Talk:Obergefell v. Hodges/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Courthouse images

Should the generic courthouse images introduced restored by this edit be removed? In my view, they do nothing to provide a sense of place, their inclusion is disfavored by WP:PERTINENCE, and their removal was requested in the failed GA review. Rebbing 16:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No, they should not be removed. First, don't mischaracterize the edit. The pics had been in the article for quite some time before you removed them. I merely restored them. Second, the cited policy or whatnot has nothing clear or definitive to offer on this matter. It is a matter of very substantial interpretation. Third, I fail to see how providing pics of where legal proceedings took place could possibly be characterized as "do[ing] nothing to provide a sense of place" for those proceedings. Fourth, given the extraordinary lack of overlap between the two GA reviews, citing either one of them is hardly the quintessence of objectivity. Fifth, as this is an ongoing matter on the talk page, it is inappropriate for editors to redelete the pics. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

First, there is nothing inappropriate about others removing the images. At this point, the consensus would appear to be that they be removed. You are the only one here supporting their inclusion, whereas I favor removing both and Jonathunder and EEng each also favor removing at least one. Consensus can be shown by editing, and you are not permitted to stall progress supported by consensus by demanding that other editors engage in endless discussion before altering the article from your preferred version. Cf. LISTEN; WP:BRDWRONG § Filibusterers (essay).

You're correct that this is ultimately a matter of editorial discretion. In my view, they're mere space fillers—and that appears to be a common view. That you find them meaningful does not mean a typical reader would also.

As for my description of your edit, I intended no misrepresentation: your edit provided a convenient diff for explicitly specifying the images, and I inappropriately assumed anyone familiar with the article's history would know they were not new. I apologize, and I have amended my statement above. Rebbing 14:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, here, there had been only you. Editors had had no opportunity to see my comments until this morning. And I don't buy this notion that editors could just be assumed to have read talk page comments, anyway. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Choosing good photographs for an article is an art and a balancing act. An anachronistic image, such as the 1952 black and white one with cars from that era, may bore readers or even confuse them. A photo or two of the place where something happened may be illustrative, but too many are overwhelming. The same is true of photos of people. A diverse selection of carefully chosen contemporaneous photos is the ideal. Jonathunder (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

We must deal with what's actually available, however. Two pictures can't overwhelm or confuse anyone, and each concerns a separate location and case. And your comments don't even address the other deleted pic. To repeat, I fail to see how providing pics of where legal proceedings took place could possibly be characterized as "do[ing] nothing to provide a sense of place" for those proceedings. Again, I can see no valid justification for slashing helpful pics from the article. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that the 1952 photo is not helpful? The article has a dozen images now. If you really want one of a circuit court, I can look for a good one. I've done a fair amount of work on lists of courthouses in the U.S. Jonathunder (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you proposing a deal, that we dump the 1952 pic, restore the Michigan one, and finally restore a more recent courthouse pic of the circuit court where the previous one was deleted, in the Ohio section? I would be open to that possibility, if you are proposing it. Otherwise, no, I am not in favor of simply dumping the 1952 pic. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I, for one, am not interested in a "deal." Both of the courthouse images are bad. Rebbing 15:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Why? Antinoos69 (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

1952 pic has zero impact on the understanding of the article or any of its content. Likewise a lot of the others. The only added benefit to the portraits for example is in helping the reader to understand 'This is what Judge X looks like' which has very little use in the understanding of "Obergefell v. Hodges". Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favor of dumping the two courthouse images (not the photo of the Supreme Court building on the morning of the decision) as well as the judges' photographs. Rebbing 15:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Concur - the parties (to the case) and the celebrations yes, the judges and the irrelevant courthouse pics no. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The courthouse pics provide a sense of place. As for judges, see below. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

'Sense of place' is completely irrelevant to the understanding of the case. You might as well argue to include a google maps so you know where it is. While contemporary pictures of the celebrations outside indicate the feeling and mood of the crowd, a picture from the 1950's only indicates what the court looked like in the 1950's - which has no bearing on the case and is frankly an idiotic argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

A sense of place is entirely relevant to imagining oneself in events, witnessing what transpires, and may be seen as loosely corresponding to "setting" in story analysis. Really, what is this pogrom some of you appear to have against illustration? Illustration is one of the main benefits to being on the internet in the first place. Do you really want this article to consist almost entirely of uninterrupted text? Really? I would pass it over, myself. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No one has suggested removing all the photos to leave the article entirely text, so you can put that strawman back in the box. No one has suggested removing the contemporary photos of the courthouse either, so you are free to imagine yourself (with illustration) in front of it amongst the crowd. But unless your imagination is stuck in the 50's, arguing that an outdated and irrelevant picture is relevant to the understanding of the case is a stupid argument. The purpose of a wikipedia article is to provide encyclopedic information. Not imagination-fodder. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

First, don't misrepresent me. I never mentioned "all the photos" being removed or the article being "entirely text." Be more careful with your strawman arguments and boxes. Second, "[n]o one has suggested removing the contemporary photos of the courthouse"? Really? Are you aware that this section began with "Rebbing" suggesting that both pics be removed, including the "contemporary" one? He/She has remained consistent on that point. Have you noticed both pics remain absent from the article? And, btw, you yourself "[c]oncur[red]" with "Rebbing" on this matter (16:02, 17 May 2016 [UTC]). If you are … thinking … of the pics of the SCOTUS building, are you aware they have never been at issue in this section? Third, as for the 1950s pic, unless you are claiming radical reconstruction rendering the pic alien to the building's current appearance has occurred, I would suggest the only "stupid argument" here is yours. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your statement of our positions: I'm against including the generic courthouse photos (and the photos of the lower court judges), but my argument doesn't rest on the images' age. I just don't think they're relevant. As an aside, I'm a "she," and, there's no need to scare quote my name. Rebbing 19:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't "scare quoting" your name. I was merely indicating that I had no idea what the screen moniker is or means, a common practice of mine under such circumstances. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Images of judges and justices

