Jump to content

Talk:Kim Davis/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Alteration of same-sex marriage licenses

BullRangifer (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, you're right, I had seen those and other reliable sources stating this also, and just didn't have the energy to expand the article yet again (I have done a lot of work on the current article). I was checking the article history and was disappointed that no one else had added it yet. Would you or anyone else like to add this? Prhartcom (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Spinoff title

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

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

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

Spinoff title survey

*2 - Kentucky, as Rowan County and Kim Davis are both too limiting. It started with her, and in Rowan County, but the controversy is spreading, and includes legal actions contemplated at the state level, both wrt Davis, and wrt changing the law. Evensteven (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Vote cancelled per comment below. Evensteven (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  • 1 or 2. Perhaps both? In fact this is already set up, so why not just use that?--Nosfartu (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • 3. I don't see how using only Kentucky in the title can be appropriate; that would be like calling an article about an earthquake in Los Angeles the California Earthquake - it's way too non-specific. Also, while Kim Davis is notable, the core of that notability rests with her powers as the county clerk of Rowan County. If another county clerk replaced her but acted in the same manner, the outcome would be exactly the same. At the end of the day this isn't really about Kim Davis, it's about her powers as the county clerk. Therefore my final vote is with: Rowan County same-sex marriage license controversy -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • 1. No split, just a new title: Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Our content is based on RS, and the title must describe the content of the article. These are the elements in all RS about this matter. Her name is indelibly connected with her objections to same-sex marriage, manifested in her refusal to issue licenses. This is the title we should use for the existing article, and there is no justification for a split at all. See my objections below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I have to object to this as out of scope. We already have a strong consensus for split, we're past that, and it would be counterproductive to rewind and revisit that. Even if we did, your opposition would only reduce the consensus from 90% to 81%, still a consensus, and we'd still be back here again. There is a need to prevent this from stalling again. I'm sorry you were busy elsewhere during the split vote (I did ping you 29 hours before we closed that), but as far as I can see your argument would not have swayed anyone anyway. If you don't change or strike this vote, I feel it should be ignored as it is not a vote about the title of the new article, which is the question presented in this section. If one voted for city councilman in a presidential election, their ballot would very likely be discarded. As for no justification for a split at all, the justification is found in WP:CONSENSUS, the overarching Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't doubt my !vote will be ignored, but I needed to voice my objection. Yes, consensus can ignore policy, but that dooms such content to future problems because many others will constantly notice that policy has been violated. I would hope that editors would reconsider actually going against policy and COMMONNAME. That's what's happening. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I realize that the consensus is against me and against policy. Don't worry; I won't be an edit warrior who creates problems, but I will voice my opinions when necessary.
    BTW, the Split discussion was only open for two days, exactly the days where I was out of cellphone and internet range. I can't add a comment to that closed discussion, so that's why I added it here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this argument of BullRangifer deserves attention. I don't care if it means re-opening consideration. Consensus can change, when it needs to. My own vote above (for "Kentucky") was based on recognition of an expanding scope of the controversy, and I raised the scope question again in the comments section. Scope has everything to do with COMMONNAME, and with this split. I have said repeatedly that freedom of religion enters the question, with direct ties to same-sex marriage. While Kim Davis' opinions about those are definitely not uniformly reflected in religious communities, the controversy she raised will not be contained within her scope forever. And it's not. On Tue, 15 Sep, the Oregonian reported (on its front page) that Marion County [Oregon] Circuit Judge Vance Day, based on religious convictions, has stopped doing weddings. Like it or not, Kentucky may not be a reasonable scope; the issue is wider. Does anyone here really think that an issue-based article, restricted only to Rowan County, Kentucky, has any hope of remaining notable on its own? Kim Davis will. But the issue is still the issue, and is not confined. What's the scope of the issue article supposed to be? So long as this article is tied to Kim Davis' name, it remains largely as it has been; but not otherwise. I agree with BullRangifer that shutting down discussion prematurely only means continued difficulty. Vote percentage is never adequate on its own. Evensteven (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The existing article survived an AfD. It is notable with its present scope, and that is what has been approved. Changing the scope is not justified. There are indeed meta issues involved, but they are other articles, most of which likely exist. Kim Davis might get mentioned in them, but that doesn't mean the scope here should change, or that existing content should be split off. There is no policy-based (which is not the same as consensus-based) justification for splitting off content from this article. Whatever deals with Kim Davis and her same-sex marriage license controversy is fair game, and certainly enough for a great article, so let's keep developing this article. I just don't see a need to change this article. It's a biography with primary weight on her same-sex marriage license controversy. That's the only thing that makes her notable enough for an article, and that's why that content should dominate the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Evensteven, I need to get an idea of your thinking about the potential scope you envision. The idea of larger issues has been mentioned by several. You are not the only one, but I'm addressing this to you. Please create an issues/scope list, possibly in a new section, starting with the biggest meta issue, and then narrowing it down and concluding with the smaller and notable controversy involving Kim Davis. Go ahead and number them. I'll propose some key words: same-sex marriage, religious liberty, religious persecution, United States, Kentucky, Rowan County, etc.. I think such a list will be a constructive exercise so we can actually see what's being proposed and envisioned. We need to know this before we consider titles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with BullRangifer: no split, just a new title: Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Davis herself is not notable enough to have her own article after a split; in fact I will be the first to nominate that article for deletion (and it will surely be deleted). I have lost faith in any editor who actually believes this article should not have the words "Kim Davis" in it's name. Prhartcom (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I've come to this point of view gradually, but this is exactly where I have been heading. (And title-wise, it's a shift on my part.) Kim Davis is notable because of the controversy, hence that's why there's an article about her. If this is not that article, what could be? If we have articles about issues and the controversies they engender, then what is it about geography that could restrict it to place as small as Rowan County, Kentucky? The legal aspects dealt with by Davis are sometimes state laws, but the issues and controversies setting the whole into motion are more about federal law. I can't see where a split-off topic is going except to a federal US level. Hence your comments about the change of scope seem right on the money to me, and the split doesn't work. Consider my vote above cancelled. More in the new suggested section to come. Evensteven (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I also wholeheartedly agree with BullRangifer and Evensteven, after a split Kim Davis would not be notable by herself apart from the controversy, do not split, just rename the article Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. This is the way this article should have been handled in the first place. I also agree with Prhartcom that a successful spinoff means the Kim Davis article should be deleted. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The discussion to split concluded several days ago with a clear consensus to do so. Also, it very improper to change not just the title, but the subject and scope, of a biography, to a controversy, which is what BullRangifer seems to wish to do. To do so would be tantamount to deleting the biography, which has to be done in accordance with the DELETION policy. Can you imagine the outcry if someone suggested changing Rosa Parks to Montgomery bus controversy? This horse has been beat to death. I think it's time to move on. - MrX 15:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • This biography has always been largely about the controversy. I seek no change in that regard, so your worries are unfounded. I only wish the title to accurately describe the existing scope and content. The scope and content remain the same. The title doesn't currently describe the content. This article has always been about the Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy.
    Her name must always remain in the title, but that's not enough, simply because Davis has no notability without the controversy. It was because of the inclusion of the controversy that the article survived the AfD. The weight must therefore always be on the controversy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • User:MrX, it's ironic that you use an example about Parks which describes EXACTLY what you've just done to Davis. You got rid of the article about Davis, and improperly moved copy and pasted content (you violated attribution and history by doing that) from here to an article about the controversy without her name. Now that article doesn't even have to mention her name at all. Parks article still exists because she was notable for her historic actions. Davis is also notable for this controversy, but without that content, her article must be deleted.
    The proposed name change would have still allowed this article to primarily be about the controversy. It was not necessary to split it. There was no policy-based reason for the split.
    An AfD approved of THIS article. This is a backdoor attempt to express dissatisfaction with that result and delete this article, because without that content it must be deleted. Kim Davis is not notable without that content. To respect that AfD result, the new article needs to be created at the right title, which is Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
BR, there was some sentiment for moving ahead with the split without consensus, but we started the vote in the spirit of cooperation and team play. We reached said consensus, easily. Now we're asking you for an equal measure of team play, and we're seeing none at all. That's all. Also, if you're going to throw out accusations of backdoor attempts, failing to put names on them does not mean they are not violations of WP:AGF. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
OMG! I am so sorry. I wrote based on incomplete information, and thus my comments aren't accurate. I'm being disturbed constantly and had to leave my PC without clearing this up before you both replied. Let me do that in a moment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

When I saw MrX's "done" above, I mistakenly assumed that he had actually moved all content (since that was the proposition under discussion) to the Kentucky article, but had forgotten to move this talk page. That's when I wrote my comment above. Then I checked and discovered he had only moved the Reactions part. He is perfectly welcome to use that content, with attribution, and that's what he did. My apologies.

