Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:10, 6 October 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Charismatic Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Kentucky Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kim Davis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about what you think of Kim Davis or same-sex marriage. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about what you think of Kim Davis or same-sex marriage at the Reference desk.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: SNOW keep, 6 October 2015, see discussion. SNOW keep, 2 September 2015, see discussion.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, Kim Davis (Kentucky politician) → Kim Davis (clerk), Moved to Kim Davis (county clerk), 2 September 2015 (discussion)

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

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

• One article. If two articles were (improperly) created, then (as a compromise) the proper titles (reflecting content and scope) would be Kim Davis (county clerk) (would lose at a new AfD) and Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Her name must remain in the title. The requested move (which is just a title change) is still the right thing to do, resulting in one article which honors the conditions of the AfD for the existence of this article. We must honor the broad consensus at that AfD by keeping the content and scope here in one article.
  Another event article with a larger scope can still be created, but without her name in the title, and with the content "copied" (not "removed") from here pared down so it doesn't create undue weight, as it currently does in the "Kentucky...." article. It's nearly identical to this one, and that's not right. It's a regular hijacking. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• BullRangifer, I have a question about what you said above, not arguing with what you said (because I also believe "Kim Davis" should appear in the title), really just asking for my own understanding of general policy about handling consensus that changes over a short time. You say that a stand-alone Kim Davis biography article would now not survive an AfD, but you say we must include her name in the title in order to honor the previous AfD that voted for the stand-alone biography article. In that previous article, those of us in the minority argued she should not get a standalone biography article because she was only known for a single event, and the event had notability, not her. The AfD decided BLP1E did not apply, she had independent notability. It seems like this RfC indicates consensus has reversed itself from the previous AfD, that people believe it is the event, not the person, that is notable enough for an article. If consensus has reversed itself from the previous AfD, wouldn't that mean we are no longer bound by the consensus in the AfD? Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Mmyers1976, those are good questions, and thanks for asking. I am not sure, so let's brainstorm. This is a rather unusual situation (that confusion has gone so far as to allow the creation of two identical articles), and a new AfD would probably be a way to test it. It does happen at Misplaced Pages that a small group of editors on an article unwittingly push policy violations in the creation of the article (in this case creation of another article, a situation which causes problems). Then the wider (wiser?!) broader community must be brought in using RfCs and AfDs to look at the situation. The broader community's decision may then trump the local editors, who have thus gotten their fingers rapped with a ruler for their incompetence. They must bow to that wider consensus.

• Your question relates to her notability. It has always been the position that she is indeed notable, but not independently from the controversy. It is HER controversy, and pretty much no one else has participated in the whole USA(!): SHE precipitated it by defying the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges; SHE (and her lawyers) has maintained it; SHE has been the subject of a court decision (Miller v. Davis); SHE defied a court order; SHE was jailed for contempt of court; SHE has been the subject of a huge media storm, with international coverage; and SHE is now accused of altering marriage licenses.

• This is an ongoing train wreck, and is anything but "single event". This all confirms the widely held position that this is a biography about a person notable for not just one event (broke a window, and stopped at that), but a whole running controversy involving a series of events, laws, and persons ("one event" doesn't really apply anymore).

• The situation would be different if she had started a fire and stopped at that (a true "single event"), but the fire grew, involved others, inspired copy cats, burned most of the country, and became identified as The great conflagration of 2030. That situation would allow for two articles: Kim Davis (court reporter), and The great conflagration of 2030. The first would contain ALL the content directly related to her involvement in the initial fire, and the second would deal with her role in starting the fire, but contain much more information about the further consequences and others involved. We do not have that type of situation here.

• Since she has no independent notability apart from the controversy, this biography must have weight on what makes her notable, and that justifies a large amount of controversy content. That is the actual due weight the subject deserves in that article. We have many person/event articles. This is nothing new or unusual. If she had been independently notable, like Bill Cosby, and a later event or controversy began to create an undue weight problem by overwhelming the article with that one controversy, then our policies dictate that a WP:Spin-off should occur. With Cosby that resulted in Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. With Kim Davis this procedure does not apply, because that content is supposed to be the main weight of the article, with just a few unrelated biographical details. A pure biography without the controversy should not survive an AfD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That helps, thanks. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• One article named Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy for the reasons I state in the section immediately above. Prhartcom (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Prhartcom, you are a very clear thinker! I find your argument above about "unnecessary pseudo-biographies" very compelling. A pure biography, without ALL the content which made her notable (which is why this bio passed the AfD), would not survive another AfD. We need one article - a biography with weight on the notable controversy - and that is honored by the title with her name in it which accurately describes the current content and scope. This is both an event and biography article. We have plenty of others like it, so this is nothing new. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would be okay with two articles; the biography article and the event article, as long as the biography article contains the proper amount of reliable sources so that it won't later be deleted and as long as the even article is named after Kim Davis, the person who caused the controversy and for other reasons that I state in the section immediately above. Prhartcom (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Prhartcom, as I have mentioned elsewhere, that is also my suggestion, IF it's done at all, which I don't believe there is policy-based justification for doing. In a biography about someone notable in their own right, not because of some controversy, like Bill Cosby, undue weight caused by one controversy was solved by WP:Spin-off into the sub-article, Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. That "method", keeping the name in the title (not the "reason"), is also applicable here. It's been standard practice for many years.
• The "reason" it's not good to spin-off/split/fork here is that the controversy content here does not create undue weight, simply because it is the only reason she's notable. This biography should have heavy weight on that content. If we did have two articles, you're right that the spin-off/fork must keep her name. We'd also have to keep a significant amount of the content (I believe ALL of it) related to her involvement in the controversy.
• Any content here that's relevant to this type of controversy in another article can just be copied, not removed, and used there. So, if it's done at all, the spin-off/fork must keep her name. She started it, and seemingly is still about the only one seriously involved in the whole country(!). -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• One with Kim Davis' name omitted from the article name. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• (comment moved from section above) :Actually, as per WP:1E, I think that there are grounds for two separate articles. To my eyes, Davis compares rather well to the assassin mentioned in that guideline, who as per that page was also, perhaps, notable for only a single event. The same might be said for celebrities who might die after a single public action or any number of other Also, if I might be honest, I think we may have divergent opinions regarding what qualifies as "one event," the key point of disagreement being "event." Certainly, I can and so see that guideline applying to people who have only been noted for, for example, being the first white person in some county in Wyoming or whatever. That sort of "trivial" basis of notability is one I think everyone agrees with. However, in this case, she clearly has not been notable for simple a single "event," but rather a group of closely related events, including lawsuits, jailing, legal appeals, and I don't know what all else. That being the case, I have very strong reservations about what is to my eyes misapplying that guideline to an article to which it does not, necessarily, apply. in the same way that I think it would be misapplied to any of the one-hit wonders who also have their separate biographies. John Carter (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. She is noted for much more than a "single event". She has become the focus of a whole movement and media circus with lasting consequences, in the sense that this has touched on many deep issues which many people who will not drop it, and it has left, and is creating, many other consequences in its wake. "Single event" doesn't really apply here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• The one event/series of related events distiction is a bit academic, it is a single manifestation of a single issue, which is the controversy. Pincrete (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Pincrete is right; it is academic. Sorry, Bullrangifer, but she is known for only one single event, even if it sent shock waves in every direction.
• Winkelvi, forgive me, I did not mean to question your motives above, not at all, I meant to draw out from you the reason you say the event article should, at all costs, not have Kim Davis' name in the title? At one point you said, "It's the marriage licenses that are the center of the controversy, not Davis" but of course it is Davis that refused to issue these said marriage licences. The licences are just a paper form, they do actively do anything. Davis did everything. She took a stand and refused to issue them. Seems pretty clear. Prhartcom (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Prhartcom, that's a bit like arguing that Name of murderer is the cause of Name of murder victim, sometimes of course two, three articles are justified, but we should be clear whether the article is about person or event. Pincrete (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Pincrete, I said I agreed with you. I stated the case for clarity of whether the article is about person or event in the section immediately above. Also, it would be helpful if you would !vote and not just comment. Prhartcom (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• I will come back in the next few days to answer whether I think the seperate person article is justified, I haven't looked closely enough at present. I'm clear in my mind that no matter how central the person is, it is better to title the event as the where/what of the controversy. Pincrete (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. Prhartcom (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• One article, prominently including her name, at this point. I can and do see reason to believe that she will almost certainly become separately notable, with book deals, media appearances and whatever else, but until that time there is nothing that I can see really essential about this topic relating to her which cannot reasonably be fit into an article on the event. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That's WP:CRYSTAL logic.Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC) apologies for careless reading.Pincrete (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that was John Carter's point, Pincrete. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have not yet formed an opinion as to whether there is sufficient justification for a 'person' article, in addition to the 'event' article. However I am puzzled by the logic of Her name must remain in the title, WHY? A redirect or dab satisfies that need. What is the logic of the proposed 'name+event' title? The objections seem to be that it is no longer focussing on the event, it is unwieldy, it isn't strictly accurate as other clerks have also refused. Do we have a page called the Richard Nixon Watergate building break-in scandal? Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Redirects can't substitute for the most accurate title. That title is reserved for the actual article. We use the titles dictated by the content in most RS, and they ALL place Kim Davis in direct connection with HER controversy, never separately. We have plenty of articles like this, where the person is named in the title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, but you are happy to omit the location (Kentucky), which would probably be the defining characteristic for those outside the US. Agree with below that using her name risks creating 'a pseudo-biography'. Pincrete (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I have nothing against Kentucky, but we need to keep the title a reasonable length. No one has even proposed Kim Davis marriage license controversy in Kentucky. The article makes it clear it's in Kentucky, and, as you have suggested, redirects also use Kentucky. On your other point, you misunderstand; "using her name risks creating 'a pseudo-biography'". Such a biography would fail an AfD. This article, with its current scope and content, passed an AfD because it included the controversy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Re overlong name, precisely, so why is telling the non US or uninformed US reader WHO, more important than saying where in the world? Pincrete (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• One article. Probably should be either "Kim Davis marriage license controversy" or "Kentucky marriage license controversy", or something along those lines. It shouldn't be a pseudo-biography - Davis is not notable for anything else, she's an otherwise low-profile individual, and her personal biography is largely irrelevant to the situation we're trying to cover. The event is clearly very notable, but she is not as a person, merely as an actor in the event. If she later becomes independently notable, we can always create a real bio page for her then. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon, it would be helpful if you decide which of the two titles above you really think should be the title in that case, as there are sincere arguments in sections above arguing for one or for the other. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Kim Davis's name, per WP:COMMONNAME - it took place in Kentucky, but people are more likely to know Kim Davis's name than to know the state with regards to the controversy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Two articles just as they are now, but with less detail in the biography. The Kim Davis (county clerk) article is and should remain a biography. We already have a controversy article, which resulted from a prior consensus. So far I have seen no policy-based argument that this subject meets all three WP:BLP1E conditions. Specifically,
  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - The events are 1. Her election, 2.Media attention about nepotism and salaries, 3.her refusal to issue marriage licenses, 4. her SCOTUS appeal, 5. her arrest for contempt of court.
  2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. - As an elected public official, she was already notable. WP:LPI instructs "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Does anyone argue that Kim Davis has not sought media attention?
  3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - Kim Davis not only has a significant, well-documented role—she has a central role, and one that is arguably of historic significance.

I oppose renaming this article in any way that casts inappropriately cast a negative light on the BLP subject, such as a proposed title, Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy. Doing so would substantially alter the intent of this article, which is to document a person's life, and their role in a historic series of events. Such a title would contravene the precision criteria of a good TITLE which says "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." It would create significant confusion with Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. It would run afoul of WP:POVNAME. There are exactly zero Google news results for the search phrase "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy", so the only purpose that would seem to be served by renaming this article to that title, would be to permanently shame the subject. I would argue that this would wantonly violate Arbcom's proscription against such titles and I won't rule out bringing it before WP:ARCA to seek Arbcom's clarification, should an article be titled in such a way.- MrX 20:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Casting an "inappropriately.... negative light on the BLP subject," is a red herring;. We'd have to change the titles of hundreds, maybe thousands, of articles here. It's not a "negative light" anyway. That's only a factor in the minds of some people. We follow WP:COMMONNAME, RS, and abundant precedents. They all dictate that her name remain in the title. The AfD also was passed on the basis of an article with (1) her name in the title, and a scope and content (2) tying her name to the controversy. It's a package deal. If you tamper with the relationship between those two factors, all bets are off, and you're violating the terms of the AfD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's misleading to say that "There are exactly zero Google news results for the search phrase "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy".". Remove the quotes and you'll find plenty, and add "license" and you'll find even more: Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. BTW, we don't limit searches to "news". ALL RS use her name, so WP:COMMONNAME applies. This objection has been dealt with above by User:Prhartcom. You must not have read it. Now she's "accused of altering same-sex marriage licenses, in violation of court order"! She doesn't stop. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, it's not misleading. Search engines are not mind readers. Quotes delineate a search phrase so that exact matches are found. Not using quotes would be misleading because the SERP would contain every page with all of the words, irrespective of context. In other words, without quotes, a search is meaningless for helping to determine a COMMONNAME.- MrX 22:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• MrX, I respect you as an editor and for your desire to do the right thing. May I ask you: If consensus says to keep the biography article (assuming it is not later deleted), do we trim from it almost everything that has to do with her marriage license controversy except for approximately a one paragraph summary of it? Do you think an article like that will survive?

