Talk:Obergefell v. Hodges/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The very first sentence

Dear colleges, I disagree with the very first sentence of the article. It says: "is a federal lawsuit suing for the recognition by Ohio of same-sex marriage validly established in other jurisdictions." But wait a minute: why we again forget, that this title is not only refers to the Ohio case. Here and after this is a title of all cases regarding SSM. Don't you realize (?) that this will be the title of the most landmark case during this year. All other courts, while hearing cases regarding SSM, will be referring to this title to use it like a precedent. So this case is not only about recognition of SSM established in other jurisdictions, this case is about constitutionality of SSM by itself. M.Karelin (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The four cases have been consolidated for briefing and argument, but they are not now a single case. There are 4 appeals under way in four cases and some filings address only one of the four cases, some all four. The second sentence makes this fairly clear. Can't we trust the reader to read that too? Note as well that SCOTUS emphasized this distinction when it posed two questions but told the parties to address only the question(s) appropriate to their specific case. There will be plenty of time to adapt the entry as events unfold. Likely someday O v. H will be best described as a Supreme Court decision, not a case. And should things go that way we'll want to summarize all the cases in this entry. But we're not there yet. You're statement "will be referring" is just the sort of prediction we have to be wary of. Who knows what surprises the next few weeks will bring? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Bmclaughlin9 is right. As of right now, the Obergefell case mainly describes the Ohio lawsuit. Bmc9's done a good job at explaining the US Supreme Court consolidation and use of the title. People will read the whole paragraph, not just the first sentence. It will inevitably change to what you describe when the Supreme Court rules in June. Teammm ^talk
_email 05:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Until the Supreme Court this summer gives an official ruling on both of the questions it asked and it titles the ruling as Obergefell, the introduction of this article is appropriate. While we want to, do not allow us to jump too far into the future on what will happen. Gabe (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that the article was given the lowest level of importance on the legal scale. It's certainly very notable - the number of erudite discussions by lawyers admitted to argue before the Supreme Court is considerable, never mind the discussions among gays and Christians who don't like gays. In any event, it's a well written beginning. I understand the rational behind the structure of the first paragraph though I think a clearer beginning would have been easier to grasp.Pauci leonum (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Baker v. Nelson

I see from the edit history that we're getting into a possible edit war concerning if Baker v. Nelson was overturned. It's being removed, put back, removed, etc. I wanted to mention that on page 5 of the opinion, it states specifically that "Baker v. Nelson is overruled." I haven't done any of the edits but did want to provide a reference. Thanks. --98.24.99.70 (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Short term semi-protection

Noting that I have applied 3-day semi-protection because of the level of disruptive editing, mainly from IPs. Any administrator can modify the protection as they feel appropriate. Risker (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Amicus curiae

Where are the amicus curiae? Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., the Solicitor General, was one. kencf0618 (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Map

At some point, this article is going to need a map similar to the ones found on the Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education pieces. 108.82.91.192 (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Section on impact?

Can we add a section on the impact and reactions to the court case? I would do it myself but the article appears to be protected... 171.64.60.64 (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. We could probably even create a separate article for the reactions, considering how many reactions there have already been. Charles Essie (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A collection of governor responses State overview White House illumination, not present on WikiMedia. TGCP (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Becoming too in-depth

So I see people are now adding the questions and quotes that the justices said during oral argument. This is not encyclopedia appropriate. That is something to be reported in journalism and in the news, not here. When the justices issue formal opinions, those are what should be quoted, not questions during oral argument. I propose removing all of those justice questions and quotes. Gabe (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia is going to get full any time soon. It is fine to add more information so long as the introductory sections remain terse. Isn't wikipedia's/wikimedia's goal to get all human knowelge in a free format? 77.87.241.77 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Gallery of images related to SCOTUS' June 26 ruling on marriage equality

Apologies if this comment is not entirely related to this Wikipedia article specifically, but I created a page for images related to SCOTUS' June 26 ruling on marriage equality as part of the annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which seeks to improve LGBT-related content on Wikimedia projects. If you took photographs of celebrations, protests, landmarks (Stonewall Inn, the rainbow-lit White House, etc) following the SCOTUS ruling, or wish to transfer images from Flickr, please add them to this gallery to illustrate reactions around the United States: Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2015/June 26. Thanks for your consideration. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Brands change logo to rainbow colors - not sure where to place them. TGCP (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I wonder if it might be worth adding a couple of these images to the article, specifically the "reaction" section. There may even be enough images to justify a Commons category related to this court ruling. Again, images are welcome at Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2015/June 26 in the meantime. ----Another Believer _(Talk) 17:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Underlined empty space in lead

What is this underlined empty space after "576 U.S." in the lead? Should it be there? gidonb (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it should. That's a holding place where the page number will go when the volume containing the decision is published. __209.179.28.127 (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Rating assessments

All of the WikiProject rating assessments at the top of this page are "low importance" or "mid importance" (in one case). Should they be "upgraded" (to "high importance")? If so, how is that done? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I would think this of high importance in many areas labeled mid importance right now. This ruling has overturned state laws and state constitutional amendments and has a massive, far-reaching impact on both LGBT issues and first amendment rights. Kjphill1977 (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. The effects are felt in only one country, one where recognition of same-sex marriage was pretty widespread already; this was the final step. I think mid-importance is correct. First country to recognize same-sex marriage would be high importance. Risker (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I might disagree. The United States is now the most populous country by a very large margin to legalize same-sex marriage. Dustin (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The very first line of the article call this a "landmark" case. How can it be a landmark, but "only" low-level or mid-level importance? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Has there not been anything written on the wider effect of the ruling?

Presumably once it's ruled that marriage is no longer just between one man and one woman you can no longer outlaw any kind of marriage, right? So wouldn't this make polygamy legal? Can a parent marry one of his/her children? Can siblings marry? Shouldn't there be something on this in the article? __209.179.28.127 (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Picklepedia is not speculative. 2602:306:304B:8090:C8A9:73A7:1514:17A3 (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know what "Picklepedia" is. I wasn't suggesting anyone speculate, just report what what is being said in other sources, since one of the most important consequences of court decisions is the wider effect it has on other situations. I also corrected your indenting. __209.179.28.127 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• You have brought up an important future issue as the majority opinion was very broadly construed and Chief Justice Roberts stated so in his dissenting opinion. Polygamy is certain to be argued as a right and rightly so based on the majority opinion. Many states currently imprison polygamists and all outlaw polygamy. Currently imprisoned polygamists now have a concrete argument that their civil rights have been violated under the new interpretation of the 14th amendment. They also have a strong case for civil damages against the state for imprisoning them and all legal costs to defend their new civil rights. They also have been subjugated to religious intolerance as polygamy has a long history of acceptance among many religions. This may also bring in Sharia law as they have a long history of managing polygamy. 172.56.12.239 (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing your various personal and speculative interpretations of the case. This is for the purpose of improving the article in line with Wiki guidelines. Please refrain from speculation and POV pushing in the Talk page. There are a million and five places to have those discussions on the internet. This is not one of them. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2015

In the first introductory paragraph, I believe the correct grammatical construction to use should be "neither .. nor," as opposed to "neither ... or," as is currently being used. I have copy-pasted the original and the recommended change below.

"Under the ruling, states, neither through legislation or referendum, may ban same-sex marriages, and those unions must be recognized in all jurisdictions."

TO:

"Under the ruling, states, neither through legislation nor referendum, may ban same-sex marriages, and those unions must be recognized in all jurisdictions."

74.73.136.127 (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 18:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems a bit awkward. Maybe simplify it as "Under the ruling, states may not ban same-sex marriages through legislation or referendum, and those unions must be recognized in all jurisdictions."12.11.127.253 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Reaction

I'm noticing that the reactions section of the article focus too much on the negative reception and only briefly focuses on the positive reaction the ruling got from both politicians as well as the rest of the country. --Matt723star (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

While there isn't a huge difference in text, yes, there seems to be more attention given to the conservatives complaining about the ruling than to those in support. Obergefell and Obama in support vs. Austin Nimocks, the National Catholic Register, Christian Today, and "some conservatives". Dustin (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Opportunity to avoid some possible misunderstanding

This comment is based upon this version of the article.

