Talk:Kim Davis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Alternate article title(s) (redirects)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Kim Davis controversy

2. Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy

3. Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy

4. Kim Davis marriage license controversy

5. Rowan County marriage license controversy

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

Straw poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Create redirects 1 through 4 immediately. 5 is already created. Who knows how many readers we have inconvenienced already by our dithering; I can't believe we feel the need to discuss this; I have created at least 10 times more redirects than I have articles without asking anyone; The more the better. FYI: It's almost impossible to get a redirect deleted once it is created (believe me; I have tried). Aside: Of course we can't change the article title to Kim Davis; this time next year who knows how popular this article will be in comparison; it's current name is perfect. Note: We all probably noticed that one of the respected administrators at a recent noticeboard discussion was incredulous that we had chosen to make this article a biography and not a controversy. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - As far as redirection goes, Rowan County freedom of religion controversy or some kind of similar wording is still an unhelpful redirect as it contains a bald-faced lie in the middle of the redirect. It's a matter of objective fact, as known and decided by the courts as well as in other ways, that Davis did not have her freedom of religion violated. What she chose to do, in forcing other clerks against their will not to do their jobs as well as using her position to discriminate against other people's religions using her office, is a behavior endorsed by no religious body, including her own. She infringed on other people's free choices, including that of her own office, and did so in a manner that was not based on any religious doctrine. To describe her actions as her 'exercising her freedom of religion upon other people' is not just disrputing Wikipedia to make a point, but it's also objectively, factually false to the point that pretending otherwise is POV-pushing.
  • As I've stated many times above, other extremely worded redirects do not exist. The Holohoax does not go to The Holocaust. Kenyan Marxist takeover of health care does not go to Obamacare. And, of course, freedom of religion is a very core and inherently important concept of modern civil society and democracy. That's what makes pretending that something relates to freedom of religion when it does not even more dangerous. If, for the sake of argument, President Obama really was a non-American born communist as the U.S. political fringe says he is, then I would be outraged; I would be angrily arguing for his impeachment and trial due to breaking the law in such a horrible manner. It's that the allegation is false that's the crucial thing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed

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

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

Eye of the Tiger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How significant one considers the song story depends on how one views the subject of the article. If you think she is a Christian martyr, then adding text about the song makes us no better than scribes and Pharisees. OTOH, if you think it shows a pattern of behaviour, then it is clearly relevant. But if we go done that road then talk pages would become another battleground in the culture wars. That is why Wikipedia has content policies which assign importance according to the degree of coverage in reliable sources. You can get that policy changed if others agree with you, but until then you are obliged to follow it. TFD (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You have a very good point about viewpoint affecting significance. I hadn't particularly considered the "pattern of behavior" angle, and am not sure how such a thing really could be ascertained at a distance, unless the pattern could be reliably established, but it would make a difference. Maybe other things could too. I'm just not seeing them now. You also say "if you think she is a Christian martyr ...", and I can't understand who the "us" in "makes us no better" is supposed to be. I can't say myself what people that think of her as a martyr might conclude either. I can only say that as a Christian, concerned about freedom of religion, she is not representative of most Christians, nor of most of those so concerned. Her actions in this matter are very far from those of historical Christian martyrdom, whether or not one supports her actions (I do not). But part of my concern is how incidents of this kind are misinterpreted and misrepresented so often in a public manner as having ties to mainstream Christian faith, belief, and concerns that are not there. As I have said above, "freedom of religion" may be a connection, but how that is viewed and what are appropriate actions to take, even what "freedom of religion" itself means, can and do vary as greatly as Pentecostal beliefs differ from Orthodox. Four Deuces, consider whether or not you have a habit of thinking of everything that carries a popular label "Christian" as coming from a single or monolithic viewpoint. There is quite a world of differences in faiths that are called Christian. There is an even wider world of differences among them in how those faiths ought to be lived out in the world. So of course, there are a yet larger group of reasons why the song story may not be relevant, and a good many of them have nothing to do with religion, as are my reasons. The media is also quick to jump to conclusions (it needs to be quick in any case), which is one way it can prove unreliable for providing insight. We have more time here on WP in which to consider things, which makes "degree of coverage in reliable sources" a point of information for guidance, but not an absolute determinant. Evensteven (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

PS. When considering how to weigh what you find in the media, consider also what you seldom find. I think that often includes people behaving within the law, speaking with reason, expressing proper concerns in appropriate venues to the proper audience. Those things, especially on a small scale, are rarely considered notable or newsworthy. The squeaky wheel, and those who put on a show, can sometimes gather a crowd, and now you have a news story. Unfortunately, shows can be ephemeral, and the squeaky wheels are often not the things that are functioning well but the things that are having difficulties. Evensteven (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The other matters aside, I feel like the central point remains, as I stated above. The issue is more of a trivial footnote to everything else that's relevant here. If there is a case clearly going to trial on the matter then it becomes pretty notable, but, otherwise, all that we have is a minor war of words here in terms of the Survivor song. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

ivn.us

I see no evidence that ivn.us is a reliable news source. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I presume this pertains to my referencing them? They're listed in Wikipedia as hosting a US presidential debate. Suggests they're not totally fringe. I've no problem with better sources being used though. 人族 (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Which Apostolic Christian Church?

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

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

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

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

Based on this information, we could write:

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

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

Re: this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Oneness Pentecostal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Above you wrote: "Yet, we know for sure which church she attends and we also know for sure it is not Oneness. Elizium23 (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)" Why the change of mind, or are you just in doubt now?

I just noticed something: Apostolic-Churches.com is a .com, and the web host for Solid Rock's website, but that doesn't necessarily make it the official website for the denomination, which would probably be a .org. It has lots of advertising for website creation. Many denominations do provide such a service, but what if this is just a commercial website creator which will list any variety of Apostolic church which uses it as their webhost? This makes me less likely to place all my eggs in that basket.

You also wrote above: "Probably one without a Wikipedia article." That's actually a good possibility. These small churches are often unaffiliated, or their organization may not have a Wikipedia article, and so we've latched onto the article which has the same name as the web host for Solid Rock's website. This may be a mistake, and I'm backing off this for awhile. I'll be traveling anyway and out of range for a few days, so see if you can convince other editors.

You've got me wondering. It would really help if Solid Rock identified itself as Oneness. I wonder if Pastor Daniel Carter has written more anywhere? This all may end up hanging on an interpretation of their Trinitarian beliefs, which can be a bit tricky, and we might get into OR. We may end up just having to drop any mention of which denomination, and also drop linking to any Wikipedia article. Just stick to what their website says without getting into more detail. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This article at Religion News Service seems to prove what I have long contended ... that for Pentecostals of Davis' persuasion, "Apostolic" and "Oneness" are interchangable. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That's the article I brought into this discussion, and then used as a reference for an article update, which BullRangifer reverted. Elizium23 (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Saying she's Oneness Pentecostal would be original research, anyway. She says she's Apostolic, that's what the RS's say, and that's what we go with. Besides, she's never going to call herself "Oneness" since that is pretty much a derogatory moniker given to Oneness Pentecostals by non-Oneness Pentecostals and other Christian denominations critical of Oneness theology. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a RS saying she is Oneness, HangingCurve and I both put it in this talk page, and it is in the article now! Elizium23 (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

