Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:49, 30 October 2013

	Same-sex marriage is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 24, 2003 Featured article candidate Promoted March 1, 2004 Featured article review Demoted November 21, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Sexology and sexuality This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Family and relationships (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

New Jersey

Gay marriage just legalized, Christie vows to appeal. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/nyregion/new-jersey-judge-rules-state-must-allow-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

Please update relevant charts/graphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.242.61 (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point, it hasn't actually been legalized; it is scheduled for the future, with an appeal already called for and quite likely at the very least to mess with that schedule. It's arguable, because if nothing happens, then yes, it becomes legal.... but the odds of nothing happening at all are slim (Christie vowing appeal makes it most likely that there will be an appeal, and that the ruling is likely to be delayed until the appeal is heard). At best, we need to put this with very clear caveats. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Corrupted text

The article contains the following nonsense text: "Societal attitude towards same sex couples and formal unions of same sex couples differed greately depending on the times and places - from full acceptance and integration, theough neutral tolerance, to the lack of recognition, discrimination, neutralność tolerancję, po nieuznawanie, dyskryminację, persecution and physical extermination" Could someone correct or remove it? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It's Polish, but I don't know what it means. It was added with this edit; perhaps Martina Moreau (talk · contribs) could fix it up? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I recognize that it's a foreign language. My point is that it doesn't belong where it is. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The text removed. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam's new legislation

http://tuoitrenews.vn/society/13750/vietnam-to-remove-fines-on-samesex-marriage

What does 110/2013/ND-CP really mean?

I think we need to clarify what this removal of fines means. It looks like Vietnam is enacting a unique "neither legal nor illegal" view to same-sex marriage, but towards the bottom of the article, it says, they can "share a household registration book, meaning they are allowed binding relations in terms of property, children, and related rights and obligations." So the marriage isn't registered, but the household can be?

What does that mean? Is that analogous to the unregistered cohabitation of certain countries? Or do we need to create a new status such as "legal, but only 'household' recognized?" Anyone out there who can clarify this? Frimmin (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If I understood correctly, the government's decree just removes fines, but the bill removing the explicit prohibition on same-sex marriage and giving cohabiting same-sex couples some level of legal recogniton is not yet approved by the parliament. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, two separate things, a decree and an amendment being discussed. This is why I never went into politics. Too complicated!Frimmin (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's amazing this is happening in Vietnam. That's a very conservative country sexually. Not as unexpected as an Arab country, maybe, but it would be quite something if Vietnam were first in Asia. — kwami (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Totally minor copyedit needed.

I can't fix this because I don't have an account, but someone should insert the missing comma between "Reform Judaism" and "Unitarian Universalism" in the fifth paragraph of the article. 72.76.11.8 (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. - htonl (talk)

Portugal and Brazil

Why refer the situation in Portugal to that of Brazil? Portugal didn't copy or get inspiration from Brazil, for sure: Portugal legalised same-sex stable unions over a decade before Brazil did. In fact, Portugal legalised same-sex marriage before Brazil gave the initial step of legalising stable unions... The analogy makes no sense. Portugal got inspiration from other European countries, namely its neighbour, Spain. Gazilion (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you know the situation, you should fix it. — kwami (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

Please edit the timeline regarding the Australian Capital Territory. And, in the map, New Mexico should not be painted dark blue because marriage is not legal in all its territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.6.235 (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

AFAICT, it is legal. Do you have a ref to the contrary? — kwami (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's this news article, about the Supreme court hearings, in addition to the references we have in the article. I'm guessing your point that a marriage in one county will likely be recognized in the rest of the state, though? —Quintucket (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Whatever the court decides, people are getting married, and I haven't heard of the state or another county declaring those marriages to be invalid. As long as a court or government says they're married, and no-one elsewhere or higher up disagrees (as happened with the SF marriages in 2004), then AFAIK they're married. — kwami (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

When did it become legal to marry on US military bases? People are getting married now, but I don't have a start date for the timeline. — kwami (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I meant, that in the timeline, "Australian Capital Territory" is under "in progress". But it is already legal (though not yet into effect)? So please change the timeline to reflect that it is now legal in the "Australian Capital Territory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.14.184 (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I changed it and it was changed back, because it's not been finalized. — kwami (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes has been repeatedly inserted in the Timeline as joining the SSM club in 2013. Problem is, we don't know that that's true. We know that they joined by 2013, that they gave out a marriage license this month... but the best source we have thus far indicates that this is the third such license they've granted. The first one could have been this year, could have been ten years ago, we really don't know. As such, it is best that we leave them off of the timeline until we actually know where they fall on the timeline. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

No, we should note that the date may have been earlier, as we already do, and adjust if we find an earlier date. The solution to ignorance is not greater ignorance. BTW, the fact that licenses were issued does not mean that the couples married. — kwami (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The solution to ignorance is not making stuff up, which is what you are doing by placing this under 2013. If the point of a timeline is to show an order to events, then you are messing it up by putting an uncertain event in a certain place. And by stating October 31 or earlier under 2013, you are both still implying that it is within 2013, and you are predicting an uncertain event, as many a wedding goes awry and that one is still about a week away. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You do know that reporting a source is not the normal definition of "making stuff up", don't you? — kwami (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

What source? I don't see any source there. What source do you have that indicates that the Tribes started granting SSM in 2013? (I assume that's what the timeline is supposed to represent; there is no marking of the timeline indicating what it's a timeline of.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Any source. We have several that they started granting SSM by 2013. Perhaps earlier, thus the comment. If we can confirm an earlier date, then we will change the timeline. But we're only as good as our sources.

