Talk:Defense of Marriage Act/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Repeated copyright violation

An editor has inserted and repeatedly reinserted material apparently copied from

• Huff Post
• ReligiousTolerance.org
• YesOnGayMarriage.com

Could the editor who is doing this please stop doing this, and could someone else please revert these edits? Restoring it to the 06:30, 20 December 2010 version should do fine (I'm in risk of running afoul of WP:3RR in dealing with this if I revert further.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"Legal History" vs "Challenges in Federal Court"

Why are these two separate sections? They contain some redundant information. Can we merge them? Or make like a "Legal" header with subsections? Awk (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree this needs work. Here's how I see it. "Legal history" as it reads now is (a) legislative history or enactment, though it never gets as far as the passage of the Act. The details about passage are up in the summary, but nowhere in the body of the article. And (b) political history, later party platforms and some presidential statements. I think those could be split into "Enactment" (including the votes and date of passage) and "Later party politics". Today's events under this heading should be about the President and the political issue -- "Obama decided not to etc." -- citing Holder. Leave the legal details to the "Challenges" heading.

The "Challenges" section needs focus. This sentence is IMHO irrelevant to the Challenges heading: "Many states have still not decided whether to recognize other states' same-sex marriages." And the material on Smelt should be collapsed into a quick summary. It was never a serious challenge in any case.

At least I think that would be a start. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Holder's Feb 23 announcement

I'd like to point out that Eric Holder's Feb 23 announcement about the administration's position on DOMA is mentioned in no fewer than five different places in this article. Someone familiar with its contents (the article) should try to cut down on the redundancy. - dcljr (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a diff that might help to hone in on the relevant article changes since the announcement. - dcljr (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships

Both terms (Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships) are mentioned in the text of DOMA, yet I do not see either mentioned in the article. I feel it is extremely important to make mention the status in relation to DOMA.

I believe at one point this article did mention them, however now it does not.

Is there a rational explanation why the language was removed? DCX (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those terms appears in the TEXT. The terms that appear are "a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage" and "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and "who is a husband or a wife". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

yes, I see that, but it is very strange. I won an argument recently stating that DOMA also outlawed recognition of "civil unions and any other name given" and now it is not part of the text....DCX (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Full faith and credit

Under "Constitutionality" it says:

"Section 2 of DOMA explicitly addresses the constitutional requirement expressed in the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution, quoting its language directly. That clause establishes that the states have certain reciprocal obligations to one another, specifically to recognize each other's "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings."[41] That same section of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to legislate on the question of those obligations. Section 2 of DOMA excludes same-sex marriages from the state "acts" that any other state needs to recognize."

I'm taking issue specifically with the sentence: "That same section of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to legislate on the question of those obligations."

This isn't true. The text of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution can be found here: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv

It doesn't say that Congress is allowed to exempt certain things. This needs a citation. Was there a court ruling? 72.100.5.118 (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You didn't bother to quote the next sentence, so here's the entire passage, with highlighting:

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

The word "proved" is used here in its somewhat obsolete meaning "tested" (as a will is tested in probate court). Of course, the Constitution doesn't say "exempt". Nor does the entry say that. The entry says "the authority to legislate," which is clearly correct. The entry also says "on the question of those obligations," which is vague, possibly because there is no clear-cut way to describe what Congress can or can not do. I agree some clarification of what Congress can or can not do is in order, with citations. I leave that to the attorneys. If as I suspect there is no clear answer, it should be possible to address the issue in a sentence or two. Right now the reader is entitled to read: "That same section of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to legislate on the question of those obligations, whatever that means". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

King & Spaulding

I'd like to avoid another time-wasting edit war. I see A520 has reverted some of this text that NYyankees51 added:

King & Spalding...announced it was dropping the case after a backlash from gay activists.

That sentence asserts that K&S made the statement "after a backlash from gay activists", which it did not. The same phrase used to indicate a time sequence would be quite different:

After a backlash from gay activists, King & Spalding announced it was dropping the case.