In the second sentence of the lede, it says:

Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell requires all states to issue a license to marry between all people of the same sex and it requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.^[3]

which could be misleading, or could lend itself to misinterpretation.

The phrase "all people of the same sex" could be interpreted as meaning, regardless of age. Aren't there (lower) age limits, at least in some states, for being able to get married? I think the age limits apply, just the same, no matter whether the people are "of the same sex" or not. (right?)

Also, the phrase "all people of the same sex" could be interpreted as meaning, regardless of whether it is two persons, or 3 or more. Maybe it is obvious (to those skilled in the art), that the law -- [currently] -- does not provide for legal recognition of a polyamorous relationship of 3 or more persons, as a marriage. However, IMHO an article in Wikipedia should not rely upon the assumption that the reader already knows a certain fact, if it is easy to add a word or two, (or three) to clarify things, to "rule out" an incorrect interpretation. ...and, (IMHO) that is true even if the "certain fact" is one that is (in someone's opinion) obvious. IMHO it should still be clarified, even if the "certain fact" is one that is obvious in everyone's opinion!

Just my 0.02. YMMV.

Hence, because of those reasons, I propose to change the above "<blockquote>d" sentence, to read [something like] this:

Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell requires all states to issue a license to marry between any two persons of marriageable age (even if they are of the same sex) and it requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.^[3]

instead.

Although, I would certainly be open to the suggestion that the parenthetical phrase "(even if they are of the same sex)" might be optional, there. Or, the suggestion to keep the phrase, but to get rid of the parentheses. Or other suggestions.

So, ... (before I start editing), ...Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

When and why was it retitled "Hodges"?

I see a note explaining when and why it was changed from Obergefell v. Wymyslo to Obergefell v. Himes; shouldn't there be one explaining when and why it was changed from Obergefell v. Himes to Obergefell v. Hodges? Magic9mushroom (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It was presumably retitled when Richard Hodges took over as Director of the Ohio Department of Health (last August, according to our article). This is not uncommon; for example Hollingsworth v. Perry was originally called Perry v. Schwarzenegger and became Perry v. Brown when Jerry Brown succeeded Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California. Ucucha (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

But, shouldn't all this be explained in the article? That is, the various permutations of the name, and how/why they came to be. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it should be explained. Currently, the change to Himes is simply sourced to a news piece that details Himes replacing Wymyslo as director, and the source does not mention the case at all, so would anyone object to me finding a source for Hodges' appointment to that post and using it to explain the change to Hodges? Cannolis (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Going to use Hodge's bio on the Ohio DoH page to source an explanation. Cannolis (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Majority Opinion

While we need a section to help explain the majority opinion, we do not need it explained section by section. This is not a law journal. Let's use credible sources to construct a summary description of the majority opinion; and let's look to other Supreme Court Cases, especially landmark ones, to see how in-depth and far the section needs to go. but to go into "Section I-A, B, C, II... etc etc" is too much and overly complicated. Manful0103 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Dire Need for Basic Editing

This article requires extensive editing for grammar (all aspects) and sense. I have begun but could use some help. My time is limited.Antinoos69 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well, it turns out I made some time. I've completed one read straight through the article, making appropriate edits. I standardized to lowercase "court," since the first references were mostly lowercase, despite the tendency to capitalize in legal circles. We should decide which is best, or declare what standard Wiki practice is, if there is one. I also believe there may be some inconsistency in capitalizing "clause," as in "Equal Protection Clause." I believe it is standard to capitalize, but I'm quite done for tonight. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• I have standardized all instances of "court" in reference to SCOTUS to the capitalized "Court," and have capitalized all proper-noun instances of "clause" as "Clause"--provided I didn't miss anything, of course. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Dissenting opinions

Didn't each of the dissenting justices each write their own opinion? This is uncommon in SCOTUS decisions and should probably be mentioned more clearly. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It's very rare, and yes, they did. I haven't seen a source yet that says it's rare, though. Just SCOTUS Blog's live feed which we can't really cite. ~ Rob^Talk 18:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

On a broader note, it seems to me that the section could do with more information on the other three dissents that were written, perhaps with a quote from each.ACB Smith (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This section is woefully inadequate, as the current tag indicates. I am not a fan of block quoting dissents more than majority opinions—let alone of producing lists of block quotes without further commentary. I think we should dump the last three block quotes, replacing them with a concise paragraph summarizing the other three dissents. That paragraph can contain several shorter quotes, of course. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

S51438, I'm the one who first edited your dissents section; I forgot to sign in. I have some concerns about your new version of the section. First, I'm extremely put off by dissent sections that far exceed their corresponding majority-decision sections in length. Dissents aren't law, after all. Certainly this could be presented much more concisely. Second, Thomas gets unbalanced treatment, despite, I think, being the most interesting dissent. Third, there's an awful lot of repetition and redundancy here. We really don't have to hear multiple times about lack of judicial restraint, judicial tyranny, terminating the democratic process, and whatnot. Fourth, the level of detail in the section is excessive both with regard to the majority-decision section and for an encyclopedia article. We don't need a play-by-play broadcast. People can just read the decision. Besides, aside from Roberts' decision, which is actually the main one, there's just not much to see. Here's the sort of thing I have in mind: one well-crafted paragraph on what the decisions have in common, which is typically a lot; and another well-crafted paragraph on what is unique to each, which is surprisingly little. That second paragraph might be expanded into a very few, one per decision, or be variously structured (e.g, with bullet points)—provided there be persuasive reason(s) for so doing. There's just far too much here for far too little. And did I mention it's repetitive, like the dissents themselves? Just checking. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Combing dissenting opinions?