News to watch

FYI only: Not enough reliable sources and too early to include at this point, but news to watch: Oath Keepers, the assault-rifle-carrying group that stationed themselves in Ferguson and other conflict areas, has now said that Davis had been illegally detained and is now forming a presence in Rowan County to protect her from American law enforcement if she defies the law and is arrested again, according to Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes. (Oath Keepers On Their Way To 'Protect' KY Clerk Kim Davis From US Marshals Official statement: Oath Keepers Offers Kim Davis Protection From Further Imprisonment by Judge) Although, I personally doubt Davis will be defying the law again anytime soon. Prhartcom (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the main subject matter of the article warrants inclusion in the article, but there is also this:[7] (the part I am speaking of is some Davis supporters calling for her deputies to resign) --Nosfartu (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I may be add a sentence about that. It starting to get coverage in other reliable sources. - MrX 13:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Nosfartu and MrX, good find; agreed; a single mention of that is appropriate for this article. Since I just added some deputy clerk information; I have just made this change (it includes a source from Australia that any of us can change later when a U.S. source appears). Prhartcom (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to take a moment, stray from the rules a bit, and add my opinion: This article is looking good. I also am predicting that this story is about to wind down. There may be news to watch in the coming days, but I doubt much of it will be more than a murmur in comparison to what we have covered here. Now that Davis has got one of the two things she wanted (her name off the gay marriage licences) she won't be making another stand to get the other thing she wanted (no gay marriages), as she doesn't want to return to jail. We get to go back to our lives. ;-) Best, Prhartcom (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Folks, let's keep in mind that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, but an encyclopedia. Just because it's "covered", even in reliable sources, that doesn't make it inclusion-worthy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Right now, it's little more than rhetoric from the Oath Keepers, so I guess I'm inclined to leave it out. If they do deploy "boots on the ground", and especially if it interferes with federal LEOs or people trying to get marriage licenses, then that would be of historical significance. Given Oath Keepers activities in Ferguson and the standoff in Nevada, anything is possible. - MrX 15:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

All replies make accurate points. As I said, I only mentioned it to let ourselves know about it should be become necessary to include it, not to include it. Thanks again to Nosfartu and MrX for the protester reaction source above. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

WV, just saying "WP:NOTNEWS" is unhelpful unless you explain what section of the standard relates to this article. Are you saying that because Kim Davis is only notable because the news media reported about her that this article should be deleted? If so, take it to AfD. TFD (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As stated above, if all we have is talk and speculation about the Oath Keepers group, then it shouldn't go. If Kim Davis chooses to go back to forcing other clerks against their will to stop issuing marriage licenses (naturally, you can't tell for sure what someone is thinking deep down just from looking at them or asking them, this applies to everyone in the world including Davis), then it will become an issue. If we have Oath Keepers actively harming somebody, then it will of course be a major news event. However, that's all mere speculation right now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

According to the Oath Keepers site their offer was politely rejected: [8]. While the offer has been noted on the OathKeeper page, and I'll update it with the refusal, does it pertain here? As I've said on another aspect, do we really need to report when nothing happens? 人族 (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Death Threats?

Should the reports of death threats against Kim Davis be mentioned? They're something already mentioned in some of the linked references, but not in the article itself. Threats of arson and rape has also reportedly been made. I'm aware this article recognizes the issues involved are contentious, but if criminal threats have been leveled do they deserve a mention? 人族 (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Davis made a statement that she received death threats. I also see here that one of the couples and Judge Bunning received death threats. As far as I can tell, none of it rises to the level of significance for inclusion in this article. - MrX 17:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Notable for only one event

Does this person, notable for only one event, merit a biography? See Wikipedia:BLP1E. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, I see this was asked above in #RFC: On the many problems in this article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

That was just archived, here's the permalink. Yeah, that question has arisen in multiple discussions. At this point we're looking at a split (see #Split?), and that will obviously change the nature of this article. There's some agreement in #Split discussion that her notability will increase. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Split?

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.

---

PROPOSED: Split the part not closely related to Davis into a separate article, title to be determined separately from this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Split survey

• Support as proposer. For a rationale, I think we need look no further than the fact that, after massive amounts of discussion, we still have a hybrid article with a bio title. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - A lot of issues will be solved by spliting this into an article about the wider controversy and reaction, and the biography of the ersatz Rosa Parks.- MrX 17:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Although determining the title of the split article is going to probably be difficult, even with all the previous discussion of it here. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Ever since I saw a respected administrator comment that they were surprised we had chosen to make this a biography article instead of an article of a controversial event, I have been thinking seriously about this. Caution: I have a serious concern; please see the discussion below. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Thanks for starting discussion. The current version is COATRACK and needs to be split. While I acknowledge that Davis herself is inextricably tied to the controversy, we need to separate place to discuss the controversy itself. I think as this continues to develop (esp. when she returns Monday) there's going to be increasing need for a controversy page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support as this should have never been a bio article. The situation/circumstances are notable, Kim Davis is 1E. The split will, hopefully, make a good case for deletion of the bio article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Naturally, an article that's about the controversy will discuss Davis herself in some reasonable detail. However, that will make organization make more sense. The details about the controversy itself can be expanded as well. I do feel that, though, strict caution should be maintained as to editorial standards in what new information gets included. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – Since this is a biographical article about her and what she has done in her life, and what makes her notable, it is common sense to include this controversy in the bio article, a split is unnecessary, and seems to be just a backdoor attempt to get this bio article deleted. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - The controversy is more notable than Kim Davis and has greater carrying power. She's notable for being a part of it, but a bio article does not give adequate coverage or scope to the controversy. Evensteven (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support although the hard part might be how the separate article would be summarized here, unless we decide to treat that as "See also". I'm just relieved that this bio article will no longer be the magnet for every Tom, Dick and Mary wanting to hang their little political hat by way of RS. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Split discussion

I believe that once this split is supported and the controversy article is created, readers will only require the controversy article and will not see the point of the biography article. An AfD will then be next, with arguments that the controversy is the only reason Davis is notable, which will be unanimously agreed upon and the biography article will be deleted. Honestly, what would be in the biography article that is notable? Only her election history and her personal life, the latter of which will be thoroughly covered in the controversy article. I'm afraid we should instead be talking about renaming this article. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That's kind of the point. We have been talking about renaming this article, ad nauseam et exhausteum, and have gotten precisely nowhere. There's no light at the end of that tunnel that I can see, so this is what's left. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, honestly, call me a pessimist or whatever, I am all but certain that she is going to be a significant player in the next year or so in terms of the US Republican presidential primaries. A somewhat similar example I know of is Jennifer Zeng, an article I created because of her autobiographical book years ago. Since then, she has become involved in a film production, been a regular and vocal activist, and basically become notable for other things. It is hard, if not impossible, for me to imagine that Ms. Davis is going to stay simply notable for this one event much longer. Honestly, although she hasn't, so far as I can tell, returned to work today, when she does, I have little if any doubt that there will be further events, be they more denials of marriage licenses or, even, issuing of marriage licenses, with or without her consent or approval. And, for all we know, the lawsuit might continue and maybe even be heard, which would probably be sufficient for another instance in and of itself. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That's also my view. I don't think she is going to quickly fade into obscurity, and I would bet all my barnstars that there will be a forthcoming book and talk show appearances that will keep her in the media well beyond these current events.- MrX 18:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Even if the split now results in a rather small-scale article for Davis's BLP, she is notable enough to warrant the page. That notability will almost certainly increase in the short-term. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