FYI, it is standard practice to include judge/justice pics in articles on court decisions. It's quite absurd to be arguing against that widely accepted practice here. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Quickly checking a dozen significant Supreme Court cases, while some of them do have pictures of justices of the Supreme Court, none of them have three separate pictures for that, and none of them have any pictures of any of the lower court justices. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Did any of those cases have as complicated a procedural history as this one, or four separate dissenting opinions? Really, now, step back and take a breath. Are we really having this discussion? Really? Antinoos69 (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we are really having this discussion. I suspect you know that. You may find that merely acting dismissive of the involvement of others does not actually serve to make your point. Indeed, relying on snideness and insults so constantly can make you appear to be someone who is either unable to make a point or is uninterested in doing so. It makes it difficult to take you or your comments seriously. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

(EC) I just ran through Top-importance U.S Supreme Court articles and actually it would seem that while some do have photos (of the Justices), standard practice is to not have them. Those that do seem to be either race or sexuality related (possibly to effectively illustrate the all white male makeup of the court) Even then - cases like Loving v. Virginia only have a picture of the couple and Brown v. Board of Education has a group shot of the (all white male) justices.Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Your post is misleading. Your list cannot be said to be a representative or statistically random sample of cases, rendering your analysis useless. I didn't intend "standard" to mean universal. As far as your list goes, however, there is more by which to be misled. Of the 33 of 42 total articles/cases listed without pics, 21 are quite short, rendering pics a bit problematic. None detail an extensive and complicated procedural history. Of the 9 articles with pics, all are rather long, and most include pics of dissenting jurists. Here, we have four separate, high-profile, and contentious dissents, to boot, not to mention the extensive and complicated procedural history. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You didn't address the questions. (Btw, you'll have to learn not to misconstrue my conversational style, as it's not going to change.) Antinoos69 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I did address the questions "Are we really having this discussion? Really?". If you would like your interactions to be taken more seriously than that, you may wish to act as though your primary reason to be involved in discussions is to do something besides belittle people. If you don't wish your incivility to be the focus of responses to you, choose to be civil. Until then, you are giving your fellow editors plenty of reason not to take you seriously. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I take it, then, that you somehow missed the first sentence of my post—you know, where the substantive questions are. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment about images of the Justices: I know that past practices have not been consistent, but for articles about SCOTUS cases, I think it is important to include images of the Justices that wrote opinions. There are several reasons for this. First, it provides casual readers a quick visual reference for the author of the opinion when quickly scrolling through text. Second, it helps familiarize readers with the visual appearance of members of the Court. Third, the captions of those pictures can be used to provide a brief summary of the opinion or to highlight an interesting portion of the opinion. Fourth, images can help readers become familiar with the various judicial philosophies of the Justices of the Court (for example, if readers always find Justice Breyer's picture in the dissenting opinion sections of Second Amendment cases, readers will understand that his philosophy is not shared by a majority of the Court). All of these should be balanced against the need to avoid clutter, but in this article, I think there is ample room to accommodate the existing images of the Justices. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• I support including photographs of the authoring justices, but I'm opposed—although not strongly—to including pictures of the lower court judges. Rebbing 19:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for breaking this off into its own section; I think that will help focus the ongoing conversation. Just for the sake of clarity, when I said "Justices" in my previous comment, I was referring to pictures of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, rather than pictures of lower court judges and justices. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• To clarify, if clarification were needed, I support all the justice/judge pics. The caption to Judge Sutton's pic makes plain his notability with regard to this very high-profile and momentous SCOTUS case. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

"See also" link to List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 576

I am a little bit confused why you removed (reverted) the link back to the volume of the Supreme Court Reporter that Obergefell v. Hodges is located in in the See Also section. Your comment was that it was not important enough to include. I wish you had asked me first, I could have explained why it is important.

This feature of referring back to the volume index a decision is part of is essentially standard boiler plate; it is usually included in every Supreme Court case to allow the reader to return to the index, especially if this is the wrong case.

Let's give an example. Say I'm looking for the case that upheld Obamacare. I know it was that year, so I start with the index page, then hit every article listed on that page. Well, the case the person wants is King v. Burwell, not Obergefell. If the reader gets on Obergfell, and realizes, "Oh, that's the Gay Marrage case," they can click back to the index. Or conversely, if they are looking for the Gay Marriage case, and click on Burwell and say, "Oh, that's the Obamacare case," they can return to the index. Having the boilerplate cross-link on every case back to that case's Volume Index makes Wikipedia more useful.

This has probably been done on thousands of SCOTUS cases to make the encyclopedia more useful.

