Talk:Obergefell v. Hodges/Archive 2

Tense
The case is over, it is a was. Checking articles on various completed Supreme Court cases here, the strong majority are named in the first sentence in the past tense. For example, of the dozen cases listed at Landmark Cases: 12 Historic Supreme Court Decisions, ten are in the past tense in the opening sentence, and one of the remaining two has an opening sentence not about the case, but about the decision. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And it should be noted that when it was switched previously from was to is, the reasoning cited the article on Loving v. Virginia, in which the opening sentence is again about the decision rather than about the case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I just tried to make this article internally consistent. Most of it was in past tense, except for a few sentences which sounded odd. Jonathunder (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but your edits were undone by another user. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The context in some of those cases, involving temporal sequence of events, rendered the past tense preferable, and "case" and "decision" are often used interchangeably. So, in addition to the couple from your list, one must consider, for example, Romer v. Evans, United States v. Windsor, Bowers v. Hardwick, Lawrence v. Texas, Gideon v. Wainwright, Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, Loving v. Virginia, Perez v. Sharp (CA), Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Stenberg v. Carhart, Gonzales v. Carhart, Vacco v. Quill, Baker v. Nelson (MN), and Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (MA). Note the cases involving LGBT rights. The case certainly doesn't appear over to me. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not 100% consistent and one can, with proper searching, find the inconsistent examples, which is why, when challenged, I sought out and find an existing list of Supreme Court cases which I could then use as a sample rather than picking and choosing myself. It may seem that "case" and "decision" are used synonymously to you, and they are certainly related, but given that the samples of tried have had cases lean strongly toward the past tense and decisions strongly toward the present, it seems that they are not being treated as interchangeable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your initial list of cases is no more random than mine. What we have here are dueling tense conventions, purely a matter of style and art. A rationale and agreement will have to be provided and reached for choosing one over the other. There was such a rationale before people swooped in trying to change it without discussion. I explain all that in some detail in my post below. The matter would have to be substantively addressed and worked out. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

But First Things First: Long ago, I developed a working theory or logic of tense for this article, which I then attempted to apply throughout. It definitely has both a legal and stylistic flavor to it. First, courts, justices, and judges act in the past tense. That's uncontroversial. People act at specific points in time. Second, good law is presented in the present tense. Law is ongoing, continuing to act in the present. Third, bad law is presented in the past tense. It is dead and gone, its influence relegated to historical footnotes. Where do cases belong in this scheme? When merely synonymous with or filling in for current decisions, they certainly get the present tense. This is often my preference when speaking very generally about cases. Context, however, as always, can change all this. Unlike Latin, which is compulsively obsessed with relative tense to the point of mania, English is far less rigid. Logical, contextual, and stylistic considerations often intervene and countermand the formal rules. It sometimes becomes a matter of art, as is largely the case with the historical and literary present. In some of these general contexts, vividness has been a consideration of mine. In any case, if we are going to alter this general system, I propose we do so with another carefully thought out system. One we would have to discuss, work out, and likely do some arguing over at some length. And, of course, we should apply it consistently. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My biggest problem with introducing and speaking generally of cases in the past tense is that doing so immediately suggests to my mind that those cases are no longer good law, that they are historical oddities without current influence, mere historical footnotes. This is, after all, a legal article. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have not problem with the opening sentence being rewritten to discuss a decision, which is something that remains in force, and to do so in the present tense, while we discuss the case, which is over, in the past tense in the body of the article. It is understandable that this article has "case" in the opening now, as this article was started before there was a decision, but in the longer term, the decision and its impact are probably of more import than the process that brought it about. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As mentioned and intimated in my last post above, we are discussing dueling conventions. Your post here doesn't engage the issues I fleshed out at some length above. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, I read how you explained how you have your own "working theory or logic of tense for this article" and what is your preference; I somehow miss any part where that excuses awkward construction and with the concerns of any and all other editors for clarity and correctness being blown off. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sticking to GA-review issues
It has become abundantly clear that recent editing is contentious and disruptive, and is sure to remain so for the foreseeable future. Many of the new edits are creating more problems than they solve. This is particularly absurd as, with exactly one exception, none of the matters being fought over are mentioned in the nine current GA-review comments. I therefore advise and propose that: (1) the article be restored to its state before the contentious editing, except where full agreement has been achieved; and (2) subsequent editing and likely discussion be limited to the nine specific comments of the GA review. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that's just another way of going back to the version you wrote, based in part on original research, and chasing other editors away. That's not going to happen. Jonathunder (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am far more interested in this being a good article than in this being a Good Article, and the reversion to the point when the GA discussion started would include pointless reintroduction of factually incorrect information. Editing of an article is not in itself disruptive, and I see no reason why we should not be addressing matters that don't happen to have the attention of the GA reviewers. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit" vs. "Sixth Circuit" vs. "Sixth Circuit Court"
Re "U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit" vs. "Sixth Circuit" vs "Sixth Circuit Court":

"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit" is the official name, while "Sixth Circuit" is how it is generally shortened. "Sixth Circuit Court" is both unofficial and not a common usage. (It's also unnecessary, as the first reference and context makes clear that it is a court).