May I also ask you: Certainly consensus says to also keep an event article of this controversy, but what do you think of renaming it from the "Kentucky" article to "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy"? I think you said you say you don't want to "inappropriately cast a negative light on the BLP subject" Kim Davis. I'm not sure what that means; are we supposed to protect Kim Davis? Is that why we named it the "Kentucky" controversy instead of the "Kim Davis" controversy"? I'm assuming you know that you that we cannot "spin" an article to synthesize or omit facts or dilute Kim Davis' actions by burying them with the nearly non-notable actions of the other Kentucky court clerks. But I am concerned that you seem to be asserting that there is no such thing as the "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy" by claiming it is not found in a Google search; if that is what you are saying then that would be preposterous in the extreme. Your own arguments say that Davis has a "well-documented role—she has a central role" in this very famous marriage license controversy caused solely by Kim Davis. Naturally there are no reliable sources with that exact phrase; don't be silly. There was indeed a "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy", we need to have an article devoted solely to it, and it needs to be named after the person who caused it, perpetuated it, and ultimately ended it: Kim Davis. I am greatly interested in your response. Prhartcom (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Your question is based on a couple of strawmen, because I never said that we should "trim from it almost everything that has to do with her marriage license controversy", and this is not an AfD. If you scroll up, you can see what I actually did say or click here → #Trimming. I stand by my contention that renaming this biography to include the word controversy next to a living person's name goes against our sources, good judgment, and Misplaced Pages's policies, as I have explained twice today, and I have given quotes from policies, guidelines, and a link to an Arbcom decision that may or may not apply. I also explained that we already have a controversy article, so making this a controversy article too is problematic.- MrX 00:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• MrX, including her name in the title (especially the neutral one suggested) is not a problem and a red herring. I have already refuted your argument above. We'd have to delete hundreds, possibly thousands, of articles if we followed your misunderstanding of BLP. What policy forbids this? Name it here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Your linked "refutation" consists of bare assertions without evidence. For example, can you can show me some of these 100s or 1000s of articles with a title in the form of "++controversy". Alternatively, can you point out, let's say ten, reliable sources that describe the events as the "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy"? I'm always willing to reconsider my position in the face of strong evidence.- MrX 00:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• MrX, I'll thank Prhartcom for already doing that job. Those are just a few of myriad such articles which include a name and an event, which is usually the event that made the person notable. His answer is also good. We don't always find "exact" titles from RS, but we do by examining their content. All the RS contain all those elements. They all mention Kim Davis, same-sex marriage, licenses, and some type of word(s) indicating a "controversy". We then create our content as the best summary of the salient identifying factors in the RS. Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy sums up all the RS we use, except for the biographical content. Even then, we got some of the biographical information from articles about the controversy, so there was no OR. Journalists did that synthesis for us. Besides that, once notability has been established, it's okay to search for more biographical information. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• MrX, sorry about making you repeat things you've said before, but that tough. And it sucks when we we misunderstand each other, it wastes time, and I'm sure there are more things that we agree about than disagree. I'm not advocating renaming this biography article, it is named correctly if it is kept. We need rename the misnamed "Kentucky" controversy article to "Kim Davis" controversy. What say you? Also, I would interested in hearing your thoughtful comments about Bullrangifer's comments above under my !vote. Lastly, I need to hear you agree that there is indeed such a thing as a Kim Davis same-sex marriage licence controversy, because I am starting to worry about you if you are asserting otherwise. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Prhartcom, such a rename would mean that the other two clerks would lose their mention, and we'd lose the possibility of a larger scope article. Of course that may not be a problem at all, since CRYSTALBALL thinking was obviously used to create that article. It appears there was no other controversy to speak of. The other two clerks aren't mentioned much at all. OTOH, we could drop that article entirely (the ideal solution), rename this one, and include mention of the other clerks in the context of their support for Kim Davis, because we do have RS justification for doing that. That way we'd end up with one article which covers the whole subject, which is what we have already. A pure biography article would just get deleted. If she becomes more notable later, we could then recreate one with this current title. That too is CRYSTALBALL speculation, but we can cross that bridge if it ever appears. Right now we only need this one article, with a better title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Also MrX: White House FBI files controversy, Władysław Sikorski's death controversy, AACS encryption key controversy, Faeq al-Mir arrest controversy, Amina Bokhary controversy, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. And I've already told you that of course no reliable source calls things the way Misplaced Pages article titles do, so it is not necessary to satisfy your demand to locate a source that refers to the Kim Davis same-sex marriage licence controversy in exactly those words. What, do you think any of those titles I provided above were found in exactly those words in their sources? But the other names in their titles will be found in their sources, just as "Kim Davis" and "same-sex" and "marriage licence" are probably found in every single one of the sources for this article. Prhartcom (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• "White House" and "AACS encryption key" are not person's names, but I do concede that we have some articles with a title composed of a person's name combined with a controversy. The rest of my comments stand. Since the title of either article is not a question to be answered in this RfC, this will be useful information to consider for another discussion.- MrX 03:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• It should also cause you to reconsider your entire position, since it undermines several of your misunderstandings about how titles are created and worded, and how forks/spin-offs/splits work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Several of the above examples are of the Name of person's death or Name of person's arrest kind, ie there is no subject outside the person. The 'Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy' is fairly unhelpful, many of us know of a 'Danish paper's cartoon controversy', I wonder how many outside Denmark remember the paper's name, (and it doesn't have a redirect). Pincrete (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• All of her national coverage is a result of one event - her refusal to issue the same-sex marriage licenses. The issues of nepotism, ect. were all brought up in relation to that; people weren't talking about it previously. All of the questions about her moral character are a result of her denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and her subsequent jailing for contempt of court. I think it pretty clearly is one event. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Two articles, as it currently is now, one for the major same-sex controversy on Kentucky focusing on her actions, and this one, for her biography, which focuses on her career as a county clerk and service, as well as the summary of what led to her arrest for contempt, due to her refusal to issue homosexual marriage licenses: which is pretty much the way it is now. I like it the way it is now, although I do believe some of the stuff regarding the marriage controversy can be trimmed, with an italic note pointing to the main article, Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Two articles: Mr. X nailed it. Based on BLP1E, there's no question that Kim Davis should have a separate biography article from the event for which she's most famous. – Robin Hood  21:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• One article, titled about the event only (Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy). This is really a story about an event, not a person; and I'm not convinced there's enough separate material to justify having an independent article for Davis herself, who seems of only borderline notability, outside of this event, to me. I could accept her name being included in the title as a second preference ('Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy'), but I don't think it needs to be, and I don't think that title is necessarily any clearer or precise than the one without her name. Robofish (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Robofish, thank-you for your views. The reason many of us are leaning towards "Kim Davis" and not "Kentucky" is because Davis caused the controversy and everything controversial revolved around her, not the state of Kentucky. A reader searching for the controversy will naturally look for it under her name, not the state where it happened. When you consider all this, does it convince you to place your second choice as your first choice? Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

