Talk:Kim Davis/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Kim Davis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Write, don't just revert
A couple of editors have not yet shown us they have the ability to do all three of these things that all Wikipedia editors do: Research and write (the hardest), edit (medium difficulty), and push the revert button (dead easy). The sentence as it stands now is awful; we fall asleep before reaching the end of it. It can't stand as it is. It must be shorter and more readable and still be accurate. I challenge either of you to step up and do the necessary work to write the sentence to not only be accurate, but also short and readable. —Prhartcom♥ 06:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- That's utter nonsense. You're reverting demonstrably factually false information back into the article, and it's not the first time. Stop. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Please do your best to rewrite the sentence to be accurate the way you want, but also trim the sentence to be shorter and more readable, as this is too long and clunky. I tried to do it and you didn't like it, so you must now try. It's easy. Please try. —Prhartcom♥ 12:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks to MrX who rewrote the sentence. I think it works: It no longer gets bogged down towards the end but stays easy to read, and it is accurate. All agreed? —Prhartcom♥ 14:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- I try to help where I can. By the way, we can't add constructs like "...to an amount just slightly more than that expended the previous year." It doesn't say that in the source at all, so that would be a WP:BLP violation (and WP:OR).- MrX 14:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think most people would agree that $200,000 is an amount just slightly more than $197,818.98, but it's true that the exact numbers are even better. The important thing is to put both sides of the equation in the article, so that readers are not misled into thinking wages were cut, which is what Prhartcom wrote but what the source very definitely does not say. Station1 (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, we should not say that wages were cut, just that the wage budget was cut. We don't know what was "expended" in 2011 because the source doesn't tell us.- MrX 17:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think most people would agree that $200,000 is an amount just slightly more than $197,818.98, but it's true that the exact numbers are even better. The important thing is to put both sides of the equation in the article, so that readers are not misled into thinking wages were cut, which is what Prhartcom wrote but what the source very definitely does not say. Station1 (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- I try to help where I can. By the way, we can't add constructs like "...to an amount just slightly more than that expended the previous year." It doesn't say that in the source at all, so that would be a WP:BLP violation (and WP:OR).- MrX 14:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you, Mr. X. Prhart, you seem to be of the bizarre belief that "shorter" and "easier to read" are of equal importance to "accurate". They most certainly are not. I will continue to "just revert" any demonstrable lies I come across here and you have one hell of a nerve thinking that I'm going to make any attempt to rewrite anything to your liking. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb: part of collaborative editing here is identifying the specific concerns of the people who revert you and rewriting stuff in a way that satisfies both parties. In this case you should have been looking for a wording that is both accurate and concise rather than escalating tensions with an edit war. ~Awilley (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. You, an administrator no less, should know that repeatedly inserting a demonstrably counterfactual sentence into an article about a living person is never OK. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting what I said. I never said anything suggesting that accuracy was not of highest importance. The point is that accuracy and conciseness are not mutually exclusive. Do you need a venn diagram? ~Awilley (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Nah, I'll just follow WP:BLP. Thank you anyway. (BTW, it's "Venn diagram"; it's a proper noun.) Joefromrandb (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting what I said. I never said anything suggesting that accuracy was not of highest importance. The point is that accuracy and conciseness are not mutually exclusive. Do you need a venn diagram? ~Awilley (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. You, an administrator no less, should know that repeatedly inserting a demonstrably counterfactual sentence into an article about a living person is never OK. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb: part of collaborative editing here is identifying the specific concerns of the people who revert you and rewriting stuff in a way that satisfies both parties. In this case you should have been looking for a wording that is both accurate and concise rather than escalating tensions with an edit war. ~Awilley (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- The latest improvement to the article is good and I made one final tweak. I think it turned out well! —Prhartcom♥ 06:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- That was not a tweak. It removed important information from the body of the article. Station1 (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- I honestly thought it was. I see that one of the editors has decided to resume the edit war again and has reverted my good faith edit (about 30 seconds after I clicked Save too). User:Station1, we don't have to have all the details right there in the body of the article. There's nothing wrong with tightening the paragraph by moving a parenthetical sentence to the notes section. Such a move nearly always improves the article for the better. I just did it to one of my own sentences, the one previous to this one, just last month, see for yourself. So please, stop this edit warring. Do not revert again like that; come here and discuss your objections first, now that we're talking. I have left your revert for now, but I call to other editors to take a look at my edit here and voice their opinion. Allow the footnote; the article is much better that way. Is that all right with everyone? —Prhartcom♥ 06:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Why do you think an edit war is happening when I have made 4 edits in the past 4 days? 3 other editors have also made edits in that period, all favoring some version of an accurate and balanced approach. You are the only one favoring a short biased version, have done so 7 times and are the only one to bring up edit warring. But let's get to the substance: You wrote the Fiscal Court cut wages. That is plain wrong. You also wrote that the Fiscal Court cut the budget allocation for wages by one-third. That is true but is only half the story, because cutting the allocation did not necessarily have any practical effect. That's because the clerk asked for 51% more than she spent on wages the previous year. By cutting that part of the story out you are presenting a misleading half-truth to the reader. I cut the length last month at your request, but you reverted that too. Other editors have now reworded it again. If it's not to your satisfaction, reword it yourself, but include both parts of the story, not just the half that makes the BLP subject look worse. Station1 (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Cite error: There are
<ref>tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).- Reading the source yet again, you are right that it says that in 2011, $300,000 was requested again as had been done for a few years, yet it also says that ~$200,000 ($197,818.98) was actually spent, essentially leaving ~$100,000 unspent, is that right? This distinction is the key to the objection, is that correct?
- What exactly is "the previous year", is it 2011? This parenthetical sentence is actually a little confusing. —Prhartcom♥ 07:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Correct on all counts. Station1 (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank-you; good; had anyone explained that earlier as clearly as you have just now, it would have saved everyone a lot of time and frustration. Yes, what you are saying is interesting and does accentuate the fact that the source informs us that the clerk's payroll budget is much higher than the clerk's payroll spending. Now, is that fact terribly important? You would probably want to vehemently argue that it is, but remember that the one-sentence summary of the article would probably be that Kim Davis and clerk staff were found to be paid too much therefore swift action was taken. The ratio between budget and spending does not come up in that summary. —Prhartcom♥ 08:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- "Kim Davis and staff were found to be paid too much" = LIE. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Joefromrandb, don't ever accuse fellow editors of lying. For your information, we aren't here to intentionally hurt the article or the encyclopedia and we certainly don't intentionally hurt each other. We are all co-workers at a volunteer organization and we treat each other well. We have good intentions and we make good faith edits. Sometimes unintentional mistakes are made and we help each other correct them. Do you walk up to your co-workers at your work and accuse them of lying? No. If you did, you would get the same talking-to that you are getting now. Let's not make the workplace toxic to work in. Let's behave as if we are in the same room together. Let's drop the animosity and accusations and get back to working together constructively. Let's also put our egos aside and don't worry if someone changes our idea; we put the article first. Fair enough? —Prhartcom♥ 16:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Spare me your patronizing bullshit. It was far from the first lie that I've had to remove from this "good" article. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Joefromrandb, don't ever accuse fellow editors of lying. For your information, we aren't here to intentionally hurt the article or the encyclopedia and we certainly don't intentionally hurt each other. We are all co-workers at a volunteer organization and we treat each other well. We have good intentions and we make good faith edits. Sometimes unintentional mistakes are made and we help each other correct them. Do you walk up to your co-workers at your work and accuse them of lying? No. If you did, you would get the same talking-to that you are getting now. Let's not make the workplace toxic to work in. Let's behave as if we are in the same room together. Let's drop the animosity and accusations and get back to working together constructively. Let's also put our egos aside and don't worry if someone changes our idea; we put the article first. Fair enough? —Prhartcom♥ 16:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- "Kim Davis and staff were found to be paid too much" = LIE. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank-you; good; had anyone explained that earlier as clearly as you have just now, it would have saved everyone a lot of time and frustration. Yes, what you are saying is interesting and does accentuate the fact that the source informs us that the clerk's payroll budget is much higher than the clerk's payroll spending. Now, is that fact terribly important? You would probably want to vehemently argue that it is, but remember that the one-sentence summary of the article would probably be that Kim Davis and clerk staff were found to be paid too much therefore swift action was taken. The ratio between budget and spending does not come up in that summary. —Prhartcom♥ 08:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Correct on all counts. Station1 (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- I honestly thought it was. I see that one of the editors has decided to resume the edit war again and has reverted my good faith edit (about 30 seconds after I clicked Save too). User:Station1, we don't have to have all the details right there in the body of the article. There's nothing wrong with tightening the paragraph by moving a parenthetical sentence to the notes section. Such a move nearly always improves the article for the better. I just did it to one of my own sentences, the one previous to this one, just last month, see for yourself. So please, stop this edit warring. Do not revert again like that; come here and discuss your objections first, now that we're talking. I have left your revert for now, but I call to other editors to take a look at my edit here and voice their opinion. Allow the footnote; the article is much better that way. Is that all right with everyone? —Prhartcom♥ 06:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- That was not a tweak. It removed important information from the body of the article. Station1 (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Was it swift action (meaningful action that caused Davis and staff to be paid less) or was it a meaningless political charade to placate constituents without actually affecting governmental administration (believe it or not, politicians occasionally do things like that)? It's not for us to say, but we must lay out all the facts to let readers decide. The one sentence summary of that article would be the one sentence that was originally in this WP article, where the ratio between budget and spending was stated, allowing readers to judge for themselves whether the action had the consequences that would be implied (i.e., wage cuts) by not giving the full story. Station1 (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Station1, I hear what you are saying and it is an agreeable statement. I know you are highly concerned with accuracy and so am I. I am asking you to also be highly concerned with clarity, brevity, and readability; if it can be both accurate and clearly stated in fewer words, all the better. Let's work to get this done.
- The message you want to convey about the ratio between budget and spending is getting close to being done but is currently not stated perfectly clearly and needs work. I took a hard look and this; what do you think of the following idea: We could move the sentence about the actual spending immediately after the sentence about Davis actual pay, as in: "Davis' 2011 compensation was $51,812 in wages with an additional $11,301 in overtime and other compensation; compensation for five clerk employees was about $198,000." And then we can then end the paragraph with "The Fiscal Court then voted to cut the 2012 budget for wages from $300,000 to $200,000." which ends the paragraph on a resounding note of finality; it sounds like a proper end of a paragraph. What do you think? —Prhartcom♥ 16:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've made a change along those lines which I hope meets your concerns. If not, feel free to revert. Station1 (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Not bad! Let's call it done. —Prhartcom♥ 06:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've made a change along those lines which I hope meets your concerns. If not, feel free to revert. Station1 (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Was it swift action (meaningful action that caused Davis and staff to be paid less) or was it a meaningless political charade to placate constituents without actually affecting governmental administration (believe it or not, politicians occasionally do things like that)? It's not for us to say, but we must lay out all the facts to let readers decide. The one sentence summary of that article would be the one sentence that was originally in this WP article, where the ratio between budget and spending was stated, allowing readers to judge for themselves whether the action had the consequences that would be implied (i.e., wage cuts) by not giving the full story. Station1 (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Tangential/irrelevant material in the Lead
In perusing this article (having come here out of curiosity from WP: space) I noticed two sentences that don't seem to belong in the Lead:
Complaints were raised that the clerk's office staff, including Davis, was paid too much; the office budget was then cut by one-third. Davis' first three marriages ended in divorce in 1994, 2006, and 2008; she then remarried her second husband in 2009.
