Jump to content

Talk:LGBTQ rights in the United States/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elksforest (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SirEze.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Bias in Transgender Rights Section

The article reports on much discrimination against transgender people and communities, but does not address counterpoints and concerns related, for example, to women’s rights and psychological research on the effects of gender dsyphoria and the links to mental health concerns, or the underlying causes of the discrimination shown in the data that do not necessarily have a causal link with a person being transgender. I am not qualified to discuss these at any length and hope someone more qualified can help, but I believe the article is biased in the manner I have outlined. The article’s coverage is good and in depth, but not balanced, as wikipedias bias guidelines state it should be. 31.94.37.36 (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by not addressing counterpoints. Cadenrock1 (talk) Cadenrock1 (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 26 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 22:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

LGBT rights in the United States → LGBTQI+ rights in the United States – Rename it to "LGBTQI+ rights in the United States", as that is the acronym used by the current presidential administration's executive orders? Maximus Pinpoint (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The article is far too long already. If anything, we should split the page into 3 different articles:
LGB rights in the United States — rights for non-heterosexuals.
Transgender rights in the United States — rights for non-cisgender people.
Intersex rights in the United States — rights for intersex people.
"LGB(T) rights in the United States" is WP: Commonname and is in line with every other country's pages on LGBT+ rights presently. (e.g. Canada, Australia, Hungary, et al.)
My suggestion is to make LGBT rights in the United States a disambiguation for the three above topics. KlayCax (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
First, let me say I Support this idea - and let me clarify to everyone, I have no preference. I merely suggested the move because it seems the old discussion never reached an end. The disambiguation idea sounds good to me, though. Maximus Pinpoint (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Procedural oppose This page should remain consistent with other "LGBT rights in..." and arguably the LGBT article itself, as well as any article with a descriptive title that uses LGBT. Get consensus to move them all at once. However, I doubt such a proposal would succeed given the NGRAM. If the page is split into three as suggested above, it should be "Gay rights in..." as the WP:COMMONNAME as "LGB" is not a common acronym. (t · c) buidhe 01:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose splitting per buidhe. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Due to the preponderance of possible alternative acronyms, I very strongly suggest that the "LGBT rights in {country}" suite of articles should not be moved unless the main LGBT article itself is moved to something else (LGBTQ, LGBTQ+, LGBTQIA+, LGBTQI+, etc.) 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Not an improvement, and we should not blindly follow the POTUS-of-the-day's style preference while excluding consideration of other usage. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment: “Queer rights in the United States” seems like a good alternative. But it looks like that wouldn’t be the common name. Prcc27 (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose The common name is ok and most people expect the heading to include the QIA+ by implcation. A split is also ill advised. Jorahm (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lede info

@KlayClax removed info re: right-wing opposition to LGBT rights from the lede section to elsewhere in the article. While I notice they seem to have introduced another sentence on the end regarding opinion polling on trans rights, that isn't necessarily the same thing as legislative actions taken on a state level. The rationale for moving the former was said to have been based on consensus but I cannot see anything on that either on the talk page or in the main edit history. Totalibe (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

"Highest in the world"? -- odd phrasing

What are "high rights"? Shouldn't it say "best" or "most advanced"? 2A00:23C5:FE56:6C01:F8C4:96AD:82B8:7BFF (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I changed it to "most advanced". :) KlayCax (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"74% of Americans agree that same-sex marriage should be a guaranteed right while 13% disagree"

13% opposition seemed abnormally lower than any other poll, so I looked at the poll.

"For each of the following, please tell me if your view is that it is a right that should be guaranteed to all Americans or if this is best left to elected officials to decide."

74% supported same-sex marriage as a guaranteed right in this poll, while 13% said "best left to elected officials," and 13% said "not sure." I feel like the wording on this poll is pretty different from usual polls on this, and realistically, a lot that "not sure" would be people who oppose same-sex marriage but didn't know what to answer.

Other polls would probably be better for this:

Gallup May 2023: 71% support same-sex marriage, while 28% oppose it. Could also include the fact 89% of 18-29 year olds support it in this poll.

Pew Research Spring 2023 Global Values Survey: 63% "somewhat or strongly favor" same-sex marriage, while 34% "somewhat or strongly oppose" it. 68.199.219.7 (talk) 11:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Why "most advanced" is deleted?

Hey 2A01:5A8:306:6B93:3D73:3F99:CA4A:A05D (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, that was my edit. See 'Claims in Lead' directly above. If you disagree I'd be very happy to discuss here. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Senior Seminar

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 10 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Koolkat822 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Koolkat822 (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Name change

Not sure how to do this, but maybe this?

US place on international index of countries for LGBT tolerance; Scotus ruling

The following text has been removed (along with references) from the lead on the basis that it is; "controversial".

"The United States is listed below almost all full democracies (except Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Costa Rica) in the UCLA Williams Institute world index of social acceptance of LBGTQIA+ people (https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Global-Acceptance-Index-LGBTI-Nov-2021.pdf).

and;

"In 2023, the US Supreme Court ruled that providers of creative services could, given specified conditions, discriminate against LGBTQIA+ people.(https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/30/us-supreme-court-ruling-lgbtq-rights-colorado)".