People who already know about the controversy, and who are connected to the US may connect the event with her name, what about the other 90+% of the planet? they are completely uninformed about the subject of the article. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• One article- titled Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy. I'm not surprised we are here, I've believed from the start this should have been an article on the controversy instead of the person all along. A single event can stretch over days or weeks and still be a single event, and that's clearly the case here. Davis is notable only for this event, that's clear as well. Perhaps she will parlay this into a book deal and/or achieve some staying power in right wing advocacy, but she hasn't yet, so giving her an article of her own based on the prediction would be WP:CRYSTAL. I have no interest in giving this woman any more publicity, but I do believe that this should be called the "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy" instead of the "Kentucky marriage controversy," because it really is a controversy she single-handedly manufactured, and apart from her, the rest of Kentucky has not been resisting issuing marriage licenses to a notable extent, there is little real controversy in the rest of Kentucky, it really is just her. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Two articles- There seems to be sufficient material for seperate person+controversy articles Oppose naming the event after the individual, regardless of her centrality, she is not the event. Comment, the three articles (inc. court case) seem to needlessly duplicate at present. Defining the limits of each article (person, controversy, court case), may help to prune some of this duplication. Pincrete (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• one article - on the event WP:BLP1E- actually probably just merge to Miller v. Davis between a "background" and "repercussions/impact" section, pretty much anything encyclopedic can be covered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Two articles per Mr. X. Plus, these filibustering re-examinations of previous, recent consensus decisions is getting out of hand. Stevie is the man! 23:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• One article about event. I wouldn't call it controversy per se. BLP is not suitable here as it fits into under a "pseudobiography" we are warned not to create. I don't foresee any long-term impact or fall out over this either. She'll just eventually be removed from office. —Мандичка 😜 00:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• One article, whose title includes "Kim Davis" The entire controversy is about Kim Davis, what she was thinking, what she did, and where that ultimately led her. Kentucky, like the deputy clerks, was just along for the ride (although it might help readers if it's in the title somewhere, preferably in a passive context). She doesn't meet the notability criteria without the event. The title needs to have her name in it so readers can find it, it's the most likely search term they'll be using. Geogene (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• One article, with title "Kim Davis". Kim Davis as a standalone BLP in addition to an event article runs afoul of WP:BLP1E. She is notable only for this particular event, so at this time, there should be one article that combines the information about Davis and this event, with the event being the majority of the article. If Davis becomes notable for other things in the future (running for political office, etc), then there should be two articles. ~ Rob 23:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Bumping this thread from automatic archiving until the 30th day following the original posting of this RFC. Safiel (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Thread bump template removed, as this thread has now been closed. Safiel (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I wonder too. If the title doesn't have her name, then it's undue weight for the "Kentucky...." article to be nearly identical to this one in both scope and content. It seems to have a larger scope. If it doesn't, then it's superfluous and should be AfDed.

It's doubly curious since Kim Davis is the ONLY reason this controversy came to such national prominence. She is forever tied to this controversy. Until others make such a great media splash in RS, she is the defining name, and therefore it should remain in the title. Other articles with a greater scope can leave it out, but they are other articles and have no bearing on the content here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I am equally puzzled as to why some think it must be IN, name+event titles are not common and a redirect leads the reader to the correct page. Pincrete (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete, fair question. Davis' name should be IN the title because Davis is the entire controversy. She started it, perpetuated it, and ended it. She caused all of the misery and caused all of the joy. Every single thing that happened revolved around her. It is silly to imagine anyone who goes looking for the article would type "Kentucky..." even if it did redirect to the name it should have been given in the first place. Name+event titles are fairly common, right? That is, not just names of persons but names of whatever, person or thing, is commonly thought of whenever the controversy is mentioned. Prhartcom (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I also answered above. Redirects can't substitute for the most accurate title. That title is reserved for the actual article. RS dictate the title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the controversy is about the issuing of licenses for s-s marriages, regardless of how central she is. If you want an article about her, defend that article. Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

???? That's what we're doing here. You need to read this talk page and archives! All RS dictate that her name is connected to the controversy, so we can't ignore that fact. That would be a violation of NPOV. We cannot censor her name from the title when all RS include it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought the RfC was asking whether there should be 1 or 2 articles ie seperate person+event articles. My answer is the event is the controversy (with background about key players). No one outside US would even know where this event occurred from the suggested title.Pincrete (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we actually do have title guidelines for pseudobiographies. But, if we did, they would probably apply to articles where a given event or group of events is most commonly discussed in the context of a single individual, such as, for instance, Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. In such instances, I would think WP:COMMONNAME would indicate that the name of the principal party involved would be one of the things an interested editor would first search for, which indicates that it probably should be one of the things included in the title. Now, if, as I think possible, this issue becomes one which involved courts, and appeals, and attorneys, and all the other stuff that goes with such matters, then, maybe, if there are more people from Kentucky prominently involved, and if the state itself is more commonly mentioned in those discussions, a change to the article title would seem reasonable to me. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

