Talk:Kim Davis/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Kim Davis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Breaking out of process stuff from the main move thread
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Extended content
|
|---|
The competing optionsThe RfC shows consensus for one article. Currently we have at least three:
Of these I would argue that the last is the best by some way. The question to be answered here is, what should be the title of the final article? Candidates appear to me, based on the discussion above, to be:
Feel free to add any other obvious options. Please could we have a rough show of hands for each, indicating order of preference. Obviously any number of redirects can be created for the convenience of the reader, so this is purely about the title where we should combine the substantive content. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC) This whole thing is out of process
Kim Davis (county clerk)
Rowan County same-sex marriage license controversy
Threaded discussionPlease indicate order of preference, don't sign in any title that you would not support at all. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
|
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.
Primary topic?
Now is not the time for a formal proposal, while the other RM is still open, but isn't this use of Kim Davis clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Kim Davis"? All the other uses listed at the Kim Davis (disambiguation) are truly obscure. Perhaps 10 years from now this Kim Davis will be just as obscure, but that is clearly not the case today. --В²C ☎ 14:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's been on my mind as well. The traffic stats alone support this being a primary topic by a factor of about 100.- MrX 16:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I fear WP:RECENTISM is rearing its ugly head here. There's not even consensus at this point that Davis should have a separate article, let alone be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at this title. For the moment, disambiguation is better. Kim Davis should especially not be an article about the marriage license controversy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- If I may offer a slight, but important, correction: This article has already been merged from the two articles discussed in the RfC (Kim Davis (county clerk) and Kentucky Same Sex marriage License Controversy). There is a standing consensus for this article to exist as a result of two AfDs. The only thing being debated at this point it the title of the article, not its subject or scope.- MrX 19:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree, but since we're about to rehash the exact same argument that is happening above, nothing good can come of elaborating here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- MrX is correct; there is no mistake about what has already been decided by consensus. Prhartcom (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree, but since we're about to rehash the exact same argument that is happening above, nothing good can come of elaborating here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If any of the other uses of this name were anything but totally obscure you might have a point. RECENTISM only suggests we give weight to the long-term historical perspective, not totally dismiss anything that is recent.
At this point Davis' role in clarifying the meaning and impact of the supreme court ruling on same-sex marriage is undeniable. Like I said, the significance might dissipate in ten years, but the situation today, and for the foreseeable future, is quite obvious.
I also want to address the question of whether Davis should have a separate article. The question is, frankly, absurd. WP is replete with articles about people far more obscure than Davis, including the other people named Kim Davis that have articles on WP. It's funny how every now and then this issue is raised in the context of someone with enormous but sudden notoriety. Yes, it's sudden, but it's enormous. When countless reliable news source each have multiple articles centered on that person, there can be no question about that person's notability being far more than sufficient to warrant a biographical article. Also, it's not like something happened to occur to Davis that could have happened to anyone. She's not famous for being hit by lightning twice, for example. She's famous for something she did (or, rather, didn't do) - a decision she made. The story is all about her.
Finally, I think the article speaks for itself - it's far, far more developed than the majority of our biographical articles, most of which are barely beyond the stub stage. The idea that this article should be transformed into something other than a biography makes no sense. --В²C ☎ 19:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- If I may offer a slight, but important, correction: This article has already been merged from the two articles discussed in the RfC (Kim Davis (county clerk) and Kentucky Same Sex marriage License Controversy). There is a standing consensus for this article to exist as a result of two AfDs. The only thing being debated at this point it the title of the article, not its subject or scope.- MrX 19:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I fear WP:RECENTISM is rearing its ugly head here. There's not even consensus at this point that Davis should have a separate article, let alone be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at this title. For the moment, disambiguation is better. Kim Davis should especially not be an article about the marriage license controversy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
В²C, you wrote: "The idea that this article should be transformed into something other than a biography makes no sense." Total agreement! Who has suggested a "transformation"???? I have no idea what you're talking about. The articles have been merged and the article's scope and content are perfect as is. No change is necessary in that regard. The only question is whether the current title describes the content accurately.
IIRC, you believe she's notable enough for this article to have a title with only her name. Other editors believe the controversy is the most notable factor and wish to have the controversy mentioned in the title. A compromise, which should satisfy meet the concerns of both sides, would be to include both elements in the title, per the requested move above, while making no change in the content. That is the proposition. Only that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- BullRangifer is correct; this is the only question remaining. Prhartcom (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Who has suggested a transformation? The only question is the title? Really? Did you guys read the currently open proposal above? I quote:
.Please provide either the word support to make this an event article...
- Anyway, like any other biographical article on WP, this one is about the person and what they are notable for. Every other such article is titled with the name of the subject, disambiguated if necessary. Nobody has explained why this article should be treated differently. The fact that the issue with which she is associated is the most notable factor is irrelevant to that (though it speaks to the need for an article about that topic separately), because we have countless other articles for which some issue is more notable than the person, but the person's name is still the title of the article. Here are just a few: Timothy McVeigh, Norma McCorvey, Rosa Parks, Andrea Yates, etc. The idea of somehow incorporating the notable event into the title of a biography article has no basis, unless maybe it's necessary for disambiguation (though I don't know of an example of that either). This is why the proposal is to transform the article into something other than a biography ("an event article"), because changing the title from her name but leaving it a biography makes no sense.
BullRangifer has repeatedly claimed this article is currently not a "pure" biography, apparently a term he has invented for the convenience of defending his otherwise indefensible position, as if a "pure" biography is a thing. It's not. Many biographies are mostly if not exclusively about the one notable event or thing that made the subject person notable. That does not make the biography "impure". There is no such thing. There is no consideration for such a concept in our criteria for deciding titles. This is a biography, period, and should be titled accordingly. --В²C ☎ 16:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Who has suggested a transformation? The only question is the title? Really? Did you guys read the currently open proposal above? I quote:
- В²C, yes, we've read it. Yes, the only question is the title, as this is a Move discussion. We each either support or oppose renaming the article to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Deciding on this particular title decides whether it is an event article or a biography article. It is easy to see that the article contains elements of both. This is fine. We have only the one article to express Kim Davis (the person) and what she did (the event). The article is a cohesive unit describing the controversy and who caused it, perpetuated it, and ended it. To me personally, it seems obvious that the biography elements of this article qualify it as a pseudo-biography. To me personally, it is obvious that Davis is notable for only one event. To me personally, it seems obvious that the move to the new name will encompass this cohesive unit into a better name. But this has been discussed ad-nauseam before you arrived (feel free to browse the archives). Let me know if I can answer any of your questions. Prhartcom (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is nothing unique or special about the fact the subject of this biography is notable for only one event. Stating it as if it is does not make it so. That characteristic applies to many if not most of the biography articles we have, many of which are about more obscure people than Davis (who at least was an elected official before the extra-notable event) made notable by far less significant events. Why is this even a discussion, let alone one warranting archives of discussion? What more needs to be said than quoting from ONEEVENT? "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The sheer volume of media coverage clearly establishes the high significance of the event.
Davis' large role is unquestioned. Again, what is there to discuss? Seriously. This has to be one of the dumbest discussions I've ever encountered on WP, and, believe me, that's saying a lot. --В²C ☎ 20:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, this has to be. Prhartcom (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- В²C, maybe I misread you. I interpreted your "transformed into something other than a biography" to mean a transformation of content. The proposal above is expressly not about the content, only the title. The title determines if the article is viewed as a biography or an event. The content remains unchanged.
- The current title is for a biography, while the move would be to a title describing the event. The event is clearly notable. She is considered unnotable apart from the event, ergo a pure biography (IOW without the controversy) would not survive an AfD. That's why the article has its current balance/mix of content. We can't separate her from the event by creating a pure biography for her, and another for the event, so we have kept that content together because three AfDs and multiple RfCs have concluded it should be that way. Since she and the event are synonymous (the event does not include anyone else, not even the other two clerks), many of us believe her name should be included in the title for the event. It is HER controversy. The event being the most notable thing, we need an event article title, hence the proposed move to that title. The title is the only thing being "transformed", and the title defines and describes the article, which is an event article with a tiny bit of biographical information.
- So, did I misunderstand you, or are you reading into the proposal something other than is intended? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood the proposal. What do you think "Should the Kim Davis (county clerk) article be an event article or a biography article? " is asking if not, should the content be transformed to be an event article, or should it stay as a biography article? What can "to make this an event article" mean if not "transform the content [to be an event article rather than a biography article]"? Especially when contrasted with the oppose alternative: " leave this a biography article ". Those are the words used in the proposal. Perhaps Prhartcom can clarify what exactly was intended by these words? I mean, the current content and format is consistent with a biography article. If the title were changed as proposed, then the content does not make sense. I mean, there's even a biographical officeholder infobox on the article. You can't change the title to reflect an event without changing the content. It would be silly looking, to say the least. --В²C ☎ 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm basing my understanding on the proposal itself, a move to a better title. That's all. The existing title is a biography title, the other one is an event title. There is no proposal to change the content. It just isn't there. You are assuming that, but you can only assume that because you are not as familiar as I and several others (especially Prhartcom and MrX) are with the history of all these articles, their multiple AfDs, and multiple RfCs. We have arrived at this point to determine ONLY the title. We have already settled the other matters about the content. We have been trying to narrow down the decisions, and it's now down to the last one, the title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood the proposal. What do you think "Should the Kim Davis (county clerk) article be an event article or a biography article? " is asking if not, should the content be transformed to be an event article, or should it stay as a biography article? What can "to make this an event article" mean if not "transform the content [to be an event article rather than a biography article]"? Especially when contrasted with the oppose alternative: " leave this a biography article ". Those are the words used in the proposal. Perhaps Prhartcom can clarify what exactly was intended by these words? I mean, the current content and format is consistent with a biography article. If the title were changed as proposed, then the content does not make sense. I mean, there's even a biographical officeholder infobox on the article. You can't change the title to reflect an event without changing the content. It would be silly looking, to say the least. --В²C ☎ 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, this has to be. Prhartcom (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is nothing unique or special about the fact the subject of this biography is notable for only one event. Stating it as if it is does not make it so. That characteristic applies to many if not most of the biography articles we have, many of which are about more obscure people than Davis (who at least was an elected official before the extra-notable event) made notable by far less significant events. Why is this even a discussion, let alone one warranting archives of discussion? What more needs to be said than quoting from ONEEVENT? "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The sheer volume of media coverage clearly establishes the high significance of the event.
