This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United States v. Windsor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving United States v. Windsor was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 28 June 2013. |
On 2 March 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved to Windsor v. United States. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 26, 2019 and June 26, 2023. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RE: "In doing so, they argued that Windsor presents a better vehicle than Gill v. Office of Personnel Management or Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management for determining whether section 3 violates the constitution"
The cert petition this sentence refers to makes no mention of those 2 cases. In the MetroWeekly article that discusses it, Windsor's ACLU attorney says "With Edie's case and the two others, the high court has before it..." I don't think there's a claim Windsor is a "better vehicle". Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 23:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Saying this is an excellent vehicle is quite different from "better". I see no claim that this case is in any way more worthy of the court's attention than the others cases that have been the subject of cert petitions. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 19:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Already changed, "one could interpret" isn't what we do, and that interpretation would ignore all the financial claims of the Gill plaintiffs. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
United States v. Windsor → Windsor v. United States – legal cases take the form "plaintiff v. defendant"; Windsor is plaintiff. 71.167.157.25 ( talk) 09:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)-- 71.167.157.25 ( talk) 09:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The label of the Court of Appelas for the Second Circuit at right side of article must be changed to the label of the US Supreme Court. 217.76.1.22 ( talk) 06:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Thats right, in Hollingsworth it was changed already. 217.76.1.22 ( talk) 13:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
A user recently changed every instance of Fourteenth Amendment to Fifth Amendment. However, the Windsor case is not mentioned in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution article or the Due Process Clause article, so I was wondering how the Fifth Amendment applies here. Regardless, if the edits are accurate, then this needs to be stated in the article. 216.80.140.25 ( talk) 04:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The distinction is obvious. The Fifth Amendment is a restriction on the Federal government. The Fourtheenth Amendment is a restriction on the states. Since the tax exemption at issue is an exemption from Federal tax, clearly the Fifth Amendment would be the applicable one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Thorgaard ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Fun fact: the decision in United States v. Windsor was issued on the ten-year anniversary of the decision in Lawrence v. Texas. This is probably not sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in the article, but a fun fact for the talk page nonetheless! -- MZMcBride ( talk) 15:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I've read a great many responses from elected officials lately, besides the president. Would a list of those be relevant here? -- T smitts ( talk) 15:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I find that the discussion of the opinion gives undue weight to Scalia's dissenting opinion. There's about four or five times as much discussion of why a few of the dissenting judges – only two justices agreed with the second portion of Scalia's dissent, and Alito didn't sign it at all – think the world is coming to an end. There's no discussion of the other dissents. Surely the proposition accepted by the court deserves approximately as much discussion as the argument that was rejected, arguably overwhelmingly? AgnosticAphid talk 18:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I would agree that is appropriate - however why would it be correct to trim down a section that is factual and informative just because the other section(s) wont be expanded ? 66.108.85.45 ( talk) 05:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreeing with UNDUE, I've trimmed substantially the excerpts that were not cited by secondary sources. HectorMoffet ( talk) 23:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
i completely disagee. The duty of wikipedia is to inform in a neutral, unbiased way. The dissenting opinion summarized , in its prior form, more than 20 pages of good content into less than 1 on the site. With the media reporting this case as it is, no one would blame a neutral person to not know 1) precedents set by this opinion and 2) the lack of jurisdiction that the dissenting justices argued that drove their decision. The way i see it, as wikipedia is first and foremost a platform to neutrally inform the reader of the whats and the why's, whether the dissenter section is longer or not is irrelevant from a POV point of view. If you feel the sections should be of equal length, thats fine, then cite and explain the majority opinion or otherwise explain why you would trim the opposite section. As of now i've read the entire edit, and it seems strange someone would edit out those pages while still leaving in the original "witch hunt" section which from a legal standpoint is largely irrelevant.
Just because the public is uninformed of what the justices actually ruled on, it doesnt mean they should be uninformed on equal weight on both the majority and minority rulings. As it was written before the edits, the section under dissent was right between joke and shameful wiki article 66.108.85.45 ( talk) 05:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Bottom line, if you are not willing to contribute, you shouldn't blame the other side to doing so in a way that is informative and also adds to the quality of the content.
66.108.85.45 ( talk) 05:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
HectorMoffet I appreciate you reaching out to discuss the edits. I think its two separate concerns you are referring to when you say "For me, the biggest problem your work presented was that it wasn't cited to a reliable secondary source If we have 30 pages to summarize, which quotes should we use? " I understand where you are coming from now. Quite frankly, i dont think i have read an actual detailed opinion on the media that directly addresses the points written about in the dissenting section. It may be difficult to source precisely because it seems like a professional (ie paid) source. Most of the media articles summarize without even quoting the opinion of the justices themselves. I'll see what i can find and add accordingly, but lets' be realistic here and agree that this sort of content wont be coming from CNN, FOX or salon.com, which (unless its a think-tank source) will then open the door on whether the source is reputable enough.
