Jump to content

Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Edit-warring over map

Initial map (as it was)
File:Global same-sex marriage map.svg
New map
Adding the maps under discussion so they can be seen CMD (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

We have a couple edit-warriors trying to revert consensus on the map, and force changes without adequate sourcing. A few problems that need to be discussed --

The old color for foreign recognition,  . We decided to get rid of this years ago. It's almost impossible to distinguish from no recognition   in the striping for Israel (which doesn't look like it's striped at all), and poorly distinguishable from minimal recognition  . We had changed foreign rec to dark green   to avoid these problems. Jedi Friend has claimed that the dark green is not sufficiently distinguishable from international court ruling  , and I'm fine with making it more distinct (maybe a brighter green?), but we shouldn't revert to the old problematic color that was even less distinct and that had triggered constant complaints until changed. The real motivation for the revert seems to be to match the colors of the other world map (the one showing penalties for homosexuality), but we could just as easily argue that that map should match this one. IMO, having a single neon color in a map where all the other colors are muted is visually annoying where it's solid in addition to making Israel illegible.

Striping Estonia for CU + foreign SSM. Estonian courts have ruled that foreign SSM must be recognized, as in many countries that have CU's and which we don't stripe. From news reports[1][2][3] (and others I'm not finding right now), it seems that such foreign recognition does not confer full marriage rights, and indeed may confer fewer rights than domestic CU's. There was one report of a couple married abroad who registered for a domestic CU because that granted them more rights, and of another who recommended getting married abroad because the Estonian parliament had not implemented the CU law. But those were all a year or two ago, and there have been ongoing court cases. But unless we get RS's that the situation is different than other CU countries, such as Italy, which also recognize foreign SSM, then Estonia should be colored the same as e.g. Italy. Although we don't say one way or the other, I think the idea is that we would only stripe a CU country for foreign marriage if those marriages were treated as full marriage. Countries where foreign marriages treated as CU's are simply colored as having CU's. This is a point where Jedi Friend conceded I might be right. I'm not sure I am, due to poor coverage of Estonia, but I think we need a RS that SSM is accorded full marriage rights in Estonia before we stripe it. (We also need better sources for Armenia. The current color is based on a literal interpretation of govt statements, but it's possible that Armenia should be colored the same as e.g. Lithuania or Hong Kong, where courts have ruled that foreign SSM must be recognized, but only minimally.)

Akrotiri and Dhekalia. The permanent civilian population does not have access to SSM, so coloring this territory blue is misleading. The temporary military population are subjects of the UK and can get married there. The law in A&D may make things a bit more convenient for them, but does not expand marriage rights to any additional people.

Similarly BIOT. There is no civilian population at all (they're exiled in Mauritius), and the mostly American temporary residents already have access to SSM (and are they subject to BIOT law regardless?). Coloring BIOT blue would be setting a precedent for coloring other military bases blue, such as the US bases in Afghanistan, or perhaps Mexican embassies around the world. It would again be misleading to have blue dots in Kandahar or Riyadh. Jedi Friend has argued that A&D and BIOT are sovereign bases and therefore different, but my problem is that the permanent residents of those territories do not have full marriage rights. Blue is supposed to indicate marriage equality, not some are more equal than others.

We need discussion and consensus before we start reverting to poorly visible colors, striping countries without adequate sources, or adding military bases or other transient populations. — kwami (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Several users have already expressed their opposition towards your version of the map on commons:File talk:World marriage-equality laws (up to date).svg. I'm also not sure why you're referring to them as edit-warriors as you reverted a total of 9 times against three different users - Jedi Friend, Sander000 and Glentamara. A new map was even created to avoid your reversions - File:Global same-sex marriage map.svg. --Buyerseve (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Read WP:BOLD for an understanding of what 'edit-warring' is. This is the consensus map. It's been here for years. If you want to change it, fine, but if there are objections to your changes, you need to discuss them, and not just start edit-warring if the discussion doesn't go your way. (And not by vote count. WP is not a democracy. Demonstrate that your version is correct or better supported by RS's.) Your 'new map' is just the old map under a new name. I've agreed with most of the changes Jedi Friend made once he produced sources for them. He conceded that I may be right about Estonia (though our refs aren't good enough for us to be sure either way). He also conceded that SSM is not open to the inhabitants of A&D, though you insist on marking the map as if it were anyway. I find that misleading if not dishonest. As for the color for foreign recognition, the one you propose is not easily visible, and it was rejected years ago for the dark green. That is, dark green has been the consensus for longer than you've been on Wikipedia. I'm sure we can come up with something that is distinct from all the other colors and is acceptable to both us and to the other users of this map, but that requires you (or Jedi Friend) to propose something.
If we're going to include territories with SSM but no permanent inhabitants, such as BIOT, then we should include Antarctica, where SSM is also legal.
As for indicating territories with no permanent inhabitants, why just BIOT? Shouldn't we include British Antarctica, since UK SSM law applies there as well? Or Kerguelen? Or any of the other French, US, Norwegian, etc. territories with transient populations that allow SSM? This would be a significant change in the philosophy of the map, and IMO should be a communal decision.
BTW, the last time there was an IDONTLIKEIT edit-war over the map (about adding countries without adequate sources), it was permanently protected and could no longer be updated. Discussion is a better way to get things done.
Someone said something about marking US reservations that do not allow SSM. I would support doing that, though it would require a bit of work, and I don't think we have sources for most of them. If we restricted ourselves to reservations that were large enough to show up at this scale, we might be able to do it.
This is a probably better place for discussion than Commons, as it has a larger audience. — kwami (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm quite sure that Jedi Friend based the new map on an older version of the older map File:World marriage-equality laws (out of date).svg which existed before your changes, seen in the history of that file. Prior to that this style of map with the bright blue colour was used and once you made several changes, not only changing colour but also adding a new category, which Jedi Friend also removed and which also didn't receive any consensus when you decided to add it. In fact, looking at the talk page of the older map - commons:File talk:World marriage-equality laws (out of date).svg it's clear that most users were against the changes you made, but you kept insisting on your version as can be seen by your reversions in the history of that file. It seems that your interpretation of a 'consensus map' is simply one that you've chosen by yourself. You seem to have unilaterally declared yourself the guardian of Same-sex marriage maps as you either continuously revert other users on the maps you've uploaded or tell them to make a new map, but once they do you remove it in favour of your own. Regardless of the decision on map content I don't think your map should be used as you simply don't allow consensus editing and prefer to dictate what should and should not go on it regardless of what other users say. --Buyerseve (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I created that map as well. We changed the color because people complained about it. — kwami (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@User:Kwamikagami, @User:Buyerseve, @User:Sander000, @User:Glentamara, @User:Ron 1987, @User:AdamPrideTN, @Panda2018_0, @User:*Treker, @User:Extended Cut, @User:Global-Citizen, @User:Largoplazo, @User:Aréat, @User:Prcc27, @User:SPQRobin

Welcome.
Yesterday, User:Buyerseve linked the file Global same-sex marriage map.svg, which I created about two days ago, to this article and removed the other one. As expected, User:Kwamikagami, the creator of the latter file, reverted that change. Among the major differences, the new map removes the colour for the IACHR ruling (which honestly made the old map completely unreadable), the addition of Akortiri and Dhekelia and the British Indian Ocean Territory (both of which legalised same-sex marriage in 2014), the hatching of Estonia and Aruba (civil unions/recognition of foreign marriages) and finally changing the foreign recognition colour from   (#008080) to   (#00ffde); #00ffde being the colour used on File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg and File:Same-sex marriage map Europe detailed.svg. Kwamikagami argues that #00ffde is less visible and distinguishable especially when in proximity to   (#99ccff), despite me having proven that the pair #00ffde and #99ccff are more visibly distinct than the pair formed by #008080 and   (#a0a0a0), using a calculator which measures difference in visibility (but it seems this has fallen on deaf (and very stubborn) ears). I would also like to point out that there has been a long history of conflict with the user's changes, starting with the File:World marriage-equality laws (out of date).svg, where his changes to include the IACHR ruling and the foreign recognition colour change received near unanimous opposition. This discussion also shows broad opposition to these changes, but the user refuses to relent. Either way, I wish to avoid an edit war, which is why I've pinned several editors and users who are active on LGBT-related articles. I would love to hear your opinions, and whether you support the new map or oppose it. Cheers. Jedi Friend (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Obliviously, I support. Jedi Friend (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@*Treker: But they're not. That's part of the problem. Jedi Friend keeps repeating the same nonsense over and over, as if that makes it true. #00ffde   and #99ccff   are no more distinct than #008080   and #99ccff   (29 vs 30), which is the relevant comparison. Also, the difference on paper will not necessarily hold true for computer screens, and will change depending on viewing angle. Neon vs dull light blue is not stable difference on a computer screen. None of that is considered in his "proof". — kwami (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Just for those who are unaware on how the calculator works. For #00ffde, you must enter 0 (R), 255 (G) and 222 (B) and for #99ccff 153 (R), 204 (G) and 255 (B). This will give you a "visibility distance" of 30.12 between the two. For #008080, you must enter 0 (R), 128 (G) and 128 (B) and for #a0a0a0 it's 160 (R), 160 (G) and 160 (B). This will then give you a "distance" of 17.06. Jedi Friend (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Except of course those aren't the relevant colors. The 'distances' are 29 vs 30, an insignificant difference, and your colors are much more similar on a computer screen than those values suggest. For example, Mexico in the current version, striped dark green and med grey, is clearly distinct from either, whereas Israel in your version, striped neon light blue and powder light blue, looks like it could be either of them. — kwami (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I've already been involved in the previous discussions about the map and spent more time than I should on this, so I will not add anything more than just saying that I agree with what Jedi Friend has already said. --Glentamara (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, of course. Jedi's "proof" about the colors is spurious, as he's comparing the wrong pairs. If he wants the colors to be more distinct, we could certainly do a lot better than neon light blue vs dull light blue. But, from his original argument, this doesn't appear to be his reason for the edit. Also, if we're going to stripe Aruba and Estonia for treating foreign SSM as CU's, then we need to do the same for Italy, Greece, etc. Is there any country in the world with CU's that does not accept foreign SSM? And if we're going to add dots for territories with no permanent inhabitants, there are many others we're missing. — kwami (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Of course as I've already stated, I fully support the new map being used. Even if for whatever reason the content ends up changing to include anything proposed by Kwamikagami, although so far that has received wide opposition, I would support using the new map so that all users have an equal chance at editing it rather than just one person. --Buyerseve (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@~riley:, @Delusion23:, @HumRC:, @AusLondonder:, @Baronedimare:, @Noahnmf:, @Turnless:, @Info por favor:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @Fry1989: — kwami (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment This map change packages together multiple changes and it is difficult to discuss as one package. I appreciate Kwami's breaking up of various issues below, and would be interested in reading more input there. An initial thought on colours is that the argument seems to be differentiating international court vs foreign recognition, but the real issue to my eyes (being literal here) is international court vs. nothing. I can make it out on the first map when I try to, but on the second map it's all but invisible. If colours are going to change that is the one that needs attention before the others that are apparently dependent upon it get looked into. CMD (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
That's because that category was removed from the second map as it was initially added by Kwamikagami without any consensus and actually with wide opposition, which can be seen on the talk page of the older map. --Buyerseve (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I see Sander000 noted their opposition in the specific discussion below. If consensus develops to remove it, then that impacts the colour change impact too. That's why I don't think a map vs map discussion is too helpful. CMD (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I've expressed my opposition to the changes kwami made on the old map many times to the point i gave up, created my own map for the wikipedia page of my small language and then stuck with that one without bothering about the "overcrowded, unreadable and not even correct" English one... i strongly opposed to the dark grey color in particular, so glad that got removed, especially for the European countries. So I am (mostly) in favor of the new map for all arguments given on the discussion page of the "out of date" map. I also don't like what some people call "consensus", that's mainly why i stopt editing on the English wikipedia. Sander000 (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Break up discussion

It' hard to discuss things when several subjects are tangled together. They should be broken up so people don't have to vote either-or.

Color for recognition of foreign SSM?

Which color should be used for foreign recognition, #00ffde  , #008080   or something else like #00C0A0  ?
  • Compare #99ccff   for minimal recognition. This is the reason people wanted to change it the last time it was on the map. It may be that the dark green is too close to the IACHR color for Jedi Friend, but I'm sure we can come up with a color that's easily distinguishable from both and won't trigger constant complaints. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

in favour of the colours proposed by jedifriendSander000 (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

As am I, for consistency with other maps. --Buyerseve (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
If 'consistency' is now the argument, then the other maps should be changed. Making a distinction illegible is not justified by 'elsewhere' arguments. — kwami (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Consistency has always been one of the arguments. It makes a lot more sense to change one map rather than multiple others that have consistently used that colour without any objection. Plus most people here have said they support the colour on Jedi Friend's map. --Buyerseve (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
But it makes no sense to use a color that can't be seen. That violates the whole point of using different colors for different things. — kwami (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
No one else aside from you has any trouble seeing it. It is very distinguishable. --Buyerseve (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, other people had trouble seeing it. That's why they kept complaining about it last time we tried it. Honestly, can you readily see the striping in Israel in Jedi's map? But even if it were just me, if I were the only one here with color blindness, that would be still reason to reject the color. We even have guidelines for coloring our maps so they're legible to the color-blind. E.g., we may contrast red & blue, as we do in the partner map, but not red & green. — kwami (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Mark IACHR ruling?

Should the color for international court rulings (currently just the IACHR) be removed?

yes, makes the map crowded, less readable, also difficult to distinguish from the light gray, does not add information about conditions of SSM in these countries and for the european countries, it was simply wrong (but this was already solved) Sander000 (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Should be removed, not because of the foreign recognition colour, but because it is unnecessary for this map. Colour should still be changed regardless. --Buyerseve (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
How is it 'unnecessary'? It's a court ruling for SSM, which we've shown for years. The only diff from e.g. Taiwan is that it's an international rather than domestic court. If court rulings are unnecessary, then Taiwan should be grey. Though we could repurpose the now-unused color  , which would be more visible. That would have the added benefit, for Mexico, that the Mexican SC has also ruled that SSM must eventually be recognized in all states. — kwami (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no indication that most of those countries will change their laws any time soon regardless of the binding nature of the ruling. Domestic courts actually demonstrate a relatively reasonable and real timeline. Plus it just makes the map look too crowded, especially with all the hatching that is done with it, and it could do without that category. --Buyerseve (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no indication that most of those Mexican states will change their laws any time soon either. One of them is already past the court's deadline. It's also unclear how the referendum will affect Taiwan. And Nepal never did comply with the supreme court ruling there. When it became apparent that the Nepalese ruling was no longer in effect, we removed the gold color. If Taiwan passes the deadline or announces they will disregard their court, we will probably remove the color there too. (Mexico's a bit different, as courts give the legislature time to comply, then start issuing fines for non-compliance if people keep suing.) I fail to see how possible non-compliance is more relevant for the IACHR ruling when all we say is that there's a court ruling. — kwami (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I would absolutely agree to remove the Mexican states seeing as one has already passed the deadline. Taiwan has already made it quite clear that they would legalize SSM through adding another clause rather than amending the existing one, but if for whatever reason they fail to do so and do not legalize SSM then it can be removed, however there is no basis for doing so before then. From what I can gather about Nepal from the sources presented on the Wikipedia page, the ruling was a recommendation rather than an obligatory legal action, similar to the recommendation to legislate for SSM from the Indian court, which is a very different thing. International rulings are a separate case and I don't think it is necessary for the map. No need to overcrowd the content. --Buyerseve (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

My point was just that a court ruling is not a guarantee that the legislation will be passed, whether the court in domestic or international, so that's not a good argument to not indicate court rulings. I think this comment in Tuesday's Wockner blog is relevant to indicating the IACHR ruling:

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.