These are excellent points. You'll have to rehash them at the AfD so that you win. I hope you do, otherwise the biography will be deleted only to be resurrected the following season when she's on Oprah. But if that's how it plays out, it is even more important that we split this article out now, as I predict the controversy will probably simmer down this month or the next. Prhartcom (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not an article about Kim Davis herself, personally, is going to be AfD-ed and then deleted is far from certain. There could very well be no consensus to get rid of it. There could also very well be a majority viewpoint to keep it. Things depend on what Davis chooses to do in the future, as stated above. We can't see into future, so we shouldn't try. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't make predictions about the future. If the article is split, that's no indication that the biography will be deleted. She's still holds a notable political position, which is that of a clerk of a county with over 23,000 people, plus her connections to this controversy will definitely result in a consensus to keep. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 05:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The remark about backdoor attempt, in your !vote, seems moot if such an AfD would be extremely unlikely to succeed, as you say above. It's also a bit non-AGF. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This is looking a lot like a snow pass, but let's give it at least another 24 hours. Some others who might care to !vote are @BullRangifer, Nosfartu, Stevietheman, and Evensteven: (sorry for any slight, that's based solely on edit counts to the article and this page). ―Mandruss ☎ 08:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I've just been taking a break from this as this has become the most controversial thing I've touched in a long time, and it was wearing me out. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree about not predicting the future, but I don't foresee any AfD. Controversy about gay marriage in general has been around a considerable time already. It's in history; the only question is how long it will continue to generate more news, but that doesn't matter as to the durability of material for articles. Kim Davis has already had enough notability for being a part of that history that a bio article on her would have reason to stay, even if it may be short. But surely the issue of gay marriage (and related issues/controversies) is something worth article coverage, and that requires context, the collection of multiple events, and eventually synthesis. As this particular incident recedes into the past, it will find its place in writing of a less media-driven nature, and it will increasingly become possible to make the articles more encyclopedic. Both kinds of article cover the history of other topics, and I see no reason why they shouldn't for this topic either. Evensteven (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, Davis crossed the line into permanent notability when Huckabee raised her hand. No matter what happens in the Presidential race, and no matter what anyone thinks of the politics of it, that scene at the jail was a historical moment connecting a very notable figure (and a very notable segment of religious activists) to Davis. Permanent 'Keep' vote from me. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Does anyone know if we can request that the history be copied to the new article? It seems like that would be appropriate given that there is such a large amount of content to copy, and 114 contributing editors. I'm not entirely sure if WP:HISTMERGE applies. WP:CFORK doesn't really address it either. WP:SPLIT says to use an edit summary noting "split content from article name". - MrX 17:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• I guarantee that if this article is split and the bio AfD'd, if the result is not Keep it will be merge back to the controversy, which will mean the entire history ending up in one article anyway. So I'd not worry about the history until we get to that point. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, I guess it would have to, to comply with attribution requirements. - MrX 18:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  I also agree. In that case, it's the bio info that would need to be copied to a new page, but that's a smaller set where attribution history can be documented (pointed to) in the requisite edit comments, perhaps at talk. Evensteven (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  Oops. I was rather off the mark just above. But apply it to the case where the bio remains and the controversy is added. Some sort of attribution origin should be documented at the new page. I was suggesting that it be kept simple. Evensteven (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Split next step

So, thinking ahead to the next step, we should try for a consensus on the new article's title before creating it. The alternative is for the creator (oops, sorry God!) to just take their best shot at a title, which would almost certainly end up in an RM. We stand a better chance of avoiding an RM if we collaborate on the title here. Am I somewhat on track here? If so, should we continue the existing discussion, or start fresh with a new one? We definitely want to leave redirects out of it at this stage; we're just trying to get the article started, and that would unnecessarily complicate matters. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me personally that the big issue is regarding whether to start the title with her name or with "Kentucky". I guess the deciding factor would be something we can't know yet, specifically, how far this will go. Tentatively, and I mean extremely tentatively, because it could change even by late Monday, I'd go with starting the title with her name, like maybe Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy, and hope that so many other people don't get heavily involved that the name has to be changed later. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so I gather you're for collaborating here, and starting fresh. I'd suggest that we not do that in this subsection. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• I second John Carter's suggestion of Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. As a distant second, I would support Rowan County, Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. I do not support any title with the word "issuance" or "2015", or any title that does not include the words "same-sex marriage". (If a more organized titling discussion is started elsewhere, feel free to copy my !vote there.) - MrX 19:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Doesn't 2015 help clarify things? Why oppose a date? And since I love playing devil's advocate, why not hijack\repurpose the Rowan County freedom of religion controversy page. True it lacks a date so if others prefer Rowan County(or Kentucky) 2015 Freedom of Religion Controversy I'm good with that too :-D 118.208.65.221 (talk) 10:01, 13 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.

United States versus U.S.

There seems to be some feeling that "United States" needs to be spelled out in many cases that seem unnecessary to me. While it's justified in a few situations, in my opinion most cases should favor brevity and readability over formality. I think enough readers know what U.S. means that we don't need to say, "United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky", for example. Yes, that's the true name of the court, but I don't think knowing that the true name says United States rather than U.S. benefits our readers, that many of them care, or that the ones who do care can't figure it out that we're abbreviating. This is an appeal to common sense. It's a Wikipedia article, not a legal document. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. With the caveat that we can't be vague just for the sake of brevity because of non-American readers. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

We're only discussing U.S. versus United States in this thread. I am not proposing any kind of extrapolation to other things. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest changing "U.S. Supreme Court" to "Supreme Court of the United States", which is widely used even in U.S. media. But I think that readers will understand in which country the "U.S. Court of Appeal" is, unlike for example, the EWCA (England and Wales Court of Appeal). TFD (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

US or America(n) is fine. United States is much less common I think. 人族 (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

How about spelling out "U.S." once, perhaps in the lead, and using the abbreviation elsewhere? For the purposes of this article, maybe using the construction "Supreme Court of the United States," at least to my eyes, makes it a bit clearer that the United States is the area in question here, so spelling that out once in the lead, and using the abbreviation thereafter, might be the best alternative, at least to my eyes. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean first reference in the lead? It wouldn't work very well to go from a shorter form to the longer form. As the first reference currently is used, that would read, Supreme Court of the United States decision. Does that sound right to you? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I meant in the first reference in the lead, and I guess "decision of the Supreme Court of the United States" might be less grammatically awkward. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thus increasing the word count by 5 (U.S. reads as one word), in a sentence that is very long and growing. Three words were already added today alone. In my opinion, we should split the first sentence if we want to do as you suggest. I personally favor U.S. Supreme Court throughout, except where we already have enough context to drop the U.S. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As it stands now, the first sentence reads at grade level 12.8. Experts say that content written for the general public should aim for grade level 8. Would you agree that Wikipedia is written for the general public? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I would say that WP content aims at a variety of audiences within the general public. Depending on the article, some aim considerably above grade level 8. This one, however, seems well-suited to grade 8 (or whatever's average for media news). Evensteven (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I stand self-corrected. The program was mistaking the periods in U.S. and v. as the end of sentences, making the average sentence length far smaller. After removing those periods, it becomes grade level 25.5. I've had good experience with this site in the past, but that seems so outlandish that I'm disregarding it. As to news media, a recent New York Times article on a scientific topic got a 9.9 at the same site. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Grade-level 25.5? WTF? Is that, like, postdoctorate or something? If the grade level is that high, drop it as much as required to make it something the average reader could easily understand. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just a number, the output of a mathemetical algorithm. More accurately, it's the average of the outputs of five different recognized algorithms. I don't think they're suggesting that grade level 25.5 actually exists in the real world. Looking at our current first sentence, and comparing that to stuff I've evaluated at this site before, I'd probably give it something like a 16, and I'd favor splitting it. On the other hand, the contributors of the greater part of the content in this article are not writing for the general public but rather for people at their own level. As long as that has tacit consensus, there's little point in splitting the first sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel somewhat wary about putting a lot of stock into these algorithmic results when it comes to something as subjective as readability. I'm reminded of one of those 'Golden age of science fiction' novels, where (say) an android would scan a fellow before beeping "You are ←38.5%→ dead, please report to the authorities for additional killing until you are ←100%→ dead". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't suggest they should be the final arbiter, but it beats nothing but subjective perceptions. Ideally, we would have a panel of tenth graders read it and say whether they found it accessible. Myself, I'm seeing a lot of sentences that seem excessively and unnecessarily long, as well as a lot of cases where a long word was used where a shorter one would have the same meaning (or close enough for our purposes); compensation and pay, for example. And I'm not feeling WP:BOLD enough to make widespread edits in these areas, since I'm the only one who seems to feel this way. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

More important things to do

Occasionally, discussions initiated here are underwhelming arguments for unimportant non-issues. While these discussions of minutia rage, there are more important matters of policy. Prose not supported by its referenced source had gone unnoticed. Passages of text had no cited source. Factual details from sources had been stated in the prose incorrectly. Events of the timeline had been presented out of order. An editor had inserted their opinion into the text and it was allowed to stand. As far as I know, these issues were resolved today, but we must be vigilant. Let us, as time in our lives allow, return to Wikipedia:Verifiability: Read each of the sources cited to each sentence and ensure the facts stated in the article are correct and that the most important facts from the sources were gathered. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's some cheese to go with that.  :) (had to come back sometime) Seriously, what you say describes the challenge all over this site, not just this article. Solution: WP:FIXIT. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Point taken! I did! :-) I made this plea after a lengthy editing session that made many corrections. If anyone else has any comments or suggestions for improvement, feel free to leave them below. Or if you prefer, take my caution to heart and make no comment, while vowing to take better care of the article going forward. Prhartcom (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

More important things are more important; that goes without saying. No editor should assert that an issue is too minor to be discussed by editors who choose to discuss it. No one is forced to participate in any discussion, and no one should presume to dictate how others spend their unpaid time at Wikipedia (unless they are violating policy or behavioral guideline, needless to say). ―Mandruss ☎ 02:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You and I finally agree on something. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well we agreed that Hawtpeppers is (was?) a pain in the ass (arse). ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Wikipedia is developed by volunteers. :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggest Removing 2.2.1 Reactions Section

What purpose does this section serve other than a soapbox of opinions that may or may not be true or valid arguments by people unrelated to her and the incident? --Cutterx2202 (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, at this point, "the incident" is pretty much by far the most written about thing about the subject, and, as such, opinions from qualified individuals, like judges, are probably worth discussing. The bulk of the section seems to be related to presidential candidates who have said something about the incident, and it is hard to say that something which seemingly every candidate out there has spoken about, in some way, does not deserve mention somewhere, and, right now, this article is the article for the incident. With any luck, it might be spunout shortly, but, until then, we still have to more or less adhere to all the guidelines and policies, which pretty much insist that a lot of that material be included. Granted, it is probably overlong right now, but the best way to deal with that is spinout, and that is in the process of being arranged. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Agreed that opinions from judges involved as well as actual case proceedings make sense, but that information would be in other sections. Most of the quotes in this section are 'from the hip' comments from random unauthoritative sources and have no place on this page, but as you said would be good fodder for a spinout event page. If a spinout does not happen, this section should be removed. --Cutterx2202 (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the article that we have right now is in an odd state because it's about to (and, really, it could be done at this very moment given that I think we have consensus) be split into two articles, one of which would appropriately bring up opinions about the legal issues while another would be narrowly focused on Davis herself. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The decision to include the Reactions section was formally agreed upon by consensus (see the archives). Prhartcom (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Regardless of whether or not we end up with a spinout article, that content is well within what articles here are REQUIRED to include. Keep in mind the purpose of Wikipedia: We document the sum total of human knowledge as found in RS. Opinions about events are part of that knowledge, and whether they are true or not is somewhat irrelevant. As they say, "That's a matter of opinion." Anything about the subject of an article, including reactions, is potentially fair game for content, and the commentator need not have ANY relation to the individual or the incident. Obviously we do use some discretion and consider weight and other things, but we don't drop such content. We need it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS, subject to WP:N and WP:WEIGHT. This isn't an opinion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:N applies to article creation, not article content. WEIGHT obviously does apply. If a subject is NOT known primarily for controversy, then WP:WEIGHT dictates that a controversy should not be allowed to dominate their article, especially if it makes the article too long. It can then be spun off into a sub-article, much like what we've recently done with Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. OTOH, if a subject, like this one, is ONLY known for a controversy, then all that content should remain in their article. Creating a sub-article for the controversy is not a proper WP:SPINOFF, but a WP:POVFORK, which is not allowed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:N applies to content as an article is content. I stand by my position, and disagree with yours (more said below). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you need to get your policies straight: "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

See WP:N: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." It has nothing to do with the weight provided to issues within an article. TFD (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Stevietheman, looks like you made a mistake again. Prhartcom (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I continue to stand by my position. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not to be a pain, but there have been two quotes that directly and clearly contradict your position. Do you have a counter? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I was speaking in a general sense, which includes article creation. BullRangifer keeps suggesting that WP:RS is the only thing that matters. And part of our current discussion about this article is spinning off a new article that would contain reactions. I fully understand what they are quoting, but they are also missing the general point I'm making. I suspect they are interested in conflict more than they are interested in building and improving articles. I stand by what I said. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I see, I think. Perhaps there's some miscommunication involved. Aside from the one brief bit of snark, which didn't contribute to the discussion, I've seen no evidence that anyone is only interested in conflict. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I will admit that is my perspective. Argumentum Ad Infinitum is a form of conflict, in my book. Also, stating that WP:RS is all we need to care about when the policies/guidelines are achingly clear against that seems to invite disagreement. I'll leave it at that. If anyone wants to continue arguing about what I said, I will from this point let it slide as it's not worth anyone's time. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

RS is obviously NOT the only thing to consider, and I would never suggest that (unless in a very specific situation later taken out of context), but it is the most basic factor, since all content starts there. When a title change is suggested which ignores the main content of RS and COMMONNAME, then I have to remind editors to take another look at RS. Other things like WEIGHT, UNDUE, NPOV, TRIVIA, etc. are always of relevance, but only later. We start with all the RS which contain potential content. Then (later) we use other considerations to determine how to include and frame it. We don't use editorial censorship to figure out how to not use it; We use it in one way or another, but sometimes only using the strongest sources. WEIGHT would be used to determine how we use it; WP:N would not be a factor in our considerations, and certainly not for inclusion, deletion, or omission.

User:Stevietheman, you've been here a long time, and you should know that WP:N is NOT a consideration for article content, only article creation. That's your current bone of contention in this thread, and you're refusing to concede the point. That's disruptive and raises questions of competency, since that is an important policy. If you don't get it, your reputation is shot. I don't think you want that to haunt you around here. You can fix this here and now so we can move on and put your embarrassing lapse behind us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Well said. Prhartcom (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Mugshot in main bio box

Can someone put the mugshot back into the bio box. I thought it was a good photo. 75.169.164.186 (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No. See WP:MUG.- MrX 20:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

As stated by other users, the Wikipedia consensus is clearly against that practice. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. A more neutral image would be appropriate for the infobox, if we had a copyright free image. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Scope and title in a related issue/controversy article

I will produce a list (as suggested) of titles for the elements of the issues that might appear in a title. A selection from these (or added ideas) would likely produce an article title that will hopefully define its scope by that means. Since I don't think that that article is this one, perhaps we will find that there already is one. In any case, that article would be a place that could share some materials from here or refer here, and also be one that this article could relate itself to.

1. Religious liberty (same as freedom of religion): the biggest-scope, most far-reaching issue in sight here. Note that the freedom/liberty is not the same thing as any legal right to freedom. The liberty is an abstract thing, with applications globally. We have a "Freedom of religion in Georgia" article (Georgia the nation, not the state), for example.
2. Religious rights: a smaller scope, focused on the right to religious liberty, also a principle having a potential for global applicability. This scope considers specific laws that grant such rights, restrict the rights in some way(s), or deny those rights. It may also (more abstractly perhaps) consider principles of law, and (more concretely) whether or not those principles grant legal rights implicitly. British Common Law, for example, granted legal recognition to marriages in the absence of any ceremony or license.
3. Marriage: There is controversy about what it means already - "one man, one woman", and "same-sex" being the easily recognizable conflicting labels. The institution of marriage predates all the nations of the world, and their laws. It has generally (worldwide) always been practiced within the religious norms of the societies wherein they have occurred, in concert with those religions. It is no different in Christianity, where there is a 2000-year history in which marriage is defined in terms of its theology. "Same-sex" is a new definition, coming from outside religion, and gaining authority from societal law rather than religion, but in conflict with long-held religious belief. Hence the political and legal conflicts, and the controversy. This is a smaller scope than the religious ones above, a specific matter that intersects religious liberty and rights, but the specific one tied to this article. The scope of an issue article could focus on this particular conflict, or engage more widely into any conflicts of religious liberty or rights. In fact, there is potential for three different levels of scope here, and each might have an article.
4. United States: restricts the scope geographically, as other articles have already done, to the single nation. This seems to me most appropriate in an article when legal factors are at play, or perhaps other societal issues that are focused on the nation rather than on humanity generally. Kim Davis' controversy definitely goes no farther than this, being based so heavily upon the legalities of her actions, and those specific to the US. Yet there is no single action or controversy that doesn't touch in some way upon general principles. It is reasonable to divide these things into separate articles that can make appropriate references.
5. Religious suppression (or persecution): These are not the same thing, being a matter of degree. They are also a matter of interpretation, as to when some event imposes restrictions to what degree. I would avoid these terms in an article title as being too subject to points of view. It would be appropriate to deal with them internally within an article as a matter of presenting points of view, of which there might be many.

I do not personally favor an article more geographically restricted than "United States". The largest scopes are the more abstract therefore, not needing such restriction. The legal issues anywhere in the US are going to involve the 4th amendment, national law, and the Supreme Court, and other more local laws and jurisdictions enter in only in specific cases, like Kim Davis'. The issues are big; the case here is smaller. It seems to me that issue/controversy articles require a "US" scope at minimum. The legal issues are neatly confined when one considers only a single nation, and the US controversies seem to me to be quite notable enough for an article. But an article on US religious rights is one useful thing, and an article on US religious liberties is quite another thing, and I think both deserve articles. Much of the controversy is generated by the clash of law and religion, so the questions are different in those two contexts. WP will not have covered "the controversy" if it considers only law, so if it came to deciding between "religious liberty" and "religious rights", I would have to argue that "religious liberty" is the more necessary - much more. Evensteven (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't share the mind-set that an article's title has to be a POV battleground. I think an article can cover important issues that are not reflected in its title, and I don't think omission of an issue from the title implies that the issue is not important. I think this is classic overthink and a major waste of time. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

A very nice list! Thanks. We have articles on all these subjects, and then some, and many articles which cover multiple aspects in one article. This article about Kim Davis is such an article. It documents a notable series of events which include elements of: her religious beliefs about marriage and homosexuality; Constitutional and State laws; Supreme Court decisions; resistance against such laws based on her religious beliefs; claims made by Davis that her religious freedoms are being violated; claims of religious persecution made by those who do not share her views; etc..

I think you can see that this article covers lots of territory! How do we know? Because RS tell the story, and it's our job to describe only those aspects related to Kim Davis. Other articles deal with some of the same subjects as they relate to other situations and persons. This is typical of how Wikipedia works. On any given subject, there will be a whole host of articles and sub-articles which are tangentially related and thus in the same category, and also in many other categories because they are relevant to all of them.

If we just continue to document what RS say about Kim Davis and the controversy, we will be doing our job. There is no need to complicate things. Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy covers the scope of the subject quite well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sure it's not a complete list ("homosexuality" is a whole extra set of considerations). Now that I've arrived at thinking about scope in these terms, I'm not surprised that the other articles exist already. At the scale of the whole US, it's easy to see that the issues are the same issues all over, and plenty notable. And that's plenty of reason in itself not to rip content away from this article by a split. I don't see quite why there's been concern (even with a split) that this article would not survive an AfD, for however notability is attained, once it's there, it's there. Because this article is about Davis, I do not expect it to provide a lot of context about all the issues raised by her actions: out of scope here. That's why it's important to tie this article to those others with wikilinks, where references are made to the issues. They will provide the means to place Davis in a suitable context. I think the article now tends to overemphasize the legal issues with respect to the others, but I would have to admit that the media do the same, so I can't say there's an imbalance of reporting here. It is certainly reportable and involves ongoing developments. In balance myself, I have become much more satisfied with the function this article serves, and think it should be retained in its current state.

Mandruss, I don't share the mind-set that an article's title has to be a POV battleground? If you read something I wrote that you thought espoused that idea, please read again my comments about religious suppression/persecution just above. I'm advocating keeping loaded terms out of titles as much as possible. And I agree that articles can cover issues not mentioned directly in the title, but I'm saying here that naming these issues in the title is a way of satisfying COMMONNAME as well as identifying the central scope of the articles. But since those articles already exist and have names, the point is moot, and my list serves only to distinguish relevant topics related to each other and to this article. Evensteven (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

In terms of titles, the fundamental issues come up again and again, and I think it's clear that POV titles (especially titles that are objectively false) are problematic. As stated before, again and again, Davis did not exercise her free rights as an individual to avoid doing something based on her religious beliefs, and thus was persecuted. That's objectively, factually false. She forced other clerks, against their wills (apparently either physically threatening them, threatening their jobs, or both) to avoid granting licenses to couples. As a government official expressing the state, she forced those that wanted to get married to be unable to do so and actively tried to make it as difficult for them as possible, telling the couples that they couldn't just go to some other office because then their licenses would be invalid. One could perhaps word the article as Kim Davis' persecution of religious activity or Kim Davis' attack on religious freedoms or Kim Davis' discrimination against religious choices-- those would be inflammatory and I wouldn't support it, but at least those titles would be factually accurate. Wording that portrays Davis as the victim such as Kim Davis religious freedom controversy aren't just inflammatory, they're inflammatory and false. As stated before, it's akin to changing Barack Obama to Kenyan Muslim usurper. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Um, don't you mean Kim Davis' attack on civil rights? She's asserting religious freedoms, not attacking them. And I don't feel it's objective to say she's attacking civil rights. If they hadn't come to her office, I haven't seen any evidence she would be out campaigning against same-sex marriage. Not that I've read a whole lot of the coverage on this, I could be wrong. Anyway, since none of this is going to be in a title, I'm flirting with NOTFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy covers the scope and content of this article quite accurately and neutrally. There is nothing remotely POV or controversial about that wording. This is the scope and content which passed the AfD. That title identifies the key person and the key issues, so it is the proper name for this article. No change of content is needed. It's fine as is. We can just develop it as more occurs.

The newly created Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy article is a meta-article with a larger scope. It can include much more than Kim Davis. As more content is added to it, I suspect its title will need to be tweaked a bit to more accurately describe its greater scope. (Maybe Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversies, once any other controversy gets included.)

Eventually that article will include all other clerks and judges involved in these controversies, together with any judgments and legal actions, etc.. Some might be notable enough to have their own articles, but not necessarily. Then it would end up with just one section describing this article, with a "main" link to this one. Similarly for any other notable individuals. That's how these types of articles link to each other and supplement each other. There is room for both, without any conflict. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed this is not a forum, and neither are the title segments I posted here POV. But now we're getting a lot of POV about them. Since the spinoff article seems to be set in stone, and since it is already named, both against my recommendation and contrary to BullRangifer's excellent points, I suggest that POV bickering cease and this section be considered obsolete. And, by the way, I am quite dismayed by the lack of good faith I am seeing by posts of this kind. I don't back down from fights, but this is not a fight, it is slander. Those of you who cannot keep a civil tone may go take a flying leap. Evensteven (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for losing my temper, sincerely. But it truly dismays me how completely some of you have misunderstood what I have said and why. I see little chance for correcting misunderstandings now. If you feel inclined to try, look at the press. The basics are there too. I've never brought a soapbox here. Evensteven (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Trimming

Now that content has been spun-off to Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy‎, I think we should discuss how to refocus this article on biographical content. My bold edit yesterday was reverted, so I realize that there are different views on how (or if) we should do this. Here is my high-level proposal:

Keep the lead, Career and Personal life sections as is. Eliminate the Reactions section. Summarize the remainder of the Official actions and legal proceedings section and subsections to about 25-30% of their current size. This can be done by removing direct quotes and detailed analysis of the law, as well as the detailed tick-tock in the Contempt of court section.

I would like to hear what other editors think about this, so we can get some general consensus on how to proceed.- MrX 15:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to read more carefully what's been said above. This has actually been addressed many times. The AfD approved of this article based on its notability. That notability is based on the controversy. Without it there is no justification for this article. It will just be AfDed again, and it will be deleted. This is a biography with weight on the controversy, the only thing which makes Kim Davis notable.

The other article is a meta-article with a larger scope. This one has a smaller scope, limited to Kim Davis and her same-sex licensing controversy. That is notable enough to justify this article, so all the existing content needs to stay here. Parts of it can be copied and used elsewhere, as you have done. That's okay, but deletion here is not proper. We don't want to see a backdoor attempt to bypass the AfD by hijacking this article. Anyone who wants a different scope is welcome to create such an article. That has no effect on this one, but, if done properly, may supplement it and make Wikipedia richer. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I've read the prior discussions carefully enough. I understand that it's your point of view that if we don't include the detail in this article, the notability of the subject collapses, but I, and I believe some other editors, disagree. The article should cover all aspects relevant to her notability, but the level of detail is excessive in my opinion. I'm of course biased toward omitting the political reactions altogether, although I do acknowledge that the reactions have created a vicious cycle keeping her relevant in the media. Nonetheless, I think some bold trimming is necessary. - MrX 16:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I think your approach works. No need to overthink this, folks. It will remain clear in this article why the subject is notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I can see the Reactions section just being removed entirely. Yet I'm not sure how much, if any, material can be removed from the Official actions and legal proceedings section as well as the Contempt of court section. Misinformation and lacking of understanding about who stated what and when about Davis' sentencing, about the judges actions, and so on is rampant, and while the stuff about "What does President Obama's office think about the Kentucky controversy?" arguably belongs in the other article and not here... exact details about Davis' encounter with various state officials is directly notable to her own personal life and is focused around her. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This should go without saying but I'll say it anyways: I'm not accusing anyone here of misinformation; I'm pointing out that a lot of coverage of Davis in the news media, in blogs, et cetera has been superficial and without details. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I applaud the creation of the meta-article Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy, although the larger scope indicates that a title change to Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversies is warranted, and quickly, to avoid an AfD. I think that such an article can serve a useful purpose, because, as has been stated by some editors, others in Kentucky have been involved in similar controversies related to their objections to same-sex marriage. I haven't noticed it in the press, but I haven't been looking for it. If that's really the case, then go for it. Create that article, but have the integrity, honor, and balls to do it without hijacking, sacking, and/or robbing this article of its legitimate content, because doing that is dishonorable and goes against the AfD.

What happens in the Kentucky article should have no effect on this article; none, nada, zero, keine, ingen, nada. In that very specific regard, there is a wall of separation between the articles, and they live their own independent lives. This one is about Kim Davis and her controversy. The Kentucky article is about similar controversies involving anyone in Kentucky, not limited to Kim Davis. The current content and scope here is what made this article notable enough to pass an AfD and no change of scope is needed, nor should it be made. All that needs to happen is to do what we always do with articles; we continue to monitor RS for potential content, and then seek to incorporate what is useful for further development.

I've also seen mixed messages. Sometimes it has been stated or implied that there is an attempt to remove the controversy so this is only a biography, and other times that there is an attempt to remove the biographical parts so it's only about the controversy. As far as my involvement goes, both ideas are false. (I can't speak for others.) This article has always been about Kim Davis AND her personal controversy. The original content and scope should be preserved and developed. The only real need is to have a more accurate title, which is covered by "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy". That sums it up. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason, or consensus, to pluralize "controversy". The scope of the article is clear in the current title: Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. The controversy covers all of the concurrent events in a few Kentucky counties, mainly Rowan county, as well as the ensuing legal and political implications. As far as the level of detail in this article, I think we need to get a few more comments from other editors before deciding what to do. - MrX 04:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The title must reflect the content. The singular title was fine before more people were included, but there is more than one person involved. "Plural" is the defining word here, and simple logic and our name rules dictate a plural title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning, and so do several other editors who chose the current title. There are plural clerks and plural counties, but only one controversy centered on Kentucky. You're welcome to open a RM if you believe that a new consensus has since formed.- MrX 14:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so you are clearly creating an article there which is NOT limited to Kim Davis' actions, but is still about same-sex marriage controversy (ies), with focus limited to Kentucky. I get that, and always have, but that makes it a separate article, not a spin-off of this one. It only shares some content and has no bearing on the Kim Davis-related content here, ergo there is no justification for "removal" of Kim Davis-related content from here. Everything related to Kim Davis must stay here. You're welcome to "copy" material from here which is related to "same-sex marriage license controversies" in "Kentucky" to your Kentucky article, but nothing that's related to Kim Davis should actually be "removed". It's what makes her notable, and without it this article ceases to be notable.

Your attempts to "remove" content are an improper and unnecessary attempt to bypass the AfD's recognition that her notability is based on her controversy. Why do you have to do something unnecessary to create your Kentucky article? Hijacking content isn't a good thing. That content can be in both places. For example, if you want to build a house, it's unnecessary to "remove" wood from your neighbor's house to do it. That's theft and vandalism. Just build your house and leave your neighbor's house alone. OTOH, borrowing ideas is fine.