IMHO, any discussion of the reason K&S withdrew needs to state all the reasons or none. Those would include (1) protests from advocates of same-sex marriage, (2) objections from clients like Coca Cola whether prompted by those protests or not, (3) problems internal to the firm because of the restrictions the contract imposed on the free speech rights of K&S employees, etc. I also think the word "backlash" is argumentative and rather too colorful for wikipedia. "Protests" is sufficient. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Even the source being used doesn't mention "activists". --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing is another issue entirely. I'm trying to deal with the attribution of "after a backlash from gay activists" to K&S, which is the reason A520 gave, correctly I'd say, for the reversion. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand - I was the one who removed the phrase from that location before Yankees reinserted it. But that "gay activists" phrase is problematic even if we separate it from the announcement, and even if we buffer it with other concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Golinski

Does the Golinski case still belong under the heading "Tribunals"? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Latest in bankruptcy case

RE: "In a bankruptcy case, however, the Department of Justice on June 28, 2011, appealed a ruling that declared DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional after the House declined to." Cites Daily Kos. Also showed up in the Washington Blade.

At the White House, the explanation was that the Trustee/DOJ is not appealing, but filing paperwork that will allow the BLAG to appeal should it choose to. Only once that paperwork is filed can the BLAG actually choose to appeal or decline the opportunity. What was filed was a Motion For Leave To Appeal. See this. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

NY State files "Friend of the Court" Brief against DOMA

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/new-york-challenges-u-s-defense-of-marriage-act/

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/227999/defense-of-marriage-act-brief-by-schneiderman.pdf

JavaWeb Jul 27, 2011 (UTC)

Added this. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Several Out-of-Date Entries need Revision

I notice that the article is no longer current on several points. The $500,000 committment has been trebled. Still remains illegal, of course. Several things have happened both in federal courts as well as in the congress recently with direct bearing on this hateful, anti-American, viciously abusive denigration of gays and lesbians to sub-human status. I won't make any changes because my well known position on the matter just attracts the hateful christians to vomit forth their hatred. It would be good, however, if someone willing to do battle with them were to update things.Pauci leones (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Danke fürs Update, Scheinwerfermann. Ich stelle 'amongst' nur im Einklang mit dem US version im text und bereinige eine kleine Zeitverschiebung.Pauci leones (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I updated the cap; what else needs revision? Please don't be shy about editing - as long as changes are reliably-sourced, etc., they will be defended by others. AV3000 (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, we can try. This is one of those topics which has direct, secondary and tertiary aspects. I'm not sure I have the skill to update it adequately, so any help is much appreciated. I'd basically like to bring the article up to date with all the changes and notable occurrences regarding the continuous higher level court challenges, the very notable conflicts arising among the three constitutional organs over the law and the various aspects involved in the illegal defense through Speaker Boehner. I also think some reference should be made to the court cases arising from the conflict between the end of DADT and the continued sub-human status of gay and lesbian spouses of military members. A side effect which is notable because it reflects the enormous consequences of stripping some citizens of human status and their civil rights are the conflicts between the military, members of congress and christians over the role military facilities and leaders may or may not play in relation to marriage equality.

I'd also like to expand on the range of human and civil rights denied to citizens through DOMA. Not all 1300+, of course, the major ones.

So, a basic update, some look at the current positions of the three constitutional organs (federal courts overturning left and right, administration obeying but not defending, congress illegally defending), the effect of sub-human status on our brave men and women fighting to defend rights they are stripped of and the direct affronts of federal rights being denied.

It would also be good to have some more depth on the abrogation of international treaties and the various relations between the states within the US. The conflicts with various amendments to the constitution needs more development, too. Finally, an analysis of the separation of church and state in a representative democracy as opposed to a theocracy.Pauci leones (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've overhauled this entry, but I have no idea which of your concerns I have addressed and which not. Some of the subjects you mention are way beyond the scope of this entry in any case, like "an analysis of the separation of church and state in a representative democracy", but you mention some in such general terms it's hard to know. And some I think are just wrong, like Congress "illegally" defending DOMA. But I've shuffled things around, expanded the background and enactment, removed some repetition, and updated a bit. I suppose the section that covers just the GAO assessment now should be modified to "impact", and there the impact on people in the military that endures following the end of DADT should be noted, along with the impact on immigration. That way the "Impact" section would serve as an introduction to the issues that are raised in the lawsuits that follow. I'll track down the cases now being brought on behalf of military servicemembers first. They get lost because they are viewed through a DADT/military lens instead of DOMA, which they definitely are. Like Cooper-Harris v. U.S. here and the SLDN challenge. And I need a good source for this: "While gay military couples are now eligible for 'member-designated' benefits such as group life insurance, missing member notification and hospital visitation rights, DOMA keeps health care coverage and housing allowances off limits. Base housing or housing allowances and health insurance can account for as much as 40 percent of a service member's compensation." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Date issues