There is no deadline for this, but IMO it's of interest which countries are obligated by treaty to do so, even if they never do. The fact that these rulings may never result in a change in the law is why both the domestic and foreign court–ruling colors are not shades of blue.

In the case of El Salvador and one other C.Am state, laws or judicial opinions banning SSM were abandoned because of the IACHR ruling. So the effect isn't just to promote laws providing for SSM, but to discourage laws against SSM. That should also be of interest. Most, perhaps all of that block of countries has turned toward the SSM end of the scale due to the IACHR ruling. — kwami (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I would support including the IACHR ruling on the map. It's very significant in regards to LGBT rights in Latin America and will play a key role in marriage equality movements across Latin America. If it ever gets to a point where it seems like a country will never implement it and it has been many years, maybe then we could have a discussion to take it down. But it is legally binding precedent if I remember correctly. I think it is important that we represent the fuller picture of LGBT rights in Latin America on this map. -TenorTwelve (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

With the size of the striping, it's kind of hard to see currently that Ecuador and Chile are Civil Union states. -TenorTwelve (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Stripe Aruba and Estonia?

Should Aruba and Estonia be striped for CU + foreign rec?

I have no strong opinion on this, since i simply don't know exactly what the situation is in these countries, i would say here it might indeed be better to just give them the CU colour, i prefer not to stripe countries if not really necessarySander000 (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a complicated topic, especially given CU can mean many things. I do not feel striping provides clarity in this instance. CMD (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be supportive of striping for CU and foreign recognition of marriage. If a jurisdiction has both marriage equality and civil unions, the marriage color would take precedence. But many choose not to go to another country to get married and many wait until their home country/territory does so, so I think it would be appropriate to stripe in that instance. It indicates both that they don't have marriage equality (they have civil unions) and they don't have marriage equality (they recognize it but don't perform it). Whereas both recognition and civil unions are "steps" towards marriage, I think they should be recognized as well. -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I can see that. My concern is that the reader won't understand that's what we're showing. They'll see that Aruba and Estonia are striped for foreign recognition, and they'll think that means you can be married in those countries, that you just need to go abroad to get married, like you do for Israel, or like the states in Mexico. But the situation's much closer to that of Italy than of Israel -- Italians can also go abroad to get married and their govt will recognize that marriage, and that recognition will confer greater rights than in Aruba or Estonia. If we stripe, it will seem the opposite, like people have greater marriage rights in Aruba and Estonia than in Italy. — kwami (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Mark territories where civilians do not have access to SSM as "open" to SSM?

Should territories such as A&D, where the civilian population does not have access to SSM, be colored as if marriage were open? And if so, should we add dots for other places where the military has access to SSM but the civilian pop does not?

only if these bases are independent jurisdictions with own (independent) laws to regulate marriage Sander000 (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The specific case of Akrotiri and Dhekhelia is quite unique in that it is not just a military base. Nonetheless, if SSM there is unavailable to civilians, then I do not think it is a helpful inclusion. CMD (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely must be included as it is a separate jurisdiction that separately legalize same-sex marriage. Civilians are not entirely excluded from marriage, as they can legally get married to a British soldier, opposite-sex or same-sex. Plus the British soldiers staying there live on the territory for long periods of time, and did not have the opportunity for marriage prior to the legalization of such unions on the territory. There are literally examples of same-sex marriages that have taken place, which wouldn't have happened unless the jurisdiction legalized marriage for same-sex couples. We cannot simply ignore this step. --Buyerseve (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Is this significantly different to other overseas British military bases? CMD (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I've found coverage of domestic bases here for the US and here for the UK. They're both dated, and neither specifies if "military bases" in general for the UK, or "all military bases" for the US, include bases on foreign soil. Assuming it does, does it matter to us whether SSM is performed under local law, as in the possessions of the UK, or national law, as in the possessions of France? The French have just as much access to SSM as the Brits, so why should we only mark British territories on the map? And if we don't remove the French territories, that conflicts with the argument that we're following the passage of local law for the UK. And then of course there's the SC ruling that Mexican embassies (which are Mexican territory) perform SSM. — kwami (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
"And then of course there's the SC ruling that Mexican embassies (which are Mexican territory) perform SSM." The Supreme Court never issued such a ruling. Couples cannot get married in Mexican embassies. Panda2018 0 (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Needs to be confirmed, but per here, The United States Minor Outlying Islands — Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll and Wake Island in the Pacific Ocean, and Navassa Island in the Carribean Sea — would have marriage equality [from the SC decision]. Their population nowadays is a small number of temporarily assigned scientists and military personnel. Also, Marriage equality exists in much of Antarctica, given the nations that claim portions of the continent as national territory: Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, United Kingdom. And, on the high seas, Same-sex couples can marry at sea on Celebrity Cruises ships, courtesy of the Malta Parliament's passage of marriage equality in July 2017. — kwami (talk)
Yes, my understanding is that military bases often have many privileges including being marriage locations. Embassies too. My question is whether the Cypriot bases situation is significantly different. I am inclined to feel it is not, and therefore that the map should not make a big deal out of them, much as I don't feel it should make a big deal out of embassies and other foreign military bases. CMD (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
It is indeed different as it is its own separate jurisdiction and very much distinct to any American bases. American bases don't act as specific separate overseas territories such as Guam or the Virgin Islands, but the Cypriot bases are such jurisdictions for the UK. SSM was legalized separately here, by a separate law than that of England and Wales. --Buyerseve (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Considering both A&D and the BIOT are included on the List of administrative divisions by country, List of dependent territories, are sovereign, and have their own governments and constitutions, I would find it natural to show them. Panda2018 0 (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
But, again, why them and not Antarctica, to which the same argument applies? — kwami (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Well again, the same argument does not apply as Antarctica is a very special global case and is very distinct from the mentioned territories. Claims to Antarctica are not globally recognized, whereas those territories are indeed fully and functionally parts of the UK. --Buyerseve (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Neither Guam or the Virgin Islands are exclusively military bases, unlike A&D. Also, neither A&D or BIOT is sovereign. (I'm unfamiliar as to whether they have constitutions.) CMD (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The official name of A&D is the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Here's links to their respective constitutions: Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia Order in Council, 1960 and British Indian Ocean Territory Constitution Order 2004. See also British Indian Ocean Territory#Politics and law for more details. Panda2018 0 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm fully confident that every reliable source will inform that A&D fall under British sovereignty, not their own. I would also appreciate some RS calling those constitutions. CMD (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Mark territories with transient populations?