Your right about the wedding date, however. When they get married is irrelevant; the precedent is that the license was issued. That should be the date. — kwami (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that we don't have any source that says that they started granting SSM in 2013. The timeline appears to be of when various jurisdictions started granting SSM, and as such, we do not know where this belongs in the timeline and should not put it there. But if that's not what the timeline is, please explain what it is a timeline of. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There is marriage as of Oct 2013, so it's under Oct 2013. That's also the date it became a news item. If you can find an earlier date, we can move it to that.

And why aren't you concerned about the date marriage became available federally on military bases? — kwami (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There are marriages in plenty of places as of October 2013, so by that logic we should put the whole chart under October 2013 and be done with it. You have failed to answer the question of what this is a timeline of. If it is a timeline:

• of when same-sex marriage started in various jurisdictions, then the should remove the Tribes, as we do not have that information for the Tribes and should not be making it up.
• of when people became aware that SSM was legal in various jurisdictions, then we must ask "which people?" (the folks who got the earlier marriage licenses with the Tribes seemed to have been aware), as well as whether we should set the date to when people were aware that SSM would become legal in a jurisdiction.
• of when Kwamikagami became aware that SSM was legal in various jurisdictions or what Kwamikagami's best guesses are for when something happened, in which case this doesn't belong in the article at all.

You blew off the WP:BRD cycle for this, you cannot show that you've gained consensus for this addition, please revert it until you can generate such consensus. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

And now you have added a reference which specifically states that there were prior licenses and does not state when they began, whether it was "2013by October" as the timeline currently indicates or whether it was some other year entirely. Again, I ask that you follow WP:BRD and revert the material until we have actual verifiable information. --17:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

(1) We state that there was marriage by a certain date. (2) We have a ref that there was marriage by that date. QED. — kwami (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Is that what we're stating? Are you saying that the unlabeled Timeline table is not a listing of when same-sex marriage started in the jurisdiction? Because if it is, by filing this under 2013, you are presenting it as having started in 2013. If it's not, we don't know what they heck the entire timeline is discussing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW, you're complaining because I found an Al Jazeera source that provides more info than we'd had. The whole point of an article is to provide as much info as conveniently as possible. You wish to make it inconvenient because we don't have perfect knowledge. Well, we don't have perfect knowledge about anything, so by that logic we should delete the entire article. — kwami (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I am complaining because you edit-warred your material in, then deleted a CN flag without inserting a source that actually substantiates the claim that the table appears to put forth, that SSM started in the Tribes in 2013. I don't think it is making it more convenient to make up information and present it as fact. I think it's a damned inconvenience, and does a disservice to those who might rely on this page. If things like WP:BRD and WP:V are inconvenient to you, well, welcome to Misplaced Pages. --18:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming our readers are literate. We say that they had SSM by Oct 2013. We have a ref that they had SSM by Oct 2013. Your objection that it the ref doesn't substantiate that claim is absurd. Unless you have something intelligent to contribute, I'm done here. — kwami (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"We say that they had SSM by Oct 2013." So you're just ignoring my pointing out that this unlabeled timeline is putting some Tribes event clearly in 2013, and that the (by October) is merely a parenthetical to that placement, and inventing what people will read it as? Given your clear lack of achieving consensus on this edit, given your announcement that you are apparently going to avoid discussion, given your choosing to ignore WP:BRD, and given the problems with WP:V on this placement, I have removed it. I recommend that you gain consensus before adding it back in. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nat here. By placing a jurisdiction in the timeline with a particular date, we are stating that SSM became legal in that jurisdiction on that date, not sometime before that date. - htonl (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That's why we say "by October"! We used to qualify it "or earlier", and that's fine too. If you have a better way to clarify the wording, great, but it's silly not to include a polity just because we aren't sure of exactly when it happened. Oct 2013 is when it made the news. Many of our other dates are off as well, as they reflect different criteria in different sources, but they give the reader some idea of how things are progressing. We shouldn't pick and choose who to include and who to not. — kwami (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's silly to not include something on a timeline because we don't know when it happened? Have you considered that perhaps the point of a TIMEline is to show when things happened? --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

We have a ref'd date. We know that SSM was available by that date. We say just that, that SSM was available by that date. With our current sources, that's the best we can do. Your argument is like saying we couldn't put a person on a timeline if we didn't know both their birth and death date. Sometimes we don't one one or even both, and in such cases we mark it with a dotted line, question mark, or the like. Readers are intelligent enough to understand what that means. They're also intelligent enough to understand that "by Oct 2013" means that it may have occurred before Oct 2013. — kwami (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

We do not have a ref'd date for whatever this is supposed to be a timeline of. "They're also intelligent enough to understand that "by Oct 2013" means that it may have occurred before Oct 2013." Well, I don't know if you've noticed, but that thing you quote is not what we're saying. As formatted, we're saying that in 2013, the Tribes did whatever-the-timeline-is-of by October. That places it between January and October of 2013. I'm intelligent enough to see that. Now you may want to try reading the articles on consensus; at this point, you are now outnumbered on the assumption that your edits convey what you claim, and that they should be included. You clearly do not have consensus for the inclusion. Are you going to stop edit-warring in this material until you have consensus? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico in map?

Why is New Mexico colored blue in the map? Only 8 counties allow ssm, so why color all the state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.56.180 (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Because no-one has shown that you cease to be married if you move to or live in one of the other counties. If only eight counties had DMV offices, that wouldn't mean you couldn't drive across the whole state. — kwami (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Unassessed Sexology and sexuality articles
• Unknown-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class law articles
• Top-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles