Talk:Kim Davis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Wrong info about Supreme Court.

1. I should never have posted online yesterday that Kim Davis didn't have a Wikipedia article. Sorry, World.

2. As I understand it, Davis is not defying the Supreme Court; she is defying a Federal District Judge's ruling. She applied to the Supreme Court for an emergency stay against the Judge's order, but her plea was rejected by the Justices. The Federal District Court had granted her a stay pending the Supreme Court decision, but that stay has now expired. She is now in contempt of court.

3. Your references are redundant for a one sentence article.

4. You have a reference and an external link for the same videotaped confrontation from this morning between a male couple who have tried again to get a marriage license, and Davis, only from different angles.

5. It isn't mentioned in your article, but, if I understand it, the suit Davis filed is directed at Governor Beshear, saying that she should be excused from complying with the law due to her religious belief. Your linked New York Times reference addresses this as well as these articles. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/08/29/3696830/kim-davis-kentucky-marriage-scotus/ http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/08/06/3688648/kentucky-county-clerk-job-suit/

6. In this interesting and applicable article, Davis performed a marriage ceremony in February for a couple composed a woman and a trans-gendered man. She never asked him for his birth certificate, which would have showed his female birth. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clerk-who-refuses-to-marry-lgbt-couples-performed-trans-mans-marriage_55e343d5e4b0c818f6183433?cps=gravity_5059_-2162437734797175724

If you want to delete this article as the woman's fame fades, it's OKAY with me. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

1 and 2 are good clarifications. I'm still fleshing the article out, so it's very incomplete at this point.- MrX 23:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Remember the Biography of Living Persons guidelines.

As a general reminder, please remember that the Wikipedia Biography of Living Persons guidelines applies to Davis. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Lock?

You may find that you'll need to lock down this article. There was already an incident of vandalism. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If the vandalism gets bad, the article can be protected. By the way, you don't need to open a new talk page section every time you want to comment. - MrX 23:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Different topics. Have a restful night. Wordreader (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 2 September 2015

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

---

Kim Davis (Kentucky politician) → Kim Davis (clerk) – An editor moved this article from Kim Davis (clerk) to Kim Davis (Kentucky politician) without discussion or consensus. I am opposed to this move and propose moving the title back to the original. Disambiguation should be simple and straightforward. Kentucky politician is overly specific and not in accord with WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Sources refer to her as a clerk, not a politician. I would move the article back myself, but another editor recreated the article under the original name. - MrX 12:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose (the editor who moved). "Clerk" is nebulous. She is known for being an elected official from Kentucky who is taking a stance against the Supreme Court. She is making a political statement, and being an elected official makes her a politician. Victor Victoria (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC) see new !vote below