As far as I can tell this has little to do with why she is notable, and the trivia/speculation about her pay is completely WP:UNDUE. I could see perhaps how the divorces might be relevant as a backdoor way of attacking her expertise on marriage, but that would be inappropriate without clear attribution to reliable sources saying the same thing. By contrast her conversion to Apostolic Christianity is very relevant. ~Awilley (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Awilley, I only just noticed your post. Of course your editing of the lead is welcome; feel free to edit if it improves the article; you will no doubt be informed if any edit is out of line. All that is trying to be accomplished in this lead is to readably summarize the sections of the article body, per WP:LEAD, hence the one-sentence summaries at times. If any sentence summaries can be improved, that is great. We are certainly not intentionally trying to attack, speculate, present trivia, or give undue weight. —Prhartcom♥ 00:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Found image of the courthouse in the files
C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think that's the old courthouse, now the Rowan County Arts Center. Station1 (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Do you know what they call the new court building? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like it's the Rowan County Judicial Center, also on Main Street: https://courts.ky.gov/courts/clerks/pages/default.aspx?county=Rowan - Station1 (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing in the Commons that I could find, sorry. -But I will keep an eye out for Kim or the Rowan County Judicial Center. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like it's the Rowan County Judicial Center, also on Main Street: https://courts.ky.gov/courts/clerks/pages/default.aspx?county=Rowan - Station1 (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Do you know what they call the new court building? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Major cuts to the lead
I object to this major cut to the lead, which removes the biographical summary and other material that properly summarizes the article. I'm opening this discussion so those who wish to make these changes can seek consensus.- MrX 🖋 20:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- I made the cuts because the lead was overlong and duplicative of material that is covered in greater depth in the body of the article. SunCrow (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- The lead is supposed to duplicate the important points in the article body, in summary form. What is your basis for thinking that the lead is too long?- MrX 🖋 20:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- I concur with SunCrow's summary. This should be self-explanatory. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's not self-explanatory. The status quo lead was developed by collaboration among several editor. I would ask that you restore it and then we can discuss what improvements should be mad. Does that seem reasonable?- MrX 🖋 00:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pinging other recent editors for their input: Prhartcom, Station1, Awilley - MrX 🖋 00:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- It was developed by collaboration among overtly biased editors who somehow managed to get it through a GA-review with no less than 3 outright lies in it, to say nothing of the myriad biases and exaggerations. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Please list what you find to be outright false. El_C 00:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hopefully nothing now. That's all been dealt with. I'm just noting that Mr. X again and again edit-warred demonstrable falsehoods back into this article in the past. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- If you're asking what was false, off the top of my head: "Davis received a jail sentence", "a court ruled her salary was excessive", "Davis had her salary cut", the governor of Kentucky said he had no power to release Davis", and more. It's all there in the history. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah; how could I forget the most-recent pile of bullshit: "Davis and her staff were found to be paid too much". Joefromrandb (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- MrX, are you arguing that those are true. If so, what do you base that on? El_C 00:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- @El C: No, it has nothing whatsoever to do with today's edits which removed 2/3 of the lead. Joe is dredging up a previous resolved dispute to portray me as someone who would deliberately insert false information into an article. He does this because he can't justify why he restored a bad edit by an inexperienced editor who made similarly-bad edits at Family Research Council.- MrX 🖋 00:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- MrX, are you arguing that those are true. If so, what do you base that on? El_C 00:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Please list what you find to be outright false. El_C 00:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- It was developed by collaboration among overtly biased editors who somehow managed to get it through a GA-review with no less than 3 outright lies in it, to say nothing of the myriad biases and exaggerations. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Considering that one event is her 15 minutes, I’m not convinced that the lead was grossly overlong. Perhaps some trimming may be in order. But, I don’t understand the major surgery. O3000 (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Commenting because I was pinged. I disagree with the assertion that the 3-paragraph lead was too long. 3 paragraphs is perfectly fine for an article of this size. Also, the lead is supposed to summarize the body, so "duplicative" material is not a problem. ~Awilley (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Taking a closer look, I believe the lead can be trimmed down, though not nearly as much as in the contested edits. The 3rd paragraph contains a lot of fluff IMO (we don't need to list everybody's reactions) and the 2nd paragraph can be edited for conciseness without actually removing information. ~Awilley (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- I was also pinged. I think SunCrow's edit was a good one. The lead is considerably too long and detailed. If there's anything in the second and third paragraphs that isn't already in the body, it should be added there. Station1 (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- A three to four paragraph lead is pretty common on Wikipedia, especially for such a detailed article. Why don't we talk about what specific details shouldn't be in the lead and also what substantial points in the article should be in the lead. I would want to see at least one solid paragraph that gives an overview of what made her notable. Hint: It wasn't being arrested for contempt of court. Paragraph 2 is pretty good as it stands.