Having explained my reasons, I'm going to put the cross-link back as I think I have adequately explained why it is useful and should be included as it is a standard item included on hundreds or thousands of other case articles. If you still disagree I ask you to explain why and give me a chance to respond before removing it again. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC) (refactored from Rebbing's talk page)

@Rfc1394: I removed the link because I didn't—and don't—think the reporter is appropriate in the "See also" section. The "See also" section is not for navboxes or other navigation links: it's for a limited number of links to articles about related topics. I find it incredible that a reader who clicked on the article from the reporter and wished to return to that same reporter would scroll all the way down to the "See also" section to look for the return link—and would remember that she had come from the 576th volume. Most likely, she would use her browser's navigation feature; otherwise, I'd expect her to use the link to the reporter in the opening sentence.

More importantly, good writing is about minimizing extraneous details: adding anything that could conceivably be useful to any reader buries truly useful information. If you believe readers need navigation links for this, I think you should make a navbox, rather than cluttering up the already-overburdened "See also" section.

Thoughts, anyone? Rebbing 17:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

For the see also sections of articles about SCOTUS cases, I always like to include a link to the volume of the United States Reports in which the case appears because it provides readers an opportunity to learn more about contemporaneous U.S. Supreme Court opinions and helps them understand the historical context of developments in law. To that extent, I think the link provides readers with information about a number of other opinions that are "indirectly related to the topic" (quoting MOS:SEEALSO) -- they show readers the issues that the Supreme Court was tackling at the time and they can help readers understand the ideological framework that was operating at the Court when the case was decided. Many articles about SCOTUS cases don't have a link to the U.S. reports in the intro (or in the infobox), so I think the link will certainly be useful. I certainly understand that extraneous details can overwhelm and distract readers, but on balance, I think that these kinds of links do more good than harm. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You make an excellent point, and you've convinced me that such links are meaningful and appropriate. Thanks. Rebbing 21:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:seealso, they shouldn't be repeated in this section and ideally they should be "worked into" the article. --Malerooster (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

If this were simply about navigation, I would agree with you, but the existing pipelinked "576" is far from obvious to anyone who hasn't seen List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 576, and I agree with Notecardforfree that pointing readers towards this subject is likely to be meaningful. As for the guideline, WP:NOTSEEALSO describes the no-repeated-links provision as "a general rule" and WP:SEEALSO emphasizes that the choice of links is "ultimately a matter of editorial judgment." I have no quarrel with the general rule, but I think this is a reasonable exception as, unlike, say, Baker v. Nelson, the volume is not discussed or emphasized in the text, and a discussion about the broader legal context of this decision is likely out of scope. Rebbing 22:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

fair enough.--Malerooster (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rfc1394: As to your example about the reader looking for a specific case, I added descriptions that should help somewhat. Rebbing 22:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Case versus decision

The lede currently refers to O v. H as a case, leading to the current back-and-forth about the tense. As I've noted above, my sampling shows that where we have ledes discussing a non-current "case", the phrasing is most commonly past tense, while for "decisions", present tense is used. And I think it's time to recast the opening as being about a decision, rather than a case.  Obviously, the case and the decision are closely related, but in the longer run, it is the result that will be important, rather than the battle (which is not to suggest at all that we should not document the battle.) The decision has already been cited in other cases, other decisions (for example, the 6th Circuit ruling on the Kim Davis situation.) So I'm suggesting we replace:

is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry

with:

is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision which holds that the fundamental right to marry

With the info on the spread being moved slightly lower in the intro:

• Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker

becomes

• With a 5-4 decision released June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturns Baker

Thoughts? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

There are several reasons why I think the term "case" should be used:

• First, the term "decision" has a narrower meaning than the term "case" and usually only refers to a specific opinion that is released by the Court. However, during the course of a case, the Court can release additional orders, and in some cases, the Court can even release multiple decisions (see, e.g., Horne v. Department of Agriculture). Because the topic of Wikipedia's SCOTUS articles (including this one) encompasses all orders, opinions, and other rulings associated with a case, I think the term "case" is more appropriate than "decision."
• Second, some cases are disposed of without a formal decision. The Ninth Circuit's ruling in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass'n, for example, was affirmed in a one-sentence opinion that explained that the Court was evenly divided (4-4).
• Third, even though the Court's "rulings" and "opinions" are often called "decisions", there are many cases where Court doesn't actually decide anything. Sometimes the Court will say that it doesn't have enough information to make a determination and will remand the case for further proceedings.
• Fourth, WP:SCOTUS/SG recommends using the term "case," and the vast majority of existing SCOTUS articles also use the term "case." 

That said, I think we should keep "is a landmark case" rather than "was a landmark case." Upon further reflection, I agree it is currently considered a landmark case and I don't want us to give the impression that it was once considered a landmark case and is no longer considered to be a landmark ruling. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