Why does it say 1990 on the side bar, but 1996 in the first paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.88.254 (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Washington State

The Governor plans to sign the bill legalizing same-sex marriage on this Monday, 2/13/2012 --Javaweb (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

At 2:30 Eastern. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note:the law will not take effect until early June. --Javaweb (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

June 7....unless enuf signatures are collected to put it on the Nov ballot. See [this] Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

See this. --Javaweb (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Yes, but it's important how it gets on the November ballot. If they get a repeal on the ballot, then the marriages do not begin to take place... but if they place the initiative on the ballot (writing mixed-sex marriage into the state constitution) then the marriages do not start, and will be available for several months, even if the initiative ultimately passes. (Of course, what happens to the extant marriages then may be up in the air, as seen in California.) I'm mentioning this so that some simplified version doesn't end up in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well-placed concern given some of the nonsense I've seen on other WP entries about this. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Lock Request

I think that this article should be fully revised and looked over then locked so it can be trusted more by any guests of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrarroyo (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Counting decisions

Decisions finding DOMA 3 unconstitutional:

• in re Balas and Morales: CA Bankruptcy Court
• Dragovitch: class action, CA, Dist Court, 9th Circuit
• Windsor: District Court 2nd Circuit
• Golinski: District Court, 9th Circuit
• tribunal: Levenson/Reinhart, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, not a true "appeal" because administrative, but not a district court ruling either
• Gill and Mass., 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, 3-judge panel
  • also Tauro's decision at a lower level in these cases

We say now:

Section 3 of the DOMA has been found unconstitutional in a California bankruptcy case [in re Balas], a California class action suit on the part of public employees [Dragovitch], four different District Court judges from three Circuit Courts [Windsor 2nd, Golinski 9th, Levenson/Reinhart case 9th, Tauro in Gill and Mass.], and by a unanimous United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit three-judge panel [Gill & Mass].

That looks OK, or sorta OK, though the Levenson case is rather different. I wonder if we should be counting judges at all. If we count cases, we'd exclude Tauro, but count both Gill and Mass as cases, and technically Hara is another case. We could also get around the problem by saying "in a series of cases, including X and Y...". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I write this after adding today's decision in Windsor. Without that, I can't reconcile the above summary with the facts, but maybe I've missed something. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What about if we don't keep counting the decisions? It feel like we're counting episodes in an TV series article. Instead, we could say something along the lines of "Section 3 of DOMA has been found to be uncontitutional by many lower courts and a unanimous decision by the First Circuit."--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, done. --haha169 (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Repeal material

Does the second paragraph of the lead section violate WP:NPV, WP:UNDUE, or WP:LEAD? If so, how should it be fixed? The debate begins in earnest halfway down the talk thread. Nstrauss (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Rough summary of arguments:

• Yes, violation: Clinton sentence violates WP:NPV because it comes across as a talking point -- i.e., a sentence that is only particularly noteworthy to those with a particular (pro-repeal) viewpoint. There are other "key legislators" who should receive equal weight. The solution should be to delete the paragraph because it's impossible to properly describe the contours of the political debate in the small space afforded in the lead. There don't appear to be any other articles about passed legislation that include such material in the lead.
• No, no violation: All of the facts related in the paragraph are true and well-sourced. The Clinton sentence is noteworthy and is necessary to tell the story of DOMA. The facts just happen to support repeal.

--Nstrauss (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

With the new material added to the body and to the lead, which I and another editor tried to keep out, we now have the following mess:

1. In the Political debate section: "Both Barr and Clinton later regretted their support and called for DOMA's repeal."

   Deleted. Doesn't belong in this section at all and duplicated below. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

2. In the Repeal attempts section: "On September 15, 2009, three Democratic members of Congress, Jerrold Nadler of New York, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and Jared Polis of Colorado, introduced legislation to repeal DOMA called the Respect for Marriage Act."
3. Also in the Repeal attempts section (new): "DOMA's repeal is supported by its original sponsor, Representative Bob Barr, along with several of the Senators and Representatives who originally voted for it, as well as President Bill Clinton."