See, for instance:


 * SCOTUSBlog, "Sixth Circuit: Now, a split on same-sex marriage" (November 6, 2014): U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on first reference, Sixth Circuit after that.
 * New York Times, "Supreme Court to Decide Marriage Rights for Gay Couples Nationwide (January 16, 2015): United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on first reference, Sixth Circuit after that.

This is a very typical convention. Neutralitytalk 18:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, and it's a silly thing to edit war about, but it's all part of the ownership issues we are dealing with. One editor is determined that his preferred version must not change. Sigh. Jonathunder (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. I've noticed this is a systemic problem, along with personal attacks from the same user. (It's classic WP:OWNBEHAVIOR: "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily.") I'll be another pair of eyeballs on this page... Neutralitytalk 19:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

May I be so presumptuous as to interrupt you legal geniuses and venerable scholars long enough to present a couple sources and some brief comments?


 * Colvin, Roddrick. "Innovations in Non-discrimination Laws: Exploratory Research on Transgender-inclusive Cities." Journal of Public Management and Social Policy 14, no. 1 (2008): 19-34. (first reference, page 22)
 * Crespi, John M., and Richard J. Sexton. "Marketing Orders and Brand Promotion … Got (Milk) Lawyers?" Choices (2001): 18-23. (first reference in box, page 23; "Ninth Circuit Court" used as first reference in box, page 22)

Doing a search on Google Scholar for <<"Sixth Circuit Court" -"Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals">> yields more sources, with a little work, including in law journals. I will now assume we can put to rest any notion that the phrase is somehow incorrect, improper, or to be avoided. In fact, "Sixth Circuit" is actually the designation of a judicial geographic jurisdiction. It's a "circuit." It is frequently used for the court with jurisdiction over that "circuit" by metonymy. I would argue, from my lowly status and odious caste, that "Sixth Circuit Court" is preferable here for three reasons: First, it avoids the unwieldy length of the court's full and official name. Second, strictly speaking, it actually designates a court rather than a circuit. A court can perform a "reversal"; a circuit can't. The very idea is, strictly speaking, nonsensical. Third, the inclusion of "Court" is consistent with the headings of the surrounding sections. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You should pause and consider whether this technique you're using on this page of being snide, sarcastic, and derisive about your fellow editors is actually serving your goals (in terms of editing the article, as opposed to any goals you may have about your self-esteem or other matters.) Is it possible that treating your fellow editors in this way not only fails to convince your fellow editors of the superiority of your positions nor bullies them into noninvolvement in the article but actually incentivizes them to disagree with you? The policy at Civility offers some good advice in this regard. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Antinoos69: I agree with NatGertler. Throughout this talk page, you have been rude, dismissive, sarcastic, and just plain uncivil: not just to one or two users, but to many. Please knock it off.
 * As for the merits of the question &mdash;yes, I'm sure you can find sources that use the "Sixth Circuit Court" language. But those sources are in the minority. Usually in formal contexts - law journals, oral argument, court decisions, etc. - it is either "U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit" or "Sixth Circuit" not "Sixth Circuit Court."  (Interestingly, the two sources that you cite are not law journals. They are public policy/political science journals.)
 * And yes, the "Sixth Circuit" refers to the court's jurisdiction, but it is also understood to refers to the court as well. This metonymn is firmly established and well-understood, for example:
 * Jonathan H. Adler, The Sixth Circuit reversed yet again in a habeas case, Washington Post (Volokh Conspiracy) (March 30, 2015) ("Over the past several years, the Sixth Circuit has been reversed in an extraordinary number of cases. At one point, the Sixth Circuit had been reversed in over 20 consecutive cases in which cert had been granted.").
 * There are thousands of sources reflecting this usage dating back decades. To say it is "nonsensical" flies in the face of the evidence.