If we're going by WP:SCOTUS/SG (and thanks for pointing me to that), then we should note that that also uses "was" to describe the case. Perhaps we can get over that concern by shifting where "landmark" falls - was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a landmark 5–4 decision. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 WP:SCOTUS/SG doesn't contemplate the situation where an adjective qualifies the predicate noun. (I also disagree with the style recommendation, but that's not at issue here.) And if we're going to reword every statement incorrectly viewed as problematic, Wikipedia will soon be much more of a mess than it already is. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• What "Notecardforfree" said. (I hope my brevity didn't shock anyone to the point of personal injury.) Btw, and you knew it was coming, "case" versus "decision" in no way affects the proper tense to be used, regardless what other articles may correctly or incorrectly do. The present tense is the tense for all states, statuses, and other realities pertaining to or persisting into the present. That's just how the tense works. The past and future tenses are simply inappropriate here. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The case does not persist into the present. It is over just as much as Foreman vs. Ali is over. There are no appeals left to come. It is appropriately placed in the past tense. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I keep going back and forth in my mind about the "is/was" distinction. I certainly think we should give great deference to WP:SCOTUS/SG (since it reflects the consensus of opinions about "best practices" when writing SCOTUS articles), but I also understand the argument that commentators currently hold the belief that the case has landmark status. In other articles, I've used the phrase "was a landmark case" (see, e.g., Schmerber v. California), but at the end of the day, it's such an incredibly minor issue; I think the language you suggested above could be a good compromise. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• No, absolutely, clearly, and unquestionably wrong. You are approaching the matter incorrectly. The "state" or "status" in question is not that of being a "case" or a "decision" but of possessing the quality of a "landmark," a state or status that unquestionably does persist into the present. This is a plain, black-and-white issue. It's basic grammar. Period. There should be no discussion. There is no need to reword anything. No subtle points are in view. The only thing this discussion does is demonstrate the sad state of education. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not seeing any explanation why the compromise phrasing is wrong, merely an effort to silence discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox "Argument" and "Opinion announcement"

I have some problems with these elements of the infobox and recent editing of them. First, the unofficial oyez website, in addition to being unofficial, won't download at all on my device. All I get is a grey screen. Certainly a better source can be used. Second, in my admittedly very cursory browsing, I rarely see this "Opinion announcement" category in the infobox. Third, when I do manage to find it, it links to the decision. So I think (a) we need a more official website that downloads on more devices, (b) I need to be convinced we need an "Opinion announcement" category, and (c) I need to be convinced it is standard practice not to link the category to the opinion, should I be persuaded to include it. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"A better source can be used" no it cannot because it does not exist, the oyez project is the main publicly available collection of US Supreme Court oral arguments (which the Supreme court only began publishing them themselves in 2010 while Oyez has from digitalized audio from 1955 when the court began taping them) and opinion announcements (which aren't available elsewhere). Also Oyez links the audio up with the transcript which of course is better than just the audio. The opinion announcement is the oral summary given by the supreme court. That this is the intended use of the field is clear from Template:Infobox SCOTUS case's documentation. TorbenTT (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

A few points: First, I consider a website that actually downloads on my device to be better, or at least no worse, than one that doesn't. Second, I consider official sources to be better than unofficial ones. As the SCOTUS site provides both audio and transcripts of the arguments in the case actually being discussed here, and actually downloads on my device, it is much better and more reliable than Oyez. Third, the "External links" section already provides these links, which could be transferred. Fourth, certainly there must be another source for the opinion announcement. Wouldn't the Court itself somehow provide it? How is Oyez getting it? Again, a source that actually works must be preferable. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Obergefell v. Hodges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150629131014/http://dcist.com/2015/06/gay_marriage_legal_this_is_huge.php to http://dcist.com/2015/06/gay_marriage_legal_this_is_huge.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Obergefell v. Hodges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150627083240/http://www.odh.ohio.gov/landing/Director%20Hodges%20Bio%202014.aspx to http://www.odh.ohio.gov/landing/Director%20Hodges%20Bio%202014.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions

Requesting comments and suggestions regarding these edits: Change|Revision. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

In short, and as previously explained in my edit summaries, your edits introduce less elegant phrasing and non-standard formatting (i.e., a list); bring in the the concept of “sex,” largely alien to the argument of the decision; and cherrypick surveys to support your personal and contentious notion that 60% of Americans supported ssm before the decision, a notion contradicted by at least one of the surveys you excluded. I am also wary of including public opinion in the lead: it seems rather unusual. Of course, you are free to add whatever additional and mainstream surveys you happen to find to the “Public opinion” section, just do so in reasonable prose. Cheers. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

What about the wording precisely? Right, the non-standard formatting is an issue. Right, the concept of sex is an issue. That 60% of Americans (or more) supported SSM before the decision is a fact that is quite clear from all of the polls conducted in 2015 prior to the ruling ([1][2][3][4]) with the exception of that extreme outlier. The most authoritative of all these polls is the Gallup poll (Gallup being the most reputed polling firm in the United States) which shows 60% support in May 2015, with the others showing 60%, 61%, and 63% in support in the months leading up to the decision.--Justthefacts9 (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

A few points:

1. Wikipedia does not permit what it calls “original research” by editors. You may feel that a particular survey is an “extreme outlier,” that another is “[t]he most authoritative,” and that your “60%” figure is correct and factual; however, you are not a “reliable source” per Wiki policy. Produce a reliable source that looks exhaustively at all surveys conducted on the matter, a source possessing professional expertise in such matters and which happens to come to some scientific conclusion on this point, and we can go about including that source’s findings in the article. Until then, there can be no editorializing by you here. We must stick to what the surveys say, without excluding the ones some of us don’t personally like.
2. Furthermore, the argument of the decision generally does not speak in terms of “a minority sexual orientation,” as you would have it. In fact, the classification most repeatedly envisioned by the decision is that of “same-sex couples,” quite a different matter, one largely unconcerned with the personal characteristics of the individuals making up such couples. These first two points account for the bulk of your substantive edits.
3. As for the minutiae of your rewording otherwise considered, I just don’t feel they constitute improvements. In some cases, your more complex sentence structure both renders meaning a bit less clear and runs counter to the more simple writing styles that encyclopedias tend to prefer, that the article has for some time been endeavoring toward, and to which the legal profession at least claims it would like to turn (in its more recent writing guides, that is). Antinoos69 (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Scientific aggregate from FiveThirtyEight. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

