Talk:Kim Davis/Archive 6

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

Requested move 23 March 2016

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: Not moved; interim moratorium on new RMs until the RfC is closed. This article is subject to very frequent RMs and needs to pause whilst the below discussion is resolved. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

– Kim Davis is still the subject of regular news coverage, as recently as the past week. Since the move request five months ago, this article has been read 2141 times per day. By comparison, the proposed target Kim Davis was viewed 68 times per day, Kim Davis (Canadian singer) was viewed 8 times per day, and Kim Davis (ice hockey) was viewed 3 times per day. Kim Davis, the county clerk, is accessed at least 31 times more often than any other Kim Davis page. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC obviates the proposed move. - MrX 20:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. Seems like we would have settled this by now, doesn't it? This article has come up in one or two discussions I've had with other editors, and I felt silly typing out the "(county clerk)". Prhartcom (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it's still an article about a controversy inappropriately masquerading as a biography, and needs to be moved to an appropriate neutral title describing the controversy, which veterans of this page will note is the same opposition argument as the previous lengthy discussion which took 88 aggravating days to fail to reach a consensus, and the mess of no-consensus discussions which preceded that. I don't expect that rehashing this discussion after only two months is going to end in any different result, but if we're revisiting the no-consensus move discussion, then we can revisit the even older no-consensus split discussion, can't we? If the biography of Kim Davis is separate from the account of the controversy, then the article titles are easy. Nobody can reasonably argue that county clerk Kim Davis is not the primary topic for "Kim Davis", and I don't think there can be any reasonable argument that there's not enough material here for two better-than-start-class articles. So let's split them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a wP:BLP1E and should not use a name as a bare title, it should instead be named after the controversy. Kim Davis marriage controversy or somesuch-- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The current notoriety will pass, and the additional ambiguity proposed here does nobody any good. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:RECENT In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not enough passage of time for clarity on this. I'm also amused at the re-arguing of things long settled in some of the other Opposed comments. Say after me: "two snow keeps". Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as "Kim Davis" is a pretty vanilla name. There are already others of that name with articles, and no reason to think this Kim Davis will be outlandishly more popular 10 years from now, etc. Its a pain to change a slew of links in the future when the next Kim Davis comes around--this has been my experience when I create an article on, say, some 19th century celebrity and find a decrepit "voice actor" article from 2006 inhabiting that name already.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Milowent. Softlavender (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. It is a biography. This is not a one event situation. If things change a year from now, much less 10 years from now, we can adjust the titles accordingly. But for now and the foreseeable future, this is clearly the primary topic. That's all that should matter. The opposition here seems political, and is sad. WP should be above that. --В²C ☎ 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This person is notable on Wikipedia for one thing, and one thing only. Omnedon (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the primary topic should be the main page, at least for now TheLogician112 (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When County Clerks stop doing marriages, this can be renamed. On the other side of the pond (Pacific) this is what Kim Davis is known and/or renowned for, a county clerk who refused a legal same sex marriage.Whiteguru (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Born2cycle. Clear primary topic - like it or not, she has achieved a notoriety beyond the individual event of her denying a few marriage licences. She receives far more interest and coverage than all of the other Kim Davis entries combined, and that's what's required for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. None of the others really outscore on long term significance either. We can determine that in a few years, not now.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2016 (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.

RfC: Proposing moratorium

WITHDRAWN:

No enforced moratorium. I'll re-propose when further RMs result in "no move" or "no consensus". --George Ho (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

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.

Proposals to change the title of the article about the county clerk, including attempts to make her the primary topic of the same name, have met huge opposition. To prevent further attempts, how long shall we hold off future move requests (i.e. RM discussions)? --George Ho (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need to take special measures to prevent future attempts? TheLogician112 (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Now that the consensus opposed the recent proposal, Logician, what is your take on this RfC? --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, please, let's hold off. Any reasonable person would, after losing such attempts, so I also agree that this RFC just adds to the noise. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
How long, Dicklyon? Months or years? --George Ho (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the proposal, although I am still of the opinion that the current title is wrong. At least if we wait, oh, six months? a year? then the WP:RECENTISM argument should be moot. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    It's been nine months and editors are still citing recentism. If we add six months to that, I'm not convinced that the arguments will change at all. Obviously recentism is a very arbitrary standard.- MrX 15:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
It is, and I agree; I don't think it's even a reasonable argument now, but here we are with another move request opposed (in part) because recentism. It's been, what, nine months? since the original controversy, I suppose a "flash in the pan" argument is reasonable (barely) at this point. But after 15 months to two years of sustained coverage, any editors still crying recentism would start to look foolish. I don't really like WP:RECENTISM anyway, as notability is not temporary. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The frequency of these proposals is not nearly high enough to justify a moratorium, and such flies in the face of this being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Personally, I won't propose another title change if this one fails, but we don't need to erect barriers to future good faith proposals. - MrX 15:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose George Ho, what on earth are you doing? There's no need to disrupt the encyclopedia by proposing this. That last RfC was a snow keep for keeping the article at it's current name and I'm sure the nominator knows it. You don't need to put together a proposal to force people to back off when they are already doing so. I believe you are assuming this article must be high volatility when in fact it has been quiet for many months now; check the talk page history and article history for yourself. Please do not stir up trouble like this; I wish you would consider withdrawing this RfC.
By the way, rather than starting arguments like this, I propose we instead have a completely different, more positive discussion about improving the encyclopedia by someday nominating this article for GA. I would be willing to pitch in and help. I believe the article looks pretty good as compared with the good article criteria, although I think it may need a little more polish. I welcome anyone to feel free to voice your thoughts on this or make the improvements. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is an encyclopaedia of common sense with regard to editing and changes. Forcing a moratorium on a page and its title stifles WP:BLP and its very purpose. What about Trump? What about his recent comments on women, abortion and punishment? Would you put a moratorium on his page from now until the election is over? Whiteguru (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I hope that reason will be enough to keep these questions from coming up too frequently. This RfC would have made a lot more sense last fall when it did actually seem we were being flooded, although I doubt it would have passed then, either. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - seems malformed phrasing to be asking 'how long' that presumes a moratorium, when clearly mostly the discussion is not going that way. Changing the message to 'should there even be one' I come up with Oppose. I'm actually thinking this really should be that Kim Davis redirects to an article Kentucky marriage license controversy, since most of this article is now about the court cases and no longer a person article. An article about the controversy could mention the other Kentucky clerks in Casey and Clinton counties, who did not get as famous, the actions taken in Kentucky about the topic, and other things that did not have Kim Davis involved. Markbassett (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose a formal moratorium while hoping that any further move proposals are kept off the table until there is a change in the situation (e.g. Kim Davis wins further political office) or the passage of time makes it clear that she has really become a notable person. (I find myself wondering how quickly it was apparent that Rosa Parks was not just a brief name in the news, but had earned an enduring place in history. The same discussion could have been going on a year after her refusal to move to the back of the bus, had WP existed back then.)) HGilbert (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2016 (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.

Propose GA

I am familiar with the GA process and would like to consider nominating this article to be reviewed according to the GA criteria, as I have been happy to contribute much writing and editing to the article and have participated in most of its discussions. However, I am greatly interested in the thoughts of other editors regarding this, especially editors who have also contributed much writing and editing to the article (as opposed to solely participating in its discussions). I don't believe any of the past discussions will negatively impact this idea, as all of them generally closed with a recommendation to abide by consensus, which is what the article is currently doing. I truly believe the article is very close to meeting the GA criteria and could stand the scrutiny and article improvement a review provides. What are your thoughts? Best, Prhartcom (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I would gladly support it and help with bringing it to GA status (which I have never done before).- MrX 15:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
MrX, I am honored by your support and was truly hoping to hear from you, as your contributions to this article have always been primary. Let us look carefully at the article and compare it to the criteria and make any improvements we can over the next few weeks. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks Prhartcom. That sounds like a plan.- MrX 18:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Wait, what about peer review? I added it; I bet either one of you start it. Otherwise, I'll start one soon. George Ho (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 Done here: Peer_review/Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)/archive1 - MrX 19:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It is more bureaucracy to do a peer review first before the GA review, it is not required—but that's fine; I agree that, in the case of this article, we would be honored to have more eyes reading it, all looking to improve it. The Wikipedia:Peer review queues are looking fairly short; hopefully that is a good sign; maybe it will only take a month or so before one of our peers reviews it (The Philosophy and religion queue is empty, BTW, if you want to change to wait there). The GA review queues for Politics and government look pretty long as usual; I went ahead and nominated the article; I'm afraid it may take the usual six months or more to wait in this queue before it is reviewed for GA. MrX, let us go ahead and make any improvements to the article according to the criteria that we can (I plan to start by looking closely at the additions made to the article in the last six months). Best, Prhartcom (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Update. Okay, I have completed my major changes. Please feel free to read the article and perform a good copy edit. Prhartcom (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: Thank-you for the good feedback the article is getting already. Prhartcom (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

MrX, hopefully you think the article reads well and we have caught all obvious errors? Prhartcom (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Prhartcom, I haven't had time to read it since you edited it and I haven't contributed anything myself. I'm very busy IRL for the next 10 days, so I probably won't be able to do much until around 4/20.- MrX 17:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Understood; I had a week off and I am very busy from here onward. Don't feel like you have to change anything; obviously I think it's fine the way it is, but I would be grateful to anyone who spots any errors. Prhartcom (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The lead

