Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Inconsistency in the opinion polling (Public Opinion section)

Each country clearly differs by time and source.

If we can't find a common source, I propose we should at least make a note on that section specifying that, because they differ fairly significantly by year and source, that they are not going to be the most accurate when comparing. I'm going to add a note above the table:

"Because data may differ by time, source, and methodology, there may be inconsistency in the table. The table provides an overview of trends and interrelationships for countries' and areas' approval of same-sex marriage. However, caution should still be applied when evaluating and comparing opinion polling as by each country, especially since inaccuracies come when source and year differ."

Is that alright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:186:4301:20E:9DEE:E087:6180:6C03 (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a source for that note it does not belong. This appears to be your opinion of the sources. ~ GB fan 12:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

My opinion of the sources? When you're using numerous different sources, all with different methodology, and more importantly, different time frames of the data, the table is going to objectively lack consistency. This is clearly something worth noting to readers. One can fairly assess that the sources are reliable in themselves, but the fact that they all differ from time frame and perhaps methodology objectively makes it lack a lot of consistency. This isn't an "opinion", nor do you need a source to assess the fact that data is not completely comparable when the time frames significantly vary and there's no common source. Also, the article even mentions:

"Support for legal same-sex marriage has increased across every age group, political ideology, religion, gender, race and region of various developed countries in the world"

That alone demonstrates that a country polled more recently is going to appear higher than that same country polled even just a year ago. Common source, common time frame, or the table objectively lacks creditably for comparison. Not my opinion. A fact based analysis based on observable parts of the data. See use common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:186:4301:20E:3DA5:D21:D6C:3898 (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTHESIS. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. You are making the conclusion based on your reading of the data. It is your opinion that the data is not directly comparable. The reader needs to make their own conclusions about the data, we do not tell them how they should look at the data. ~ GB fan 13:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It's an "opinionated" conclusion that countries' data changes depending on what year they're taken in? Seems like a fact to me. 1: Countries data changes depending on the year or even month it was taken from. 2: The year each countries' data was taken from differs by a large margin; objectively has little to no consistency. 3: Therefore, since the years significantly differ, the data objectively lacks complete ability for comparison. You are referencing my conclusion as a subjective conclusion reached from no source. My conclusion was based on the fact that not having a common time frame results in inconsistency in data; does that fact need a source? Should I cite [the previous revisions of countries' data changing over time] as my source? If they were all taken from the same year (and a common source), then you could assume the data would be fairly different as well as reasonably comparable. But at the moment, it is factually not.

A country polled more recently doesn't necessarily have a higher percentage in favor of SSM. Sweden went down 2 % in the latest update.--Aréat (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The fact that every country changes, usually positive, occasionally negative, when updated shows that the % data objectively differs by year it was taken.

This is true for all polling, and why we indicate the year and the source for each datum. An explicit warning is appropriate IMO (it's not OR or SYNTH, and can be supported by any decent source on statistics), but it would be just as appropriate in many other WP articles. I guess the question we need to ask is, are our readers so ignorant they don't understand how polling works? (I suspect so, for many and perhaps most.) But there's also the annoyance factor, like editors who link 'difficult' words and countries when the links don't augment the article, rather than expecting readers to use a dictionary. — kwami (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Ukraine, Balarus, Moldova, Armenia

File talk:Same-sex marriage map Europe detailed.svg. In the Russian parent law traditionally the definition of marriage is not described. Ukraine, Balarus, Moldova, Armenia have no concept of marriage in their constitutions. Armenia does not recognize foreign marriages. Please correct --Терпр (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

AFAICT, you never did provide any evidence for this. — kwami (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Israel (again)

The online EB article has the following:

Israel recognized common-law same-sex marriage in the mid-1990s (the Israeli Supreme Court further ruled in 2006 that same-sex marriages performed abroad should be recognized)

Our article Marriage in Israel says,

[An Israeli] common-law marriage entitles the partners to most of the rights of a formally married couple in relation to inheritance, pensions and the landlord and tenant matters. However, the status of common-law marriage is not equal to that of formal marriage in many fields.

That sounds more like a civil union than what we now call 'Limited or partial recognition' in the info box. (Which seems odd wording, since civil unions are limited/partial recognition.) — kwami (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Why does map of Europe show Crimea not as part of Ukraine?

Or somehow it's not Ukrainian anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.70.27.16 (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course it is not Ukrainian. The Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation took place in 2014. All Ukraine has is a territorial claim. Dimadick (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Chile

Why Chile appears as having both "civil unions" and "no legal recognition of same-sex relationships". We passed our Civil Union Agreement Act in 2015 and same-sex (and opposite-sex) unions have basically all of the rights that marriage provides, except for adopting rights (which are on fast-track for being allowed with our new Adoption Law currently on discussion) and the 'marriage' label. Courts have also protected property, hereditary and filiation rights for same-sex couples and their children even if they aren't legally cohabitating under an AUC (Acuerdo de Unión Civil - Civil Union Agreement). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.101.129.85 (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You confuse light gray with dark gray, the dark grey is for "subject to an international court ruling to recognize foreign or domestic same-sex marriages"--201.219.170.8 (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruling

Are there any updates on the situations in Ecuador, Panama, and Peru following the IACHR ruling in Spanish language sources? There have been clear statements from government authorities and/or the supreme courts of these countries that they intend to implement the IACHR ruling. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Globalization tag

I have slapped the globalization tag on the debate section, which is completely, 100% built around the US and Canada. The one hint that this might not be 100%, the claim that author Gail Mathabane was South African, appears not to be true; she did marry a man from South Africa, but met him at college in New York, and they lived in North Carolina before moving to Oregon. Her opinion piece being cited is talking about the US situation, in USA Today. (I'm about to go take the South African claim out.) The section as it currently stands is horribly lacking in anything approaching a global view. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

And looking at it, the entire Debate section was added only about two months ago; we may be better off to simply restore much of the older version of this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

A consolidated debate section makes sense in this article. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not what that edit is. Despite the deceptive edit summary, the edit does not consolidate but rather removes a lot of extant material and replaces it with new material, such as the Mildred Loving and Human Rights Campaign US-centric bits. We were in better shape before that edit. If we go back, we can then see if there is a need to consolidate what is already there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with NatGertler. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The previous material went into excessive length regarding religious views, which was WP:UNDUE. All sides of the debate on this matter, including religious views, should be presented in a singular consolidated debate section. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to balance the idea that it's undue to cover religious objections extensively with edits that claim that the opponents to this are three religious groups. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Then a more comprehensive list of religious groups which oppose same-sex marriage can be inserted there. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