Should territories with no permanent inhabitants, such as BIOT, Antarctica, all those desert islands in the Pacific, etc., be colored for SSM?

only if these are independent jurisdictions with own (independent) laws to regulate marriage Sander000 (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Territories excluding Antarctica should be coloured for SSM if it is legal there. The map doesn't after all discolour Greenlandic islands without a permanent population and so on. If they are grey, that is actively misleading. However, they should not have their own circle to emphasize them. As for Antarctica, that is so well known as mostly uninhabited I do not feel it is misleading to leave it grey, and frankly I suspect the territorial claims have less impact on potential marriage than the state operator of the base/village. CMD (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Antarctica should obviously not be included. It never is and no one is arguing for its inclusion. Just like Sander000 pointed out, regions should be represented with a circle if they are separate jurisdictions with their own marriage laws. --Buyerseve (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Antarctica has separate legal jurisdictions with their own laws. I'm using the lack of habitation as a benchmark, what are you using? CMD (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Antarctica is a clear special global case of multiple countries making claims to its territory, many of which overlap one another. It is never present on any maps on Wikipedia depicting information about laws around the world, so there really shouldn't be any benchmarks for it.--Buyerseve (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Only 3 claims overlap. Anyway, your benchmark was territories with their own laws, even if uninhabited. The Antarctic territories fit that description. CMD (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Antarctica is a special global case, it doesn't need any benchmarks to be clearly exempt from being coloured in political maps. None of the claims to Antarctica are globally recognized, unlike the other mentioned jurisdictions, so it's quite pointless comparing them. --Buyerseve (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Plenty of the other mentioned jurisdictions are not globally recognised. How is this line being drawn? CMD (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary

File:World SSM laws, try colors, US reservations.svg
Trial changes

Okay, here's a map with some trial changes. Antarctica >> white, like the oceans, since grey means that SSM is not legal, which is false. International court ruling >> light gold, to correspond better to dark gold for domestic court ruling. Foreign recognition >> a brighter green, much more visible than either of the maps above. E.g. the Dutch islands in the Caribbean stand out better. Added the reservations in the US which our article says ban SSM. Navajo is straightforward, but the large Muskogean ones in Oklahoma (Creek, Chickasaw, Chocktaw, Seminole) should probably be striped, since the majority of the population in those areas are not tribal citizens and so are not subject to tribal law on SSM. Of course, tribal citizens can get married under state law, though in the case of Navajo they'd have to travel off-rez, but they would not be eligible for the tribal benefits that married couples are. But I'm not going to bother with striping unless people decide this is the way to go. — kwami (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer Antarctica to be a very light grey rather than completely white aesthetically, but it's a useful idea to colour it differently. I am unfamiliar with the ins and outs of USA tribal law, but feel if the rights are more defined by membership than by geography (eg. don't have to travel off-rez), then they should just be full blue. CMD (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Lighter grey is doable, but then people might want to add it to the legend.
I don't know much of tribal law either. My understanding is that SSM is not an option on Navajo, and you do have to travel off-ref (that is, it is a matter of geography), but that nonetheless you can get married under e.g. AZ law. AZ and the fed will recognize it but Navajo will not, and you miss out on rez benefits. That's a bit like being married in a US state that didn't have SSM before 2015 -- the state didn't rec it, but the fed did. Choctaw is similar, except that tribal citizens are a minority of the population -- the political territory isn't just geographic. So, if Navajo is grey, Choctaw should be striped grey--blue. Perhaps we don't want to distinguish Choctaw at all, since you can get married (under state law) within that territory. On the other hand, that is the territory that will deny people benefits because it does not recognize their marriages. A perhaps bigger issue is the majority of reservations where we have no data. Many of course simply follow state law, but I don't think we know which ones exactly. Still, I think it's useful to map what we do know. When SSM was spreading across the US, we indicated reservations that we knew recognized SSM even though we didn't have a complete list. Now that we're in the opposite situation, it's the non-recognizing rez that are exceptions to their states, and so IMO should be treated similarly. — kwami (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