I know there are technical rules for leads that some obssess over, and I certainly am not going to involve myself in editing this lead, but it does seem a bit long and uninviting to me in its current state. The length of the previous one, before all the recent action, seemed much more felicitous. Perhaps it could be more introductory and rather less of a summary? Antinoos69 (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Antinoos69, suggestions like yours are extremely valuable; thank-you for observing and reporting this. I just worked on it and I believe it is a little more inviting, although probably no shorter; I'm not sure we can describe these facts in a shorter amount of space. Is it a little better now? Anyone may work on it as well. Prhartcom (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I notice that all the citations in the lead section were just removed. I would like to point out a few things that are stated in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section guideline, and particularly in WP:CITELEAD:

  • "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation."
  • "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead."
  • "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

Since the topic of this article seems pretty contentious, and it is about a living person, removing all the citations from the lead doesn't seem like a good idea to me (and especially so for removing the citations from the direct quotations). —BarrelProof (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Better? Prhartcom (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, consider the last two paragraphs, for example. Are they really necessary here? Couldn't they be omitted entirely? Or replaced with a single sentence generally indicating debates and other reactions, leaving the details entirely to the body of the article? One would likely have to structure the corresponding section(s) so they would more prominently stick out in the contents box, in that case. The lead just seems too long and, if I recall correctly, a paragraph longer than "official" recommendations. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It is true that we all want the article to be compliant with MOS:LEAD. I just combined the first two paragraphs; now the lead has four. The first two paragraphs summarize Kim Davis and her two controversies, the third summarizes how the world has reacted to Kim Davis, and the last summarizes the remainder of the article. Prhartcom (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Update: Some more has been cut from the first paragraph of the lead. Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kim Davis (county clerk). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

However, the Lexington Herald-Leader moved many of their new articles to different pages and did not forward web requests of the old page over to the new page, so SourceCheck thought that the link was dead and thought it needed to locate an archive. I corrected all our links to this newspaper and ensured each page was archived. Prhartcom (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey

  • I'm in the midst of copyediting the article. Some of these things are my personal preferences—feel free to revert any edit or disagree with any of the following remarks:
This feedback is extremely valuable, Curly Turkey, thank-you. (Note: To be more expedient, I am not signing every response below). Prhartcom (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I know a lot of editors hate to, but I'd recommend bundling the cites—they're so dense it slightly impedes reading the article
You know I normally do, but this individually cited citation style was already established in the article and I believe was a good call to keep a consistent style. Citation style is not a GA requirement.
Well, this wasn't meant as a GAN review, but more of a peer review. If you'd like one, you'll have to wait until next week, when I'll have the time to examine the sources. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • the article doesn't seem to mention where she was born.
I wish I knew. I found one not-very-good source saying she was born in Morehead, KY. We simply have never seen any reliable sources reporting on Davis' early life. If anyone ever finds any, please add it to the article so that we can finally fill this gap in this BLP.
This source says Breathitt County, Kentucky, " the heart of Appalachia, about 60 miles (100 km) south of Morehead". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Done. Thank-you; that source (from London, Ontario) lead me to the actual source: A Routers article, which is now being cited to support her birthplace that is now mentioned in the article.
  • The Kentucky Attorney General said that because the matter was already being handled by the federal court, there will be no appointment of a special prosecutor to pursue charges of official misconduct against her.—I assume the present tense means this is ongoing. I'd still word it in the past, though, as (a) the statement itself was made in the past, and (b) it'll date pretty quickly.
Done; fixed it, I think; changed one word.
  • after Davis' release—when you read this aloud, do you pronounce it with two syllables?
Yes. Because the second "s", that grammar allows us to drop ("s'"), is really still there ("s's") Hear it? :-).
Yes, but dropping it isn't automatic. It happens in, say, "Jesus' followers", but not in, say, "Max's problems". I pronounce "Davis's" as three syllables; if you don't, no problem, but it's jarring to see it spelt that way for those of us who do. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • should not be considered a form of support for her—or, rather, her actions?
Done; changed to add that very word: "actions".
  • Re: third paragraph: Personal preference, but I'm not a fan of having so many quotes in the lead; I prefer the lead to stay very general, unless the quotes themselves have become an inseparable part of the "story".
I understand what you mean and I will take that advice next time. This time, however, I'm leaving it because this paragraph summarizes the Reactions to controversy section; the one that communicates the public's responses to Davis. The inclusion of this in the lead was thoroughly discussed in the article talk page at the time.
  • has been married four times to three different men—everyone loves to point this out, but it's dropped into the lead without context. I'd prefer to remove it, but if it's going to stay, it'll need an explanation why it's significant.
This fact provides context for the controversy she caused. It's in the lead because the lead summarizes all major sections of the article and we're now summarizing the Personal life section.
Except that the fact in and of itself doesn't provides this context—it leaves it up to the reader to read too much between the lines, which isn't an encyclopaedic thing to do. The missing context is that divorce is frowned upon in many Christian denominations, and therefore Davis is accused of hypocrisy in choosing what beliefs to take a stand on. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. Then this source from Reuters (the one that tells us her birthplace) is doing the same thing, as it contains a paragraph that simply states "The thrice-divorced Davis was born in Breathitt County ... She has been married four times, twice to the same man, her current husband Joe Davis. Of her four children, twins were born out of wedlock." We're just stating facts. I don't want to synthesize information.
Reuters isn't an encyclopaedia. News and magazine articles make a lot of assumptions about readers' knowledge and undertanding, paticularly since they know they're target readers. Wikipedia has a very general, very international audience. If her four marriages merit mention in the lead, then they merit proper contextualization. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • the clerk of one Texas county—if it's only one, it's probably best to name it.
None of the people mentioned in that sentence are notable enough to be named. The sentence is contrasting them against Davis.
Notability would apply only if someone were trying to create an article on the person, not for merely naming them in an article.
  • The video went viral overnight, and it caused an international outrage against the actions of the county clerk.—this is uncited
Done. You are right, and when you warned me on your talk page that you had found an uncited sentence, I immediately thought of this one. Fortunately, the reliable source was easy to acquire.
  • by the Family Foundation of Kentucky—what was this foundation? "Family" is one of those dog-whistle terms that has a clear meaning to Americans, but is perhaps less obvious to an international readership
Done. Good point. In fact, I have decided to red link the organization, and even did so in two other articles where it was mentioned. Now our article has a brief description of the org and a new citation too.
  • Six couples who were denied marriage licenses from Davis, four couples represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Kentucky and two couples with separate legal representation, sued Davis in her official capacity as county clerk.—this sentence is pretty hard to navigate. I'd recast and probably cut into to or three.
Done, it's now two sentences and I hope reads much better.
  • "If I resign, I solve nothing. It helps nobody."—I'd call this quote redundant.
I would agree because I can definitely see your point, but I'm leaving it for now, as I think it does add something: To hear her logic, that her resignation "helps nobody" (when it would help everybody), is important.
  • in the "application of her beliefs"—why is this quoted?
Done; good question; probably to avoid accusations of close paraphrasing. I removed the quotes and will go ahead and take that chance, as this reads well.
  • I'd drop stuff like "five days later", "a week later", when they're accompanied by an actual date.
It sounds like obvious advice. I added those to provide context while following the story, but sometimes we still need dates in many specific instances, and sometimes these two styles are used for the same event, like her jail release date.
  • listing specific form alterations of questionable legality—meaning form alterations they found of questionable legality?
Done. Reworded.
  • One of the applicants said, "My license is valid, and it's valid because of the court order that's in effect ... It doesn't have to have her signature."—I'm not sure what the quote adds to the substance of the article.
It adds a little humanity to an article that gets sterile at times.
  • I've stopped just before "Reactions to controversy". If I forget to come back, ping me. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • compared Davis' refusal to follow orders of the U.S. Supreme Court to Alabama Governor George Wallace's "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door" in 1963—I'd include a brief description of what this was about so readers don't have to click through unless they want the juicy details.
There's no time to stop and get completely off track explaining that. We could add a footnote if you think. Or they could just click through if they need to, then come back.
I don't mean anything in depth, just as simple as: "in protest of desegregation". As it stands, it communicates almost nothing to the reader: "was Wallace also a homophobe?" Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble!
Done. Now I see what you're saying. A few words of explanation have been added.
  • Members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested against Davis for what they considered her hypocrisy and adultery.—this needs an explanation
It certainly does, but no mere mortal could provide one. Oh you mean for the article. Done. I just made a better attempt, expanded it by a few words.
Done. Hmm, you're right. Bevin sounds a little off-subject. I have replaced this with more obvious Davis support.
  • The probate judges of ten counties in Alabama have stopped issuing marriage licenses to anyone.—this should have an "as of", and perhaps should be in the past tense rather than present perfect
In a perfect world, maybe. It is still present tense in RL. Probate judges are still refusing to issue licenses because the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice still believes no marriage licenses should be given to same-sex couples.[1]
  • The quote-heavy reactions can be tiring to read. It'd be nice if the editors could agree on a more compact and reader-friendly way to sum it up.
Point taken. I'm taking another look at it.
  • On September 9 ... On November 2 ... on November 4 ...—obviously these are being added as they come up. I don't think we need to quote every statement that's been issued, or to devote an entire paragraph to every new development. For example: On September 9, 2015, Conway issued a one-sentence statement saying that he would not appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Davis: "Judge Bunning and the federal court have control of this matter, and therefore a special state prosecutor is not necessary at this time."—the quote is redundant to the text that precedes it. I'd smeersh these paragraphs into one, highlighting only the most pertinent details. We don't need a play-by-play.
Done. Smeerched. No, you're right, we don't, and I greatly dislike those "On the 25th of December" phrases as I have already cut so many from this article but missed these, and you accurately said exactly what this was: Documentation over the period of time that the events were happening. I must have been avoiding editing this section. Passages have been cut and paragraphs have now been tightened considerably.
  • On March 18, 2016, the Vatican announced that Pope Francis would replace Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the Vatican's Ambassador to the United States and a same-sex marriage opponent, who arranged the Pope's controversial meeting with Davis.—could we be explicit about why he was replaced?
Done. I believe it is quite clear now.
  • I've stopped again just before "personal life". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Davis held a weekly Bible study for female inmates at a local jail.—is there a better way to incorporate this into the text? In general, such short one-sentence paragraphs are frowned upon, and this one seems to jump out of nowhere.
Done; it is now integrated to the previous paragraph. I'm glad you're shining a light on these errors; you're feedback is helping to point out areas of the article that certainly needed more editing.
  • On September 25, 2015, Davis said she switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.—ditto. Obviously significant, but should be better integrated into the text.
Done. I've left the sentence right where it is and expanded the paragraph. We now have a more fitting close to the article.
  • "hilarious tweets"—quotes require inline attribution, but why is this being quoted rather than paraphrased?
Done. Had never been edited.
  • The Jennifer Lawrence bit seems fluffy to me.
Done. It's a huge crowd pleaser, though. After the actress made the statement, people rushed to the article from all sides. I just cut a phrase; I think it is now less fluffy.
You're done, then. I hope can glance over the changes to the article and let me know if you see anything else. Great feedback! Thank-you again for your valuable time, Curly Turkey; the article is getting incrementally better and better. Best, —Prhartcom♥ 22:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 19:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