- В²C, yes, we've read it. Yes, the only question is the title, as this is a Move discussion. We each either support or oppose renaming the article to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Deciding on this particular title decides whether it is an event article or a biography article. It is easy to see that the article contains elements of both. This is fine. We have only the one article to express Kim Davis (the person) and what she did (the event). The article is a cohesive unit describing the controversy and who caused it, perpetuated it, and ended it. To me personally, it seems obvious that the biography elements of this article qualify it as a pseudo-biography. To me personally, it is obvious that Davis is notable for only one event. To me personally, it seems obvious that the move to the new name will encompass this cohesive unit into a better name. But this has been discussed ad-nauseam before you arrived (feel free to browse the archives). Let me know if I can answer any of your questions. Prhartcom (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean by the "proposal itself", BullRangifer? You seem to think it's just the Kim Davis (county clerk) → Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy title change part, but that ignores all of the text that follows which uses very precise language, and explicitly proposes making this article an event article rather than leaving it a biography, which clearly implies a content transformation at least to some degree. You can't have a biographical infobox, for example, which this article has, in an event article. Why do you ignore this part of the proposal?
Anyway, I just wish somebody would already close this so we could move on and propose the plain Kim Davis title, which should settle this whole thing once and for all. --В²C ☎ 06:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean by the "proposal itself", BullRangifer? You seem to think it's just the Kim Davis (county clerk) → Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy title change part, but that ignores all of the text that follows which uses very precise language, and explicitly proposes making this article an event article rather than leaving it a biography, which clearly implies a content transformation at least to some degree. You can't have a biographical infobox, for example, which this article has, in an event article. Why do you ignore this part of the proposal?
- В²C, you are still overinterpreting the phrase ("Please provide either the word support to make this an event article or the word oppose to leave this a biography article ...") in a manner which makes it go against the actual move request, which is only about the title.
- This is a "Move" request. I'm referring to the heading. If this were a "Split" proposal, we'd have another type of RfC, in which it were proposed to do what you're saying, split off (transform) the controversy into another article and keep this one as a pure biography. It seems to me that you are interpreting it that way. Am I wrong?
- To make that interpretation, you have to ignore this other wording: "Consensus has decided that there should be only one article..." You also have to reject the RfC creator's explanation to you above: "Yes, the only question is the title, as this is a Move discussion."
- Why don't we just ask the creator of the RfC, who happens to be Prhartcom, what they mean by the phrase? (For clarification, it was introduced here, but was not intended to change the meaning of the RfC. Maybe it should be tweaked so we don't have others making this interpretation.)
- Does Prhartcom mean it as you interpret it (split into two), or as I do (only change the title and keep the current single article as is)? His many replies to you, including below, make me think he's more in agreement with my interpretation than yours. He, I, and MrX, are the editors with the most knowledge and experience with these articles and their numerous RfCs and AfDs, yet you, a newbie to them, seem to know more. Hmmm.... When new eyes at RfCs speak without doing due diligence, we end up with these long, protracted, and ridiculous situations. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- The other point you keep missing is that you seem to think there is something unique or at least unusual about this biography being mostly about an event and have only a "tiny bit" (I dispute that) of biographical information. Several times several of us have listed quite a few examples, and there are many, many more. But you keep commenting as if they don't exist, and this article is some kind of anomaly in this respect. It isn't. --В²C ☎ 05:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- В²C, you seem to be extremely confident in your understanding of the intent of the proposal, despite the fact that you just arrived here at the article a few days ago. But what if you were wrong? That would be unthinkable, of course, but what do you think of this idea: We could contact the person who proposed the RM and ask them if you are right about your assumptions, or if BullRangifer is actually the one who understands the proposal? Would that help? Or alternatively, we could all just agree that you are right. Which do you think we should do? Prhartcom (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Guys, I'm just going by the plain English meanings of the words in the proposal, coupled with the actual current state of the article (which, for example, includes a biographical infobox which would be inappropriate in an event article). Prhartcom, I asked above, and I'll ask again. Please clarify what is meant by the words "to make this an event article" if not "transform the content [to be an event article rather than a biography article]"? Especially when contrasted with the oppose alternative: " leave this a biography article ".
BullRangifer, I don't believe anything I've written even suggests that I might think PrHartcom or the proposal wording proposes a splitting of the article into two. Are you deliberately misreading my words? If not, please identify the words that I actually wrote that can be reasonably interpreted to mean that I'm interpreting the proposal to be proposing an article split.
Let me put it this way. Say the proposal passes and the title is changed to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Do you really think the article can remain as-is except for the title change? Don't you think the opening sentence would have to change, which currently mentions only her and not the event at all? What about that biographical info box? What about the first subsection entitled Career which is exclusively about her career? The sections on her Personal Life and Election History? You really think no changes are required to transform this article from being the biographical article that it is to be being an event article as proposed? What are you thinking? --В²C ☎ 15:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about it, В²C. We would need to work a few things out, sure, when the RM reaches consensus, but it's not important to passionately argue about the hypothetical until then. Prhartcom (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. The net result is that the article would be transformed from being the biography that it is today to something that is not a biography. That's all I said, something I thought was very obvious, and yet I was taken to task for it.
Now, can we all agree that the proposal is not JUST about changing the title, but that if the title is changed then the article will have to be changed/transformed so that it is no longer a biography? It's an important point because the implication is that if this proposal succeeds we will be left without a biography on Kim Davis, which I think makes no sense given her notability. Yes, her notability stems almost entirely from one event, but it's a highly publicized event in which she is the key/central figure. Therefore, we should keep this biography about her. Don't blame me for the faulty reasoning in the last discussion which resulted in the expression of an understandable but impractical desire for only one article. I was not part of that. --В²C ☎ 16:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. The net result is that the article would be transformed from being the biography that it is today to something that is not a biography. That's all I said, something I thought was very obvious, and yet I was taken to task for it.
- I wouldn't worry about it, В²C. We would need to work a few things out, sure, when the RM reaches consensus, but it's not important to passionately argue about the hypothetical until then. Prhartcom (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Guys, I'm just going by the plain English meanings of the words in the proposal, coupled with the actual current state of the article (which, for example, includes a biographical infobox which would be inappropriate in an event article). Prhartcom, I asked above, and I'll ask again. Please clarify what is meant by the words "to make this an event article" if not "transform the content [to be an event article rather than a biography article]"? Especially when contrasted with the oppose alternative: " leave this a biography article ".
- В²C, you seem to be extremely confident in your understanding of the intent of the proposal, despite the fact that you just arrived here at the article a few days ago. But what if you were wrong? That would be unthinkable, of course, but what do you think of this idea: We could contact the person who proposed the RM and ask them if you are right about your assumptions, or if BullRangifer is actually the one who understands the proposal? Would that help? Or alternatively, we could all just agree that you are right. Which do you think we should do? Prhartcom (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
No, you're still misunderstanding it. I agree with Prhartcom. If some very small tweaks are necessary, so be it, but the basic scope and content remain the same. No substantive change needs to be made. We just need a title which adequately describes the content, and puts the emphasis on the controversy, which is very notable, and not on Davis, who is only notable because of the controversy. The reason for keeping her name in the title is because it is HER controversy. She defines it. No one else is involved. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, you're still misunderstanding. Whether the transformation from biography to event article is accomplished with "some very small tweaks" or through major changes is completely irrelevant to the point I'm making. The net result is the same: this article will no longer be a biography; we will no longer have a biography article about Kim Davis. That's the problematic and absurd result of this proposal succeeding, not the number of bits that have to be flipped and added or deleted to get this article from here to there. Now do you understand? --В²C ☎ 16:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your thoughts on the matter have been duly noted. There is no need to continue passionately hammering this point. Prhartcom (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. However, my thoughts have not been duly noted by BullRangifer. BullRangifer has repeatedly demonstrated a total and complete distortion of what I have been saying. As recently as his latest post he revealed this again, which I just explained. Instead of addressing the main point - the problem with not having a biography on WP about Kim Davis - he (and you to some extent) cling to an irrelevant point about how much the article has to change to cease being a biography, starting with denying that any change will be required, then conceding that some change will be required but only "some very small tweaks" (as if that's relevant), throughout evading discussion of the main point. --В²C ☎ 17:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
"my thoughts have not been duly noted by BullRangifer."
It appears you need to be either reminded of or have it pointed out to you that no one is obligated to respond to comments or edit Wikipedia. If you have a personal beef against BR simply because they aren't taking public notice of your "thoughts", take it up with them elsewhere. This is not the place for it. You've made your point several times over. As Prhartcom pointed out, it's time to stop hammering your point and move on. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)- Why would you think I need to be reminded that no one is obligated to respond? I'm simply disputing Prhartcom's claim that my thoughts have been duly noted, especially with respect to BullRangifer. Of course he's under no obligation to even read what I'm saying, let alone understand it and respond. I'm all for agreeing to disagree, but that's impossible when one party doesn't even understand the position of the other, which is clearly the case here, or at least was as of BullRangifer's last comment. Anyway, I've started a separate section on this particular question, #What is the justification for NOT having a Kim Davis biography?, where anyone interested can address it, because this is way off topic for the Primary Topic question that is supposed to be the topic of this section. --В²C ☎ 18:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. However, my thoughts have not been duly noted by BullRangifer. BullRangifer has repeatedly demonstrated a total and complete distortion of what I have been saying. As recently as his latest post he revealed this again, which I just explained. Instead of addressing the main point - the problem with not having a biography on WP about Kim Davis - he (and you to some extent) cling to an irrelevant point about how much the article has to change to cease being a biography, starting with denying that any change will be required, then conceding that some change will be required but only "some very small tweaks" (as if that's relevant), throughout evading discussion of the main point. --В²C ☎ 17:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your thoughts on the matter have been duly noted. There is no need to continue passionately hammering this point. Prhartcom (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you need to be reminded of it because you are essentially saying you won't move on until BR addresses or acknowledges your comments. Which, according to WP:OBLIGATION is an unreasonable expectation. Now, at this point, because you are obviously not getting the spirit of WP:OBLIGATION, it's obvious you also need to be reminded or made aware of the importance of dropping the stick when it's time to do so. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Winkelvi, please explain why you accuse me of "essentially saying [I] won't move on until BR addresses or acknowledges [my] comments", which I categorically deny, or retract your baseless accusation on me as an honest misunderstanding. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 18:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Prhartcom stated:
"Your thoughts on the matter have been duly noted. There is no need to continue passionately hammering this point"
. To which you replied:"my thoughts have not been duly noted by BullRangifer. BullRangifer has repeatedly demonstrated a total and complete distortion of what I have been saying."