 * Google Scholar, upon which you rely, demonstrates that "Sixth Circuit" is about 35 times more common than "Sixth Circuit Court":
 * "Sixth Circuit Court" (-"Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals"): 1,190 results
 * "Sixth Circuit" (-"Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"): 42,300 results
 * I am quite sure you can replicate these findings using any other court of appeals, or in the database of major law journals. Neutralitytalk 15:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you'll recall, my point was that "we can put to rest any notion that the phrase is somehow incorrect, improper, or to be avoided." Your search results prove my point quite well. Many scholarly sources, including law journals, use the phrase. Case closed. You also misconstrue me. What I actually said was, "Second, strictly speaking, it actually designates a court rather than a circuit. A court can perform a 'reversal'; a circuit can't. The very idea is, strictly speaking, nonsensical." Note the two occurrences of "strictly speaking," which I expected to suffice. There can be no question that, "strictly speaking," claiming that a circuit performs a reversal certainly is, "strictly speaking" again, "nonsensical." You'll recall, also, that I fully admitted the metonymic use of "Sixth Circuit" is, in my own prior words, "frequently used." The ultimate point is which practice is preferable here. I stand by my original three-point argument, which you have done nothing to refute. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Comma fight
There is recently some back and forth over the use of commas in the phrase that currently reads The U.S. Supreme Court case, Obergefell v. Hodges, is not the culmination of one lawsuit.

The editor being most precise about why the commas should be included correctly noted that it is an "appositional phrase". However, it is specifically a restrictive appositional phrase, as the Obergefell v. Hodges is specifying which Supreme Court case we're talking about. As our article on apposition notes, restrictive phrases do not get commas. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're very grossly wrong. I know; I wrote the sentence. The appositional phrase is non-restrictive. "The U.S. Supreme Court case," note the definite article, refers to one and only one case, the subject of the Wikipedia article, "Obergefell v. Hodges." The two phrases are equivalent. Furthermore, try the standard test: omit the phrase. The sentence still makes perfect sense. The phrase is therefore non-restrictive, hence the commas. You are attempting to apply the term "restrictive" in an improper sense. You goofed, badly. Now move on and stop embarrassing yourself. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry it upsets you so much that someone questions the construct that you have to go on the attack. Again, you may want to look at our article on apposition notes and see the two examples of restrictive phrases. Both read clearly and grammatically without the the second portion: "My friend likes jelly beans", for example, makes perfect sense even if it isn't so specific. If you didn't want the second phrase adding information to the sentence, why is it there at all? Having a definite article does not rule it out from being a restrictive phrase; we would say "The film 'Star Hammers' received a PG-13 rating." Note that this is the start of the main body of the article, following the introduction, and material is often reestablished in the body, and also that by the time we reach the body, we have introduced mention of two Supreme Court cases, mentioning Baker as well as Obergefell. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Those who don't understand grammar shouldn't attempt to expound on it. The context is clear. The first sentence can refer to no other case. Applying the test, removing the phrase, leaves no doubt as to what case is being discussed. Deal with it and move on. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Btw, you're now starting to argue for the abolition of all non-restrictive appositions. All appositions, restrictive and non-restrictive, add information and "specificity," which is why they exist. You are confusing "restrictive" for "more specific" and "added information" You must correct your misunderstanding. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Lesson one: There is no such thing as a word or phrase that is inherently appositional, let alone one that is inherently restrictive or non-restrictive. Context, as so often, fully determines these matters, a point about which some editors seem rather confused. That's how both, "Bill's sister Anna called yesterday," and, "Bill's sister, Anna, called yesterday," can be correct, each in its proper context. Context is king and must always be considered when analyzing these matters. Staring at the words or phrases in and of themselves accomplishes nothing, other than demonstrating one's staggering ignorance. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This much Sturm und Drang over commas and kinds of clauses is a clue that the phrasing got too complicated. I tried to simplify and take out some unneeded words. Please feel free to improve further, but let's not go back to a sentence structure that we can't diagram without a huge fight. Jonathunder (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you are wading into the procedural-history section of a case with a very complicated procedural history. I wrote this whole section—except for most of the Ohio cases, which I substantially edited. It was unexpectedly difficult to research and write. There are lots of tricky twists and issues. It turns out there was another, lower-court Obergefell v. Hodges (discussed in the circuit-court section) in this history that must be distinguished from the final SCOTUS case. The Obergefell group of cases don't form some central, continuous thread running through this whole history, forming its essential core. The Obergefell v. Hodges commonly spoken of didn't actually reach SCOTUS; it's merely how SCOTUS recaptioned the procedural mess that actually reached it. The original text, like this entire section, was designed to clarify that fact. Your suggested text substantially undoes that effort, thereby misrepresenting the history. It won't do. The original text has served the article well for these past six months. I suggest we stick to it. In any case, I revert now to avoid the misrepresentation, a far graver matter than any sudden push to remove commas. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ownership aside, are you really going to keep up an edit war over phrasing that other editors, never mind readers, find confusing? If you don't like my attempt to improve it, fine. Find another. But insisting on only your wording of the section you wrote will block GA consideration. Jonathunder (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe I made perfectly plain above that essential meaning was at stake. I'd be happy to explain the matter to you further. I do, however, really like your second attempt to modify the text, correctly this time. I think I'll restore it, as I find it substantially preferable to your subsequent edits. We should have the case name somewhere in the first sentence, just preferably not as the first element, as a matter of feel, style, and taste. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC) I'll also point out, btw, that your now restored text would appear effectively to resolve both points of contention regarding the passage, those regarding punctuation and meaning. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