Victor Victoria I agree but there is no current content within the article using wordings "polit.." or "democ..." so I don't see how the present title is justified either. How about Kim Davis (county clerk)? Either that or are there notable references that can be added to the article to justify your claims of political involvement. GregKaye 13:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the proposed name Kim Davis (county clerk) because in my opinion, unless there is another Kentucky politician named Kim Davis, there is no need to signify the political office she holds. Additionally, she may run for other offices in the future so keeping it general is best. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"Kentucky politician" is not general; "politician" is. Can you show that more sources say she is a politician than say she's a county clerk? - MrX 14:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Winning an election to be the county clerk makes her a politician. The references are in the article, and for convenience here is one from the article [1]. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, she's a politician, mother, daughter, woman, Christian, human, and a lot of other things. As far as I can tell, our sources almost universally refer to her as a clerk. Even the local article you linked to refer to her as a clerk right in the headline: County clerk’s race more contested than usual - MrX 14:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• MrX: in the future if this happens, use WP:BRD and put in a technical move request. If there's no consensus here, a closer should properly move this back to the previous title. Personally, I think (Kentucky politician) is unnecessary when there aren't other notable politicians by this name. I was going to just move this to (politician) on my own before I saw the RM. (county clerk) may be more recognizable, however, and I don't like (clerk) alone because that's indeed a very broad term. I don't think it's wrong, though—again, no other notable Kim Davis who could be called a clerk. --BDD (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the advice BDD. I didn't know I could do that. Certainly (county clerk) would be preferable over the current title. I'm not keen on (politician), although it is better than (Kentucky politician). - MrX 14:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Opposeper Victor Victoria. County clerks in Kentucky are elected politicians. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. County clerk may be a minor elected office, but so is sheriff and often judge and district attorney and we wouldn't disambiguate them as politicians. The previous title was much better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support move per WP:COMMONNAME. All news sources refer to her as a clerk, not a politician. See list below:
  • Washington Post - "The defiant Kim Davis, the Ky. clerk who refuses to issue gay marriage licenses" (title) and "The job of Rowan County clerk ..." (in text).
  • CS Monitor - "County clerk Kim Davis..." (below title) and "Controversy has ensued as Kim Davis, Rowan County, Ky., clerk..." (in text)
  • International Business Times - "Who Is Kim Davis? Kentucky Clerk Denying Same-Sex Marriage Licenses Defies Supreme Court Orders" (title) and "Kim Davis, a small-town Kentucky courthouse clerk..." (in text).
  • CBS News - "Clerk in Ky. marriage fight has turbulent marital history" (title) and "Now as the Rowan County clerk,..." (in text)
  • NBC News - "Why Hasn't Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, Defying Same-Sex Marriage Order, Been Fired?" (title) and "Removing defiant Kentucky clerk Kim Davis..." (in text)
  • NPR - "Despite High Court Ruling, Kentucky Clerk Denies Marriage Licenses" (title) and "Despite a Supreme Court ruling that compelled a Rowan County clerk in Kentucky to give out marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Kim Davis..." (in text)
  • Washington Times - "Supreme Court rules against Kim Davis, Kentucky clerk in gay marriage case" (title) and "The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against the Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and the clerk will arrive at work Tuesday morning to face her moment of truth. Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis..." (in text)
  • BBC - "Kentucky clerk defies Supreme Court order on gay marriage" (title) and "...Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis..." (in text)
  • The Guardian - Kentucky clerk denying licenses to gay couples has married four times (title) and "A controversial US court clerk who has..." (in text)
  • NY Times - "Kentucky Clerk Defies Court on Marriage Licenses for Gay Couples" (title) and "Kim Davis, the clerk in Rowan County,..." (in text)

Seems clear that she is referred to as a clerk, not a politician. Would be fine with move to Kim Davis (county clerk) as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Move to Kim Davis (county clerk). Per comments by Necrothesp and EvergreenFir, she is not a general politician who has run in multiple elections or held various offices – she is a county clerk. That is her position, so let's identify her as such. Including "county" helps show that her position is a government post with a particular scope – i.e., she is not a clerk at a bank or other such private institution. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Move per EvergreenFir. WP:COMMONNAME would lend the title to be clerk per their sources above. Nomader (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support She is technically a "politician" since she ran for an election, but first off there is no Kim Davis (politician) to dab from, so I don't like the current title, and since she's notable for her specific role as a clerk, I'll support the "county clerk" dab. "Clerk" is too ambiguous I think. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll go along with the (county clerk) dabs. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Move to Kim Davis (county clerk). Clear and unambiguous, present title looks like 'window dressing' and obfuscates rather than clarifies.Pincrete (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Move to Kim Davis (county clerk). Since she has most often been referred to as a "county clerk" in news reports, I think that's the most recognizable title. While a county clerk may be an elected official in the US, I don't think it's something that most people would identify as a politician, especially those outside the US. She is, in essence, a government functionary. Listing her as a politician aggrandizes her position in my mind. Also, to address one of the concerns mentioned above, if she develops other political titles in the future, the article can be moved at that time. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we should not name an article speculatively. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 18:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Doing some more research on this, "Kentucky politician" is clearly a non-preferred title according to WP:NCDAB. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 18:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - No objection to moving to Kim Davis (county clerk) which seems to be the emerging consensus. - MrX 18:21, 2 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.