The Kentucky article is a sub-article of a larger topic (and article, if we had it) on Same-sex marriage license controversies in the United States, which would itself be a sub-article of Same-sex marriage in the United States (also a category), which is a sub-article of Same-sex marriage. There are numerous possibilities for related articles. Here are a few: Same-sex marriage in New England, Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy, Marriage license#Controversy in the USA (Kim Davis should be mentioned there), and Religious views on same-sex marriage. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. The suggestion was submitted after a content fork article (at Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy) already existed that covered the suggested topic. As nom, I wasn't aware of that, and the only supportive comments also seemed to be made without awareness (or at least without comment) about that. It clearly wouldn't make sense to have two articles with the same exact topic scope that differ only in regard to whether they refer to the state or the name of the clerk when describing the topic. (non-admin closure) —BarrelProof (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Kim Davis (county clerk) → Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy – [suggestion changed to insert "license" after discussion began] Per WP:BLP1E. This woman is primarily notable only for one thing – the controversy surrounding her refusal to issue marriage licenses – and that is what the article is primarily about. If she had not refused to issue marriage licenses, there would not be a Wikipedia article about her (and there wasn't one until she did that). The biographical information in the article is primarily only interesting as background information to explain her actions (and other people's actions) in that regard. She is known to most people as "the woman in Kentucky who is refusing to issue marriage licenses because of same-sex marriage", not as "Kim Davis the county clerk". —BarrelProof (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Questions - Can you explain how you believe each of the three BLP1E conditions are met for this subject? Also, how do you reconcile the fact that she was already a public figure before these events, with the requirement that BLP1E only be applied to low-profile individuals?- MrX 04:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• I must admit that I didn't go reread the exact wording of WP:BLP1E before submitting this. Perhaps the rationale is better expressed as WP:ONEEVENT than WP:BLP1E. In any case, I note that there is no separate article about her refusal to issue marriage licenses and the controversy surrounding that one notable action, and I believe there is no adequate justification for a separate article on that topic, since that's really practically the only thing that this article is about. A separate article about the controversy would merely be a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK. Since I believe that's what this article is about, I think that's what the title should reflect. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• You said "I note that there is no separate article about her refusal to issue marriage licenses". Are you aware of this article Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy that was spun-off as the result of a discussion resulting in a clear consensus?- MrX 12:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oops. No. I wasn't aware of that! Can I withdraw this? It doesn't make sense to have two articles about the same controversy. Shouldn't a lot of stuff be deleted from this article if there's another one about the controversy? —BarrelProof (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1E persion, the event and not the person, same as with any person associated with an event they caused, it is the event that has the notability. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support, per BarrelProof. This makes total sense. The current title does not reflect the content and scope, and that's totally wrong. There is no need to change the content or scope, only to bring the title into harmony with the current content and scope. This solves that problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous very recent discussions where this was hashed out. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 09:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  The previous RM was about whether to refer to her as "politician" or "clerk" – rapidly settling on "county clerk" (which I personally supported during the discussion). It was not about whether the title should be about the person or her notable action and the surrounding controversy. That RM was also closed after only seven hours of discussion, so it did not necessarily fully explore all the issues. Some of the discussion since then has been about whether to create a second content fork article, which I don't support for the reasons I just elucidated. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  There have been multiple discussions since that RM about this subject. To avoid argumentum ad infinitum, I would prefer not to re-discuss any of it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  The discussion in which consensus was reached to fork the content is here: Talk:Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)/Archive_3#Split?.- MrX 12:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support except the title should be Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. BarrelProof, where have you been; we discussed this above; your title sounds like Davis herself is the one getting same-sex married. It's about her refusal to issue same-sex marriage licences, remember? You have time to change your proposal; go ahead and do so. As BullRangifer noted above, the current title does not reflect the content and scope; the content and scope is correct but the title is wrong as Davis is notable for only one event. MrX, who created the article as a biography has argued to keep the article a biography as they imagine Davis will someday be a celebrity known for books, tours, etc. but that is not the case today; Davis has retreated to her office and closed the shutters; the controversy is over. All that is necessary is bring the title into harmony with the current content and scope. Prhartcom (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree. I had the same thought as well, but others had already started replying to the RM and I didn't want to disrupt the flow by changing the suggestion in a way that wasn't relevant to the comments being made. Sorry for not noticing that the suggestion had come up before. I have now inserted "license" above. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support only if the name of the article excludes Kim Davis. The focus of the article should be the marriage licenses and the county, not Kim Davis. Suggest (as we have already discussed above) changing the article name to Rowan County, Kentucky same-sex marriage license conflict. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, why? Prhartcom (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I already stated why, above. Kim Davis is a 1E, at best. It's the marriage licenses that are the center of the controversy, not Davis. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Who caused, perpetuated, and ended the controversy? I'm thinking you have another reason for your view. (I have started a discussion below.) Prhartcom (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"I'm thinking you have another reason for your view." Frankly, I don't care what you think about my view. I didn't !vote to have my honesty questioned or to be grilled as to my motivation. If that was what you wanted to do, I suggest next time you fully disclose your motives for starting an RfC and let editors know ahead of time that if they !vote contrary to your agenda, they will be on the receiving end of unfounded accusation(s). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - We already have a controversy article, which resulted from a prior consensus. This RM seems like a refusal to accept that consensus. Further, no one has yet made a policy-based argument that this subject meets all three WP:BLP1E conditions. Specifically,
  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - The events are 1. Her election, 2.Media attention about nepotism and salaries, 3.her refusal to issue marriage licenses, 4. her SCOTUS appeal, 5. her arrest for contempt of court.
  2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. - As an elected public official, she was already notable. WP:LPI instructs "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Does anyone argue that Kim Davis has not sought media attention?
  3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - Kim Davis not only has a significant, well-documented role—she has a central role, and one that is arguably of historic significance.
  • The proposed title, Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy, would substantially alter the intent of this article, which is to document a person's life, and their role in a historic series of events.
  • The proposed title, Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy, would contravene the precision criteria of a good TITLE which says "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." The proposed title would create significant confusion with Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy.
  • The proposed title would run afoul of WP:POVNAME. There are exactly zero Google news results for the search phrase "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy", so the only purpose that would seem to be served by renaming this article to that title, would be to permanently shame the subject. I would argue that this would wantonly violate Arbcom's proscription against such titles and I won't rule out bringing it before WP:ARCA to seek Arbcom's clarification, should this RM pass. - MrX 14:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course this statement is false: "There are exactly zero Google news results for the search phrase "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy". Not sure why on Earth you would say that. Prhartcom (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

A news search for "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy" yields No results found for "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy". with InternetExplorer; "Your search - "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy" - did not match any news results." with Chrome and Firefox. Try it yourself: [9]. Same result with Bing: "We didn't find any results for "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy"." [10]- MrX 15:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you're doing it with quotes; you are unfairly looking for an exact match of that exact phrase. Who is going to use that exact phrase in their reliable source? Of course the controversy about Kim Davis' denial of marriage licences can be phrased in other ways. When you remove the quotes you can see many articles sourcing the Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy. Incidentally, searching for the exact phrase "same-sex marriage license" returns a ton of articles about the Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Prhartcom (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You really need to make up your mind. First you said, "Of course this statement is false: "There are exactly zero Google news results for the search phrase "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy".". When you were shown how the statement isn't false, then you say, "Who is going to use that exact phrase in their reliable source?". Why not just admit you are wrong on this one? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Um, I have made up my mind. When you type in that phrase without quotes you get a ton of results specific to this controversy. Prhartcom (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Confusion because this isn't a pure biography

I think some of the confusion is based on a misperception of this article. This article is not a biography like Bill Cosby. Cosby is notable for a whole lot of things completely independent of his more recent problems with sexual abuse allegations. Therefore, a spinoff sub-article was justified when that content grew to be of such proportions it created an undue weight problem. Therefore the sub-article "Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations" was created. There is very clear precedent and policy-based support for such a spinoff with the Cosby article, but there is none for this article.

We don't have any justification for doing that here, because her notability is exclusively related to her controversy. That's why ALL that content should remain here. (It's still okay to copy some and use it elsewhere.) There is no policy-based reason for creating a spinoff sub-article for the "controversy" content. In fact, no such reasons have even been given! I haven't seen them. I've only seen "it's a consensus", but that consensus must be based in policy, and I haven't seen a policy-based reason. So far, I've only seen another (Kentucky) article created, but without any new and unique content to justify its greater scope, or its existence. That needs to be done. Otherwise it won't survive a coming AfD, and it will come if nothing happens soon. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There can be only one article, and it is about Kim Davis and the controversy she created. She is not notable without it. An article about her life with only three brief paragraphs: her controversy, her nomination into office, and her religious life will not be allowed to exist. Maybe next year after she becomes a celebrity known for something else, but definitely not now. Prhartcom (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is a biography, weighted toward the the person's history for the past few months.The subject's role is significant enough and the events enduring enough to justify a independent article. There has already been a discussion which reached consensus for a biography and a spin-off article about the controversy. While consensus can certainly change, it's not appropriate for one or two people to continue litigating the point. Consensus is the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals.- MrX 03:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

A consensus must still be based in policy and precedent. The AfD approved of THIS article in its current form; a biography with a weight on the controversy. There is no justification for removing the controversy. Kim Davis is not notable for anything else. A biography without the controversy would not survive another AfD, and this seems like a means to undermine and go against that AfD decision. I suggest you respect it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

And it is. I'm not aware that anyone is suggesting that the controversy be removed from this article, only that it be trimmed to a concise summary.- MrX 16:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow! You've got it totally backwards. Trimming it "to a concise summary" is backwards. That would make this article the spin-off summary. This is an independently notable article about Kim Davis and her own controversy. Don't even begin to tamper with that.