In response to this 'trial map' I just want to reiterate that I oppose utilizing any maps created by Kwamikagami due to his previous restrictive approach to editing them. I still support using the map created by Jedi Friend, regardless of the agreed upon content, as do the majority of users who have left their comments on the top section of this discussion. --Buyerseve (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Except that we don't have consensus for any of the proposed changes. I've been happy to have other people edit the map. I draw the line at false claims and making the map illegible. You'll have the same problem trying to push nonsense in the WP-en article as you do with the map. Make functional changes supported by reliable sources and we'll have no problem. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, there isn't consensus for any of the proposed changes, and it's been over a week and discussion seems to have wound down. There are demands for changing one or two of the colors, but the proposed return to the old foreign-rec color, which was abandoned because it was not visible, is still not acceptable because it's still not visible. (And note that it is not the original color. The original color was the dark green. At some point someone changed it to light blue to match the other map. People then complained that it wasn't legible, so we changed back to the original dark green. Now we're going through the same argument again. The obvious solution is to change the other map so it is also legible.) No-one but me has suggested compromise colors. I'll give that compromise a shot, since those colors are clearly more visible, but if people don't like them we can always switch back to the current/original colors.
There has been no objection to adding the US reservations that do not rec SSM, so I'll add them. The only problem is that the Oklahoma rez should be striped dark blue–light grey, just as Cambodia is striped light blue–light grey, since the grey does not apply to everyone in those territories. However, I've been unable to get that to work properly. If someone wants to try to fix it, if you edit the text file the comment "Reservations in Oklahoma" will pinpoint the code that needs to be fixed (lines 24054 ff).
There has been no objection to removing the incorrect grey from Antarctica, so I'll do that as well.
Since we show individual cities in Japan and China, it's appropriate to add cities in Mexico as well (Zacatecas, Queretaro). I'll be BOLD and add those as part of the normal update of the map, independent of this discussion.
I narrowed the stripes in Chile to better match Ecuador. The difference is because the two countries are scaled differently in the coding. The result isn't perfect, but it's closer than it was.
As for the striping due to the IACHR ruling, which an editor above said made the map too busy, I had originally made Mexico, Ecuador and Chile solid, with the reasoning that colors higher up in the chart override those lower down, and the IACHR color was 2nd to the bottom. It was another editor who striped those countries. I'd be fine with returning to the solid colors, but because that was not my decision to begin with and had been accepted for so long (until the recent edit-war), I think we'd need some discussion.
As for the other proposed changes, there is no consensus to change dark blue from "open to SSM" to "open to SSM for some people", nor has anyone suggested a new color for that category.
There is no consensus that the foreign recognition in Estonia is anything other than the usual recognition of CU states, even per the original proposer, though of course that could change with better news coverage. (But then, so could Armenia.)
There is no consensus to add circles for states with no permanent habitation, nor any rational reason for doing that for some but not others, even among those with local legislation such as BIOT vs British Antarctica.
I suggest that any further discussion be tailored to individual proposals, rather than this take-it-or-leave-it bundle of changes that have nothing to do with each other.
— kwami (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually there clearly has been a consensus achieved as to which map to utilize on the page. Jedi Friend, Glentamara, Panda2018 0, Sander000 and myself have all spoken out in support of switching to the map, whereas you were the only one to oppose. Certain disputes about the content should continue being discussed, but there is a clear consensus as to the choice of the map. Any agreed upon changes to the map's content should be then changed to the newly uploaded map as per consensus. Also, although you claim to be happy to allow other users to edit the map, that is clearly false based on your constant reversions despite a majority of users opposing your changes, and also very visible from your new version of the map, which completely disregards the comments left here by most of the users. The new version really shows that despite most people once again disagreeing with your changes, you have kept them anyway with the only change being changing the rec colour to something even worse than the previous version (again with no consensus) and changing the foreign rec colour to the colour of an already existing category (also with no consensus). Your actions clearly show that you are not seeking to edit with consensus and would rather the map follow your interpretation. Once again, I will update the map per consensus, but the discussion of map content should continue with anyone who is interested in participating. --Buyerseve (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
No-one who joined here has agreed with you, so there clearly is no consensus. There is no consensus to change the definition of dark blue from "open to SSM" to "partly open to SSM". There is no consensus to return to the light blue color that was tried and rejected years ago because it was not visibly distinct. There is no consensus to stripe some countries and not others when there is no significant difference between them. There is no consensus to color territories grey when they allow SSM. There is no consensus to add circles to some territories with no permanent inhabitants but not to others. A map needs to be functional, which yours is not, it needs to be supported by RS's, which yours is not (even JediFriend admits that), and when a disputed change is simply a matter of opinion or aesthetics, you need consensus, which you do not have. Trying to force your changes through is simply disruptive. — kwami (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
No, this is simply not true, the majority here is in favour of the "new" map (not really new, rather returning to the one YOU called out-of-date), where indeed some issues need further discussion... the new map you created with the light gold etc is absolutely horrible! we already know that quote you: "we don't go by majority vote, cause wikipedia is not a democracy" end quote... but this is ridiculous, so WP is a dictatorship then?? You continuously tell there is no consensus for changes, which their clearly is, hence this discussion. The dark green color is NOT the recognition color for years... it is the recognition color for some months now, because YOU changed it to that, neglecting the opposition to do this. Maybe once this was the original color, but it has not been so for (to use your words...) YEARS. Perhaps people complained to you personally about this color??? I don't know, 'cause I saw no one complaining UNTIL you changed the color... the fact that the map has been "stable" this way for months now, is not because of consensus... but because everyone gave up going against you... there is just no point in arguing with you, you are clearly the one deciding here when "we" reach consensus about something Sander000 (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree, this map looks absolutely hideous. Just look at Mexico. It's a mess. Panda2018 0 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Then propose something useful! Continually crying WP:IDONTLIKEIT is just a waste of our time. I at least tried a compromise, changing the colors you objected to while choosing ones distinct enough to be visible, which as a functional issue is more important than whether you think they're pretty. But if people prefer the old dark green and dark grey, we can certainly return to that. I'm not attached to the colors I tried, I was simply trying to find a way out of this impasse.
As I pointed out elsewhere, the dark green has been the recognition color since November 2012 when the map was created. There was a time when we tried the light blue, to be consistent with the other map, but there were multiple complaints that it was illegible so we returned to the dark green. Now you've restarted the debate. If consistency between the maps is that important, then you should change the other map, not make this one non-functional.
There is a second question here, whether Mexico should be striped at all. So those are two issues you could try to seek consensus on based on discussion. But, demanding map colors that we had already rejected for not being visible, a result that has had consensus for years now, while factually misrepresenting Estonia, Aruba, Mexico and the USA is not a useful contribution.
No, WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. — kwami (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I have proposed something useful. I've expressed support for Jedi Friend's map. So has everybody else. Panda2018 0 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
That map is not usable because the colors are not distinct. That's why the trial use of those colors two years ago was abandoned. By "useful", I mean a compromise that addresses everyone's concerns. Insisting on having your own way without any compromise is not useful. — kwami (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, there is a clear consensus against using your map. As I have said before the details of the content can continue to be discussed, but this map is really the map that was present prior to your multiple changes (including on the last version), which were never agreed upon in the first place. Stop editing against consensus. Simply because the results of the discussion don't match your opinion does not mean you get to pick the map you think fits best despite a majority of other users disagreeing. Users also don't want to use your map, because you constantly revert everyone's changes if they don't match your wishes and then continuously tell them to make their own map. Just as you advised, a new map has been made and most users have supported its usage. I will once again update the page per the discussion and rather than reverting against the consensus I would greatly advise you to participate in the further discussion of the content. --Buyerseve (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how when no-one here agrees with you, you count it as "consensus". Anyway, you're the one demanding the changes. As for the colors, you've got it backwards. The dark green is the original color, as I have explained over and over, and as you can verify if you actually do your homework. The new category for international courts has had consensus since last year. Also, it's not acceptable to disrupt the map over some aesthetic standard that you wish to impose on other people. Have you even read how to edit WP? If you continue to edit-war to get your way, then I will need to look into administrative sanctions against you. — kwami (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Are users Jedi Friend, Glentamara, Panda2018 0 and Sander000 no one to you? At the time when you introduced multiple changes to the older version of the map, the colour on Jedi Friend's map was present for a long time, so it was indeed you demanding changes and pushing them onto the map without the consensus of other users. Editing per consensus on the talk page is not edit-warring, but continuously reverting against consensus is. --Buyerseve (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Ignoring the people who disagree with you does not mean that everyone agrees with you. Not even Jedi fully agrees with you (though they're staying out of this morass). "Everyone agrees with me except for those who don't" is not consensus.