Which Apostolic church?

According to The New York Times, Kim Davis is a member of the Solid Rock Apostolic Church. Looking specifically for that term, I found Morehead Solid Rock Apostolic Church, which identifies as Pentecostal. I have accordingly changed the links to reflect that church and not the Apostolic Christian Church previously linked to. I also added the NYT as a citation. There is obviously a lot of confusion caused by the close naming, so if further information is found that contradicts what I understand from NYT, by all means, change it to whatever's appropriate. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 19:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV violation

We cannot say in Wikipedia's voice, "a group that specializes in anti-gay legislation". This is a clear violation of NPOV, whether or not it is true. It is the biased opinion of one WP:RS. Therefore we WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and take it out of Wikipedia's voice, and say that Slate.COM has described the group as such, in quotes. That is the best that can be done if you really need that assertion to stay in the article. Elizium23 (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It is factually accurate to say the group specialises in anti-gay litigation. In Lawrence v. Texas they submitted a brief seriously arguing homosexuality should be a criminal offence. From its page "Liberty Counsel supports barring people from the military on the basis of 'homosexual activity' Liberty Counsel opposes efforts to prohibit employment discrimination against gay workers. The organization further opposes 'the addition of "sexual orientation", "gender identity" or similar provisions' to hate crimes legislation. In 2005 the Southern Poverty Law Center listed the Liberty Counsel as one of twelve groups comprising an "anti-gay crusade" and in April 2014 added the Liberty Counsel to its list of active anti-gay hate groups. Liberty Counsel also devotes its time to fighting against same-sex marriage, civil unions, and adoption by gay people." All cited. I think it is fair to say they specialise in anti-gay litigation. (Meanwhile, hilariously, in 2000 they "threatened legal action against a public library for awarding a 'Hogwarts' Certificate of Accomplishment' to young students who read J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire in its entirety. Staver said that 'witchcraft is a religion, and the certificate of witchcraft endorsed a particular religion in violation of the First Amendment establishment clause'") AusLondonder (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how factually accurate it is, it still violates neutrality to say it in Wikipedia's voice. It is equally factually accurate to say that they "provide free legal assistance in defense of Christian religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, and the traditional family." That is how they self-describe, so would you use that description uncritically as well? Elizium23 (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The section now says "a group described by Mark Joseph Stern of Slate as "specializing in anti-gay litigation"" AusLondonder (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I didn't (yet) revert your edit adding attribution, but I believe that it's a fairly widely held view that they do actually focus on anti-gay legislation. The SPLC goes as far as to list them as a hate group. - MrX 20:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, tough guys, how much description do you want to WP:COATRACK into one sentence on her legal team? Elizium23 (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Elizium23:, be WP:CIVIL. It's not a coatrack to simply mention that her lawfirm is anti-gay. Saying it's on the SPLC hate group list would be too far. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with the others above. There's no difference between saying "anti-gay legislation" than there is in saying "anti-abortion legislation". Heck, we use a similar phrase on a TOC-like page here. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 21:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I have therefore tagged the article as {{POV}}, as consensus here cannot override Wikipedia WP:5P pillar policies. Elizium23 (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Since it is only two words that you believe are non-neutral, I have replaced the tag with an inline tag. While a consensus here cannot override a policy, it has yet to be established (ironically, though consensus) that this material is actually at odds with WP:NPOV. - MrX 22:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the part about it specializing in "anti-gay litigation", and have simply put "Davis is represented by attorneys from the law firm Liberty Counsel." I really don't see the need to put what the firm specializes in. It merely serves to combine the two together to imply that Davis is a bigot and is being represented by bigots, it's bordering on synthesis. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus to do that and your rationale is wrong. AusLondonder (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

(←) Sorry if I acted prematurely. At the time, I thought it was unanimous except for the OP and snowballed it. I realize now that I missed an additional opinion due to the mixed use of reply indentation. I'm actually with SuperCarnivore on this one. It's probably easiest to simply state the law firm's name and let people link through if they wish and make their own judgements. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 22:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Election History?