. Your response indicated to me that you unhappy BR has not responded to what you want BR to respond. Hence, my reminder to you of WP:OBLIGATION. If, in fact, that's not what you were saying, the problem isn't in how I read what you wrote but how you wrote it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Prhartcom stated:
- Well, okay. Yeah. I am unhappy that BR is responding not to what I'm saying but to some distortion to what I'm saying. Of course that's frustrating. But that's a far cry from thinking he's obligated to respond, or anything like that. --В²C ☎ 22:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- My original comment to you was designed to remind you of the policy/guideline. There was no accusation that you thought he was obligated. That said, your comments seem to indicate you do feel that way and have decided you will hold him responsible should he choose not to "duly note" your thoughts. Per Wikipedia policy/guidelines, that's an unreasonable expectation and BR is not obligated to validate your feelings on the matter. I hope we can move on now -- it seems we have wasted enough bandwidth and talk page space over it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- WP:OBLIGATION has no applicability to this situation. OBLIGATION simply reminds us that users never have an obligation to ever edit (in any context) rather than not edit. BR has been responding to everything I've said. So even to someone not aware of OBLIGATION, it would never be an issue because BR is very responsive. My frustration stems not from him not responding, but from him responding to a distortion of what I'm saying. I don't know why, but he has had issues with not understanding others as well. For example, in the #poll section he did not understand how Safiel's explanation substantiated his or her !vote. Yet it was quite clear to me. Another user commented above about something BR said as follows: "You would have a hard time coming up with a more inaccurate misreading of that close." Anyway, surely you can understand how it can be frustrating to be in a discussion with someone who is not responding to what you're saying, but to a twist on what you're saying. That's what I meant about my comment not being duly noted by him. I hope you can understand that. --В²C ☎ 23:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- What I now understand is you are personally attacking BR with this comment:
"I don't know if he has a reading comprehension problem, English is not his first language, or what..."
. You really need to strike those comments. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC) - Seconded. In an already heated discussion like this, language like that is the last thing we need, and more of us should speak out against it. It is self-defeating to tolerate disruptiveness for the sake of peace. That's about all I have to contribute here. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- When this discussion finally resolves itself we are so going to hide it to the size of a single line. Thanks to BullRangifer, Mandruss, and Winkelvi for doing what you could and congrats to MrX. Prhartcom (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Prhartcom, yes, please do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- В²C, I'm going to echo Prhartcom's astute comment above: "Your thoughts on the matter have been duly noted. There is no need to continue passionately hammering this point." ....and just like I suspect he feels, neither of us agree with you, but because you refuse to accept our explanations and continually act as if you, a newbie to this subject, know more than we do, it is pointless for us to keep discussing this with you. Your thoughts have been duly noted. Period.
- We have long since reached the point where your behavior, including opening a new thread on a settled matter, is a massive refusal to accept explanations and change your POV, or refuse to drop the stick. Keep in mind that IDHT doesn't mean that one literally doesn't "hear", it means that one doesn't learn and change positions, or at least leave the playing field, since no one can force you to change your mind. It's time for you to drop the stick and stop creating more disruption. We want to simplify things and reach a conclusion. You just complicate them.
- It would be wisest for you to stay away from this since you don't understand it, even though you think you do. Take my word for it, you really don't. This is far over your head, not because of any type of intelligence issues, but because you lack the knowledge and experience with these particular articles. They have a very complicated history, largely because of people like you. You have ideas which have already been rejected in RfCs and AfDs. We don't want to rehash them just to pleasure you. That's very disruptive.
- BTW, my mother tongue is English, and I speak three other languages and use two languages at home, every single day. My last college professor told me that my English writing skills placed me in the top ten of all the students he's had in his 15 years of teaching, and his classes average 250-300 students per class, and at least three classes every day. (Don't judge my skills by my writing here or in emails or texting!) My parsing skills are good enough for my legal deposition in a case to be used by the judge, with few changes, as the wording in their final decision, but I'm not a lawyer. I have lived in six different countries, and many US states. I have attended at least five colleges in two countries, two medical professional schools in different countries, have two different medical educations in different languages, and have had a good and successful career. I've been around the block quite a few times. Oh, the best of all, I'm still married to my first wife (36 years). I won the lottery!
- So, it's time to end this discussion. There is no point in continuing it. We have better things to do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- When this discussion finally resolves itself we are so going to hide it to the size of a single line. Thanks to BullRangifer, Mandruss, and Winkelvi for doing what you could and congrats to MrX. Prhartcom (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- What I now understand is you are personally attacking BR with this comment:
- WP:OBLIGATION has no applicability to this situation. OBLIGATION simply reminds us that users never have an obligation to ever edit (in any context) rather than not edit. BR has been responding to everything I've said. So even to someone not aware of OBLIGATION, it would never be an issue because BR is very responsive. My frustration stems not from him not responding, but from him responding to a distortion of what I'm saying. I don't know why, but he has had issues with not understanding others as well. For example, in the #poll section he did not understand how Safiel's explanation substantiated his or her !vote. Yet it was quite clear to me. Another user commented above about something BR said as follows: "You would have a hard time coming up with a more inaccurate misreading of that close." Anyway, surely you can understand how it can be frustrating to be in a discussion with someone who is not responding to what you're saying, but to a twist on what you're saying. That's what I meant about my comment not being duly noted by him. I hope you can understand that. --В²C ☎ 23:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- My original comment to you was designed to remind you of the policy/guideline. There was no accusation that you thought he was obligated. That said, your comments seem to indicate you do feel that way and have decided you will hold him responsible should he choose not to "duly note" your thoughts. Per Wikipedia policy/guidelines, that's an unreasonable expectation and BR is not obligated to validate your feelings on the matter. I hope we can move on now -- it seems we have wasted enough bandwidth and talk page space over it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
What is the justification for NOT having a Kim Davis biography?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Extended content
|
|---|
|
The indisputable implication of this proposal passing is that this article will cease being a biography on Kim Davis, and that there will be no biography about Kim Davis on Wikipedia. Is that acceptable? Why? She is the central driving figure in an event that captured months of nationwide attention, and has helped clarify the implications of a supreme court ruling about a controversial socio-political issue. For us to raise the bar of notability so high as to justify not having a biography article about such a notable person would mean excluding perhaps a majority of our biographies. Or, making this exclusion be a special case for some reason. What is that reason? What is the justification for not having a biography article about someone as notable as Kim Davis? And please don't answer this with reasoning that could also be used to justify transforming countless other biographies into event articles, unless you're prepared to defend that too. --В²C ☎ 17:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC) And in case anyone thinks not having a Kim Davis biography is justified by WP:ONEVENT, be sure to read it, especially this part:
WP:ONEVENT clearly supports having a biography on Kim Davis. --В²C ☎ 18:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
В²C, From WP:PSEUDO:
From WP:ONEEVENT:
We have the interesting situation that two guidelines are relevant and intersect here, ONEEVENT and PSEUDO. During this whole process, I have been cognizant that both apply, and I suspect that Prhartcom also shares this view, so we are trying to follow them as closely as possible, while seeking a compromise which works. In the process we may or may not be creating a precedent for a better way to deal with such unique situations. I don't know for sure. (added in revision 02:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)) We are compromising here because she is synonymous with the event. She IS the event. RS and COMMONNAME favor this approach. This means we end up with an event article, but with her name in it, and it includes some biographical content. You get that much. Call the article what you wish, but you do get biographical information. A compromise is the This compromise should be somewhat satisfactory to everyone: (1) those who want an event article get it, and (2) those who want a biography will find that information in the article. We have many types of articles here, and there is no guideline which dictates a hard and fast division between these two types. Editors have the freedom to adapt things as necessary. This situation requires a compromise in the title. She is too notable, because of HER controversy, to be left out of the title. The guideline(s) (ONEEVENT and PSEUDO) leave open the possibility for a future, separate, biography article, IF she gains significant notability for more than the controversy. Who knows, she may become a TV reality star on her own show! She may even become a politician (not the civil servant type), running for office on a homophobic ticket pursuing the Biblical death penalty for all American gays. We can cross that bridge if we ever come to it, but we are not going to use crystal ball thinking to create a pure biography now. So the conclusion to this is that we arrived at a compromise position, long before you arrived. I hope you accept this olive branch which has been offered to others.
I discovered that I mistakenly wrote ONEEVENT, when I was referring to content from PSEUDO, so I have revised and added significant content to my previous reply with this edit. Please study it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians:
She was and is only a local politician who was never notable for more than that. She became notable for this controversy, and all the sources you dig up (which document content which is in the article) were written because of and after this controversy started. The few bits of biographical information from before the controversy (which is in the article), was not enough to make her notable. It is only this controversy which does it, so the event is the primary subject, and the title should emphasize the event, hence the move/retitle request above. Since she is synonymous with the event, we include her name as well. TRPoD and Prhartcom have explained this to you above. I don't care whether you call the article an event article or a biography. Do as you wish. You are getting both. All the content is there, so just drop the stick. Your disruption needs to stop. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 20:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC) |
The 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.
Requested move 6 October 2015
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Not moved, per absence of consensus. Too much electronic ink has already been spilled on this issue. It is possible to have an article on the controversy (including any aspects that do not involve this article subject), and a separate article on the subject, who has become individually notable in that her biographical details may be of interest to those with only a limited interest in the controversy at issue. The subject is a public figure who had received news coverage prior to this controversy arising. She was involved in multiple widely reported incidents only tangentially connected to it (such as her meeting with the Pope, her widely reported change of political party affiliation, and the announced Westboro Baptist Church protests against her marital situation). There is no consensus to move this article, and strong reasons have been provided for maintaining an article on the individual. bd2412 T 14:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Kim Davis (county clerk) → Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy – Should the Kim Davis (county clerk) article be an event article or a biography article? Consensus has decided that there should be only one article (at least for now) at Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#RfC: Two articles or one? (Or three?). In the words of the closing administrator of that discussion, "Normal practice would have been to write about the incident first, not the person, per WP:BLP1E" then write about the person later when they become notable for more than one event. Many editors have discussed this already at the discussion linked above and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) (2nd nomination) (which was closed with Snow Keep). Please provide either the word support to make this an event article or the word oppose to leave this a biography article and give your rationale. Thanks to all for your efforts on this subject. Prhartcom (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Poll
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No POV
The Kim Davis article has always been properly NPOV. The Reactions section of the article naturally provides both left and right leaning reactions. The newest reaction that was just added is a "new" reaction that happens to be left leaning and from a legal expert. It was added as its own paragraph. It has now been moved to the appropriate first paragraph of the Reactions section, appearing there in chronological order.
This newest reaction had also been added to the lede; to the first paragraph, no less. This "new" reaction does not belong in the lede; it has been reverted and removed. Any reaction is, of course, one-sided. We don't put the latest one-sided reaction in the lede, excluding all other reactions. If we do that, at the very least we put in another reaction from the other side. There has never been a reaction in the lede so I removed the "new" reaction.