John Carter, "if there are more people from Kentucky prominently involved," then the "Kentucky...." article is justified, but not as a duplication and substitute for the Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy article. As the Kentucky article exists right now, it should be deleted or seriously pared down, since a huge undue weight problem exists. It needs to focus on the controversy in Kentucky, per its title, not on Kim Davis. What the creator didn't determine first, was that such an article has very little basis for existence at present, since only two other county clerks have been involved (not involved in Kim Davis' case), and have not made any splash worth noticing in RS. They would not qualify for their own articles, but could be are mentioned as content in the "Kentucky" article, where only creation, not content, is governed by WP:N. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, WP:BIO1E makes it clear that pseudo-biographies are a bad thing; not what we want; so there would no guideline for the use of it. Agreed that the name of the principal party involved would be what an interested editor would first search for and should be in the title. Prhartcom (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I screwed up. In this instance, I would better have said that the topic is an event in the life of, primarily, one individual noted for the event, like Kennedy's assassination, which is best known for the victim. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, John Carter is right; WP:COMMONNAME dictates that her name is in the title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME, might apply if we, and our readers, all lived in the US. A search on BBC shows many more hits for 'Kentucky' + gay marriage licence than for 'Kim Clark Davis' + same. The assumption that everyone knows (or will know in a year or two) the name of the person at the centre of this incident, is questionable - apart from all other considerations of defining the event solely in terms of a named individual. The event and issues will probably remain known long after the person's name has faded from memory. Pincrete (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Which is, to a degree, only relevant to the UK. I guess we might have to check Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the rest of the English speaking world as well, if we are to take that approach. Also, it would be useful to know just how many hits are produced there. Personally, I would tend to favor the dominant US usage, as this is, fundamentally, a story related to the law of that country, but if we were to take a truly global view we probably would want to have truly global results on which to base that. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

MOS:TIES it is truly irrelevant, and highly imperialistic to consider British usage, since this is a U.S. legal issue. Do we have to follow U.S. naming for UK issues next? Imagine the firestorm (easily seen at talk: yogurt). Exactly how does this affect UK law? Since when does the US constitution dictate UK legal practices? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

May be I'm confused, but what was the point of searching for 'Kim Clark' + gay marriage licence. Did you mean to search for 'Kim Davis' + gay marriage licence or 'Kim clerk' + gay marriage licence? Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, typo (here) 'Kim Davis' + gay marriage licence' was the search.Pincrete (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It is neither 'irrelevant' nor 'imperialistic' to consider whether an article title will be capable of being understood outside the US. No one has suggested using non-US terminology, therefore 'usage' is an irrelevant term. I hope that article titles generally strive to be comprehensible to those outside the article 'subject area'. Of course you can ignore this and decide that recording a minor 'celebrity's' name is more important than recording the subject, btw the subject IS actually interesting to those of us from outside the US, interesting as a social and legal 'barometer', not interesting because of who is at the centre of the storm. Pincrete (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Met with Pope Francis

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

I would like to see more sources before we add this. I'm calling BS.- MrX 03:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"According to several news sources" is inaccurate. CBS reported that her lawyer claimed she met with the Pope. CBS said they are unable to confirm the story. TFD (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

We definitely need good sources. If this is true, it would be reported in multiple RS. Since it was a "private" meeting, it may take time before that happens, so we can just wait. I do have a hard time believing Staver would fabricate such a story.

What is clear is that multiple RS do document the claim by Staver. What we need is secondary confirmation. Without that, we could only write that her lawyer made such a claim, and that's rather blah content. If it's true, then we have some real content. If it turns out to be a lie, then we also have some real content. Either way, we'll end up mentioning this. Let's wait to see what happens. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems the lawyer announcement is widely reported, more than that varies. Question would seem at least partly to be whether an article cite about Pope Francis should prefer a Catholic source or AP. Here are some sources:

* American Catholic saying true

* InsideVatican saying true

* CBS news saying likely true

* LA Times saying multiple reports

* NY Post/AP saying true and some context add

* Fox news saying lawyer reported

* USA today with some detail

p.s. A bit about the meeting just got added to the article by Mr. X, "It was reported that she met privately with Pope Francis during his U.S. visit in September 2015.

I didn't add it, Fuzheado did. I moved it from the lead though, which is not where it belongs.- MrX 15:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I support removing "It was reported that" and strongly oppose moving any content about this blasé‚ private meeting to the lead. If his Holiness comments on it, then it's noteworthy. Otherwise, it's little more than trivia.- MrX 16:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The radio report I heard this morning indicated that the Pope urged her to stand up for her beliefs and gave her and her husband a pair of rosaries, which I am less than certain is something either would use. Having said that, if there are separate reports of presidential candidates and similar public figures urging her to stand up for her beliefs, and I remember some such, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to me to just include the pope in a short list of prominent public figures who have urged her to do so. John Carter (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Except that we dont know what the pope said. We know what she says the pope said. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Now the NYT having confirmed the visit with the Vatican says it took place, we do not have to qualify the meeting. But for what actually happened we only have the account of her lawyer, so we need to say according to him. (Lawyers represent clients and therefore have no special credibility.) I think the best way forward is to always report events as the media do. When they say "according to x", we should say that. When they report events as having happened, we should also say that. Of course what x says may turn out to be true, and the media are sometimes wrong on deciding events happened. But as a tertiary source, the article is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I removed that sentence because it is trite. I also changed the last sentence of the paragraph to conform with the source. - MrX 14:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There being differing views is far different than there is no view of what it means. Plopping it in there without addressing the context and meanings is inappropriately implying a unanimity that doesnt exist. And the one thing that is unanimous in the coverage is that the non-announcement until after the pope has left the building does mean/and will be interpreted as meaning something. (and if it doesnt mean anything, then why are we including it at all?)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop has added a short sentence that I think may address some of these concerns.- MrX 15:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Did Kim Davis exploit the Pope?