No, actually, if we're going to have an opposition section, it should include some well-sourced descriptions of the reasons for opposition (currently, we have a crap source and are listing only a subset of the reasons from that, in the shortest form possible), and a listing of opponents that is not just limited to religious groups, as not just religious groups oppose SSM. We have seen opposition from individuals, from political parties, and from governments as a whole. There is no reason that the opposition should not be treated as seriously as the support in coverage, as the opposition has been far from trivial. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Religious groups in opposition

It is widely known that religious groups such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Catholic Church, and the Southern Baptist Convention oppose same-sex marriage, so a citation there is not particularly necessary. As for the reason these groups oppose same-sex marriage, it is because of their view that marriage should only be opposite-sex, which is already stated. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

No, actually, it is necessary to source it; sourcing is key for Wikipedia. Particularly what would need to be source is that these three groups as being the opponents of SSM... which will be difficult to show, as the SBC is basically powerless in 90% of the world and the LDS church is not much better. Are these groups the opposition to SSM in Israel, Pakistan, or China? Additionally, what you describe is not why they oppose it, what you describe is basically just what opposition means. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They all need citations. You're right, though, up to a point. Not every statement in Wikipedia needs a citation, for example: "The sky is blue" doesn't need one. On the other hand, what you deem "widely known" isn't necessarily widely known to everybody. There are native- and second-language English speakers all over the world who don't read American news sources and have never heard of "the Southern Baptist Convention" and have no idea who "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" might be. In the United States, members of the LDS are 1.8% of the U.S. population, but perhaps to you, their views on same-sex marriage are "common knowledge". Jews are 2.1%: do you know the views of Judaism on this topic? What about the views of the Zion Christian Church? I don't know, either; but in South Africa, they have more adherents than the Catholics do.

The Verifiability policy says, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. It's not like it would be very difficult to find reliable sources about the views of the LDS, the Baptists, or other churches regarding same-sex marriage, and they should be added.

Final thought and pop quiz: what you think of as common knowledge may be trickier than you think; there are a lot of denominations and sub-denominations out there. Of the following Baptist denominations, at least two have no dogma against recognition of same-sex marriage and have clergy who will perform them; do you know which is which? Alliance of Baptists, American Baptist Churches USA, Australian Baptist Ministries, Baptist Union of Great Britain, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc., Southern Baptist Convention. I got a "zero" on this quiz. Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, perhaps in the case of the SBC and the LDS, citations may be appropriate. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

As it turns out, there were already references available for this in another section in the article, which have now been referred to in this section. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Loving quote

Justthefacts9 (talk · contribs) has been attempting to edit-war in an extended section of a statement that had been issued by Mildred Loving, claiming that it is public domain. Written statements by private US individuals are not in the public domain for a long period, unless explicitly placed there. He has shown no source where she placed this into the public domain, nor licensed by one of the Wikipedia-approved licenses. I have been reluctant to have all the past versions with this quote redacted simply because we are simultaneously burdened with trying to review a large number of adits from this editor done usually without edit summaries (and at times with deceptive summaries) Even if copyright violation were not a concern, the quote should not be included. The "debate" something is horribly skewed, both toward North America and to the "support" side. As much respect as I have for Loving, it is not appropriate to give her view in the debate more space than all the worldwide opposition to same-sex marriage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

As stated here, the statement is quoted verbatim by The Atlantic without any attribution to Freedom to Marry, which suggests that the text is in the public domain. A reputable publication like the The Atlantic would not do so unless it was certain that the text is in the public domain. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

That is neither how publishing nor the law work. If Loving or her representatives gave the statement to The Atlantic to run, they can run it. That does not require it being in the public domain. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The Atlantic has quoted the statement with zero attribution to the original source, which strongly suggests that the statement is in the public domain. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Again, that's not how publishing works, nor how the law works. Repeating bull does not make it truer. Material given to a press outlet in some conditions may be assumed to be for that press outlet to run; that does not place it legally in the public domain. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is Wikipedia's content guideline on WP:Public domain, which should be a starting point for this discussion. My understanding of it is that a printed quotation from someone is generally under copyright, unless the quotation was given before 1923 (could be more recent, depending what country it was in). As to who owns the copyright, the magazine or the interviewee, that appears to be a more complicated question. Maybe both do. But nobody seems to think an interview is in the public domain, simply for having been printed. Mathglot (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Reasons for opposition

The article currently includes "Opposition to same-sex marriage is based on the beliefs that homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal, that the recognition of same-sex unions will promote homosexuality in society, and that children are better off when raised by opposite-sex couples." However, the source being used lists various other bases for opposition (such as marriage being a sacrament, and religious liberty arguments.) Multiple editors, myself included, have attempted to rephrase this to indicate that this is a subset of the reasons, but Justthefacts9 (talk · contribs) has undone these changes with no significant statement of reason for doing so. Does anyone else wish to chime in on whether we should reflect that the three reasons listed are just a subset of the reasons? --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Actually, one editor other than yourself, an IP, attempted to rephrase that. The current summary accurately summarizes the central arguments of opponents. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sez who? Where's your source? We have a source that we're using for what the arguments are... and are then ignoring? These may be handy arguments to put up because we have a set of arguments to knock them down, but that doesn't give us excuse to ignore the other arguments. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, one editor plus me is multiple - and appears to be more than the number of folks defending the edit, as it appears this is text that you inserted and have repeatedly restored (not counting others restorations of full page-blanking.) This, of course, is hard to fully check, given your failure to use edit summaries on the vast majority of your edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If you actually read the source, it presents the arguments against in a single sentence each and then presents arguments at length that "knock them down" as you put it. If those other arguments against (which are not as prominent as the central arguments in this debate) are to be listed, then so must the arguments that "knock them down" as you put it, from the source. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, this source is a weak source for anything, particularly downknockings. It's written by someone whose expertise is apparently that they are a former regional director for a secular humanist group. This is not a relevant expertise. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem with the section goes beyond this, although I agree with Nat's basic points. Four more central issues, imho, are that this section is regional, that it is not neutral, and that like some other sections, it suffers from link clutter, and an undue focus on recent events.