The edit summary tried to explain that it is okay to inject POV in one direction so soon in the article, as POV "reflects the mainstream views and controversies". While I understand the editor's sentiment and even have a POV myself, I don't believe we should inject POV into the article lede for any reason. It is simpler, clearer, and is a better service to our readers to leave out all reactions from the lede: give the reader a chance to focus on the facts of Kim Davis herself and her controversy. Prhartcom (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV does not mean that we pretend no POVs exist and the everything is equally "neutral" or that we create false balances - it means that we represent the views as they are held by the mainstream experts and per WP:LEAD we include the summary of these interpretations in the lead itself. The fact that this incident is "the clearest example of someone who wants to use a religious liberty argument to discriminate" yet is why there is so much interest in it. To bury that from the lead is what would be an unconscionable violation of WP:NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- TRPoD said it very well. There is no policy against including POV in the lead. LEAD requires it if the body includes it first. This is an extremely notable and insightful comment and should be in the lead. It's her highest claim to fame, even more than the controversy itself, because it touches on much broader issues which apply far beyond homosexuality and gay rights. It touches on her extreme understanding of religious freedom, an understanding which would support a Sharia law type Christian religious dictatorship in the USA, and there is more content on that matter to be added.
- Before this controversy started, she had already prepared a religious freedom defense, contacted her superiors, and planned this controversy. That content will be included. We just need to get all this title business settled first and get back to editing. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 20:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
It's rather odd, and a violation of LEAD, that we don't mention any reactions in the lead. We should, and this reaction should be included. It would be logical to make this content the last paragraph. -- -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 20:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- We could consider adding two to four reactions to the last paragraph of the lede. But this talk above is not going to fly. We don't add a single POV, that happens to be your own, to the first paragraph of the lede. The lede's purpose is to summarize the tone of the entire article—an article that we have worked hard to ensure remain neutral.
You are attempting to inject your own personal bias in the first paragraph, apparent fromYou said "her extreme understanding of religious freedom, an understanding which would support a Sharia law type Christian religious dictatorship in the USA."We're not here to tell the world about your noble cause.There are other points of view of Kim Davis that you are not considering (i.e. her insistence to simply remove her name from licenses and not be forced to personally issue them). If we stick to simply presenting all the facts about Kim Davis, left and right, the reader will make up their own mind about what to think. And if we leave the reactions out of the lead, the reader can at least focus on those facts in the first several sentences. Let's hear from others, i.e. MrX. Prhartcom (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)- This reaction should be included in the article, but is not representative of the totality of reactions to justify including it in the lead, especially as a contextomy. The lead should include a summary of both the support and the criticism of Davis in DUE proportion. It should also include a mention that Davis has been satirized in social media, and in various forms of fiction and entertainment.- MrX 22:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Which is your personal contribution to the article, so naturally you want that. Great; everyone is protecting their own personal turf. We need editors who can put their egos aside and care more about the article than their own personal contributions to it. Otherwise, MrX is right; the lede must remain representative of the totality of the article in due proportion. I am making sure that this is what occurs. Prhartcom (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Prhartcom, don't ping me again to ask for my input, only to criticize my motivations when I give it. What we need here is less ego and fewer inflammatory comments.- MrX 23:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- MrX, you're right; sorry about my reaction to part of your reply. What you said was correct; The lede is the introduction and summary of the totality of the article. Prhartcom (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Prhartcom, you accuse me of adding my POV? Really? Please strike all of those comments. They are clear personal attacks, and you should know better than "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views..."
- Just because I happen to think it's a pretty good statement doesn't mean I wrote it. Divorce me from the equation and it stands alone as a remarkably true statement. Just because I happen to side with the mainstream view should not leave me open to your personal attacks. By your logic, no editor should allow you to include any RS which happens to support your POV. Don't you realize that by censoring opposing POV you are "protecting your own turf"? That's not how the Golden Rule works, so let's keep this type of petty bickering out of this. Okay?
- Now back to what I wrote above, because you seem to have ignored it: "We should [include a summary of reactions], and this reaction should be included. It would be logical to make this content the last paragraph." MrX also seems to feel we need this type of content in the lead. The lead, in its entirely, should sum up the entire article. The individual sentences and paragraphs sum up individual significant topics and mention significant points. Take a look at WP:CREATELEAD for more about creating leads. (You might also enjoy my new essay at WP:Essence, because it's very relevant here.) -- -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 23:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- BullRangifer, you're right, I have struck those comments. We agree that the lede is the introduction and summary of the totality of the article. Prhartcom (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Prhartcom, don't ping me again to ask for my input, only to criticize my motivations when I give it. What we need here is less ego and fewer inflammatory comments.- MrX 23:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Which is your personal contribution to the article, so naturally you want that. Great; everyone is protecting their own personal turf. We need editors who can put their egos aside and care more about the article than their own personal contributions to it. Otherwise, MrX is right; the lede must remain representative of the totality of the article in due proportion. I am making sure that this is what occurs. Prhartcom (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- This reaction should be included in the article, but is not representative of the totality of reactions to justify including it in the lead, especially as a contextomy. The lead should include a summary of both the support and the criticism of Davis in DUE proportion. It should also include a mention that Davis has been satirized in social media, and in various forms of fiction and entertainment.- MrX 22:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
As far as keeping the article "neutral", that's a misunderstanding of NPOV and WEIGHT. All kinds of POV must be documented, and biased sources should be used. The mainstream view is that she is not doing her duty, so the due weight of the article should read in favor of the mainstream view. We must present that balance, because that is the balance found in RS. That should be the impression received by readers. NPOV means that we, as editors, don't insert our own unsourced opinions, or use censorship to hide views we don't like. NPOV does not mean "neutral" or neutered content, nor does it mean a false balance between opposing POV. -- -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 23:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm assuming this is about the passage you personally contributed? What exactly are you proposing for the article? Prhartcom (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for striking your comments. Much appreciated. I'm talking about this, which I had added to the lead, at the end of the first paragraph [13]:
- Davis has been described as "the clearest example of someone who wants to use a religious liberty argument to discriminate."
- Per my comments above, I agree that it's probably not best to add only that comment, as it should accompany other content about reactions. It's a bit different from most of them, as it's not exactly for or against, but a simple statement from a very notable attorney, author, and subject expert. The more controversial part is in the body, where it should be. I deliberately did not include that in my addition to the lead.
- I'd like to see it restored, but not necessarily in the first paragraph, but at the end of the lead would be fine. A summation of the for and against reactions could also be attached to it, most likely immediately before it. That way the coverage of reactions ends with a very different type of reaction, not with a Good or Bad reaction. That leaves a better, more neutral, taste in the mental mouths of readers.
- As I look at it again, the end of the first paragraph is still a good place, because of the significance of the statement. It is her highest claim to notability, even higher than her controversy. That's what sets this statement apart from all others, and justifies placement so early in the lead. -- -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 01:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for striking your comments. Much appreciated. I'm talking about this, which I had added to the lead, at the end of the first paragraph [13]:
References
- I assume you mean "paragraph", not sentence. No, not the first paragraph, as it is a non-neutral reaction, not a neutral fact. I'd feel better if you acknowledge, so that I know you understand, that none of the reactions to this controversy are neutral, certainly not this one. Yes, if we add this to the end of the lede after all the neutral facts, we need other non-neutral reactions as well. I'll put some thought into what other reactions we can add; let me know if you have some ideas. Prhartcom (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Oops! You're right. Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Let's take a look at what we agree/disagree about:
- We agree that it would be best to summarize the reactions and add that at the end of the lead. I still think the one sentence is important enough for placement at the end of the first paragraph. It's her highest claim to fame. She's totally unique.
- We disagree about the subject of "neutral".
What policy dictates that we cannot document and include "non-neutral" reaction[s] or facts in an article or lead? I think you're still misinterpreting NPOV, but if you're referring to some new policy, I'd like to see it, because this would mean the radical neutering of millions of articles here. We could no longer document "the sum total of human knowledge", and we'd be violating NPOV by exercising censorship of any non-neutral opinions, facts, or sources in an article.
NPOV refers to editorial, not content, neutrality (philosophy). Wikipedia, represented by how its editors create content, must remain neutral, IOW it must not have any "declared or intentional bias". The only bias we are required to have is to favor reliable sources, which often means the mainstream POV.
If we do it right and distribute due weight appropriately (more here, and less there), readers should sense that the article has a bias. It must not come from editors, but from the sources, and readers should sense that the mainstream and best sources have an opinion on the subject, one which is disputed by a minority fringe whose opinions are currently considered incorrect. That sensation of bias will obviously offend fringe believers. We see this all the time at articles on fringe subjects, such as homeopathy, chiropractic, and psychics. Believers don't like our articles, so we must be doing something right.
The POV in the content we include must be presented "as it was" in the sources, without our interference. We must not neutralize the points of view, neither by hiding or censoring them, nor by giving them more weight (undue) than they have in the sources. There are some types of articles where POV is not a problem, but most articles include POV, and we must present them.
It appears to me that your objections and whole premise of "No POV" (the heading above) rests on a false foundation, a misunderstanding of NPOV. Am I wrong? Am I missing something here? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 03:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying. No, I'm not advocating we neuter Wikipedia. I'm saying look at the article now, compared to how you want it to be. It is very neutral. We don't tell readers how to think, we don't tell readers what other people think. We present the facts without commentary and allow readers to make up their own mind. That is an amazing accomplishment considering the subject matter. As human editors, we certainly have a POV, yet we have not allowed it into the article until the Reactions section. (Once I allowed mine into the talk page and was crucified for it. It is similar to yours.) When the reader gets to the Reactions section, they finally read POVs on both sides. They read what other people think. As they read them, they decide, "I agree with this reaction, I don't agree with this reaction." You do this too. But fortunately, until they read those reactions, they had none: The article had only been presenting neutral facts up until that time, and because that is all we had done, we had not told readers what other people think about the situation. We had not told them how to think.
- Now we have a proposal to introduce reactions sooner in the article, into the lede. That is allowable under WP:LEAD and therefore, I must agree with it. I agree that it is better to have the lede be a microcosm of the entire article. In the article, we tell readers what other people think at nearly the end of the article. My suggestion is: let the lede tell readers what other people think at nearly the end of the lede. Like the body, it gives readers a chance to read the neutral facts first. Then they read what other people think, and decide which ones they agree and disagree with, after reading the neutral facts first.
- It looks like I haven't even convinced you that what you wish to add has a POV in only one direction and is not a neutral fact, because you keep repeating how important it is (probably because you came up with it yourself). However I urge you to realize this reaction is POV, it is not neutral, and therefore, we're not making it the third sentence in the lede. We're making it one of the last sentences in the lede, and next to some other reactions, after the reader has had a chance to read a neutral introduction to the subject.
- It's a good suggestion and it makes sense. I hope we hear from some other editors. Prhartcom (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- "we don't tell readers what other people think"???? Not true. That's exactly what we do. At least you later walk back that statement: "In the article, we tell readers what other people think at nearly the end of the article."