What's happening there is something I have described elsewhere on this page as a good thing. As long as we can keep this article with all its content, there is no problem. Sorry about the mix-up. Now I have to run...again! -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I assumed it was an oversight, which is why I attempted to inject some humor..- MrX 16:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. So sorry for the screw up. (Also see my reply above in this same edit.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Spinoff title discussion

  • Comment - As stated above, I'm supportive of either Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy or Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. I don't really have a preference either way. Including the county's name, though, I think may be unhelpful as the average viewer searching for information probably won't recall the exact name but will recall that it relates to a Kim Davis, living in Kentucky. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    @CoffeeWithMarkets: Could you make an entry in the survey, for organization's sake? No problem with two choices, provided it's clear that you favor them equally. And there's no need for the entire title; as I said, we're assuming consensus for the rest at this point. Something like "1 or 2, equally" would work nicely. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Casey County's Casey Davis has also gotten quite a bit of press (including this recent NBC News report) over his refusal to issue SSM licenses. So, perhaps 'Kentucky' is the correct choice? After all, does the rest of the country know one of Kentucky's 120 counties from another, and is that detail really important? Just a thought. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    Also note that the controversy has embroiled state figures into it, thus arguably making it a state-level matter. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    That's a good point. I would actually be fine with Kentucky.- MrX 15:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    Not to mention that the Carter County Jail is involved in a significant way. Three counties. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment As one editor here who has expressed positions regarding the freedom of religion, I agree with the idea of this title survey to avoid the words "freedom of religion" in the title here, but only if that is the actual desire of the community wrt to defining the scope of the article. Gay marriage is one type of controversy which involves questions of freedom of religion, but it is not the only one to do so, so the scopes of the two kinds of controversy differ. If the article stays focused on gay marriage, it will nevertheless have to deal with freedom of religion to some extent. But if its scope includes all of freedom of religion, then it expands beyond what has heretofore been the limits that have been dealt with in the current article. So I've no opposition either way, but just want to be sure everyone is agreed on what they want the scope of the break-off article to be. It's the only way one can really be sure of a title anyway. Evensteven (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Why does a freedom of religion article need to change it's scope? Kim Davis Freedom of Religion Controversy would pertain solely to the issues covered in the biography - specifically does the government have the right to require a person with religious beliefs to act contrary to them? Judge Bunnings and the majority of the community appear to say yes, and Kim Davis went to jail because of this. A sizeable portion of the community is saying that's wrong etc. As regards the vote above - I'm abstaining, no good choices offered. 人族 (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    Blame me. I judged that the process was going nowhere fast, and that to make any progress we needed to simplify by excluding some minority views. Freedom of religion appeared to be one such view, and there have been compelling arguments made against it. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    Ok, I'll hold you responsible, but don't think there's reason to assign blame. Let me point out that while those who accept that there is a violation of freedom of religion involved here may be in a minority (I wouldn't like to guess what the percentage is though), I don't think that there are very many who would say that it hasn't been an issue. Most people would recognize how the issue has been raised and how it has driven Davis' actions, whether or not they agree. So the issue itself is not a majority/minority thing, it is more where people's views lie. And since different people say there is a violation (for different reasons of their own), and likewise those who say there is no violation say that for a variety of reasons, there are not just two sides to the issue, but a much more complex arrangement of perspectives. An article called "Kim Davis Freedom of Religion Controversy" would indeed have a scope much more like the current article, while "Kentucky Freedom of Religion Controversy" would have a wider one. Similarly, there might be difference in scope for articles similarly titled but with some form of "gay marriage" in place of "freedom of religion", yielding a different set of possibilities. To settle on a title, I think it is necessary to settle on the intended scope. Maybe they're one and the same discussion. Evensteven (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    The freedom of religion argument (as to title) has been made at length and does not have consensus. I believe WP:DROPTHESTICK applies at this point. We can't debate forever, and we have to be able to defer to a consensus that we strongly disagree with. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    I failed to notice that you already voted for 2, sorry. I was misled by a tl;dr about freedom of religion that was both pointless and out of scope in this context. I retract the drop the stick suggestion, but let's try to stay on topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    Ok, I'm not one to beat a dead horse. But in all honesty, I haven't noticed any strong consensus against the applicability of freedom of religion to the article's scope. And you may have noticed I'm not pushing for its inclusion in the title, just asking. Sorry if you consider my comments tl;dr, but I have always found that people who only want bullet items end up biting the bullet, because they don't understand what they think they do. But if I've offended you, or anyone here just by being too wordy, I offer my apologies, and I'll consider this my cue to sign off. Evensteven (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    Some of us have ADD or other issues, and tend to lose the ability to focus in something that long. It's not our fault, we can't help it (beyond meds, which only work for some), and it's not a question of laziness. Others aren't very good at condensing to the essentials, what you call bullet items, and that's not their fault, they can't help it either. I wasn't criticizing the tl;dr, only explaining my failure to read and understand all of it. So much for staying on topic, and that's my sin for the week. I think it was worth saying. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    Sure, no problem. And no offense taken here. Maybe I said it poorly, but I do understand the desire to move things along, and I think you're better at that than I am. I do find it hard to condense sometimes, but mostly because I tend to think wider a lot, and find bullet items can limit a person's understanding. But they do have their uses. Evensteven (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Spinoff ready to close?

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

No, we are not ready to close after such a short amount of time. Prhartcom (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • A close is not necessary. There's obvious consensus for a spinoff article and rough consensus for the title. Someone should just start copying the material to the current redirect. - MrX 10:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
It was the rough consensus I was referring to, hoping for clearer consensus. Prhartcom (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a big #Objection to FORK. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think someone should go ahead and start the new article as a draft, and, once we settle on the title, it can be moved over the appropriate redirect or simply copy-and-pasted into it, right? We know there will be a new article, that's already settled, so why let the title selection hold up that work? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
No. Instead, start a new discussion to rename the article to "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy". Prhartcom (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
And how long does such a discussion have to run before you and others are prepared to respect consensus and move on? That is not a rhetorical question, I'd actually like to receive a straight answer. It took ten editors six days to reach this point, not counting all the discussion that preceded the split vote, and now you propose to discard all that effort because you disagree with the result. At any time before the new article actually exists, must we stop, back up, and revisit the question once again if someone new shows up with a slightly different argument against it? Or even the same argument? I'm stopping short of calling this obstructionism, but it's certainly a classic illustration of why it takes so impossibly long to do anything around here. As long as progress is allowed to be stalled when anyone disagrees and says "consensus can change", very little progress will occur. But I'm tired of trying to help move this along, and it's time for me to back off. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Stick a fork in it. It's  Done. - MrX 13:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Objection to FORK

I'll have to admit I'm rather shocked at the proceedings above. I was gone a few days and came back to find radical violations of policy being proposed and nearly effectuated. Some of those titles shouldn't even be allowed on the table.

If a subject is NOT known primarily for controversy, then WP:WEIGHT dictates that a controversy should not be allowed to dominate their article, especially if it makes the article too long. It can then be spun off into a sub-article, much like what we've recently done with Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations.

OTOH, if a subject, like this one, is ONLY known for a controversy, then all that content should remain in their article. Creating a sub-article for the controversy is not a proper WP:SPINOFF, but WP:POVFORK an article without the controversy, which is not allowed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: The overall controversy is not a POV, so how could this be a POVFORK? We're not suggesting splitting only the freedom of religion POV, for example; that would presumably be in the new article but only a part of it, per WEIGHT. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Good point. POVFORK isn't the best title here and I'll revise it. My main point remains. We have no legitimate grounds to create a Kim Davis article without all this content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
We have a meta article Same-sex marriage in Kentucky. That article should cover, in general terms, the whole subject, but each individual who becomes notable for their role in these controversies should have their own article. Then the meta article would have a paragraph about each one, with a "main" link to the person's bio, where all the details related to that person's role would be found. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The objection should be noted in the discussions/!votes to split and decide what the new article should be named. At this time, the consensus is to split and we seem to have a rough consensus on what to name the new article. I thank you for your opinion, but I disagree because this controversy goes beyond this individual at this point, involving several other notable figures, and has become a state-level matter, but is also too large a topic for the more general Same-sex marriage in Kentucky. Kim Davis will remain notable enough for her own article for her major role in that controversy. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Moved to better spot. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Why non-compliance is so limited and not notable anywhere else...

It appears that Kim Davis' actions are even more notable than anyone could have imagined. I have found several articles describing the enormous press coverage as a "media circus". Why? Because her case is unique.

David Uberti, of the prestigious Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), makes these astute observations:

  • "Davis’ jailing made the Friday front pages of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, and Houston Chronicle, among others. BuzzFeed News has published 15 Davis-related posts this week, averaging three a day. Bloggers from sites such as the Huffington Post have pounced on Davis’ story like a cackle of hyenas zeroing in on the nearest scent of blood."
  • "As liberal Washington Post writer Greg Sargent astutely pointed out in a post Tuesday, “if anything, the more important story here is how little of this sort of resistance we’re seeing.” Sargent cited data from Freedom to Marry, a gay-rights advocacy group, which polled county and parish clerks on whether they were issuing same-sex marriage licenses in Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, and Texas: 826 of 841 were indeed following the new law as of Tuesday. In the seven other states where gay marriage had previously been illegal, Sargent writes, Freedom to Marry hadn’t learned of a single instance of noncompliance."