The dissenting opinions are very lengthy, as I'm sure everyone can see. One editor suggested combining similar elements. I think this is easier said than done. From the three I have examined (excluding Roberts), the opinions are all quite different so far, so combining them might prove difficult. Perhaps after I finish Roberts, we can begin to merge the ideas found throughout the four. S51438 (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• I wrote just now under "Dissenting opinions." I actually find the dissents much more similar than different, aside from Roberts—at times mind numbingly so. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• Okay, STOP! This section is now completely out of hand. It is several times longer than the majority section. And don't start hurling stuff by the truckload into that section, either. That section is just about the right length. This dissents section, on the other hand, is now officially insane. You need to drastically cut it down to a digestible length, one worth reading in lieu of the decisions themselves. Step back and take an objective look at what you've done, and are doing, here. It's crazy. I never thought I'd long for the list of four block quotes, but I now am. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Antinoos69: Who are you to make the determination that "is just about right right length"? Perhaps you should go to Roe v. Wade and "drastically cut it down to a digestible length" as well, since you write condensed law review articles for a living. And perhaps you could also be just as rude to those editors as well. Don't speak to me as if I am the sole editor of this article. I have looked at those blank sections for months, and while I was busy actually contributing to them, YOU were ready to tear down anything that others created, even if it was comparable to other Supreme Court decision articles. Good day. S51438 (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry my conversational tone isn't to your personal taste, but I otherwise have no idea what you're talking about. I had looked up several other SC cases on here and made my comments accordingly. In fact, I would cite Roe v. Wade both for my "right length" and the need drastically to cut down your section. So you really can't see that your section was drastically out of any even remotely reasonable proportions? Really? I find that exceedingly difficult to believe. I think you need to step back, take a few breaths, and take an objective few second looks at what you were doing here. Antinoos69 (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @Antinoos69: Yes, I was contributing, and made clear I would shorten the dissents later. You thought the need for revision was so drastic, that it had to be done immediately, which is fine. Unless I see you do something with the Roberts opinion soon, I will write it myself as I see fit. Then I will leave it to you to shrink it down, since this is apparently what you do. A few important facts your ignore.
        • The Obergefell majority opinion takes up 658 words on Wikipedia, while the Roe opinion takes up 1,291 words, nearly twice as long. The Roe opinion is 11,644 words long, while the Obergefell opinion is 8,524 words long. Either Roe needs to be shortened, or Obergefell needs to be lengthened to make up for the lack of congruence.
        • Your summarizing of the dissents, obviously with the intention of making them equal to each other, has made Samuel Alito's dissent shockingly over-represented, while Thomas' dissent is just as much underrepresented. As I'm sure you know, Thomas' opinion is over twice the length of both Alito's and Scalia's. How that warrants what you have done here is not ascertainable, unless Wikipedia has dissolved from a place to find accurate information into a website overly-obsessed with things looking deceptively nice.
      • Personally I find your summaries drastically out of any even remotely reasonable proportions, but of course, I will not change the summaries you have created. Others can go without this information if that suits you, for clearly, this is your job, not mine. S51438 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I can see you're being doggedly irrational and there's simply no talking with you. Nevertheless, I'll waste a tad bit of time to make some points. The Roe majority section occupies about 2 1/2 screens on my device, while Obergefell occupies a bit over two. That's comparable in my book. The Roe dissent section, on the other hand, is just over a screen, shorter than the majority, while your and the current iterations of the Obergefell dissent are, at the shortest, twice as long as Roe's—I rather not even recall the original length of your version. My purpose in abridging your original version had nothing whatsoever to do with the lengths of the individual dissents. I was merely doing what I could to squeeze the entire dissent section down to the length of the majority section, by screens on my device, while changing your actual words as little as possible. I see how appreciated those efforts were. Now, the Roberts dissent does certainly need some tweaking, but should not significantly exceed its current length, unless you make the other dissents cumulatively shorter. As for why I bother saying any of this, I'll have to take it up with a therapist. And, btw, we should probably forget about combining common elements of the dissents, as it doesn't seem to be a common practice around here. Suffice it to say that I'll be keeping watch over the lengths of these sections, which is all that I'll leave you with on the matter. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree the length of the dissenting opinions is getting too long. It's going into depth that would be appropriate for a formal law review or college level analysis. I would focus on the very direct main points that would contribute to this as an encyclopedia article. Each dissent can have a small explanation, but the way it is now is just too long. Not all opinions are created equal. The reason why Scalia is explained in the Lawrence and Windsor pages are fair because judges have consistently quoted his dissents in their rulings. And look how short it is there. Short, simple, and to the point. That's how it should be here. Gabe (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly agree that the dissents should focus narrowly and briefly on the main points, and fairly few of them. Instead, we seem to have now something of a play-by-play broadcast, which is much less engaging, and much more difficult to abridge, though you might have noticed I've given the task the old college try. I'm just loathe largely to replace an editor's words with my own—at least at first. I'm hoping the composing editor will try his/her hand at it soon. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
• And as a comment on the comparison to the length of Roe and its sections to this one, that is not a good analogy. Roe was over forty years ago, has had several challenges to overturn, and has huge legal precedent (now bound by the restrictions outlined in Casey). The opinions of Roe are still litigated virtually every day in courts all around the US. And it continues to be one of the most politically consequential court cases of all time. Obergefell just happened this summer. It's legacy in society and in future courts has not had time to play out. Even the Lawrence and Windsor cases are not close to as long as this one. Gabe (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Banning User S51438

User S51438 is now completely off the rails, severely vandalizing the article. Can someone take appropriate action? I am unschooled in such matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antinoos69 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Antinoos69: You just expressed concern for "changing another editor's work". Guess what? This is my work. I have written 95% of the majority opinion and dissenting opinions, and when I do WHAT YOU HAVE TOLD ME TO DO, you suggest banning me? You are too much. S51438 (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You have clearly lost your mind and need to be stopped. That much is obvious. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Antinoos69: Not really, just shortening the majority and dissenting opinions to their bare constitutional analysis, leaving out anything else. This is what you have suggested already. S51438 (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Antinoos69: If you have no qualms about leaving that paragraph there, while the dissents do not mention anything of that sort, then by all means, at least some of my original work is maintained. S51438 (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @S51438: and @Antinoos69: - Both of you must stop reverting each other until a consensus is reached. As I mentioned on your talk pages you shouldn't edit war even if you are correct. As this is a content dispute I suggest you two take it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you keep reverting each other at this rate both of you will get blocked or the article will be fully protected. Rather than accusing each other, find a way to solve this dispute collaboratively. Best way to deal with a situation like this is to request a dispute resolution -- Chamith (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
      • S51438, what Gabe and I suggested concerned the dissents section, not the majority. Dissents and majorities differ markedly. In this case, given the number of dissents, it would be impossible to treat them alike without producing an unacceptably long dissents section, one that overwhelms the majority opinion, drowning it in a sea of verbiage. The dissents can not exceed the majority section, which would be a balance problem. To ensure that, one should be more generally topical and thematic with the dissents. Generally speaking, it is neither necessary nor desirable to explain every detail, point, or argument in any decision. Selection must be made for readability and emphasis in the space available and prudent.
      • So I propose: (a) that you leave the majority as it was before today; and (b) that you focus on distilling each dissent to its two or three most extensive points, very briefly developed, adding drive-by references to a couple of lesser but noteworthy points, space provided, making sure not to significantly exceed the majority in length, cumulatively. It it could be shorter, so much the better, but that may require avoiding discussing the dissents (entirely) separately.
      • I suggest we now sleep on it, doing nothing for about a day. Perhaps others will chime in by then. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I don't really understand that little box thingy up above, or how it works, so I'll be blunt. If discussion of this matter doesn't occur on this talk page, and if I don't get any direct, unmissable messages about whatever discussion is going on, complete with clear and complete instructions on how to participate, not only will I likely not end up taking part in such discussions, I wouldn't even be able to discover such discussions are so much as taking place. Some of us are very old school. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Antinoos69: It's a way of requesting uninvolved editors to participate in a discussion. A bot (a computer program that performs automated tasks) will notify editors who are watching the particular category, in this case Politics, government, and law. I've requested for comments as a part of dispute resolution process. It's easier to establish a clearer consensus when many editors are involved in a discussion. Comments will be posted here so you don't have to worry about replying elsewhere. You can participate in the discussion in the same way you posted your comments. -- Chamith (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I am writing in response to the request for comments. As a preliminary matter, I urge editors to follow the guidelines in MOS:LAW and WP:SCOTUS/SG. Given the fact that the separate dissents utilize different jurisprudential approaches, I suggest creating separate subsections for the separate dissents. If you look at some of the better GA and FA SCOTUS articles with multiple concurring or dissenting opinions (especially cases where Justices take separate theoretical approaches to the legal issues involved), most create separate subsections for separate dissenting or concurring opinions. See, for example, United States v. Lara and Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. This is not to say that you can't ever combine separate dissenting opinions into one sub-section, but if you want to devote a paragraph or more to each opinion, then I think separate sub-sections are appropriate.

I also urge editors to follow WP:RS and WP:IC by providing inline citations to the slip opinion when summarizing opinions, per Bluebook (see MOS:LAW). Because it is so easy to mischaracterize legal arguments, it is particularly important for editors to provide inline citations (ideally at the end of every sentence) with a pinpoint-citation to the page(s) of the slip opinion on which those arguments appear. I would also recommend that editors keep summaries of dissenting opinions to no more than a paragraph or two, so that the article is easily digestible for readers. Likewise, I strongly encourage editors to avoid using large, block quotations, which can often be summarized in far fewer words. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, talk about brevity being the soul of wit in your cited cases. At the risk of throwing fuel on the fire, I might note that the notability and high profile of this case may require just a tad more dedicated space. I do, however, appreciate the more distilled, thematic summaries, as opposed to a more thorough, sequential approach.