- There is nothing in policy which dictates the order in which information is presented. I like to present it in the lead in the order it is found in the article. Yes, we often save the most controversial stuff for later in the article, except when the article is about a controversy. That's what we have here.
- You are once again reverting to personal attack behavior here: "you keep repeating how important it is (probably because you came up with it yourself)." I didn't "come up with it", I found the reference. By your reasoning, if you find a reference which sides with your POV, we should leave it out or deprecate it by tucking it away at the end. This cuts both ways, which is why it is forbidden behavior. It is expected that editors find sourcing, and it's natural that they would be more familiar with sources which share their POV. That's perfectly okay, and is a good thing. That's why NPOV content is best developed when editors with opposing POV collaborate. If you want to cut the other side out of the process, you'll end up with a censored article. Keep in mind I am not objecting to sources which you find which support your POV. I know how to write for the opponent and support it, unlike you are doing right now. It's essential to the process, so stop hindering it.
- Otherwise I'm fine with including this quote and type of content at the end of the lead. I can compromise. We are currently in violation of LEAD by leaving it out, so please go ahead and develop such content. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 15:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- BullRangifer, we have the same POV, you know. It doesn't matter that we do, because we write neutrally, but I just want you to know that as an FYI, I agree with you. I have simply been defending the article from editors who try to inject their POV at the top of the article. But I am happy to see that you and I agree now that this addition of yours should not go at the top as you had said, it should go at the bottom of the lede. Yes, give me some time and I will develop this content. Prhartcom (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- FYI: Your signature is messed up. It looks like templates can't be called from a signature. Prhartcom (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think the Mike Huckabee would be a contrast to the Roberta Kaplan. Sound OK? Prhartcom (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- As usual, you do good work! Definitely an improvement. I'm experimenting with the new signature. The idea is that a copy paste can be used as a ping. Try it and see if that works. --
{{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk}05:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- As usual, you do good work! Definitely an improvement. I'm experimenting with the new signature. The idea is that a copy paste can be used as a ping. Try it and see if that works. --
Trimming header farm
I have commented out the ArbCom warning tag and NotaForum warning tag, as things are well calmed down here. Should the Kim Davis situation flare back up again, they can easily be restored, but I think for clarity sake, we can dispense with at least a couple of headers from the large header farm. Safiel (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC) .
Guild copy edit request
I have submitted a humble request to the WP:GUILD of Copy editors for this article. In around a month, the article will have yet another improvement. Prhartcom (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Update: I am appreciative of the work of Guild editor Twofingered Typist of the Guild, who has completed their copy editing of this article. Their message to me and my reply to them is at my talk page: User talk:Prhartcom#Kim_Davis_(county_clerk). Prhartcom (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Kim Davis is one of 59 people IN THE WHOLE WORLD to be a Time Person of the Year nominee
For those of you who still think Kim Davis is not sufficiently notable to warrant having a dedicated biography on WP, how do you reconcile that with the fact that she is one out of only 59 nominees for Time's Person of the Year for 2015? Out of over 7 billion people on this planet, 59 have been chosen as nominees for the person who shaped the world more than anyone else, and Kim Davis was one of those 59. And yet she shouldn't have a biography on Wikipedia? Really? This is taking WP:1E and WP:PSEUDO way too far, folks. --В²C ☎ 17:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- 57 people, one group of people (refugees), and one horse. It's quite the list. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- slow news year I guess. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- This is probably big enough to reevaluate the consensus for one article, which doesn't seem to have been much of a consensus anyway. Since the article that we have now is mostly about the same-sex marriage controversy and just has some biographical tidbits tacked on, I'd suggest spinning those off into a new biography, but that's going to make the history messy. It would probably be better procedurally to spin off the controversy to a separate article, even though that was already tried and eventually reverted. What do others think? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a biography article that is dominated by material about whatever the subject is most notable. Almost any bio about an athlete is like that, for example. So, I see no reason to WP:SPLIT the current article. There is room for improvement in the content, of course, but the person and the events for which she is famous are too closely tied together to warrant separating, IMHO. That is, too few people (if any) would be interested in her but not the events, or vice versa. The only problem is the title - it should not be disambiguated. --В²C ☎ 21:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Davis is notable all right, but only for the one event. Prhartcom (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- What's wrong with it is that the current "biography" only includes details about the controversy she was involved in, and she hasn't done anything else that we would write about otherwise. The tacked-on biographical info has no bearing on the controversy at all and is completely irrelevant to it. As far as the inclusion standards are concerned, she didn't exist at all right up to the point where she decided to stick her nose into the wrong side of a civil rights issue; what she did before that isn't important at all, and the only thing she's done since then is just this one thing. Athletes, on the other hand, have pursued their craft deliberately and for a significant time, and they are notable for excellence in their fields. The intricate details of how they pursued their sport, often from a very young age, are absolutely relevant to their biography. When athletes get involved in controversies we write about the controversy separately to protect the balance of the biography, and also to protect the integrity of the event article. For example, our article on Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation doesn't start with a description of Michael Vick's playing career, nor does the O. J. Simpson murder case feature any of O. J. Simpson's acting career, nor do any of the three (at least) separate articles covering the Lance Armstrong doping case cover his life in any kind of detail. Davis is not a special case from any of these individuals - the article on her controversy should not be littered with irrelevant details about her life. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, you contradict yourself. First you say the article "only includes details about the controversy she was involved in", then you immediately refer to "tacked-on biographical info" (those are details that are NOT about the controversy she was involved in).
More importantly, you are holding this biography to standards to which no other biography is held. We have countless biographies with even less "tacked-on biographical info" than this one, but you don't insist they not exist. Why are you picking on this one?
Prhartcom, it's not just one event. There are at least these events, all of which were covered separately in reliable sources:
- Becoming a county clerk
- The refusal to issue marriage licenses
- The court case
- The court ruling and aftermath
- Jailing
- Release
- The fiasco with the pope
- Nominee for Time's Person of the Year
- Besides, even if there was only one event, 1E clearly states: "...the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified".
Kim Davis was absolutely central to each of the events listed above, and the significance of most of the events was high enough to attract nationwide and even worldwide news coverage. The fact that the community has had trouble coming up with a good "event" title is because there is no one event: there is a series of events all of which concern Kim Davis. It only makes sense to make the article about her and her involvement in these events, just like the article is currently written, and title it accordingly, with her name, undisambiguated per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --В²C ☎ 02:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, you contradict yourself. First you say the article "only includes details about the controversy she was involved in", then you immediately refer to "tacked-on biographical info" (those are details that are NOT about the controversy she was involved in).
- What's wrong with it is that the current "biography" only includes details about the controversy she was involved in, and she hasn't done anything else that we would write about otherwise. The tacked-on biographical info has no bearing on the controversy at all and is completely irrelevant to it. As far as the inclusion standards are concerned, she didn't exist at all right up to the point where she decided to stick her nose into the wrong side of a civil rights issue; what she did before that isn't important at all, and the only thing she's done since then is just this one thing. Athletes, on the other hand, have pursued their craft deliberately and for a significant time, and they are notable for excellence in their fields. The intricate details of how they pursued their sport, often from a very young age, are absolutely relevant to their biography. When athletes get involved in controversies we write about the controversy separately to protect the balance of the biography, and also to protect the integrity of the event article. For example, our article on Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation doesn't start with a description of Michael Vick's playing career, nor does the O. J. Simpson murder case feature any of O. J. Simpson's acting career, nor do any of the three (at least) separate articles covering the Lance Armstrong doping case cover his life in any kind of detail. Davis is not a special case from any of these individuals - the article on her controversy should not be littered with irrelevant details about her life. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Davis is notable all right, but only for the one event. Prhartcom (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Precisely what is your point and purpose in starting this discussion section, Born2cycle? What do you hope to accomplish and how does this discussion contribute to the encyclopedia and improve the article? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have to agree. The only reason she's notable is the controversy, and that is the only reason she's considered for Time. The title is still a problem, because it does not describe the event, but only her name. If we were to agree to allow a stand alone biography, it should not be disambiguated, but simply be titled Kim Davis, and then split off 95% of the content into an event article which still uses her name in the title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- 100% agree. Well, I disagree on using her name in the title, but if it gets us past this endless naming dispute then I'm fine with it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have to agree. The only reason she's notable is the controversy, and that is the only reason she's considered for Time. The title is still a problem, because it does not describe the event, but only her name. If we were to agree to allow a stand alone biography, it should not be disambiguated, but simply be titled Kim Davis, and then split off 95% of the content into an event article which still uses her name in the title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a biography article that is dominated by material about whatever the subject is most notable. Almost any bio about an athlete is like that, for example. So, I see no reason to WP:SPLIT the current article. There is room for improvement in the content, of course, but the person and the events for which she is famous are too closely tied together to warrant separating, IMHO. That is, too few people (if any) would be interested in her but not the events, or vice versa. The only problem is the title - it should not be disambiguated. --В²C ☎ 21:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Winkelvi, to answer your valid question, Born2cycle's goal on Wikipedia is to rename mis-named articles (see User:Born2cycle#Great RM decisions of his).
Born2cycle, please listen carefully. This discussion that you are so adamant about having, which Winkelvi (probably wearily) wants to know why you're having it, has been discussed before by all of us (except you) in the archive pages long before you ever showed up. Seriously. You missed it. You're late to the party. We talked ourselves to death for weeks and when the dust settled, nothing was decided. The only thing we all accomplished was the realization that nothing would ever be accomplished: there was not going to be any consensus anytime soon—the article must stay one single article, structured and named the way it currently is. Meanwhile, some of us were trying to improve the article at the same time. Then you showed up, full of vim and vigor, clueless about those weeks of discussion, demanding to talk about it again. Dude, just read the archives. Ivanvector has spoken sensibly in the paragraph above (starting with "What's wrong with it ...") and so has BullRangifer. Even Jimbo Wales weighed in at one point (he agreed that Davis experienced only one event and that this article was only a pseudo-biography). Suggestion to you sir: Type in the article space instead of the article talk space and make this article even better for our readers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- <APPLAUSE!> Thank you for expressing so completely and succinctly what I, and no doubt others, are feeling and thinking, Prhartcom. You get the Thanksgiving Day Obvious Truth Award. In short: you rock! Gratefully, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Primary topic adjustment
I don't think there's any disagreement here that this controversy is currently or universally the primary topic for Kim Davis; that is to say that a reader who comes to Wikipedia and types "kim davis" into the search box is probably looking for the information in this article, and not one of the other Kims Davis. As such, it's standard practice (WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT) to move Kim Davis out to Kim Davis (disambiguation), and create a new redirect at Kim Davis targeting this article. That doesn't settle the naming dispute for this article, but it improves the situation overall.