This explains why the Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy article, and a United States same-sex marriage license controversies article, should be pretty empty. The subject is only notable in connection with Kim Davis, so this article is the right one.

We did what we're supposed to do as Wikipedia editors; we noticed what was notable, and someone created an article with the content and scope to pass an AfD, even though this article has a less than ideal title. Titles are supposed to describe their content, and this one doesn't do it (yet). This content and scope are still the best solution, so don't tamper with it.

So we actually did hit the mother lode for this subject. Only one change is needed to end all the misery and wasted time on this page....change the title. It's really that simple! -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is why you seem to be using this page as your personal filibuster because a decision or two didn't go your way? If I didn't get that sense, I would engage some discussion within reason. Unfortunately, this seems all on the verge of carrying the "disruptive" label. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I support BullRangifer and their common sense reasoning. Prhartcom (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring over addition of Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy here

Until we get this finally settled, let's not edit war over inclusion of that article here. Right now it's listed in the See also section, so it's not being hidden. Other attempts have been made to even add it to weird places that weren't relevant. Be patient. If this gets settled soon, it may be included in relevant places.

Right now its very existence is dubious. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The wiki link to the controversy article has been reverted twice [1] [2]. The hatnote that I added has also been removed, in favor of a link near the bottom of the article in the See Also section. I'm at a loss as to why? Perhaps BullRangifer could explain.- MrX 22:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Keeping this in the existing section for it. You may not have noticed. Notice my edits and edit summaries. That should explain it. I actually restored the See also link. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, this was settled several days ago. Let's please give our readers a path to related content. I'm aware that you object to the spin-off article, but this is not the way to voice that objection. See also sections should only be used when there is not a natural fit for links elsewhere in an article. There is a very natural fit in the lead and in the hatnote. - MrX 22:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

MrX, that still does not justify edit warring. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't see the above comment before making another edit in your edit war, even though you were warned to follow BRD and only discuss. Please self-revert, or this can get ugly. There is no need for that. Any controversial edit should be approved here first. We're already semi-protected, and I won't hesitate to request full protection. Let's avoid that.

Keep in mind that the BRD cycle, even though it is not full policy, is a widely accepted method to avoid edit warring and enforce collaborative editing. The very first violation of BRD, such as BRR, is the first shot in an edit war, and admins have used exactly that evidence to determine who started an edit war and block accordingly, even before 3RR is reached. Even when another editor reverts an edit without invoking BRD, follow the cycle by discussion, not by trying to force your will, even if shared by a few other editors. Now stick to discussion. Even though we don't share the same opinion, let's do it agreeably and not edit war.

My reasoning for only allowing it in appropriate places, like See also (the other instances were clearly inappropriate spots, when one really examines them and reads the edit summaries for why they were deleted), is that this is still the de facto main article. The "Kentucky...." article is in limbo and considered dubious by several editors. Until we get this settled, the status quo and AfD consider this the main article, and wikilinks which challenge that status are not appropriate, only wikilinks which are supplemental or very clearly appropriate. If you find such places, I won't object, but run it by the talk page first. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The spin-off article is not "in limbo", nor is the lead or top of a relevant section an inappropriate place to put a wikilink. Consensus is found through editing, which occasionally includes reversion. BRD is a good principle, but so is respecting the edits of two other editors (versus your one; you) who favor including an accessible link to the spin-off article. I'm open to listening to your arguments about why we should not have a prominent link to Kentucky same-sex marriage controversy. Your argument so far seems to be that this is the main article, so let's try to prevent readers from finding the other article. Please let me know if that is not a reasonable paraphrasing of your comment "the status quo and AfD consider this the main article, and wikilinks which challenge that status are not appropriate". - MrX 22:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
MrX, no, that's not a good summary. That insinuation is debunked by the last part of my comment. The wikilink just needs to be in a more appropriate spot (not location-wise, but subject-wise). Wikilinking content about Kim Davis which leads people away from this article, when that content is already in this article, doesn't make any sense. Seriously, it's illogical. A wikilink needs to lead to an article with information found in that article, which is not found in this article. Find such a spot and I have no problem. I obviously didn't try to keep people from finding the other article, because I restored the link to the See also section. I'm also the one who originally placed it there.
I'll even give you an idea of how to do this; create short mention in this article about the other two clerks, using RS which mention them in conjunction with Kim Davis. (That way you avoid OR and off-topic accusations.) They have expressed their support of her, so that should be easy to do. Then wikilink that content to the "Kentucky...." article. That's a proper way to do it, because that article contains more information about them. Here they should only get passing mention, while there they should get even more mention than they currently enjoy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"Wikilinking content about Kim Davis which leads people away from this article, when that content is already in this article, doesn't make any sense." That's a dilemma that you, and to a lesser degree Prhartcom, created by reopening an already concluded discussion about splitting this article. It's compounded by then reopening a settled discussion about what to name the new article, which is further compounded by renaming the hypothetical single article that will exist if the current RfC determines that we should only have one article.
Now you seem to want to control all aspects of the content in this article because the split discussion didn't go your way. You started by objecting to the split, then reverting my initial edit to trim the article, then by objecting to my proposal to trim the article (which was supported by other edits, by the way). I believe that Mandruss raised a similar concern a few days ago. The bottom line is, consensus needs to respected until such time as a new consensus is reached. - MrX 03:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
MrX, we're still working on that. Your creation of the Kentucky...." article was based on CRYSTALBALL thinking. It really shouldn't have much content, since Kim Davis is practically the only focus of attention. That is what has created much of the problem, and any so-called "consensus" was based on flawed logic, misunderstandings of how titles are created, failure to understand how spin-offs/forks/splits work in this type of situation, all of which allowed you to create an article which should not exist, at least not as a duplication of this one. Any "consensus" with so many problems always falls apart. It gets challenged, and when the confusion is cleared up, people tend to change their minds and a new consensus forms which is better informed.
Decisions made on that basis are stable. No one wants content which is constantly attacked because it's an eyesore and a misfit, policy-wise. You should want content which is stable and enjoys the respect of other editors, even if it means changing your mind. You have already admitted you were wrong about the naming situation. There are many articles of the type like Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy.
Your wikilinking situation mentioned above is still illogical. Can't you see that? How about my proposed solution which would allow it? You need to respond to both points.
Only one change is needed to end all the misery and wasted time on this page....change the title. It's really that simple! -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I personally don't see a problem with linking to the event article, in fact it absolutely should be linked. We should have created the event article first, actually, and the biography article second. But anyway, if the event article gets renamed later as I (and some others) believe it should, we can always rename the link here too. Prhartcom (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Prhartcom, now you're confusing me. You seem to have changed position. What's to prevent the biography article from getting deleted? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Reliable sources. There are a few non-controversy sources (not many, but possibly enough). Prhartcom (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Much as it scares me every time I think it, the multiple reliable sources necessary to establish notability as frequently been in practice found to include as few as two. Under those circumstances, I think that there is a fairly good chance that at this point her notability might be for our minimum standards established. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sensing something akin to hostage-taking going on in this discussion, but I'll make a little constructive suggestion: Treat the controversy article as a "See also" somewhere rather than embedding it in the prose. Problem solved? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you and MrX, and anyone else with any POV, are welcome to comment. We are all editors at the same negotiation table and we AGF and remain civil, even when we disagree.
Your suggestion is novel. Do you have any examples for how this has ever been done? Also, what policies would back up such an idea? I'm willing to learn. Wikipedia is huge enough that I certainly don't know everything here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion is not novel -- it is old hat. See also's are commonplace throughout the Wikipedia. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I am obviously not referring to a normal See also directing to an existing article, but your novel suggestion that it be used in relation to a split/fork/spin-off. "See also" has never been in the class of those three things. It's for something else. That is what's novel about it. I have never seen that done for this type of situation.
I'm still eager to hear how this would work out in practice. Please describe it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, and I wouldn't want to do that. We have been talking about so many things on this page that it can get confusing, and maybe I'm confused. Help me here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
You can use one of a class of various See also-related templates, which include {{See also}}, {{Main}}, {{Further}}, etc. Nothing novel here -- these are used widely throughout the Wikipedia for purposes like this. If you recently joined Wikipedia, my apologies for not realizing that. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I thought you were referring to the See also section. Sorry about that. It's good we got that cleared up. Of course a See also type hatnote/template could be used, and normally would, if this article was in need of spinning-off content which created an undue weight problem. That's standard practice, and the situation at Bill Cosby demonstrates the exact method dictated by policy. Take a careful look at the hatnote in the Bill Cosby#Sexual assault allegations section, and then look at that spin-off subarticle. I just don't see it that way here, since her notability exists solely because of that content, and that's why I believe it should remain in this article. That content fulfills due weight by staying here.
If the "Kentucky..." article remains a generic controversy article with a larger scope than Kim Davis, there is justification for a link to it in the See also section here (which is why I did it in the first place). Also, as I've stated several times above, I have nothing against the inclusion of wikilinks to it in appropriate places. One illogical spot included Kim Davis in the wikilink and was about content which is in this article, but led away from this article. That made no sense and I reverted it. Another illogical spot was as a hatnote in an article about the Miller v. Davis ruling, right in the section about the ruling! It already had a hatnote to the main article. It made no sense to include a hatnote wikilink to the Kentucky article, which contained no more information, and was not about the ruling. Also, the See also link I had added was also deleted, and I restored it. Logical locations are okay, and I even suggested a great way to do it above ("create short mention in this article about the other two clerks, using RS which mention them in conjunction with Kim Davis."). I'm trying to help you, but within policy.
BTW, I've been here since about 2003, and finally registered in 2005, so we've both been here for some time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Why avoid mentioning Kim Davis' name in the title of an article about the controversy?