Is the total number of registered voters relevant? This says there were 13,926 registered voters whilst there were only 7,320 votes recorded. Doesn't change the outcome of course. Planning on doing a little research on the subject given the news but this was one thing I stumbled over. I would have edited the page myself but since it has that padlock ... 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"under God’s authority"

User:MrX, the phrase and motivation, "under God’s authority", is pretty important to this whole affair, and thus deserves mention in the lead, not removal. Granted, it could be done more smoothly than a parenthetical mention, but it needs to be restored in some manner. It is a central feature of this whole thing. It, together with the perception that she's a hypocrite, have raised this whole affair to a level it would never have reached without either one of them, alone or together. Both ideas should be mentioned in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the God thing is central and therefore lead-worthy. Not sure what "parenthetical" means here. Undecided on hypocrisy, but it's not central. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I can live with it put back in the lead, but can we please not clutter the first sentence? It makes reading difficult.- MrX 04:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

How that? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Better, except now it looks like she filed the emergency SCOTUS application under God's authority. What actually happened is that she denied a marriage license to a SSM couple under God's authority after the SCOTUS application was denied. You may want to view the video for context. - MrX 04:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Better yet? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better. Thanks. - MrX 11:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Pre-controversy sources

To help counter the WP:ONEEVENT argument that can be used at AfD, this article should be reworked a bit to include more on her prior to this current brouhaha. I've found this source reporting on her election win. If we can find and integrate any others, that would improve this article and confirm notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Trying to counter the argument isn't the right approach; rather, the correct approach is to consider whether the article is really appropriate at all. She isn't a notable person otherwise; all of her notability centers around this. Local politicans are seldom notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Muboshgu, that's helpful. @Titanium Dragon: The article is appropriate per WP:BASIC, which is why I created it. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to this subject. - MrX 23:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course WP:BLP1E applies. The notability is the event, not the person, and it is really part of the greater reaction to the same-sex marriage decision. It isn't that the event isn't notable, it is that Davis isn't notable as a person; her name should be a redirect to an article which contains like, a paragraph or two about the case. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This talk page is for article improvement. To argue deletion, go to the AfD, where I argued this isn't BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

In the interim, Reference #1 for this page should be changed to the Morehead News article listed above. The current link points to a page behind a library login. Meowbie (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Meowbie

Is she a criminal?

I don't have experience with the law, so I can't determine this. It likely needs a lawyer or other expert. My question is: is she a criminal (has she committed a crime) or does this fall under a different section of the law? Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Davis committed the crime of contempt of court. She was ordered to perform her job duties as part of a civil lawsuit, and didn't not follow the order. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure, but as far as I can tell from sources, the contempt of court charge in this case is a civil charge. - MrX 01:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, at best, it can be called an "offense". But the result is she is being treated like a criminal. I suppose we could use more legal guidance on this. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the place for it, try the Reference Desk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk Geogene (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference desk isn't the place for it. It's here. It concerns her article, not random facts (RD doesn't cover law anyway). I'm asking because if she's a criminal she should be added to Category:Criminals from Kentucky, if she's not then that would be libelous. I'm tending to agree with MrX though, I believe it's a civil charge and not a criminal charge. Jerod Lycett (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for that clarification, it looked like a random question. I'd advise against placing article in a "criminals" category until the bulk of RS say that she is a criminal. Otherwise it's OR in a BLP, which I agree is very bad. Geogene (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add Kim Davis to your watchlist

Would a few editors please add Kim Davis to your watchlists? There is a "new" editor and a helper IP changing

Kim Davis (county clerk), who defied a U.S. Federal Court ruling requiring that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples

to

Kim Davis (county clerk), jailed for refusing to issue homosexual marriage licenses

