And I think most of us would support a neutral photo in the infobox if one could be found. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. Someone has added a mugshot photo in the right section, so now we just need a more neutral one for the infobox. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

MrX dunnit, don't look at me. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Irresponsible use of ReFill

It's great we have scripts like ReFill, but like with any tool, the editor holds all responsibility for their edits. The most recent use of ReFill wiped out author info on at least two citations I've spotted so far. At any rate, I'm going to manually clean up all the refs I can find. The other editor could have seen I was expanding these refs so I don't really understand why the use of the tool was done in the middle of my work. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, a little more caution can't hurt. I wish Refill would properly parse the author information form the sources. I've mentioned it to the developer, but didn't get a response.- MrX 15:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No whining. And no editor has to try and determine if another editor is "in the middle of their work". Sorry about my refill edit removing two authors. If you had looked closely, you would have seen that the refill edit added two other authors that you tried to excise. Thank-you for filling in authors missing from any citations. I also worked diligently yesterday with multiple manual edits and ensured every single reference in this article is in terrific shape, adding missing dates, titles, accessdates, name of work, publisher, ensured proper use of the cite template, fixed inconsequential formatting, corrected re-directed URLs, and added several new cited references. Prhartcom (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Since you are so good (I really mean that!) at dealing with reference formatting, would you also please make sure that all refs have names? That's pretty important, and a way to avoid duplication of the same reference because they mistakenly get different names. That work would be much appreciated! -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I am confident I'm on solid ground with my overall concerns (ReFill is not a complete tool; You are responsible for your edits; Reasonable courtesy wasn't made). At any rate, I was also correcting and fixing refs all along -- not just the two authors removed by ReFill. Thank you for all the constructive work you have done as well.  :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

God, I can hear the whining sound all the way over here. I have zero responsibility to watch out for your editing sessions. Of course I am responsible for my edits. You're upset because I muscled into what you perceived was your territory and took care of the job you wanted to do.

BullRangifer, thanks for your support. I'm afraid I take issue with ref name importance until we need to use a ref in more than one place. See WP:REFNAME. I'm honestly not sure what you mean about a ref name helps avoid reference duplication. There are scripts I use that catch reference duplication. You are welcome to add the names (surrounded by quote marks) to the ref tags if you'd like. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. I know my concerns are valid, whether you agree or not. Refer to WP:DICK. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Lame. A redirect. Gravitating toward humor, I actually hope you enjoy: Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest you seriously consider the valid concerns I brought up. I don't see any point in continuing this thread so further replies here will be ignored. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That sound is starting to fade, thankfully... Prhartcom (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• As regards BullRangifer's post upthread, not it's not a radical fringe actually, it's a significant portion of the community. I've posted a legal reference downthread which suggests that not only does Kim Davis have the right to refuse but that the state has the obligation to accommodate her. And on a whim I did a quick Google and found this: [10]. Not suggesting it be included in the article but does an excellent job of describing a large section of the community. The issue at stake isn't whether laws were broken but rather who broke what law and why. When a mayor betrayed his office to illegally issue licenses he was praised. When Kim Davis refused to do a job she was never voted in to do - issue licenses per the new Supreme Court definition she was crucified. The analogy with Rosa Parks (once I'd looked it up) is actually a very good analogy - both were arrested not for demanding others do or not do something, but simply for demanding they be permitted their rights. 人族 (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed addition

The outcome of the RfC immediately above will determine if we can proceed with effectuating this proposed addition. In the meantime, we can work on it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If we decide to include this, I wanted to start a draft we can edit (up, down, or sideways) from:

• White House spokesman Josh Earnest said "No public official is above the rule of law, certainly not president of the United States, but neither is the Rowan county clerk." Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear said "the future of the Rowan County clerk is now in the hands of the courts." Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said "Officials should be held to their duty to uphold the law – end of story." GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump said "the decision's been made, and that is the law of the land". GOP Presidential candidate Jeb Bush said Davis "is sworn to uphold the law." Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, and Lindsey Graham took a stance similar to Bush.
• GOP Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee staged a rally for Davis outside the jail she was being held in and encouraged Davis while meeting her in her jail cell. GOP Presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Rand Paul also voiced support for Davis. Matt Bevin, a Kentucky GOP gubernatorial candidate, said "a license should not be needed" from the government for same sex marriages.