After your last revert, Antinoos69, the section reads "U.S. Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges is not the culmination of one lawsuit. Instead, it is the result..." This the wrong tense and a definite article is missing, but I'm not going to edit war over it. I've tried twice to improve it. NatGertler tried, and you were downright uncivil. You put a lot of work into the article, but you have to understand that this is a wiki. Please see WP:OWN. Jonathunder (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good grief. The definite article is not "missing." Instead, the opening noun phrase is now indefinite, requiring that the appositional phrase be construed as "essential" and restrictive, thereby allowing the strangely contentious commas to be removed. It's like the difference between "The happy partygoer, John Smith, …" and "Happy partygoer John Smith …," or between "The assailant, John Smith, …" and "Assailant John Smith … ." As for "wrong" tenses, it is a common practice in some contexts to speak of cases and decisions in the present tense, a practice widely though not exclusively used in Wikipedia case articles. Whether the practice be some legal equivalent of the historical or literary present, or be based on the notion that decisions (and cases by analogy) don't suddenly cease to exist once filed but persist, at least while remaining good law, or have some other origin, I don't know. It does make writing more vivid, in any case, and certainly accords with the first sentence of the article. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Is English your native language? I ask because, while you certainly are versed in the rules, your phrasing is not idiomatic. In any case, if you keep insisting on only your wording, the article is not going to improve. Jonathunder (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, ignoramus, my "native" language (one prefers to say "primary" these days) is English. I am also variously competent in ten other languages and am in the business of frequently teaching English (and other) grammar to others. I hold multiple degrees, including in classics and biblical studies, grammar-heavy disciplines. So, if you find me "not idiomatic," it is due to your own lack of understanding and preparation. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I am going to recommend that any editor that here has not recently reviewed WP:NPA should do so. I am also going to recommend that any editor who feels the need to attack me go to my talk page to do so (you'll find the link at the end of this message) rather than doing so here, as this page is intended for conversations that will improve the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Even beyond the commas, the paragraph raises concerns regarding stiffness and accuracy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "The original cases hail from the four states of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee." I can see listing a count if it were, say, 16 states, but for four, it seems like treating the reader like an idiot. (If I wasn't worried about overly relying on readers being American, I'd say get rid of the whole "the four states of" clause.)
 * "All six federal district courts ruled for the same-sex couples and other claimants." I'm not finding six courts here; while two states had two cases apiece, in each of those states both cases seem to have been decided by the same judge, who doesn't seem to have changed courts. Is there some definition of court count I'm missing?


 * The new edit attempt won't do. It is inaccurate and stylistically poor. First, SCOTUS did not consolidate six cases. It consolidated four. The circuit court did its own consolidating. Second, there is, again, the fact that there are two Obergefell v. Hodges cases that need to be distinguished to avoid potential confusion. Third, stylistically, it just won't do to speak of the subject of the entire section in the past perfect. It's just too much in this introduction. In my new edit, the tense for SCOTUS will match that in the article's first sentence, the tenses for the district courts will match throughout, and that odious past perfect will be very thankfully gone. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Also, fourth, the "originally" is needed to make the math work. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What's the source for there being two Obergefell v. Hodges cases? Jonathunder (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the article. Reviewing prior discussion would also help. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you wrote most of the article and concluded there were two cases with the same name that must be distinguished. Do you have a specific source for that claim, or is it original research? Jonathunder (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Citations are provided. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the number of citations in that paragraph remains zero. Jonathunder (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You should have concluded, therefore, that you were looking at the wrong passage in the article. Star over and try again. Two citations are provided. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Then please list them. The hand-waving won't do. Jonathunder (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I referenced the relevant section of the article previously in this section of the talk page, when the matter previously came up. I will leave you to your reading skills, which may suffice. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The history given in scotusblog treats this as one case, with which others were joined. I disagree with your conclusion that there were somehow two cases with the same name. It's original research, and it's wrong. Jonathunder (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. I really can't believe you are this dense and clueless. No, really. First, the SCOTUSblog case docket you found is one of four dockets provided, one for each of the four cases that reached SCOTUS on this matter. Links to the others are presented therein. Second, a case docket at a court only lists filings and actions since the case reached the court. You'll notice that no prior procedural history is provided. What did you surmise? That the four cases just popped into existence at SCOTUS? That's not how these things work. Generally, as here, SCOTUS is a court of final appeal. Cases generally have to come from somewhere before reaching it. These cases have a very complicated procedural history, which you apparently don't even remotely understand, one that is pretty extensively detailed in the first three body sections of the article, complete with citations, including to a number of prior case dockets. I suggest you peruse them before proceeding to comment further. Among the many twists and turns, you will find a prior Obergefell v. Hodges in the circuit court section (which you were so sadly incapable of finding), representing all the Ohio cases, and only those. This is what happens when you attempt to deal with complicated matters without first familiarizing yourself with them. It's never a wise way to proceed. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Links might help. Insults won't. Jonathunder (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading. Does a mind good. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Folks, what you seem to be arguing over seems to me to be more a matter of terminology rather than history. O v. H is a case that moved up through steps to the Supreme Court, where it had other extant cases mixed in with it. Whether that makes it a different case or the same case expanded is a matter of view. We don't refer to Disney as being a different corporation since Marvel Comics and Lucasfilm got folded into it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The changing case numbers provide a clear and simple approach to the question. My actual point, however, if one can still recall it at this stage, is that one should distinguish for clarity which manifestation of Obergefell v. Hodges one is discussing, especially in a new section on lower courts. Does one mean Obergefell v. Hodges at the circuit court or once SCOTUS got ahold of it? While most readers of the article are all but certainly interested in the high-court case, many will be interested in the lower-court cases. And Obergefell v. Hodges, last I checked, doesn't have a separate article for its lower-court drama, which is rather extensive. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Also note, in case you are confused, that this SCOTUS case called Obergefell started neither with Obergefell nor with any of the Ohio cases. It started in Michigan with April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, and a little case called DeBoer v. Snyder (compare the name of the circuit-court case/decision). Antinoos69 (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, yet again, we're not talking about the business world. We're talking about case consolidation, in which all cases lose their separate identities and adopt a new collective identity, each on equal footing. The idea of one or more things being "folded into" another or others is definitively not what is going on here. Is the name thing tripping you up? The consolidated case will be named after one of the prior others; they don't make up an entirely new one, nor do they mix and match parties between prior cases. The name assigned does not indicate any "true essence" of the consolidated case. Antinoos69 (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "The changing case numbers provide a clear and simple approach to the question." Well, I'm glad you said that... because Obergefel when it reached the Supreme Court was docket number 14-556, as you can see on this document from Dec 21, 2015, before the case was consolidated with 14-562, 14-571, and 14-574 to form... 14-556, as you can see on the ruling. The case maintained its number. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, um, no. Prepare to stop being glad. Go to the "External links" section of the article. Find the six district-court "relevant actions," the rulings. Note the five different case numbers (remember the "bifurcated" Kentucky actions, sharing a case number). You can verify them by clicking on the provided links. These are the case numbers given to the cases by the district courts. Got them? Now click on the circuit-court opinion in that "External links" section. Note our six cases in the caption. Note their case numbers. Notice anything? We have six different case numbers. They differ from the previous set of six (two of them identical) at the district courts. These are the case numbers given to the cases by the circuit court upon arrival there. (Also note the subsequent regrouping of the six cases according to how the circuit court consolidated them, complete with the prior district-court case numbers.) Got them? Can you sense what's coming? Now return once more to the "External links" section and click on the SCOTUS opinion. Skip the syllabus. Find our four cases in the caption (four after the circuit court consolidated some of them). Note the case numbers. Notice anything? This set of numbers differs from both previous sets from the circuit and district courts. These are the case numbers given by SCOTUS when the cases reached it. Notice that they're the same four case numbers mentioned in your post (from both documents, with regard to the Ohio group of cases). So the consolidated Ohio cases left the circuit court associated with the case numbers 14-3057 and 14-3464, the case numbers assigned them by the circuit court upon their arrival there, and SCOTUS assigned that Obergefell v. Hodges the case number 14-556 once it got ahold of the case, a substantive change from two to one entirely new number. That's the general practice: cases receive a case number upon reaching or being filed at a court. When that court issues an opinion, the case name and number are the case name and number of the case at the top of the caption (when consolidation has occurred), whatever it may be, as that number was assigned by that court (i.e., the one issuing the opinion). Consequently, because Ohio-cases Obergefell v. Hodges appears at the top of its caption, SCOTUS opinion Obergefell v. Hodges got the same case name and number. A perfectly analogous scenario played out with regard to the circuit court's opinion and case name and number: 14-1341 is the case number of the case at the top of its caption, in that instance DeBoer v. Snyder, as assigned by it. You will notice the cases are listed in the captions in numerical order by case number. The case numbers are assigned by clerical process. There is no greater significance to the case name and number. So, how glad are you now? Antinoos69 (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, case captions tend to be well established long before opinions are handed down. It's just that my discussion happens to focus on the opinions. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The silence suggests the possibility of concession to the obvious. If no further opposing comments are made in the next couple days, I will remove the two templates/tags, or whatever they're called. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone has been saying that cases were not consolidated... but saying that the Supreme Court gave the case a different number when it arrived in their court doesn't make it a different case, they give every case a docket number for their court. The granting of a new number does not make it a separate case any more than my car being given a new license plate number when I moved to California made it a different car. So I maintain my view that the difference between you and Jonathunder is more a difference of terminology than in the understanding of the history in this case, and that your personal attacks on him (which, to the best of my knowledge, you have not yet apologized for) are unfounded as well as against Wikipedia policy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nat, you're not hearing (so to speak) what I'm telling you. Take a breath. The first the world ever heard of an Obergefell v. Hodges was shortly after August 11, 2014. That case involved at most the two Ohio cases, and nothing else. Those Ohio cases had been consolidated on May 20 by the circuit court, which later ruled on November 6. (There are reasons I'm saying "at most," but there is no need to get into that complication now.) By the time we get to a consolidated SCOTUS case that can be referred to solely as Obergefell v. Hodges and by the single case number 14-556, due purely to clerical and temporal happenstance, we now have an Obergefell v. Hodges involving a great deal more than cases from Ohio. We are now very much speaking of a different animal and a different case, one involving cases that originated in four different states. For clarity, we distinguish between the two. Surely that is crystal clear to you now. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as removing the citation needed tags: you still have not provided citations for that specific claim in that specific sentence. No, it's not enough to say the citations are somewhere else. And no, aspersions as to my ability to read is not a citation. Consider this a warning from an administrator that I do not expect another personal attack in response to this. Jonathunder (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's because there is no need for citation. No citation is needed to note than one and six(/five) are not equal. No citation is needed to summarize. No citation is needed to count. If you think otherwise, you'll have to provide an extensive argument for your position, which quite frankly baffles me. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Logical quotations
An editor recently undid some attempts by other editors to correct some of the content to match the Wikipedia's logical quotation standard, resorting to a personal attack in order to make his stance known. Rather than go through and fix everything only to have it edit-warred away and face inappropriate personal attacks again, I thought that I'd raise the point here and achieve a visible consensus. Do others agree that this page should follow that Wikipedia standard? Does anyone disagree, and if so, why? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Logical quotations more honestly report what the source said and it's our standard practice. Jonathunder (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, American style manuals, not to mention teachers, reject the British practice. This is an article on an American case. Wiki "recommendations" on the matter are stupid. We are confusing hordes of American children. The article already consistently uses a standard punctuation style, so there's no point in changing what ain't broke. And, oh, primarily relying on standard American practice seems to be the tendency in articles on American cases on here, probably because the American legal profession, along with American courts, tends to stick to standard American punctuation. Get over it. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Instead of chasing after phantoms, why don't you two roll up your sleeves and fix the many problems plaguing the "Subsequent developments" section? That would actually be helpful and needed. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Get over it"? What, precisely, are you asking us to get over? Get over trying to improve the article? Participating in its editing? Seeking to engage in standard editing without being personally attacked for it?  This article is not yours to own, and the other editors are not your minions here to do your bidding. If you wish to see changes in the Manual of Style, there are better places to make your arguments. If you wish to not be working in a collaborative environment, there is much else you can do in the world. (And if anyone is unclear, Antinoos69 is the editor who undid multiple editors' MOS:LQ-supported edits.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Get over" trying to annoy me with pointless and misguided attempts at "improvement" that, at best, accomplish nothing. And I did notice you couldn't respond to my points. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your point was to talk about other style manuals, as if we do not have our own Wikipedia style manual. If you have objections to that style manual, there are proper forums for seeking to reform it; the talk page of an article on a legal case is not among them. The claim that it "ain't broke" because it is internally consistent avoids the point that it is broke in its consistency with Wikipedia. That other people seeking to improve Wikipedia is just an attack on you is a mistaken belief. This article is not yours. That other people's efforts accomplish nothing may be related to your undoing their improvements. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What about, "And, oh, primarily relying on standard American practice seems to be the tendency in articles on American cases on here, probably because the American legal profession, along with American courts, tends to stick to standard American punctuation"? Face it, your beloved "rule" is one of the most frequently ignored on here, and not just in legal articles. While legalists may obsess over "rules," others are far more concerned with the effect on most readers and actually recognized standard style. And don't forget that there are actually important matters to attend to in this article. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a claim made with zero evidence. When I've looked at your past claims about the tendencies of articles here, I've found them wanting. That there are other things that might also use improving in this article isn't a reason for not fixing these problems, much less for you undoing people's efforts to fix them and acting uncivil toward people who choose to fix them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're going to be unhelpful about this too? Look at those twelve cases you mentioned earlier. That would apparently settle matters for you. And imagining a problem doesn't magically make one appear. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * MOS:LQ directs that we are to apply "the 'logical quotation' style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written." I'm not a fan of the guideline or that quotation style, but, as LQ explicitly contemplates application to articles written in American English (where logical quoting is not the norm), I believe there is no legitimate reason not to follow it. Rebb  ing  15:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet hordes of editors frequently make a point of not following it. Perhaps it would be wise to consider why, however nonlegalistic it may be. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All due respect, but our guidelines are not mere suggestions you can overlook because you disagree, especially when there is local consensus to follow them. If you'd like to see quotation style left to editor discretion—as, say, the choice of citation style, English variety, or the choice between spaced en-dashes and unspaced em-dashes is—you ought to take that up in the appropriate forum and try to build a consensus. Rebb  ing  12:20 12:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet hordes of editors actually do take this one so, and will in all likelihood continue to do so. At what point does one acknowledge that reality? Antinoos69 (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There are extant violations for every guideline and policy we have, but that's no reason to disregard them. You can follow the guideline, distinguish the guideline, change the guideline, or start your own encyclopedia where you don't have to obey formalized community consensus. Rebb  ing  01:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So, a fond farewell to reality, and any hope of understanding and dealing with it? The fact is that this is a much and wisely ignored rule, and should remain such. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Enough with the theatrics: I understand your presentation of the issue, but I do not agree that using logical quotes is a problem. The choice of quotation style is a matter of editorial discretion, and, in our case, that decision has been made for all articles by our Manual of Style. As I have pointed out repeatedly, this is not the correct forum for reconsidering that matter; that discussion belongs on the MOS talk page. The only issue I see here is your deliberate and disruptive obtuseness. Rebb  ing  19:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The obtuseness is your dogged ignoring and disregard for actual editorial practice, and I do not agree that an article that already exhibits a consistent style that is actually recognized by the primary style manuals (as opposed to using British punctuation around American quotation marks) could possibly constitute any kind of "problem" in any reality worth calling such. Perhaps you'll consider "hearing" that—though not to worry, as I won't be holding my breath. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless there is more than a vague handwavy argument, the MOS guidelines take precedence. While they are strictly speaking guidelines rather than policy, there still needs to be a demonstrated and compelling reason to go against them. "I dont like it" is not one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet the editorial practice of hordes of Wiki editors, reflected to some degree or other in most Wiki articles, indicates otherwise. That editorial practice and the fact that the article is already consistently written in a style that is actually officially recognized more than suffices with regard to some absurd internet "guidelines" and largely "social-media" "practice." Antinoos69 (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Other stuff exists' has rarely been accepted as a valid argument. The counter being of course 'We just have not got to that one yet.' Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite obviously, you're never going to get around to it, as many Wiki editors are going to continue to ignore this silly fad. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Logical quotations has been the house style since 2005. If the situation is as you say—that American style is vastly preferred in practice—then it would be no trouble at all for you to change the guideline to reflect current practice. As it is, I believe the "logical" quotation style is officially recognized by international style guides. Moreover, you're not new here; you know how this works: Wikipedia has guidelines and policies that have been developed and refined by consensus, and your will does not trump them just because you think you're right. Of course, you're welcome to create your own encyclopedia where asserting that you're right and belittling formalized community norms as "absurd internet 'guidelines'" wins an argument, but Wikipedia is not such a place. Rebb  ing  15:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong. What some foreign style manuals advocate is outright British style, which typically includes British quotation marks. The nonsense we have here is British punctuation around American quotation marks, a bastardized hybrid abomination. Good luck finding any primary and general style manual advocating that, or even recognizing it as an official "thing" rather than some loony internet fad and "practice." Antinoos69 (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * By American quotation marks, you mean using double quotation marks (") instead of single (')? Regardless, I don't see a problem with having an invented style, and the Manual gives good reasons for using simultaneously double quotation marks and logical quotation style. Anyway, if you feel so strongly about it, why are you not pushing for a change on the MOS talk page, where your opinions could make a real difference in Wikipedia practice? Rebb  ing  14:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * American quotation marks toggle between double and single marks, in that order, whereas British practice is to toggle