The color now on Jedi's map was added to this map by a sockpuppet of a banned user, Growupon. There were objections at the time. I left it for a few months, but people keep objecting that it wasn't legible and that we should return to the original color. So a year ago (feb 2018) we did. We've had the original dark green color again for the past year. Now you want to change it to the illegible color again. Why? What purpose does that serve? If it's only to make the two maps consistent, then the obvious solution is to change the other map. If you think the original dark green of this map is not sufficiently distinct, then we can change both maps to a third color. That's what I attempted with the brighter green. I appreciate aesthetic concerns to make the map look good, and I also appreciate your desire to make the two maps consistent. But such POV considerations do not trump functionality, and certainly cannot override our understanding of the facts from sources.
Also, your take-it-or-leave-it approach is disruptive. Even if people decided the illegible color wasn't so bad after all, that doesn't mean we should make the other changes. There are fact-based rather than simply opinion-based objections to some of the other differences on Jedi's map, at least one of which Jedi agreed may not be justifiable. There have been updates to this map that are not on Jedi's map. If you want to change the color, you should propose changing the color and not try to roll back updates to the map, or impose changed that people object are either unhelpful, inconsistent or not based on the sources. — kwami (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
No you still haven’t answered the question. You stated that no one agrees with me despite several users sharing my opinion, and I’m not sure sure why you’re putting words into another user’s mouth on me supporting the use of his map. Either way this isn’t about me. You were the only user to oppose changing the map while 5 other users supported. The following discussions about content are separate than to the one about picking maps because there were other issues. You also keep saying that there were many complaints about the colour, but you haven’t presented any evidence. How many complaints were there, and can you show links to all of them?--Buyerseve (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Once again you didn't read what I wrote. I didn't say no-one agreed with you. You claimed everyone agreed with you, when the only person to join in here, CMD, did not. You know this -- you've been arguing with him. How can you now claim that he agrees with you? As for putting words in "his" mouth, I assume you mean Jedi. He's perfectly capable of putting his own words in his mouth. He conceded in our Commons discussion that the evidence for striping Estonia wasn't there. (And there's no question for Aruba. The sources are quite clear in that case that they treat Dutch marriages as CUs, just like Italy or any other CU country that we don't stripe.) As for old complaints about the color, you can find them by checking the talk page from the last time we tried this (Sep 2017 to Feb 2018). I'll probably look them up sooner or later, but not tonight. The problem, though, is that your proposed colors are dysfunctional. This isn't a vote -- a map needs to work for the people who use it, not just for the people pushing their POV. I'm willing to compromise on the colors -- red for legal and blue for illegal if you like, or purple and gold -- but the result needs to work as a map. We can't have 18 shades of tan just because you really like tan. — kwami (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
You did say that no-one agreed with me, it's right there. When saying that there was a consensus on choosing the map I continuously stated that the discussions about content were ongoing, but the map was already decided with 5 users supporting and only one opposing. CMD never took an opposing or supportive position on picking the map, he left more specific comments on the following discussions about the content. I absolutely never claimed he agreed with me, I've literally listed the names of all the users who have and never mentioned his name and I'm not sure why you're saying he's the only user to join in here when there are four other users aside from the three of us to leave comments in this discussion. Also when you have time I would really appreciate you find those complaints since you continue to bring them up. Plus since you mentioned it again, the colour isn't dysfunctional. It's absolutely distinguishable from the other colours and very easy to see. --Buyerseve (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I did say that, if you take me out of context. I said no-one here, and from my previous comments ("no-one who joined here has agreed with you") I thought it would be clear that by "here" I was talking about the people who responded to the RfC here. I should check, but I thought the others all came from the prior argument at Commons.
Of course CMD has taken a position on the map. He has said several times that bundling everything together that way is not helpful. He has not commented on the colors, but has argued with you against several of the changes in that map.
The difference between the two colors you want for Israel is invisible to me at the resolution of the map in this article. It's nearly invisible at full resolution at Commons, and even then I wouldn't notice it if I didn't already know it was there. That's not a functional distinction. Perhaps you're one of those people who have an extra type of cone cell in your retina, and so have greater that normal color discrimination in the blue end of the spectrum. I don't know how else you could think a nearly invisible difference is "very easy to see".
Ha! I just realized I got the colors of Israel wrong when I opened this thread. I thought it was striped light blue and grey rather than two light blues. Even zooming in to the map, I misidentified what we were coding Israel for. That's not an improvement. — kwami (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion for this map is scattered over four talk pages that I've found so far. I found threads about changing or restoring map colors from 2013 and 2014, which resulted in the set of colors we've had for the past year (and again before that), but not the threads from when GrowupOn changed the dark green to light blue in late 2017. I'm giving up, since my main point was to disprove your claim that light blue was the original color and dark green was something I imposed against consensus. That's simpler to disprove by getting the 2012 legend from the page history of this article, which shows my "imposed" color has been there since 2012. Regardless, you're the one proposing a change to the colors of the map. I object because it makes the map illegible. I'm sympathetic to your desire to get the two SSM-law maps to match, but this is not a good way to do it. It's also not productive to bundle unrelated changes and expect people to accept all of them and then start discussions to weed out the errors and inconsistencies. We should never introduce known errors or inconsistencies. — kwami (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Both users Panda2018 0 and Sander000 joined this discussion on this talk page rather than commons, so once again that is simply incorrect. Also again read my previous comment. I specifically said that CMD hasn't taken a supportive or opposing position on specific maps, but participated in content discussions. You still haven't presented any specific past complaints about colours that you've talked about, but honestly at this point arguing with you is more stressful than I find necessary. If you're really willing to push so hard for a visually awful map (even with the now purple colour you've added) that most users here did not agree with and don't see any issues with that then I really don't see any point of continuing to argue with you over this. I still stand by my position that the map uploaded by Jedi Friend is the one that should be used on the page regardless of content changes. --Buyerseve (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Sander000 came over from Commons, but you're right that Panda2018 joined in here. My apologies for misrepresenting the situation.
So, you still maintain that you'd rather have an incorrect map than a color you don't like, even though the color you do like is not workable for other people? You are, then, basically admitting that you've been disruptive to WP simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Unbelievable.
I think I'm done here as well, since you clearly are not interested in resolving this impasse. If I fail to respond to further arguments you might make here (because I'm no longer watching this thread), please don't take it as a concession or that you should start disrupting WP again. — kwami (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You’re still literally the only person to have complained about the colour while other users have had no problem with it and you have not presented any of the previous complaints you’ve talked about. There’s nothing incorrect about the map as it literally does not show any different facts from yours and is different in the way it presents certain categories and pieces of information. I’m not admitting to anything so please don’t put words in my mouth and keep to civil behaviour. Users have multiple times explained their opinions and backed them up with valid points so stop accusing people of IDONTLIKEIT. --Buyerseve (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Which "valid points"? The only reason that's been given is to match the other map. That cannot override functionality, and it's just as easy to change the color on the other map -- certainly easier than all the silly drama engaged in here. Also, if you're so concerned with matching colors, why is it that it's okay for tan on this map to mean a court ruling in favor of SSM, but tan on the other map a law against 'propaganda'? If shades of red, yellow and brown are laws opposing homosexuality or SSM, shouldn't favorable rulings be green or something?
There are certainly inconsistencies in your map. For example, you do not stripe Italy for recognizing foreign SSM, but you stripe Aruba. The only difference between the two is that Italy accepts all such marriages, whereas Aruba only recs those performed in the Netherlands. That is, Italy has greater SSM rights, but Aruba is the one striped with SSM blue. Also, Antarctica is shown as not having SSM despite a SSM law specifically passed for the UK territory. That's certainly a difference of fact and not just of presentation. Your map also shows SSM as being the law across the territory of the USA, when there are at least a dozen exceptions. You won't even fix the errors in you map, just keep pushing a color that doesn't work for no rational reason that I can see. — kwami (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The utility of global political maps to illustrate characteristics by country