Which of course is blatantly false. 1000 thanks. - MrX 13:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Others note that's a dab page, not this article. Confused me at first, since I didn't see said edits in this page history. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the head's up. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually requested protection on the disambiguation page but think I goofed. The rationale for the phrasing is based off international headlines as supplied on that page's Talk section. Initial responses were reversions no discussion then a simple rejection of said articles. I accept US media may have a different view of the issue however international fame should trump local fame correct? I'll endeavor to think of more precise phrasing than the current court defiance reference. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

By law in the U.S. they are not called "homosexual marriages" -- they're just called 'marriages'. No matter the international source, we won't accept POV. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not point of view to call them homosexual marriages, it's what they are. Wikipedia even has a page on this non-existent concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States 人族 (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not point of view to call them same-sex marriages, either, it's what they are. What is your objection to using the same term that is used in that article? Why is the word homosexual so important to you? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

人族, your POV that this is a "non-existent concept" when objective reality shows otherwise, means this discussion is essentially over, and you are here to disrupt rather than constructively contribute. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Stevie, please assume good faith. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I always do. But this user has engaged in disruptive editing and is essentially calling the sky purple, so the assumption has been superseded. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The "non-existent" was a sarcastic distortion of a preceding comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Good faith doesn't apply to those of differing points of view? So all non-Progressives should be treated as Facists? Snort! (Yes I checked the profile). Getting back to the issues at hand, on the disambiguation Talk page Robin Hood claimed that homosexual is offensive. I double checked the phrase in a couple of dictionaries and none list it so. Homosexual marriage and same-sex marriage are synonyms, however you cannot talk about a same-sex person but instead must say a homosexual person. The word homosexual isn't particularly important to me, it's merely the only simple term available to describe such individuals. It would be no different to describing individuals as American or Chinese. You could extend that individual term to the marriage e.g. American or Chinese wedding\marriage. Hope this clarifies things. 人族 (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not necessarily to the place to prosecute points of view. Same-sex marriage, gay marriage or marriage equality are generally the accepted terms. "Homosexual marriage" is very rarely used. You say "homosexual" is the only term available and "must be" used but this Google Ngram shows the books generally use the term "gay" rather than "homosexual". AusLondonder (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Those of us who aren't on the homo/heterosexual binary prefer same-sex marriage, as bisexuals can marry for example. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I avoid gay given its modern perjorative meaning. Yes I'm aware that historically it also meant happy. The sheer breadth of meaning makes the word dangerous to use not unlike the terms f-g\f----t - cigarettes\bundle of sticks, but which can have very different (and less polite) meanings in different contexts\countries. As far as I'm aware marriage equality is used solely as a campaign slogan - it is not used outside activist circles or news articles about those in said circles. I will note that your comment about prosecuting a point of view is very interesting phrasing - I tend to defend the status quo :-) 人族 (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The status quo is to call it marriage equality. Jerod Lycett (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not! Polyamorists use that term and we're not talking about them here. It is a term exclusively used within specific politically active circles. Wikipedia is not here to be the mouthpiece of selected elements within society - NPOV and all that. 人族 (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

First off, you appear to be a very close to a single purpose account. Second, do your research, Google News showed up hundreds of thousands of hits, including to Times and Huffington Post articles using marriage equality. Third, marriage equality redirects to same-sex marriage here. Therefore the correct NPOV term would be same-sex marriage, or if you don't want to use the same term over and over, marriage equality. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how this is about improvement to this article. We are not going to say that Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to marriage equality couples, so what are you two arguing about? If it doesn't relate to article improvement, see WP:NOTFORUM and knock it off. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

They seem to want it to say homosexual marriage. I'm saying it should say same-sex marriage. I was refuting the idea that marriage equality can't be used in the article.

I do have a question on this though, I've yet to be able to find the court order. Are we sure it's only about same-sex marriage licenses and not all marriage licenses? If so, it would make the whole discussion of the wording moot.