I look forward to more comments, though my comments and editing may be sporadic until early next week, as my schedule of (real-world) duties and obligations is rather tight at the moment. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I am ready to edit the dissents section according to everyone's comments, other than S51438. I will wait at least about a day, to give users time to chime in. A little thereafter, I plan to massage the majority section just a bit, in accord with users' comments about majority opinions, citation, and whatnot. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the two sections, which I believe should remain comparable in length. I think it may be nice to add a photo of Justice Roberts to the section specifically dedicated to his dissent, as his is the main one. Unfortunately, I am not sufficiently knowledgable about such things. Could someone else do it? Antinoos69 (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment summoned by bot This appears to be a malformed RfC. You cannot expect editors to come in here and take sides in a dispute of this nature. What is required is a concrete proposal; the RfC then determines if there is consensus for the proposal. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of RFC is to arrive at consensus through resolving a dispute. As WP:RFC states, it "is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content". Involving in this process doesn't necessarily mean you have to take any sides. You just have to present your opinion as an uninvolved editor. If the process is so complicated that more than two editors are involved in the dispute, then Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is the place. -- Chamith (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is a poorly created RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Changes not allowed?

I noticed the reversion of the changes I made, and I am always open to that, but I don't see the logic here. Why does the article need an old photo of the 6th circuit court house from 1938? How does that contribute to the article in any way? It's not a practice to do that with other court cases. Why here? Removing that and re-positioning the picture of Judge Sutton (which I like having) makes the article flow much better.

Also, any slight changes anyone has been making to this page has been undone and unwelcomed by Antinoos69, and not sure why. Like their comment on my photo change was "you deleted a picture I like". Well, that's why we edit, discuss, and create censuses. There was an issue before with other users, but not sure why others are now being pushed out as well. Brainboy109 (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Brainboy109: This is most likely a WP:IDONTLIKEIT case. If you are unable to reach an agreement with Antinoos69 it's better to just stick with Manual of style guidelines. -- Chamith (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Correction. I thought the correction I was referring to about the "I like" was referring to the change I made at an earlier date. I should have seen the dates. My apologies. But I now see the comment I was referring to was not directed at me. Misreading and mix up on my part. Disregard. Brainboy109 (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Am I correct in concluding that Brainboy's recent "Correction" has rendered this entire section moot? In any case, as for the courthouse pic, I like being able to see where these proceedings took place. It is also a bit notable that the federal district and circuit courts involved are housed in the same building. And I actually HAVE "allowed" other edits, though I have sometimes modified them a bit for grammar, syntax, and sense, sometimes reverting while contemplating a more thorough edit. Much of this was indicated in editing comments. Clear enough? Antinoos69 (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my initial response was a misunderstanding and why I corrected and apologized. But I still feel there there have been a few edits that were tried and you vert them right away. I like new articles to stay clean and become biased from time they were written, but there needs to be a good balance.

I will just like to say, despite the disagreements the page is looking great and doing an accurate factual source people can come to to find the truth, not what biased media reports. Let's keep up the good work everyone. Brainboy109 (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Matters to tend to

As may have been noticed, I just did some substantial editing. As it had last stood, the article constituted one rather massive if unintended monument to historical revisionism, making it seem as though the SC case were James Obergefell's personal little project, indications to the contrary being excessively brief, if not downright "drive-by." This had come up here in March 2015, "The very first sentence" section, among other editors, but that was before the decision came down and, perhaps (though doubtfully), before consolidation "officially" took place. There are no excuses now, other than ubiquitous lethargy, including mine. So I finally decided to do something about it. There remain some issues, and I feel my own lethargy slowly reasserting itself:

1. Images. I actually wanted pictures of some of the other plaintiffs, but I couldn't find any I thought we could use very much, so I settled on the courthouses. I would love for editors more experienced with Wiki copyright and image matters to remedy this situation. In the meantime, we should probably stick with what we've got.
2. Obergefell cases. The (preexisting) discussion here may be a bit excessive. However, unlike with the other cases, there doesn't seem to be any separate Wiki article(s) on Obergefell. (And note that the bulk of my new case summaries regard the plaintiffs' backgrounds and the procedural histories, very little space being provided for the decisions/ final substantive actions.) Perhaps if a separate article were created, the info here could be moderately pared down.
3. Public opinion section. Though not at issue in my recent work, it is a bit curt. It should be updated with more recent polling. I tried recently, for just a few minutes, to find more timely material. I didn't find anything. There must be something, but I do sense my lethargy returning. Help would be appreciated.
4. Kentucky map. Two of the counties on the map, out of all of them, seem wrong—at least according to my reading of the Ballotpedia reference. Casey County, currently in grey, should be blue. And Clinton County, currently blue, should be pink. I mentioned this on the Same-sex marriage in Kentucky talk page, but there has been no response. I have no idea where or how these maps originate or come to be, so any help from more experienced editors would be welcome. DISREGARD. Map now appears correct, as of October 2, 2015. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's what comes immediately to mind. BTW, it's nice that the article was recently nominated for "good article" status, but, as indicated above, I personally think just a tad more work still needs to be done—not that I could actually vote on the matter, of course. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. It gives fair coverage to each case unlike before. Since Obergefell was actually several cases consolidated, this is most accurate and fair. But I agree if possible we should get photos of the plaintiffs in the other cases. I will search and see if there are any Fair Use photos available. The division of sections makes it much smoother reading.75.74.129.241 (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Eventual Analysis section

Eventually, not even remotely soon, there will be a need for an "Analysis" section reviewing scholarship on the case—legal, historical, political, and otherwise. There have already been a few articles, at least one book deal, at least one movie deal, and no doubt plenty more in the works. Most of the early stuff is likely to be uninspired fluff, so I don't think this section is anything we'll need to worry about for at least a couple years. We should merely keep this section in the backs of our minds, as should other editors and readers stumbling upon this article in the intervening years. It's really with them in mind that I've provided this little reminder. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there are a few law review articles that have already commented on the case. See, for example:

• Casey E. Faucon, Polygamy After Windsor: What's Religion Got to Do with It?, 9 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 471 (2015)
• Andrew W. Schwartz, No Competing Theory of Constitutional Interpretation Justifies Regulatory Takings Ideology, 34 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 247 (2015)
• Tanya Washington, et al., Children's Rights in the Midst of Marriage Equality: Amicus Brief in Obergefell v. Hodges By Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children, 14 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 1 (2015)

If my schedule permits, I will try to start a section with material from these articles later this weekend. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, this was precisely the sort of thing I did not want to see happen. Yes, as my original comment indicated, I know there have been articles. However, your titles make clear the time is not ripe. They are focused on peripheral issues. We should limit ourselves to articles on the core issues of the case. For example, what is Kennedy doing with sexual orientation, "identity," and the Due Process Clause, rather than the Equal Protection Clause? Not "polygamy," almost any extended discussion of which I will vigorously oppose. I'm not talking about an "analysis" section that is really an excuse for a tit-for-tat political debate including fringe elements. I am talking about a scholarly serious and mainstream "analysis" of the central issues of the case, from the perspective of various academic disciplines. That requires that the dust actually start to settle a bit. We need to wait for some serious books and articles to come out based on more than a few months' reflection on the decision. We need reflection based on the deeper realities after Obergefell. That requires some time.