1. Regional – it's largely limited to the situation in the United States. This is also true of most of the article, and is not the most important issue right now.
2. POV – This is the most serious problem. The statement near the top of the section has one so-so source, and the content summarizes it fairly tersely, whereas the "refutation" section below is longer, and has twenty-one sources. This doesn't represent the weight of existing arguments on both sides; my guess that 60-40 in support is closer to the mark. In addition, the whole "Debate" section is POV in the relative length of the two subsections, "Support" and "Opposition". The Opposition section should be expanded to remedy this.
3. Link clutter – In the case of the sourcing for the Opposing view, there should be either a better source, or more likely two or three good sources, giving a variety of viewpoints. In the case of the "refutation", having 21 sources doesn't prove the point any better than two or three good sources. But in reality, this entire "refutation" section can and should be left out. This section is entitled, "Opposition". It's understood that other views exist; since there is a parallelsection just above, these views should go there. Or: each of the two sections should have its own subsection: e.g., "Rebuttal to support", "Rebuttal to opposition".
4. focus on recent events – The section makes it seem like this argument came out of nowhere somewhere around the 1970s. In reality, it goes back many centuries; Augustine had a lot to say about it (Jerome, too), and it would be good to place the current debate in historical context. This probably isn't as important as the POV issue, but it would help by showing how the debate has changed over time.

I have been looking into how to address some of these issues. I have four good sources I'm looking at, and will propose something in a day or two. Mathglot (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing your proposal, and agree that the source being used isn't great for what it's being used for... much less for JTF9's proposal that it be used as rebuttal for every criticism. Even the article itself doesn't claim that these are all the substantive or even common arguments, even within the US context that it is specifically addressing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the four issues:

1. The regionalism issue is largely due to the vast majority of sources pertaining to the matter coming from sources based or published in the United States. Wikipedia gives weight to information based on reliable sources available.
2. In what way can "60-40 in support" deemed to be "closer to the mark"? Weight should be given based on reliable sources and these are overwhelmingly in support, including all medical/scientific organizations which have weighed in on the matter.
3. Refutation should be presented if scientifically falsifiable statements are present which are known to be false through pertinent scientific evidence.
4. Same-sex marriage is, by and large, a modern phenomenon. The modern movement in support of same-sex marriage arose in the ~1970s.

Wikipedia should not attempt to create an illusion of balance where no such balance exists (see WP:FALSEBALANCE), with regard to either arguments or history. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with NatGertler and Mathglot. As NatGertler knows, I also noted that one part of the lead is problematic: Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 24#Undue weight suicide material in the lead. As or the Opposition section, we should avoid artificially balancing material, but I agree that it needs expansion. Like I stated before, though, I don't keep up with this article as much as others do. FreeKnowledgeCreator, who has also had issues with Justthefacts9, might be able to help if interested in same-sex marriage topics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't usually follow articles on same-sex marriage, and I have no idea what has been happening here recently. That doesn't mean I'm uninterested, however. What is the issue? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Nat, this is originally your ballgame, and I don't want to put words in your mouth. Can you summarize your concerns for Free's benefit? Mathglot (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to try to wave off Free Knowledge Creator here. Calling in editor X on the basis of them having had issues with editor Y seems like a form of WP:canvassing (except if this were a noticeboard discussion of Y's work, which it is not.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Nat, whether pinging falls under "canvassing" has been discussed more than once at the WP:Canvassing talk page. Editors there (me included) haven't been able to agree on including it in the guideline; this is because of complex issues regarding pinging. It's why pinging still is not mentioned in that guideline. Yes, part of the the reason I pinged FreeKnowledgeCreator is because of FreeKnowledgeCreator's experience with Justthefacts9 and therefore having insight into interacting with Justthefacts9, but also because FreeKnowledgeCreator is experienced with homosexuality topics. I'm pinged to a number of sexual topics by editors because of my knowledge of and editing of sexual topics. FreeKnowledgeCreator watches and edits a number of homosexuality and LGBT articles and has sparingly edited this article. Because of this, I believe that my notifying FreeKnowledgeCreator passes WP:APPNOTE. I felt that FreeKnowledgeCreator, like me, was still watching this article, but not heavily involved with it. Because FreeKnowledgeCreator is not heavily involved with the article, I wondered if FreeKnowledgeCreator is interested in it (hence my "if interested in same-sex marriage topics" comment above). I realize that I shouldn't have framed my comment as simply "issues with Justthefacts9." Sorry about that.

FreeKnowledgeCreator, I apologize if you'd rather not be pinged to homosexuality and LGBT articles unless I'm sure you're watching them. Again, though, I believed you were still watching this article. Feel free to clarify that. As for the issues at hand, I'm not sure how best to summarize them. Nat's initial post above explains what is going on, and there are other sections below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologize whatever, Flyer22 Reborn. By all means ping me if you like. I'll feel free to ping you too. Like I said, I'm not uninterested in this subject, and I'll look at what has been happening here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The dispute seems to be partly over this text in the lead: "Opposition to same-sex marriage is based on the beliefs that homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal, that the recognition of same-sex unions will promote homosexuality in society, and that children are better off when raised by opposite-sex couples." I agree that that looks like an oversimplified statement, since opposition to same-sex marriage could be based on a variety of things. It may well be a cited statement, but, given how much has been written about the issue, it would be very surprising if sources couldn't be found listing other possible reasons to oppose same-sex marriage. There also appears to be excessive citation in the "Opposition" section, where a statement reading, "These claims are refuted by science which shows that homosexuality is a natural and normal human sexuality, that sexual orientation cannot be chosen or influenced, and that the children of same-sex couples fare just as well or even better than the children of opposite-sex couples" is followed by some twenty-one citations. The point of those citations is presumably to show how well supported that statement is and stop people from challenging it, but twenty-one citations would normally be considered excessive for just a single sentence, and with good reason. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the twenty-one citations supporting that statement, it can be challenged, at the least on the grounds of vagueness. For example, it's not really clear what "influenced" means, and given its unclarity, it is really pretty useless. I suppose what it was intended to mean is that sexual orientation cannot be influenced by social factors following birth, like parenting and peer relationships, but as written it does not clearly convey that meaning at all. Readers will be left to interpret it for themselves and the sentence doesn't give them enough context to make a proper decision about its meaning. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

As seen here, I tweaked/clarified the wording with a source (a review), and removed excessive citations. Per WP:Citation overkill, six can be considered obsessive as well, but I've left all six there for the last part of that sentence for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:Citation overkill is an essay, not a policy. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of WP:Canvassing. Editor C has pinged Editor B with the stated reason being that Editor B has "had issues" with Editor A. Editor C expects Editor B to have a particular attitude towards Editor A. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

