Talk:Kim Davis (disambiguation)

Clerk References:

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/jail-for-county-clerk-and-gay-marriage-opponent-kim-davis/story-fnh81jut-1227512013256
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/09/04/world/social-issues-world/kentucky-clerk-jailed-gay-marriage-certificate-snub-underlings-agree-comply/#.Vel2VWf9mUl
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11842642/Kentucky-clerk-jailed-for-refusing-to-issue-marriage-licences-to-gay-couples.html
Links provided as rationale for chosen phraseology. 人族 (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

None of this supports the ridiculous edits that you made to this disambiguation page. Please stop it. - MrX 13:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Concur with MrX. She was notable before she was jailed, and there is no such thing as a homosexual marriage license. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I presume you are both Americans? The first news story I saw was her jailing. Obviously that is the critical element in local news. Backtracking international news history shows she was known for her opposition to the licenses - an application to the US Supreme Court for instance, however the federal court issue is the least relevant of the three elements of what she is. As per my reply to Mr X on his page homosexual marriage license is no different to homosexual marriage. Either neither is a valid concept or both are. You cannot argue in favour of one term and not the other. I'll hold off further thoughts on rephrasing 'til later, unless my probably failed protection request is enacted. 人族 (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I most certainly can argue that the term "homosexual marriage" does not automatically yield the term "homosexual marriage license", and I do so. Is English your first language? As for notability, the article was created two days before she was jailed and clearly passed WP:GNG at that time. You are not going to convince anyone of your rather strange views on this here, so I'd suggest dropping it or pursuing dispute resolution, which will also fail. As of now you are only wasting everyone's time and flirting with disruptive editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "homosexual marriage license" is inappropriate first and foremost because it's confusing. It implies that either the marriage license itself is homosexual or that there is a specific marriage license for homosexuals. Obviously, neither of these is the case. Secondly, in North American English (and probably elsewhere, I can't comment), the term "homosexual" is generally used only in a technical discussion, for example to distinguish different sexualities in a scientific paper, or as a derogatory term. While Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia and therefore technical in nature, given that the term is also derogatory, it's better to avoid it unless there's a compelling reason. Lastly, she wasn't jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to LGBTQ people, she was jailed for refusing to issue any marriage licenses at all, which is a violation of US federal law, a breach of her official duties, and constituted contempt of court as well. Her beliefs never entered into her jailing, only her adamant refusal to perform the duties of her office. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 16:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Homosexual is offensive? Since when? I have never heard that claim before! I'll humour you since it's makes no difference to the use of the term same-sex.

As for whoever supplied the new phrasing - thanks. Yes I know I could review the history. I'd argue was sent rather than went to would be more accurate but that could be hairsplitting.

人族 (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"Derogatory" was a bit strong of a word, but it'll definitely raise eyebrows if you use it around someone who's from the LGBTQ community. Different people have different reasons for not caring for it, but a basic explanation can be found at GLAAD's Terms to Avoid.

As for "was sent" vs. "went", I can see either. Certainly the judge did send her, but according to an article in the New York Times, she was offered a deal but she chose jail, so "went" works too. (Update: Actually, wording has since been changed and works better now.)

Since we're on the topic, though, would it be more accurate to say that she refused to issue marriage licences as a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage? After all, she wasn't issuing the licenses to straight couples, either. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 05:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked up the GLAAD link - wasn't sure what it was. It's definitely not my community, nor is their choice of acceptable\unacceptable language compatible with that used in my community. Gay for instance is perjorative hence I try to avoid it. Not saying I intend to go out of my way to insult anyone, merely that they may be offended by standard English, and that it is all too probable that phraseology from their side will be offensive to my own. I've debated some of this stuff in another online community I'm part of and suffice to say there are some radically differing views starting with basic concepts. This is way off topic though so ...

Latest change to the wording contains redundancy - we already know she's a county clerk, and as you say it was actually all licenses. How about: Kentucky official jailed for her refusal to issue marriage licenses after the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage. Odds are this will be opposed, and it's longer than I'd prefer. I can't think of a short way of phrasing the link however, or should we drop it altogether and end at licenses? 人族 (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Davis' core purpose was denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples, with the method of denying them to all. I'm pretty sure sources will back this up. On the other hand, one could argue she was jailed for not performing the duty of approving marriage licenses -- but I'm afraid that doesn't hit where the issue is specifically enough. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

My fault for introducing a topic in two places, but it's probably better if we move the discussion of the description here and then do the same thing on both pages.

人族: I see what you mean about the duplicate "county clerk"s, but I'm not entirely sure how to phrase it to avoid the redundancy. As far as language use goes, I believe "gay" is the standard in most or all English-speaking countries, but I could be wrong. In any event, same-sex or LGBT will probably cover most cases, as appropriate. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 22:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

12 words

I'm not sure what benefit there would be to removing "...jailed for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples" from the Kim Davis (county clerk) entry. The goal here should be to make it easy for readers find the article. - MrX 22:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I can see the rationale, it's much more consistent with the other entries. And "county clerk" ought to get them there. I'm gonna support the removal. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Agreed with comment above. Also, fair rational for WP:STATUSQUO, MrX had not made the initial insertion into the disambiguation. --JustBerry (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

ADDITION: @MrX: comments? --JustBerry (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The goal should not be consistency, it should reducing ambiguity. Someone who has heard her name in the context of the controversy may struggle to figure out which Kim is the right one. Can someone explain how removing this information actually improves the encyclopedia? - MrX 22:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

All I can say is that I disagree with the statement, "The goal should not be consistency". It's my understanding that consistency is a Good Thing. Reducing ambiguity is also a Good Thing, but the two Good Things need to find an acceptable balance. As I said, there's not a huge amount of ambiguity in the short form, in my opinion. It seems we disagree as to where that balance is. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two "Kim Davis" deceased musicians, disambiguated largely only by the band names, which the reader may not know. Must we go find additional details about each of them to further disambiguate them? Or can we live with forcing some of them to, heaven forbid, actually click through to find the one they want? I vote for the latter. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:DABENTRY: "Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the specific article they want quickly and easily." I contend that without mentioning what she's known for, that primary purpose is lost.- MrX 22:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I disagree with you. That guideline says it's the primary purpose, it does not say that we should throw out all other considerations on a dab page. What if someone came along and claimed that we need even more detail for her, and cited that guideline. Would you just say, oh I see, ok, and walk way? I doubt it. I think you'd say that's more detail than is necessary to disambiguate, and you'd spend some time defending that argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I'm in the minority here, so I'm not going to waste any more time trying to convince the consistency camp, the tl;dr camp, or the STiki camp. - MrX 22:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to lose. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The current phrasing has proportionately significant duplication: Kim Davis (county clerk) (born 1965), county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky. Why not drop this to: Kim Davis (county clerk) (born 1965), Rowan County, Kentucky? 人族 (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)