Some editors above have decided that, at all costs, the title about the controversy should definitely not include Kim Davis' name. I am at a loss why anyone would argue that. Please enlighten me below. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I wonder too. If the title doesn't have her name, then it's undue weight for the "Kentucky...." article to be nearly identical to this one in both scope and content. It seems to have a larger scope. If it doesn't, then it's superfluous and should be AfDed.
It's doubly curious since Kim Davis is the ONLY reason this controversy came to such national prominence. She is forever tied to this controversy. Until others make such a great media splash in RS, she is the defining name, and therefore it should remain in the title. Other articles with a greater scope can leave it out, but they are other articles and have no bearing on the content here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I am equally puzzled as to why some think it must be IN, name+event titles are not common and a redirect leads the reader to the correct page. Pincrete (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Pincrete, fair question. Davis' name should be IN the title because Davis is the entire controversy. She started it, perpetuated it, and ended it. She caused all of the misery and caused all of the joy. Every single thing that happened revolved around her. It is silly to imagine anyone who goes looking for the article would type "Kentucky..." even if it did redirect to the name it should have been given in the first place. Name+event titles are fairly common, right? That is, not just names of persons but names of whatever, person or thing, is commonly thought of whenever the controversy is mentioned. Prhartcom (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. I also answered above. Redirects can't substitute for the most accurate title. That title is reserved for the actual article. RS dictate the title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but the controversy is about the issuing of licenses for s-s marriages, regardless of how central she is. If you want an article about her, defend that article. Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
???? That's what we're doing here. You need to read this talk page and archives! All RS dictate that her name is connected to the controversy, so we can't ignore that fact. That would be a violation of NPOV. We cannot censor her name from the title when all RS include it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I thought the RfC was asking whether there should be 1 or 2 articles ie seperate person+event articles. My answer is the event is the controversy (with background about key players). No one outside US would even know where this event occurred from the suggested title.Pincrete (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we actually do have title guidelines for pseudobiographies. But, if we did, they would probably apply to articles where a given event or group of events is most commonly discussed in the context of a single individual, such as, for instance, Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. In such instances, I would think WP:COMMONNAME would indicate that the name of the principal party involved would be one of the things an interested editor would first search for, which indicates that it probably should be one of the things included in the title. Now, if, as I think possible, this issue becomes one which involved courts, and appeals, and attorneys, and all the other stuff that goes with such matters, then, maybe, if there are more people from Kentucky prominently involved, and if the state itself is more commonly mentioned in those discussions, a change to the article title would seem reasonable to me. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
John Carter, "if there are more people from Kentucky prominently involved," then the "Kentucky...." article is justified, but not as a duplication and substitute for the Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy article. As the Kentucky article exists right now, it should be deleted or seriously pared down, since a huge undue weight problem exists. It needs to focus on the controversy in Kentucky, per its title, not on Kim Davis. What the creator didn't determine first, was that such an article has very little basis for existence at present, since only two other county clerks have been involved (not involved in Kim Davis' case), and have not made any splash worth noticing in RS. They would not qualify for their own articles, but could be are mentioned as content in the "Kentucky" article, where only creation, not content, is governed by WP:N. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
As I'm sure you know, WP:BIO1E makes it clear that pseudo-biographies are a bad thing; not what we want; so there would no guideline for the use of it. Agreed that the name of the principal party involved would be what an interested editor would first search for and should be in the title. Prhartcom (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I screwed up. In this instance, I would better have said that the topic is an event in the life of, primarily, one individual noted for the event, like Kennedy's assassination, which is best known for the victim. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, John Carter is right; WP:COMMONNAME dictates that her name is in the title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME, might apply if we, and our readers, all lived in the US. A search on BBC shows many more hits for 'Kentucky' + gay marriage licence than for 'Kim Clark Davis' + same. The assumption that everyone knows (or will know in a year or two) the name of the person at the centre of this incident, is questionable - apart from all other considerations of defining the event solely in terms of a named individual. The event and issues will probably remain known long after the person's name has faded from memory. Pincrete (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Which is, to a degree, only relevant to the UK. I guess we might have to check Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the rest of the English speaking world as well, if we are to take that approach. Also, it would be useful to know just how many hits are produced there. Personally, I would tend to favor the dominant US usage, as this is, fundamentally, a story related to the law of that country, but if we were to take a truly global view we probably would want to have truly global results on which to base that. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
MOS:TIES it is truly irrelevant, and highly imperialistic to consider British usage, since this is a U.S. legal issue. Do we have to follow U.S. naming for UK issues next? Imagine the firestorm (easily seen at talk: yogurt). Exactly how does this affect UK law? Since when does the US constitution dictate UK legal practices? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
May be I'm confused, but what was the point of searching for 'Kim Clark' + gay marriage licence. Did you mean to search for 'Kim Davis' + gay marriage licence or 'Kim clerk' + gay marriage licence? Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, typo (here) 'Kim Davis' + gay marriage licence' was the search.Pincrete (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
It is neither 'irrelevant' nor 'imperialistic' to consider whether an article title will be capable of being understood outside the US. No one has suggested using non-US terminology, therefore 'usage' is an irrelevant term. I hope that article titles generally strive to be comprehensible to those outside the article 'subject area'. Of course you can ignore this and decide that recording a minor 'celebrity's' name is more important than recording the subject, btw the subject IS actually interesting to those of us from outside the US, interesting as a social and legal 'barometer', not interesting because of who is at the centre of the storm. Pincrete (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Met with Pope Francis

According to several news sources, such as CBS News, Kim Davis met with Pope Francis while he was in Washington. There is a lot disbelief over this, as Liberty Council stated there was a protest in Peru supporting her (which is false).--Cms13ca (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see more sources before we add this. I'm calling BS.- MrX 03:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
"According to several news sources" is inaccurate. CBS reported that her lawyer claimed she met with the Pope. CBS said they are unable to confirm the story. TFD (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
We definitely need good sources. If this is true, it would be reported in multiple RS. Since it was a "private" meeting, it may take time before that happens, so we can just wait. I do have a hard time believing Staver would fabricate such a story.
What is clear is that multiple RS do document the claim by Staver. What we need is secondary confirmation. Without that, we could only write that her lawyer made such a claim, and that's rather blah content. If it's true, then we have some real content. If it turns out to be a lie, then we also have some real content. Either way, we'll end up mentioning this. Let's wait to see what happens. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Seems the lawyer announcement is widely reported, more than that varies. Question would seem at least partly to be whether an article cite about Pope Francis should prefer a Catholic source or AP. Here are some sources:
* American Catholic saying true
* InsideVatican saying true
* CBS news saying likely true
* LA Times saying multiple reports
* NY Post/AP saying true and some context add
* Fox news saying lawyer reported
* USA today with some detail
p.s. A bit about the meeting just got added to the article by Mr. X, "It was reported that she met privately with Pope Francis during his U.S. visit in September 2015.[" cite to NY Times. Markbassett (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't add it, Fuzheado did. I moved it from the lead though, which is not where it belongs.- MrX 15:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as mentioned above, the claim is mentioned in many RS. Now what will happen with it? So far the Vatican will neither confirm nor deny it happened. The claim is that some pictures were taken, so that should be good confirmation when they are released.

We will mention this, but it's the type of confirmation which will determine how we mention it. This could also end up including the Pope's later comments which did not mention Davis, but mentioned people with conscientious objections. He could have been referring to her, but right now we have no confirmation of that connnection. Anyone who wants to start developing this content is certainly welcome to do so.