As noted above, there was no WP:Canvassing violation since my thought process at the time was knowing or rather believing that FreeKnowledgeCreator was still watching this article, knowing FreeKnowledgeCreator has an interest in homosexuality and LGBT topics, and knowing that FreeKnowledgeCreator has experience interacting with you and sorting through edits of yours that might be problematic. I already noted my mistake in how I initially framed bringing FreeKnowledgeCreator into this. FreeKnowledgeCreator clearly feels that the ping was fine. The link I provided of FreeKnowledgeCreator having edited this article a few times is also there for everyone to see; that is why I thought FreeKnowledgeCreator was still watching this article. FreeKnowledgeCreator hasn't yet clarified if this article was still on his watchlist. If you think I made a WP:Canvassing violation, you are obviously free to try your luck at WP:ANI. If you do, you will be sorely disappointed, just like you are going to be sorely disappointed if you think a misrepresentation of sources and extreme citation overkill will be allowed to stay. That is why I reverted you. WP:Citation overkill being an essay does not make it any less sound and strongly adhered to, as seen by discussions (including archived ones) that have been had on that essay's talk page and various quality articles on Wikipedia. This is not a quality article, and you are partly to thank for that. But if you want to waste editors' time, I will go ahead and start a WP:RfC on your extreme citation overkill instance. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The stated reason for the ping strongly implies an attempt at WP:Canvassing. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interested in debating you on this. I've made my case above, with links. WP:Canvassing is about intent. If I thought that FreeKnowledgeCreator would object to your edits because you are you, then you would have a case. But FreeKnowledgeCreator clearly adheres to our policies and guidelines, and common sense. The RfC is below, since you are under the false belief that every edit a person challenges you on requires more than one person challenging it. No, that is not how WP:Consensus works. And we have other rules, such as WP:Verifiability, to follow. Below, I would have given more reasons for you objecting to my edit, but you only gave those two. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

This edit by Flyer22 Reborn was useful in that it clarified what "influenced" means. It is unfortunate that Justthefacts9 would have reverted it. Again, I would have thought it was obvious that it is useless to make a statement such as "sexual orientation cannot be influenced" without giving a clear and specific explanation of what that means. Otherwise it is a far too vague, general statement to convey anything meaningful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• As an aside, Citation Overkill is not strongly adhered to. It is a fairly controversial essay, as you know well (having gotten into these discussions repeatedly in the past.) Please do not exaggerate its level of support - it represents the personal feelings of some editors (if strongly-held feelings), nothing else, and has no weight when invoked on its own. (Personally, when I see it invoked I am inclined to turn extreme scrutiny towards whoever invoked it, since if they have to rely on such a weak essay to make their arguments, it is likely that their overall position isn't well-supported.) Relying on style essays to resolve disputes over sourcing and content is generally pretty poor form; unfortunately, one of the myriad flaws with that essay is that people seem positively eager to invoke it for just that purpose. --Aquillion (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It is strongly adhered to, in the sense that editors who know how to edit well never add that many citations for a sentence or paragraph and it's rare to find that many citations, or references up in double digits, at all for the vast majority of sentences or paragraphs in Wikipedia articles that include sourcing. It's already clear how you feel about the essay, but you are in the significant minority on it. With regard to article editing on Wikipedia, my overall position is usually well-supported, as many can attest to. It's usually the editors with weaker arguments and POV-pushing sentiments looking to add 20 or more citations. More below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should the sentence in the Opposition section have 21 citations?