between single and double marks, making initial quotes less noticeable. No small part of the point of writing style and style manuals is to avoid "an invented style." Antinoos69 (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This page is not using "an invented style", it's using the logical quotation system which is Wikipedia's style. If you want to change that, please pursue it on MOS talk page. I think this talk page has more than enough discussion of where to put commas. It's time to move on. Jonathunder (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The so-called "logical quotation system" on here is an invented style, I couldn't care less about some internet "MOS," the very notion of "Wikipedia style" as an actual "thing" is preposterous, and your opinions don't factor into whether or when I "move on." Antinoos69 (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * However your opinion has been noted and the consensus here is that it will not be done the way you want it. Now you can learn to live with the fact you don't always get what you want and drop it, or you can continue to argue and waste people's time. The second option will likely end up going badly for you. Your choice. Either way discussion on this issue is over. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't decide when "discussion on this issue is over." Antinoos69 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion is over, and your refusal to accept that is disruptive:
 * See also ' (guideline) ("Stonewalling or filibustering – repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution."); ' (essay). Rebb  ing  14:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are incapable of intimidating me. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good: I have no intention of intimidating you. Rebb  ing  15:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good: I have no intention of intimidating you. Rebb  ing  15:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

, your last set of edits put punctuation back inside quote marks. If it's not that way in the original quote, don't do that here. This would be an incredibly silly thing to be blocked for, but if you persist, you have been warned. Jonathunder (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do and will always follow standard American style within my own edits, as I do everywhere else, except when submitting material to British publications and publishers. Neither you nor anyone or anything else can change that. I am hardly the only editor on Wikipedia to do so, and I am unimpressed by your attempt at intimidation and harassment on this matter—as I was by your wildly offensive remark regarding my "native" language. If you don't like my practice, you can always edit it in accordance with your silly style. Getting me to follow that abomination simply is not going to happen, ever or anywhere. You would do well to get over it. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then there's a block for you in the near future. We don't have time for every Johnny-come-lately who wants to rehash stuff settled long ago without extrememly good reason—‌and in an individual article instead of MOS, where such discussion belongs. I don't like LQ either, but I understand I can't have my own way all the time.  E Eng  16:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe you may have misunderstood my post. In any case, I was making a statement of fact, not inviting further discourse. The fact will remain, clear and absolute. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Should the quote: "These arguments are not those of serious people" be removed?
In my opinion, including the quote violates NPOV, specifically IMPARTIAL ("Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized."). It appears to me to be cherry-picked from the lower court opinion and isn't relevant to understanding the topic. Also, it was listed as a requirement in the failed GA review; we aren't obligated to defer to that, but I think it's a persuasive factor. Rebb ing  16:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I certainly understand the WP:NPOV arguments here, but I am in favor of keeping that quotation in this article. I think it is useful for understanding Judge Heyburn's jurisprudential posture and it also helps readers understand the rhetorical force of his opinion. If you think the quotation needs more context, then we could explain that Judge Heyburn wrote that the state's argument that "traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate which, in turn, ensures the state's long-term economic stability" was not an argument that would be made by "serious people." Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No, it should not be removed. Again, there is questionable utility in citing one of two wildly diverging GA reviews, including on this matter. As for "cherry picking," how precisely does one cherry pick from among exactly one justification for the ban provided by the state? The judge had nothing particularly kind to say about the argument. Would you have us quote him further? Wouldn't that be a bit of overkill? Remember that most courts expressed substantial incredulousness at the state arguments they were made to tackle—Judge Posner's decision for the Seventh Circuit Court comes especially to mind. And if we are to consider the topic sentence of a judge's assessment of a sole argument somehow inappropriate, what would we make of Roberts' own inflammatory reference to polygamy in his dissent? Antinoos69 (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Doing a quick search, if it's cherry picking it's the cherry that other sources have decided to pick, not just opiniony sources ranging from Mother Jones (Not the only quote, but it's the one they lead with) to National Review (truncated but keeping the heart of the phrase), but also more mainstreamy sources (whether local like The Lexington newspaper or national like The USA Today.) That isn't a full argument in favor of keeping it (nor even that it is the most representative quote, as I was looking for the phrase, not looking through all the coverage of the ruling to see if it used the phrase), but it should at least suggest that the usage here is not egregious. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I find it informative. Though it does have the feel of POV, it's a quote, so not in WP's voice.  To "soften" that feel, it would be good to give it a bit more context.  In short, I agree with .  --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely appropriate. We quote court opinions all the time, sometimes at length. When a judge makes his point this bluntly and concisely, it makes it more, not less, valuable to the reader.  E Eng  20:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)