Jerod Lycett (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is one user here advocating the word homosexual. That means zero chance of consensus, which means you just ignore and move on. Why argue pointlessly, unless you just like to argue. As for your question, see #Known for. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The debate started over trying to find a succinct statement defining the Kim Davis entry on the disambiguation page. Some folk objected to my use of the term homosexual marriage - they consider it inaccurate, offensive, whatever else. I defended the use of the phrase, especially since the terms they suggested are ones I consider unacceptable. The current definition is technically inaccurate and repetitive [Kim Davis (county clerk) (born 1965), county clerk in Kentucky jailed for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples] however for now it's the closet thing to an acceptable statement we have. The debate here is way off topic and not relevant to this article. I'm happy to move on. 人族 (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal life

Jptelthorst place an POV tag in this section, so a discussion should ensure. I also noticed an editor removed some material (without an edit summary). I object to the removal, especially the last paragraph which is notable commentary about the subject. - MrX 01:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

What's POV in that section? It's all demonstrably true. I also agree with restoring the content you restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muboshgu (talk • contribs) 02:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I have just removed this: "U.S. News & World Report says that Davis' "turbulent marital history"[32] has raised "questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life."[31]" because the sentence is WP:UNDUE for her opponents, and not really relevant to her personal life; her marriages to multiple men are already described. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this change, thanks. jptelthorst 04:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jptelthorst (talk • contribs)

Perhaps the wording is a little strong, but I do think there is WP:DUE commentary that is needed to encapsulate the stark contrast between her rigid stance on same-sex marriage and her lax stance on multiple partners.

By the way, no objection to removing the "hillbilly redneck" bit which adds little to the article. - MrX 02:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You can re-add it back if you want, although I honestly don't feel it relevant because it's been years since her marriages and this event. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SuperCarnivore here. Seems UNDUE. Info on her religious conversion would be useful, but quotes about apparent hypocrisy are not needed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I won't re-add that wording. I will read some sources tomorrow and see if there is something related worth adding. - MrX 02:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe the info regarding her multiple marriages and hypocrisy is absolutely notable and relevant. How can it possibly be undue? AusLondonder (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Too much content is too much content. This is a BLP. We're not the news. Let the rest of the internet satisfy your curiosity for personal information and trivia. That a bunch of people, some more relevant and authoritative than others, say she's a hypocrite (and they may well be right) doesn't mean we should include her information because they feel the need and the freedom to discuss her private affairs. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The U.S. News piece attributes that to "bloggers and social media"; i.e., common gossip. When that becomes the bar for inclusion we might as well hang it up and go home. If a credentialed journalist writes a column about it, that's a different matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think what is going on here, unfortunately, is an attempt to change this BLP to glowingly paint her as a courages Mandela-style freedom fighter, "Imprisoned for being a Christian" and exclude any sentence possibly perceived as critical of her. How could her gross hypocrisy regarding the "sanctity of Biblical marriage" not be relevant here? AusLondonder (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:AGF, as well as the comments above. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:PUBLICFIGURE AusLondonder (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It is also blatantly wrong to suggest allegations of hypocrisy have only been made on "social media". The Guardian has noted that angle AusLondonder (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think there is some includable content between the two positions articulated in this thread. We don't have to call the subject a hypocrite, but there is a notable aspect of, let's call it, "cognitive dissonance" at play here, according to several sources. - MrX 02:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but we need more than bloggers, social media, and the Guardian, which is borderline RS at best. WP:PUBLICFIGURE: " If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." ―Mandruss ☎ 02:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

How do you feel about Dan Savage as a source? [2][3]- MrX 02:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Only if he's used as a source for his personal commentary, not for any facts. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