An imprecise aggregate graph of surveys conducted in one particular manner is hardly what I had in mind. Nevertheless, you will note that support around 2015 varies considerably among even this subset of all surveys, and that aggregate support among surveys so conducted rises to roughly 57% (it is impossible to read the graph precisely) in 2015. This graph, such as it is, does not support your contention, nor is it adequate to support any other precise contention. We need expert, scholarly prose making specific and explicit claims. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Here we go. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You’re kidding, right. The prose in that article is even less precise than the graph it is supposed to describe. The nebulous “almost 60 percent,” describing the graph, but without the crucial qualification regarding the subset of all studies being considered, later morphs into the simply false (but, I can only imagine, rounded off) “60 percent.” Please. Find a different source; this one is inadequate to our task. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

FiveThirtyEight is a well-regarded and reputed polling aggregation website. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem isn’t with the website but with the inscrutable nature for our purposes of one particular article that website has produced. I’ll make this simple: I won’t be accepting that article, or any part of it, as a suitable source for the matter we are currently discussing. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

When a source is WP:RS, all content from that source is considered to be appropriate for citing in an article. Also, why are you so persistently rude and curt? There's no need to be like that. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You misinterpret my formal tone. This is me at my warmest and fuzziest. The problem with the disputed article is that, with regard to our particular purpose, its content cannot be determined. The article leaves the precise percentage of approval before the decision a mystery. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, try and be a little more warmer and fuzzier. How's about this instead: an overview paragraph of the manner in which public opinion has changed on the issue from the late 1980s to the mid 2010s, which can then be further summarized in one sentence in the lead. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been thinking that would be preferable. The selection process is always a problem in these survey collections, which can also easily get out of hand. We would have to be careful about avoiding original research. We can’t include our own perceptions of trends. I haven’t been able to find any analyses of all surveys conducted on the subject that are reasonably precise and scientific, though I haven’t exactly fixated on the task. What I have found are cumulative accounts by specific polling organizations. We could say Pew reports the following over time, whereas Gallop reports such and such, etc. Ideally, though, analyses of all surveys, including surveys conducted in different ways, with discussions of the relative merits of these methods, would be best. Usable graphs would be fantastic. But I don’t know if we could find any of that.

I don’t like the idea of including any of this in the lead, though. I don’t think one paragraph merits inclusion, and am unaware of any case articles that include public opinion in the lead. It seems a bit odd for a law article. Perhaps we could develop the text here, under a new section, before replacing the current text.

And I assume you will understand I keep my own counsel regarding my carefully considered tone and diction. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

That federal district court rulings, federal appeals court rulings, and the Supreme Court ruling established gender-neutral marriage is a fact - states eliminated sex/gender requirements/limitations for entering into marriage. That Obergefell is the fourth and final in a series of landmark gay rights rulings by the Supreme Court is also, indisputably, a fact. Your behavior is beginning to verge on a serious violation of WP:OWN. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

First, “gender-neutral” is a ludicrous term that was not used by the Court and that sounds too much like the “genderless” much beloved in conservative circles. Second, Obergefell is certainly not the “final” landmark gay rights case, as there will certainly be more, one possibly coming within the next two months. And I will remind you of WP:GF. Now, do feel free to return to our prior discussion and request any needed clarification. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, that's a fair concern, but it's important to describe the outcome of the ruling(s) properly: there is, after-all, no such separate status as same-sex marriage, but rather marriage without distinction as to sex, sexual orientation, and gender. Obergefell is the fourth and final landmark gay rights case at the present. Perhaps you should assume WP:GF, desist with your condescending tone and rude behavior, and cease violating WP:OWN. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

First, I believe the first sentence of the lead already makes the outcome of the case quite clear, and in the terms used by the Court. Second, you are mistaking “final” for most recent, which is what “final … at the present” essentially means, though neither is necessary here. Third, you are doggedly insisting on mistaking my tone, a point I already corrected you on, so continuing to harp on it is a clear violation of WP:GF. I would have expected you would have figured out how to read me by now. I won’t be changing my fundamental way of communicating, arrived at after many years of education and careful consideration, for anyone. I suggest you either learn to accommodate it or stop dealing with me altogether. Of course, at present, doing the latter would appear to carry with it consequences for the future of your edits. So take a breath, reassess, and try again. Browbeating me on the point will not achieve the end you desire. The world is brimming with astounding variety. Learn to appreciate a bit more of it. Antinoos69 (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The effect in law as a practical matter rather than the outcome of the ruling (the manner in which states implemented the ruling). Obergefell is the fourth out of four landmark gay rights cases and therefore the final. What alternative wording would you suggest for these? --Justthefacts9 (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The entire first paragraph of the lead already makes all the case’s general effects perfectly clear. I find your harping on this point thoroughly perplexing. Your insistence on trying to include mention of the great four, so to speak, seems rather OR and unnecessary. And continuing to ignore the fact that your new version of the “Public opinion” section has no consensus is both unhelpful and quickly becoming disruptive. If you don’t understand what I mean, which I can only assume you don’t (assuming good faith), seek both clarification and prior approval of text (as repeatedly mentioned) before making changes to the section. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Antinoos69:, @Justthefacts9: Gentlemen, I respect your dedication to improving and maintaining this article. Would you each be so kind as to please summarize concisely your particular points of difference? I am no ultimate judge, but only interested in following your discussion, one that is increasingly difficult to parse, with such massive edits and reverts addressing numerous points of contention at once.

