Talk:Kim Davis

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)

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)

No. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:18, 11 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)

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. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:09, 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)