Both sections are surely entirely and very relevant to the article? In what way are they controversial? They are simply facts, there is nothing contested about them. I have reverted on the basis of BRD and begin the discussion here.Do any other editors have an opinion? Thank you in advance. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Their editions have a clear intention to show the United States in the worst possible light regarding LGBT rights. As the stable edition of the article indicates, the United States has made significant progress on LGBT rights since 1980, a fact too important that its editions want to hide. In the United States, same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption are legal nationwide, and polls consistently show that around 70% of the American population is in favor. There is also national protection for LGBT people in labor matters. Of course, not everything is perfect, but the vision you try to impose is clearly desproportionate, biased and ill-intentioned.
Besides me, there are other users who have also expressed their disagreement with you. Do not undo the stable edition of the article again without reaching a consensus, otherwise you could be blocked. Esterau16 (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, @Esterau16. I do not doubt that your edits are in good faith, but I would mention that the "other users" you refer to have simply made homophobic slurs, some of which have now been edited out but are present in the edit history. I do not suggest in any way that you are the source of the homophobic slurs. My edits about the international table and the SCOTUS decision are simply matters of fact which balance what is otherwise an overly positive-looking article on LGBT in the US. Progress over the period you mention is important, but so is the recent trend in the US to reverse some of the progress; as is the gap between the US as a world-leader and its relatively modest status in respect of LGBT rights. In process terms, I reverted your edit on the basis of WP:BRD and the correct procedure is for a discussion to take place here. Instead, you have reverted my revert without discussion. We are both relatively new editors, I see, so I think the best thing is to take advice. In my opinion, your action might amount to edit warring (I might be wrong and I will defer to more experienced editors). I do not wish to accuse you unfairly and so rather than go to that process or any other of the dispute resolution processes I will do what I think is the lowest rung and ask for a third opinion. This has now been done here. I will also put this at your talk page. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
It is precisely your edits that unbalance the article. Progress in the United States regarding LGBT rights is not simply important, it is the most important and the most relevant fact to highlight. In United States:
- Same-sex marriage was legalized throughout the country.
- Same-sex adoption was legalized throughout the country.
- The Supreme Court banned employment discrimination against LGBT people nationwide.
- There is a federal law that punishes hate crimes against LGBT people.
None of these fundamental and essential things have been reversed, therefore there is no reason big enough and solid enough to place at the beginning of the article that the United States is a backward country, in decline and with low acceptance of LGBT people, so start the article that way is clearly unbalanced and disproportionate.
Recent controversies over LGBT issues in US politics have focused primarily on transgender issues, which is mentioned in the article introduction. It is clearly mentioned that transgender issues have a mixed treatment. And this is not something exclusive to the United States, since in recent years far-right groups and radical conservatives that promote attacks and hate speech against LGBT people (especially transgender people), have been growing throughout the world, including developed countries.
Regarding the Supreme Court ruling that you mention, in the article there is already a section about Supreme Court rulings on LGBT issues, and the ruling you refer to is mentioned there. Therefore, the article is properly balanced.
And I reverted your edition, because you reverted the stable edition of the article, which has been there for a very long time. When you want to undo the stable edition of a article and make significant changes, you are the one who must first start a discussion to create consensus. The consensus is not only put a comment on the discussion page.
My conclusion on this topic is that the positive aspects of LGBT rights in the United States outweigh the negative aspects, therefore it is the positive aspects that should be named and highlighted first. Esterau16 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, @Esterau16. Happy to discuss the article here once we have a third opinion, or perhaps another route, to help decide which version should stand while we discuss. For info, in my opinion at present the lead (for an article which is far too long) reads like 'how well the US has done since the 1980s' rather than as an introduction to a WP:NPOV article about LGBT in the US. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@Esterau16. Do have a look at the 3O kindly provided by @StereoFolic. It is very helpful. I am not sure, tbh, whether the previous version s/he refers to is yours or mine. To err on the side of caution, I'm going to leave it at yours while I work on an improved lead. I'll propose it here to see what you, and maybe others, think. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
@Charlie Campbell 28 Yes, I was referring to the version opening with 'progress since the 1980s' StereoFolic (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again, @StereoFolic! Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
I don't think either lede is very suitable for this article. I agree that the one provided by @Charlie Campbell 28 pushes a POV too strongly for the lede, while I also agree that the status quo lede unnecessarily frames the topic in terms of 'progress since the 1980s'. I think a better lede would attempt to describe the current state in very high-level terms, and at the end note recent changes and areas of activism and reaction. In the meantime, I recommend keeping the previous (again, disagreeable to me) status quo, as this is a relatively high-activity article, so it more plausibly represents a consensus. Note that unfortunately LGBT rights are a contentious topic, so extra caution is needed when editing. Drastically changing the lede in a CTOP article without prior consensus is usually asking for a revert. StereoFolic (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this, @StereoFolic. I understand what you mean about both versions of the lead and your view looks wise and sensible. I will propose a new lead along the lines you suggest. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I reverted it back for now, @StereoFolic:. KlayCax (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

US is gay friendly, fu*kin* fa**ots! 2A01:5A8:40D:D940:0:0:8BD:AE7B (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not actually gay, but I do recognise your comment as the kind of thing small town guys in the US say when they're desperate for a dick up their ass but don't feel that fits well with their self-image. My advice to you is, be honest with yourself; you'll enjoy life much more in the end. Good luck with it all, anyway. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBTQ_rights_in_the_United_States/Archive_2&oldid=1258776048"