User:Isabelditzler/sandbox

 Edits - Obergefell v. Hodges 

Section: Dissenting Opinions – Thomas

….According to Thomas, the majority's holding also undermines the political process and threatens religious liberty. Thomas states, “Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.” (CITE). He comments that this decision should deliberated by the people in a democratic process not decided by the Court. Justice Thomas believes this sweeping decision by the Court that Court that overruled any democratic deliberation by the people could have “potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.” (CITE)…..

Section: Dissenting Opinions – Roberts

…Roberts also suggested the majority's opinion will ultimately lead to consequences for religious liberty, and he found the Court's language unfairly attacks opponents of same-sex marriage. Roberts writes, “Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.” (CITE). Aligning with his views that the Court does not have the legal basis to mandate same-sex marriage at the federal level, Roberts also notes that this decision intrudes on a clearly established constitutional right, freedom to exercise religion...

 Article Selection  – Obergefell v. Hodges

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

I will be editing the Wikipedia article on the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court case. My edits will be to the dissenting opinion section, and I will focus on the role of religion in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights and equality. While this article is fairly thorough, there is little mention of religion although it is a critical aspect of the case. Moreover, the dissenting opinions section could use a bit more information and contextual analysis. By adding to this section, readers will able to understand the case and its context more completely. This will fit in with my research project of identifying and understanding the role of religion of Supreme Court cases related to LGBTQ+ rights. In the judiciary, religious rights and LGBTQ freedoms are often at odds and understanding this dynamic is critical in understanding LGBTQ+ policy and politics.

Potential Sources:


 * Dissenting opinions of Scalia, Alito, and Thomas
 * https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.lib.calpoly.edu/stable/26559620?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

 Article Evaluation 

I. Introduction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

I am evaluating the article on patriarchy as it ties into my class on LGBTQ politics and policy. Patriarchy is a critical framework in which most modern systems operate under. Patriarchy influences and underlies all our governing institutions, and understanding it is critical in assessing these systems and how they may marginalize certain groups. It is vital that the Wikipedia page for such an important topic is accurate, up to date, and clearly written. From my first impression, this article seems well organized, clearly written, and credible.

II. Lead section

The lead section of this article has a strong introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic. It does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, and it does not explicitly repeat this information throughout the article. It is concise and contains valuable and relevant information for a reader who wants a brief overview. It could benefit from better organization that makes the articles major sections clear and does not include information that is not present in the article.

III. Content

The article’s content is relevant and up to date. The content included in the article fits the subject and does not appear to be missing any major developments. It offers viewpoints and data from different theoretical backgrounds but addresses patriarchy from a primarily Western framework. The article does not clearly address equity outside of male-female power dynamics. Addressing patriarchy in connection to race, gender identity, and sexuality would give the reader a more complete understanding of the topic. The article would also benefit from a section addressing patriarchy in today’s world and across modern cultures.

IV. Tone and Balance

According to my reading, this article is from a fairly neutral point of view. While the article has sections outlying the various school of thoughts surrounding patriarchy such as feminist theory and biological theory, it does not lean towards one of these as being correct and expresses fairly little bias. These viewpoints are appropriately represented, and the article does not describe fringe viewpoints. Under the biological theory section, the “patriarchy as a human universal” section does seem questionable as there is certainly variation across space and time that denies the systems of patriarchy despite the section’s claims to the contrary. The article does a good job presenting the facts and arguments of others while not attempting to persuade the reader in favor of or against any position.

V. Sources and References

Almost all of the facts presented in this article are backed up by scholarly books/articles or other academic sources. Sources are thorough and current but also represent the evolution of academic thought surrounding this topic. While the sources offer a diverse spectrum of authors and some historically marginalized individuals, there could be more historically marginalized representation and more non-Western scholarship. Moreover, at some points of the article, there are [further explanation needed], [relevant?], [needs update], and [clarification need] superscripts. This indicates that not all statements are properly cited and/or completely explained. While the article includes the top and most notable Western research on patriarchy, it could benefit from more non-Western scholarship and some current research and commentary on the issue. The hyperlinks for the sources are current and functional.

VI. Organization and writing quality

The article is fairly well-written. In accordance with the superscript mentioned above, some statements are vague and unclear. Despite this need for elaboration, the article is generally clear and concise and does not have many spelling and grammatical errors. The organization of the article is good, especially the ordering of sections which follows a natural flow of information (etymology, history, theory). A closing section that highlights modern thought and scholarship would be beneficial.

VII. Images and Media

The article lacks images that enhance understanding of the topic. There is only one image in the whole article, and it does not add to the learning experience, is poorly captioned, and not cited. This article needs more images that are relevant and properly captioned and cited.

VIII. Talk page discussion

The talk page for this article has a few brief topics without much discussion. It does have one conversation that is fairly controversial. This is in response to the line from the article "Even if not explicitly defined to be by their own constitutions and laws, most contemporary societies are, in practice, patriarchal.” Some users want to switch this sentence to "Historians and theorists taking a feminist lens commonly call contemporary societies patriarchal despite these societies not having explicitly patriarchal constitutions or laws,” yet others feel this implies this conclusion is undue. There is a quite a bit of tense dialogue on this subject, and it appears to be unresolved as the sentence remains in the article in its original version and the comments are from this month. The article is part of seven wiki projects rated B-class. The talk page is uneventful except the discussion on the declaration that societies are patriarchal which offers conflicting personal and scholarly views.

IX. Overall impressions

Overall, I would give this article a 7/10. Patriarchy is such a broad topic, and this article could include a lot more diverse scholarship on the subject. It is a short Wikipedia page for such a broad and relevant topic. It is strong in that is represents the views of different academics and schools of thought, but it could be improved with better explanations and the inclusion of modern academic and political thought and non-Western scholarship of the subject. I think the article is somewhat incomplete, and the best way to improve it is to add additional information and be sure that all points are thoroughly explained and properly cited. Images would also be good to include.