There are some good non-catholic sources to use, like NPR. American Catholic only cites Breitbart.com, and links to InsideVatican. I read their coverage, which substantially repeats what Staver said to CBS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Add New York Times to the sources confirming the meeting, with even a quote by Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi confirming the meeting. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Another quality source is USA Today's article, Vatical confirms pope met with Kim Davis: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/30/vatican-quiet-claim-pope-met-kim-davis/73078774/. I propose adjusting the current sentence about this significant event by removing the words, "It was reported that". Also, I recommend moving this event out of the Contempt of Court section and making it the fourth paragraph on the page. Some of everything (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I support removing "It was reported that" and strongly oppose moving any content about this blasé‚ private meeting to the lead. If his Holiness comments on it, then it's noteworthy. Otherwise, it's little more than trivia.- MrX 16:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The radio report I heard this morning indicated that the Pope urged her to stand up for her beliefs and gave her and her husband a pair of rosaries, which I am less than certain is something either would use. Having said that, if there are separate reports of presidential candidates and similar public figures urging her to stand up for her beliefs, and I remember some such, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to me to just include the pope in a short list of prominent public figures who have urged her to do so. John Carter (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Except that we dont know what the pope said. We know what she says the pope said. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Now the NYT having confirmed the visit with the Vatican says it took place, we do not have to qualify the meeting. But for what actually happened we only have the account of her lawyer, so we need to say according to him. (Lawyers represent clients and therefore have no special credibility.) I think the best way forward is to always report events as the media do. When they say "according to x", we should say that. When they report events as having happened, we should also say that. Of course what x says may turn out to be true, and the media are sometimes wrong on deciding events happened. But as a tertiary source, the article is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

While a meeting with Pope Francis is indeed a notable thing that's worth including in the article, I don't agree that it should be placed into the lead either. The whole point of a lead is to summarize the contents of an article, not pick out bits arbitrarily. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

An editor insists on inserting that no one in the press can decide what the meeting means. There is no need to report a nothing. I tried reverting the editor but the editor reverted my revert. As well, I removed the word "controversy", as it is not in the source, but the editor re-inserted the term again. Will another editor please step in. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed that sentence because it is trite. I also changed the last sentence of the paragraph to conform with the source. - MrX 14:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There being differing views is far different than there is no view of what it means. Plopping it in there without addressing the context and meanings is inappropriately implying a unanimity that doesnt exist. And the one thing that is unanimous in the coverage is that the non-announcement until after the pope has left the building does mean/and will be interpreted as meaning something. (and if it doesnt mean anything, then why are we including it at all?)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Bus stop has added a short sentence that I think may address some of these concerns.- MrX 15:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a brief observation on the RFC above

While RFC's generally run 30 days, I think it is pretty much apparent that there is no consensus, whether for one article vs two articles or if one article, include Davis's name vs not including the name. No consensus translates to the existing status quo which is currently two articles, this biography and the other incident article. Pretty much a given that this is the way it is going to stay as I don't see any consensus for anything else developing down the road. I will not close the RFC myself, but would have no problem if somebody else pulls the plug early. Safiel (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I very much agree. The sour grapes about the past editorial consensus to have two articles is something that I understand, and I suppose I can emphasize with since I don't like being on the losing side of a discussion either... but that doesn't justify pretending as if something different happened before than what actually occurred. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
An administrator will decide, as it has been listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Prhartcom (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but I still wish that the stick had been dropped before. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Did Kim Davis exploit the Pope?

An editor has entered non-neutral, clearly negatively slanted information (even the source is known to slant in one direction) and when reverted, their best argument was "gimme a break". I requested that the editor try again, entering the information neutrally. Another editor may wish to get involved at this point. Prhartcom (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't just say "gimme a break", and you know it. And I also made a concession to your WP:UNDUE concerns by leaving off the Peru rally fabrication, which you don't acknowledge here. I take serious exception to your claim that the information is "clearly negatively slanted". The sentence you keep reverting to says that Davis and her husband met privately with the Pope. The Vatican is now disputing that they had a private meeting, that makes it necessary to change that sentence to indicate that it is their words they said they met with the pope privately, rather than just stating a private meeting as a fact. And I challenge you to provide proof that the source is "known" to slant. It's a valid source that meets the requirements of WP:RS, so your objection to it is capricious. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we do need to clarify this content to provide the proper context, not just Staver's spin. The Holy See is apparently bit embarrassed now that they actually know who Kim Davis is.[3][4][5] Oops.- MrX 16:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Prhartcom's takes issue with me changing "Davis and her husband met privately with Pope Francis" to "Davis and her husband 'claimed to have met privately with Pope Francis." So I would ask Prhartcom, since this sentence must acknowledge that the claim that they met privately is in doubt, what word would he prefer be used instead of "claimed"? Alleged? "Stated that they met"? I don't care, just tell me which is most neutral, and I'm happy to put that back in. He also did not like my addition of "and clarifying that he met her briefly as part of a receiving line, not privately as she and her lawyer claimed". Again, would it help to replace "claimed" at the end with one of these words? Or should I just leave out "as she and her lawyer claimed" altogether? I don't think that's necessary, but I'm willing to compromise. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "privately" needs to be qualified based on current sources. Alternatively, we could simply remove the word privately.- MrX 17:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
It is interesting how this event unfolded and the deception of the Davis camp was revealed. Clearly more weight is due this event than any of us first suspected. MrX, as you were improving the sources in these two paragraphs, would you have any objections to my ensuring the first paragraph references sources from 9-30 (before the revelation) and the second paragraph references sources from 10-2 (after the revelation)? Prhartcom (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure that I follow you. I added some more recent sources to the first paragraph to support that the "meeting" was brief, that there were many other people present, and that they also received rosaries. We now have sources that have checked with their sources, so we no longer need to depend on the dubious account from Staver. What would be the purpose of "ensuring the first paragraph references sources from 9-30"? Remember, we should be writing from a historical perspective, so any errors in reporting that were corrected should generally be omitted and the article should simply reflect the correct information.- MrX 20:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about not explaining fully. I think I withdraw my idea, as the section looks great now. At first, I was wondering if the first paragraph could simply state that a meeting took place, citing the older sources (from 9-30), then the second paragraph could expand on this, stating the Vatican denials, that the meeting was not private, etc. citing the latter sources (from 10-2). That way, a progression could be experienced by the reader. Prhartcom (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, sounds good. While I have you, can I ask about the change you made to the cite templates? I certainly endorse the last1, first1 changes as an improvement, but my understanding has been that any source on the web (including news sources) were supposed to use the "cite web" template, and only print sources like newspapers were supposed to use "cite news". Have I been doing it wrong all this time, and is so, is there a guideline that explains the correct usage?- MrX 21:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe {{cite news}} is "to create citations for news articles in print, video, audio or web" and {{cite web}} is "to create citations for web sources that are not characterized by another template". So the first one is for all news sources and the second one is for web sources that are not news. If I'm misreading this then please let me know. Prhartcom (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense. I used the news template in the past, but someone told me that I should use the web template for anything appearing on the web. It seems they were mistaken, and I erred by accepting their advice without verifying its accuracy.- MrX 22:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of citation templates, why worry about it, when an all-purpose template will do the job? This is a basic citation template I like to use:
<ref name= >{{Citation | last = | first = | author-link = | last2 = | first2 = | author2-link = |date= |title= |publisher= |url= |accessdate= }}</ref>
That template has many parameters which can be used. This version has enough for nearly all uses, other than scientific research papers. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all I must say that the section looks great and is properly sourced. Kudos to all who have built that content! (Now comes the "but" ...) While the second paragraph does debunk some false impressions given by the Davis camp, the first paragraph fails to debunk false claims and exaggerations which were widely reported in RS.

Above MrX wrote something that caught my eye:

"...so we no longer need to depend on the dubious account from Staver. What would be the purpose of "ensuring the first paragraph references sources from 9-30"? Remember, we should be writing from a historical perspective, so any errors in reporting that were corrected should generally be omitted and the article should simply reflect the correct information."

That's a problematic approach, because we don't allow later clarifying events to bury actual deception. If deception occurred, then we are duty bound to document it and use the later clarifying events to document the nature of the deception. Davis' lawyer Mat Staver made clear statements, confirmed by Davis, which have been shown to be false. The Vatican specifically denies them. In a case like this it is justified to use words like "claimed", because that is the most accurate word to use.