- MrX 🖋 01:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Does anyone want to discuss what they believe should be omitted from the lead, and why? Let's try to resolve this with discussion.- MrX 🖋 21:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Asking for a third time. Are there any specific points in the current lead that anyone believes is not a major point in the article, and should therefore be removed.- MrX 🖋 18:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's already been answered. SunCrow removed the specific points that should be removed. Joefromrandb and I agree with that edit. You and 2 other editors disagree. Not a big deal really. Station1 (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Not really. For example, why would we remove information about her election the office for which she is notable? Why in the world would we delete her Supreme Court appeal in one of the most historic Supreme Court cases in the past 50 years? Why would we omit every notable reaction? Why would we omit her highly-touted brush with the Pope? The lead should cover all of the major points in the article, not just a one paragraph that doesn't even establish why the material is noteworthy. By the way, there are four editors who agree that the length (if not also the content) of the lead is appropriate (MrX, Objective3000, Awilley, and Prhartcom). - MrX 🖋 23:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's all already been answered: "...the lead was overlong and duplicative of material that is covered in greater depth in the body of the article", "I concur with SunCrow's summary", "The lead is considerably too long and detailed". We understand that you disagree. That's fine. It's a question of style, not substance. As such, I'm not overly concerned. Station1 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's an answer, but it's not one that necessarily respects the style guide or common practice for biographies, for example Rosa Parks or Scott Lively. Claiming that the lead is duplicative of the material in the article shows a lack of understanding about how leads on Wikipedia are written, as pointed out by Awilley and myself. The lead is supposed to duplicate material in the article, in summary form.- MrX 🖋 00:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's all already been answered: "...the lead was overlong and duplicative of material that is covered in greater depth in the body of the article", "I concur with SunCrow's summary", "The lead is considerably too long and detailed". We understand that you disagree. That's fine. It's a question of style, not substance. As such, I'm not overly concerned. Station1 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Not really. For example, why would we remove information about her election the office for which she is notable? Why in the world would we delete her Supreme Court appeal in one of the most historic Supreme Court cases in the past 50 years? Why would we omit every notable reaction? Why would we omit her highly-touted brush with the Pope? The lead should cover all of the major points in the article, not just a one paragraph that doesn't even establish why the material is noteworthy. By the way, there are four editors who agree that the length (if not also the content) of the lead is appropriate (MrX, Objective3000, Awilley, and Prhartcom). - MrX 🖋 23:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's already been answered. SunCrow removed the specific points that should be removed. Joefromrandb and I agree with that edit. You and 2 other editors disagree. Not a big deal really. Station1 (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Asking for a third time. Are there any specific points in the current lead that anyone believes is not a major point in the article, and should therefore be removed.- MrX 🖋 18:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Does anyone want to discuss what they believe should be omitted from the lead, and why? Let's try to resolve this with discussion.- MrX 🖋 21:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- A three to four paragraph lead is pretty common on Wikipedia, especially for such a detailed article. Why don't we talk about what specific details shouldn't be in the lead and also what substantial points in the article should be in the lead. I would want to see at least one solid paragraph that gives an overview of what made her notable. Hint: It wasn't being arrested for contempt of court. Paragraph 2 is pretty good as it stands.- MrX 🖋 01:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Protected for 3 days
Let's take a pause from the edit warring to resolve the dispute here, on the talk page. I may also add WP:ARBAP DS once the protection expires, I haven't decided yet. El_C 01:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- I may be talking out of turn here. But, I don’t think the recent activity requires DS. IMHO, DS should only be applied on highly active articles. O3000 (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's real cute, El C:
purposelywaiting & protecting the wrong version. Iused torespect you. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)- m:The Wrong Version. ~Awilley (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- It sure fucking is. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yet you're not really participating in the discussion about the content. I've proposed a way forward. What are your ideas?- MrX 🖋 21:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- It sure fucking is. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- m:The Wrong Version. ~Awilley (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks to El_C for stepping in. I'll address the incivility and disruptiveness of User:Joefromrandb first. This person may safely be ignored. I recently challenged him on this talk page to actually edit the article to achieve what he was arguing about, and he pathetically refused. He's not an editor. He's here only to disrupt. Like many others that I have seen come and go here, he is only able to argue and push the revert button. He is not capable of actually doing any work to improve the article. If he becomes too much of a problem, he can be reported to WP:ANI, but otherwise, do not worry about him. Just ignore him.