   Combined and moved sentence to a better location in the same section. Edited it for wikistyle, to avoid repeating titles and first names and just better English. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

4. In the lead (new): "It has been proposed that DOMA be repealed and replaced with the Respect for Marriage Act. Such a repeal is supported by its original sponsor, Representative Bob Barr, along with several of the Senators and Representatives who originally voted for it, as well as President Bill Clinton."

   Removed. Not relevant to a summary of an entry on legislation. The writing is embarrassing "repealed and replaced..." "Such a repeal..." and wordy in any case. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

We need to clean up the redundancies and the material itself in the body. We then need to decide what, if anything, belongs in the lead. I'm not going to edit-war with an unreasonable IP and another editor who appears to believe if something is sourced, it must be included, ignoring my edit summaries as to why it should not.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the most notable events with this law is "DOMA's repeal is supported by its original sponsor, Representative Bob Barr, along with several of the Senators and Representatives who originally voted for it, as well as President Bill Clinton." It belongs in the body of the article as well as the lede. This was an astonishing turn of events that few would have predicted and was widely covered by the major responsible news media. It deserves a prominent place in the article. --Javaweb (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Per editor's request, here is a citation:

• "The Respect for Marriage Act Garners Support of President Clinton and Former Rep. Bob Barr, DOMA's Original Author" (Press release). United States House of Representatives. 2009-09-15. Retrieved 2009-09-16.

If you need a citation, please append {{Citation needed|reason=whatever}} and give an editor a chance to fix the issue. Thanks --Javaweb (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Dear Javaweb: the anonymous editor in question was given multiple attempts to supply a citation. We did ask. He didn't bother. The citation has been in place for some time now, so you seem to be contributing to an old editing dispute. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If the repeal attempt is going to be put in the lead, it has to be worded carefully and placed in proper chronological context. Because it happened in 2009, it would need to be inserted before the 2011 Obama sentence. In addition, we can't say that the repeat IS supported because we are referring to events that took place 3 years ago. Second, we should track the language of the body, which is that legislation was introduced in 2009, so something like: "In 2009, three Democratic members of Congress introduced legislation to repeal DOMA. The bill was supported by Clinton and several legislators who voted for DOMA."--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well said, but for a summary we really don't care that 3 people introduced it or that they were Dems. So maybe: in 2009 Clinton and some legislators who voted for DOMA backed its repeal. And link the word repeal to the proposed legislation. Bmclaughlin9 (talk)

Maybe something in between: "In 2009, legislation was introduced to repeal DOMA, which was supported by Clinton and several legislators who voted for DOMA." I'd wikilink "legislation".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It was first introduced in the House in 2009, however that bill died at the end of the term of the 111th Congress. It was introduced again in both the House and the Senate in 2011. Did Barr signal his support for the bill in the 111th or the two bills in the 112th? I, myself, don't know, but I thought it had been the latter. What about Clinton? If it was later, then it should appear later in the chronological order. Sterrettc (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of this entry, which is not the entry for the repeal legislation, all we need do is note that some key people have changed their positions. The timing really isn't important as the reversal itself, though perhaps a general characterization like "a few years later would serve". The dates and sequences are really not important here, as they are on the entry for the repeal legislation. "Clinton and key legislators have since changed their position and advocated for DOMA's reepeal." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I would support any addition to the lead which shows the change in position of original sponser of this bill as well as President Bill Clinton. Such reversals are rare and notable. --Scientiom (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No one disagrees. It's just a question of language. So I added a line. Bmclaughlin9 (talk)

Well, the devil's in the linguistic details. I've now reverted changes to your "line" twice. Although I'm not enthusiastic about your change, I can live with it, and it's better than both subsequent changes, in my view. I've invited the two editors to come here. This really shouldn't be that difficult.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Surely a reference to the legislative method via which the proposed repeal will occur should be included - that's specifically what Clinton, Barr, etc, have voiced their support for. --Scientiom (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This talk thread appears stale since it hasn't been touched in 2 months. I'm removing the whole paragraph. The bit about Clinton's change in position violates WP:NPV for presenting one side of the debate without any presentation of the other side. The rest of it is given WP:UNDUE weight; simply not noteworthy enough for the lead, except for the fact that the House is defending the law, which is historically significant. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually *not* presenting President Clinton's change in position would violate NPV because it is mentioned that he signed it into law, and not presenting his change in position may mislead readers into thinking that he still supports it. --Scientiom (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Scientium, just because you disagree with one aspect of my edit doesn't justify reverting the entire thing. You should have just reverted the bit about Clinton. In any case, based on your concern, why not accept my entire change and remove the phrase "by President Bill Clinton" in the second sentence of the first para? That really isn't that important. Certainly not enough to overcome concerns about WP:NPV, agree? --Nstrauss (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