I'll field this one. However, it would be good if I could get a second opinion as well. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • "gay or straight" might be better phrased as "same-sex or mixed-sex", because some of those in said partnerships will likely be bisexual. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    Good point; I have removed mention of that phrase. —Prhartcom♥ 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm quite worried about the lede section, if I'm honest. It seems a little all-over-the-place. It starts with a big chunky paragraph, then includes some very small paragraphs consisting merely of a couple of sentences. Moreover, the lede doesn't seem particularly chronologically apt; Davis' marriages are for instance only mentioned right toward the end. My recommendation here would be for a total reorganisation and rewrite of the lede. Take a look at the lede in the GA-rated article on a similar aspect of recent LGBT-themed U.S. history, the Death of Leelah Alcorn. I would base the lede structure here on that one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    Challenge accepted; I have re-written the lede, using that article as a structural guide. It may now need to be copy edited. Please let me know what you think. —Prhartcom♥ 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    Midnightblueowl, what do you think? —Prhartcom♥ 12:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry for my recent absence (been really busy IRL). I think that the new lede is most certainly an improvement. However the middle paragraph is just too long, so my recommendation would be either to edit it down or, more plausibly, divide it into two (having four paragraphs in the lede is fine). However, there are probably prose edits to implement here too. For instance we don't need to start paragraph 2 with "Kim Davis..." when we already know her full name; "Davis" will do fine. We then have "Rowan County, Kentucky" mentioned, but we already have been told where Rowan County is in the opening paragraph so there is really no need to repeat the name of the state here. Give it a read through and get rid of a few bits and pieces such as that. "Religious awakening" is a little too emic; "conversion" would be a better bet. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
    Done, copy edited and split paragraph as directed. Yesterday I had already cut much material from this paragraph. Glad to hear the new lead is an improvement and that I was able to follow your design. —Prhartcom♥ 13:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
    Update:Thank-you for your edit to the lead and I have updated it also. I'm excited about these improvements. —Prhartcom♥ 04:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    • There is some repetitive prose, such as "Kim Davis was born in Jackson, Kentucky.[8] From 1991 to 2015, Davis..."; in this case the latter "Davis" would work better as "She". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    Changed. —Prhartcom♥ 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    • "County residents complained about Davis' 2011 compensation"; I don't really understand what is being conveyed here. What compensation is being referred to? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    What's being conveyed comes immediately in the next sentence, but I have clarified the writing by moving this statement after the statements of salary. —Prhartcom♥ 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    • The first paragraph in "Reactions to controversy" needs to be divided up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    Not really; the five-paragraph section is according to the following design: opposition from legal experts, support from legal experts, opposition from politicians, support from politicians, and opinions of regular citizens. —Prhartcom♥ 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    Update: I have cut material from the first paragraph and added a quotebox. —Prhartcom♥ 12:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    • "Opposition to the federal ruling came from figures such as political columnists William McGurn of The Wall Street Journal and Ray Nothstine of The Christian Post" is a little clunky. Maybe just "Opposition to the federal ruling came from political columnists William McGurn of The Wall Street Journal and Ray Nothstine of The Christian Post"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    Done; removed "figures such as". —Prhartcom♥ 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    • It would be nice to see the sources preserved through a web archive, but that isn't essential for passing at GA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    I agree; I have started doing it actually, but the amount of work is daunting. I have done it in other articles before. I rechecked all the links. —Prhartcom♥ 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    Update: Most of the local papers, including themoreheadnews.com and the courier-journal.com do not allow archiving. —Prhartcom♥ 04:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • There doesn't appear to be any academic sources used here. It's not essential for passing GA, but would be a nice addition if some such sources could be found. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    I think we have plenty of sources; as you know, there are no lack of them for this, and I'm not sure where to find scholarly articles for this subject. I am open to your specific suggestions. —Prhartcom♥ 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    Check out Google Scholar. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    Thank-you; I am looking at the search results now. —Prhartcom♥ 20:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    Update: I have finished looking at two papers submitted to the Social Sciences Research Network. Both papers use Davis as a prop to illustrate accommodation in the workplace for religious liberty objection to same-sex marriage. Any mention of these or any papers, however, should go in the Reactions section and I suspect we should not expand that part of the article right now. —Prhartcom♥ 18:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    I can't tell you how strange it is that this article is finally stable. —Prhartcom♥ 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • I don't think that we have a rationale for File:Kim Davis (county clerk) refusing a marriage licence to David Ermold and David Moore.jpg that makes it usable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    I think we do; fair use is allowed. The owner of the photo is the person in the photo, who once contributed to the article in order to ensure their name was mentioned, so therefore they approve of their name and image in the article. I am verifying with JM below. —Prhartcom♥ 10:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    We're going to need them to release it with the appropriate licence in order for us to use it. Legally, it's not enough for them just to give their permission. I'd suggest removing it unless that can be gained. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
    Done; this image has been removed from the article. A request has been placed on the image owner's talk page, but it most likely will not be answered. —Prhartcom♥ 04:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    Update: Permission was just granted for this image by the owner. I have asked the owner to submit their permission to me in an email so that I may forward the email to WP:OTRS. —Prhartcom♥ 15:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    • The fair use rationale behind File:KimDavis.jpg seems confused. This really needs to be sorted out; I would recommend finding an editor who really knows their stuff when it comes to this sort of thing and asking them what they think of it. Hopefully we will still be able to use it, but a clear rationale needs to be found. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    I edited the image description file to be less confused. I think it can be used because it is a government owned image, which puts it in the public domain; I am verifying with JM below. —Prhartcom♥ 10:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    Why not have this image in the infobox? That would surely be the best place to locate it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
    Midnightblueowl, it is my belief that there are very few editors in the community that would agree to that. You are welcome to start an RfC on the article talk page and ask the community if they would agree to your suggestion. It would be yet another discussion about this article I would be obligated to take part in (feels like it would be my 99th one). Re-read JM's discussion below about this mug shot image. The writing is on the wall: It must be removed from the article. —Prhartcom♥ 04:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    • We could definitely bring in some more images to make this article more visually engaging. For instance, when mentioning David L. Bunning, why don't we include an image of him (here's a copyright free one). Equally we have quotes from people like Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee; why not include pictures of them in this article too? Some quoteboxes might also be nice. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
      • You could also throw in a map of Rowan County or something. I've done that in a few image-scarce articles such as The Playboy. I'm going to raise my voice against quoteboxes, though—they have their place, but are often overused. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    Agreed about the quoteboxes, although I am considering adding a single one. It would be undue weight to have images of those two politicians who are only briefly mentioned. —Prhartcom♥ 10:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    Update: I have added the map and the quotebox as suggested; both work very well. —Prhartcom♥ 00:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
    Update: And I have added an image of Pope Francis to the section about Davis meeting him. —Prhartcom♥ 12:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    Update: It is now two maps. I added a new quotebox of an opposing opinion and then had to add a quotebox of a supporting opinion. —Prhartcom♥ 18:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Thanks, Midnightblueowl. —Prhartcom♥ 10:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC) Update: I'm hoping that JM's advice is the second opinion you were asking for or if you still need someone else (it may take a while for anyone to step forward). All the best, —Prhartcom♥ 20:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment from JM

Prhartom asked if I would be willing to offer my view on the use of non-free content in this article. I am of the view that File:KimDavis.jpg is not justified. If it was freely licensed, I would have no objection (although for BLP reasons, I might oppose its use in the infobox). However, we must assume that it is not freely-licensed, and so its use must meet the NFCC. As is well known, there's a high bar for non-free images of living people, and this image just doesn't seem to meet it. I can see no reason to think that her mugshot is itself significant. The use of File:Kim Davis (county clerk) refusing a marriage licence to David Ermold and David Moore.jpg is, I think, more plausible. The video is a part of the story, and is discussed in the article proper. However, I would be inclined to say that it should be removed. This is for two reasons: First (and this is less important), the rationale is lacking. Second, it seems to me that the events of the video are more significant than how it looks. To be clear, though, I definitely think that there is room for reasonable disagreement about the use of the video image. You have a couple of options if you're removing the image: If we have the video available online somewhere (hosted by somewhere that has permission to do so, such as the video's creator's own YouTube channel) you could add Template:External media. Alternatively, you could contact the copyright holder and ask if they would be willing to release the image/video under a free license. I admit that removing these pictures would leave the article looking a bit bland, but, of course, that is not a good reason to keep non-free content. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Josh Milburn, many thanks for your reply; I occasionally struggle to interpret NFCC and appreciate your advice. Agreed that we will have no images before we will have any unjustified non-free images; you may have noticed that we (the community of editors here at this article including myself) have had a request for new free images in the talk page templates for some time now. My request for your advice includes any advice you can offer on how to improve the writing of the file description pages; please feel free to offer how either of them can be improved to the point of justifying the inclusion of thier image in the article. Following are two clarifying questions: Agreed that a mug shot has never been exactly what we want; we have kept other editors from moving it into the infobox and have been running with the idea that a state or county government-created image should be in the public domain. Is it not? I'm pleased that it sounds possible to keep the screen capture image provided we write the proper rationale; I have just made one attempt to do so. I am also asking the owner of the file for their permission to use it, but I feel certain that permission is granted as the owner once contributed to the article (as documented in the talk page archives and templates). While I follow what you say, that the events of the video are more significant than how it looks, this particular event described in the article discusses an object, a video, and we are simply depicting that object in the image. Can we not? Many thanks again. —Prhartcom♥ 19:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I will offer a fuller answer soon (ping me in a few days if I haven't) but as an initial note: permission to use an image is not enough; it needs to be explicitly released under a compatible license (such as CC-by-sa-3.0). Josh Milburn (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank-you in advance and for this important clarification. —Prhartcom♥ 19:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so in reply to a couple of your specific comments: (1) "My request for your advice includes any advice you can offer on how to improve the writing of the file description pages; please feel free to offer how either of them can be improved to the point of justifying the inclusion of thier image in the article." I'm not sure that such a page could be written for the mugshot, but if you were going to write one for the video (and I repeat that I am not convinced that the screenshot is justified) you would have to explain why seeing a screenshot of the video was important to understanding the article. This is different, of course, to the video being of significance; "x is significant" is not the same as "we need a non-free image of x". (2) "Agreed that a mug shot has never been exactly what we want; we have kept other editors from moving it into the infobox and have been running with the idea that a state or county government-created image should be in the public domain. Is it not?" We have to treat images as non-free until we have evidence to the contrary. It's possible that the image is free, but that's certainly not enough to treat it as such. The burden of proof falls on those who claim that it is free. (3) "While I follow what you say, that the events of the video are more significant than how it looks, this particular event described in the article discusses an object, a video, and we are simply depicting that object in the image. Can we not?" Non-free images can be used only if "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". The fact that you talk about an object (even if that object is absolutely central to the article) is not enough alone to prove that a non-free image of that object is going to add significantly to reader understanding. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks, Josh. Midnightblueowl, let us now decide how to proceed; I will do what you suggest. —Prhartcom♥ 13:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, I have responded to all your comments. Where are we with the review? — Prhartcom♥ 04:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to pass this one now. Thanks, Prhartcom! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank-you, Midnightblueowl! Take care and hope I see you around again soon. —Prhartcom♥ 11:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Apostolic Christian

Is it fine with everyone if we link to "Apostolic Christian" in both places in the article? Actually, someone has already done that in the lead. In my opinion, we do need this article to link to the accurate name (subset?) of this religion. —Prhartcom♥ 01:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to read everything and research it now, but are you familiar with this conversation? A cursory look at it suggests to me that we probably shouldn't be linking to that article. -- Irn (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
That is the wrong link. I have corrected it. Oneness Pentecostalism is the most specific description we currently have. Elizium23 (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

RepDem

So is she now a Republican or not?Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and categories are for defining characteristics of the subject. A past political affiliation should not be reflected in a category. One can even make the argument that her current political affiliation is not a defining characteristic and should be removed.- MrX 14:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Given her changing political allegiance it might be best to assume that any she has is transitory and thus left out.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I would support leaving the category out.- MrX 15:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
But if you look at any article where the person in question has joined another party, their former party has always been left on the Wikipedia article in the category section due to the fact that they were previously elected via that party. So yes Kim might be a republican now but she was elected as a democrat so why not have both categories in the article since both have applied to her life. 82.132.221.68 (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest that most people whose party is listed are notable politicians, she is not a notable politician. Her politics is not what she is noted for.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Speculation has no place in Wikipedia

Nuncio Carlo Maria Viganò was replaced because he reached 75 years old, the mandatory age for retirement. All evidence shows that Pope Francis is 100% anti-same-sex marriage and a supporter of conscience objection, and speculation from a liberal gay newspaper isn't a RS.Mistico (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The Advocate is a respected source of information. The mainstream media cites it with some frequency. And the NYT certainly is a RS. Given the suspect nature of your comment about the magazine, I will restore the information until more editors have chimed in. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The question its not of its respected or not, its not NPOV. Its pro-gay and against the Catholic stance on homosexuality.Mistico (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Advocate is a perfectly reliable source, and the content that you seem to be referring to is backed by other sources. I note that you haven't presented any sources to support your speculation.- MrX 02:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2017

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: Move. Two main questions came out of this discussion: whether this article was the primary topic of the name "Kim Davis", and whether the article should be named due to the fact that the clerk is chiefly known for one controversy. Most participants, backed up by solid evidence and policy arguments, believed that this subject is the primary topic among ambiguous "Kim Davis" articles. The second question was not resolved, but either way, this would appear to be the primary topic of search term "Kim Davis", regardless of it moves. As such, I will move to Kim Davis, with no prejudice against reopening to move to a descriptive title (though Kim Davis should remain a redirect per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT unless something changes). Cúchullain t/c 16:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


– The three Kim Davis's with pages on WP, along with their latest average page view counts, are:

Putting all subjective political opinions aside, no one can seriously deny the glaring WP:PRIMARYTOPIC among these. Also, while people have objected previously to this article being moved on the claim that it would be mis-titled as her name because the article should not be about her but about the one event that made her famous (and it should be titled accordingly), no consensus for such a title has ever developed, and the article itself has evolved into a bonafide biography about a genuinely notable person per any reasonable standards accepted on WP by consensus for countless other articles. Perhaps some day in the future some other Kim Davis will eclipse this one, but WP is WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, and for now, like it or not, this article on Kim Davis is by far the one most likely being sought when someone searches with "Kim Davis", and there can be no question that "Kim Davis" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the topic of this article. There is absolutely no justification for continued disambiguation of this title. В²C ☎ 19:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose So far as I can tell, all three Kim Davises mentioned above are still living people. That being the case, it certainly could happen that one of the others does something which might make them much more notable in the near future. The hockey player could for instance become the head coach of some team, or the Canadian singer might get some major hit or perhaps some sort of stage or film role. In both of those instances, it could very easily be the case that they might get more hits than the clerk. I don't expect either of those to happen, of course, but I've been known to make mistakes before. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Isn't that exactly the kind of WP:SPECULATION we're not supposed to engage in? --В²C ☎ 19:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I tend to think that WP:TITLE and maybe specifically WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, along with maybe WP:NCP, seem to me more directly relevant. What strikes me at this point is the apparent "speculation" that the current levelsw of "popularity" of the three named individuals will necessarily remain more or less the same into the future, and the fact that the search you performed is more or less a "snapshot" of three living people. There tend to me many more books, particularly reference works, regarding hockey and music in a specific narrow focus than on individuals involved in a politico-religious controversy. We can more or less expect the future editions of those hockey and music sources to discuss those individuals. Taking all that into account, it strikes me maybe as being a bit premature to attempt to determine the outcome of a more or less permanent name change at a time when we have good reason to think not all the results are in yet. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
        • WP:TITLE references WP:SPECULATION for title decision-making. This is a quote from WP:TITLE#Name changes: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers." Shouldn't that apply here? What's familiar to our readers today is this Kim Davis, not the relatively obscure hockey player and singer. The future is unknown and irrelevant to this decision. --В²C ☎ 21:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - article is 5,210 words, of which 4,215 are about the marriage license controversy (including a 226-word section describing the controversy with no reference to Davis at all), and 301 more are about the related controversy with Pope Francis, leaving 694 words (about 13% of the article) of not-entirely-controversy-related biographical material about Kim Davis. Per WP:TITLE, the article's title should describe the article's contents, and that problem is still not resolved. There's easily enough material here to make two separate articles, good articles, even, and it is the clear solution to the ongoing problem to do so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    • We have countless biographies of people, much more obscure than Kim Davis, who became notable for one event and their biography articles are dominated by accounts of that event and related aftermath. Why is there so much reluctance to treat this article in the same manner that we treat countless other similar biographical topics? Here are a few examples I found with ease to illustrate what I'm talking about: Charles E. Mower, Burton Abbott, Rosie Alfaro, Mark Bingham. I think there are so many such examples that WP:OTHERSTUFF does not apply here; it's not like these are exceptions that need fixing. There's nothing wrong with the content of these articles nor with their titles. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with the content of this article, nor its proposed title. --В²C ☎ 21:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Switched to support. Davis isn't obscure, I'm not sure if I'm misreading your "more obscure" comment but I don't think I've ever said that in the long history of this dispute. If Davis were obscure then she would not be the primary topic, but this article's pageview stats demonstrate otherwise. Even in the absence of any ongoing news coverage (although she's in the news today) her article is consistently drawing more attention than articles with the same title, by a factor of about 100. On days when she is in the news this factor approaches 10,000, check back tomorrow to see. When Canadian singer Kim Davis is in the news, ... actually I can't find any news about Canadian singer Kim Davis from the time since her article was created in 2014, so I can't even say. The fact that this article is composed so primarily of coverage of the controversy reflects the real world: if not for the controversy precious few of us would have ever heard of Rowan County clerk Kim Davis, it was chiefly a controversy of her creation, and she has done little else separate from her controversy which warrants encyclopedic coverage nor would we cover it had the controversy not happened. Should she become notable for some other thing in the future then, like I said above, there's easily enough material here to create separate biography and controversy articles, however there is admittedly no need to do so now. Personally I doubt Ms. Davis will turn her notoriety over this one event into any sort of future work of note, like Monica Lewinsky has for example, but that's a WP:CRYSTAL argument no matter which way it goes. We can wait and see. I support both of the move requests. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Moving the singer's article seems entirely uncontroversial so I just went ahead and did it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: despite the single "There's Only One - Kim Davis," there was a more famous Kim Davis (British singer) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bnwnj8Q7b8 who died young in 1980. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Perfect example of how one person can view something as "entirely uncontroversial" yet be quite mistaken. Omnedon (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Two people. And fortunately, these things are easy to reverse, which I've done. Good work, team. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hardly. Kim Davis (British singer) is a redirect to the band in which she played, briefly; a redirect which IIO just created. Even in that article this singer barely gets a mention, apparently because there's virtually no mention of her in reliable sources. The Canadian singer's notability, on the other hand, is obvious (awards, discography). --В²C ☎ 17:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per IIO. This person is notable only because of this one situation. Omnedon (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • How is this even relevant much less an argument against removing the parenthetic disambiguation when this use is so obviously primary among all uses? We have countless biographical articles about people who are notable only because of one situation. I listed four examples above in my reply to Ivanvector. Here are a few more: Ryszard Tylewski, Patsy Ramsey, Jeremy Glick, Alois Lutz, Nancy Spungen. Are you suggesting all such titles wrong and needing correction? Let me put it this way. If this article was at Kim Davis would "This person is notable only because of this one situation" be an argument for disambiguating it, or changing it at all? Sorry, but I just don't get it. We decide whether to disambiguate based on ambiguity (yes), likelihood of being sought relative to other uses (about as high as possible) and sometimes historical significance (not a factor here). Whether the person-subject is notable for one situation is not a factor normally (if ever) considered in decisions on whether to disambiguate a given title, which is all that is at issue here. --В²C ☎ 17:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I know you don't get it. You never have. You seem to desire absolute minimum disambiguation ignoring all other titling considerations, but this title is fine as it is and there is no good reason to change it. It's more descriptive than just the name, and that's positive, not negative. Omnedon (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
        • My main desire is relative title stability which I believe is best achieved by well-defined consensus-supported rules and good adherence to those rules, including changing titles to better adhere to those rules, which is what this proposal is about. Better adherence to WP:CRITERIA and WP:D is a very good reason to change a title, and that's ultimately the reason at play here. I get that the current title is "more descriptive". What I don't get is by what measure that's a positive; it is not policy, guidelines, conventions or anything supported by consensus, as far as I know. --В²C ☎ 00:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
          • We've been over this many times in years past, and you always claim that there is no policy support for anything that disagrees with your goal of absolute minimum disambiguation. My view here is policy-based, whether you acknowledge this or not. Article titling is not merely about maximum brevity. You know about WP:TITLE. Recognizability and conciseness are components of it, and removing this minimally descriptive information from the title does not serve those goals. Omnedon (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. No other topic even comes close in terms of significance or pageviews. The event is far enough in the past now that I'm comfortable with moving the page. The 1-event stuff is more suited to AFD, not the article's title, and deletion is not likely to happen. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Good point. People are using a classic AFD argument to oppose a title change proposal. I hope the closing admin takes that, and the general absence of basis in policy, guidelines or conventions in the opposition arguments, into account... --В²C ☎ 18:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - significance and pageviews. The dust appears to have settled, and our readers are clearly seeking this topic far, far beyond any other "Kim Davis" topics put together. (Btw - this holds true whether you see this as a notable event or a notable person. Retitling the article after the controversy should still result in "Kim Davis" being a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to that article....) Dohn joe (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support reluctantly. Well, I could argue against systematic bias, but the ice hockey player and the Canadian singer do not match up the primacy of the county clerk. There are other Kim Davises, like that of Chic (band). However, this Kim Davis is part of political and media sensation ever seen in history. Undeniably, if she is primary, she's primary. Make her primary and then move on. George Ho (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose With "Kim Davis" being such a common name, and with her being known for only one relatively minor event, I don't see this Kim Davis having the requisite long-term significance. It's a weak oppose because I'm not sure if it would ultimately be better to move it now and then move it back when this Kim Davis is no longer the primary usage. -- Irn (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Long-term significance is not required by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for a topic to be primary among others with the same common name. In general that criterion only applies to situations where one of the topics has obviously established long-term significance; that's not the case here. So the only relevant primary topic criterion here, like in most primary topic situations, is likelihood of being sought relative to the other ambiguous topics. It's not a requirement for a primary topic to have long-term significance. And requiring long-term significance in the future, which is what you seem to be thinking is needed here, would violate WP:CRYSTALBALL. --В²C ☎ 18:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC – I was once at a party and, after I mentioned I helped write the Kim Davis article, the party goer looked up "Kim Davis" on their phone. "The county clerk!" they said, and we all know where they got that helpful description. Ah well. P.S. Ignore all comments from people who are trying to change the subject of this move request to a completely different question. —Prhartcom♥ 07:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support county clerk is clearly the primary topic. Lepricavark (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2017 (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.

International attention

Kim Davis achieved international notoriety because of her activism, but we have an editor who insists on removing this noteworthy fact, perhaps forgetting that even the Pontiff was involved.- MrX 17:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

"Davis drew international attention in 2015 when she said her Christian religious beliefs prevented her from providing marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said the right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by the U.S. Constitution. And Davis was jailed briefly for contempt of court by U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning."
— USA Today

"Last summer, Davis refused to issue licenses to gay couples after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage, drawing international attention and triggering demonstrations and legal actions."
— Reuters

"Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis came to international prominence this week for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. "
— The Guardian

- MrX 18:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact is noteworthy and these cites do support the content. Should we replace the existing local refs with these for the "international attention" fact? I do think USA Today, Reuters, and The Guardian are better than the more local newspapers we have now. Neutralitytalk 18:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting Neutrality. I have added these references to the body text so, yes, I think we could remove the lesser sources.- MrX 18:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
First of all, as you don't deny, it's a vapid, meaningless phrase that has no place in an encyclopedic article. Given the nature of the web these days, virtually everything that gains attention gains "international" attention. Automated news aggregators make that inevitable. Second, the phrase indicates exactly nothing about the actual significance of events. Stinky the dog, Scratchy the cat, Donny the dancing dingo, and hordes of photobombing babies gain "international attention" every day. Last week a lead story on Yahoo News was about a minor league baseball player who was called out for making a joke swing on a wild pitch. "International attention" means jack shit these days, and meaningless stuff shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. especially in a BLP lede. Third, the lede of an article should clearly state what a person is notable for, and the lede as you would write it in effect says that Davis is notable for being notable, not for what she actually did. That is, again, not what an encyclopedia article is supposed to do. The language you endorse is just the equivalent of beginning the article "Kim Davis is a notable county clerk" -- and that is bad writing and bad communication. It's the kind of writing we usually see in PR copy, not in neutral, NPOV text. Fourth, the sources cited in the article don't adequately support the claim, either as to its substance or the point in time she became notable, a point you completely disregard. Fifth, virtually all of the sources used in the article, and virtually all if not all of the commentators cited or quoted, are US-based. There's no evidence provided that this story received anything like prominent coverage outside the US.
There's way too much bad, pretty much inaccurate writing like this on Wikipedia. It's like saying something "made headlines", an equally meaningless description because every news story you find online has a prominent headline. Crap is crap, and infesting what purports to be a BLP abount a person involved in a significant event with meaningless, pseudopromotional language degrades what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The fact that a public official's unlawful actions drew international attention is far from vapid. In fact, it establishes for readers why the subject is important and frames the context. Please review the talk page archives and the two AfDs for further evidence that the subject was covered by news agencies in several countries.- MrX 18:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Please stop casting aspersions and reply to the substance of my comments. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
What "aspersions" were in MrX's comment? I see nothing at all like that. Neutralitytalk 19:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Other than snide asides like "perhaps forgetting" in the opening comment? Your lack of vision is hardly admirable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that confused me as well. I believe I have rebutted all of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' substantive points, without casting so much as a drop.- MrX 19:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Kim Davis has been the subject of newspaper coverage across the globe including Le Figaro, Le Monde, the Sydney Morning Herald, The Hindu, and The Guardian (linked above).- MrX 19:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Hullaballoo here. Her actions aren't important because they drew international attention; rather, they drew international attention because they are important. Noting that she received international attention, especially in the lead, strikes me as pure puffery – as Hullaballoo noted, pretty much every article about a present-day subject could include that description. -- Irn (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a bit of a red herring. The article doesn't say she is important because of the international attention that she received in the media. It merely mentions this as a significant result of her notorious actions. It's very unusual for a U.S. county clerk to be covered in the news in multiple countries.- MrX 16:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
That's not a red herring; it's literally your argument. You have yet to respond to Hullaballo's initial argument, which I agree with: "Given the nature of the web these days, virtually everything that gains attention gains "international" attention." -- Irn (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Not really, although I guess I could have worded my response more carefully. The international attention conveys the magnitude and extent of her notoriety, not the reason for it. I think we all agree on that point. That's important for the reader to know. I dispute that everything that gains attention gains international attention, assuming that we are referring to attention in reputable publications like Le Figaro, Le Monde, the Sydney Morning Herald, and The Hindu.- MrX 16:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with you that "international attention conveys the magnitude and extent of her notoriety." Because "international attention" is not limited to being the subject of articles in reputable publications like Le Figaro, Le Monde, the Sydney Morning Herald, and The Hindu. Indeed, it conveys very little information. To give an absurd example, if I have a friend in another country, and I tell that friend about me stubbing my toe this morning, me stubbing my toe could legitimately be described as having received "international attention". This is obviously not what you have in mind, but it highlights the uselessness of the phrase "international attention" - it's pure puffery. If you think there's something special about her being covered by the sources you mentioned, that's far more than just "international attention"; that's a different argument entirely. -- Irn (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not my view that the international coverage is important—it's the view of at least six sources, three of which are referenced in the article. I don't see how it's "puffery" which is defined as "exaggerated commendation especially for promotional purposes". No one is being commended and there is no promotional purpose at hand.- MrX 18:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
You're not responding to the argument: “international attention” as a phrase conveys very little information. If you think there's something special about her being covered by the sources you mentioned, that's far more than just “international attention”; that's a different argument entirely. -- Irn (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, if your concern is wording then how about we replace "international attention" with "worldwide news coverage"?- MrX 19:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Of course that's no better. A few days ago a Korean baseball player gained "worldwide news coverage" for a single bad pitch. Yesterday a litter of hedgehogs found in a trash can gained "international attention". Your argument is no more than that because lousy writing is common in internet journalism, Wikipedia should encourage it in encyclopedia articles. That is a remarkably stupid argument. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I read this discussion and then looked at the lede. I see both sides. While I agree "international attention" is often meaningless nowadays, that doesn't mean it was in this case. Most county clerks would not garner the kind of attention internationally that Ms. Davis did. I suggest when we say a subject "gained international attention", we're clearly implying that the said attention was meaningful and significant (not merely the result of automated news aggregation), which is certainly the case here. I think "gained international attention" is factual and relevant in this case. It should stay. --В²C ☎ 20:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Not improvements