I've been waiting on this for the latest move review to close, but that seems like it could still carry on for a while, and I'm going offline for a few days anyway so I'll just leave this here and you guys can talk amongst yourselves. Happy Thanksgiving! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Read section above on this same page: The result of the move request was: No consensus. And that's fine. Prhartcom (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Works for me. See you in a week. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- I concur with Ivanvector. Prhartcom, the move request decision above is a) still under review, and b) not the adjustment Ivanvector is suggesting. The RM was primarily about changing the title of this article; what Ivan is suggesting affects only the dab page (currently at Kim Davis). As such, it really should be formally proposed on the talk page there. --В²C ☎ 06:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Recent additions need to be edited down/removed
David Ermold himself, one of the first to be denied a marriage license by Davis, has added a paragraph to this article here, describing how he and his partner were denied their license as reported in a viral video at the time, providing a few inappropriate references such as YouTube video and primary sources. I will be editing this down, possibly removing it.
Unrelated, another new paragraph was added, a single sentence, stating that NPR listed Davis' visit with the pope as one of it's most read stories, including a reader's comment. This is trivia and is not needed in the article. I will be editing/removing this as well.
Comments would be appreciated below. Prhartcom (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Neutrality Dispute
Why does this article mention Kim Davis' marriage history outside of the section called 'personal life'. Since this is often quoted by liberals to minimize her religious beliefs, the inclusion in the introduction smacks of bias. Other Wikipedia articles do not state marriage history in the introduction and this should be no different. Recommend removal of the marriage history from the introduction (since it is not a substantive biographical introduction or a Neutrality Dispute tag should be placed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.152.172 (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- This passage in the article lead is factual, reliably sourced, and written in a neutral way. An article's lead is simply a summary of the article and of course would provide information from many sections of the article body by definition. I feel certain that many Wikipedia biographies mention their subject's marriage in their article lead. It stays. Prhartcom (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Kentucky Gov. Orders Clerks’ Names Removed From Marriage Licenses
These links might be useful references for this article: • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Pope Francis supports conscience objection
No matter what Pope Francis thinks of the Kim Davis question he openly supported the right to conscience objection. There seems to be an attempt to erase this from the article and to give it a bias. There are plenty of RS that show it. So, the John Allen quote makes all sense. This is one of the many RS about his support for conscience objection. [14]78.29.157.211 (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Of course the Pope supports conscientious objection, but that's a minor piece of information in relation to Kim Davis. That's why mainstream sources have really not said much about it.- MrX 23:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Father Federico Lombardi words don't mean that Pope Francis didn't knew who was Kim Davis, her case or gave her words of encouragement. The question is that it is uncertain if she had the right to act that way in regard to the "right to consciencious objection", that was granted afterwards by the new Republican Governor, Matt Bevin, who supported her case. No, its not a minor piece of information. Its liberal media who tended to minimize it, and liberal media in the United States, like one of the sources given, the Los Angeles Times, criticized a lot Pope Francis for his meeting with Kim Davis. You simply are following a liberal bias to downplay the meaning of the meeting.78.29.157.211 (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 21 October 2015
Bumping thread. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 9 November 2015. The result of the move review was closure endorsed. |
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus - after 6 days of inactivity on this discussion and a clear division in application of policy, there is no indication we'll be able to find consensus any time soon on this issue. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There are two other uses of Kim Davis on Wikipedia.
- Kim Davis (Canadian singer) is typically viewed under 200 times per month. 121 in June, 164 in July, 165 in August
- Kim Davis (ice hockey) is visited even less often - about once per month until this Kim Davis, the county clerk, hit the news 1 in August 241 in September.
There is no comparison. This Kim Davis article got over 300,000 views in September, and thus clearly meets the PRIMARYTOPIC criteria: "highly likely — much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined — to be the topic sought when a reader searches for" Kim Davis. Granted the number of views are likely to subside in the future, but we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL, neither of the other uses has ever come close to this amount of notoriety, and the criteria is likely to apply for a long time into the future, if not forever. There is certainly no justification for disambiguating this title at this time. Some may argue that the parenthetic description is necessary for WP:PRECISION, but, again, this is exactly the type of situation where PRIMARYTOPIC applies. В²C ☎ 20:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Updated to be a multi-move to reflect move of dab page too В²C ☎ 23:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support per request. I agree there's no question about this subject's international notoriety. This is the Kim Davis now. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- oppose as this is still a WP:PSEUDObiography of a controversy masquerading as a "biography" and the primary topic is still the controversy, not the person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- TRPoD, I totally understand and share your POV on this mess, but try to focus on the issue at hand. The current title is clumsy and unnecessary. She is the primary Kim Davis and we should simplify the title. That's the ONLY issue in this RfC, so please !vote on that issue. Anyone closing this would be justified in discounting your !vote, so please change it or provide a better reason. --
{{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk}15:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- TRPoD, I totally understand and share your POV on this mess, but try to focus on the issue at hand. The current title is clumsy and unnecessary. She is the primary Kim Davis and we should simplify the title. That's the ONLY issue in this RfC, so please !vote on that issue. Anyone closing this would be justified in discounting your !vote, so please change it or provide a better reason. --
- Strong oppose per TheRedPenOfDoom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- TheRedPenOfDoom and Winkelvi, after multiple AfDs and RM failures, that ship has sailed. Per WP:CONSENSUS developed at those discussions, this is a bonafide biography article, and, if I may add, far more encyclopedic than many, many other biography articles on WP, including the two other Kim Davises I listed in the nom. --В²C ☎ 21:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- read the close. there was no consensus to remain here, it is just here by default. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Two wiki-wide AfD's were snow keep's. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- your tendentious misrepresentation of the AfD is getting more than a little old. "The result was Snow keep, please request moves at WP:RM not WP:AFD" and "The result was Procedural close as merge We have an RfC recently closed as supporting one single article, the content of this, Kim Davis (county clerk) and Miller v. Davis need to be merged to a single article and an appropriate title chosen". per the close of the AfDs, the content is appropriate, but under what name is under discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I just stated a fact. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- no, you stated a partial fact, omitting critical context, that you were well aware of given that your similar misrepresentation in the previous move discussion was pointed out to you then, as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think we can all agree that there there is no consensus for NOT having a Kim Davis biography. And, there is no consensus to change the title to reflect the event one way or another. So we're stuck with the status quo, which is a disambiguated biographical title. Therefore, the question before us is only whether we should retain the current title with the parenthetical disambiguation, or move it as proposed to remove the disambiguation. Either title is consistent with a biography title. The only question is about the disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 01:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- WV, I totally understand and share your POV on this mess, but try to focus on the issue at hand. The current title is clumsy and unnecessary. She is the primary Kim Davis and we should simplify the title. That's the ONLY issue in this RfC, so please !vote on that issue. Anyone closing this would be justified in discounting your !vote, so please change it or provide a better reason. --
{{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk}15:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- WV, I totally understand and share your POV on this mess, but try to focus on the issue at hand. The current title is clumsy and unnecessary. She is the primary Kim Davis and we should simplify the title. That's the ONLY issue in this RfC, so please !vote on that issue. Anyone closing this would be justified in discounting your !vote, so please change it or provide a better reason. --
- I think we can all agree that there there is no consensus for NOT having a Kim Davis biography. And, there is no consensus to change the title to reflect the event one way or another. So we're stuck with the status quo, which is a disambiguated biographical title. Therefore, the question before us is only whether we should retain the current title with the parenthetical disambiguation, or move it as proposed to remove the disambiguation. Either title is consistent with a biography title. The only question is about the disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 01:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- no, you stated a partial fact, omitting critical context, that you were well aware of given that your similar misrepresentation in the previous move discussion was pointed out to you then, as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I just stated a fact. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- your tendentious misrepresentation of the AfD is getting more than a little old. "The result was Snow keep, please request moves at WP:RM not WP:AFD" and "The result was Procedural close as merge We have an RfC recently closed as supporting one single article, the content of this, Kim Davis (county clerk) and Miller v. Davis need to be merged to a single article and an appropriate title chosen". per the close of the AfDs, the content is appropriate, but under what name is under discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Two wiki-wide AfD's were snow keep's. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- read the close. there was no consensus to remain here, it is just here by default. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- TheRedPenOfDoom and Winkelvi, after multiple AfDs and RM failures, that ship has sailed. Per WP:CONSENSUS developed at those discussions, this is a bonafide biography article, and, if I may add, far more encyclopedic than many, many other biography articles on WP, including the two other Kim Davises I listed in the nom. --В²C ☎ 21:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
BullRangifer, it is really inappropriate for you to tell editors who have !voted the way they see fit to change their !vote, or their opinion will be discounted. How is it you have a way of seeing into the mind(s) of the individual who ends up closing this RfC? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment To be a little magnanimous here, it's possibly too soon after other battles, with the nerves of many rubbed raw. Having a healthy delay before this request might have been the best idea. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Understood, and I considered that, but WP is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Let's treat it, and each other, accordingly. In other words, let's focus on the merits or problems with this proposal. --В²C ☎ 21:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hear, hear. We shouldn't use this discussion as a platform for re-arguing whether the article should be deleted or whether it should become a controversy article. The question is, does making this the page that readers land on when searching for our Kim Davis improve the encyclopedia, or not.- MrX 21:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedians are human beings, and whether or not the wiki-legalisms fit, there have been emotionally scarring battles-a-plenty here. It would have been within reason to wait a while, especially because there's no discernible damage from retaining the current name for a while. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Understood, and I considered that, but WP is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Let's treat it, and each other, accordingly. In other words, let's focus on the merits or problems with this proposal. --В²C ☎ 21:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Most Supreme Support™ per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the data presented by nominator. Not only have our readers indicated that they continue to seek this biography, but there are strong indications that Kim Davis has already left a small, but lasting, impression in the historical record. - MrX 21:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Please note that this is a malformed multimove request, as the suggested destination name is already occupied. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Fixed. --В²C ☎ 23:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support, as nom. Opposition based on WP:PSEUDO is irrelevant here, as the biographical nature of this article would not be affected in the slightest by this proposed move, and repeated discussions have shown there is no consensus to delete or transform this article content or title based on PSEUDO anyway. With respect to the title, then, we have the quintessential PRIMARYTOPIC situation. --В²C ☎ 05:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support. She is obviously the most notable Kim Davis. --