But why remove an entire paragraph and reduce the lead to just 2, when there is sufficient material here to have 3 paragraphs in the lead? Also, it's not only Clinton who has changed position, but several key legislators of DOMA as well, including the original sponsor of the bill - Rep. Bob Barr. --Scientiom (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Why? Because like I said, as currently written the article violates WP:NPV and WP:UNDUE. You still haven't responded to those issues. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The only WP:NPV issue I see is that the claim "...the House of Representatives undertook the defense of the law..." is not prefaced with "the Republican leadership of". Clinton should stay as it is notable that the President responsible for signing the bill into law no longer supports it. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPV isn't just about accuracy, it's about providing balance. Currently we have a pro-repeal talking point (Clinton no longer supports the law) with no anti-repeat talking point. And adding "the Republican leadership of" is factually inaccurate; it's the House itself, not specific reps, that's defending DOMA. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that WP:NPV is not an issue with respect to Clinton. On the other hand, Nstrauss doesn't have the facts right with respect to the House. The House has taken no action and certainly taken no vote in this issue. Boehner, as Speaker, used a 3 to 2 vote of BLAG, the 5-person group that advises him on the supervision of the House Counsel, to pursue the defense of DOMA. The 3 votes were those of the top 3 GOP House members. Saying "the House" is shorthand. Saying "the Republican leadership of" would be getting it right. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the House of Representatives - but "the Republican leadership of" is still incorrect, the party actually defending DOMA is the BLAG. It should therefore read "the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of..." In any case, simply saying that you disagree with me on the Clinton issue is not an argument. So far no one has articulated a reason why the Clinton sentence isn't a violation of WP:NPV. Until someone does I'm slapping on a POV tag. --Nstrauss (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nstrauss, could you please explain what you would you like to add for balance? Maybe you've said it somewhere before, but it'd be easier if I didn't have to dig for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't propose adding anything to balance out the Clinton sentence, I propose deleting the Clinton sentence. The contours of a political debate over repeal is not appropriate material for a lead section of an article about passed legislation. It's WP:UNDUE WP:RECENTISM. And you won't find it in anywhere else in Wikipedia. --Nstrauss (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nstrauss, with respect to the Clinton statement, it's not POV and it's not a "pro-repeal talking point". Clinton signed it into law, and many current representatives supported and it's notable to mention that they don't support it. What "anti-repeal talking point" do you suggest needs to be added? It's very unnecessary. And it is the Republican leaders of the House who supported defending DOMA in court and it's on record in the vote. It's not incorrect. What do you suggest should be added? – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 00:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's a talking point -- that's why Clinton released his statement through Human Rights Campaign. And the fact that something is notable (a) doesn't cure WP:NPV issues and (b) doesn't necessarily make it notable enough for the lead section. And I'm sorry, but you're wrong about the appeal - it's the BLAG that's defending the law, which is why the case name is BLAG v. Gill. The cert petition was filed by the BLAG and says "The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives was the Intervenor-Appellant in the court below," (p. ii) and "The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (“the House”) respectfully petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari..." (p. 1). Although Pelosi and Hoyer oppose the BLAG's positions that does not change the fact that it is actually the BLAG that's defending the law.--Nstrauss (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You're not answering either Teammm's or my question. Unless you have something appropriate to "balance" Clinton, there's nothing wrong with the way it is and there's no justification for the tag. It's hard to imagine that it's not sufficiently noteworthy to include in the lead, that the president of the US who supported enactment of the subject of the article has since reconsidered.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I did answer your question - my answer is that I'm not proposing anything to balance the Clinton sentence, I'm proposing removing the Clinton sentence. You can't say its notability somehow "cures" a lack of balance. If you feel so strongly that it remain then you should recommend a balancing sentence. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not the way it works. If something is noteworthy, it should be reported. If someone feels it is non-neutral because there are other valid balancing points, then those should be made proportionately according to their weight. If 99% of the sources say X and 1% say Y, the fact that X is "unbalanced" is of no import because the equation is what it is. Unless you can find someone else to agree with you - and I'll give it a bit of time - I'm removing the tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If you remove the POV tag then I will scream bloody murder. The tag says "neutrality disputed." You may not feel that the neutrality of the statement should be disputed but it is. If you remove the tag then that would be censorship and a huge step away from seeking consensus. And that goes for you too, Scientiom. Let's try to have a discussion instead of a mugging.--Nstrauss (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd say, from the discussion above, you've been mugged by consensus. We don't do "fair and balanced" we do WP:NPOV. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You've pegged me completely backwards, but no matter. All viewpoints should be welcomed and I do not think I should have to prove my progressive credentials to get a little respect here. I CONSIDER MYSELF CENSORED by no fewer than four editors of this page (Scientiom, Teammm, Bbb23, and ArtifexMayhem). All four have removed my POV tag (or supported removing it) simply because they disagree with me. ArtifexMayhem apparently believes that consensus is achieved by majority vote. Wrong. Scientiom thinks that just if a sentence is factually true it cannot be WP:POV. Wrong. Teammmm thinks that I haven't "advanced the discussion" -- as if that somehow magically creates consensus? In fact, it is the other editors here who have refused to respond to my concerns. So far, the only editor who has actually responded to my arguments directly is Bbb23, and he apparently has a very warped and incorrect understanding of WP:BALANCE. The number of sources supporting a statement has absolutely nothing to do with whether a passage is balanced. A passage can be supported by reliable sources up the yingyang and still be biased. --Nstrauss (talk)