In my opinion, precisely because the public is so underinformed on the issues cited by the minority judges (let alone on the actual written content of the opinion itself) that the wiki should read as a scholarly article. And we know scholarly articles (generally) dedicate more time more on researching the facts from the source itself, rather than discussing the commentary of the research by 3rd parties (although it clearly is desirable). Im thinking, that as most articles written on this topic are comprised of commentary without citing what the judges themselves actually wrote, wouldn't it be more wiki-like to add a section that is less opinion, and more fact, directly from the source? Its more than refreshing, its adding value, IMO 66.108.85.45 ( talk) 11:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
It seems that editors are giving undue weight to Scalia's dissent by drawing several quotes from it, and nothing at all from the other two. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know where the citation to the United States Reports (570 U.S. 12) in this article comes from? That citation doesn't work when entered into either Westlaw or Lexis. The latest volume of the U.S. Reports available on the Supreme Court's own website [2] is volume 554. A search on Google Scholar finds no court decision using that cite, only a few articles. PedanticallySpeaking ( talk) 15:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Now that virtually all federal court cases have either ruled on state same-sex marriage bans or are officially on hold (except Guam), we need to address this section. There has been 20 federal rulings invalidating same-sex marriage bans (that were not bound by circuit precedent) and it is of little debate by all political ideologies, that Windsor was key to making these rulings happen the way they did. See Scalia's dissent. As of now this section is a bit too sloppy and needs a clean up. The cases mentioned here are arbitrary and none truly hold much more value than others. Similar to what was done in the section of Loving v. Virginia addressing precedent for same-sex marriage, that type of cleanup is needed here. Important to state how it has made Baker v. Nelson lose its precedent value by most of the federal judges, and good for that to be at the beginning. But the rest needs to be cleaned up. Suggestions on how to structure this? Gabe ( talk) 01:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I notice that since the case of Obergefell v. Hodges was decided on June 26, 2015, several editors have tried to change the date for the Windsor case to "2015". This might be because these people are confusing the two cases, both of which were decided on "June 26" and both of which involved somewhat similar social issues (although not the same legal issues, obviously).
Therefore, please take note:
United States v. Windsor was decided on June 26, 2013 -- NOT June 26, 2015.
Obergefell v. Hodges was decided on June 26, 2015.
Don't confuse the two. Famspear ( talk) 02:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States v. Windsor. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States v. Windsor. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
The page
skim milk marriage, which redirects here, has been listed for deletion at
Redirects for discussion. You may read and discuss the nomination at that page's
entry. Thank-you,
Edward-Woodrow (
talk)
17:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United States v. Windsor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving United States v. Windsor was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 28 June 2013. |
On 2 March 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved to Windsor v. United States. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 26, 2019 and June 26, 2023. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RE: "In doing so, they argued that Windsor presents a better vehicle than Gill v. Office of Personnel Management or Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management for determining whether section 3 violates the constitution"
The cert petition this sentence refers to makes no mention of those 2 cases. In the MetroWeekly article that discusses it, Windsor's ACLU attorney says "With Edie's case and the two others, the high court has before it..." I don't think there's a claim Windsor is a "better vehicle". Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 23:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Saying this is an excellent vehicle is quite different from "better". I see no claim that this case is in any way more worthy of the court's attention than the others cases that have been the subject of cert petitions. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 19:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Already changed, "one could interpret" isn't what we do, and that interpretation would ignore all the financial claims of the Gill plaintiffs. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
United States v. Windsor → Windsor v. United States – legal cases take the form "plaintiff v. defendant"; Windsor is plaintiff. 71.167.157.25 ( talk) 09:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)-- 71.167.157.25 ( talk) 09:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The label of the Court of Appelas for the Second Circuit at right side of article must be changed to the label of the US Supreme Court. 217.76.1.22 ( talk) 06:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Thats right, in Hollingsworth it was changed already. 217.76.1.22 ( talk) 13:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
A user recently changed every instance of Fourteenth Amendment to Fifth Amendment. However, the Windsor case is not mentioned in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution article or the Due Process Clause article, so I was wondering how the Fifth Amendment applies here. Regardless, if the edits are accurate, then this needs to be stated in the article. 216.80.140.25 ( talk) 04:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The distinction is obvious. The Fifth Amendment is a restriction on the Federal government. The Fourtheenth Amendment is a restriction on the states. Since the tax exemption at issue is an exemption from Federal tax, clearly the Fifth Amendment would be the applicable one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Thorgaard ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Fun fact: the decision in United States v. Windsor was issued on the ten-year anniversary of the decision in Lawrence v. Texas. This is probably not sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in the article, but a fun fact for the talk page nonetheless! -- MZMcBride ( talk) 15:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I've read a great many responses from elected officials lately, besides the president. Would a list of those be relevant here? -- T smitts ( talk) 15:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I find that the discussion of the opinion gives undue weight to Scalia's dissenting opinion. There's about four or five times as much discussion of why a few of the dissenting judges – only two justices agreed with the second portion of Scalia's dissent, and Alito didn't sign it at all – think the world is coming to an end. There's no discussion of the other dissents. Surely the proposition accepted by the court deserves approximately as much discussion as the argument that was rejected, arguably overwhelmingly? AgnosticAphid talk 18:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I would agree that is appropriate - however why would it be correct to trim down a section that is factual and informative just because the other section(s) wont be expanded ? 66.108.85.45 ( talk) 05:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreeing with UNDUE, I've trimmed substantially the excerpts that were not cited by secondary sources. HectorMoffet ( talk) 23:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
i completely disagee. The duty of wikipedia is to inform in a neutral, unbiased way. The dissenting opinion summarized , in its prior form, more than 20 pages of good content into less than 1 on the site. With the media reporting this case as it is, no one would blame a neutral person to not know 1) precedents set by this opinion and 2) the lack of jurisdiction that the dissenting justices argued that drove their decision. The way i see it, as wikipedia is first and foremost a platform to neutrally inform the reader of the whats and the why's, whether the dissenter section is longer or not is irrelevant from a POV point of view. If you feel the sections should be of equal length, thats fine, then cite and explain the majority opinion or otherwise explain why you would trim the opposite section. As of now i've read the entire edit, and it seems strange someone would edit out those pages while still leaving in the original "witch hunt" section which from a legal standpoint is largely irrelevant.
