Talk:Kim Davis

Which Apostolic Christian Church?

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

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

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

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

Based on this information, we could write:

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

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

Re: this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Oneness Pentecostal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

I had not seen the AfD (it was buried at the bottom of a big header of templates at the top of this page and easy to miss) when I first posted a simple question about the strength of the notability of the article. It was a question, that is all (well, not all, I even expressed a reluctance to take action before I even knew about the AfD) and referring me to the AfD as Supercarnivore did, perfectly reasonable. MrX's impassioned (mis)characterization of this as "dogged" pursuit seems to reinforce the possibility that some people are a little too emotionally involved in this topic to be editing dispassionately was one thing, but you telling editors merely having a discussion to "drop the stick", throwing around accusations of "disruptive editing", "refusal to be informed", your attacks at the competency of others, you have crossed over the line into failing to assume good faith and uncivil behavior. Consider yourself warned. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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

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

• Oppose - Politicians' comments on things like this are always self-serving grandstanding. It's not necessarily what they believe, but rather what they believe will help get them re-elected or further their party's agenda. I don't see what value that information has to our readers. We don't include content solely because RS reports on it, even if they report widely on it; that is a misinterpretation and misapplication of WP:DUE. We apply a relevance filter to RS coverage. As for other articles, if that is your only or primary argument for Support, see WP:OTHER and please add an actual rationale to your !vote. Put differently, many articles about modern controversies omit politicians' statements, too, and that OTHER cancels out your OTHER, rendering any mention of OTHER a cherry-picking waste of words. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - This a biography, not a soapbox for promoting political platitudes. We should not be giving airplay to any politicians in this article per WP:NOTPROMO. Wikipedia is not a platform for influencing elections, or for allowing candidates to improve their polling numbers on the back of a controversy, which is precisely what Cruz, Clinton, Huckabee and Bevin are doing. I'm afraid that if we allow such commentary, it will inevitable consist of cherry-picked quotes, and we will have created an embarrassing WP:COATRACK and a poor excuse for an encyclopedia article. - 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: [7]. Not suggesting it be included in the article but does an excellent job of describing a large section of the community. The issue at stake isn't whether laws were broken but rather who broke what law and why. When a mayor betrayed his office to illegally issue licenses he was praised. When Kim Davis refused to do a job she was never voted in to do - issue licenses per the new Supreme Court definition she was crucified. The analogy with Rosa Parks (once I'd looked it up) is actually a very good analogy - both were arrested not for demanding others do or not do something, but simply for demanding they be permitted their rights. 人族 (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  He consents. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eugene Volokh Article?

Has anyone seen the Eugene Volokh article in the Washington Post? Here's the link [[8]]. 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 [9] and evidence of the Volokh article being referenced in a major American publication [10]. My aim is to ensure this article is balanced and impartial, leaving it to the reader to decide how they respond to the information supplied. If undue weight is given to one perspective then WP:NPOV fails. Consider the Reaction section. A legal expert and a columnist are quoted saying Kim Davis has no legal grounds for her position and her actions are akin to a governor who refused to permit black to enter a white school. In short, unjustified bigotry. The subsequent paragraph giving her lawyers and the Kentucky Senate President's positions are classed as support - yet the latter is merely a request for the federal judge to delay his ruling to give the state time to adjust its legislation. The selection and phrasing unduly weights this section. The Volokh point provides a counterpoint - a neutral legal expert who argues that while Kim Davis' actions are far from perfect, she does indeed have a legitimate grievance. 人族 (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternate article title(s) (redirects)

It looks to me like the article subject discussion has come to consensus. I think also that there is acceptance of the idea of providing one or more alternate titles by means of redirects. The one alternate that has received any kind of support to date (though weak) is the first on the list below. I have added another idea as well. It will not be necessary to choose only one, since we're dealing with redirects, but I would suggest that we hone any list of ideas we come up with here down to a minimal subset. Let's add any new ideas directly to this numbered list for reference in discussion:

1. Rowan County marriage license controversy
2. Rowan County freedom of religion controversy

• Comment: I see both these titles as reasonable alternatives for highlighting the issues and events, and tend to think they might both be necessary, as choosing just one would seem to emphasize one aspect of the conflict over another. The controversy is generated by the conflict over these two issues. Evensteven (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what the consensus of that discussion actually is. In any case, creating redirects is one the areas where you should be WP:BOLD, so I was and I created the two above redirects. On the rare possibility that there is ever consensus to move this article to one of those titles, the redirect can be technically deleted allowing for the move. - MrX 14:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I would have said that the consensus is that the article topic is as much about the controversy and its issues as it is about the woman, but that we're not going to quibble about what label we put on the article. "Biography" is fine as a label, as long as that label does not constrict the scope and coverage of the topic. The redirects affirm that scope as well as enable the article to be found through the multiple entry points for the topic. So, there's my articulation of the consensus. Is it a consensus, or is there something someone objects to? Evensteven (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus. Her name must be in the title. This thread shouldn't even exist, since we have an active one (started by you!) on the same subject. See my comment below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Being a painfully slow reader, I very well may have missed something. But, until I see some evidence that freedom of religion allows defiance of a court order by a public official, I don't think that should be legitimized in a redirect. It matters not to me that some people are waving the FoR banner, what matters for our purposes is whether the claim has any merit at all. I can't imagine that the law is unclear on this point. So, please enlighten me. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think the controversy stops with a court order. It is indeed about the legal issues, but it is also about the freedom issues, and the question being raised is whether or not there is actual freedom of religion under U.S. law. The court decisions will certainly be determinative as to official legal status, but not as to acceptance by people. And lack of acceptance has overturned laws before. The big question is how it will be worked out. Will due consideration to people's objections be given, or will suppression of religion become the law of the land? This has been an open question before the public for a long time, and courts do not determine what issues people have. The question ultimately is about what kind of governance the citizenship of the US is going to accept. Governance that is seen as hostile becomes less stable, according to history. Evensteven (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I see, I think. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

(multiple e-c) Freedom of religion in the US in no way permits a public official to selectively do their governmental duties. It is in fact extremely clear on this point. Any argument about "freedom of religion" in regards this matter is more or less a red herring, although, obviously, it is to some an extremely appealing red herring. In line with some of the recent discussions regarding abortions and such and hospitals, it is generally allowed for individual hospitals to decide on their own whether they would provide specific services, and I believe courts have said that is permissible. Those hospitals are not, however, government officials, who are obligated to perform the duties the government gives them, like a county clerk is. While there is to some degree a question whether a person would be obligated to do something the government requires of them, that is also a bit of a red herring. In this instance, it is a matter of a governmental employee being obligated to abide by the policies and laws of the country. She is certainly free to not recognize same sex marriages as an individual, but as a government employee she is obligated to perform the tasks the government requires of her. She would, of course, be free to leave that job, as lots of people have, if she disagrees with those policies or laws or believes she cannot in conscience carry them out. John Carter (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict: You're welcome, Mandruss. Perhaps I should add that while I am naturally a defender of freedom of religion in this matter, being an Orthodox Christian, I also consider myself a defender of persons against hostility. Both sides to this controversy have reasonable and deep concerns about hostilities that are directed towards them, and both feel under pressure regarding their treatment as human beings. The legal aspects of the underlying social problems have been proving to be enormously unhelpful in resolving anything, instead simply increasing the pressures under mandates imposed with the full force of the state. This is the tinderbox that poor governance can add fuel to, and which causes further societal conflict. There is more than one banner flying, and it would help if they were taken down so that people could talk, and so that governments could listen. So there's my personal take, but hopefully also an indicator of why the simplistic "go-to"s that one sees touted in the streets never seem to reduce tensions. We should have no expectations of easy solution. Evensteven (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow! We're getting into serious NOTAFORUM territory here. Please hat the last few comments. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I wonder if we're looking at this redirect question from the editor's perspective, not the reader's. Realistically, how many readers are going to search for this article by typing anything beginning with "rowan county"? How many even know the name of the county, or care? Of those, how many will suspect that our article might start with the same of the county? Even if the issue becomes larger than Davis, virtually everyone is going to remember that it started with a woman named Kim Davis, and that's what they'll search for. I fear this is largely an academic exercise. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's the discussion I was hoping to generate before any redirects were actually created. I can't say these two alternatives are the best that could be constructed, but I didn't have a better idea to begin with, and wanted to see if someone else did. I agree with your point that these two are fairly lame. If we can't come up with better, I'm not so sure they'll have much effect either. Evensteven (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I recall now some of your rationale for these redirects, and it didn't have anything to do with ease of locating the article for the reader. I think that's the problem, and I think we should stick with just the original two Kim Davis redirects for the time being. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• (e-c) Mandruss, you've got a point. 2015 marriage license issuance controvery or 2015 Kentucky marriage license issuance controversy would probably be clearer titles than the ones with "Rowan County" included. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely no "2015", per WP:CONCISE. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, no 2015. I also had considered something with Kentucky rather than Rowan County, but the idea here is to redirect to this quite specific article. The more general we become geographically, the closer we get to the fully general "marriage license controversy", which is more likely to end up in consideration for the name of the more general article we've identified as a possibility above. I'm just not sure where the right balance is. Evensteven (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