You haven't made any argument that would lead one to believe that the statement is biased. It's simply telling the story of DOMA. If you're going to delete the fact that the President and legislators who supported now do not and are advocating against it, do you support deleting that it's been found unconstitutional in seven federal courts? According to your logic, that's biased too. It makes no sense. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 13:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Regarding your statement that "it's simply telling the story of DOMA," there are many ways to tell a story that are factually accurate but biased nevertheless. And I don't think your comparison to the court decisions is fair. The court decisions reveal how the law has (or has not) been enforced. The Clinton sentence does no such thing. An equivalent balancing sentence would say something about how Don Nickles or George W. Bush continue to support the bill. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Nstrauss, I find it useful in disputes of this sort to cite the policy very precisely rather than simply saying "see WP:POV". If you do that, we get to assess the material in question against the careful wording of the policy. But at WP:POV I don't find anything about a "talking point". Maybe you could furnish a sentence or two from the policy that addresses your point. Maybe you could find a parallel in the NPOV examples. Specifics just make for a better conversation.

That said, I'm happy to associate myself with the removal of the POV tag. What I make of the above conversation is that you don't dispute the accuracy of the statement in question, but feel its inclusion in this article's summary represents an argument in favor of repealing DOMA that is not properly countered. I think Clinton's & Barr's switches are remarkable and worth noting. They're the stuff of headlines. I wouldn't call the fact that they switched arguments (or talking points) in themselves. Some readers might find their opinion of Clinton's slipperiness confirmed. Others who are confused to learn in the first paragraph that Clinton signed the law in the first place will be relieved that their understanding of his current position on gay rights is correct after all. The fact that there is no offsetting statement to be made that would suggest movement in the other direction on this issue isn't an editing issue, it's just an unsatisfactory fact pattern for DOMA supporters. Are we required to avoid mentioning Clinton's switch until it can be offset by "Biden now supports DOMA"? Should we add "Other original proponents stand by their support for DOMA"? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Three points in response. First, I'm not convinced that the Clinton sentence is the "stuff of headlines." Our only reference is a blog entry that cites The Nation, which is hardly in the political mainstream. Second, if it makes a difference, I'm actually a huge opponent of DOMA and I still think the Clinton sentence reads in a biased way. Third, in response to your request for specific language from WP:NPV, I have no specific language to point to beyond WP:BALANCE. However, what if the lead said, "More than one out of three Americans support DOMA?" Very true, very noteworthy -- but neutral? No way, especially when in isolation in the lead. What if it said, "More than half of all Americans oppose DOMA?" Same problem. See, factual accuracy of the statement doesn't solve the POV problems. The problem with the Clinton sentence is that it's the type of sentence opponents of DOMA would cite, and it's there in isolation of the broader political debate about repeal. The implicit message is that Wikipedia is for repeal.