I implore you: Do nothing about this now. This requires a fermenting period of at least two years. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I am quite surprised to see an article on "Polygamy" suggested as relevant to this subject. Unless I am missing something, the laws on polygamy are not affected at all by this decision. Does the subject have any connection at all? Dimadick (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Antinoos69, from an academic perspective, I agree that one cannot understand the full and complete significance of an event until time has passed. Nevertheless, that does not mean that one cannot produce meaningful and insightful scholarship about an event soon after it occurs. Nor does Wikipedia policy require any such waiting period. Wikipedia policy specifically states that "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage" (see WP:NOTNEWS). Furthermore, "[n]eutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (see WP:WEIGHT). The articles listed above come from reliable and verifiable journals. If you read the content, you will see that their commentary about Obergefell is not limited to "peripheral issues," though I can see why their titles may suggest otherwise:

• The Faucon article describes how "[i]n Obergefell, the Court had an opportunity to either clarify its opinion in Windsor with some return to Equal Protection's tiers analysis or further expand upon the substantive Due Process's liberty guarantee. The Court took the latter route and crystalized the liberty interest at stake." (Casey E. Faucon, Polygamy After Windsor: What's Religion Got to Do with It?, 9 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 471, 515 (2015).) Faucon also comments that although the Court ultimately found that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates Equal Protection, "it did so by focusing on the interconnectedness between substantive Due Process and Equal Protection--it did not explicitly define same-sex couples as a protected class, although the result is the same." (Id.)
• The Schwartz article discusses how "[t]he majority and dissenting opinions in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court's recent decision finding that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, offer a lucid comparison of originalism with evolutionary document theories of interpretation." (Andrew W. Schwartz, No Competing Theory of Constitutional Interpretation Justifies Regulatory Takings Ideology, 34 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 247, 29 n.43 (2015).) Schwartz also explains that Justice Kennedy's interpretive framework was guided  by the theory that "[t]he nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all person [sic] to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution's central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed." (Id.) Schwartz also comments that in his dissenting opinion (in which he accuses the majority of reviving Lochner), "the Chief Justice fails to acknowledge that Lochner and other substantive due process cases of the same era were repudiated because those decisions held economic regulation up to judicial scrutiny. Economic rights, however, are not recognized as fundamental in the Constitution." (Id. at 292 n.199). 
• The Washington article discusses how Justice Kennedy's opinion was based, in part, upon the desire to eliminate "harms that discriminatory marriage laws create for children in same-sex families." (Tanya Washington, et al., Children's Rights in the Midst of Marriage Equality: Amicus Brief in Obergefell v. Hodges By Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children, 14 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 1 (2015).) The article also notes that during oral arguments, the Justices were particularly curious about the impact of same-sex marriage bans on children raised by same-sex couples. (Id. at 5.)

Again, I completely understand your sentiments about wanting to wait. However, these articles do, in fact, offer insightful analysis and satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. And don't forget that Wikipedia is not static -- we can continue to revisit this section, update, and revise it as new scholarship is published. But even when we return to this section in future years, it may be worthwhile to describe the first impressions from academics who wrote on the subject. It's also worth mentioning that when I write law review articles, I pay special attention to trends that are developing at the current moment within legal scholarship, and I certainly don't ignore recent scholarship in my own work. The material I quoted above certainly merits inclusion in this article and unless there is consensus to the contrary, I will go ahead and add it later this weekend. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Notecardforfree. I'm certainly relieved your selections did not portend what I feared they might, so I'll turn to more mundane, quotidian concerns. We shouldn't create a new section merely for the sake of creating a new section. In this case, we should delay creating the sort of analysis section of which we both are conceiving until we have something substantial, well thought out, and reasonably directly on point with which to open it. With the exceptions of Schwartz's originalism vs. evolutionary document passing observation and clarification regarding Lochner, all of your text in red is glaringly obvious to anyone so much as glancing at the decision, even without a single class' worth of legal training. That isn't enough to justify a new section at this time. It wasn't even enough for Schwartz to pen a whole article on the points—or even a whole "Note" or "Comment." Certainly it is not unreasonable to suppose we should not create the new section until we possess at least one article seriously addressing some central, substantial, and not obvious point of the case, and as its actual raison d'être. Certainly to do otherwise is excessively to flirt with absurdity and preciousness, not to mention superfluousness and verbosity. Again, for these and my prior reasons, I strongly recommend cautious and judicious delay. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Antinoos69, you make a really good point about the "obviousness" of what is presented in these articles. From a purely academic standpoint, I agree that it is self-evident that Justice Kennedy found "new insights" in the Constitution and that his majority opinion primarily relied upon substantive due process. Therefore, I think you are correct that it is a good idea to focus on scholarly analysis that offers new, "non-obvious" perspectives. However, I still think much of the information presented here is useful for readers. I’m not sure if you’ve had any formal legal training yourself (your writing certainly makes you sound quite erudite), but I think you overestimate the legal expertise of the average reader. For example, I don’t think it will be obvious the majority of readers (without any formal legal training) that Kennedy’s substantive due process analysis achieved the same result as a strict application of equal protection. Nor do I think it is obvious that Justices were interested in impacts to children of same-sex couples. In any event, I think we might be able to find some interesting insights in the remarks of the academics who wrote for SCOTUSblog's symposium on Obergefell. I'll keep looking for other sources this week, but I think we are close to having enough information to write an interesting, informative, and insightful section about scholarly analysis of the case. Also, there are dozens of articles about Obergefell floating around SSRN that are apparently forthcoming in law journals, and I'm sure some some of those articles will hit the press over the next few weeks. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You may also be interested in this recent article published in the Michigan Law Review's online companion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Notecardforfree, your "that Kennedy’s substantive due process analysis achieved the same result as a strict application of equal protection" doesn't actually paraphrase any of your red text, and the majority opinion quite explicitly and clearly addresses the welfare of children raised by same-sex couples (at 5, e.g.). Perhaps you underestimate people's intelligence. In any case, I believe we must distinguish between two very different things:

1. Legal Reaction to the Decision. On the one hand, there is a reaction to a thing or an occurrence, a Supreme Court decision in this instance. Such reactions are based primarily on whatever knowledge one already possesses and whatever research one has already done. As such, reactions are of rather limited utility. They do not take serious account of the thing being reacted to in its unique and novel specificity, nor are they as reliably accurate as more serious and diligent examinations. The SCOTUSblog symposium falls in this category, held on the day the decision was handed down. It's akin to a roundtable discussion on the Charlie Rose show, if it too were held on the same day.
2. Legal Analysis of / Legal Scholarship on the Decision. On the other hand, there is legal "analysis" or scholarship on a subject, a decision in this case. Scholarship is based on new and rigorous investigation into and new substantial research on a matter in its full specificity, according to the highest standards of scholarly rigor, accuracy, and reliability. Such investigation and research requires time—time to research, time to write up, and time to progress through the publishing and editorial process. You haven't really provided anything falling in this category. The O'Rourke article probably comes closest, but it's not really a major, full-length article, and I don't get the sense that it was based on any substantial new research on Obergefell. We need sources that fall in this category.

Perhaps the material you are currently considering would more appropriately pertain to a new subcategory of the current "Reactions" section than to the new "Analysis" or "Scholarship" section I am actually envisioning. Antinoos69 (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Antinoos69, I have taken some time to reflect upon your comments, and I agree that the article should contain separate sections for "immediate reaction" and "scholarly analysis." You have done an excellent job articulating the difference between these categories. I disagree, however, with the premise that meaningful legal analysis or scholarship takes a significant period of time to produce. Learned scholars can often divine unique insights rather quickly -- it is really the editorial process that takes time. If you are an academic, I'm sure you know all too well about the long time authors must wait before a finished article hits the printing press. Now that several months have passed since the decision was issued, I think that many new "scholarly analyses" of the case will be published within the next few weeks. For example, the Fordham Law Review just published a forum " to devote space to a scholarly exploration of the import and meaning of the Obergefell decision". I will post relevant articles to this talk page as they are published, and hopefully we will soon have enough material produce a worthwhile "scholarly analysis" section. Of course, we can always revise the article as new articles are published. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Notecardforfree, in my neck of the woods, research is much more typically the most time-consuming aspect of any project, especially any serious one. The late archaeologist, Keith DeVries, famously spent the last decade or more of his life researching a book (meant to refute much of the scholarly consensus on ancient Greek same-sex sex) that he never got around to writing, leaving behind copious research notes, not to mention a few high-profile "forthcoming" citations sure to perplex young scholars for years to come. Classicist Andrew Lear, who actually used some of DeVries' notes for a very different purpose, is due to publish a major book on the (whole) history of ancient Greek pederasty in February of next year. The book is based on research he's been conducting since researching his dissertation, completed in 2004. It is not uncommon for a major book to be a scholar's crowning achievement and magnum opus, the product of a lifetime of diligent and painstaking research. Some such books also require years to write. Even journal articles often are the products of substantial research, sometimes serving as trial runs at various aspects of books-in-progress, or as introductions to them. I myself have been researching an article on Babrius 116 for the past couple years. I have yet to locate a couple rare, nineteenth-century editions of the Greek text, let alone submit the article to an appropriate journal. Now, granted, legal research is generally not of this order, academic or otherwise, but some of us do have expectations not likely to be met by materials published at this time. (Even something as straightforward as Dale Carpenter's Flagrant Conduct wasn't published until nearly a decade after Lawrence, regardless of how much time Carpenter spent researching it.) I find myself gravitating more and more toward some subcategory of the "Reactions" section, to be transformed into or supplemented by a separate "Scolarship" section when appropriate material presents itself, including material from other disciplines, which should take a while. In any case, do kindly post links to potentially appropriate articles here, as you suggested; I'll have a look at them. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Antinoos69, I think that much of legal scholarship does, indeed, involve "armchair philosphy" rather than the careful empirical analyses that are de rigueur in other disciplines. That's not to say that empirical research does not play an important role in legal scholarship -- there are many in the academy that are doing very important field work at the intersection of politics, economics, history, social science, and the law (see also legal realism). I think that in practice, armchair philosophy can be a process that takes months (and sometimes years), but there truly brilliant and exceptional scholars who can produce remarkable insights in the fraction of the time it takes most others. Likewise, some scholars are incredibly productive and write/edit new works at a blistering pace (see, e.g., Eric Schwitzgebel). Therefore, I don't think we should value new and interesting theses or ideas any less simply because they were produced quickly, but I do agree with you that scholars should carefully scrutinize hasty empirical research for methodological errors. In any event, you might be interested in this recent article from the Florida Law Review that discusses "the relationship between same-sex marriage and workplace rights" in light of Obergefell. I'll continue to post articles as I come across them; I'm sure I will find many more by the end of the month. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