{{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk}06:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC) - Support, clearly the primary topic. Even if there were only an article on the controversy, "Kim Davis" should redirect to it with a hatnote to the dab page. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose basically per TRPoD. A biography on Kim Davis the county clerk should be the primary topic for Kim Davis, but this article is still not a biography on Kim Davis, it's an event article about a controversy she was involved in. It should be either fundamentally rewritten or appropriately renamed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, I totally understand and share your POV on this mess, but try to focus on the issue at hand. The current title is clumsy and unnecessary. She is the primary Kim Davis and we should simplify the title. That's the ONLY issue in this RfC, so please !vote on that issue. Anyone closing this would be justified in discounting your !vote, so please change it or provide a better reason. --
{{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk}15:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- @BullRangifer: there is no need whatsoever for you to post this same notice after everyone who writes an opposition to this move request; your badgering is not helpful to the discussion at all. I understand very well what the proposal here is, I assume that everyone else who's commenting here does as well, and I trust that any neutral closer will read what I wrote and understand my point; I really could not have given it more clearly. As such, I have no further elaboration to give. Thank you. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that in order for the proposed title (undisambiguated Kim Davis) to be appropriate for this article, then the article must first be "fundamentally rewritten" (to be more of a biography than an event article). I disagree with you about this article not being biographical as it is (it just happens to also cover the event for which she is most notable, which is not unusual and certainly not inappropriate for WP biographies, but I digress), though of course there is room for improvement (but that's par for the WP article course). That disagreement aside, doesn't your objection apply to the current (disambiguated) title just as much as to the proposed (undisambiguated) title? After all, the disambiguation is typical biographical disambiguation - noting the subject's occupation - and has nothing to do with the event. So while your objection is clearly stated, its applicability to this proposal is not. At least not to me. Are you simply trying to hold the current title hostage, so to speak, even though you recognize its incongruity with PRIMARYTOPIC, to inspire (shall we say) the building of consensus to change the content? In general do you support moratoriums on title changes when one dislikes article content? Is there any policy basis for such a practice? Perhaps you could expound on that? --В²C ☎ 16:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Happily. Regarding my objection, yes it does apply equally to the current title; I had expressed that in a now-archived thread. I don't at the moment support a moratorium on anything, for Wikipedia is nothing without discussion and continuous improvement. What I continue to support is that per WP:TITLE a page's title should as precisely as necessary (but no more precisely) describe its content. To extend that, I see no reason why this article should be preemptively titled according to what its content should be when its current content is a (slightly) different encyclopedic topic. So my argument is twofold: 1) if this is a biographical article about county clerk Kim Davis, who I agree is the most notable of the Kim Davises we have articles about, then its title should be Kim Davis; concurrently 2) if this is an article about a notable event which involved this person (no matter how primarily) then its title should be one which describes the event. At the moment I believe 2 is much more true than 1, thus my !vote above. Does this help? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- @BullRangifer: there is no need whatsoever for you to post this same notice after everyone who writes an opposition to this move request; your badgering is not helpful to the discussion at all. I understand very well what the proposal here is, I assume that everyone else who's commenting here does as well, and I trust that any neutral closer will read what I wrote and understand my point; I really could not have given it more clearly. As such, I have no further elaboration to give. Thank you. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, I totally understand and share your POV on this mess, but try to focus on the issue at hand. The current title is clumsy and unnecessary. She is the primary Kim Davis and we should simplify the title. That's the ONLY issue in this RfC, so please !vote on that issue. Anyone closing this would be justified in discounting your !vote, so please change it or provide a better reason. --
- Support, per primary topic. Yesterday when I saw this proposal, I went into the Kim Davis disambiguation page and improved it; take a look. Unrelated side note: I don't think we're ever going to resolve whether this should be titled as a biography or as an event; the last discussion closed as no consensus. Anyone objective should be able to see that this article has a little of both, and that's fine. Anyway, her controversy is dying down and this is a harmless improvement. Prhartcom (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
*Oppose, now drop the stick — This situation on Wikipedia is just getting childish. We already just finished a RM discussion, and now we are opening another one? Can't we just drop the stick and do something more productive than fight over the name of the article? I am new here, so please excuse me for sounding rude, but I think there is bigger issues we face here on Wikipedia. I oppose moving this page per TheRedPenOfDoom. Thank ya'all. IntelligenceAgent (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Some of us are trying to align the title of this article with policy (specifically WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). We are not fighting. We have no sticks. If anyone is fighting, it is those who oppose this effort, with arguments that are not even relevant to this proposal. --В²C ☎ 23:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Strong oppose WP:RECENTISM this is verging on being still being news. We should wait to see what kind of long term popularity she has, since you're basing it on accesses. So, wait a year or two. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- 70.51.44.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the subject of this article is clearly the primary topic today. It certainly can be revisited in two years, but why wait two years before remedying an obvious problem today, especially given the very low notability of the other uses of "Kim Davis" making it highly unlikely that she will no longer be the primary topic ten, let alone two, years from now? --В²C ☎ 17:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This nomination is based solely on accesses, which is a RECENTISM issue. Waiting a year, or two, will see if there is any enduring access-levels. In a year, we can also more rationally analyze whether this is a WP:BLP1E person, since it will no longer be a news event. We don't flip-flop articles around based on temporal spikes in activity in other article names, so I don't see why we should start here. It's just like when new movie releases happen and people want to move the new movie to the base name. We should wait and see if the temporary spike in activity leads to a permanently higher level of activity. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- 70.51.44.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the subject of this article is clearly the primary topic today. It certainly can be revisited in two years, but why wait two years before remedying an obvious problem today, especially given the very low notability of the other uses of "Kim Davis" making it highly unlikely that she will no longer be the primary topic ten, let alone two, years from now? --В²C ☎ 17:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose basically per the IP above. The 300k figures have already dropped off sharply - in the past 30 days, this article has been viewed around 136k times, and has since flatlined under 2k views per day. Sure, that's still significantly more than the other two, but let's see if page views are still even that high in 6 months. Let's not play musical chairs with article titles, please. Parsecboy (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
::Thank you for your common sense Parsecboy. IntelligenceAgent (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Common sense would suggest we look at not only views (where this Kim Davis continues to beat the others), but also media coverage differences between the Kim Davis's. Have the others ever gotten the kind of heavy international coverage this Kim Davis has received? Highly unlikely. Do others have a chance of ever coming close to the coverage this Kim Davis has received? We don't know, but it doesn't seem likely. It's not the worst thing in the world to wait before renaming this article (one could even call this RM kind of a trivial pursuit), but I think common sense suggests it will be very difficult for another Kim Davis to reach this level of fame/infamy. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- You're looking at it the wrong way, Stevie - the question is not whether the other Kim Davises will rise to the level of this one, but whether this Kim Davis will recede back into obscurity. I would argue that is essentially a certainty. The news cycle has already moved on and people have lost interest, and page views are already reflecting that. Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Common sense would suggest we look at not only views (where this Kim Davis continues to beat the others), but also media coverage differences between the Kim Davis's. Have the others ever gotten the kind of heavy international coverage this Kim Davis has received? Highly unlikely. Do others have a chance of ever coming close to the coverage this Kim Davis has received? We don't know, but it doesn't seem likely. It's not the worst thing in the world to wait before renaming this article (one could even call this RM kind of a trivial pursuit), but I think common sense suggests it will be very difficult for another Kim Davis to reach this level of fame/infamy. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Parsecboy, are you seriously suggesting that it's likely that this Kim Davis will no longer be "highly likely — much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined — ... the topic sought when a reader searches for [Kim Davis]" in six months? --В²C ☎ 17:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. The media cycle has already moved on, and barring any further incident (which appears unlikely at this point), I doubt many people at all will be typing "Kim Davis" into the search bar. As I said, page views have fallen off a cliff, and will only continue to decline precipitously. Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- This statement is absolutely correct. I have stated many times on these pages that the controversy is over and it won't be long now before Kim Davis is as forgotten as Joe the Plumber (about 200 page views per day). I still support the rename per primary topic and because it doesn't do any harm; I'm proud of the article; but let's hear no statements about how wonderfully popular this Kim Davis is. Prhartcom (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Even though I am happy to state that the two editors above are correct when they inform us that Davis' future popularity looks bleak, their popularity argument missed something: Davis' future bleak popularity is still likely to be more than the popularity of the other Kim Davis'. Those others each have daily page views of approximately 20, whereas this one will probably drop to around 200, so "that's still significantly more than the other two" and even the other seven; this one is likely to remain at least ten times more popular and be the primary topic for the foreseeable future. Couple that with the lack of harm this rename would do (there will still be a disambiguation page and it will be linked from a hatnote at the top of this article) and you have no good reason to object to this, certainly not for the reason they give. No, we're not going to "wait and year or two" and we're not "playing musical chairs", we are being reasonable, logical, and sensible. Prhartcom (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly. Not to mention that Joe the Plumber did not have anything to do with any consequential legal issues. Kim Davis' actions clarified the meaning of a particular Supreme Court ruling. Finally, we're not supposed to speculate about what may or may not be primary topic in the future. --В²C ☎ 22:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. The media cycle has already moved on, and barring any further incident (which appears unlikely at this point), I doubt many people at all will be typing "Kim Davis" into the search bar. As I said, page views have fallen off a cliff, and will only continue to decline precipitously. Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Archiving
@Safiel: I noticed that you removed the bump code but only just now after I restored it. Oops. As long as the move review drags on I think it would be best to leave the discussion here. However if you think or if everyone thinks that it's better off in the archive then please feel free to revert me, but then I suggest that the banner link up top be corrected to point to the archive. Cheers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: Sorry. I really just finally got disgusted with the whole thing. This has been dragging on for a month just in move review and months before that. I finally just accepted the truth that we will NEVER, NEVER, EVER reach a consensus on anything, even if we prattle on about it to the very end of time. Maybe things are as they should be, or maybe they are wrong, but time to drop it for at least a few months and move on to new battles. I won't revert, but I am washing my hands of this whole thing. Safiel (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- People are still reviewing this in detail from the MR, and it would be a hassle to have to dig it out of the archives. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Move review?
Bumping thread. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Closing as WP:RM is now underway at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2015_November. That eliminates any further need for this discussion. Safiel (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Puzzled by the RM closing above, I left an inquiry on the closer's page[15], but there has been no response. I know of no policy that allows ignoring WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because that determination might change in the future, especially when all the other uses of the name in question are so obscure, no such policy was cited by those in opposition, and yet the closer claims "a clear division in application of policy".