In any case, I should be entitled to make these points (which are legitimate and made in good faith, even if you don't agree with them) while the POV tag remains on the article. One of the purposes of the tag is to attract input by others. By removing it while the dispute is ongoing you are squelching debate. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

1. The citation is to a Congressman's press release], not a blog. 2. Your views on the underlying issue are not the issue. 3. If the sentence reads in a biased way you can propose different language, but you won't. Note that WP:NPV tells us we should describe and balance viewpoints, not remove them, so I think it has always been your responsibility to propose how to do that without deleting what you consider a unbalanced statement. But to use your example, one might state this: "Public opinion has shifted on the issue from X% to Y% in 1996 to A% to B% in 2012." Facts. No problem. You think that's not neutral. I think it's factual. What would you suggest? That we have to say "opinion is divided"? Or we can't say anything at all about public opinion? When do we get to say what public opinion is? Besides, balance is about describing viewpoints, which isn't what we are doing here. We're helping the reader understand who's on first and who's on second. Simple factual political alignment. If we weighted it with a quote from Clinton, we'd be offering one viewpoint without a response, but we don't. You said above "we have a pro-repeal talking point (Clinton no longer supports the law)". But his name/stance is neither a viewpoint nor an argument. And as a "talking point" (i.e., fact) it's import is in the mind of the reader, where it belongs. Maybe there's a reason WP:NPV doesn't use the words "talking point". Positive talking point or negative talking point? I continue to believe the reader will decide. We haven't weighted things either way.

It's hard to sympathize with your feeling squelched. There was consensus. You came along and decided that since no one had commented in 2 months you could say the discussion was "stale" and remove a paragraph. Things escalated from there. There are better ways to re-open a discussion. I know we're not voting here, but you haven't won a scintilla of support. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You made a lot of points that I don't have time to respond to so I'll just stick with two things. First, you're mistaken that the Nadler press release is cited in support of Clinton's reversal. Look closely, it actually supports a different sentence. And a politician's press release, especially one from the sponsor of the relevant legislation (!) is not reliable source in any way, shape, or form and is in clear violation of WP:RS. I would remove it right now but I don't want anyone to feel like I'm hijacking this discussion. Yes, that is intended a dig, which leads me to my second point. It seems the only reason why there is this so-called "consensus" is because everyone who trolls this article appears to have the same political viewpoint. You are the only one who has had the courage to actually address my arguments. Your arguments are reasonable, as are mine, and we should be able to discuss them like gentlepeople without one of us (i.e. me) feeling like the rug has been pulled out from underneath by people such as yourself who apparently believe that my points are not made with sufficient good faith to merit a POV tag. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The RfC is pretty pointless if we aren't going to get brief summaries of the arguments. Expecting everyone to go through everything that has been written is expecting a bit much.

Taking the RfC description at face value, I would say no. I don't even see how neutrality comes into it. Where is the supposedly biased information? It is a verifiable and simple fact that Bill Clinton and several legislators who supported the bill now advocate its repeal. It is a verifiable and simple fact that the Obama Administration determined that section 3 is unconstitutional and stopped defending it. It is a verifiable and simple fact that BLAG, an arm of the House of Representatives that instructs the House's General Counsel, decided to take up defense of DOMA, with the three Republicans (the Speaker, Majority Leader and Majority Whip) voting down the two Democrats (the Minority Leader and Minority Whip). So it is clear that "the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives instructed the House General Counsel to defend the law in place of the Department of Justice (DOJ)."

Since the paragraph relates to all of the sections from "Political debate" through "Challenges in federal court", it is hard to see how it could violate WP:UNDUE. I've been able to guess at what Nstrauss is getting at with the NPOV and UNDUE claims, but the LEAD violation is completely unclear, so I'll just refer back to what I said about UNDUE. -Rrius (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've never done an RFC before. I'll add a summary at the top and hope I'm not misrepresenting anyone's arguments. Regarding your reaction, one of the things I keep coming back to is that just because a passage is factually true and well-sourced doesn't mean it's not biased. One can tell many different stories about the same set of events, and while the facts may be perfectly accurate in all of them, they can read differently based not only on language but based on which facts are included or omitted. In this case, those who disagree with me keep coming back to the noteworthiness of the Clinton sentence but (a) I haven't seen evidence of its noteworthiness in the form of RSs (or anything else), (b) I don't think that noteworthiness trumps WP:NPV, and (c) I think the sentence just smacks of being a talking point - it's inclusion is noteworthy only to the extent that it supports a particular non-neutral viewpoint. There are lots of other "key lawmakers" who still support DOMA, so why don't they get a sentence? Overall I think we're wading into a thicket when we start describing the political debate over the repeal of a passed piece of legislation in the lead. There's just not enough space to do it justice. This is borne out by other articles -- look around, you won't find anything out there like this. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

First, the RfC should be its own section or subsection. People should be able to come here from the RfC page and see a clear and concise explanation of the issue with an area for comment immediately below. Messing around at the top of this rather long section is completely unhelpful.

