Talk:Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

Confusing article
Normally, I come to Wikipedia to get an explanation that I can understand. This article is so filled with legalese that I got more and more confused as I read on.

"Supreme Court unanimously agrees that Catholic adoption agency can ban LGBTQ parents" breaks down this ruling very nicely.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:3997:8A54:BB96:DB7A (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem is, the case was determined on very narrow grounds, so explaining it is not as simple as that article reads. --M asem (t) 23:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect description of majority opinion
The article currently misrepresents the majority opinion. The opinion turned on section 3.21 of the city’s standard foster care contract. While stipulating that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited, section 3.21 also allows for exceptions at the sole discretion of the commissioner. The Court ruled that such an exception prevents the contract’s prohibition of discrimination from being of general and neutral application as required by established law. See majority opinion, pp. 7–10, and this sober assessment of the decision. (Presumably, the omission of that provision would have rendered the non-discrimination clause legit.) Unfortunately, the article hasn’t a word about any of this. That’s a problem. Antinoos69 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Because this is a rather narrow ruling, I expect it will take a bit of time for a more thorough analysis of the decision and its impact to come out, so getting all the details from the decision in there now is not likely to happen. But I did add that Advocate source to include Roberts' statement for that point. --M asem (t) 03:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s not about “getting all the details … in there.” It’s about presenting the primary and core ruling of the majority decision as the primary and core ruling of the majority decision. Most of what is currently in the article describing the majority decision is either peripheral or beside the point. I’m afraid much of the journalism out there now simply has it wrong. This becomes immediately obvious to anyone who reads the decision. I think we should be basing ourselves directly on the decision, given the circumstances. In fact, I always prefer that opinion sections be based directly on the text of the decision itself. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We as WP editors can't use the decision directly to identify the key parts, outside of the clearly identifible elements; that would be original research. While some of us may be legal scholars or experts, we can't use that in our writings to decide what is the key parts. That might lead to misinterpretation or giving undue focus to part of a decision. WP works on verifability, not truth, so we have to go with what is published by third-party reliable sources, and if they (a day out from the ruling) are missing what may be a key part of the ruling, then we have to omit that too. But in time, particularly as a narrow ruling, I would expect more law-focused sources would provide more careful review and scrutiny of the ruling and provide better key details. --M asem (t) 13:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are U. S. Supreme Court articles on Wikipedia in which the decision sections are written entirely or primarily on the basis of the text of the decision. I see it as parallel to how plot sections in film articles are, as a standard practice, written on the basis of editors’ viewing of the respective films. The simple fact of the matter is that the Court here refused to pursue all but one of the points the original plaintiffs put forward, section 3.21 of the foster care contract. Nothing else is part of the ruling. And I did provide a source supporting the general contours of my reading, not just a particular point or two.


 * We may have to prepare to detail that there are disagreements among the currently available secondary sources as to what the decision actually says. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We can use primary sources but that required no interpretation of the source - it needs to be completely obvious to anyone that reads it that the summary is what the work is about. This is acceptable for fictional works, but not for most court cases as that requires understanding of the underlying law, beyond what a layperson would have. Articles solely sourced to court decisions are not acceptable and should be improved with third party sourcing. --M asem (t) 15:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Here’s a second source generally agreeing with the first on these matters, and a third. As there is disagreement among the currently available secondary sources, by Wiki policy, we shall have to present that disagreement. Is that the route you wish to pursue? Rather than allowing editors to choose the sources that clearly align with the decision? If so, let me know and I’ll get to it; otherwise, let’s just follow the common sense reading of the decision. It will have to be one or the other. We certainly can’t allow the current situation of presenting only that faction among the secondary sources that gets it wrong. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We can talk about an analysis of the decision - using legal expert sources that explain nuances that are not being captured by mainstream. We can also talk about reactions to the decision - those either supporting or critical of it (and as I read, there's different types of criticisms at play here - those pro-LGBT that are disappointed, as well as pro-religious groups also disappointed without a broader ruling). We just can't go in more depth on the ruling without third-party pointers for it. --M asem (t) 15:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You'll see I've been able to find a few sources that actually get to the issue at hand about the anti-discrimination exception clause being the key point Roberts focused on, so I've added that. I've also now expanded on reaction sections (both legal importance perspectives as well as from the religious side and LGBTQ side), so that's covering all these points. I'm sure in time more can be added, but that's all from 3rd party sourcing. --M asem (t) 17:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I rearranged the material describing the majority opinion to better reflect the overall picture presented by the secondary sources cited. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)