Because the graphic representation of data is useful, and because the most obvious graphic representation for geographic breakdowns of data is a map, everyone thinks a political map is the best way to illustrate characteristics, even orthogonal sets of characteristics, that vary by country.

No. Political maps are generally a terrible way to make information available for all territories within the scope of the map.

Because there are great big political areas and teeny, tiny political areas, there are exactly two reasons to convey breakdowns by country through a political map:

1. To reveal regional trends, or the lack thereof.

2. To illustrate characteristics (if such a thing exists) whose significance has a positive correlation to the area of the country.

These are the only cases where a political map adds value over a table. Otherwise, on a world map, we're making it look like it's really, really important what characteristics pertain to Greenland and Mongolia, while implying that it matters not a whit what characteristics pertain to Singapore and Lebanon, to the extent that we don't have a prayer of discerning what color, or stripes, those latter countries are bearing. The same goes for national maps: Wyoming versus Connecticut; Nunavut versus Prince Edward Island.

Look at all the dots distributed across the oceans, without even any names next to them. Even among people who can tell Guinea from Ghana, how many know which dot is Tuvalu and which is Palau if they want the data for those countries?

There's no winning answer here. Let the map stand with vague distinctions among the shades serving the only possibly useful purpose that it can: illuminating the trend toward legalization of same-sex marriage in the Americas and western Europe, but not exclusive to those areas. For people who want to know exactly which countries recognize only foreign SSM or which have civil unions, or whatever, they're best served by the table. Largoplazo (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The added dots help with the small countries. I admit I can't tell half the Polynesian, Micronesian and Lesser Antilles dots from one another, but for the rest of the world a global map is clear enough. A table can't give you an immediate overview like that -- you have to read it, which is cumbersome. I suppose we could use a political map where the sizes of the countries have been distorted to correlate to their populations, so that the %age of blue vs grey corresponds to the proportion of the world's population that has access to SSM. Do we have such a map to work with? — kwami (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Oceania in world map

For Oceania specifically, due to that it is hard to tell which dot is which unless you have studied it, simultaneously because the islands are spread out across the ocean, should we adopt a map that works like the maps for

and

in which there is a color for the ocean and a color for the land of Oceanian countries and territories? If we were to do this, I think it would work in Oceania but not as an across the board thing (ie. I don't think that would work as well for the Caribbean). Alternately, for island nations, the EEZ could be shown? Such as here:

If we were to do that, I think it could potentially work in more island nations, such as the Caribbean, though I don't really want to see the EEZ used for the map for continental countries as that would make things weird and would fill up loads of space. Does anyone have feedback on either of these two/three options? Does such a template even exist at this time? Is same-sex marriage or any marriage allowed in territorial waters? International waters? It could also get potentially weird due to maritime disputes. Thoughts? Ideas? Feedback? -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think the map is hugely improved by using EEZ over dots. Some countries will be more obvious (eg. Kiribati), but others will remain pretty obscure unless you're in the know already (eg. most everything in the lesser antilles), at which point the dot map would work almost as well. On the other hand, using EEZ only for the Pacific would look a bit odd. Personally I prefer to keep this map in the format it is, to be used as a quick summary rather than something detailed.
It would on the other hand be possible with some work to map a clickable map of whatever format, if people wanted. CMD (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: Would that be very different than the current pop-up names? Or is it that the pop-ups don't work in thumb-scale maps? — kwami (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Just the other day I thought I'd try changing the Oceania SSM map to EEZ, since the current boundaries are fictional, but the problem w the EEZ map above is that it doesn't show even large islands like Fiji and New Caledonia, and I couldn't find one that did. As for land vs ocean colors, we could keep the colors but make the EEZ partially transparent. But while I think that would be an improvement for the Oceania SSM map, I agree w CMD that I don't see much point for it in the main map. I don't care for the other format (top two maps above) because the boundaries are fictional. I remember when I thought those were actually the countries' legal borders, that some countries had land borders and some had ocean borders. I don't think we should use something so potentially misleading here on WP. (And thus IMO we would change the SSM in Oceania to EEZ.) — kwami (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The current pop-up doesn't seem to work for me. Clickable as in for example Template:Supranational African Bodies, which also shows the title on hover. CMD (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Armenia

Finally a source on the situation in Armenia, reporting there are no documented cases of them recognizing foreign SSM. So evidently it's still a theoretical point. I tried asking the author of the article for their sources, so we could follow up, but their captcha isnt't working, so I couldn't contact them. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

thank you! The ministerial decree may just require to record foreign marriage certificates in Armenian civil registers. But transcription is not recognition per se, it does not confer rights automatically, that requires legislation or court rulings. Transcription only has a function of publicity, making a foreign act known and public also in the local law system. I suspect that this is the same for Estonia, where rulings only stated clearly that foreign spouses have residency rights. If foreign marriage were really recognized, all LGBT Estonians could just marry overseas, get back to Estonia and have their marriage recognized as a civil opposite sex marriage. This is what happens in Israel, where civil marriage does not exist, therefore mixed-religion and LGBT couples go overseas to marry and get state recognition. Finedelledanze (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Finedelledanze: In the case of Estonia, one of the few things that seems clear is that the Estonian has to be a resident in the country they get married in. That would parallel the court ruling for Romania. So, no, you can't just take a 2-week vacation for your wedding and honeymoon and have Estonia recognize the marriage.

What it does do is more confusing. The rights group I wrote to said they don't really know. (I posted their response somewhere. I'll find it and link to it if you need.) But CU's in Estonia aren't really functional, as the legislature refuses to pass the enabling legislation, so getting married abroad has been used as a way to get a functional domestic CU. Though you do have to get residency abroad first. But then people coming from abroad who are married have had problems and solved it by getting a domestic CU. Really, the rights seem rather marginal.

No idea about Armenia. Sure, it could be that you're just entered into a registry and nothing more. Could be that the court's ruling is that such a couple would have all the rights of marriage, but that govt offices would refuse to abide by it. Since apparently no-one's done it, I don't know how we could know. — kwami (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy of online polls for public opinion

In order to avoid breaking WP:3RR with an edit-warring user, I'd like to open another discussion on the (lack of) accuracy of online polls about same-sex marriage public opinion. There was community consesus on removing them a year ago in Talk:Same-sex_marriage/Archive_24#Accuracy_of_ILGA_data. Said polls, as admitted by the pollster itself, "reflect online populations that tend to be more urban and have higher education/income than the general population," meaning that they're in no way accurate to represent the polled countries' general opinion.

In particular, the country object of edit warring is Turkey, whose same-sex marriage support according to the Ipsos online poll is 27%, with a further 19% neutral--blatantly off for a highly conservative, Muslim-majority society that isn't known for supporting gay rights in general. As a result, I'd like to hear other opinions from fellow users on the permanent removal of data from inaccurate online-only public opinion polls. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 22:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

We follow RS's, and online polls aren't RS's, except for the results of online polls. Anyway, looks like the reverts have stopped. — kwami (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan: marriage or civil union?

The article 'Same sex marriage in Taiwan' states: "On 20 February 2019, the Executive Yuan published a draft bill, entitled The Enforcement Act of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 748 ,which allows two persons of the same sex to create a permanent union of intimate and exclusive nature for the committed purpose of managing a life together to realise the equal protection of the freedom of marriage. It covers topics such as inheritance rights, medical rights, and adoption of the biological children of their partner. The draft bill will also set penalties for adultery and bigamy, similar to opposite-sex marriages. Due to the Referendum, the bill does not amend the Civil Code, but rather creates a separate law.[110] The bill was approved by the Executive Yuan on 21 February 2019 and then sent to the Legislative Yuan for passage, before taking effect by 24 May."

