File talk:Method of same-sex marriage legalization.svg

"Confusing"
If you find this map "too confusing" [*ahem Prcc27 ahem*] please explain here: 1) why it is confusing 2) options to reduce the confusion 3) which options you prefer. And if you want: 4) whether or not you think that all possible maps depicting the method of legalization of SSM in the USA must be confusing. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

California
California's ruling did set a precedent. Prcc27 (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * California State officials defended Prop 8 in federal district court and lost. They did not appeal. Dennis Hollingsworth of ProtectMarriage.com filed to intervene in the case, which was then appealed to and argued in federal circuit court, where defendants again lost. Defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court, which found that Hollingsworth never had standing to appeal from district to circuit court in the first place, voiding all proceedings involving Hollingsworth. Since all proceedings at the circuit level were voided, there was no circuit court precent. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a source saying that Idaho and Nevada established circuit precedent (hence CA did not) http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/1007/Ninth-Circuit-ruling-adds-five-more-states-where-gay-marriage-will-be-legal "A federal appeals court in San Francisco on Tuesday struck down bans on same-sex marriages in Idaho and Nevada, thus establishing a legal precedent that will likely pave the way for same-sex marriages throughout the entire nine-state judicial circuit." 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, California's ruling was that once a state gives marriage rights to same-sex couples, they can't take it away and thus didn't affect any of the states with same-sex marriage bans. California passed a gender neutral marriage law that goes into effect on January 1, 2015, so I'm going to revert you. Prcc27 (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As gay marriage is already legal in CA, this law does not legalize it. Striping, to say nothing of triple striping, has been severely criticised on other maps. As this triple stripe adds literally nothing, I'm removing it, and replacing it with a footnote. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Legalize" is often defined something like "to make permissible by law." This definition is ambiguous as to whether the thing was legal before it was legalized. Google clarifies, defining the word: "make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law." I have not found a single source that clarifies it oppositely to Google, i.e. "make (something that was previously legal) permissible by law." If you can find such a definition, I'll stop immediately reverting your triple-striping. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

ONLY final
I strongly recommend this map ONLY depicting the one event that indefinitely legalized SSM in each state. This would minimize striping, make the map more legible, and would take away very little. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, of the striped states this would only affect CA (and possibly CO?), so not that big of a deal. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

10th circuit
Please note the color categories are when SSM was ordered, not when the ban was struck down. This happened on October 6th for both UT and OK. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Tenth_Circuit 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The ban being struck down legalized same-sex marriage and the order went into effect on October 6th. Prcc27 (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There was no circuit precedent when OK was struck down. The proceedings in UT were stayed i.e. could not be used as precedent, when OK was struck down. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have another source saying that UT and OK together established precedent: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/1023/Why-Kansas-is-set-to-become-focus-of-same-sex-marriage-fight-video "Although the 10th Circuit did not specifically address the Kansas high court ruling, its decisions invalidating same-sex marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma establish relevant legal precedents that apply to Kansas." Note that both "decisions" and "establish" are plural words. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWN, reverts, and bad faith
On November 5th GMT, Prcc27 and I started a revert war. The last edit of the day was mine, and it read "I made the map and you didn't give a crap about it a few weeks ago." The next day, Prcc27 reverted to their* version and responded, "Just because you made the map doesn't mean you can revert me. Please see WP:OWN." After following WP:OWN and reading various other WPs, I was also made aware that I made a third revert just outside the 24 hour window of the 3RR rule.

I have no intention of "owning" this map. I have every intention that it be easily understandable, accessible, and accurate. I of course view my own edits as adhering to these goals more so than the edits of Prcc27. That goes without saying, and arguing the individual points is best left to the sections above. The point of this section is to explain my "I made the map" comment. Prcc27 actively campaigned to remove links to this map from similar maps at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Date_of_same-sex_marriage_legalization.svg as can be seen by visiting the article histories of these two pages. Furthermore, Prcc27 has continually refused to address the factual concerns I have raised regarding his edits of this map. I infer that Prcc27 does not have the present map's best interests at heart. "I made the map" means that I actually care about this map, and in the event of no consensus, the editor who 1) cared enough to make the map in the first place 2) cared enough to put links to it elsewhere and 3) cares enough to be factually rigorous by doing the hard work of actually finding sources is the editor who gets to settle the issues arising from no consensus.

I hereby declare that until and unless Prcc27 addresses the factual concerns above, I will conclude that they are acting in bad faith, and I will revert their edits on this page as often as necessary, and I will continue to document the situation in the unfortunate event that admin intervention is necessary.