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

I didn't just say "gimme a break", and you know it. And I also made a concession to your WP:UNDUE concerns by leaving off the Peru rally fabrication, which you don't acknowledge here. I take serious exception to your claim that the information is "clearly negatively slanted". The sentence you keep reverting to says that Davis and her husband met privately with the Pope. The Vatican is now disputing that they had a private meeting, that makes it necessary to change that sentence to indicate that it is their words they said they met with the pope privately, rather than just stating a private meeting as a fact. And I challenge you to provide proof that the source is "known" to slant. It's a valid source that meets the requirements of WP:RS, so your objection to it is capricious. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we do need to clarify this content to provide the proper context, not just Staver's spin. The Holy See is apparently bit embarrassed now that they actually know who Kim Davis is. Oops.- MrX 16:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Prhartcom's takes issue with me changing "Davis and her husband met privately with Pope Francis" to "Davis and her husband 'claimed to have met privately with Pope Francis." So I would ask Prhartcom, since this sentence must acknowledge that the claim that they met privately is in doubt, what word would he prefer be used instead of "claimed"? Alleged? "Stated that they met"? I don't care, just tell me which is most neutral, and I'm happy to put that back in. He also did not like my addition of "and clarifying that he met her briefly as part of a receiving line, not privately as she and her lawyer claimed". Again, would it help to replace "claimed" at the end with one of these words? Or should I just leave out "as she and her lawyer claimed" altogether? I don't think that's necessary, but I'm willing to compromise. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "privately" needs to be qualified based on current sources. Alternatively, we could simply remove the word privately.- MrX 17:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting how this event unfolded and the deception of the Davis camp was revealed. Clearly more weight is due this event than any of us first suspected. MrX, as you were improving the sources in these two paragraphs, would you have any objections to my ensuring the first paragraph references sources from 9-30 (before the revelation) and the second paragraph references sources from 10-2 (after the revelation)? Prhartcom (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that I follow you. I added some more recent sources to the first paragraph to support that the "meeting" was brief, that there were many other people present, and that they also received rosaries. We now have sources that have checked with their sources, so we no longer need to depend on the dubious account from Staver. What would be the purpose of "ensuring the first paragraph references sources from 9-30"? Remember, we should be writing from a historical perspective, so any errors in reporting that were corrected should generally be omitted and the article should simply reflect the correct information.- MrX 20:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about not explaining fully. I think I withdraw my idea, as the section looks great now. At first, I was wondering if the first paragraph could simply state that a meeting took place, citing the older sources (from 9-30), then the second paragraph could expand on this, stating the Vatican denials, that the meeting was not private, etc. citing the latter sources (from 10-2). That way, a progression could be experienced by the reader. Prhartcom (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. While I have you, can I ask about the change you made to the cite templates? I certainly endorse the last1, first1 changes as an improvement, but my understanding has been that any source on the web (including news sources) were supposed to use the "cite web" template, and only print sources like newspapers were supposed to use "cite news". Have I been doing it wrong all this time, and is so, is there a guideline that explains the correct usage?- MrX 21:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe {{cite news}} is "to create citations for news articles in print, video, audio or web" and {{cite web}} is "to create citations for web sources that are not characterized by another template". So the first one is for all news sources and the second one is for web sources that are not news. If I'm misreading this then please let me know. Prhartcom (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. I used the news template in the past, but someone told me that I should use the web template for anything appearing on the web. It seems they were mistaken, and I erred by accepting their advice without verifying its accuracy.- MrX 22:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of citation templates, why worry about it, when an all-purpose template will do the job? This is a basic citation template I like to use:

<ref name= >{{Citation | last = | first = | author-link = | last2 = | first2 = | author2-link = |date= |title= |publisher= |url= |accessdate= }}</ref>

That template has many parameters which can be used. This version has enough for nearly all uses, other than scientific research papers. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Above MrX wrote something that caught my eye:

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

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

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

BullRangifer, thank-you for saying this, as I was also trying to say the same thing. Although the section is good the way it currently is, feel free to slightly improve it in the direction we are discussing, and if others object they can change it back or improve it further. From the first paragraph, I would: remove move mention of other people to the second paragraph, we already added mention of Davis' attorney, and change the sources to the ones dated 9-30. In the second paragraph, I would keep it the same except for moving in the mention of others and moving the 10-2 sources there. This will present the story to the reader in the way it unfolded. Prhartcom (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly not suggesting that we hide any deception. If there is more relevant detail that can be added, then we should add it. I am opposed to a construct that presents two contradictory set of facts without proper context so that readers understand how they are related.- MrX 15:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

MrX, I understand and am not accusing you of anything wrong. It's just an unintended consequence of leaving out that information. There are facts, and then how those facts are presented. It's the misleadingly promotional presentation by Staver and Davis which was covered by the press, and we fail to document that very well. That's all.

BTW, my refactoring of the page, per WP:REFACTOR, a change which you mention in your edit summary, was intended to separate two totally different subjects so we'd have a cohesive flow here. Your edit summary stated: "It disrupts the flow of the discussion and is confusing." I would never do that. Actually, my change did exactly the opposite.

When a totally different subject gets interjected, it disrupts and confuses, so I was just placing like-with-like in a manner which prevented confusion, while still preserving the actual chronological flow for each topic. No one would have been confused by my change. REFACTOR allows for such changes. I guess you didn't realize that and undid my rearrangement. Now we (again) have the discussion of the subject of this thread being broken up by discussion of templates. Whatever. I have refactored the indents for the last part of this discussion to at least make a visual break between the topics. That should help to prevent confusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Refactoring sometimes works; in this case it didn't. It made it look like I traveled back in time to reply to a comment that you made, even though I was responding to Prhartcom.

WRT the content, what do you think is missing, or what do you propose?- MrX 16:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

We need to cover things in roughly this manner:

1. The fact of the meeting, without any interpreting modifiers.
2. The way Staver and Davis told about the meeting, and their claims that it showed that the Pope supported Davis' stance and actions in opposing same-sex marriage.
3. The response by the Vatican, clarifying that the Pope's actions should not be interpreted as support of Davis situation.
4. The numerous press commentaries about this faux pas by Staver and Davis included accusing them of exaggerating/lying or being caught in "the not-so-little-white-lie that blew up in Kim Davis's face".
5. The press documented this mini-scandal and contrasted their en passant meeting with the previous and very special official meeting by the Pope with an openly same-sex couple, which was an action that demolished Davis' implication that the Pope supported her actions against same-sex marriage, when it actually tended in the opposite direction.