See Also section

The "See also" section, at first glance, looks to be made up entirely of links that are discouraged by WP:ALSO - links that are already linked elsewhere in the article, or in the navboxes below it. Does anyone have a good reason these shouldn't be wiped out in this particular case? --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I am in favor of cleaning up this section pursuant to WP:ALSO. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the links are sufficiently important, and the article sufficiently long, to justify singling out these links as of particular interest—which is what I usually use this section for anyway, no matter what wikiofficials would prefer. I bet that is a very common practice among ordinary readers of WIkipedia, who I suspect aren't particularly concerned with the rules on here. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Obergefell v. Hodges/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 23:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I am relatively inexperienced in reviewing good articles, but will do my best to help take care of this article. Anyone else who would like to join in is welcome to do so. I believe that the article can soon be made a good article, but there are several minor issues that I would like to see fixed prior to this occurring. 

1. The section of the article recounting the decisions of lower-level courts that eventually led to the Supreme Court decision were rather long and, in my opinion, somewhat confusing. Section 3 of the GA Criteria, requiring that the article does not go into unnecessary detail, may mandate that this section of the article be revisited and shortened. There may need to be another article created from this to exclusively contain state and local-level decisions leading up to the Supreme Court decision. As it stands, I believe that this section is too long and confusing. 

2. In the "Merits beliefs" section, the two questions that the Supreme Court was supposedly trying to address are unsourced. 

3. I am somewhat confused about a statement under "Dissenting Opinions," in which the article states that certain justices wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by other justices. However, I was under the impression that each of the dissenting justices wrote their own opinions. The confusion may simply stem from a lack of knowledge on my part about how Supreme Court decisions work, but would someone please clarify this, either in the review or in the article? 

4. Under the "Support section," there is an image of the White House being illuminated in rainbow colors, but there is nothing about that in the body of the text. I would recommend adding a bit about that with a source.

Please consider these revisions and notify me here once your work is complete. Display name 99 (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Though I've been involved in editing, let me make some comments here on the Talk page. The following point numbers correspond to yours.

1.  I can sympathize with your confusion. The simple fact of the matter, however, is that the procedural history of the case is confusing and complicated. You'd be surprised just how much. Discussions of very complicated matters, even by expert scholars and professional writers, tend to be complicated and confusing. Getting rid of those qualities typically means diluting the material or, as here, engaging in some historical misrepresentation and revisionism. Those wishing to understand the procedural history simply must brace themselves a bit. Other than the Ohio cases, I don't see how the discussion can be substantially abbreviated without misrepresenting what happened and who is actually involved. Yet it must be noted that the Ohio cases are the most complicated of all. Simply shoveling all this material into a single separate article, in addition to being unprecedented for a court case article as far as I am aware, would also convey an erroneous impression of this history, rendering it as the Jim Obergefell show.

2.  In the "Merits briefs" section, the two questions under review are sourced. See note 89. Notes 89 to 91 are meant to cover all preceding material in the section, including the two questions. There is no point in cumbersome repetition. 

3.  Justices and judges may join each other's opinions and dissenting opinions regardless of whether they write any themselves. This is basic and standard practice and info. It does not require clarification, let alone here.

4.  Fair enough. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you and I agree. I am also somewhat concerned about this section of "Majority opinion:"

"The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach," the Court declared, "a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity." [source] Citing Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court affirmed that the fundamental rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause "extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs," but the "identification and protection" of these fundamental rights "has not been reduced to any formula." As the Supreme Court has found in cases such as Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, this extension includes a fundamental right to marry."

I am concerned that the final sentence could give the impression that the article is endorsing the Court's decision, and thereby violating the policy of neutrality. Perhaps it could be reworded to say that the Court came to the conclusion that the right of same-sex couples to marry was a part of the extension, rather than "realized" it, as is implied in the current version. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If I may add my two cents about the bolded passage above: the word "found" is a term of art in legal writing that is synonymous with "concluded" or "adjudged" (see Black's Law Dictionary's definition of "finding of fact" at page 646). As it is written now, the sentence is an accurate and neutral description of the Court's ruling. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. However, I encourage you to take a closer look. The statement reads "As the Supreme Court has found..." Whenever someone says "As he said" or "As she said," it's generally presumed that the person will follow it with a statement agreeing with whatever that person said. It then reads, "this extension includes...," thereby indicating agreement with the Court's findings regarding the 14th Amendment. Even with the word "found" meaning what it does, the sentence does not seem neutral enough to me. Here is what I would suggest:

"The Court found, as it did in Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, that this extension includes a fundamental right to marry."

I would also like to hear from the nominator. I have left a note on his/her talk page yesterday informing the user that the article was under review, but so far have heard nothing. Display name 99 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but: Your version states that the Court was doing some actual "finding" in this regard in Obergefell, whereas it was quite explicitly only applying past "findings" to the instant case, as the original text of the article would have it (see corresponding note, omitted from your quotation). The verb to find really is a very technical and specific thing in legal discourse. The tense used makes no difference. The Court itself uses the very same tense of the verb to hold, a largely synonymous legal term, at the start of its discussion of this matter in its decision. Legal types are very exacting about what courts actually find or hold. Antinoos69 (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You may alter slightly what I had written above if you choose. However, the Court did do some finding in Obergefell v. Hodges by determining that the right to marry applied to same-sex couples as well as other groups. Regardless, I will not pass the article should the current version stand. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99, can you clarify why you think the passage quoted above is not neutral? If you read page 11 of the slip opinion, the you will see that the Court wrote: "Applying these established tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution." The Court then cites Loving, Zablocki, and Turner as examples of cases in which the Court affirmed the principle that the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. As it is written now, the the sentence is a perfectly accurate description of the Court's ruling. The introductory clause of the sentence ("As the Supreme Court has found ...") is simply used to make a comparison -- a comparison that the Supreme Court made in its opinion, not one that Wikipedia would be making in its own voice (see Merriam-Webster's definition of the word "as"). Also, one quick note about the GA nominator: they have not been an active contributor to this article, and I believe they have only made a handful of edits. Antinoos69 has been the primary editor here since last July. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the note about the nominator. I am perfectly willing to work with whomever has been contributing the most to the article in order to improve it. In most cases, that is the GA nominator, but in this case it does not seem to be so. Regarding the sentence in question, I will quote it once more:

"As the Supreme Court has found in cases such as Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, this extension includes a fundamental right to marry."