I believe Prhartcom touched on this concern, especially with the title of this section, and he has a point. We should revisit that content and add such clarifying details, because it has become clear that she has exploited and exaggerated this meeting with the Pope for her own advantage. The section must make this clear. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, thank-you for saying this, as I was also trying to say the same thing. Although the section is good the way it currently is, feel free to slightly improve it in the direction we are discussing, and if others object they can change it back or improve it further. From the first paragraph, I would: remove move mention of other people to the second paragraph, we already added mention of Davis' attorney, and change the sources to the ones dated 9-30. In the second paragraph, I would keep it the same except for moving in the mention of others and moving the 10-2 sources there. This will present the story to the reader in the way it unfolded. Prhartcom (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm certainly not suggesting that we hide any deception. If there is more relevant detail that can be added, then we should add it. I am opposed to a construct that presents two contradictory set of facts without proper context so that readers understand how they are related.- MrX 15:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
MrX, I understand and am not accusing you of anything wrong. It's just an unintended consequence of leaving out that information. There are facts, and then how those facts are presented. It's the misleadingly promotional presentation by Staver and Davis which was covered by the press, and we fail to document that very well. That's all.
BTW, my refactoring of the page, per WP:REFACTOR, a change which you mention in your edit summary, was intended to separate two totally different subjects so we'd have a cohesive flow here. Your edit summary stated: "It disrupts the flow of the discussion and is confusing." I would never do that. Actually, my change did exactly the opposite.
When a totally different subject gets interjected, it disrupts and confuses, so I was just placing like-with-like in a manner which prevented confusion, while still preserving the actual chronological flow for each topic. No one would have been confused by my change. REFACTOR allows for such changes. I guess you didn't realize that and undid my rearrangement. Now we (again) have the discussion of the subject of this thread being broken up by discussion of templates. Whatever. I have refactored the indents for the last part of this discussion to at least make a visual break between the topics. That should help to prevent confusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Refactoring sometimes works; in this case it didn't. It made it look like I traveled back in time to reply to a comment that you made, even though I was responding to Prhartcom.
WRT the content, what do you think is missing, or what do you propose?- MrX 16:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
We need to cover things in roughly this manner:
  1. The fact of the meeting, without any interpreting modifiers.
  2. The way Staver and Davis told about the meeting, and their claims that it showed that the Pope supported Davis' stance and actions in opposing same-sex marriage.
  3. The response by the Vatican, clarifying that the Pope's actions should not be interpreted as support of Davis situation.
  4. The numerous press commentaries about this faux pas by Staver and Davis included accusing them of exaggerating/lying or being caught in "the not-so-little-white-lie that blew up in Kim Davis's face".
  5. The press documented this mini-scandal and contrasted their en passant meeting with the previous and very special official meeting by the Pope with an openly same-sex couple, which was an action that demolished Davis' implication that the Pope supported her actions against same-sex marriage, when it actually tended in the opposite direction.
I think that's the basic outline to follow. If Staver and Davis had not presented the meeting in a misleading manner, none of this would have been commented, and we wouldn't write anything about it. They created a mini-scandal by placing the Pope in an awkward situation, which forced the Vatican to respond. Your thoughts would be appreciated. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
That seems reasonable and is more or less what I had in mind when I started to expand the material yesterday.- MrX 17:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This looks correct. Instead of "Staver" (not notable) please say "an attorney from Liberty Counsel" (the reader will better relate to this entity as it was previously introduced a few sections earlier). Of course just present the facts in the interesting order they appeared in the reliable sources and let readers draw their own conclusions. Prhartcom (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
We need to document her original claim, made through her lawyer (making clear he was acting for her), otherwise the section does not make sense. Meeting the Pope in a large meeting is no more significant than getting a celebrity's autograph. Also, the text says that the Pope gave her a two rosaries and told her to "stay strong," but all we have is her account and that should be clear. We can avoid judgmental words such as alleged by using "said." TFD (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Getting a papal rosary is the equivalent of receiving a business card. Nothing that special about them. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Two articles or one? (Or three?)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus appears to be for one article, but without prejudice to future review as there is non-trivial support for two. Primary concern seems to be WP:BLP but (per WP:FRINGEBLP for want of a better link) we don't shy away form identifying a living individual when they are prominently associated with a controversy. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Should the Kim Davis (county clerk) article be an event article or a biography? Should there be two articles, one for the same-sex marriage license controversy event and another one for the Kim Davis biography? At first, there was only the Kim Davis biography article and no event article, although later the event article Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy was created but it is wider in scope. More discussion is at the article talk page. Prhartcom (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  • One article. If two articles were (improperly) created, then (as a compromise) the proper titles (reflecting content and scope) would be Kim Davis (county clerk) (would lose at a new AfD) and Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Her name must remain in the title. The requested move (which is just a title change) is still the right thing to do, resulting in one article which honors the conditions of the AfD for the existence of this article. We must honor the broad consensus at that AfD by keeping the content and scope here in one article.
    Another event article with a larger scope can still be created, but without her name in the title, and with the content "copied" (not "removed") from here pared down so it doesn't create undue weight, as it currently does in the "Kentucky...." article. It's nearly identical to this one, and that's not right. It's a regular hijacking. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • BullRangifer, I have a question about what you said above, not arguing with what you said (because I also believe "Kim Davis" should appear in the title), really just asking for my own understanding of general policy about handling consensus that changes over a short time. You say that a stand-alone Kim Davis biography article would now not survive an AfD, but you say we must include her name in the title in order to honor the previous AfD that voted for the stand-alone biography article. In that previous article, those of us in the minority argued she should not get a standalone biography article because she was only known for a single event, and the event had notability, not her. The AfD decided BLP1E did not apply, she had independent notability. It seems like this RfC indicates consensus has reversed itself from the previous AfD, that people believe it is the event, not the person, that is notable enough for an article. If consensus has reversed itself from the previous AfD, wouldn't that mean we are no longer bound by the consensus in the AfD? Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Mmyers1976, those are good questions, and thanks for asking. I am not sure, so let's brainstorm. This is a rather unusual situation (that confusion has gone so far as to allow the creation of two identical articles), and a new AfD would probably be a way to test it. It does happen at Wikipedia that a small group of editors on an article unwittingly push policy violations in the creation of the article (in this case creation of another article, a situation which causes problems). Then the wider (wiser?!) broader community must be brought in using RfCs and AfDs to look at the situation. The broader community's decision may then trump the local editors, who have thus gotten their fingers rapped with a ruler for their incompetence. They must bow to that wider consensus.
  • Your question relates to her notability. It has always been the position that she is indeed notable, but not independently from the controversy. It is HER controversy, and pretty much no one else has participated in the whole USA(!): SHE precipitated it by defying the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges; SHE (and her lawyers) has maintained it; SHE has been the subject of a court decision (Miller v. Davis); SHE defied a court order; SHE was jailed for contempt of court; SHE has been the subject of a huge media storm, with international coverage; and SHE is now accused of altering marriage licenses.
  • This is an ongoing train wreck, and is anything but "single event". This all confirms the widely held position that this is a biography about a person notable for not just one event (broke a window, and stopped at that), but a whole running controversy involving a series of events, laws, and persons ("one event" doesn't really apply anymore).
  • The situation would be different if she had started a fire and stopped at that (a true "single event"), but the fire grew, involved others, inspired copy cats, burned most of the country, and became identified as The great conflagration of 2030. That situation would allow for two articles: Kim Davis (court reporter), and The great conflagration of 2030. The first would contain ALL the content directly related to her involvement in the initial fire, and the second would deal with her role in starting the fire, but contain much more information about the further consequences and others involved. We do not have that type of situation here.
  • Since she has no independent notability apart from the controversy, this biography must have weight on what makes her notable, and that justifies a large amount of controversy content. That is the actual due weight the subject deserves in that article. We have many person/event articles. This is nothing new or unusual. If she had been independently notable, like Bill Cosby, and a later event or controversy began to create an undue weight problem by overwhelming the article with that one controversy, then our policies dictate that a WP:Spin-off should occur. With Cosby that resulted in Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. With Kim Davis this procedure does not apply, because that content is supposed to be the main weight of the article, with just a few unrelated biographical details. A pure biography without the controversy should not survive an AfD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
That helps, thanks. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Prhartcom, you are a very clear thinker! I find your argument above about "unnecessary pseudo-biographies" very compelling. A pure biography, without ALL the content which made her notable (which is why this bio passed the AfD), would not survive another AfD. We need one article - a biography with weight on the notable controversy - and that is honored by the title with her name in it which accurately describes the current content and scope. This is both an event and biography article. We have plenty of others like it, so this is nothing new. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I would be okay with two articles; the biography article and the event article, as long as the biography article contains the proper amount of reliable sources so that it won't later be deleted and as long as the even article is named after Kim Davis, the person who caused the controversy and for other reasons that I state in the section immediately above. Prhartcom (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Prhartcom, as I have mentioned elsewhere, that is also my suggestion, IF it's done at all, which I don't believe there is policy-based justification for doing. In a biography about someone notable in their own right, not because of some controversy, like Bill Cosby, undue weight caused by one controversy was solved by WP:Spin-off into the sub-article, Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. That "method", keeping the name in the title (not the "reason"), is also applicable here. It's been standard practice for many years.
  • The "reason" it's not good to spin-off/split/fork here is that the controversy content here does not create undue weight, simply because it is the only reason she's notable. This biography should have heavy weight on that content. If we did have two articles, you're right that the spin-off/fork must keep her name. We'd also have to keep a significant amount of the content (I believe ALL of it) related to her involvement in the controversy.
  • Any content here that's relevant to this type of controversy in another article can just be copied, not removed, and used there. So, if it's done at all, the spin-off/fork must keep her name. She started it, and seemingly is still about the only one seriously involved in the whole country(!). -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • (comment moved from section above) :Actually, as per WP:1E, I think that there are grounds for two separate articles. To my eyes, Davis compares rather well to the assassin mentioned in that guideline, who as per that page was also, perhaps, notable for only a single event. The same might be said for celebrities who might die after a single public action or any number of other Also, if I might be honest, I think we may have divergent opinions regarding what qualifies as "one event," the key point of disagreement being "event." Certainly, I can and so see that guideline applying to people who have only been noted for, for example, being the first white person in some county in Wyoming or whatever. That sort of "trivial" basis of notability is one I think everyone agrees with. However, in this case, she clearly has not been notable for simple a single "event," but rather a group of closely related events, including lawsuits, jailing, legal appeals, and I don't know what all else. That being the case, I have very strong reservations about what is to my eyes misapplying that guideline to an article to which it does not, necessarily, apply. in the same way that I think it would be misapplied to any of the one-hit wonders who also have their separate biographies. John Carter (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. She is noted for much more than a "single event". She has become the focus of a whole movement and media circus with lasting consequences, in the sense that this has touched on many deep issues which many people who will not drop it, and it has left, and is creating, many other consequences in its wake. "Single event" doesn't really apply here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Pincrete is right; it is academic. Sorry, Bullrangifer, but she is known for only one single event, even if it sent shock waves in every direction.
  • Winkelvi, forgive me, I did not mean to question your motives above, not at all, I meant to draw out from you the reason you say the event article should, at all costs, not have Kim Davis' name in the title? At one point you said, "It's the marriage licenses that are the center of the controversy, not Davis" but of course it is Davis that refused to issue these said marriage licences. The licences are just a paper form, they do actively do anything. Davis did everything. She took a stand and refused to issue them. Seems pretty clear. Prhartcom (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Pincrete, I said I agreed with you. I stated the case for clarity of whether the article is about person or event in the section immediately above. Also, it would be helpful if you would !vote and not just comment. Prhartcom (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I will come back in the next few days to answer whether I think the seperate person article is justified, I haven't looked closely enough at present. I'm clear in my mind that no matter how central the person is, it is better to title the event as the where/what of the controversy. Pincrete (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • One article, prominently including her name, at this point. I can and do see reason to believe that she will almost certainly become separately notable, with book deals, media appearances and whatever else, but until that time there is nothing that I can see really essential about this topic relating to her which cannot reasonably be fit into an article on the event. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
That's WP:CRYSTAL logic.Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC) apologies for careless reading.Pincrete (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that was John Carter's point, Pincrete. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have not yet formed an opinion as to whether there is sufficient justification for a 'person' article, in addition to the 'event' article. However I am puzzled by the logic of Her name must remain in the title, WHY? A redirect or dab satisfies that need. What is the logic of the proposed 'name+event' title? The objections seem to be that it is no longer focussing on the event, it is unwieldy, it isn't strictly accurate as other clerks have also refused. Do we have a page called the Richard Nixon Watergate building break-in scandal? Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirects can't substitute for the most accurate title. That title is reserved for the actual article. We use the titles dictated by the content in most RS, and they ALL place Kim Davis in direct connection with HER controversy, never separately. We have plenty of articles like this, where the person is named in the title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