Kim Davis received a jail sentence, had her salary cut in 2012 as it was found to be higher than expected, and failed in her activism as marriage licenses in Rowan County are now being issued to all citizens as required by law, but all three of these are being challenged by User:Joefromrandb who insists it would be an improvement if all were removed from the article. Specifically, the editor believes the phrase "led to her being jailed" is superior to "led to her jail sentence", doesn't believe the sentence "A court found her salary to be higher than expected and therefore cut her wages in 2012" to be true, and believes the sentence "Marriage licenses in Rowan County are now being issued to all citizens as required by law" to be so obvious it goes without saying. None of these were brought up during the GA review, and all three are referenced facts summarized in the lead, likely the only part of the article this editor has read. Calling on editors MrX, Neutrality, В²C, and any others. —Prhartcom♥ 13:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I support keeping the original version before Joefromrandb removed it (three times; without discussion). Each of those points are significant to Davis' notability. However, I would support changing "led to her jail sentence" to "led to her being jailed", which seems more accurate.- MrX 15:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
She didn't receive a "jail sentence". She was jailed. "A court found her salary to be higher than expected, and therefore cut her wages" is plain bullshit. First of all, a Fiscal Court is no more a court of law than a basketball court. The Court denied the budget requested by Davis' mother. It made no finding-of-fact as to Davis' salary, and it did not cut her wages, nor did it have any ability or authority to do so. Mentioning that marriage licenses are now being issued in accordance with the law is just silly, but as it's not an actual BLP-vio, it can be returned if it's really that big a deal. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that she didn't receive a jail sentence, per se. I've changed it accordingly.- MrX 16:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
ETA: I also removed "A court found her salary to be higher than expected and therefore cut her wages in 2012." which is not what the cited source says. Prhartcom, Do you know of a source that supports this?- MrX 16:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
What was that? Oh, I understand. L-rd knows I make more than my own share of mistakes. What's that now? Oh - of course I accept your apology. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
MrX, thank you for your improvements, and for your civil replies, which we would appreciate from everyone in this discussion. User:Joefromrandb, I understand that you are only looking for BLP violations.
Yes, that's fine, consensus appears to have favored this "being jailed" wording as superior; I simply thought the other way read better. On the second point, I see now what the problem is with this sentence. The Morehead News source reports that the court substantially reduced the wages budget of the country clerk's office after state employees complained that clerk's office staff was paid too much. Meanwhile, the source reports that Davis' salary was the highest in comparison to her peers. I see now that the source is implying that Kim Davis' salary is the reason for the reduced budget, but that is not justification for the article saying that "a court cut her wages". I see now this is a incorrect summarization of the source article. As we are really only trying to succinctly summarize our article's entire Career section into one sentence, and as the lead is now completely devoid of a summary of this section, let's not cut this sentence but instead let's re-write it. Unless anyone else would like to, I will volunteer to do this work as usual and will add it to the article in place of the cut sentence in the next day or so. Regarding the third and last point, yes, I personally would like to see the "marriage licenses are now being issued" sentence restored, as it was requested to be written that way during the article's GA review. At the time, the reviewer requested that the lead be restructured, and what emerged from the review was a strong opening paragraph complete with a closing sentence that showed that Davis' activism was ultimately futile. —Prhartcom♥ 05:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Photo in Lead

We really need a good photo for the lead so I used the film clip since there appear to be none others at commons. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, this is a brilliant idea. Given the fact that no one has complained yet, others must agree also. It's funny that we used to have a mug shot photo of Kim Davis in the article and many times that was copied up into the info box, only to be immediately reverted. I still wish we could find a free photo of Davis. Cheers. —Prhartcom♥ 05:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Improvements

The article is currently going through a copy edit by User:Joefromrandb, which is welcome. Anyone here to improve the article is welcome, especially considering the article is a WP:BLP. I notice that as the copy edit progresses, the article gets better as it should, therefore those of us who created the article over the years and still watch the page are truly grateful to the WP:GOCE representative performing the copy edit.

Speaking for myself, but likely nearly everyone else reading this: The only thing objectionable is the incivility of this editor. I wish he would improve the article with a friendly smile, rather than hurling insults and accusations as he goes. Were he to try doing this, I believe he would find smiles in return. He would surely find the process take less time and might even enjoy some praise and recognition. "If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive". Dale Carnegie

Regardless, I am sincere in my thanks to User:Joefromrandb for the efforts. I just hope the efforts don't continue to remain so hurtful. Best. —Prhartcom♥ 15:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for those incredibly kind words. I may not have a chance to post a proper reply until tomorrow, but in the meanwhile, I just wanted to acknowledge that I have read this post, and say "thank you". Joefromrandb (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image