Just a few bullet points or sentences, please, so I and other followers of this page might better navigate and evaluate your previous comments and edits with some degree of context. Thank you. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Due to my current schedule, I won’t have time to address such a request adequately until the weekend, at the earliest. I haven’t been making any substantive/content-driven edits; those have strictly been Justthefacts9’s, to which I have been responding. Suffice it to say now that all my concerns revolve around the principle of no original research in Wikipedia. By trying to recast the lead in shifting terms alien to the argument of the decision, often incorrect statements have been introduced largely constituting original research. I find the decision’s own terms suffice. Also, with regard to the “Public opinion” section, improperly supported editorial comments have been introduced constituting original research. Additionally, and most recently, an individual survey has been used as indicative of the current state of affairs generally, raising the specter of selection. The proposed new version is, in fact, so vague as to question the need for the section, at all. The history of the section is complicated. I won’t be able to say more until considerably later, unless it consist of merely responding to what I have repeatedly suggested Justthefacts9 do, present proposed text for detailed comment and approval here before making changes to the article. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolution

Given that the debate here has gone back and forth with there seeming to be no resolution to this issue on the talk page, perhaps a better way would be edit collaboratively? The changes could be introduced and then the specific changes for which there are objections to can be altered as necessary or discarded. If there is a further dispute, then the specific disputed changes can be debated on the talk page. This will allow for implementation of the changes for which there is no objection to, the alteration of those changes which can be improved, and the debate of the changes in dispute. @Paulscrawl: as a neutral third-party perhaps you could oversee this process? --Justthefacts9 (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, @Paulscrawl:@Antinoos69:, here is a sandbox of the proposed text, which can be altered/edited. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox with proposed text. Alter/edit as necessary:

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) (/ˈoʊbərɡəfɛl/ OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The ruling requires all fifty states to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. In November 2014, following a lengthy series of appeals court rulings from the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits that state-level bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, the Sixth Circuit ruled that it was bound by Baker v. Nelson and found such bans to be constitutional. This created a split between circuits and led to an almost inevitable Supreme Court review. Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and requires all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions. This established same-sex marriage throughout the United States and its territories. The Court examined the nature of fundamental rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution, the harm done to individuals by delaying the implementation of such rights while the democratic process plays out, and the evolving understanding of discrimination and inequality that has developed greatly since Baker. Prior to Obergefell, thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam already issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. [The “Public opinion” section would be deleted per current consensus; instead, the public opinion article would be listed in the “See also” section.] References

I think it would be best to get approval for your proposed changes to these sections here before actually making them.

With regard to the lead, it would be helpful if you indicated your proposed changes in bold, providing your rationales as to why you believe these changes would constitute improvements. As is, I just don’t see them as improvements. Introducing terms like “sex” and “sexual orientation” that are largely alien to the argument of the decision is unhelpful and constitutes original research. And I remain wary of including public opinion in the lead, especially given the rather slight version being proposed and the unremarkable nature of that opinion. Public opinion does not appear to be a standard feature of case-article leads. I suppose I just don’t understand your apparently acutely felt need to change the lead.

With regard to the public opinion section, the version you are suggesting is so vague as to question the need for it, at all. What good is mentioning yearly changes to public opinion without mentioning what, specifically, public opinion is for a number of selected years? And by what selection logic is one arbitrary survey being selected as representative of the current state of affairs? Again, we need specific aggregate numbers, or, failing that, more than one organization’s assessment of specific changes over time. If all we’re going to say is that public opinion has been generally improving over time, having already reached majority support by the time of the decision, what would be even remotely newsworthy about that? Why not just delete the section altogether, replacing it with a reference to the public opinion article in the “See also” section? Antinoos69 (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and edit the sandbox version. As for "[i]f all we’re going to say is that public opinion has been generally improving over time, having already reached majority support by the time of the decision, what would be even remotely newsworthy about that?" - Obergefell did not occur in a vacuum. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No case occurs in a vacuum, yet most case articles don’t seem to have public opinion sections. Again, let’s not change the article until we (a) understand each other and (b) reach a consensus as to text here. Please don’t keep ignoring that point. While you’re at it, please stop ignoring the fact I disagree about mentioning public opinion in the lead. You don’t seem to understand what I have in mind regarding the public opinion section. We’ll have to iron that out over time. I’m quitting for the night. Talk with you tomorrow. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify my most recent vision for the public opinion section, the notion we had shifted to after rejecting the idea of a collection of individual surveys. Ideally, we would find sources providing the aggregate support/opposition to ssm across a number of years and across all surveys, specific aggregate percentages for specific years. Multiple such sources would be useful as different sources, looking at different surveys conducted in different ways and applying different methodologies, may well reach different results. This would avoid the problems of survey selection bias, survey selection error, and original research, to name just a few. Failing to find that, which may prove difficult, I suggested finding sources constituting reports from various polling organizations detailing their polling across the years: specific percentages matched to specific years, again. The following are examples of the kind of sources I mean:

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

http://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

We would say things like, “Pew reports [x, y, z percentages of support] for [such and such years],” and, “Gallup reports [x, y, z percentages of support] for [such and such years].” We might construct a line graph illustrating this. Again, I want to avoid original research and editorializing to the full extent possible. I also would like to avoid an avalanche of surveys. Public opinion just isn’t a major issue in a court case article. We should not be giving this matter undue attention or space.