This RfC concerns this section of the article. It currently states, "These claims are refuted by science which shows that homosexuality is a natural and normal human sexuality, that sexual orientation cannot be chosen or influenced, and that the children of same-sex couples fare just as well or even better than the children of opposite-sex couples." One view is that current sourcing for the final sentence in the first paragraph of the section should be trimmed because it is extreme WP:Citation overkill (ending with 21 citations), and also that the sentence partly misrepresents the literature since scientists have not ruled out the influence of social factors on sexual orientation; rather, with regard to social factors, they state "weak evidence," "unlikely to influence" and "no substantive evidence," or "a complex combination of biological and social factors." Both parenting and child abuse are seen by scientists as very unlikely to influence sexual orientation, however. This version of the section trimmed the sourcing to six citations and uses "unlikely to be influenced by social factors such as parenting or child abuse," with a source to support it. The other view is that WP:Citation overkill is an essay rather than a policy or a guideline and that WP:Consensus is needed to change the text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No. Like I stated above, WP:Citation overkill being an essay does not make it any less sound and strongly adhered to. Including 21 or more citations is extremely excessive and is not seen in any quality article on Wikipedia. There is also the WP:INTEGRITY (reference integrity, meaning "reference placement") issue. Additionally, the section misrepresents an aspect of the literature by stating that "sexual orientation cannot be influenced." That's not what the sources state. And even if the text stated "cannot be influenced by social factors," it would be a misrepresentation of the literature since scientists state that the hypotheses for social factors influencing sexual orientation are weak or that sexual orientation is likely caused by a complex interplay between biology and environment (including social environment); see, for example, this source. This source (currently number 33) that is included in the section in question quotes the American Psychological Association as being clear that scientists do not know the exact causes of sexual orientation, but suspect multiple (including environmental) factors. But the way it is quoted in the section makes it seem like the American Psychological Association is stating that sexual orientation is only biological. It does not state that. And this has been told to the editor who cut that quote in such a misleading way before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• No, of course not. Nothing should have 21 citations, and doing so appears to be an effort at stacking things in a certain direction, as the whole paragraph is. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Strong yes / procedural objection, although of course they should probably be combined into a single ref. WP:Citation overkill is a fairly controversial essay in the first place; the problems with it are made obvious by the fact that both the comments above are unambiguously using it as an argument for a content dispute. Problems with individual sources or with how the article summarizes and covers the literature should be addressed by discussing sources and by delving into the topic, not by this sort of lazy invocation of a frequently-disputed essay or by going for the poorly-considered sort of mass cuts that it leads to. Obviously readability is important and sources (especially redundant ones) should be condensed when necessary; but invoking that essay, of all things, to try and duck the discussion by pushing blindly for cutting sources is emblematic of how terrible an essay it really is and why it, despite its supporters fervent desires, it has consistently and rightly failed to rise to the level of policy. Policy requires that we go by the sources; a poorly-considered essay like WP:Citation overkill cannot override that and, in a case like this where they come in conflict, obviously must be disregarded. I also object to this RFC on procedural grounds, since, again, it seems like the actual objection is to the content of the sources and the way the article summarizes them, not their number; that dispute must be resolved first before discussing stylistic things. --Aquillion (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Replied further in the Discussion section below. Aquillion and I have different opinions on the essay, as seen at that essay's talk page. I, for example, have not seen that the essay is "frequently disputed." It is occasionally disputed by POV-pushers who unnecessarily add excessive references. Three or four? Okay. Six to eight bundled references? Okay. But 21 citations? No. I also have not seen a consistent failure for the essay to rise to guideline or policy level. It's not the case that it has often been proposed to be elevated. With the right format for its wording and promotion at WP:Village pump (policy), it could be elevated, however. Some people also object to the WP:BRD supplement page, which is essentially an essay and was an essay until recently. It also underwent consideration to be elevated to a guideline at WP:Village pump (policy). I was one of the ones who objected to it being elevated, for reasons noted there. The same issues are not present with elevating the WP:Citation overkill essay to a guideline. Anyway, despite WP:BRD having its haters, it is widely cited, used, and respected. It's a similar case for WP:Citation overkill. WP:Verifiability is not conflicting with WP:Citation overkill in any way in this case. 21 citations simply are not needed for that paragraph. And we are supposed to use WP:Common sense when we edit here. It's not always about what the rules say. Common sense dictates that 21 citations is overkill. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• No per Flyer22 Reborn. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, per previous statements and per Aquillion. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• No, because you don't need that many citations to support verifiability. One doesn't need the essay, to argue that citations to one or two highly reliable and independent sources would be plenty to prove the point. When I see a string of a zillion refs, I assume there's a controversy (not always true), but when there is one then the article should say something about the controversy, and include one or two refs about the opposing or multiple positions, and give a rough hint what the proportional support is for each. Another reason, is that there's no reason to name in the body all the professional associations opposed to it and then source them individually. Listing 21, or fifteen, or any number of professional associations lined up with some view and then sourcing them individually, seems to have more than a whiff of WP:SYNTH to me; because who's to say that someone with enough time on their hands (it's a big world, out there) couldn't find 22 professional associations that do *not* oppose the claim? Leaving the fate of the assertion up to which "side" is more diligent in hunting down a long list of professional associations in a game of Association tug-of-war seems the wrong way to go. Let's just find one good source (maybe this one? see discussion) that summarizes the whole situation, and cite that one, and finesse this entire Rfc. (Also, can we stay on-topic; arguments about the validity and support of an essay should be off-loaded onto the essay Talk page, and not argued here.) Mathglot (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
• No, 21 citations for a single anything is nothing less than carpet bombing. Indeed, a brief examination had some poor quality references, mixed with excellent references in the citations. Weed out the weaker citations, leave the higher quality ones.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• No No justification is provided for why the sentence requires such an unwieldy list of citations. If all 21 of these citations would suffice on their own to support the content, then why not choose 1 or 2 of the best ones and drop the rest? I also agree with some others that the paragraph is non-neutral as drafted. I'd be willing to elaborate on my thoughts on that should it come up in another discussion. R2 (bleep) 08:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment There are plenty of sources to say that the world is round. We don't need 100 sources to say the world is round. We need high quality reliable sources to say the world is round. If those 6 aren't good enough and they need the other 20 to back them up then those 6 don't need to be used at all. If those 6 are high quality RS then they are fine as is.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The other view is that WP:Citation overkill is an essay rather than a policy or a guideline and that WP:Consensus is needed to change the text. I hope I am misreading this; but by my quick reading it seems to be saying that the RFC's view (the one we're being asked to endorse, ie. the "non-other view" is that WP:Citation overkill overrides consensus. I assume this is not the case? Outside of a few red-line rules like WP:BLP, where we err on the side of caution due to the potential for harm, consensus is always required to change the text (with the very important caveat that edits can be presumed to enjoy consensus if nobody objects.) Irrespective on whether people think citation overkill is a good essay or not, and irrespective of their perception of whether it enjoys support or not, it obviously doesn't override WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy - citing a mere essay doesn't allow you to ignore consensus on an article. --Aquillion (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Aquillion, we've been over this before. I know that you view WP:Citation overkill as controversial, but the vast majority of editors do not, which is why it is extremely rare to find any Wikipedia article with 21 or more citations. It is why our WP:Good and WP:Featured articles rarely have six or more for a single sentence. And for the articles that have that many or close to that many, the citations are always reduced when an editor with a clue comes along, unless the citations are bundled and each one is considered useful rather than just redundant. Even with WP:Bundling, 21 or more citations are never needed. What example can you point to where that many citations are needed? Or even as many as 16 are needed?

As for what is at dispute, two things are at dispute -- the number of citations and a misrepresentation of the literature. But I wasn't going to frame the RfC title as a long and/or confusing question. I focused on the number of citations, but also noted inaccurate wording is also at play with the reference stacking (which is often the case when there are that many or close to that many references). Along with a reduction in the citations, I tweaked the wording so that it was less vague on one part and accurate. "The other view" concerns what the editor told me when I reverted. The editor disregarded the excessive citations because WP:Citation overkill is an essay. The argument was obviously stating that having so many citations is fine because there is no policy or guideline against it. 56 citations? Why not? There is no policy or guideline against it. The editor also stated that I need consensus here on this talk page to significantly reduce the number of citations and tweak the wording, which is why this RfC was started. As for consensus itself, we edit all the time without an edit needing official consensus. Consensus should not be needed to fix inaccurate text, as in text that does not align with what the sources state or what the literature generally states (you know, WP:Due weight and all that). It's not like there was consensus for all those citations. WP:Silent consensus is a supplement page (former essay), which assists WP:EDITCONSENSUS. But "silent consensus" is often weak since many editors unintentionally overlook an edit or a series of edits even when they have an article on their watchlist. And WP:Status quo is an essay. But, yes, when there is a dispute over a matter, we often take things to the talk page and get other editors' views. I haven't asked editors to endorse any view. I presented the facts and gave my view. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking for one or two secondary sources that speaks to what some/most/all professional organizations have to say about this, so we can just have one or two citations that covers the gamut, instead of twenty-one of them. This HRC source isn't an exact match to the Rfc topic but it's close and it's the kind of page I'm looking for, more or less, although this one merely lists, and doesn't summarize. Still, it would reduce link clutter by thirteen. In attempting to balance that by finding professional associations that stood against these, I found the American College of Pediatricians prominently listed, which, for example, finds no studies supporting harmful effects of conversion therapy, and plenty supporting married, opposite-sex parents raising children, over same-sex couples. I just kind of assumed this was the major pediatricians' professional org, but turns out that's not at all the case. This Psychology Today article could possibly be the secondary source one might use to replace the 21 primary ones, at least in the case of the child-rearing portion of the assertion, since they (PT) say, "The ACP seems to be the only group of physicians holding this stance", and the APA says the same thing.