- As MrX has reasonably stated, it is of course not a problem to edit this article in order to further improve it, but that enormous cut made by SunCrow was laughable. SunCrow, please read WP:LEAD. The lead of any Wikipedia article is the only part that many visitors read. It needs to adequately summarize the article. After a lot of work, we feel that it does. During the GA Review, the lead's structure was worked out. If you have further improvements to make to the lead, great; please list them here. If you'd rather not, that's fine as well. I'm interested in your thoughts and keeping the article good. —Prhartcom♥ 21:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- You put lie upon lie into this article, so please don't pretend you have any interest in it being "good". Not only that, but you repeatedly edit-warred said falsehoods back into the article upon policy-compliant removals. That's demonstrable fucking fact, a testable claim, there in the article's history for all to see. Please do ignore me; I'd love to be able to fix this article in peace.Joefromrandb (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Something also needs pointing out here: an editor recently added something about Davis "standing up for Christian bravery", which I obviously quickly reverted. The edits that have been made by to this page by Mr. X and Prhart are every bit as obnoxious and unacceptable; those who are here to stultify Davis are just as much a part of the problem as those who wish to sanctify her. Neither has any place whatsoever in Wikipedia. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Consider self-reverting and rephrasing these rants in a somewhat more useful manner. O3000 (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Joe, I just happened to be around when the edit warring resumed since first having looked into this. Hours of the day-wise, there's over 50 percent chance of me not being around and catching the other version. Just random timing. El_C 01:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Wow. On second thought, sorry I tried to edit this article. Trying to reach consensus with editors that treat each other like this bunch does isn't a pleasant thought. I'll pass. SunCrow (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- I did a word count on the lede. It's 527 words. By way of comparison, the lede in the Wikipedia article on Gerald Ford--a former President of the United States--is 398 words. Just sayin'. SunCrow (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Moving forward
If you're asking what was false, off the top of my head: "Davis received a jail sentence", "a court ruled her salary was excessive", "Davis had her salary cut", "the governor of Kentucky said he had no power to release Davis", and more. It's all there in the history. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Joe, I couldn't find any of these quotes in the lead, so I'm not sure where you were going with this. What version is that from, and how is it relevant to the current lead? I asked you to list your objections to the lead in detail, which I reiterate. What is false about the lengthy lead version. El_C 01:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Wow. On second thought, sorry I tried to edit this article. Trying to reach consensus with editors that treat each other like this bunch does isn't a pleasant thought. I'll pass. SunCrow (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- I did a word count on the lede. It's 527 words. By way of comparison, the lede in the Wikipedia article on Gerald Ford--a former President of the United States--is 398 words. Just sayin'. SunCrow (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Uninvolved Comment: (1) The title of this thread should be changed to reflect what it is about. (2) The OP needs to be explained, since right now it has no context and therefore doesn't make a lot of sense. (3) Also, a link needs to be provided to a version of the article that contains that text. Also please remember that: (4) Items in the lede do not need to be cited if they are accurately cited in the body text. (5) The lede should summarize, and mention the salient points of, the article. Softlavender (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (Another uninvolved comment) I suspect I'm going to regret posting here, but here goes anyway. Davis was clearly jailed for 5 days as a result of her refusal to issue licenses: [1], so that's not a lie.
- The governor said two different but related things about Davis: he stated first that he would not respond to her request to free her as it was a matter between her and the courts [2], and second that he had no authority to remove her or relieve her of her duties [3]. The article clearly distinguishes between these statements and sources both, so again, not a lie.
- El C, from what I can tell, the salary cut thing is from the August 1 version, which included the line "A court found her salary to be higher than expected and therefore cut her wages in 2012" in the lead. It's an apparent misreading of the actual (sourced) article content, which states that after complaints about overpaid officials (particularly Davis), the salary budget for the county clerks office was cut. So her salary wasn't slashed directly, but since it probably would have dropped after the budget cut, I can see how someone trying to summarize might have phrased it that way. There's nothing about her salary in the lead in the current version, though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- This may help (copied from my RFAR comment in October):
- For the record, the "LIES" that I supposedly added to an article is documented here. Specifically, this edit in which I added (text in red) "The governor's office said that the conflict was a "matter between her and the courts". Beshear added that he "had no power to grant her release."" based on this source which says: ""The governor added that he has no power to remove Davis from office.". My error was in conflating the two (release from jail and remove from office). Had Joefromrandb simply explained this discrepancy in an edit summary, on his talk page, my talk page, or the article talk page, I would have gladly fixed it. He could have also edited the wording himself, as Neutrality did.