There appears to be an edit war surrounding the infobox image. I restored it because the reason for removal is not, to the best of my knowledge, based in policy or guidelines. MOS:IMAGE makes no mention of profile pics. The claim that it's a BLP violation and that the image's "sole purpose of stultifying Davis" seem unfounded. The image portrays Davis doing the very thing that made her notable. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there. A profile image of hers is what would be expected. An image of hers in which her face is partially obscured by her hand is not a good image for the lead. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
That is highly questionable. How could an image of a subject doing precisely what made that subject noteworthy constitute a lead image "that readers would not expect to see"? Your rationale seems based on your subjective impressions rather than on Wiki policies and guidelines. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
This is a biographical article, not an article limited to the marriage license controversy. In a biographical article, you don't put a photo of a person with their hand partially covering their face as the lead photo, just like you would not put a photo of her butt as the lead photo. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I adamantly disagree. A photo of a subject doing precisely what makes that subject notable is obviously acceptable in any article—and especially here, where a photo is hard to find. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Surely not. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I can only imagine you were intending to make some point or other here. "Surely" or "not"? Antinoos69 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Surely. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree, but an identical image should not appear twice in the same article, so I've removed the duplicate. Station1 (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Since the image is of her refusing to issue a marriage license, and the guy that she is refusing to serve is clearly visible in the photo (and is actually more prominent in the photo than she is), it makes more sense to post the image in the section discussing her refusal to issue marriage licenses, than in the infobox. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
How about cropping the image then? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Per above, her face is partially obscured by her hand. Cropping cannot fix that. The photo is simply not appropriate for the infobox, but is OK for the section discussing her refusal to issue marriage licenses. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, I will refer to the historic difficulty in finding a pic for this spot. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's true, given that she is alive, and even if she was dead, that would be irrelevant. If it is so important for you, then you can go down to the Rowan County Clerk's office and ask her to pose for you and then upload your work to Wikipedia. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have clarified that I was expecting a serious response. I am not buying a plane ticket to fly across the country to photograph a hateful bigot. You could at least attempt seriousness. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I am serious. Rather than engage in an unproductive edit war, if it is so important to you to have a photo in the lede, it would be much more productive for you to go to Rowan County and ask her to pose for you so that you could put her photo in the lede. So long that she is alive, you cannot make the claim that it is difficult to find a free photo of hers. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
You are being ridiculous and can't even spot serious from your current location. If you think it is so easy, then you'll have no trouble finding a suitable pic yourself. You see, there's this little thing called copyright, which you just might have heard of. I'll take a pass on the extraordinary classism inherent to your remarks. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Given the historic difficulty in finding an image for this spot, I find the no-duplicate argument far from persuasive. Readers will want an immediate validation of whether the article is actually about the woman they've seen in the media. So, pending the outcome of this discussion, I will restore the image. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
You may have misunderstood. I was agreeing with the OP and have no objection to the image in the infobox. I removed the duplicate image from further down the page, since it's ridiculous to have the identical image in both places. Station1 (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I must admit I am having extraordinary difficulty finding a rationale for removal based firmly in Wiki policy rather than in some editors' subjective impressions and whims. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Readers will have "an immediate validation" by reading the first sentence of the article. Presumptuous as it may be, we do assume literacy on the part of those who come to this site for information. Sometimes the sky is blue has now courteously added a link to the policy below to compliment the one above, which should put an end to your "extraordinary difficulty" (in other words, there's one above this comment, and one below; should you reach either the top or the bottom of this page, you've gone too far). Joefromrandb (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
It would have been helpful if, before reverting to your characteristic incivility and boorishness, you had noted my refutation of Sometimes's policy argument the first time he/she brought it up above—assuming you can be bothered with such minutiae. As for the matter of visual validation, I refer you to the first sentence of MOS:LEADIMAGE, which you seem to have missed while carried away by your ill-conceived insults. So I repeat, I must admit I am having extraordinary difficulty finding a rationale for removal based firmly in Wiki policy rather than in some editors' subjective impressions and whims. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a wiki policy, MOS:LEADIMAGE, and it has been referenced. The quality of the photo is not sufficient for the lead. It is OK for inclusion in the section describing how she refused to issue marriage licenses. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed the policy when you first brought it up and I subsequently refuted your argument concerning it. It would aid the progression of this discussion if you actually read my responses to your comments. The quality of the photo, a matter not addressed by your cited policy, is fine considering the historic difficulty in finding a suitable pic for this spot. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
No, you refuted absolutely nothing. As the image is already included in the article, in the appropriate section, there's no reason whatsoever to move it to the lede, again, per policy. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I am utterly unaware of the "policy" to which you are referring, but I do know it can't possibly be MOS:LEADIMAGE, unless your device downloads a very different version of it than mine. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Concur with Joefromrandb. You have refuted nothing. Nobody is saying that the photo does not belong in the article. It does not belong in the lede, and for God's sake, it does not need to be in the article twice. This edit was disruptive, and thank you Joefromrandb for reverting it. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course I refuted your argument. The problem is that you are reading into the policy what simply is not actually there. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase: I count exactly two of five editors (perhaps two of six) commenting here who wish to remove the pic. I'd say it is time for those editors to move on. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you think this is a majority vote? No wonder you can't understand the image policy. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
If you want to cut to the chase, the photo is not of sufficient quality to be in the infobox, per MOS:LEADIMAGE. If it's so important for you to have an image in the infobox, either go take one, or find an alternate. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing on point in that style guideline. And I surmise that (a) you can't find a pic either, and (b) you don't care about consensus. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:BURDEN, the burden is on you to find a better photo, and per MOS:LEADIMAGE "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." As for consensus, I don't see a consensus saying that the photo is of sufficient quality to be in the infobox. The only arguments I can see for inclusion is (I'm paraphrasing) "there is nothing better, so therefore we should use this photo", and that's simply not an argument.
It's somewhat puzzling why you are continuing to argue, given that there are no objections to the inclusion of the photo in the article. The objection is only to placing it in the infobox. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
That is an objection that exactly two of five or six editors have expressed, hardly a consensus for the change. Again, I see nothing on point in the policy, only exceedingly vague verbiage into which you and exactly one other editor choose to read whatever you please. That's not how one interprets texts, and certainly not how I teach others to interpret them. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
It was very clearly quoted to you from policy that "not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." A photo of a person in which (a) another person is more prominent than the person in question and (b) partially obscures her face with her hand is certainly not a good representation of the person in question. Since you continue to edit war over this, I will take it to WP:BLPNB. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
"[N]ot having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic" is a suggestion and not a directive. Note the may. Nor is there any guidance on what constitutes "easy representation." We obviously disagree about that phrase. The pic is fine under the circumstances. So all we have is a vague policy providing no concrete directive or guidance—in other words, nothing "on point." Antinoos69 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Coming from WP:BLPN. Concur that no image in the Infobox is preferable to the use of the proposed image; per the advice at MOS:LEADIMAGE, particularly Lead images should ... be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works. Concur that the proposed image is appropriate for use elsewhere in the article. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
And there is obvious disagreement over that vague language. I have no problem with the image appearing in such "reference works." Personally, my preference would have been for the mug shot, but I recall and can still imagine the hysteria here were that image to be used. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing vague in that language. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Entering the discussion after having at length read the above. I have not been convinced by any argument stated that the image should be included in the infobox per WP policy to adequately represent the subject. I must state that the current image does not even represent the physical act described within the section that it accompanies: Kim Davis is not refusing to issue a marriage certificate in this photo (as she is in others that more prominently feature her: [2], [3]); this is Kim Davis ordering the camera to be turned off. Not only is the text incorrect for the photo, but there are much better representational images for this section that could be used. No: to the lede infobox, and Yes: to the article section photo - but with a different, more prominently subject feature photo. Maineartists (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible to upload either of the images to Wikipedia under the Fair Use rationale? As for the caption, I am not sure from which point in the video the image was taken. While she may have ordered for the camera to be turned off at the specific moment of the still, I think since it was part of the interaction in which she refused to issue a marriage license, the current caption "Kim Davis refusing a marriage license to David Ermold and David Moore (pictured), who released a video of the encounter which set off the controversy" is accurate. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
You have it backwards. The point is whether the pic should not be used under the circumstances. I agree that the sorts of images you provide as examples would be much better, but what about the copyright issues? The NPR image would seem like an obvious problem. And I don't know enough about this "worldnow" pic to say. I generally refuse to take on these copyright responsibilities myself, but would not offer explicit objections, nor explicit support, against or for the reasonable conclusions of those who do. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I disagree. Within the section, it supports the claim: "... requesting that they turn off their camera". Davis is specifically making an action toward the camera to support this claim; she is not addressing the two seeking a marriage certificate in this image (as is stated in the text below photo). The video which the image has been captured might be titled as such, but this is not representational of what the action states. At the precise "action" moment of this photo, she is not "refusing to issue a marriage license", but "requesting cameras to be turned off". Plus, if this is a YouTube image capture: is this really the best image that could be captured? As for Fair Use rationale, there are editors far more experienced that understand WP policy that should be able to get one of these two images uploaded (or another that better represents the action / situation). I still vote for the other images, as they specifically show Davis "refusing to issue marriage licenses" - addressing the requesting parties. Maineartists (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
A more accurate caption for the present image would be: "Kim Davis requesting cameras be turned off while refusing a marriage license to David Ermold and David Moore (pictured), who released a video of the encounter which set off the controversy[26] Maineartists (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to argue whether a better image from the video could be captured (it probably could). I don't think it's relevant what specifically she said during the exact second of the image capture. The only thing that matters is that the image is from the encounter in which she refused to issue a marriage license to the other person depicted in the image. The fact that she may have also asked for the camera to be turned off is of secondary importance. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
We can change the caption if necessary. The point is merely to provide a pic for readers that is reasonably connected to the events in question, as this pic does. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think placing the image in the infobox is fine since it illustrates the very thing (and the only thing) that Davis is not notable for. If an actual head shot with a compatible license can be found, that would be preferable. In lieu of placing the photo in the infobox, placing it immediately below, or above, the infobox offers a good compromise while making sure that this iconic image is visible by readers scanning the lead.- MrX 16:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
First of all, the infobox template is incorrect: "Infobox officeholder" - Kim Davis is / was not an "officeholder" by WP definition; and the information that is supplied within the current infobox is not actually allowable to the subject: "term start / end" - "party". This should be rectified. Second, I think you mean : "notable for" not "not notable for". Third, infoboxes should not contain: "Excessive length" - "Long bodies of text, or very detailed statistics, belong in the article body". This is an "action" photograph, directly depicting an act (requesting a camera to be turned off), with another subject that needs detailed explanation. The photo itself has many issues with it as have been discussed above. A picture of such low image standards and quality should only be taken into consideration if there are absolutely no other images to be found, per WP image suggestion. This is not the case. Maineartists (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
She is an officeholder because she is an elected official. See section Electoral history. This is the correct infobox template. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
If there are better photos of Davis, or one that depict Davis' interaction with the main actors, then by all means add it to the article. If the image caption is incorrect, then it can be corrected. The photo does not have "many issues" as far as I can tell. It's actually quite informational for purposes of depicting the subject.- MrX 17:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I fully agree. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Consensus update: I now count exactly four of eight or nine editors who support the original change. There's still no consensus for it, though there may be consensus in the near future for some other proposed change, if someone could handle the copyright issues. In the meantime, until there is a consensus for some change, the previous status quo should be maintained. I will revert to the earlier status quo. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that the status quo is not to have the image in the infobox. See this version from July 22 before the edit warring started. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Please review WP:NOTAVOTE. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I refuse to edit war, but: 1) Where was there consensus for there to be two of the same image in this article? and 2) I still believe that the caption is still incorrect to the action of the subject; per section Davis' reaction to same-sex marriage ruling "requesting that they turn off their camera". I propose that the caption be replaced with: Kim Davis (right) refusing a marriage license for a same-sex couple in Kentucky requesting cameras be turned off while refusing a marriage license for a same-sex couple in Kentucky" (for the lede) - or whatever pleases the above editor for the in-section image relating to the action. I really don't care where it goes; as long as there aren't 2 of the same image in the article, and the text is representational of the action of the subject. Maineartists (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the phrase requesting cameras be turned off is superfluous for the caption. The far more important issue is that she refused to issue a marriage license (BTW your proposed wording is missing the important word "to issue" in between the words "refusing a marriage license"). Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I simply copied what was there before in the lede image, and "to issue" was not there. Regardless - Superfluous? and the caption there now isn't? "A still image from a video released by David Ermold and David Moore (pictured)[26] in which Kim Davis is refusing to issue them a marriage license. The release of the video publicized Davis' policy of not issuing same sex marriage licenses and ignited a national controversy." Are you kidding me? One subject isn't even in the photo, and Davis is visibly pointing toward the camera, hiding half her face. Come on. Maineartists (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's absolutely superfluous, but in order to reach a compromise I included this superfluous detail in this edit using the fewest possible words. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
So you say, but that is your opinion; not shared by me - and I never touched the caption text. Thank you for the compromise, at least. I will never understand the objection for a simple inclusion of what the image actually showed in the first place, when superfluous text such as "ignited a national controversy" was allowed to stay; especially when one says: "Before anything else, the caption has to describe the image" in their edit summary. Still, I humbly bow graciously out of your court absolute beholden to your allowance and grace. Maineartists (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if you're being sarcastic (it's a little difficult to judge your tone of voice or body language on a Wikipedia talk page), but if it's an acceptable compromise then wonderful !! Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