What "facts"? Any mention of hypocrisy is someone's opinion, and we are allowed to include opinion. I'm ok with inclusion with the HuffPost cite. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Mandruss, can you explain why, in contrast to general consensus, you believe the Guardian is only a "borderline" WP:RS? AusLondonder (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably not to your satisfaction, and I know of no such consensus. My experience is that they flirt with tabloidish content. Others will differ, including you. As I said, I'm ok with inclusion with both HuffPost and the Guardian cited, and I prefer your version over the alternatives being too aggressively added while this is under discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the US News and World Report article from the personal life section with the issue covered in the same-sex marriage section. AusLondonder (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize this discussion in progress, since I was examining the history. I collected the same content (about hypocrisy) in the same place, but that was removed, even though it was an excellent source (USN&WR).

This content is quite important, because this is what makes her actions so controversial. They would be controversial anyway, no matter who did it, but the fact that she is so judgmental, while having such a "turbulent marital history", makes her a huge target for accusations of hypocrisy, and RS make that accusation. We can't ignore that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Generally when there is edit warring going on, it's a good idea to check the talk page rather than add to the edit warring. US News was dropped because they only attribute the comments to bloggers and social media, rather than addressing the issue in their own voice. Thus they add no weight. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The attribution to people does not make a conclusion less noteworthy, and certainly not less accurate. See my comments below.- MrX 03:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Going back to the US News &World Report Source, which is cited by other sources:

"The Kentucky county clerk facing potentially stiff penalties for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses has been married four times, raising questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life."
— U.S. News & World Report

This is reporter Steven Nelson's analysis based on social media and requests for public records. From this, it would accurate to say that "some people have raised questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life." Can someone help me understand why this, also supported by Huffington Post, The Guardian and The Federalist, is WP:UNDUE?- MrX 03:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You're aware that the content is currently in the article? This is as close to a consensus as we have been in this thread. If you want to add US News, go ahead, no complaint here. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Since the content is nearly identical, I suggest we just add the USN&WR ref to what's there, with no change of wording. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 03:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. We should probably also add the other sources so someone doesn't driveby tag the article as UNDUE/POV.- MrX 03:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Three is enough per WP:CITEKILL. If someone driveby tags it because three aren't enough, we'll untag it because they are. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It's at four right now, and since each one discusses different aspects, let's just leave them as a service to readers and be done with this thread. Okay? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

―Mandruss ☎ 03:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me.- MrX 03:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually I removed one of the two US News, Nelson, thinking it was redundant, making it three again. If it's not redundant, feel free to add Nelson back. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll be a minority of one looking at the user profiles in this Talk page, however the SSM Ruling section information provides skewed info. It conflates Mrs Davis' 4 marriages with her Christianity. It is only in the Personal Life section that the 2011 awakening is mentioned, some 2 years after her final (re)marriage. Without evidence to the contrary the accusation that she is a hypocrite would appear to be defamatory. Rather than suggest an edit which like as not would be reverted I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency at this stage. 人族 (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Divorces and children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just as a note, this [4] is pretty much a rebuttal to what I've argued here recently. I won't oppose mention of an issue that Guardian has headlines on. Geogene (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Reactions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a user talk page discussion with @Stevietheman:, [5] I was able to post three reliable sources mentioning the Republican candidates that are more or less supportive of Davis in less than five minutes. Any Google news search should produce enough to easily overcome any concerns about Weight. For some reason that discussion went nowhere and I've been assured that any addition of politician comments will be "checked, as always". I see that as a challenge. How hard will it really be to get consensus on this? Geogene (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeb and Hillary, with higher numbers (esp. Hillary) put out a statement that Davis needed to follow the law. [6] Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you mean something like this

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

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

Nice work. Now just add the refs after each name and it will be nearly ready for inclusion, once the RfC is settled. That's assuming others also like this format. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Term of Office?

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

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

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

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

Assuming this is still current:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Licenses in other counties?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebook video

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary needs Removal!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Known for

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources for birthday?

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed addition

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irresponsible use of ReFill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead usage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does this adhere to WP:NEWSEVENT?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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