BullRangifer, but you are happy to omit the location (Kentucky), which would probably be the defining characteristic for those outside the US. Agree with below that using her name risks creating 'a pseudo-biography'. Pincrete (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
No, I have nothing against Kentucky, but we need to keep the title a reasonable length. No one has even proposed Kim Davis marriage license controversy in Kentucky. The article makes it clear it's in Kentucky, and, as you have suggested, redirects also use Kentucky. On your other point, you misunderstand; "using her name [alone, without the controversy] risks creating 'a pseudo-biography'". Such a biography would fail an AfD. This article, with its current scope and content, passed an AfD because it included the controversy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Re overlong name, precisely, so why is telling the non US or uninformed US reader WHO, more important than saying where in the world? Pincrete (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • One article. Probably should be either "Kim Davis marriage license controversy" or "Kentucky marriage license controversy", or something along those lines. It shouldn't be a pseudo-biography - Davis is not notable for anything else, she's an otherwise low-profile individual, and her personal biography is largely irrelevant to the situation we're trying to cover. The event is clearly very notable, but she is not as a person, merely as an actor in the event. If she later becomes independently notable, we can always create a real bio page for her then. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Titanium Dragon, it would be helpful if you decide which of the two titles above you really think should be the title in that case, as there are sincere arguments in sections above arguing for one or for the other. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Kim Davis's name, per WP:COMMONNAME - it took place in Kentucky, but people are more likely to know Kim Davis's name than to know the state with regards to the controversy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Two articles just as they are now, but with less detail in the biography. The Kim Davis (county clerk) article is and should remain a biography. We already have a controversy article, which resulted from a prior consensus. So far I have seen no policy-based argument that this subject meets all three WP:BLP1E conditions. Specifically,
    1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - The events are 1. Her election, 2.Media attention about nepotism and salaries, 3.her refusal to issue marriage licenses, 4. her SCOTUS appeal, 5. her arrest for contempt of court.
    2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. - As an elected public official, she was already notable. WP:LPI instructs "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Does anyone argue that Kim Davis has not sought media attention?
    3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - Kim Davis not only has a significant, well-documented role—she has a central role, and one that is arguably of historic significance.
I oppose renaming this article in any way that casts inappropriately cast a negative light on the BLP subject, such as a proposed title, Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy. Doing so would substantially alter the intent of this article, which is to document a person's life, and their role in a historic series of events. Such a title would contravene the precision criteria of a good TITLE which says "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." It would create significant confusion with Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. It would run afoul of WP:POVNAME. There are exactly zero Google news results for the search phrase "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy", so the only purpose that would seem to be served by renaming this article to that title, would be to permanently shame the subject. I would argue that this would wantonly violate Arbcom's proscription against such titles and I won't rule out bringing it before WP:ARCA to seek Arbcom's clarification, should an article be titled in such a way.- MrX 20:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Casting an "inappropriately.... negative light on the BLP subject," is a red herring;. We'd have to change the titles of hundreds, maybe thousands, of articles here. It's not a "negative light" anyway. That's only a factor in the minds of some people. We follow WP:COMMONNAME, RS, and abundant precedents. They all dictate that her name remain in the title. The AfD also was passed on the basis of an article with (1) her name in the title, and a scope and content (2) tying her name to the controversy. It's a package deal. If you tamper with the relationship between those two factors, all bets are off, and you're violating the terms of the AfD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it's not misleading. Search engines are not mind readers. Quotes delineate a search phrase so that exact matches are found. Not using quotes would be misleading because the SERP would contain every page with all of the words, irrespective of context. In other words, without quotes, a search is meaningless for helping to determine a COMMONNAME.- MrX 22:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • MrX, I respect you as an editor and for your desire to do the right thing. May I ask you: If consensus says to keep the biography article (assuming it is not later deleted), do we trim from it almost everything that has to do with her marriage license controversy except for approximately a one paragraph summary of it? Do you think an article like that will survive?
May I also ask you: Certainly consensus says to also keep an event article of this controversy, but what do you think of renaming it from the "Kentucky" article to "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy"? I think you said you say you don't want to "inappropriately cast a negative light on the BLP subject" Kim Davis. I'm not sure what that means; are we supposed to protect Kim Davis? Is that why we named it the "Kentucky" controversy instead of the "Kim Davis" controversy"? I'm assuming you know that you that we cannot "spin" an article to synthesize or omit facts or dilute Kim Davis' actions by burying them with the nearly non-notable actions of the other Kentucky court clerks. But I am concerned that you seem to be asserting that there is no such thing as the "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy" by claiming it is not found in a Google search; if that is what you are saying then that would be preposterous in the extreme. Your own arguments say that Davis has a "well-documented role—she has a central role" in this very famous marriage license controversy caused solely by Kim Davis. Naturally there are no reliable sources with that exact phrase; don't be silly. There was indeed a "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy", we need to have an article devoted solely to it, and it needs to be named after the person who caused it, perpetuated it, and ultimately ended it: Kim Davis. I am greatly interested in your response. Prhartcom (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Your question is based on a couple of strawmen, because I never said that we should "trim from it almost everything that has to do with her marriage license controversy", and this is not an AfD. If you scroll up, you can see what I actually did say or click here → #Trimming. I stand by my contention that renaming this biography to include the word controversy next to a living person's name goes against our sources, good judgment, and Wikipedia's policies, as I have explained twice today, and I have given quotes from policies, guidelines, and a link to an Arbcom decision that may or may not apply. I also explained that we already have a controversy article, so making this a controversy article too is problematic.- MrX 00:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Your linked "refutation" consists of bare assertions without evidence. For example, can you can show me some of these 100s or 1000s of articles with a title in the form of "[Person's Name]+[controversial subject]+controversy". Alternatively, can you point out, let's say ten, reliable sources that describe the events as the "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy"? I'm always willing to reconsider my position in the face of strong evidence.- MrX 00:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • MrX, I'll thank Prhartcom for already doing that job. Those are just a few of myriad such articles which include a name and an event, which is usually the event that made the person notable. His answer is also good. We don't always find "exact" titles from RS, but we do by examining their content. All the RS contain all those elements. They all mention Kim Davis, same-sex marriage, licenses, and some type of word(s) indicating a "controversy". We then create our content as the best summary of the salient identifying factors in the RS. Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy sums up all the RS we use, except for the biographical content. Even then, we got some of the biographical information from articles about the controversy, so there was no OR. Journalists did that synthesis for us. Besides that, once notability has been established, it's okay to search for more biographical information. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • MrX, sorry about making you repeat things you've said before, but that tough. And it sucks when we we misunderstand each other, it wastes time, and I'm sure there are more things that we agree about than disagree. I'm not advocating renaming this biography article, it is named correctly if it is kept. We need rename the misnamed "Kentucky" controversy article to "Kim Davis" controversy. What say you? Also, I would interested in hearing your thoughtful comments about Bullrangifer's comments above under my !vote. Lastly, I need to hear you agree that there is indeed such a thing as a Kim Davis same-sex marriage licence controversy, because I am starting to worry about you if you are asserting otherwise. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Prhartcom, such a rename would mean that the other two clerks would lose their mention, and we'd lose the possibility of a larger scope article. Of course that may not be a problem at all, since CRYSTALBALL thinking was obviously used to create that article. It appears there was no other controversy to speak of. The other two clerks aren't mentioned much at all. OTOH, we could drop that article entirely (the ideal solution), rename this one, and include mention of the other clerks in the context of their support for Kim Davis, because we do have RS justification for doing that. That way we'd end up with one article which covers the whole subject, which is what we have already. A pure biography article would just get deleted. If she becomes more notable later, we could then recreate one with this current title. That too is CRYSTALBALL speculation, but we can cross that bridge if it ever appears. Right now we only need this one article, with a better title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "White House" and "AACS encryption key" are not person's names, but I do concede that we have some articles with a title composed of a person's name combined with a controversy. The rest of my comments stand. Since the title of either article is not a question to be answered in this RfC, this will be useful information to consider for another discussion.- MrX 03:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It should also cause you to reconsider your entire position, since it undermines several of your misunderstandings about how titles are created and worded, and how forks/spin-offs/splits work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Several of the above examples are of the Name of person's death or Name of person's arrest kind, ie there is no subject outside the person. The 'Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy' is fairly unhelpful, many of us know of a 'Danish paper's cartoon controversy', I wonder how many outside Denmark remember the paper's name, (and it doesn't have a redirect). Pincrete (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • All of her national coverage is a result of one event - her refusal to issue the same-sex marriage licenses. The issues of nepotism, ect. were all brought up in relation to that; people weren't talking about it previously. All of the questions about her moral character are a result of her denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and her subsequent jailing for contempt of court. I think it pretty clearly is one event. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Two articles, as it currently is now, one for the major same-sex controversy on Kentucky focusing on her actions, and this one, for her biography, which focuses on her career as a county clerk and service, as well as the summary of what led to her arrest for contempt, due to her refusal to issue homosexual marriage licenses: which is pretty much the way it is now. I like it the way it is now, although I do believe some of the stuff regarding the marriage controversy can be trimmed, with an italic note pointing to the main article, Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Two articles: Mr. X nailed it. Based on BLP1E, there's no question that Kim Davis should have a separate biography article from the event for which she's most famous. – Robin Hood  (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • One article, titled about the event only (Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy). This is really a story about an event, not a person; and I'm not convinced there's enough separate material to justify having an independent article for Davis herself, who seems of only borderline notability, outside of this event, to me. I could accept her name being included in the title as a second preference ('Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy'), but I don't think it needs to be, and I don't think that title is necessarily any clearer or precise than the one without her name. Robofish (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Robofish, thank-you for your views. The reason many of us are leaning towards "Kim Davis" and not "Kentucky" is because Davis caused the controversy and everything controversial revolved around her, not the state of Kentucky. A reader searching for the controversy will naturally look for it under her name, not the state where it happened. When you consider all this, does it convince you to place your second choice as your first choice? Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
People who already know about the controversy, and who are connected to the US may connect the event with her name, what about the other 90+% of the planet? they are completely uninformed about the subject of the article. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • One article- titled Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy. I'm not surprised we are here, I've believed from the start this should have been an article on the controversy instead of the person all along. A single event can stretch over days or weeks and still be a single event, and that's clearly the case here. Davis is notable only for this event, that's clear as well. Perhaps she will parlay this into a book deal and/or achieve some staying power in right wing advocacy, but she hasn't yet, so giving her an article of her own based on the prediction would be WP:CRYSTAL. I have no interest in giving this woman any more publicity, but I do believe that this should be called the "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy" instead of the "Kentucky marriage controversy," because it really is a controversy she single-handedly manufactured, and apart from her, the rest of Kentucky has not been resisting issuing marriage licenses to a notable extent, there is little real controversy in the rest of Kentucky, it really is just her. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Unhelpful comment for this RfC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Two articles- There seems to be sufficient material for seperate person+controversy articles Oppose naming the event after the individual, regardless of her centrality, she is not the event. Comment, the three articles (inc. court case) seem to needlessly duplicate at present. Defining the limits of each article (person, controversy, court case), may help to prune some of this duplication. Pincrete (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • one article - on the event WP:BLP1E- actually probably just merge to Miller v. Davis between a "background" and "repercussions/impact" section, pretty much anything encyclopedic can be covered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • One article about event. I wouldn't call it controversy per se. BLP is not suitable here as it fits into under a "pseudobiography" we are warned not to create. I don't foresee any long-term impact or fall out over this either. She'll just eventually be removed from office. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • One article, whose title includes "Kim Davis" The entire controversy is about Kim Davis, what she was thinking, what she did, and where that ultimately led her. Kentucky, like the deputy clerks, was just along for the ride (although it might help readers if it's in the title somewhere, preferably in a passive context). She doesn't meet the notability criteria without the event. The title needs to have her name in it so readers can find it, it's the most likely search term they'll be using. Geogene (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • One article, with title "Kim Davis". Kim Davis as a standalone BLP in addition to an event article runs afoul of WP:BLP1E. She is notable only for this particular event, so at this time, there should be one article that combines the information about Davis and this event, with the event being the majority of the article. If Davis becomes notable for other things in the future (running for political office, etc), then there should be two articles. ~ RobTalk 23:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opposition by other court clerks