*Prcc27 has expressed support for the usage of "they" as a gender neutral singular pronoun, and their gender is not evident from their userpage.

0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I would first like to point out that you are in violation of WP:Assume good faith. You're right about me not caring about this map though; but since this map can be accessed from more important maps, I do think it should be accurate. Also, you referred to my edits as "his edits" but I'm not offended because I'm biologically male. Prcc27 (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I was deliberately alluding to WP:assume good faith, specifically this sentence: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary." There is evidence to the contrary. Also, I'm not sure where I said "his version" but that's beside the point completely. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A false assumption/accusation does not qualify as evidence. Prcc27 (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You yourself agreed, "You're right about me not caring about this map though." 0nlyth3truth (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean I was acting in bad faith though... The only reason why I even bother to make edits to this map is because it is displayed on an important map that is used throughout Wikipedia. I don't have to care about this map to improve it. Prcc27 (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You do have to care at least a smidgen to know what qualifies as improvement. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Subsequent Statutes
CA is not the only state to subsequently pass a gender neutral law, so I'm reverting to the "some states" language. If you care so much about including CA, I'll let you do the work of figuring out which state or states these are. I don't think the information should be included at all, so I think "some states" is the next best thing to that. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh and in the likely case that you find this information hard to find, I'll note that that's because the vast majority of people find this information irrelevant. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't provide a source, I will revert you. Prcc27 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, my way is inclusive of both CA being the only state and CA not being the only state; so no, I won't permit that. My entire point is that is wholly difficult to find this irrelevant information, so even if we do include all the states we find, we're likely to miss some states (and we will continue missing states in decades to come if we want to list these states and this file languishes). 0nlyth3truth (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't care whether or not you find the other states, the language is staying as it is, since it is already optimal given the intentions of this map. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Reliable Sources no it is not; you have to provide a reliable source that there are other states with gender neutral marriage statutes. If you can't do that, your footnote doesn't get to stay. Btw, here's a source for California. Quit saying stuff like "I won't permit that"; you don't own this map!!! Prcc27 (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Connecticut_Substitute_Senate_Bill_899_(2009) So at least CT. That took me a rather long time to find, and since I'm unwilling to perform the same analysis on the other umpteen states that had their laws changed by the courts, and since you obviously aren't willing to do so either, I'm reverting to the "some states" language. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your source was right here^, good man! WP:Wikisource "It can be used by Wikipedians to provide ... sources for citations." 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also the legend needs to be changed to past tense for CA. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the edit summary: If you wish to only have CA and CT, you need a reliable source saying they are the only ones. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we get a third opinion to leave the language at "some states"? 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of knowing which states that were ordered by courts to allow SSM subsequently passed SSM statutes (ignorance which certainly obtains here since there is conclusive proof of Prcc27's lack of said knowledge in his failure to find at least CT, and my failure to find whether MA and other states have passed SSM statutes), "some states" is more appropriate than a list of the states we have found as per exceptions that prove the rule, which would imply that only these are the states that have done so. Further, the passing of these statutes does not constitute "legalization," as explained above, so this information is not very important to begin with for this map. In conclusion, all trains of thought conclude that "some states" is the most appropriate language for the legend. Finally, this language would never need to be updated in the event a new state passes a statute months, years, or even decades after ordered by a court to recognize SSM. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, note that a similar map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg does not have a clause in the legend for statutes that were passed after legalization by a court. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By tagging Dralwik on this talk page you are violating WP:Votestacking. Exception that proves the rule is a Wikipedia article and is not a Wikipedia policy like WP:Reliable Sources which you continue to break by reverting me. I think we might need an Admin to step in because so far you have made edits that go against WP:OWN & WP:Reliable Sources and you violated WP:Votestacking. If you don't revert your last edit (I would myself but I don't want to start an edit war) then I definitely will contact an admin. Prcc27 (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Also, note that a similar map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg does not have a clause in the legend for statutes that were passed after legalization by a court." That map doesn't deal with how sodomy became legal, it deals with when sodomy bans were struck down. Prcc27 (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I tagged Dralwik because that individual is the only one I know who has shown any interest in this map other than you and myself by "thanking" my addition of the map to the main SSM map. For this to qualify as votestacking, you have to specifically know whether I knew which way Dralwik would vote, and since I don't, this isn't votestacking.
 * I can trivially cite the citations in Exception that proves the rule: http://alt-usage-english.org/exception_proves.html and http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/exception-that-proves-the-rule.html. So though your objection is founded, it is substantively vacuous, and easily remedied. See below
 * "That map doesn't deal with how sodomy became legal, it deals with when sodomy bans were struck down." It specifically does by addressing when laws were repealed as it says right in the legend: "Laws repealed or struck down."
 * I cannot revert to your version as the situation with CT would make a lone CA highly misleading. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, can you please explain why you edited my comment to remove the link to the "Exceptions" page as can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk%3AMethod_of_same-sex_marriage_legalization.svg&diff=633300759&oldid=633272597 If you can't come up with anything satisfactory, I'll take it as further evidence of bad faith. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I see what you mean by Exception that proves the rule not being Wikipedia policy, as I misunderstood you in my previous reply. Though it is relevant whether or not the information in Exception that proves the rule bears on this case. At any rate WP:Talk page guidelines does bear on you editing my comment. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was trying to copy your comment but I must have cut it instead. A Law being repealed or struck down ≠ legalizing. You have not provided a source for Connecticut; if you do find one however, then we can just add a footnote explaining Connecticut as well. Footnotes are meant to explain things not be generic. Prcc27 (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "You have not provided a source for Connecticut" ... Have you even bothered reading my comments on this talk page? 0nlyth3truth (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, a law being repealed is obviously a form of legalization. (Maybe you're thinking about the distinction between decriminalization and legalization; that distinction does not bear on this situation.) 0nlyth3truth (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