In fact, in a case like this, where public opinion has followed a fairly steady trend, and where majority support had been reached years before the decision, one may question the need for a public opinion section for this article. This is no Roe v. Wade, regarding which support has oscillated significantly over the years. There just doesn’t seem to be much to see here. (So any such section, should we decide to maintain one, should definitely be brief.) A simple link to the public opinion article in the “See also” section really would seem to suffice, certainly with regard to any specifics.

So, before proceeding any further, even here on the talk page, let’s make sure we understand what each of us is and has proposed. Then, once that is ironed out, let’s decide in which manner to proceed (i.e., section or no section, or whatever). Antinoos69 (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason why there is such an imperative to cover public opinion here is that it is always discussed when this topic is in the news. Media outlets and news publications ranging from CNN to Time all felt the need to mention public opinion when reporting on the outcome of this case. Furthermore, there is much more here that is being proposed than alterations to the the Public Opinion section. All of that is available in the Sandbox with the proposed text. Rather than continue this fruitless back and forth discussion, why not edit that? Or alternatively edit the article collaboratively? It would allow this issue to be resolved speedily in an amicable manner. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I believe I may see the cause of the confusion. These case articles aren’t actually general topic articles covering every conceivable aspect of their cases. These articles are essentially legal articles focusing primarily on the legal aspects of their cases. Unless there is something unusual about public opinion on ssm impacting these legal issues, there actually isn’t any imperative to cover it, let alone extensively. Have a look at Lawrence v. Texas, for example. Besides, your argument wouldn’t be about detailing what public opinion actually is, but about detailing how that opinion was theorized by commentators as relevant to the legal proceedings in the case. This is a matter still requiring a great deal of ironing out.

As for text being established here before changing the article, for one, I don’t want you rushing off expending who knows how much time and effort only to end up finding out you had no idea what I was talking about. For another, I want to avoid the constant instability and disruption to the article. So I must insist we get on the same page here, on the talk page, and therein reach consensus on a text, and only then change the article accordingly.

As for your proposed changes to the lead, it should be clear that I reject them. As far as I can see, your only substantive proposed changes involved introducing terms alien to the argument of the decision, introducing a highly unusual reference to public opinion, and mentioning the big four (which seems a bit like original research). I believe we’ve discussed those. If I am meant to see other substantive proposed changes, I’m afraid you’ll have to point them out, as I simply don’t see them, nor do I see any improvements.

I must say, however, that I am unlikely to become a 50–50 writing partner. I have real-life duties to tend to and research to conduct. What I would strongly urge is that we get very clearly on the same page about what we’re going to do. Then you can start drafting here on the talk page, at which point I can react, tweak, and add a few bits of my own. Eventually, we can agree on text, at which point one of us can change the article accordingly. I’m speaking here, to be clear, about changes to the public opinion section, primarily, and to the lead.

So, are you now clear at least on what my idea is for the public opinion section, were we to maintain one? If so, next would be to discuss further whether we should have one, or for how long. Clearly, at this point, we’re in complete disagreement about the lead, so there is certainly no consensus for any changes there. Antinoos69 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Reactions to Suggestions

Antinoos69 and Justthefacts9, I thank you both for trying to answer my request in Suggestions section above for clarification on your specific differences for interested followers of this article.

Antinoos69 helpfully clarified his perceptions (listed below in no particular order and with my own summary):

• WP:OR, further specifying Justthefacts9's perceived injection of "sexual orientation" into Court's "same sex marriage" wording
• WP:UNDUE emphasis and WP:NPOV selection bias on public opinion polls on same sex marriage
• WP:ILIKEIT, or otherwise unjustified stylistic decisions on sentence structure

Justthefacts9 did not directly clarify his perceptions of editorial differences, but did helpfully reply with a Resolution subsection in Suggestions section above with proposed edits to both lead and public opinions sections. Without input, these edits were made unilaterally days later by Justthefacts9 and summarily reverted by Antinoos69 as a breach of promise to achieve WP:CONSENSUS on Talk page, as I read it.

I agree with all of Antinoos69's substantive points, and a few minor proposed sentence deletions (perhaps relocated) by Justthefacts9.

Advise both editors and all observers to carefully compare, section by section, existing article text with Justthefacts9's proposed alterations of both (in Sandbox of Resolution subsection of Suggestions section above):

1. lead section, and
2. public opinion section

I suggest using wikEd-diff-tool. (I have made an enhancement proposal to developer to enable this highly useful tool for Talk pages.)

I further recommend:

• accepting Justthefacts9's proposed deletion of post-decision of U.S. territorial minutiae from lead (but rejecting both unsupported proposed stylistic changes and esp. deleting final proposed added paragraph on sexual orientation)
• accepting Antinoos69's suggestion, and my expansion, to summarize public opinion to ONE paragraph, pre-decision (June 26, 2015), still linking to ever-evolving article that can happily commingle same sex marriage and other sexual orientation themes not strictly related to legal tests at issue with U.S. Supreme Court decision, Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States

(My hope was to help enable current editors of this article to finally, three years after landmark Supreme Court decision, achieve Good Article status for this high- or top-importance Wikipedia article (Law, U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Human Rights, United States and other Wikipedia Projects), a hope held up primarily by article instability due to edit warring, as I understand it. See failed GA report of April 11, 2016, helpfully also linked in Talk header, just above. Surely, after over three years' work come June 26 2018, the last 20% can't be so hard as the first 80%. I was wrong, obviously.) -- Paulscrawl (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It’s interesting that you mention the territories material in the lead, which Justthefacts9 and I have never discussed. It has been making me uneasy for a while. At one point some time ago, I made a halfhearted effort to investigate the then current state of the matter but didn’t discover anything. I’ve been leaving the material in the lead mainly to encourage editors to research what’s going on. I suppose the material could be moved to the compliance section.