From what I remember, she is appealing this to the governor, which, presumably, means that state laws are in place. And, having not reviewed the full case itself, it seems to me that this probably does relate to some specific state of Kentucky law. That being the case, the inclusion of the state name may be the more "precise" one, because it might deal with the location whose specific laws are being brought into play. Also, presumably, although I have questions about this, it might be possible that, in the future, one of the really low-population counties in the same state may face the same question. John Carter (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, what will readers search for? That should be the only consideration. Redirects are not titles. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mandruss. WP:COMMONNAME applies here, and also what's in RS. This dictates that her name must be part of the title, and other words in the title should summarize the essence of her actions/motives in this controversy. That's why I tend to favor No. 3 above. What do others think? -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think someone, somewhere, actually has a bot of some sort which can show the number of times things have been searched for. Maybe it's grok.se or some bot hosted by the WMF, I don't remember. Personally, at a guess, I think "marriage license issuance controversy" or, for those who can remember the state, "Kentucky marriage license issuance controversy" might be the most popular title. I don't know, obviously, but I tend to think that they might be more popular than the name of the lady herself. I wish I could remember where that program was, but I remember seeing someone talk about it sometime, about a year ago I think. I imagine it is still available today. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think John is right that Kentucky state law is a factor here, and one place where some action has potential for taking place short term. And as I consider this thing, I'm tending towards the notion that confining the redirect to the county or state may not really be much of any kind of help. If someone is going to look for the issue, then the issue's name is the reasonable place to go: "Marriage license issuance controversy", and also "Freedom of religion controversy". Note that those two are not the exact same thing, and they're not entirely the same thing as the article either, but they are redirects. That means that they can point to the article we currently have that deals with those issues to some degree. It also means that if and when a more general article about an issue appears, they can redirect there instead, or become the new article itself. The new article would presumably have a link to this one, as a reference to detail. And while marriage license and freedom of religion controversies do overlap, freedom of religion issues are wider and involve additional matters. So if both these redirects were made, they could be handled separately as needed, for there could be two general articles about these different kinds of controversies. So, shorter-term we can have one useful thing pointing here, and longer-term a still-useful thing pointing where more useful. Evensteven (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Evensteven, excuse my language, but WTF are you doing here? We already have a thread about this, and it's not finished. See #Article subject/title.
  You are hijacking the discussion and leading off with a false assumption. There is no consensus, and if anything, it leans toward including her name. What you're doing here is very wrong. (Am I missing something?) -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, then, for I was mistaken. Please let me withdraw from this section so as not to cause further difficulty. Let's hear from others first, for I'm not clear on where things lie at present, and I don't see problems in what has been happening otherwise. Evensteven (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'm sure this wasn't a deliberate attempt to create confusion, but that's the result. You're welcome to continue participation. What's important is that we get the focus back on topic and to include what was discussed above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks. It's just clear I need to get my bearings before I'll be ready to have anything to say. It may be things are going in a direction different from what I was advocating, but I also find I'm shifting around a bit myself, and might do well to listen. I trust what I've been seeing so far. Might I suggest the removal of the two redirects put into place earlier in this discussion? Evensteven (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

These are the suggested titles from the section above (an ACTIVE thread!):

Please DO NOT make these into redirects, at least not yet. (More suggestions are welcome. Just add them.)

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

Now please return to the discussion of these suggestions. There is no consensus anywhere, although (above) it seemed to lean toward an inclusion of her name. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll

Let's take a straw poll. Please name your favorite and why. That will help us understand the advantages and disadvantages of each suggestion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• No. 3 - Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. It sums up the essence of what the article is about, based on WP:COMMONNAME, RS, and searches. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• Acknowledging that it might be somewhat premature to attempt to judge this, my own preference would be Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. I agree that at this point she is the primary subject of discussion in a lot of the news articles, and have no real objections to #3 as a possibly temporary measure, but I get the impression it is going to become a bit of a political hot-button rather quickly and if that is true I think that it might well become more widely-known by the name I propose. But that is also a bit of crystal-balling regarding what is still essentially a breaking news story. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• My preference would be for Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. Any other common searches could be redirected there. I agree with John Carter's reasons, and I also think as time goes by the woman's name will be less memorable than people think it is right now, no one is going to remember the county name, but people will remember Kentucky. I'm also not averse to adding the year into the title. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• My preference is for Rowan County, KY marriage license controversy or Rowan County, KY marriage licence conflict. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• In terms of a common name, either Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy or Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy would make a lot of sense. I'm not sure which would be better. Either of those would be alright with me. However, I do feel like I'd make a wait vote or something like that for use to hesitate before changing the article's name right now. It's reasonable to wait, a few days at least, to see if a natural consensus in the news media comes about w.r.t terminology. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Side note, but redirects such as Rowan County freedom of religion controversy, Kentucky gays versus Christians controversy, Kim Davis' religious freedom controversy, etc that are worded in those extreme terms should not exist-- the deliberately charged framing of the issues involved in such titles are so strong that it's nothing but disruptive. It would sort of like be having redirects such as Kenyan Marxist takeover of American health care -> Obamacare or Child-hating gun nuts -> National Rifle Association etc. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that we should wait with redirects. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• I prefer #5, but #4 is more useful. The current controversy pertains to Kim Davis being jailed because a federal court found her religious freedom not to be a valid defense for refusing to issue marriage licenses. Sorry user:CoffeeWithMarkets but Rowan County freedom of religion controversy while not the best wording, is valid and is definitely not extreme. It accurately depicts the view of one side of the debate. Not the best access point, but not a total fail either. My biggest issue with it is that it's very low tier geographically (where is Rowan County?) and presupposes that no other controversies arise. Kim Davis Religious Freedom Controversy on the other hand defines it specifically :-P 人族 (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Davis' freedom of religion has not been violated. That's an objective factual statement. That's the viewpoint of the U.S. court system, of most of the nation, of legal experts, and goodness knows whatever else you want to look at. It's true that a lot of fringe people on the political spectrum don't agree with that, and I know that, but that doesn't mean that said viewpoint should be supported via a redirect. A similar amount of Americans believe that the Holocaust didn't happen, that the earth hasn't warmed in the past 100 years, that President Obama is a Muslim, and so on, but Wiki doesn't give those fringe opinions improper weight. The Holohoax doesn't go to The Holocaust, Marxist environmentalist conspiracy doesn't go to global warming, Kenyan usurper doesn't go to Barack Obama, and so on. That politicians say something sure isn't evidence of something, also. President Clinton did have sexual relations with that woman, after all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Off topic, and subjective personal opinion. BUT - Legal aspect: "freedom of religion" is not the same thing as the measures put into the legal code (including the constitutional amendment) that were intended to safeguard it, at least in part. One can see the legal decisions and recognize them as having legal validity and force of law, while also seeing that those legalities do not uphold the freedom of religion in the nation. Perhaps "freedom of religion" is not a majority view, but it is getting pretty pointy to suggest that it's fringe, just because the boundaries of that freedom do not coincide with the boundaries of the law. Likewise, it's pointy by association to reference it in terms of denial of the Holocaust, or of global warming, the president's religion, and so forth, itself a list of dubious construction and uneven distribution. I'm not myself fringe. The Holocaust happened. Global warming is a poor label, but there's no doubt about major climatic shifts going on. The president is Christian (Baptist). But I remind you that freedom of religion is a founding principle in this country, not just because of laws, but by history. The pilgrims fled religious suppression in England. And add to the list a host of other groups. And all were seeking freedom of religion, and that was a principle under which life was lived on this continent way before the revolution, tolerated by Britain itself. The question is whether or not the United States is going to continue to tolerate it, and most of the legal actions in recent times have said no. That defines the current state of legality. It does not shut the door on the issue. And one would have to be blind not to see that it's a fundamental issue for a great many Americans, including many of a highly different religious point of view from Kim Davis (such as myself). I don't have to agree with her about religion, or about her choices as practicing county clerk, or her legal causes, still to recognize the principle of freedom of religion in general, or in relation to what she has done. She would not be my choice of spokesperson either, and I find some of what she says embarrassing. But it is one thing to criticize her roles and statements, and quite another to paint freedom of religion itself with the same brushes. Evensteven (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Coffee with Markets, I'm not discussing fringe people, I'm talking mainstream. I posted downthread a number of links with assorted people concerned about the religious freedom aspect of this case. These ranged from Volokh - a legal expert through to a major news site (which Wikipedia identifies as evangelical). Am I misinterpreting what you're suggesting, or are you seriously suggesting only fringe types believe that Davis' rights have been violated? Just seeking clarification. 人族 (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to comment that while 2015 marriage license issuance controversy, Kim Davis marriage license issuance controversy, and Kentucky marriage license issuance controversy, are not unreasonable titles, I still feel like it complicates things to use the technical legal term "issuance". That's a pretty uncommon word that a great deal of readers (say, those below college age) will be confused by at least at first. I'd have those as redirects, but not as a main article name. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree as to "issuance". Let's use words that readers will actually use in a search. The same applies to "2015", nobody is going to search for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait .. are we talking titles again? If so, disregard the above and I'll oppose "issuance" per CoffeeWithMarkets, oppose "2015" per WP:CONCISE, and because we'd likely need a move to "2015-2016" in a few months, and then go sit in the corner. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ditto against "issuance" and "2015" in any case. But ditto also the confusion. This "poll" does not make clear what it is we're talking about! Evensteven (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• 1st choice: Kim Davis. There is pretty good case that this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 2nd choice: Kim Davis (county clerk) the current disambiguated title. I remain opposed to changing this article from a biography to a controversy.