--Nosfartu (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Please feel free to edit in place or make your own proposal in an additional subsection.--Nosfartu (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Nosfartu, that's an excellent start. Thanks. Shouldn't this be bulleted, rather than in a quote box? If so, please fix that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated that, but please feel free to edit to your heart's content.--Nosfartu (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

(Based on original text...) Like I said above, I appreciate this effort, and in a vacuum, it works (although Conway's response should be mentioned if Bevin's is), but I'm afraid it's too attractive for expansion to an out-sized portion of the article. After all, this article is a biography of Davis, not an article about political reactions to her jailing. On the other hand, if she ping-pongs in and out of jail and this drags on for many more months, I can imagine a plethora of reactions we would want to cover, and then a separate 'controversy' article would be called for. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That's right. The RS will dictate how this develops. Our job is just to document the "sum total of human knowledge" about this subject. That's why Wikipedia biographies are so different from bios elsewhere. We don't strictly limit content to typical biographical matters, but, within reason, may include anything directly and tangentially about the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No, (RS + Notability + Due) dictate how this develops. I'm afraid here there's no argument because these policies/guidelines are sacrosanct. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course. We agree. I just took it for granted that you knew I understood this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have combined the three bullet points of proposed text above into two: One against Davis and one for. I have just finished combining the messy multi-paragraph "list format" in the Reaction section of the article into two paragraphs: one against Davis, one for, and so I propose the two bullet points above each be merged into those two paragraphs. Prhartcom (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom, nice work! The prose works for me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic for this section. A new section is below, so copying this there.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Edit conflict: Please see reference above in my response to the RfC. I just wanted to say that this article as it stands presently appears to me to be more of the issue article than a biography. (It's fine for such an article to provide biographical background such as this does.) It does make me wonder if the article shouldn't be renamed and identified with the issue. The issue is, after all, the prime reason for the notability of the person, and for the political commentary. Despite the cautions I stated above, it seems that things are under control at present. Just be careful of creating a soapbox for every politician who wants to make another comment. I'm sure there will be more to come. Evensteven (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Evensteven, I really like your thinking! The issue is the notable thing, and Davis is only the focal point. A new title would solve that problem, because this isn't a typical biography of someone notable for who they are, but for someone notable for an event. The event should be the focus of the title. Any suggestions? How about Kim Davis marriage license controversy? How about creating a new section to discuss this subject. Just move our two comments there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC) That would require consensus. I don't think I'm in favor of it. This person is at the center of the controversy and is causing all of it herself. I see your point, naturally, but this biography is not unprecedented. (An early twentieth century murderer Leo Frank is one example; I just saw a discussion for that article end today with a decision to keep it as a biography.) Agreed that we need to keep the reactions to a minimum. Prhartcom (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC) I think we are in basic agreement about the focus. Yes, she's the explosive primer for this controversy, but the controversy itself is the main subject, because she, as a person, is TOTALLY inconsequential. Yet she must remain a significant part of the controversy because she won't stop, nor will her involvement be forgotten. My suggested title retains her name, as it should. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC) The subject of this article is a person, who has already been shown to be notable. We don't use the MOVE function to DELETE an article and create another with same content. Of course, you're free to create a fork and recycle as much content as you like (with attribution of course). - MrX 21:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC) A move would require consensus, and I see a new thread has been started below. BTW, using the MOVE function keeps the history, so in reality it's just a change of title. Everything would continue as usual, but a title change that is more accurate will help to focus editing on what's really relevant. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to LOL, but the IPs and non-autoconfirmed are currently walled out. Just wait until that gate opens again, and then I predict the current stability goes bye-bye. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