That said, I'm not in favor of formulations like, These claims are refuted by science... which seems too stark and absolutist for Wikipedia's voice. I'd rather see something like this: Dozens of professional associations stand vehemently against this, while only one could be found in favor. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The American College of Pediatricians is a fringe advocacy group which has been listed a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Its deceptive name is intended to do exactly what it did to you ("I just kind of assumed this was the major pediatricians' professional org"), which is to get non-discerning readers and unwitting non-professionals to confuse it with the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is the professional association of pediatricians. Scientific researchers, including the director of the National Institutes of Health, have stated that the ACP has misused or mischaracterized their work in order to advance the ACP's political agenda. The statement "Dozens of professional associations stand vehemently against this, while only one could be found in favor" is blatantly inaccurate, for it suggests that a fringe advocacy group is a professional association and gives the agenda-driven views of a fringe advocacy group equal validity to the science-driven positions of professional associations, which is a violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE, which states: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity [...] we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it". --Justthefacts9 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree with most of what you said, and I'm well aware now of what the ACP is, having read and quoted the PT and HRC articles about them and linked the Wikipedia article about the ACP twice in my comment above. Everything you say about what other professional associations say about them is true. Having said all that, your comment about "blatant inaccuracy" is not true. In particular, pointing out that they stand alone against the views of dozens of professional organizations does not give their views "equal validity" and is not false balance; rather, it points out how very isolated and extreme their views are. Although it's clear that their views are on the fringe, and that they represent less than 1% of pediatricians, they nevertheless are a professional association of pediatricians; that much is true, regardless of how fringe their views are. I've raised a discussion about them at the Fringe theories Noticeboard, where I hope we'll get a sympathetic response, and possibly establish a new consensus which could then be relied upon to back statements in Wikipedia's voice about their fringe status.

But my goal is not to start an argument about the fringineess level of ACP here. Rather, it is to try to address the topic of this Rfc, and to try and find some verbiage supported by just one or two reliable sources that we can all agree on instead of 21 sources. How about this wording, then: Dozens of professional associations stand united in their views about this, while only one could be found supporting it, and their views are regarded as fringe political advocacy rather than scientifically based, followed by the two references cited previously (PT and HRC; possibly also the APA ref)? This would adequately document the unanimity of professional associations about this topic. If you like, we could add a footnote naming the ACP in the note (rather than in the article body) and linking the ACP to their WP article, where anyone could read about how fringe they are. If you don't like this solution, please suggest some wording of your own. Mathglot (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

No, the American College of Pediatricians is not a professional association, it is a fringe advocacy group, which has been pointed out and made clear at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#American College of Pediatricians. The American Academy of Pediatrics is the professional association. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Costa Rica

In the timeline, we have "Costa Rica (within 18 months of the publication of the court ruling)". It's been three months now. Has the court ruling really still not been published?--Aréat (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it wasn't published yet. Ron 1987 (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Under consideration

Adding this comment cuz some anon claimed it violated CRYSTAL. These are all countries where there is serious (and demonstrable) consideration by the govt or courts. Some will probably move up in the chart to TBA (e.g. Panama), whereas others are more likely to go the way of civil unions (e.g. Philippines) or even dismissal (as happened w Nepal). None (except probably Mexico) are a sure thing. But they're all countries with ongoing legal/political developments that are worth being aware of and keeping track of. — kwami (talk) 01:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Timeline? Definitely not a place for this. All this staff is included in national debates section. Ron 1987 (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I wanted something a little easier to scan than that. Maybe at the top of that section. It does fit in the timeline in the sense of being currently under debate. — kwami (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

That's fine place. Ron 1987 (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

More editors who don't know what a "country" is

I see we're back to edits by people who don't know what a 'country' is, that somehow Denmark, the Faeroes and Greenland are countries, but that England, Wales and Scotland are not. One wants proof of what they could easily look up themself (the others don't comment at all), with threat of a block if this change to idiocy is not accepted. This was debated last year, and has been stable since. Do we really need to revisit it? — kwami (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Good points. Each should be judged on its own merits and laws, not its inclusion in the UK. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:Edit warring over citation overkill...again

Justthefacts9, regarding this, this and this, why are you edit warring to retain your citation overkill? You edit warred before on it. You asserted that there was no WP:Consensus for me removing your citation overkill. I did my part and started an RfC on the matter; that RfC is currently seen at Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 25#RfC: Should the sentence in the Opposition section have 21 citations?, it's too many sources, bundled or not. WP:Consensus is clearly against you. The consensus is so clear that I didn't even un-archive the RfC and request a close. The "these claims are refuted by science" piece is currently support by eight references. That is still citation overkill, but at least it's eight compared to twenty-one and is bundled. Bundling twenty-one citations does not take away from the fact that it's extreme citation overkill and is unnecessary clutter. The RfC consensus was not that you get to have twenty-one citations, or even a few less than that, as long as it's bundled. The consensus was that you had engaged in citation overkill and that many citations are not needed whatsoever. I'm not going to keep starting an RfC every time you engage in excessive citation overkill and edit war over it. I'll simply take the matter to WP:ANI. Well, after pinging others watching this article to the problem first. As for the rest of the stuff I reverted you on with this edit, I wasn't focused on that. For example, I don't care if you trade "sexual orientation is not a choice" for "sexual orientation cannot be chosen." I was only focused on your citation overkill. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverted myself. I see that you didn't do the citation overkill thing again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Distorting the timeline

The years where nothing was passed (2002 and 2007) keep getting deleted from the timeline, as if they never happened. That may make the progress on SSM look more impressive, but it's a distortion of events. (And BTW I was thanked for restoring them, so it's not just me.) Like chopping off the top or the bottom of a graph so that variation looks more extreme than it actually is, leaving out empty years creates a distorted impression of history. — kwami (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Opinion of future generations about same-sex marriage

Everybody knows that younger generations tend to support same-sex marriage much more than the older ones. We should add that to this article, this is very important because it means that in the future there will be more people supporting same-sex marriage and that will make SSM much eassier to be recognised.