We have 6 options with this issue:

1. Not include a footnote at all. Downsides: very minor; subsequent statutes do not directly bear on legalization. Note the precedent at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States where the map does not include which states subsequently passed laws ratifying the SCOTUS decision, information which can be found in the table on the same page [Virginia is one such state].

2. Include a "some states" footnote. Downsides: minor; it is vague and generic.

3. Include a footnote with CA and CT. Downsides: major; this implies other states with subsequent court orders have not passed statutes.

4. Include a footnote with CA and CT and "possibly other states." Downsides: major; arbitrarily treats CA and CT differently from other states.

5. Include a footnote with CA and CT and "research was not done for other states." Downsides: very major; highly distasteful in a forum like Wikipedia.

6. Include an exhaustive footnote after sources have been found for all states with court orders stating whether or not they have subsequently passed statutes at this time. Downsides: major; this is a lot of work and is error-prone.

0nlyth3truth (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "this implies other states with subsequent court orders have not passed statutes." Because they haven't! Most states that had their bans struck down did not pass a gender neutral marriage law. Since there are no reliable sources that say other states have passed such laws.. the burden of proof is on you proving that other states did in fact pass such laws. You still haven't provided a reliable source for CT. And no, a wikisource does not qualify as reliable. I'm going to go with option 3 but hold off on CT until you provide a reliable source. Prcc27 (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not including this information at all is the best option. "Because they haven't!" You wouldn't know, just like you didn't know about CT. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And a remark for the third reviewer who should be showing up anytime: Prcc27 has deliberately chosen to not pursue finding a source for CT, when it would be extraordinarily easy to do, to say nothing of the fact that WP:Wikisource explicitly says that it provides "Reliable sources for citations to properly reference an article on Wikipedia." 0nlyth3truth (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, there's no good reason to put the asterisk on the dark green color. There's no good reason to put it on any, really, which is just another reason this information doesn't belong. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, Prcc27 lives in California and may possibly be biased. As can additionally be seen from the "California" section above, it may be the case that Prcc27 is trying to inflate the importance of CA, especially since he made absolutely no effort to follow the CT lead. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * California's source was easier to find since I was already aware that we passed a gender neutral marriage law. Plus, I already read the article about the situation in CA before this map was even created so I was able to the link to that article I already read. I have never seen any reliable sources on CT's situation. I don't know anything about CT's statute (if there even is one) but it's definitely harder to find a source for, especially since CA's statute was passed just recently. I am not biased, I just can't find a reliable sources for CT and it seems that neither can you. All you have to do is provide a reliable source for Connecticut and then we can add a footnote, simple as that. Prcc27 (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And if this information is included, the district court ruling in WV should be as well, as this constitutes after-the-fact SSM news just like the CA case. Let me again reiterate that I think including this information opens up a wholly unnecessary can of worms. This map is about legalization, not after-the-fact news. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Updating legend
I don't like your proposal for two reasons: 1) You discard a lot the information re:federal court that existed in the previous map; 2) the color scheme is rather jarring, from an aesthetic viewpoint, and also doesn't preserve any of the existing color-meaning bindings from other maps. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)