(Popping my head back in) No sarcasm intended. Compromise acceptable. Happy editing! Maineartists (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

No relation to Kim Davis, or entirely 100% related to Kim Davis

I don't understand why this long standing material is being repeatedly removed by a single very determined editor. Can anyone please explain it?- MrX 00:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I can and I did. As far as the horseshit of "long standing material" goes, this "good" article contained no fewer than fourteen OUTRIGHT LIES that I have since removed; attempting to use the fact that "it's been in there a long time" as evidence that it belongs there is incredibly pathetic. You bet your ass I'm a "very determined editor". I'm determined to make sure that this article complies with policy. Thankfully, we have a handful of others who are also helping to change this from an attack-piece into an encyclopedia article. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Rather than a shallow and pathetic manifesto, how about you justify how this material doesn't "relate" to the subject in spite of the fact that the very title of the source article says "Vatican to Replace Diplomat Who Set Up Kim Davis Meeting". Your determination, policy flag waving, and and utter disdain for every other editor working on this article is not of any value whatsoever..- MrX 01:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It's clearly not 100% related, and it's also not completely unrelated. It's not directly related, as it's not information about the article subject; it's information about Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. Is it tangentially related? Perhaps. But per WP:SYNTH, we should be cautious about implying a causal relationship between the meeting and the "replacement"; because such a relationship is not stated in any of the sources (The Advocate or the Washington Post to which they refer); and I think there's a valid concern that the inclusion might imply such. If this source[4], referenced by The Advocate, is correct, Viganò had reached a "statutory retirement age"; that is, he was retired, not replaced. If the material were phrased "Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the diplomat who had arranged the Pope's meeting with Davis retired five months later", which is the bare bones of it, would there be a question about inclusion? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
That would certainly be better, but I would still question the point of including it. Unless there is a direct relation between his retirement and his arranging the meeting, it's irrelevant to Davis, and potentially misleading. He reached the statutory age of retirement, henceforth, the pope accepted his resignation and replaced him. How in the world is that in the slightest way related to Davis? Obviously, it's not, and including it here is deliberately misleading. It leads the reader to believe that setting up Davis' meeting with the pope was related to his being replaced. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
It should be fairly clear that unless and until there is verifiable evidence that Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò was sent into retirement as retribution for arranging the meeting between Pope Francis and Kim Davis, the material does not belong in the article about Kim Davis. To include the material in the article about Kim Davis would be a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:CHRYSTAL. Just because the event is true and verifiable, does not mean that it is in any way related to Kim Davis. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The source article makes the connection to Davis, and other source articles support the connection.[5][6][7] It's not synth to include this fact in her biography. I'm afraid I don't understand the rest of your comments or their relevance to this content.
@Ryk72: Yes, of course it's not 100% related and it's also not "no relation". I agree we should not imply that the Archbishop was replaced because of the Davis controversy, but we should note the fact that he was replaced and let readers draw their own conclusions, or conduct further research by examining the sources. I can live with the revised wording that you propose, but we should also include the fact that Viganò is “often more outspoken in his antagonism to same-sex marriage than others in the church,”" per the source and the original version ("an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage"). Let's also add a couple of the sources that I listed above.- MrX 11:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

"we should note the fact that he was replaced and let readers draw their own conclusions". I disagree. including it in the article suggests that it's related, and that's WP:SYNTH. While it is perfectly legitimate to mention that the Pope's meeting with Davis was controversial, I think it violates WP:SYNTH to take it to the next step and put (in Kim Davis' biography) that the person who organized the meeting was re-assigned a few months later -- without a direct WP:RS linkage that say that the two (the meeting and the re-assignment) are related. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

"...without a direct WP:RS linkage that say that the two (the meeting and the re-assignment) are related." But we're not saying they are related. We're simply saying that they happened, which means we're following the source. That's exactly what we're supposed to do.- MrX 18:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Including in the article suggests a relationship, even if there are no words saying that the two are related. Therefore, we should not include in the article. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
There's an implicit double standard in WP:SYNTH and I'm never sure whether it's intentional or not; but it's relevant here - to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated. No sources state a link between the meeting and the retirement; almost all state that the retirement is due to having reached a statutory age limit; which speaks against such a link. Does inclusion of the retirement here imply a link? It's certainly not an unreasonable suggestion to say that it does. I'm also inclined to the thought that the mention of Davis in the sources covering Viganò's retirement is not so much linking as contextualising. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what double standard in WP:SYNTH you are talking about, nor do I understand the difference between linking and contextualising (as it pertains to the question of this discussion), but thanks for adding that WP:RS claim age as the official reason for the retirement. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Joefromrandb is absolutely right in his/her rejection of "good articles" and "long-standing material" being justifications for inclusion in-and-of themselves. MrX is wrong to refer to such rejection as "shallow and pathetic", as 99% I have seen the same thing written on other pages it is accurate and justified. Joefromrandb is wrong in this case. The material should be reinstated. Joefromrandb may have been wrong about the other "OUTRIGHT LIES", for all I know. I was wrong to assume someone deliberately butchered the name of a source. Whoever is responsible for accidentally butchering the name of the source should apologize. 'Nuff said. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible to elaborate on the reasoning behind the statements: Joefromrandb is wrong in this case. The material should be reinstated.? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
It simply means that I think that this edit, which remains in place as of right now, should be undone. I also think, for what it's worth, that whoever in the course of this dispute caused (inadvertently or otherwise) the ref name for the previous sentence to become screwed up should be trouted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The meaning is clear, but the reasoning behind it is not. "Why?". The content, not the fish. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting the party categories

I can't think of an article about a U.S. politician that doesn't include "Category:____ Democrats" or "Category:____ Republicans", etc. at the bottom of the page. I read the previous discussion and the limited consensus was "her politics are not what she is known for" but I make the argument that since she was an elected politician, elected as a Democrat and later switched to become a Republican, the party affiliations should be included. You see this with just about every politician that has switched parties. MB298 (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

To me, this comes down to whether or not her political party is a defining characteristic. I don't think it is. She's known for being a county clerk, and someone's party affiliation is pretty irrelevant to the job of county clerk. You refer to her as a politician, (I disagree with that characterization. She is an elected official, not a politician. Lots of people are elected to public office - like coroners, judges, prosecutors, and water managers - without being politicians, even though party affiliation may be listed on the ballot.) but even if we refer to her as such and accept that all other U.S. politicians have their political affiliation as a category, why is that reason enough to include it in this case? -- irn (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
For a matter of conformity. If she was elected as a nonpartisan or her party affiliation was unknown, there wouldn't be a reason to include it, however her switch was important as she went from a Democrat (generally support gay marriage) to a Republican (generally oppose gay marriage). She also was elected on a partisan ballot. She is a member of the Republican party, and therefore completely fits the category Category:Kentucky Republicans. She is a former member of the Democratic party, and therefore fits Category:Kentucky Democrats. MB298 (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
You haven't addressed whether or not it's a defining characteristic. Do you not see that as a relevant consideration?
I don't see conformity as an end in itself. Rather, if it somehow serves our readers to do things the same way across the encyclopedia, then conformity can be a compelling argument. I don't see that here. Maybe that's because I rarely browse using categories, so I don't have a full understanding of how this might be useful.
However, I strongly disagree with your logic when you state She is a member of the Republican party, and therefore completely fits the category Category:Kentucky Republicans. Not every registered Republican from Kentucky should be in that category, only those for whom it is a defining characteristic. -- irn (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank-you for raising this, MB298; of course she should be categorized as a politician. Whether she is known for that is irrelevant—she is one. History records that she has been a member of both political parties, therefore both categories should be assigned to this article. It might help if someone could actually provide examples of other politician articles in both categories. —Prhartcom♥ 00:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Prhartcom: Completely agree. MB298 (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
And regarding examples, one would be Jim Justice, governor of West Virginia, who is a former Democrat and current Republican, he is in Category:West Virginia Democrats and Category:West Virginia Republicans. Other examples are Richard Shelby, Democrat-turned-Republican, Lincoln Chafee, Republican-Independent-Democrat, Gary Johnson, Republican-Libertarian, Virgil Goode, Democrat-Independent-Republican-Constitution, etc. MB298 (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Davis/Archive_6&oldid=1076368060"