A majority of Chinese under 35 support same-sex marriage:

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2017/06/05/chinese-attitudes-towards-gay-rights

72% young Japanese support same-sex marriage:

https://web.archive.org/web/20151208131029/http://news.sina.com.tw/article/20151129/15635608.html

60% young Korean support same-sex marriage:

http://en.asaninst.org/contents/over-the-rainbow-public-attitude-toward-lgbt-in-south-korea/

83% young american support same-sex marriage:

http://news.gallup.com/poll/191645/americans-support-gay-marriage-remains-high.aspx

And the most important poll, 63% young people in the world support same-sex marriage in the first global poll, and the support is increasing over time. It means that in the future, majority of the world population will support same-sex marriage. That will make SSM easier to be recognised:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-10?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/youngpeopleandfreespeech — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:4800:2C56:B94D:BC98:6C94:9B96:749F (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

https://www.varkeyfoundation.org/what-we-do/policy-research/generation-z-global-citizenship-survey/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:4800:2C56:B94D:BC98:6C94:9B96:749F (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

https://www.varkeyfoundation.org/media/4487/global-young-people-report-single-pages-new.pdf

No, we should not be predicting how future generations will feel. The next generation may feel quite differently than their parents, and even those parents might change their opinions with time. For better or worse, opinion-change is not monodirectional. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Gay Marriage advocate suggest Üaw

Gay Marriage advocate in North Korea, suggest Üaw, as the marrying diety in church. This based on experience, and wishes to stay anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C700:2:F5FD:743D:6AD8:2F7D (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Nuevo Leon

Anon. moved NL up to the 2019 row in SSM table due to this[1] source, which adds NL to the list of states that have SSM. But my understanding is that the SC has made a demand that the law be changed, an order the state cannot legally ignore but nonetheless that the law will remain as it is until the state legislature changes it,[2][3] so I reverted. But I don't know when we moved other Mexican states into the 'have' section of the table. — kwami (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Per Jedi and the Wockner blog, it appears NL is equivalent to two other states we color blue, so I'm closing this question. — kwami (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep Mexico striped?

The IACHR ruling is redundant for Mexico. When the ruling came out, we did not originally stripe Mexico for the ruling. Someone later did, since technically it applies there, but it demanded no more than the Mexican SC had already ruled, and we hadn't bothered to stripe Mexico green and gold for the domestic ruling. Since people have complained Mexico is too visually busy, I removed the stripes. Does anyone think we need them?

It's a different situation in Ecuador and Chile. In Ecuador, we've had that local court ruling that the IACHR overrides the Ecuadorian constitution. And with Chile, Tuesday's Wockner blog said,

Under a settlement agreement Chile's government entered into before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2016, the government is required to push for marriage equality until it is achieved. Chile is further obligated to bring in marriage equality under the Inter-American Court of Human Rights marriage-equality ruling published in January 2018.

So I think the striping is relevant for those countries. — kwami (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Are bright greenpurple and light gold an improvement over dark green and dark grey?

Dark green and dark grey are the two colors that people had complained were insufficiently visible. However, the only solution proposed was to make the green even less visible (returning to the second light-blue color that precipitated the original chronic complaints), and to remove the grey entirely. Removal would be another discussion, so unless and until that does happen, are the new colors an improvement, or should we go back to dark green & dark grey? — kwami (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW, for those claiming that they want to revert to the original colors of the map and that I'm preventing you, here are the original colors, from Nov 2012, as you can easily verify by checking the page history:

Original map colors and wording

  Marriage open to same-sex couples

  Recognized or performed in limited circumstances [e.g. Mexico, Israel]

  High court ruled in favor, but not yet implemented

  Government supports legalization [category later abandoned]

  Same-sex marriage not legally recognized

— kwami (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be a good idea to use green, a color which usually imply a positive situation, when the situation of these countries actually de facto is that there's currently no same sex marriage there. --Aréat (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Would you like to suggest something?

You can see above that the original scheme was that the closer a state was to SSM, the darker the color was and the closer it was to blue. But the hue part of that scheme's been disrupted by later additions. Personally, I think it shouldn't be a shade of blue, since that implies some sort of SS union. On the other hand, IMO it should be visually close to blue, since it's related. Also, it probably shouldn't be close to a color that means something different in the other maps (like orange). Maybe something purple/violet?  , maybe? — kwami (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Aréat:, you can see how that color works at a temporary upload here. I like it better than the green. Mexico and Armenia don't stand out like they're more important than other countries, the way they do with the bright green, and the striping in Israel is even more visible. — kwami (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

[copied from Aréat's talk page] I like it. Although imo the green coukd use a less flashy shade. Help:Using colours --Aréat (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree about the green, but since the argument was about the distingishability of the colors, I wanted to be sure it was distinct! I'll copy your answer to the SSM talk page and upload the purple map since no-one else has commented one way or the other. (With pigments, purple is a blend of blue and red, so it's an iconic match as well.) — kwami (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW, when I created this map in Nov 2012, there was only one light blue color at File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg. The second (dull) light blue was added on 4 July 2013 by User:Cavann, "Added new colour for US federal, but not state, recognition." Around this time there were also several similar light blue and green colors on this map, but they were abandoned after discussion (I think in 2013 and 2014) that they were too similar to each other to be easily distinguishable. That problem was never fixed with the other map. — kwami (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Any problem with removing Antarctica?

The only objection above (from user CMD) was that it might should be a unique color. But that would mean adding yet another color to the legend, and several people have objected to adding more colors. Light grey is incorrect, as you can get married in Antarctica (certainly in British Antarctica, presumably also in French, Argentinian, Aussie, NZ & Norwegian, possibly also CU's in Chilean). Leaving it white like the oceans makes sense to me (can get married in either, but no permanent inhabitants to worry about). But a unique color or some other solution could work if people want. — kwami (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, I was more concerned aesthetically with making it as the same colour as water, rather than having it be unique. However, I am happy to concede on this if it is felt that being white provides clearer information. CMD (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

To me the message of white would seem to be that we're not providing any information, that we're simply ignoring it. — kwami (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer Antarctica to be gray rather than white as it's a continent and not an ocean. I think it should be gray and if we are to put information on Antarctica, we could create a page on Recognition of same-sex unions in Antarctica maybe partially for fun, although it would be academic, though the page would have to note that Antarctic claims aren't very recognized. On that page, we could maybe put a link to Gay penguins for fun (it does exist). Maybe when Chile legalizes marriage equality, we could temporarily put blue on the international map so we could look at it later and take it down quickly. Please pardon my non-encyclopedic humor and fun. I don't know if I want it removed, though I lean no. I'm open to having marriage colors on the map, though it could get distracting.-TenorTwelve (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem with grey is that it's defined as "same-sex unions not legally recognized". That's not the case for Antarctica. If we want to keep Antarctica grey, we'd need to change the definition of grey -- and do we want to do that just for Antarctica? If we add "not covered" or something, readers might wonder which countries aren't covered and why. There are maps where we don't have info on some countries, but I don't think that's a problem here. I doubt there's a single grey territory on the map where SSM is legal! Except, of course, Antarctica. — kwami (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Any problem with adding US reservations?