- Of course this nearly six month old fully-resolved content dispute has nothing to do with the current lead, or the brazen removal of two-thirds of it contrary to WP:LEAD.- MrX 🖋 18:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that the major cut to the lead was incorrect and the claim of “lies” simply violates a bunch of guidelines. But, I’d suggest that the article itself is too wordy. A person got in trouble for violating a court order because of her religious beliefs. This article is a quarter of the size of the Rosa Parks article. I have USPS government stamps of Rosa Parks. She is an icon. Most of the material here would not pass WP:10YT. (Yeah, I know it’s an essay.) O3000 (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe we need to reconsider the decision to merge the same-sex marriage controversy article with the Kim Davis article. As it stands now, this article is much more about the controversy than it is about Kim Davis. Suncrow's trim to the lead created a lead that was appropriate for an article on Kim Davis, but the trim resulted in a lead that didn't reflect the article. I think we ought to move most of the detail about the controversy to its own article and just summarize the parts that are relevant to Kim Davis here. -- irn (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar at all with the history of this article and only vaguely familiar with the Kim Davis story. Apparently it was called something else before Kim Davis? Looking at the article it appears she's only notable for this one event/controversy. If that is the case I could see retitling this to something along the lines of Kim Davis marriage license controversy. ~Awilley (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- This biography has been through multiple deletion and move requests. This is where we arrived at after months of discussions with dozens of editors. I recommend reading all the archives so that we don't have to have the same discussions with the same arguments again. Also, the article has been through a GA review for what it's worth. That said, I have no objection to discussing trimming the article of excessive detail.- MrX 🖋 03:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar at all with the history of this article and only vaguely familiar with the Kim Davis story. Apparently it was called something else before Kim Davis? Looking at the article it appears she's only notable for this one event/controversy. If that is the case I could see retitling this to something along the lines of Kim Davis marriage license controversy. ~Awilley (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe we need to reconsider the decision to merge the same-sex marriage controversy article with the Kim Davis article. As it stands now, this article is much more about the controversy than it is about Kim Davis. Suncrow's trim to the lead created a lead that was appropriate for an article on Kim Davis, but the trim resulted in a lead that didn't reflect the article. I think we ought to move most of the detail about the controversy to its own article and just summarize the parts that are relevant to Kim Davis here. -- irn (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that the major cut to the lead was incorrect and the claim of “lies” simply violates a bunch of guidelines. But, I’d suggest that the article itself is too wordy. A person got in trouble for violating a court order because of her religious beliefs. This article is a quarter of the size of the Rosa Parks article. I have USPS government stamps of Rosa Parks. She is an icon. Most of the material here would not pass WP:10YT. (Yeah, I know it’s an essay.) O3000 (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- This may help (copied from my RFAR comment in October):
- Not sure if anyone cares for my opinion about the lead and this edit, or in which of three sections I just place it, but I do believe that the last paragraph ("Attorney and author...Saturday Night Live") was rightfully cut: too many opinions, in a list that depends on editorial choice and could be expanded easily. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Please provide the Rational for the Kim Davis "TMZ-esque" image
You have removed my edit and you have stated there is a rational for its presence on this article. Please provide this rational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.189.231 (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- The image has historic relevance and helps illustrate the section.- MrX 🖋 20:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yup. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Legal Fees
Kentucky was ordered to pay legal fees of more that $222,000 to the ACLU for representing the gay couples denied marriage licenses. Attorneys representing the state and Gove. are now claiming that Davis broke the law and that she should be responsible for the fees/[1] David Cary Hart (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Continuing controversy over legal fees". News Observer.
- That definitely belongs in the article. Several major news sources have also reported on it.[4][5][6][7]. - MrX 🖋 21:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Reviewing primary topic status
A few years ago the question of whether this Kim Davis is the primary topic was hotly debated. One of the arguments made was that her relative popularity was fleeting, an example of RECENTISM. But here we are five years later and she’s still getting 75x more page views than the any other Kim Davis. The community made the right move. —В²C ☎ 07:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)