I removed this newly added section because it seems to be somewhat redundant with the summary we already have under "Official actions and legal proceedings". If a consensus emerges to change the title and topic of this article, then I have no opposition to re-adding it at that time. Right now, it tends to drift off subject and risks making the article a WP:COATRACK.- MrX 18:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC) I also dispute that there was a consensus to expand the scope of this article by merging tangentially-related content. JzG's procedural close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy was erroneous, since there was clearly no consensus to merge content in the RfC: talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#RfC: Two articles or one? (Or three?) .- MrX 18:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

MrX, I respect your view, and I understand it, but I have restored the content. Nothing in Official actions and legal proceedings summarizes this new section. What you are referring to in the Official actions and legal proceedings section is how it starts with a broad, U.S. view, touches on the other court clerks in the country (but doesn't dwell on them), then I wrote it to move along quickly to focus on Kim Davis, the heart of the controversy. As you are quite aware although I have seen you resist it every step of the way, this article is both a biography of Kim Davis and it is about the controversy, and it has been this for quite some time. When the AfD of Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy was closed, the consensus decision was to merge the content. I know you respect consensus. That is what my edit has done. Prhartcom (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
That unique content in the "Kentucky...." article must be merged per the AfD decision. It is tangentially related enough to be worthy of inclusion here, and there isn't enough to be worth a separate article. There are several RS which connect Kim Davis' actions and their actions, so there is no coatrack problem.
There are three big IFs here: (1) If there had been more than two, (2) if they had been activists like Davis, and (3) if the ACLU had targeted them, there would be justification for keeping the "Kentucky..." article open and expanded, but with a huge paring down of the Kim Davis content. Right now there isn't such justification. Who knows what the future may bring? -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I was wrong. It's not redundant, it's actually contradictory. For example, the second sentence of the original section contradicts the second sentence of the section that you added. Yes, I respect consensus. When an admin closes a discussion as merge, when in reality only one of the eight !votes even mentions a merge, there is serious breach of process. I'm quickly loosing faith in our content dispute resolution process because its clear that they're easy to manipulate. - MrX 19:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Aarg, I see it: "eleven" or "nine" probate judges. Looks like one of the sources may have miscounted. I will research this and get back to you; feel free to do likewise. Prhartcom (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I won't bore you with the details, but this is resolved. Thanks for pointing it out. Prhartcom (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Davis/Archive_4&oldid=1079704626"