WP:Spin-offs use "summary style" in a certain manner, and here's how it's done in this specific situation:

• You have your meta-article ("Kentucky...."), but the Kim Davis material creates undue weight, so you spin-off the excess material and leave a "summary", with a "main" link to the Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Job done, nice and neat. THAT'S how it's done here.

You've got it backwards. You don't summarize the main article, and this Kim Davis article is the main one related to Kim Davis. Only if the controversy material here created undue weight would there be a reason to spin-off that content, but that's what makes her notable, so we aren't allowed to do it, unlike the Bill Cosby and the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations spin-off situation. There the method is the same IF we did it here, but the reasons are totally different, which is why we can't do it here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, indeed! We are definitely seeing this from very different perspectives. Obviously we're not going to convince each other, so hopefully others will weight in.- MrX 17:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

An experiment in visualizing possibilities

To make this easier to understand, let's assume (wrongly) that we are allowed (and we aren't) to do what was done with Bill Cosby's article. IF we did that, we'd have two articles:

• Kim Davis (county clerk) (the "main" biography article)
• Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy (the spinoff sub-article for the controversy content, but only if it creates undue weight)

That should make it easier to actually SEE it. The problem is that without the controversy content, the notability of the biography is gone, and the weight is not proper, since most of the content is supposed to be on the controversy. Why? Because of our policies and because of what RS dictate. They dictate that we preserve that balance. No weight of RS about Kim Davis have any other balance.

But to carry on with this experiment, let's assume that a spin-off is created. How should it be done? A spin-off sub-article always retains the key part of the name of the original, which is why it must retain Kim Davis name, just like the Cosby sex allegations sub-article retains Cosby's name. The Kentucky article does not do that, and it's a much larger scope, not a "sub" (narrower) scope article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. The Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy was created by, escalated by, ended by, and is all about no one other than Kim Davis. This is not that difficult to understand, people. Prhartcom (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

May I ask what policy or guideline you are deriving "A spin-off sub-article always retains the key part of the name of the original" from?- MrX 03:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Precedent, which is based on simple logic. A "sub" must indicate the object of which it is a "sub". It must be plain that the sub-article is a spin-off from the Kim Davis article. One does that by keeping her name in the title, just like pretty much all other sub-articles do (for this type of biography).

Pretty much all spin-offs of this type of article do it that way. Please show us one like this which doesn't do it and you will have found the exception that proves the rule. Your rather novel way of doing it isn't just unique, it's unheard of.

You don't seem to have been reading the discussion above very carefully. Read about the Bill Cosby sub-article situation there. In this regard, the spin-off TITLE situation is the same, even though the REASONS are vastly different. In that case there is a policy-based justification for a spin-off, but not here.

You are (incorrectly) proposing to make a spin-off of the controversy portion of the Kim Davis article. Okay, if you're going to do it, at least do it right and keep her name in the title. I have shown the proper method above. I don't think it's right to do it, but at least use the right title, because the "Kentucky..." article has a larger scope. Most of the Kim Davis material in it needs to be pared down, as discussed on the talk page there. Right now there is a an undue weight problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There are several holes in these arguments. First, the controversy article is a fork, not a sub article. Second, your assertion that "Pretty much all spin-offs of this type of article do it that way" lacks evidence, and is not consistent with my own experience. Third, the Bill Cosby articles have no bearing whatsoever on these article. Perhaps you should tell the editors there that WP:OTHERSTUFF exists here.- MrX 14:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so it's now a fork. That's another animal, but the basic argument of how to treat a biography is still valid. That's why the Bill Cosby illustration is still useful, because this is still a biography.

The Bill Cosby and Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations spin-off/fork situation demonstrates that the method is the same IF we did it here, but the reasons are totally different, which is why we can't do it here. Title, content, and scope must be in sync and honored. That's why the requested move to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy is the right thing to do. Unfortunately I didn't get to comment about closing it before it was closed so abruptly. I would have objected to the closure.

As I noted above (#Confusion because this isn't a pure biography), you've got it backwards, and that confuses others. If you just did your thing elsewhere with another article, and didn't delete content from this one, there would be no problem. You can create a FORK without touching this article. It's totally unnecessary to delete content here. That violates the AfD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Two articles or one? (Or three?)

The following is a closed discussion as thoughts for consideration in the RfC below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. (Pinging Prhartcom. See my edit summary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC))

Pinging the following editors to help us with these discussions about which articles should exist and what should be their names. I simply gathered all of the editors from this talk page, Archive 1 whom we have not heard from in awhile. All others who have contributed to the article or to the discussion are probably already watching this page and are about to provide their wisdom, pro or con: AusLondonder, Captain Infinity, Dthomsen8, Elizium23, Evensteven, EvergreenFir, FreeKnowledgeCreator, Gaijin42, Geogene, GregKaye, Jerodlycett, John Carter, Mmyers1976, Muboshgu, Necrothesp, Nomader, Nosfartu, Pincrete, Plvt2, Prokaryotes, RobinHood70, SuperCarnivore591, Titanium Dragon, Victor Victoria, Wordreader, 人族 Prhartcom (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

As others have been doing, I have been reading WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E very closely, guidelines that help editors decide to avoid a separate biography article in addition to an event article. If all three conditions for not having a biography article are met, then the separate biography article should probably not exist in addition to the event article. Let's take a look.

Before we start, notice that the guidelines appear to assume that editors have already decided that the event article should exist. The guidelines are to help editors decide if a biography article should exist in addition to the event article. So we probably should have started with the event article and not the biography article.

1. Reliable sources cover Davis only in the context of a single event. Is this true? Yes, this is very clear and I doubt anyone is arguing otherwise, as there is not a single only two reliable sources referenced by the Kim Davis article that is unrelated to this controversy. It is starting to look like there should be an event article but not a biography article. (Note: I doubt an entire article would be allowed to stand citing only those two local newspaper sources.)
2. Davis otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Is this true? At first, it doesn't sound like Davis is a low-profile individual; not at all. However, it is clear that, as of today, Davis has not yet published her book, started her speaking tour, or done anything other than this one event. If she ever does begin to do anything notable outside the one event she is notable for then this condition is not met at that time. So even though she doesn't seem like a low-profile individual, I suppose she is by definition. So I suppose this condition is met. If so, it is really starting to look like there should be an event article but not a biography article.
3. If the same-sex marriage license controversy event is not significant or Davis's role was either not substantial or not well documented. Is this true? No way. I of course have to admit: Not only was the event was significant (so there should definitely be an article about the event) but the event centered on Davis and her role in it; others involved in the event always revolved around her; the event was always caused by, perpetuated by, and ultimately ended by Davis. So now, for the first time, it does not look like all three conditions to not have a biography are met. So maybe we should have a biography article about Kim Davis in addition to the event article.

One more thing. WP:BIO1E says: "Editors are advised to be cognizant of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people." OMG. If so, that could mean there is an exception to the three points we just went over. Since Davis has not done anything else notable other than this one event, then a biography about her might be a pseudo-biography: "If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event." In that case, this "common sense" exception probably means we should not have a biography article about Kim Davis in addition to the event article.

But at the very least, we should have started with the one event article. And it should have been named correctly: Kim Davis same-sex marriage licence controversy. Then later, when Davis is notable for more than one event (even though she certainly was front and center of that one event), then reliable sources will begin to cover the other events that she is a part of (her books, her tours, whatever) and we can have a proper biography reflecting those sources that cover those other events. But until then, because of weight, a second biography article written today covering Kim Davis would be only a pseudo-biography. And it would be probably be deleted. But the Kim Davis same-sex marriage licence controversy event article would continue to exist.

P.S. We can also have a second event article discussing the first event in a wider scope, including the other two clerks in Kentucky, called Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy event article. But we probably shouldn't have the second event article without the first Kim Davis same-sex marriage licence controversy event article.

You may provide comments below; we appreciate everyone's wisdom. Prhartcom (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.