Just because the public is uninformed of what the justices actually ruled on, it doesnt mean they should be uninformed on equal weight on both the majority and minority rulings. As it was written before the edits, the section under dissent was right between joke and shameful wiki article 66.108.85.45 ( talk) 05:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Bottom line, if you are not willing to contribute, you shouldn't blame the other side to doing so in a way that is informative and also adds to the quality of the content.
66.108.85.45 ( talk) 05:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
HectorMoffet I appreciate you reaching out to discuss the edits. I think its two separate concerns you are referring to when you say "For me, the biggest problem your work presented was that it wasn't cited to a reliable secondary source If we have 30 pages to summarize, which quotes should we use? " I understand where you are coming from now. Quite frankly, i dont think i have read an actual detailed opinion on the media that directly addresses the points written about in the dissenting section. It may be difficult to source precisely because it seems like a professional (ie paid) source. Most of the media articles summarize without even quoting the opinion of the justices themselves. I'll see what i can find and add accordingly, but lets' be realistic here and agree that this sort of content wont be coming from CNN, FOX or salon.com, which (unless its a think-tank source) will then open the door on whether the source is reputable enough.
In my opinion, precisely because the public is so underinformed on the issues cited by the minority judges (let alone on the actual written content of the opinion itself) that the wiki should read as a scholarly article. And we know scholarly articles (generally) dedicate more time more on researching the facts from the source itself, rather than discussing the commentary of the research by 3rd parties (although it clearly is desirable). Im thinking, that as most articles written on this topic are comprised of commentary without citing what the judges themselves actually wrote, wouldn't it be more wiki-like to add a section that is less opinion, and more fact, directly from the source? Its more than refreshing, its adding value, IMO 66.108.85.45 ( talk) 11:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
It seems that editors are giving undue weight to Scalia's dissent by drawing several quotes from it, and nothing at all from the other two. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know where the citation to the United States Reports (570 U.S. 12) in this article comes from? That citation doesn't work when entered into either Westlaw or Lexis. The latest volume of the U.S. Reports available on the Supreme Court's own website [2] is volume 554. A search on Google Scholar finds no court decision using that cite, only a few articles. PedanticallySpeaking ( talk) 15:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Now that virtually all federal court cases have either ruled on state same-sex marriage bans or are officially on hold (except Guam), we need to address this section. There has been 20 federal rulings invalidating same-sex marriage bans (that were not bound by circuit precedent) and it is of little debate by all political ideologies, that Windsor was key to making these rulings happen the way they did. See Scalia's dissent. As of now this section is a bit too sloppy and needs a clean up. The cases mentioned here are arbitrary and none truly hold much more value than others. Similar to what was done in the section of Loving v. Virginia addressing precedent for same-sex marriage, that type of cleanup is needed here. Important to state how it has made Baker v. Nelson lose its precedent value by most of the federal judges, and good for that to be at the beginning. But the rest needs to be cleaned up. Suggestions on how to structure this? Gabe ( talk) 01:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I notice that since the case of Obergefell v. Hodges was decided on June 26, 2015, several editors have tried to change the date for the Windsor case to "2015". This might be because these people are confusing the two cases, both of which were decided on "June 26" and both of which involved somewhat similar social issues (although not the same legal issues, obviously).
Therefore, please take note:
United States v. Windsor was decided on June 26, 2013 -- NOT June 26, 2015.
Obergefell v. Hodges was decided on June 26, 2015.
Don't confuse the two. Famspear ( talk) 02:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States v. Windsor. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States v. Windsor. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
The page
skim milk marriage, which redirects here, has been listed for deletion at
Redirects for discussion. You may read and discuss the nomination at that page's
entry. Thank-you,
Edward-Woodrow (
talk)
17:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)