- MrX 19:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• I withdraw the proposal to add the word "issuance" to any alternative titles, but at this point I also think it reasonable to perhaps say that maybe we might best wait until tomorrow to really discuss this thoroughly. News reports indicate she might be returning to work Friday, and, call me a paranoid, I have a gut feeling that if there are any other individuals who might have any interest whatsoever in making requests for same-sex marriage licenses yet to be requested from her office, they may well be all in line first thing in the morning Friday. John Carter (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Clarified; my ignorance. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm thoroughly confused. Maybe I'm the only one, but I don't think so. The second sentence of the above section: "I think also that there is acceptance of the idea of providing one or more alternate titles by means of redirects." Thus, this was about redirects only, not the article's title, and the OP chose to refer to redirects as "alternate titles". The OP then listed two suggested redirects. First, I get the distinct impression at least some of us think we're talking about titles. Are we? It's either that, or people are applying title reasoning to redirects, which seems wrong. The only consideration for a redirect should be what will readers search for. That is not true for titles. I'd appreciate some clarification. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Actually I now think the problem, or the original problem, is the OP's rationale for these redirects, which they came up with in an earlier thread. They are proposing to use redirects for something besides the proper function of redirects. They don't expect these redirects to ever actually be used, necessarily, but rather they are a way of satisfying competing views as to the article's title; hence, "alternate titles", as if readers are going to click "What links here" and check out these redirects. That's a misuse of redirects, and I feel we should kill this line of thinking. Starting the title with the county name, for example, might make sense. It's a lot harder to sell as a redirect because so few readers will begin their search argument with "rowan county". The considerations are completely different, and we may have lost sight of that. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC) My understanding is that one major function of redirects is to redirect those who search using terms which may not be in the actual title. This way those interested will still end up there. The existence of several redirects using slightly different wording end up catching pretty much everyone who does a Google search. Since the article will contain ALL the various words, it will end up at, or near, the top of Google searches. It will usually be the most "content rich" source in existence, and Google's algorithm will register that fact. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC) @BullRangifer: Are you saying that redirects affect Google's search algorithm by linking to the article? And affect it more than the same terms within the article's content? I wasn't aware of that. And it begs the question, if Google is processing the "What links here" page redirect pages, why doesn't it include it them in its results. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC) This search for one of the new redirects returns nothing. Is that because it's too new to have been indexed by Google? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC) I am definitely not an expert! "And affect it more than the same terms within the article's content?" I think I'm saying the opposite. The main article will affect the search algorithm most because it is the most content rich source. Every relevant term should be in the article, and usually duplicated many times. Google notices that. Other terms used in redirects will just help those who are blindly searching using some terms they thought about, but missing the most important ones. Google will direct them to the redirects, because that's where the terms are found (but the redirect will probably be far down in the search). If they find it, then they'll automatically end up at the article and say "Ah ha, this was what I was looking for." OTOH, is Google smart enough to start grouping the redirects together with the article? Is that about right, or am I totally off-base? -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC) From a Google standpoint, the only rationale for these redirects is if Google gives them more weight than article content, because they involve links. Google is strongly influenced by links to other pages, for all web content. As you say, the same terms will appear multiple times within the article. As for your last question, I don't think Google does anything special for Wikipedia, aside from giving it a ranking preference, and probably never will. My last question above remains unanswered, and it's key. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC) No, Mandruss, the idea of the redirects was to give people an alternate way to get to the article, as redirects are intended to do. But we couldn't (so far) find a good one. We were also talking about person/event/issue, and how the article binds those together, also not a settled issue. Now the discussion is drifting back towards event-oriented (and what name then?) instead of biographical-oriented, which was also opened up miles of text ago. And so all the naming issues are shifting and converging and causing the discussion confusions here. There is one suggestion above to eliminate "freedom of religion" from any title. Yes, I know it's a hot issue, but it is not per se inflammatory, and it is still present in the minds of the public who are the reason for the controversy. And, yes, it goes beyond the legalities and court rulings; those are part of the controversy. It is not good to suppress something on WP just because it is difficult to handle. We are essentially reflective here, and it is not being suppressed out there, despite the various posturing and legal issues. We just need to keep working at stating things neutrally - to work the problem. "Gay marriage" is also a hot phrase for some, and neither is that fallen into disuse out there. Being neutral does not mean that any discussion of the issues are not going to be challenging, and some people may get hot over it. I don't think we can shy away from that possibility. The only alternative is not to discuss the issues at all. I believe in the power of neutral expression insofar as it is possible to give no reason for taking offense at such wording, but no one has control over what another person will choose to take offense at. We can do what's possible to avoid throwing gas on the flames that are already there, and maybe give a shot at fire suppression rather than discussion suppression. Evensteven (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Ok, so the thread has headed off in three or four different directions simultaneously, since many editors have no qualms about bringing up whatever tangent pops into their mind. I honestly think more structure is needed if we're going to have productive discussions, and that requires increased self-discipline. I believe we need to stay ... on ... topic, and, the minute we recognize that a cart is being put before a horse, to suspend the cart discussion pending the results of a separate horse discussion. Otherwise we end up in a jumbled mess of cart, horse, and probably driver and his wife as well. But that's just me. So, by an alternate way to get to the article, I take it you're referring to search within Wikipedia, not Google? If so, we're back to my argument that people are not going to begin such a search with "Kentucky", or "Rowan", and so on. As I've said, I don't know of any useful redirect that doesn't begin with some form of Davis' name. The reason we haven't thought of any good ones is likely because there aren't any good ones. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC) This Wikipedia search, for "marriage license controversy" returned this article first, apparently only because of one of the new redirects. So my thinking appears to be completely off base, and I'll probably collapse this subsection as a waste of time due to my ignorance. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Massive deletion of relevant biographical content