I think that's the basic outline to follow. If Staver and Davis had not presented the meeting in a misleading manner, none of this would have been commented, and we wouldn't write anything about it. They created a mini-scandal by placing the Pope in an awkward situation, which forced the Vatican to respond. Your thoughts would be appreciated. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That seems reasonable and is more or less what I had in mind when I started to expand the material yesterday.- MrX 17:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This looks correct. Instead of "Staver" (not notable) please say "an attorney from Liberty Counsel" (the reader will better relate to this entity as it was previously introduced a few sections earlier). Of course just present the facts in the interesting order they appeared in the reliable sources and let readers draw their own conclusions. Prhartcom (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

We need to document her original claim, made through her lawyer (making clear he was acting for her), otherwise the section does not make sense. Meeting the Pope in a large meeting is no more significant than getting a celebrity's autograph. Also, the text says that the Pope gave her a two rosaries and told her to "stay strong," but all we have is her account and that should be clear. We can avoid judgmental words such as alleged by using "said." TFD (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Getting a papal rosary is the equivalent of receiving a business card. Nothing that special about them. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a brief observation on the RFC above

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

I very much agree. The sour grapes about the past editorial consensus to have two articles is something that I understand, and I suppose I can emphasize with since I don't like being on the losing side of a discussion either... but that doesn't justify pretending as if something different happened before than what actually occurred. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

An administrator will decide, as it has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Prhartcom (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I still wish that the stick had been dropped before. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 6 October 2015

It has been proposed in this section that Kim Davis be renamed and moved to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Kim Davis (county clerk) → Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy – Should the Kim Davis (county clerk) article be an event article or a biography article? Consensus has decided that there should be only one article (at least for now) at Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#RfC: Two articles or one? (Or three?). In the words of the closing administrator of that discussion, "Normal practice would have been to write about the incident first, not the person, per WP:BLP1E" then write about the person later when they become notable for more than one event. Many editors have discussed this already at the discussion linked above and at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) (2nd nomination) (which was closed with Snow Keep). Please provide either the word support to make this an event article or the word oppose to leave this a biography article and give your rationale. Thanks to all for your efforts on this subject. Prhartcom (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• support move/merge it is a textbook WP:PSEUDO-biography. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Time to drop the stick, drop the nastiness, drop the unreasonableness, and stop behaving like children - Delete this article on Kim Davis. Then, transpose the content over to Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. Then, we can talk about renaming that other page to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy, which would be a name change that would be fine with me and I have a very hard time thinking would even be objected to.

This gigantic mess and can of worms wouldn't have happened if we hadn't have had editors who would rather disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point instead of actually being interested about fairly implementing policy. Not to mention having a complete and utter unwillingness to admit any kind of compromise or view any alternate opinions as valid, the kind of 'talking to a brick wall' situation that I've seen in Israeli-Palestine related articles with their editors (and I emphasize with given the situation). Here, though, I don't really have empathy for people that just have to 'make a point'. We could have just had a simple situation in which there was just an article about the controversy rather than a psuedo-biography that's questionable awkwardly separated off from other topics. But I guess that would be too easy. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Alright, so we now have this article here- "Kim Davis (county clerk)"- and the other article Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversies. If cooler heads prevail and adult behavior resumes, then we can have an intelligent conversation about how the controversies are more notable than Davis herself. And also talk about what material from here belongs in that other page. It would be nice to get back to sanity. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

CoffeeWithMarkets, I'm sorry, but many of us do not know what you are talking about. You cannot vote to "delete this article on Kim Davis", as that discussion was closed with a Snow Keep. As well, no one is being nasty; we have had valid discussions on this topic that have all assumed good faith. This is another example of a rational discussion. It would help if you would provide an actual !vote instead of a comment. Prhartcom (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

My vote is exactly like I said. Drop the stick. Stop disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. Stop being unreasonable. Stop refusing to have discussions. Stop acting that other people have bad faith and you are holier than thou. That's my vote. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"Time to drop the stick, drop the nastiness, drop the unreasonableness, and stop behaving like children...If...adult behavior resumes, then we can have an intelligent conversation" Gawd. Time to WP:AGF and start having more respect for your fellow volunteers, CoffeeWithMarkets. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please go back and actually read the history of this article. There are people that are determined to make a point using Misplaced Pages and won't stop until they've beaten the dead horse into submission. Few things are more frustrating than being subject to nastiness and attacks before having said people turn around and play victim as if somehow describing them fairly (in reasonable, measured terms) is a horrible thing.

I know that I have a tendency to be too nice. Should I be deliberately trying not to hold back and be this nice? I'd rather not. I'd rather see the stick being dropped. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Going to post again that, for the record, I think that we should have Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Shifting stuff over there and making that the central page is a good move. Support for Shift, move, transfer, send over, etc, however you phrase it. It's a move that it would be pretty nice if we could have debated fair and square, like adults (no, MrX and Prhartcom etc, I'm not being a horrible subhuman here and trying to "vote again"- I'm just reiterating the core point). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

CoffeeWithMarkets, if that is what you believe "for the record", then it sounds like you support the proposed move. Will you actually cast a !vote, then? I ask because you have only provided a "comment". Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please remove or strike out your personal attacks. Thank-you. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

CoffeeWithMarkets - having read all of the above, there isn't really anything which could be considered a personal attack. I'd take a step back for a second and calm down a little :) samtar 18:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I feel pretty calm. I'm just wondering why. I'm starting to wonder if maybe it's some kind of suspicion that my political views aren't right or that maybe there's something wrong with my sexual orientation or gender identity for this crowd that edits this article, that maybe that's the cause of things. I know that people have told me that if you're LGBT that you should never, ever edit in some place that relates to LGBT issues people then people will just immediately single you out and find some kind of a problem-- even if they happen to agree with your editorial decisions (like how I type in bold support, move, and other words and yet get hounded because somehow I've not typed enough times that I want contents moved over). It's like a relationship thing. "You haven't said this enough times, so I'm going to badger you over and over again until you say it more." Oh, well. I'm pretty much ready to wash my hands of LGBT-related Misplaced Pages altogether and this is just as good as any straw to put on the camel's back. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Not that anyone should care, but I'm gay and I think Kim Davis is at this point, painfully, obviously notable for a singular biography. I won't allow what I think of her politically and personally to play into this position. And boy is she painful (avoiding the use of many choice epithets). :) Stevie is the man! 18:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. My being gay has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Kim Davis is notable enough for a bio, nor should it. – Robin Hood  18:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Renaming this biography to Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy inappropriately cast a negative light on the BLP subject. Doing so would substantially alter the intent of this article, which is to document a person's life, and their significant role in a historic series of events. Article titles should be concise and recognizable. There are exactly zero Google news results for the search phrase "Kim Davis same-sex marriage controversy", probably because she doesn't possess the controversy nor would common sense dictate that the controversy be named after her. The only purpose that would seem to be served by renaming this article to that title, would be to permanently shame the subject. WP:NDESC is clear that non-neutral words implying wrongdoing are not appropriate in article titles, especially if they are not the common name of the subject. As to the recurrent WP:BLP1E argument: I have yet to see a credible argument about how this subject meets all three criteria. It simply doesn't.- MrX 16:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how use of the words "controversies" or "controversy" are inherently mean, nasty, etc and therefore can never be used.