A concern above was that they be geographical rather than just membership. AFAIK, Navajo, Kalispel and Sac/Fox are geographical, and having them grey on blue is analogous to the blue on grey we had for some reservations prior to 2015.

But, the ones in Oklahoma are only partially geographical: There is a distinct tribal territory, but unlike Navajo residence is not restricted to members of the tribe. As such, I thought they might be striped. (I just worked out how to do that, though the stripes are a bit narrow. Maybe appropriate, given the size of the territories.) That is, you can (presumably) find somewhere to get married within those territories, but depending on your citizenship, the territory may not accept or file your marriage certificate, so you may not get the same legal benefits as other people. There might be some other approach to mapping this that makes sense. This isn't something we've ever thought much about. — kwami (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Tentatively, I think noting them is reasonable if there is a tribal territory with its own laws on the matter (and if they are large, I don't think we should place country-type circles for them). I do think however, better sourcing is needed. Wikipedia's coverage is poor, and a quick look can't answer questions I have, such as the status of civil unions in these territories. CMD (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that sourcing and completeness is an issue. One thing I'm hoping is that if the rez's are displayed on the map, visible to all, rather than hidden in the text of some article that no-one reads, then people may be motivated to hunt for better sourcing and may also report situations or changes that make it into the news. There may be readers that have access to tribal newspapers that you and I do not.

I read your comment on circles to agree with how I tried this, with the actual territory for e.g. Navajo, and no circle, but just a circle for e.g. Kalispel, whose territory is not be visible at this scale?

I'm going to try to confirm at least the nations currently listed as banning. *Chickasaw, for example, amended their family code in 2016, well past our WP's last access date, but this part wasn't changed. Sounds like nothing's changed (yet) in *Navajo.[4][5] BTW, that first link says he's only aware of 35 Tribes that allow SSM, though of course that doesn't consider the majority that don't have their own marriage laws, or e.g. Cherokee of NC, who ban SS weddings but don't issue their marriage licenses and recognize NC county licenses that do include SSM. *Muscogee/Creek still the law, I don't see anything addressing this in subsequent amendments to Title 6, which are e.g. about paternity and domestic violence. *Seminole still the law.

But *Kickapoo of OK law (revised 2011, still in effect) says they recognize marriages from other jurisdictions, which presumably includes Oklahoma. So, presumably, you just need to go to county clerk to get married. Pending any news reports to the contrary (I'm not finding any), I'll remove Kickapoo from the map. Same for *Sac&Fox of Iowa. — kwami (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I am supportive of including Tribal Nations on the map. Many LGBTQ and Two Spirit American Indians/Native Americans are still working for marriage equality and I believe this would be an important form of awareness that would make the map more informative. I do believe we should verify the policies of each Nation as we don't want to be unrepresentative. I do admit I am not an expert on Tribal Law, either. I think whenever possible we should try to match the map. I'm debating between myself if the Nations with smaller territory should be simply as they are (though they might look invisible) or if the dot could be used (ie. the dot that is used for small islands or city-states). I think the "circle" would be too big (the one that looks like a donut). Tribal Nations are not countries, but they are Sovereign Nations. As Sovereign Nations, Nations have treaty rights and treaties signed hundreds of years ago still have legal effect, but I digress. I do believe, though that it would be an important awareness-building point to show that many LGBTQ and Two-Spirit American Indians/Native Americans are still working for equality and I think the map should reflect that.-TenorTwelve (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Good. That's what I was hoping for.

Currently the small rez do use the smaller dots.

I think "sovereign" is a legal fiction. They're autonomous at the pleasure of Congress. Though maybe I just don't know what "sovereign" means.

We can't get info on all rez. I've been in contact with some, but many don't respond. When you get someone at the court on the phone, often they don't know, or they'll say just read the tribal code, as that's all the court would have to go on. Especially with many of the smaller rez, there hasn't been a case yet to test how the court would interpret the law -- e.g., if it says nothing about needing to be opposite sex to get married, but that you are required to declare yourself "husband and wife", would the court accept a same-sex couple declaring that, as a conventionalized phrase? What about language -- if the national language doesn't use gendered words for 'husband' and 'wife', as was claimed for Cherokee in their court case, does that mean that SS couples can get married in the national language, but not in English? Or that only English-language ceremonies are valid, violating language rights? Currently, I've been following how we handled the US states before 2015 -- if the marriage code specifies marriage is between a man and a woman, then I've given it a grey dot. But of course in many cases we don't have access to the marriage codes. So it's a case of a grey dot if we can demonstrate a ban, otherwise we leave it blue. But still useful, I think. — kwami (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Mexican borders/colors

[moved down from unrelated thread] I'm not sure where to put this, but I'll put this here because it seems vaguely similar. The state borders for Mexico are rather squiggly and aren't quite accurate. I think the purple is kind of cool, but it makes it harder to see the state borders within Mexico. -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to fix the borders, but you need to know where to place the center of rotation to get a more precise map to line up properly. I gave up after an hour. It's something that we might want to ask the map lab for -- are precise borders important enough to bother with?

As for the color, feel free to suggest something else. But, when we were doing this with the US, I seem to remember that we only added states where something had happened. We didn't show them all. We could simply remove the purple states and leave the purple background for the country, since it's not like the SC ruling was made separately to each of those states. I'll go ahead and try that so you can see if you like it better. (I'll just move the states off the edge of the map so anyone can move them back when the laws change.) — kwami (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@TenorTwelve: How's that? Since the unused states were all labeled 'Mexico' anyway, I removed them. — kwami (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)