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

Massive deletions needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

• PraetorianFury. Everyone here knows our content guidelines inside and out. You, on the other hand, have deleted content under false pretenses [11] and you seem intent on edit warring. Please use the talk page before making such changes. - MrX 19:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC: On the many problems in this article

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

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

I attempted to resolve most of these issues here: [12], but everything was reverted. Does this article adhere to Wikipedia's policies on people notable for only one event, WP:Original Research, and WP:Neutrality? PraetorianFury (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Almost exactly what I suggested a couple of days ago [13]. So, yes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authorlinks in reference section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Election history section

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

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

Reaction

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

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

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

And since somebody else made the comparison, I stumbled over this: [[14]] :-D

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

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

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

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

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

References

Semi-protected edit request

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

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

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

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

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

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

A massive citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eye of the Tiger

I would like to get opinions on whether Davis' use of Eye of the Tiger and Survivor's reactions are worthy of inclusion. Several respectable sources have covered it.

• Time
• Billboard
• Entertainment Weekly
• Washington Post
• The Guardian
• USA Today
• ABC News
• NBC News
• Variety

Thoughts? - MrX 15:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Just . Do I have to give an argument? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a moratorium for a week, then if it's still prominent in the news it may be worth adding. - MrX 15:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This is so minor in the scope of her BLP... unless it goes to trial, I say exclude it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There have been multiple cases where a politician has used a song in his campaign, and the artists of the song oppose the politician and speak out against his/her use of their song - Ronald Reagan vs Bruce Springsteen, McCain vs Heart, Romney vs K'Naan, Scott Walker vs Drop Kick Murphys, and Wikipedia coverage of these conflicts appears to be limited to the articles on the songs themselves, not on the articles covering the politicians. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 includes his use of Neil Young's Rockin in the Free World. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

But that's the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article, not the Donald Trump main biographical article. This is the Kim Davis (county clerk) main biographical article, not the Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy article. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I would mention it as part of the text on her release from prison (which is not yet in the article.) But keep it brief. Say the song was played and the group objected to its unauthorized use. TFD (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this whole bit is unencyclopedic and not noteworthy. Yes, it's getting a little media hype to sell stories, but it's without significant relation to the topic of the article, and of no enduring value. That's what happens when we're left with trying to cover something for which there are no true WP:RS, but only media. Oh, they can report reliably, but that's raw data. No one has done the collecting, analysis, and synthesis we expect from reliable sources, so we're trying to supply that ourselves (in large part), picking up what media scraps are available to try to get something to base it on. This community has done surprisingly well holding itself together in terms of cooperation working with volatile issues, but the article results are nothing like scholarly yet. It's not like it's not worth anything. But it's not like it's real encyclopedic stuff yet. I think it's worth being careful to prune the obvious fluff, like this item. Evensteven (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If the only sources are media, then the article should reflect their coverage - they establish what is noteworthy. TFD (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

But I think we still do get some discretion to use our own judgement about what is trivial and what is not, rather than being required to faithfully regurgitate every single tidbit a media source happens to take note of. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict: ::No, they don't, Four Deuces (TFD). Their coverage may be accepted as accurate, reliably reported, but they are not in the business of establishing noteworthiness in an encyclopedic sense. I agree that the problem is that the only sources are media, but WP is an encyclopedia, not a news channel. Allowances may have to be made if we are to create articles under these conditions, but our eye should stay on the objectives that are always pertinent for encyclopedia articles. Where no synthesis at all has been done anywhere (as is the case here), where is it to come from? It puts the editing community in the position of doing the research and creating the synthesis. In this case, it comes down to this, or to just saying there's no material from which an article can be created. I'm not arguing for deletion of the article. But I think we need to be honest about what the editorial role here becomes in these circumstances. It is perhaps a topic that should be discussed throughout the wider WP community, because this is far from the only circumstance where it arises, and one of the results of that is that the media sources become treated on a par with scholarly ones elsewhere in the encyclopedia. The synthesis policy is there for good reason, and if we are to proceed here, as I think we will want to, we need to be watchful of that. And it's worth additional consideration and examination just because this is not a one-off situation. Hence, Mmyers1976 has a good point. And there can be others. Evensteven (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I have only just read through the WP:AE and WP:AN3 stuff involving user PraetorianFury. I wish to make it clear that I don't condone his attitude, and that I am not in any way promoting his agenda. I would like my comments to cause you all a little thought as to media sources and how well they can serve to fulfill the functions of WP:RS, as I think depending on them exclusively, or thinking of them as having provided research insight is dangerous to the reliability of WP. Evensteven (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You're for covering the song they played at her release but against mentioning any political reaction to her actions. I give up with this page. Prhartcom (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you're speaking to the OP, I don't see where they expressed any opinion about this content. They started a thread to solicit opinions. Shane! Come back! Come back, Shane! ―Mandruss ☎ 21:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL, Mandruss. :-) I was speaking to the editor who asked the question at the top of this section, MrX. The topic of this article is entirely religion and politics. The band Survivor is slightly lower in importance.

Right, MrX, the OP, aka original poster. He offered no opinion about the content, but you said he was for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I really have no opinion one way or the other. I simply wanted to open a discussion before someone boldly added the content.- MrX 21:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

(Apologies for being off-topic, but) Mandruss, might want to double-check. MrX gave several reasons to strongly oppose adding any politician's reaction to Davis's power trip, conceded defeat, and wondered aloud what you would think of that. In my view, opposing something so obviously notable shows a lack of comprehension of the shock waves this topic (politics) is creating. Yet (getting on topic) wondering if we should mention Eye of the Tiger? That subject is not likely to cause any shock waves related to Kim Davis and no, it doesn't belong in the article. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Okie dokie. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Mmyers1976, Evensteven: We have no discretion to determine what is or is not trivial. See "Balancing aspects": "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." I do not understand the comment, "It puts the editing community in the position of doing the research and creating the synthesis." It does not: the media do the research and create the synthesis, we merely report what they say. It may of course be that the media itself is unfair in what it chooses to report, but we need to wait until scholarly articles are written. TFD (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's notable seeing as she is now facing a lawsuit regarding its use. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

... and here's the money quote: "Steiner alleges that he has already heard of the record company executives “taking exception” to the use of their intellectual property to “help a criminal grandstand in front of an audience”."

I don't believe it merits inclusion. It's peripheral to the biography\controversy. And as regards the media establishing what is noteworthy, no they don't. At times they ignore and bury noteworthy issues. It depends on the event, whether it will sell papers, and how it conforms to their ideology. 人族 (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that news media will provide attention to events that are not noteworthy while ignoring events that are. But the policy is that whether or not something is considered noteworthy in Wikipedia depends on whether or not "reliable secondary sources" (in this case the news media) consider it noteworthy. You may disagree with the policy and can challenge it - but please do so on the policy pages. Bear in mind though that every wiki must have some policy on what is noteworthy, otherwise we would be continually arguing about what to include. For example, you may not believe that property rights are important and therefore this event was unimportant, while another editor may disagree. The only way to resolve this dispute is by reference to agreed policies. TFD (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to be generous, since many people here seem to want to keep writing this article. But if we get right down to WP policy, then we shouldn't be writing it at all. Notability is not the problem. Reliable sources are. There are no reliable sources that provide research, analysis, or synthesis. There is only the media, which provides unassessed raw data. By actual policy, the article should be disallowed because there is nothing out there that an article can be based upon. And the very fact that discussion is being held on this insignificant hype demonstrates the dangers of what is being attempted. So, how deeply into policy questions does this community want to dive? I agree that policies are the grease that makes WP's engine go. What, then, is to be done about reliability? The news media is not a proper guide. It gives some facts, but it does not say what's significant and what isn't. And part of the reason that it can't is that at the time something is still going on (like right now, and here) nobody can say what will ultimately prove to be significant, so the media reports it all and someone sifts it later, maybe. Significance is proved over time, when outcomes are known. (And at this time, the song-playing is not indicated.) Evensteven (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

See: "News organizations": ""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." I have little doubt that the song was played and that the band complained - do you have any reason to think otherwise? Wikipedia does have articles about events currently in the news for which no academic sources exist. There is an article about the 2015 Canadian election for example. If you do not think current events should have articles then you need to get the policy changed. TFD (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

TFD, how do you reconcile this view with (the spirit of) WP:NOTNEWS? You seem to be saying that policy prohibits editorial judgment as to relevance and significance, yet we all know we do that routinely. You've lost me. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

TFD, "Balancing aspects" seems to say the exact opposite of what you are trying to say, it does imply that editor's discretion is an important part of making sure we don't inadvertently give something undue weight. It even says "we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it." Choosing to omit something, like a mention of the controversy around the use of the song, is exactly the kind of discretion I'm talking about. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a newspaper" says, "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." I submit that Kim Davis is suitable for inclusion, but if you disagree, then take it to "Articles for deletion." And certainly interpreting policy requires judgment in that editors must apply policy when writing articles and ensure that neutrality is followed, that is, that articles reflect all the facts in proportion to how they are presented in reliable sources. That does not allow us to determine what we consider to be important.

The policy seems reasonable. It may be that you are better able to judge what is important about this case than journalists are. The problem is that we would never be able to come to agreement, since each editor would differ on what they consider important. People who agree with Davis will tend to emphasize different facts about her than those who disagree, and no amount of discussion will resolve that because the two sides have different underlying beliefs.

TFD (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis is taking a few days off work after being released from jail. This has been reported by The New York Times, CNN, Associated Press, New York Daily News, ABC News, The Washington Post, USA Today, BBC, and Fox News, to name a few. None of them say "this is important", but they never say that about anything. I'm not a better judge about what is important about this case than journalists are, but I'm strongly opposed to including that fact in this article. I have just exercised editorial judgment as to significance. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

News media do not say that events are important but how important they consider events is reflected in the degree of coverage they give them. I suppose in this case they consider it important that she did not return to work because she was held in contempt for actions carried out at work and could be held in contempt again if she returns to work and continues to disobey the court. But it does not matter why they consider it important. TFD (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

None of those sources have indicated any importance other than filling space, of which they have a lot more than we do. Their mission is completely different. So now we have to track the coverage of that little fact to see if it warrants inclusion. And the same for the other few dozen little facts that are being covered at any given time in this story. If you're right, Wikipedia is asking a bit much of a bunch of unpaid part-time amateurs, the vast majority of whom do this as a casual hobby. Maybe time for a serious reality check? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, people, and perhaps we are rightly back at details. But, one more try: TFD, I grant the points about how current events articles are permitted, and the policies that permit them. I think I've been quite clear many times that I'm not seeking the deletion of this article, so please don't be so quick to jump back to that idea. But those policies and that permission conflict (or perhaps "are in tension") with the basic premises of WP:RS. Again, I will try to make the point that it's not that the media can't serve as RS, but that they function differently from scholarly sources, and thus they don't provide the safeguards for verifiability that scholarly sources do. We also have the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies to keep editors from doing that scholarly work themselves, because I think we all know where that can lead. But here, those safeguards are off, because the current events policies override them, recognizing that the media does not provide them, but that there is no better option. As Mandruss and Mmyers1976 have pointed out above, we routinely (all the time) have editorial discretion over balance and weight. Also, NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE both require editorial judgment as to the rightful place of material in articles. I am not suggesting that we actually do research and try to make a synthesis of materials ourselves, but we do have to do the sifting and analysis of raw data (such as media reports) in order to exercise proper editorial judgement about what goes into an article and what doesn't, and that is well-recognized function. We are not fish being fed from what the media plays out in its pages, and what they consider to be reportable does not automatically qualify something for inclusion here. They have their editors, and we have ours, and we have different objects in view for why we're writing, so we edit differently. We need to be clear that it is our function to reflect those differences and to decide where those lines of partition fall. So I say again that this song-playing is outside our perimeter. That's my editorial judgment. And now we as a community need to decide if there is consensus behind that judgment, or if consensus opts for inclusion. But it's our choice, not the media's, so falling back on media's choice is not sufficient as an editorial basis for decision. Evensteven (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The same could be said about any number of other similar articles we have which effectively just repeat what news sources have said. Also, from what I remember, it could be argued that a rather sizable number of reference books, particularly including several which are biographical collections, do much the same thing. Having said that, honestly, WP:HTRIVIA seems to me to apply to the use of the song, at least in terms of this article, because it is at best tangentially related to the primary subject of the article, and there are rather serious WEIGHT issued involved on that basis. Included in the article on the song itself, maybe. Included on the article on the band, maybe. Here, no. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. The large scope for applying this principle is reason enough to give it good consideration here. And your "trivia" point is exactly on the mark for this particular case as far as I see it. Evensteven (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

While it's true that there has indeed been a lawsuit filed over use of the "Eye of the Tiger" song, I agree that the issue is more of a trivial footnote to everything else that's relevant here. I don't think the issue should be mentioned here until it crosses the notability line that things are actually going to trial for sure (or already are in trial), which would make it a matter of the legal record and thus something that really needs to be included. Until then, I'd say nope. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be a stronger point than any we yet have, true. Not sure that's strong enough for me, though. Evensteven (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected

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

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

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

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

Quote marks on ref name

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relevant information tag

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

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

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

Adding another reaction

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

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

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

"Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin and others have compared Davis's refusal to follow court orders to Alabama Governor George Wallace's 1963 segregationist Stand in the Schoolhouse Door incident; in contrast, Mike Huckabee has drawn a comparison to past San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom directing county clerk's to issue marriage licenses. [15]"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relevance of Stuff that Didn't Happen?

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

As the person who added it originally and updated it, the Attorney General originally had complaints made to him by the county attorney, and he did an investigation. An ongoing investigation seemed noteworthy since it is a somewhat current event.

Now that he has decided not to proceed, it did feel less pertinent to me. I wanted to allow a consensus to emerge before I removed it though to try and avoid any kind of edit conflict since it involves editorial discretion.

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