Puzzling closing explanation by a non-admin closer, and no response to inquiry about their reasoning. Anyone else think this should go to move review? --В²C ☎ 17:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- It seems as if the closer may have counted votes, or simply gave inappropriate weight to essay-based arguments like WP:PSEUDO and WP:RECENTISM. It's troubling that they have not responded to your inquiry on their talk page. As such, a move review would be a reasonable next step.- MrX 18:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Tiggerjay has been active since your message. Could be they just missed it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Since it was a close made by a non-responsive non-admin, perhaps we should ask an admin to revert the close (only admins are supposed to close non-obvious RMs) and let an admin close it? --В²C ☎ 00:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Closes are not supposed to be reverted just because a non-admin closed them. Tiggerjay hasn't been on since my ping above, but if you think it's been enough time to respond then the next step is move review. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've seen a number of RM closes reverted for that reason. The RM close instructions are clear that non-admins are supposed to close only if there is a clear presence or absence of consensus. While counting !votes arguably results in clear lack of consensus here, that's not how we determine consensus. By considering policy I think it's a classic situation that requires careful thought, precisely the kind of RM that non-admins are not supposed to close. The Move Review process is supposed to be about questioning the decision. Here we have a procedural issue. --В²C ☎ 02:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Born2cycle, let it go. The other discussion closed with no consensus also. That's just the way it has to be. And that's fine. Prhartcom (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, often they are reopened for just that reason, but WP:NAC specifically says not to do it. Anyway, I don't think you'll get the result you want at a move review, the discussion was pretty clearly no consensus and Tiggerjay was not involved. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's not about what result I or anyone else wants. When you say there was "clearly no consensus", do you mean by counting !votes? By trying to measure what result the participants wanted? This is the crux of the issue here. None of that should be relevant to determining WP:CONSENSUS, which is unfortunately but understandably often confused with the dictionary definition of "consensus". How does WP:CONSENSUS look when you weigh the arguments in terms of which are based on policy and which are not? That's all that should matter in an RM discussion evaluation. --В²C ☎ 17:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- What I mean by "clearly no consensus" is that there was no obvious prevailing opinion in support of the proposal among the involved editors, nor one opposed to it. I'll save my detailed analysis for the move review I think you're going to open regardless of what Tiggerjay or anyone else says here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree there was "no obvious prevailing opinion in support of the proposal among the involved editors, nor one opposed to it". But that's not how WP:CONSENSUS is supposed to be determined on Wikipedia. You're conflating determination of dictionary consensus with determination of WP:CONSENSUS. As did the closer, despite his reference to "a clear division in application of policy". I see no basis in policy on the opposition side, which is why I asked him to clarify. "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.". --В²C ☎ 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Look, I don't know what you want to hear here. I disagree with you. We disagree on how consensus is determined and we disagree on whether it was determined correctly in this case, and indeed we disagree on whether consensus developed here at all. We also disagree fundamentally on the original proposal, and even if you could convince me by continuing to flog this particular dead horse, there's nothing that either one of us could do about the issue, save for going to move review. Unless you want to take further action in the appropriate venue, this issue is settled. We both should have taken Prhartcom's advice a few lines up. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree with me all you want; I think we can agree that doesn't matter. The important issues here are much broader than this particular RM - how they happen to manifest themselves here is why we're talking about them here. First, there is the issue about how we determine titles. Now, there is the issue of how we determine consensus. What's more concerning is that you apparently disagree with Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining_consensus. True? --В²C ☎ 20:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't agree to that. (Kidding) - I can see from your user page that continuing to flog dead discussions until you achieve your desired result is your modus operandi. That said, I also see that you have a great deal of experience in the area of proper article titles, and tireless pursuit of perfection is not a terribly bad thing. I'm genuinely interested in your analysis of the closed discussion, since we seem to be on opposite sides of the issue here. Mine is below the outdent. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree with me all you want; I think we can agree that doesn't matter. The important issues here are much broader than this particular RM - how they happen to manifest themselves here is why we're talking about them here. First, there is the issue about how we determine titles. Now, there is the issue of how we determine consensus. What's more concerning is that you apparently disagree with Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining_consensus. True? --В²C ☎ 20:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Look, I don't know what you want to hear here. I disagree with you. We disagree on how consensus is determined and we disagree on whether it was determined correctly in this case, and indeed we disagree on whether consensus developed here at all. We also disagree fundamentally on the original proposal, and even if you could convince me by continuing to flog this particular dead horse, there's nothing that either one of us could do about the issue, save for going to move review. Unless you want to take further action in the appropriate venue, this issue is settled. We both should have taken Prhartcom's advice a few lines up. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree there was "no obvious prevailing opinion in support of the proposal among the involved editors, nor one opposed to it". But that's not how WP:CONSENSUS is supposed to be determined on Wikipedia. You're conflating determination of dictionary consensus with determination of WP:CONSENSUS. As did the closer, despite his reference to "a clear division in application of policy". I see no basis in policy on the opposition side, which is why I asked him to clarify. "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.". --В²C ☎ 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- What I mean by "clearly no consensus" is that there was no obvious prevailing opinion in support of the proposal among the involved editors, nor one opposed to it. I'll save my detailed analysis for the move review I think you're going to open regardless of what Tiggerjay or anyone else says here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's not about what result I or anyone else wants. When you say there was "clearly no consensus", do you mean by counting !votes? By trying to measure what result the participants wanted? This is the crux of the issue here. None of that should be relevant to determining WP:CONSENSUS, which is unfortunately but understandably often confused with the dictionary definition of "consensus". How does WP:CONSENSUS look when you weigh the arguments in terms of which are based on policy and which are not? That's all that should matter in an RM discussion evaluation. --В²C ☎ 17:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, often they are reopened for just that reason, but WP:NAC specifically says not to do it. Anyway, I don't think you'll get the result you want at a move review, the discussion was pretty clearly no consensus and Tiggerjay was not involved. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Born2cycle, let it go. The other discussion closed with no consensus also. That's just the way it has to be. And that's fine. Prhartcom (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've seen a number of RM closes reverted for that reason. The RM close instructions are clear that non-admins are supposed to close only if there is a clear presence or absence of consensus. While counting !votes arguably results in clear lack of consensus here, that's not how we determine consensus. By considering policy I think it's a classic situation that requires careful thought, precisely the kind of RM that non-admins are not supposed to close. The Move Review process is supposed to be about questioning the decision. Here we have a procedural issue. --В²C ☎ 02:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Closes are not supposed to be reverted just because a non-admin closed them. Tiggerjay hasn't been on since my ping above, but if you think it's been enough time to respond then the next step is move review. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- In my view, the major policy/guideline points that were debated are (1) whether this Kim Davis is the primary topic for Kim Davis (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and others), and (2) whether a biographical title is appropriate based on the article's content (WP:PSEUDO mostly). Others came up but did not influence the discussion. On (1), most editors agree that PRIMARYTOPIC is satisfied by the proposal. A small number of editors cited WP:RECENTISM in opposition, but this view did not gain much traction even among other editors opposed to the request. On (2), the opinions are more varied and less clear. Several editors opposed the request on the basis of the proposed title not supporting the content of the article (PSEUDO). A small number of supporters opined that page titles are not restricted by article content, while others insisted that this argument simply could not be considered, but neither group of supporters provided a policy-based rationale to support their position. Thus I conclude that there is consensus that Kim Davis the county clerk is the primary topic for "Kim Davis" (important), and simultaneously that there is no consensus that the article here should be titled "Kim Davis" (not a consensus that it shouldn't be, just no consensus overall). Taking into account that several previous and recent move requests and other discussions have failed to reach consensus on a page title, this proposal to rename the article also failed for the same reason.
- Of course I'm very clearly involved, so I'm interested in your analysis. If anything develops out of this, we can cart the whole thing over to move review. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- The major policy/guideline points that were debated are (1) whether this Kim Davis is the primary topic for Kim Davis (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and others), and (2) whether a biographical title is appropriate based on the article's content (WP:PSEUDO mostly). Others came up but did not influence the discussion. On (1), most editors agree that PRIMARYTOPIC is satisfied by the proposal. A small number of editors cited WP:RECENTISM in opposition, but this view did not gain much traction even among other editors opposed to the request. On (2), the opinions are more varied and less clear, but nobody made clear how this point was even relevant to the proposal, since a) the issue was raised previously and remains unresolved, and the WP:PSEUDO argument applies equally to the current title as it does to the proposed title. Thus I conclude that there is policy-based consensus that Kim Davis the county clerk is the primary topic for "Kim Davis" (important), and the article should be moved accordingly.
The point is: whether the article should have a biographical title or not is a separate question from what the title should be given that it is a biographical title. For better or for worse, the article currently has a biographical title. That ship has sailed, at least for the time being, per the previous discussions. So, given that the article is to have a biographical title, at least for now, the only question raised by this proposal is whether that biographical title should be Kim Davis or Kim Davis (county clerk). Given the consensus view that the subject of this article is the primary topic for Kim Davis, the article should be moved. --В²C ☎ 00:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- The major policy/guideline points that were debated are (1) whether this Kim Davis is the primary topic for Kim Davis (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and others), and (2) whether a biographical title is appropriate based on the article's content (WP:PSEUDO mostly). Others came up but did not influence the discussion. On (1), most editors agree that PRIMARYTOPIC is satisfied by the proposal. A small number of editors cited WP:RECENTISM in opposition, but this view did not gain much traction even among other editors opposed to the request. On (2), the opinions are more varied and less clear, but nobody made clear how this point was even relevant to the proposal, since a) the issue was raised previously and remains unresolved, and the WP:PSEUDO argument applies equally to the current title as it does to the proposed title. Thus I conclude that there is policy-based consensus that Kim Davis the county clerk is the primary topic for "Kim Davis" (important), and the article should be moved accordingly.
- Either go to WP:MR or do not. Do not imitate it here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Concur with SmokeyJoe Either go to WP:MR or drop the subject entirely. This discussion here is pointless. Safiel (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Concur. Use WP:MR, since the logical IAR would only cause more trouble. It's a clearly bad close. A simple count of !votes is wrong. If the oppose !votes had been analyzed, the closer would have seen that several of them should have been discounted and ignored before counting, since they were not addressing the actual request, but dealing with other unsettled matters which are unrelated to this needed name change. An experienced closer would not have allowed them to hold the process hostage, but that's what has happened. The other problem still needs to be settled, but in another venue/process. Improper closes have also caused problems with that issue. This is the disadvantage of allowing uninvolved people making such decisions. They don't understand the history of the issues and disputes. --
{{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk}02:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)- The point of this section was to see if there is consensus to go to WP:MR. Apparently, there is. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 16:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- MOVE REVIEW: Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2015_November
Done --В²C ☎ 20:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The 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.
Kim Davis (still) in the news
- Why was Kim Davis at the State of the Union address, Christian Science Monitor, 13 January 2016 --В²C ☎ 16:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Corrected link, the other was broken. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ohio Congressman Discovers That He Invited Kim Davis to Last Night’s SOTU New York magazine, January 13, 2016 -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Fawning over Kim Davis won’t win Evangelical hearts – or votes, Reuters, 19 January 2016. --В²C ☎ 00:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
COI editing
I have just added more documentation to the COI template above regarding the directly involved COI editors: David Ermold and David Moore (User:DavidErmold; this editor was contacted here) and James Yates and William Smith Jr. (User:Someoneyouarenot; this editor was never contacted). FYI, I'll be cutting some or much of this added information for the betterment of the article. Prhartcom (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Update: This editing is complete. Prhartcom (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)