"This extension" is not referring to the Court's decisions in previous rulings, rather the 14th Amendment. Prior to this statement, the article quotes a ruling from another Court case in which the Court made a ruling regarding what the rights given in the Amendment "extend to." In then says, "as the Court has found," that the rights given by the Amendment include the right to marry, implicitly applying that to same-sex couples. It's basically saying:

"As the Supreme Court has found in cases such as Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, the 14th Amendment gives gay people the right to marry."

If we can't agree on this, I can close the review and either you or Antinoos69 can renominate it immediately afterward and give someone else a chance to look at it, or invite someone else in now to mediate or, perhaps, finish the review himself. Display name 99 (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, I must agree with Notecardforfree above—who, if I recall correctly, actually holds a JD. At this point in its argument, page 10 through the very top of page 12, the Court is discussing the right to marriage in general as rooted in the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment in particular. Same-sex marriage will have to wait just a bit. So the Court here is not making any "findings" but applying the "findings" of its previous cases to the instant case and point regarding marriage in general. If you can't understand that, then perhaps this article would be better served by a reviewer better versed in legal discourse and argument. After all, the real objective here is to produce a good article, not one merely declared good by some process imagined as official. (Btw, I hadn't imagined myself the "primary editor" of this article, but I suppose I will have to accommodate myself to the reality that that is what I've become.) Antinoos69 (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99, I don't want to make any editorial decisions about what this article should or shouldn't say -- I will leave that in the capable hands of Antinoos69, whose tireless work to improve this article should be commended. I do, however, want to take a moment explain why I think your interpretation of the passage quoted above is mistaken:

It sounds like the central premise of your argument is that quoted passage from this article misstates the court's ruling by arguing that the court's conclusion in Obergefell was derived from the Fourteenth Amendment. However, this premise is flawed in several respects. First, it overlooks the fact that the rulings in Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley all held that the substantive due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment include a fundamental right to marriage:

• In Loving, the Court held: "The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations." (388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967)).
• In Zablocki, the Court held: "More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause." (434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978)).
• In Turner, the Court held: "[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374 (1978), and Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967)" (482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987)).

Second, your argument overlooks the fact that the Court's opinion in Obergefell was itself based upon the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process protections. I encourage you to read paragraph that begins with "Applying these established tenets ..." on page 11 of the slip opinion, which explains the relationship between these cases.

If I have mischaracterized your argument, please let me know. It wouldn't be the first time I have misunderstood an argument. That said, I hope you can understand where I am coming from, and I hope you can appreciate that my perspective is based upon my familiarity with the subject matter. I am confident that we can all reach an amicable solution to this, and I look forward to working with you. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Notecardforfree, I believe Display name 99 may simply be confused about what is being discussed at this particular point in the decision and article. I may well be mistaken. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

With all respect, I have decided to withdraw myself from the review process of this article. I have placed the failed good article template on the talk page. I encourage you to renominate it and work with whomever else will review it to see what should and should not be done. I placed the failed template on the talk page so that another reviewer would not pass this article by on the nominations page, believing that it was already being reviewed. Thank you for your efforts to improve this article. Display name 99 (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

As Display name 99 has withdrawn from the reviewing process rather than having failed the nomination for cause, I am going to put the nominated article directly back into the reviewing pool, so it does not lose its seniority. It had already been waiting since September; it would be a shame to let that seniority be lost. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nominator here: I apologize as I didn't see the note until now - I didn't contribute to the page at all but came across it and as I read it, I was very impressed with its detail, sourcing, and other factors. Thus I decided to nominate it for GA. I'm really disappointed that it "failed" over what appears to be disagreement over one sentence. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wikimandia, as I noted immediately above your post, your nomination has not actually been failed, but put back into the nomination pool where it is waiting for a new reviewer. Perhaps, when the next review begins, it will last long enough for you to be able to participate in the review process. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh sorry,—Мандичка^YO 😜 01:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC) I misunderstood your comment BlueMoonset, I thought it failed but you renominated it. Thanks!

I apologize for failing to take into account dates of seniority when I marked the article as having "Failed." I was simply concerned that someone reviewing it might pass it by, thinking that it was already under review when it actually was not. I'm sorry for the confusion. Display name 99 (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Obergefell v. Hodges/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 03:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Will review. May be a few days though before a full review. Wugapodes (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC) I know I said it would be a few days but I have no control over my life so here I am with a full review way sooner than expected:

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

1. The citations at the end of the first paragraph of the Obergefell v. Kasich section should be distributed through the paragraph. While they likely all contributed to varying degrees, having four citations at the end of a sentence is a lot of clutter and, more importantly, makes it difficult to tell what information in the paragraph came from where

2. The image of Obergefell in the Obergefell v. Kasich section seems a little less than relevant as it's from the SCOTUS case rather than this state case. Is there a picture of just Obergefell?

   See below Wugapodes (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

3. The image of the courthouse also seems rather out of place. While it's the courthouse it took place in, the image is from 1938 and it shows. If I were looking at this page about a 2015 case, I'd wonder why a photo that looks so old is on the page (and I did think that).

   I think my larger issue is the relevance of the courthouse images. See discussion below. Wugapodes (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

4. The first paragraph of Bourke v. Beshear is really confusing and I don't actually understand the issue in that case because of it.

5. "These arguments are not those of serious people." As much as I agree with the sentiment, the inclusion of the quote strikes me as a little non-neutral and should probably be removed or more critical commentary given.

6. "The justices' opinions in Obergefell are consistent with their opinions in Windsor." This should be directly cited to a source.

7. The Kentucky part of the compliance section is written such that it seems that these issues are still occuring. They may very well be but it should be made clear that they were ongoing as of a particular date (in the same way the maps are). Particularly of issue is "is now refusing to issue licenses to same-sex couples...though neither county has of yet faced lawsuits" When prose is written in this contemporary style, it quickly becomes outdated as things progress and raises questions as to how up to date the information is.

8. What does the question mark on the one county mean on the Kentucky map? It should be clear in the caption

   fixed the caption myself Wugapodes (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

9. I read the discussion on the talk page about an impact analysis section, and while I see there's obvious consensus against it, I would ask you to consider things like the polygamy question (which Roberts and a number of sources have brought up) and especially how this case plays into V.L. v. E.L. which was influenced by the full faith and credit finding of this decision. I'm not saying there needs to be a full section, but that there has been some scholarship and developments that should be included.

• "Oral arguments in the case were heard on April 28, 2015." Why does this have two citations?

• "Media commentators highlighted the above-quoted passage from Kennedy's decision" This is a little too self-referential for me and should probably be modified.

• Is there a main article for the compliance section? If so that should be linked
• Not a GA thing, but WP:SEEALSO says that articles linked in the prose shouldn't be in the see also section, and a lot of the links in the section are linked in text. You may also want to look at the External Links section and think about which ones are actually essential.

Results

On Hold for 10 days pending revisions. Overall a very well written article on a very high profile article. It's a lot to work through, so I'm putting it on hold for a bit longer than usual. If more time is needed, let me know and I will be happy to extend. Wugapodes (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor comments

I will address your comments using your point numbers:

1. I, for one, am strongly put off by duplicate citations throughout a paragraph for discreet factoids, much preferring terminal citations. I won't be addressing this largely stylistic matter. Anyone else doing so should take great care, as it can get a bit tricky.

   This is a matter of verifiability. If they all say the same thing, it's unclear why 4 are needed, but if they are offering different points, we need to attribute those points to where they came from so that others can find out. I'm not saying a citation for every line, there is a middle ground. Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

   No, this is a matter of citation style. If the common convention is good enough for academia, and it is, then it's certainly good enough for Wikipedia. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

2. Finding pictures that we can use for this article is rather difficult. This was the best I could find.

   If they're the best plaintiff pictures, then that's fine Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

3. See preceding point above. I couldn't find plaintiff pics, so I went for a sense of place, which I find much preferable to nothing. The courthouse was involved both at trial and on appeal.