As to the substance, three things: First, while something that is factually true can be presented in a biased manner, there is nothing biased about the presentation of the paragraph in question. Second, the lead is a summary and generally doesn't need sources as long as the claims are supported in the body text. If you are claiming they aren't in the text and are correct in the claim, it is because someone has removed them. Also, you could find reliable sources for Clinton changing his mind (as well as Bob Barr and multiple other people who voted for it) with a simple Google News search. In short, your failure to see evidence of notability is something you could easily remedy. Finally, the point of the paragraph is not as you describe. It is merely to point out that this went from something that passed overwhelmingly and was signed into law by a Democratic president to something significant numbers of lawmakers, the man who signed it into law, and the current Democratic president all oppose. If you think greater emphasis needs to be put on the fact that a large number of people support the law, that is an argument for changing the text, not removing it. So far nothing you have said makes a case for deleting anything. -Rrius (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You're making the assumption that I haven't looked for evidence of notability of the Clinton sentence. In fact as I wrote earlier in the thread, I have looked and I found very little, which is why I asked others to help me. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment It doesn't seem to violate anything and in my view needs to be cleaned up a bit. Like "starting in the mid-2000s(?)." And more context to allow an overview on how public opinion laid the groundwork for repeal. I think a missing sentence would also be The LGBT community had almost universally opposed the legislation from the very beginning. This is the community that chiefly was impacted yet their voices are almost absent from the entire article. Insomesia (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• RfC summons comment: There are three points to make –

1. You all need to decide whether this is a specialist American encyclopedia, or an Encyclopedia with relevance to the entire Anglophone world. If it is the latter, most of you editors here assume far too much understanding of, and sympathy for, American political processes and biases. Given that regular editors and administrators/’Wikistapo’ types do not like to be reminded about how one-eyed they are, I will declare here that my advice is based on an assumed universality, not US elitism/chauvinism.
2. The fact that former backers of a piece of legislation now oppose it is clearly noteworthy, but not without an explanation of the reasons for this apparent turnaround. One without the other is a bit half-arsed and certainly not very helpful to people looking for facts, and most especially not for (non-American) people who neither know nor care about the bitch-fights in American politics, but who nevertheless want to access accurate information about DOMA. Yes, it is entirely possible that that there people on the planet who couldn’t care less what a bunch of smart-arse American neckbeards think about the issue of marriage, but they might want to know why such legislation was perceived to be necessary in the first place, and why some of the people backing it at first instance appear to have changed their minds about it now. You know, the facts, not the American presumptions about the matter.
3. Related to point 1 is the lamentably confused prose, which fails to clearly identify the specific capacities/titles of the principal actors in each stage of the narrative. This is most especially the case for Bill Clinton (who must be identified as such, not just as ‘Clinton’, to avoid confusion with Hillary, who presumably also has a position on DOMA), and whose capacity in opposing legislation he signed into law is not terribly clear in the article at all. Was he just talking as a former President, or in some formal Democratic Party rôle?

Given that I was summoned here by the RfC, and apparently a good week after the last comment, let me state quite clearly that I have never edited, nor do I intend to edit at any future time, this article, and I have no interest in debating my points, which are most likely to be completely rejected since I am no longer a regular editor, and certainly can’t be described as an American, let alone a local variety of smart-arse neckbeard. So, consider what I have to say, or not, just don’t make me part of the woeful Democrat-Republican bickering here.

In the meantime, though, why don’t you all have a read of Mark Mitchell’s ‘The Story of Deep Capture’ (http://www.deepcapture.com/the-story-of-deep-capture-by-mark-mitchell/) which illustrates how even our beloved Wikipedia demi-god/high priest apparently works towards distorting encyclopaedic fact for the sake of an American perspective and personal interests. It is a salutary reminder that we all bring biases to our notional ‘objective’ assessments of issues; it seems a somewhat obviously appropriate reminder right here. Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Unresolved