Compare, say, with Leibniz–Newton calculus controversy. They're not living people, yes, but they are people (they were living), subject to biographies that need to be run to strict standards. Does that title, in and of itself, mean that Sir Newton was somehow clearly in the wrong? I really don't think so. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support move/merge per TheRedPenOfDoom and yes! to " is a textbook WP:PSEUDO-biography". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Going to just go ahead and third that "textbook" comment. Agreed completely as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Okay, is it at the point now that merely talking and voting can no longer happen, and we have to drop any pretense whatsoever here? Do we really have to fight like animals? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Note to all editors: The editor above was just reverted for disruptively moving the Kentucky article without consensus. The editor's move was reverted. Prhartcom (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

One of these days, the page content is just going to be moved/transferred-over/shifted-over/etc. One of these days, it will be like what we would have had if procedure had been followed in the first place (an article about the controversy, not centered as a psuedo-biography around Davis that isn't a real biography as per the other, many comments that use that term). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose move. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Why? Not being sarcastic or anything, but asking genuinely. Just saying "I oppose" by itself only is unclear. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: The problem I see here is that BLP1E and PSEUDO are a bit at odds in a case like this. While there are differing views on how much of BLP1E this article satisfies, it's clear that this is a significant event and that Kim Davis' involvement has been substantial. Therefore, there should be a biography. PSEUDO argues that this shouldn't be a biography, though with a little digging, most of its criteria actually fail. The very first one, for example, would be shot down by this CNN article...but you can argue that that's still in the context of the event, at least somewhat. All in all, I think the arguments in support of a separate article are greater than those in favour of a single article, hence my vote, but I can certainly understand both points of view. If this absolutely must be a single article, I don't see how we can make this about a single event because I see a minimum of two events here: the original refusal and the issues surrounding her meeting with the pope. In that context, a biography makes more sense to me. – Robin Hood  17:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Please explain why " is a textbook WP:PSEUDO-biography" is an offensive comment. Also, please explain why "Just saying "I oppose" by itself only is unclear". Thank you. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per many things I've said before. Also, Robin Hood reasoned it out pretty well. Mr. X made some useful arguments too, although I'm not sure I agree totally with the "negative light" part. Overall, I think we should stop wetting our pants over this and just have the two articles. Let's settle this sucker down, please. Stevie is the man! 18:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

We just decided that there will be only one article. Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose She's clearly notable beyond BLP1E. I thought we were past this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support moving the article so that it is about the controversy, not a purported biography of the person at the center of the controversy. I'm not completely sure what title the article should have, but it The title shouldn't be "Kim Davis (county clerk)". An RfC just closed with a conclusion that there should only be one article discussing the controversy surrounding Ms Davis. Assuming that this conclusion sticks, then the article should be about the controversy, not a biography of Ms Davis, because this controversy is the only thing that makes her very notable. I previously submitted an RM for this article, which is now found at Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)/Archive 3#Requested move 20 September 2015. When I did that, here is what I said, which I think still applies: "Per WP:BLP1E. This woman is primarily notable only for one thing – the controversy surrounding her refusal to issue marriage licenses – and that is what the article is primarily about. If she had not refused to issue marriage licenses, there would not be a Misplaced Pages article about her (and there wasn't one until she did that). The biographical information in the article is primarily only interesting as background information to explain her actions (and other people's actions) in that regard. She is known to most people as 'the woman in Kentucky who is refusing to issue marriage licenses because of same-sex marriage', not as 'Kim Davis the county clerk'." I later withdrew that RM because I learned that another article had already been created with the controversy being its scope, and it clearly wouldn't make sense to have two articles that are both about the controversy. Now a decision has been reached through an RfC process that there should only be one article. This brings me back to my previous suggestion. The controversy is more notable than the clerk, so the article title should say that it is an article about the controversy, not an article about the clerk. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

BarrelProof, agreed, and that is what this move proposal is about. It sounds like you support the move. Could you please say so at the beginning of your rationale? Prhartcom (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Yes, I support the move, although I'm trying to avoid completely making up my mind between "Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy" and "Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy". I think the one you suggested is probably the better one (and it's the one I suggested in that prior RM), but I would be open to either one. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Ask yourself, what is at the center of the controversy, the state of Kentucky or Kim Davis? If you were searching for the article for the first time, would you start typing "Kentucky ..." or "Kim Davis ..."? Prhartcom (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, to the best of my understanding, the controversy seems centered around the person, not the state, and the case is a federal case filed against an individual person (who holds a position at the county level, not the state level) – Kentucky is not part of it – at least not very directly. As far as I know, if she were in a different state (at least if she were in any nearby state), the result would probably be roughly the same. The only reason I might look for it under Kentucky rather than under her name is that her name is harder to remember than Kentucky's. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've been against a biographical article and for only having an article on the controversy since Day One and that's still my position, but this has been talked and talked and talked about over and over and over, and our side lost, there will be a biographical article on Kim Davis herself, those of us who oppose this need to have the good grace to know when we are beaten, and stop beating this dead horse that can only distract our attention from making this article and other others the best they can be. For that reason, just to WP:SNOW this discussion so we can move on to more productive matters, I oppose the proposal. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• I support the move per WP:BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• C-Class Charismatic Christianity articles
• Unknown-importance Charismatic Christianity articles
• WikiProject Charismatic Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class Kentucky articles
• Mid-importance Kentucky articles
• WikiProject Kentucky articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed WikiProject Women articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of judicial and penal systems people
• Misplaced Pages requested images of people of Kentucky
• Requested moves