   I struggle to understand the relevance of these courthouse images though. What do they add? We have three pictures of concrete cubes. I don't look at those pictures and think "yes, I have a better understanding of this topic now". Per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic, and not be primarily decorative....Strive for variety....Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

   To rephrase, a sense of place certainly does add to my ability to reconstruct and enjoy the past. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

4. Okay, this one baffles me. What, specifically, is confusing to you? I don't see how the rather complicated procedural history could be conveyed substantially better without watering down the content and misrepresenting the history.

   We spend a paragraph listing a number of children, only identified by initials and ages, to never speak of them again. No on is going to read this article and say "ah, yes, I remember 14 year old D.J.-C., we met for coffee once. he played an important role in this case. I wonder how his brother, T.J.-C. is doing, no the other T.J.-C.". It's not clear why they are even important as the question at issue is same sex marriages and full faith and credit of them. Unless these people are marrying their children, I don't understand why they're even parties to this case. Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

   As these children, as designated above in your comment, were actual parties to the case(s), listed in the actual caption(s), they are certainly noteworthy. Readers need to know who the parties actually are or were. This is History 101. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

5. I strongly disagree. The phrase or its sentiment had been something of a mantra in these cases across the country, and it is what the judge said. It is certainly appropriate to include it. NPOV doesn't come into play.

   If it became a mantra, that could be included and discussed, but it isn't. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, just because the judge said it, doesn't mean it must be included and doesn't mean it is magically neutral. Further the way we present things contributes to how neutral they appear. See WP:IMPARTIAL The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

   The discussion you refer to is well beyond the scope of this section of the article. The phrase is certainly noteworthy. It need only be quoted. And quoting a judge's decision is certainly not "to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute." Those "participants" would be the parties to the case, along with their adherents. Judges are not "participants"; they are construed, rightly or wrongly, as objective third parties charged with adjudicating the controversies before them. The phrase is fine as it is. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

6. This did always seem a bit fishy, and I have been unable to find it in the nearby cited source now. Perhaps it should simply be deleted, or clarified, or properly sourced. I'll see if I get some time to do so, which I might not in the foreseeable future.

   Any of those options are fine, and you don't have to be the one to do it. I'll add a cn tag. Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

7. This whole compliance matter is a bit nebulous. The reporting seems incomplete and now rather abandoned. I certainly won't have the time to attempt to sort it all out any time soon. Others will have to step in here.

   I would agree. If it seems largely abandoned, the section should probably be revised to make it seem less immediate. Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

8. The question mark means exactly what one would suppose it does, that the matter is unclear. However, these maps are produced and maintained by others for another article, and their knowledge of the state of the matter is rather questionable, to be frank. These maps are quite beyond my technical capabilities, so others would have to step in here, too.

   I think just adjusting the caption is sufficient. I'll probably do that myself. Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

   Actually, the Alabama map seems plain wrong. For one, the math doesn't add up. As I said, I can't fix this problem. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

9. What "consensus"? If you'll recall, I was strongly opposed to such a section at the time. I continue strongly to believe that the time is not yet ripe for "scholarship." A "subsequent developments" (i.e., subsequent case law) section, on the other hand, would be a very different matter, even if it would currently tend toward brevity. I, however, will have no time to contribute substantively to it. In fact, I've been thinking the article needs a "historical background" section (2-3 paragraphs, tops) to detail both the post-Windsor context of the case and the early history beginning in the early 70s. Though I collected appropriate sources for the section months ago now, I won't have time to draft it any time soon. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

   Consensus against an "Analysis" section. I wasn't clear on that, my apologies. But I do believe the polygamy response is significant. Not only did Roberts bring it up in his dissent, it has been covered and discussed by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and a number of academic sources already on the talk page. And there has been at least one development at the Court in V.L. v. E.L. which (though didn't cite Obergefell) is part of the thread of same-sex rights at the Court. Others like Matter of Leyton (slip op., NY: Appellate Div. 106) ("[Obergefell]does not compel a retroactive declaration that the "Commitment Ceremony" entered into by decedent and Hunter in 2002, when same-sex marriage was not recognized under New York law, was a legally valid marriage").

   As I said, a "subsequent developments" section would be fine, I just won't be able to contribute any time soon. I feel strongly that we shouldn't go near the polygamy issue, beyond pointing out that Roberts mentioned it, as the article already does. At this point, it's deeply mired in the rhetoric of the moment and defamatory history. It's hardly what I would call suitably academic. Talk about "to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute"! I also don't find the scholarship sufficiently advanced and non-obvious to justify an analysis section at this time. We need a few thoughtful books to come out first, I think. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

   I also agree that a historical background section would be useful, though, and maybe this is just me, the topic is somewhat covered in discussing the opinion. Obviously it would be good to have such a section (definitely for FA), but I think the topic is covered enough as is for GA.

   Anyway, thanks Antinoos69 for your input! Hopefully others will be able to get to the things you can't. Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Antinoos69: I did a quick check by Heinonline and found that there are 406 law journal (peer-reviewed) articles on this case right now. The number does not include magazine, newspaper, etc. "opinions." If you don't want analysis, it has to be for a reason other than lack of "ripeness." AnthroMimus (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Comma fight

• Hold off on GA consideration until the "Comma fight" discussed on the talk page is resolved. There are ownership issues and a slow-moving edit war. Jonathunder (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I find your characterization grossly inaccurate, gratuitous, and offensive. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• The recent edit history seems to indicate that the article is not stable at the present time, and thus not eligible for GA status unless the frequent edit disagreements have clearly subsided before the GA review concludes. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Edits like this one in the article, and this one on the talk page don't inspire confidence in the article's stability. It is of course up to the original reviewer, but it looks to me like criterion 5 is not currently being fulfilled... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Closing

I left it open a few days longer than planned to see if things calmed down before extending the hold period so more substantial things could be addressed. I'm not confident that the article is presently stable, so don't see much point in dragging this out. Hopefully the article can reach stability, the substantial issues I raised resolved, and the article be renominated. I have closed the review as Not Promoted. Keep up the hard work, and I think it will pass in time. Wugapodes (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for photos

I sense something of a need for at least two more photos—alright, I've been discovering them lately. I think the Sixth Circuit section could use a pic of the court building, activity outside the court during argument or the rendering of the decision, or, failing any such, a pic of the author of the decision that helped trigger SCOTUS review. Also, the Lawsuit section could really use a pic of Obergefell. I can't find any such photos on Wiki Media or Wiki Commons. There actually is a pic of Obergefell, File:Marriage rally (18997214650).jpg, but Obergefell isn't identified in the info. My recent education, however, does not yet extend to dealing with copyright issues or acquiring new photos. Additionally, we might have use of a photo for the district court section, maybe. Could anyone help? Antinoos69 (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There's also a generic pic of the district/circuit court building (they're the same), but it's rather old, from the 1930's if I recall correctly. And we have a pic of Judge Sutton, but it's not yet in Commons and the source link is gone. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Photo caption request for change

This may not be the right place to make this suggestion, but I'd like to suggest an edit to the caption for the photo of Jim Obergefell in the "Obergefell v. Kasich" section. The current caption is "Outside the Supreme Court on the morning of June 26, 2015, James Obergefell (foreground, center)[14][15] reacts to its historic decision." I'd like to add information about the two attorneys at his sides. On the left is Alphonse Gerhardstein of Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA, Jim Obergefell's attorney. On the right is James Esseks, Director of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Project, who was was counsel in Obergefell v. Hodges. I am not making these edits personally because of I am a member of Al Gerhardstein's family.

Can another editor consider making this change to the photo caption? Bgwikiedit (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

"Lawsuits" section pics

There seems to have been some overlapping editing, quite unintended. In any case, I believe party pics in this section should stick to plaintiffs. The defendants here are just generic, in their official capacities as officers and agents of the state. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit war

Twice now my request for a specific citation for a claim has been summarily reverted by an editor who is asserting ownership of the article. This needs to stop. Jonathunder (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

As there is no reason for a citation there, and you have provided no argument, your absurdity needs to stop. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)