They can be walled out again. No problemo. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how we can work on this and related articles without the wall staying up. I don't like these walls in general, but this will be a mess with IP edits going on. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Some admins are willing to make semi-protection more-or-less permanent for controversial articles. It works well. Serious editors usually register anyway. Those who object to registration using the argument that Wikipedia is where "anyone can edit" fail to understand that "anyone can edit". Nothing is forcing them to not register. If they are kept out by semi-protection, they can edit by registering. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with BullRangifer (this is becoming a habit! (we're not socks, honest!)). Editing unregistered is not a civil right, but it's treated as such by many IPs and some others. If you're an IP who doesn't like IP life at Wikipedia, stop being an IP. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.[11] ―Mandruss ☎ 06:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Luv that song! Oh, I agree. I've been here since about 2003, and many times I've asked other editors, admins, and even ArbCom members, for a good reason for editing as an IP; Is there any advantage? I have received many replies, but never a good justification. There are a hell of a lot of disadvantages, and lots of advantages for those who register. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and requiring everyone to register wouldn't affect that at all. Just the increased privacy is a good reason. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahem. To get the conversation back on track: Are we okay with the proposed text presented in the two bullets above? I have looked it over and believe it is in good shape, and as well I have spent the last hour citing each reaction with multiple reliable sources. Make any edits directly to it if you must, providing the RS and stating what change you made below. If you trust me enough to do so, I will be happy to incorporate this into the reaction section. Also with your permission, I would like to copy a couple of politician pro and con reactions into the article lead. Prhartcom (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The material cannot be introduced until the RfC is closed and consensus determined. While I'm sure that the RfC doesn't have to run the full 30 days, less than 30 hours is certainly not nearly long enough. - MrX 21:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I have added an introductory note at the top of this section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite right, thanks, MrX. I was sorry to see you voiced opposition to the importance of this idea. As you can see above, I have done my own due diligence to prepare in case this gathers enough support. I trust you, if you are the one to make that final call (in a few days, I suppose?) Best, Prhartcom (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all. I appreciate the good faith effort to improve content and I'm not trying to obstruct the discussion. Once the RfC participation starts to dwindle we can make a request at WP:ANRFC to have an uninvolved editor assess consensus and close the discussion. - MrX 22:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Article subject/title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested titles (just add to this list)

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

1. Kim Davis controversy

2. Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy

3. Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy

4. Kim Davis marriage license controversy

5. Rowan County marriage license controversy

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead usage

General heads up, someone is not using the lead correctly. It should only summarize body content, per WP:LEAD. "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I'm not sure exactly what it means by "basic facts", but I'm pretty confident that doesn't include "while Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins dismissed her argument", which is currently in the lead but not the body. I'll be fixing that if no one beats me to it, as well as verifying the rest. Please be more attentive to this.

As a further by-the-way, information sourced in the body should not be redundantly sourced in the lead; thus, there should be very few citations in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I moved some content to the body of the article. - MrX 13:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Good points. Ideally a lead doesn't need any refs, but for contentious matter it sometimes saves grief to just do it, especially after numerous blank-blanks keep adding cn tags, instead of reading the article. I'm a big fan of keeping leads clean, and using only the short <ref name=blah> named ref format in the lead. That ensures that the full ref MUST be used in the body first, and the lead is very easy to edit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of leads, I wrote an essay a few years ago. You're welcome to take a look: Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, with everyone. Unique sources in the lead should be unnecessary for backing of the material, but putting duplicate references to some of the same sources saves editing troubles sometimes. In any case, when people have troubles believing what they see, the extra pointer can help guide them to see where stuff came from. The key is that most of the time, they are duplicate references. Notes leading to a specific section can also be provided to give full access to details. Evensteven (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so there's less than complete agreement as to citations in the lead, and I can't put my finger on a guideline at the moment, so I'll try to relax a little on that. A little. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Eugene Volokh Article?

Has anyone seen the Eugene Volokh article in the Washington Post? Here's the link [[12]]. I think this would provide a balanced counterpoint to the Kentucky Trial Court Review perspective.

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

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

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

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

I'm being disruptive? Seriously?!? The Volokh reference was brought to my attention, and Volokh's legal prominence pointed out by someone whose views I usually strongly disagree with. Obviously my word's not enough so here's some quick Google results: Volokh is a prominent First Amendment expert [13] and evidence of the Volokh article being referenced in a major American publication [14]. My aim is to ensure this article is balanced and impartial, leaving it to the reader to decide how they respond to the information supplied. If undue weight is given to one perspective then WP:NPOV fails. Consider the Reaction section. A legal expert and a columnist are quoted saying Kim Davis has no legal grounds for her position and her actions are akin to a governor who refused to permit black to enter a white school. In short, unjustified bigotry. The subsequent paragraph giving her lawyers and the Kentucky Senate President's positions are classed as support - yet the latter is merely a request for the federal judge to delay his ruling to give the state time to adjust its legislation. The selection and phrasing unduly weights this section. The Volokh point provides a counterpoint - a neutral legal expert who argues that while Kim Davis' actions are far from perfect, she does indeed have a legitimate grievance. 人族 (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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