I am unsure that this is gender-neutral marriage. This sounds more like an Italian civil union or a formerly German life partnership giving all the rights of marriage but the name. Shouldn't marriage be in the marriage part of the civil code to say that we are talking about same-sex marriage? Any other opinions? Thanks Finedelledanze (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably, and we should certainly mention this. But it might be wise to wait for 2ary-source evaluation when the law comes into effect, rather than trying to interpret the law ourselves ahead of time. If OSM and SSM are provided for in different parts of the code but otherwise equivalent, how would they be distinguishable to the people getting married, or to their families? (Like in Oaxaca where it takes 2 hrs for an OS couple to get their license, but 3 days for SS couples -- annoying, but no legal difference after it's issued.) — kwami (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
here are some articles supporting my position. The new law creates a 'separate but equal' status only for same-sex couples which is akin to same-sex civil unions. In the past both Belgium and Portugal passed same-sex marriage without adoption rights (which is distinct from marriage law and was added later), but in both cases the definition of marriage was changed to make it gender-neutral. Unless Taiwan makes marriage gender-neutral, it is legislating something else, however similar to opposite-sex marriage this new law may be. https://newbloommag.net/2019/02/21/executive-draft-gay-marriage/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/02/21/asia-pacific/social-issues-asia-pacific/taiwan-unveils-permanent-union-bill-bid-sidestep-referendum-vote-sex-marriage/#.XHUjx-DhCUk Finedelledanze (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Apparently LGBT organizations are also critical of the law, as they say that it is not marriage equality http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2019/02/25/2003710375 Finedelledanze (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I tried to find full text of the proposed law, but to no avail. This would clarify the situation. Ron 1987 (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure the full text of the law would help, even if you were natively fluent in Mandarin. Too easy to misinterpret legalities, too hard to predict how the courts would read them. 2ary sources are safer in that regard (though in reality they may do just as bad a job). And we don't know if the bill will be amended. Adoption law is something a bit different -- you don't have to be married to adopt, for example. I think your sources are a good addition to this article, though. Do you want to just add them? As long as we're clear these are opinions on an evolving situation, I think that should be fine. — kwami (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is the official ruling explanation (also linked in Taiwan's same sex marriage article https://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=748). It talks about "permanent unions with equal protection as of marriage", leaving it to lawmakers to decide the legal framework to achieve the goal. To me this means 'equal but separate', it is a civil union. Unless the same civil code article rules both opposite and same sex marriage (and it is not going to be the case), you have legal apartheid. I give you an example: our civil unions in Italy contain an article (comma 20) that forces everyone, private contracts included, to recognize and treat civil unions as married couples. It states 'all references, rights, duties and provisions in Italian law relating with marriage shall be extended to civil unions'. The only difference is adoption and IVF, just like in Taiwan. Also, like in Taiwan, civil unions are only available to same sex couples. To the general public these are 'marriage': people make no difference and in common speech they extend the word 'sposare, to marry' also to partners in a civil union. However, from a legal point of view this is not marriage equality. I think we are all very happy that at last an Asian country is passing LGBT legislation.. so happy that too quickly we inserted Taiwan into the list of countries with same-sex marriage. (OT: btw, a common tendency on Wikipedia also extending to Estonia and Armenia, where despite the lack of any legal evidence, these countries are listed along with proven record countries among the recognizers...). As already proven by California in the landmark ruling 'Perry vs Schwarzenegger' (see points 52-54 https://web.archive.org/web/20130316191210/https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf) permanent unions or partnership other than marriage, even if they give equal rights, dont have the same social recognition and by creating a separate status, they actually may strengthen social stigma and discrimination. Finedelledanze (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like we might want to treat Taiwan like Italy on the map. But what changes are you two suggesting, exactly? Do you want to change this article, the Taiwan article, the map, or all three? — kwami (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I suggest we keep things as they are as long as the draft bill is not approved: if it is not, the ruling will automatically open marriage to same-sex couples. However, if this bill is passed in the present form, Taiwan will have legalized same-sex unions. Therefore, it will be necessary to update the map and the article to 'Recognition of same-sex unions in Taiwan'. Here more evidence: https://newbloommag.net/2019/02/21/executive-draft-gay-marriage/ Finedelledanze (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

More evidence on this interpretation of the law as civil unions (https://newbloommag.net/2019/03/08/marriage-bill-analysis/) Finedelledanze (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Feedback over article due to a school assignment.

Hello, I had to chose a Wikipedia article that interests me personally for an assignment for a college class I am taking. I have always been taught to never use Wikipedia as a child but this class is showing me how so many different people from all over the world come together to work on one project. I am in a biracial lesbian relationship so I thought I would search the article relating to same-sex marriage as I am about to go down that route. I found your article to be helpful as far as which countries have legalized same-sex marriage. I noticed a lot of discussion over the map and I think that it is not confusing and was able to understand it just find. I do see how having similar colors on the map would confuse people and agree with the colors I saw today. I also enjoy that so many people are working together on a subject that is still sensitive in some areas around the world. As this is my first time posting on a talk page I hope I have been helpful with feedback over the discussion about the map. Sgmathis583 (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Sgmathis583

Thank you for your feedback Sgmathis583. It is always helpful to hear that the map colours as they are are distinct and understandable. Best, CMD (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Public support map deleted

temporarily? deleted map

There was a nice idea for a map, just above the table on public opinion polls, that showed which countries have majority support for SSM. It looked a bit odd, though (Greece and Cambodia weren't on it, but Vietnam and South Africa were, which contradicts our sources), but when I went to update/correct it, I found I couldn't because it wasn't a clean image. (It was colored greyscale, so sample-n-fill won't work.) I'm just posting this to say that's the only reason I removed it. It would be nice to have, but it needs to be formatted so anyone can edit it, not just the creator going off their original. (I contacted the creator, BTW.) — kwami (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I suspect the image became 'unclean' when it was saved as a png file. I could throw together an svg version if the original creator doesn't get back to you. CMD (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I assume that's what it was. I just didn't want to take the time to create a new map. Got too much on my plate right now. BTW, our adoption map contradicts the 2019 ILGA map for Liechtenstein (has) and Croatia (d n h), but they haven't always proven reliable in the past. — kwami (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Turkey's 27% support for same-sex marriage

There's something quite off about this data in the public opinion table – there's no way support is that high in a strongly socially conservative country like Turkey. In fact, the source cites the results of an online poll, which IMHO is not reliable enough due to the country's relatively low internet penetration. The same information is reported in LGBT_rights_in_Turkey#Public_opinion. Shall we remove it? ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 23:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan

Several edits have been made to add Taiwan to the list of countries where same-sex marriage is now legal. Although a bill to legalize SSM was approved on 17 May, media reports say that it won't go into effect until 24 May.[4][5][6] Unless this changes, it would be premature to say that it is legal in Taiwan before 24 May 2019. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Methods

How about we include a table or a map to note the avenues each political entity has taken to legalize same-sex marriage (e.g., court decision, legislation, referendum, initiative, etc?). TheUnknown285 (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of long standing content

I object to the repeated removal of "These claims are refuted by science, which shows that homosexuality is natural and normal,..." The claims being refuted are:

  1. homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal
  2. the recognition of same-sex unions will promote homosexuality in society

Both of these claims are pseudoscientific nonsense promoted by the religious far-right. The removed material must be restored until there is consensus to remove it.- MrX 🖋 00:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The claims just don't make sense at all, I agree. I was saying that the "homosexuality is normal" part doesn't make much sense, since only 5% of the US is homosexual. I agree that the other claims are false though. BobRoberts14 (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14
@MrX I think your newest edit works and makes sense. I just think we should discuse the word "normal" that is used to describe LGBTQ+ people. I don't think that is a word that can be used to describe them, since they only comprise 5% of the population, and many people (I think they are just as good as other people) think they are weird (again, I think they are fine). BobRoberts14 (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14
"Homosexuality is normal" means it is clinically normal, i.e. according to psychologists and MDs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Ahh okay, thanks for telling me. I just wanted to know further because it confused me and wasn't sourced. BobRoberts14 (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14
This is why we use sources, and not what editors believe or conclude. 5% of people have hazel eyes. No reasonable person would dispute that having hazel eyes is normal. At one time in this article's history there were more than 20 sources supporting the scientific consensus that homosexuality is a normal variation.- MrX 🖋 01:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I mean I would say that people who have hazel eyes are not normal, because that is much less than average... Bob Roberts 01:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14
Abnormal doesn't mean bad, but to me it means differentiating from most people (below the 20th percentile or something). Bob Roberts 01:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14
By your definition of abnormal, many historically oppressed groups could not be called "normal". This is something that has been used historically to discriminate against marginalized groups. By your definition, Jewish people, many ethnic minorities, many religious minorities, people with red hair and freckles, etc, would not be "normal". This is unnecessarily pathologizing and inflammatory. "Normal" should be used to describe anything that is within a non-pathological natural variation of human characteristics. The long-standing language should stay. The article is not being improved by removal of language which is clear, useful, and understandable. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Partly agree: I think the initial change was good (that children of same sex parents were not better off, but just the same as heterosexual parents), I think the differences between parents are way larger than when you compare the average of the "2 groups". I strongly disagree with the other changes indeed for the same reasons... left handed people are also "not normal" if you go by that definition... Sander000 (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage/Archive_26&oldid=1118444368"