I agree we could limit the public opinion section to one well crafted paragraph, possibly with a line graph, but think we should extend coverage a bit beyond the decision. That way, readers can check whether there was any dip in support after the decision, as there was a slight and brief one after Lawrence v. Texas, though the Wikipedia article on that case doesn’t discuss public opinion. However, I continue to question whether any of that is actually necessary. Public opinion reveals a fairly steady trend of increasing over many years, having reached majority support years before the decision. So what would be the point? Wouldn’t listing the public opinion article in the “See also” section suffice? It might even be more to the point instead to discuss the role of public opinion in the case, as theorized by various commentators. That’s actually what was much in the news at the time. I think we have some figuring to do here. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I also thought it odd that wikEd-diff-tool revealed proposed content changes (deletion of specific dates and details of US territorial non-/compliance) not disclosed in prior discussion.

Proposed changes on Talk pages of controversial articles are best accompanied by a full and fair digest - what one might write in an edit summary if it were an article edit. Yet another reason to propose a series of small edits rather than one large edit. Or, another reason for other editors to take a minute and check out proposal with the wikEd-diff-tool.

Prefer relocation of territories details to compliance section; really not needed in lead. I saw nothing new in those articles, but a few {{as of}} templates would better serve as unobtrusive prods for further research.

A simple See also link to Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States would certainly suffice. Fits structure of other articles of this type. It would elegantly solve many problems at once: most clearly, the strict irrelevance of public opinion (not public law) on this Supreme Court decision, unless stated otherwise by a few reliable sources. (Granted, any effect of the latter on the former remains a possibility for this article, but trivial correlation rather than significant causation is all that may be verifiable.) Also gained: the welcome loss of editorial controversies over imperfect, ever changing summary, selection bias, and unhelpful duplication. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NOTICE: Given current talk-page consensus and state of discussion, I will implement the changes currently indicated in the sandbox of the previous section and its corresponding edit summaries on Monday, June 4. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, well done, Antinoos69 and handled quite nicely here, with lucid justification, consensus seeking, patient notice of intent, and fair edit that stuck to stated intent. If this can be the model for future refinements, I have high hopes for this article getting to GA status in our lifetimes. What's next? (in new section, at your convenience) -- Paulscrawl (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead

@Antinoos69: "The Court examined the nature of fundamental rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution, the harm done to individuals by delaying the implementation of such rights while the democratic process plays out, and the evolving understanding of discrimination and inequality that has developed greatly since Baker" tramples on WP:NPOV and, particularly, WP:IMPARTIAL, siding with one side of the debate (also considering the 5–4 decision split among the judges). If this is supposed to cite the majority's opinion, this should be reworded, with quotation marks. Since there was a disagreement about its removal, taking it here. Brandmeister^talk 07:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You’re only repeating yourself. I fail to see any problems with impartiality or neutrality in the disputed text. That text is merely describing what the majority opinion, the primary subject of the article, does, largely using the opinion’s own terms. Where’s the problem? The text is merely summarizing aspects of the majority-opinion section, so no ciatations would generally be necessary. However, in reviewing the text, I did notice that the third element is not explicitly discussed in the majority-opinion section, so I added a citation for it. That should settle this matter. If you think otherwise, you’ll have to very extensively and explicitly detail exactly what text is impartial in exactly what way. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

...the nature of fundamental rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution, the harm done to individuals by delaying the implementation of such rights [...], and the evolving understanding of discrimination is not a neutral and impartial tone appropriate for Wikipedia. As I wrote above, this is siding with one side of the debate, i.e. it looks as if Wikipedia endorses the majority opinion. If this is the verbatim wording of the majority opinion, it should be put in quotation marks at least and described as the court's opinion. Per WP:IMPARTIAL, Wikipedia describes disputes, but does not engage in them. And: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view". In other words, we shouldn't convey the court's opinion in Wikipedia's own voice. Brandmeister^talk 08:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m afraid you’re still only repeating yourself. As long as that remains your tactic, I don’t see much point in discussing this further, except to point out there is as yet no consensus for your edit. What is obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to others.

I’ll just add this. This is not an article about the debate surrounding marriage equality or same-sex marriage. This is an article about the Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges. Wikipedia’s primary task is to describe the majority decision, providing some context and background, as it generally is in all these case articles. Impartiality here requires describing that decision without misrepresentation, which includes not improperly altering its terms and argument. As far as I can see, the disputed sentence does that. You seem to be mistaking that sentence’s opening, “The Court examined,” which doesn’t even provide what the Court concluded, for something like, “The Court rightly recognized and declared the universal Truth that … .” There can be no question that the Court did examine the three things the sentence claims it did—and, again, without providing the Court’s conclusions. I would suggest your personal biases and views are affecting your reading comprehension here. It seems clear from your comments and your profile page that your real beef is with the decision itself, not how it is being described. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)