Talk:Transgender rights in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Citation 5 links to a page that only tangentially applies the the information it is supposedly citing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikignome0530 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No Lead Section

I have improved on this, but it may still need a better leading sentence if anyone feels inspired.

Until there's something better, how about using content from the parent article Legal aspects of transsexualism  ?

Transsexual people are those who establish a permanent identity with the gender opposite to their biological sex. As most legal jurisdictions have at least some recognition of the two traditional genders at the exclusion of other categories, this raises many legal issues and aspects of transsexualism. Most of these issues tend to be located in what is generally considered family law, especially the issue of marriage, but also things such as the ability of a transgendered person to benefit from a partner's insurance or social security.
...

United States
Main article: Legal aspects of transsexualism in the United States
Pursuant to the U.S. Const., Amend. 10, which reserves to the states (or to the people) all powers not assigned to the federal government, the legal classification of characteristic sex is state jurisdiction in the United States. The principle is generally extended to the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, though the federal government has power to overrule any decision those non-state entities might make. Thus, the legal sex of a transsexual (as well as a transsexed or intersex) individual in the United States does not have one answer but 56 answers – one for each state, the District of Columbia, and the five inhabited territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands).'
jg (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Now improved 2602:306:80B0:28E0:ACEC:6E3D:EDAD:433A (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Birth certificate and marriage laws

Nevada just changed their law:birth certificate change no longer requires SRS as of November, 2016. Map needs updated. www.transequality.org/documents/state/nevada — Preceding unsigned comment added by DissoiLogoi (talk • contribs) 21:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Pennsylvania just changed their law: birth certificate change no longer requires SRS as of August 8, 2016: http://www.epgn.com/news/breaking-news/10827-trans-birth-certificate-suit-settled — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:47:4101:83ED:D3C:A13:F465:17BF (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The information pertaining to California's birth certificate policy is incorrect.

"Like other states, California will amend birth certificates only for California natives currently living in California. However, unlike other states, postoperative residents of California born outside California may obtain a court-ordered change of name and gender."

This information is either out-dated or false. According to the California Superior Court's holding in Somers v. Superior Court, 172 Cal.App.4th 1407 (2009), if a California-born citizen who moves to another state wherein gender marker revisions are prohibited, he or she may still petition a California probate court for gender marker change to be issued. The court reasoned that to hold otherwise would infringe on the fundamental right to travel, prompting a strict scrutiny equal protection analysis. If a person loses his or her rights as a California citizen simply because he or she moved to another state, then the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment has been violated.

Unless anyone from California or someone with better knowledge of California's laws disputes this as being up-to-date, this needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpuck1087 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The graphics need to be altered because the Brownback administration in Kansas has decided to apply the Re Gardner Estate decision to birth certificates (contrary to a rather fuzzy statute) and will no longer update the gender marker on birth certificates.

You will note that the rules for adult gender change have been removed from the Kansas Vital Records web site at: <a href="http://www.kdheks.gov/vital/amend_birth_adults.html">Kansas birth certificate changes</a> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.254.231 (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The case listed has been overturned by a sealed case in the state of TEXAS by the original petitioner, Jamie Glistenburg. No further reference or documents available (in addition the map will need to be updated to show that Missouri DOES require surgery as the law has not been suspended or overturned). Please make the necessary changes so that the courts do not have to get involved: Missouri has had a statute requiring confirmation of sex reassignment surgery in order to modify a birth certificate, which was challenged in two cases in 2013. The first concerned the matter of a transgender name change with amendments. The accompanying amendments dealt with an explicit granting of the petitioner the right to change gender with the Missouri Department of Revenue and other venues pertaining to the use of state identification. The second was heard before the Missouri courts, with a partial delay, on the matter of gender affirmation and recognition for Jamie Miranda Glistenburg. Although the Missouri statute requiring sex reassignment surgery to change birth certificates was not completely invalidated, the court orders from these two cases effectively silenced the discriminatory law until repealed by order of a federal court or by legislative action. The ruling in the Glistenburg case reads, "...it is found that said request of relief is proper and that such change will not be detrimental to the interest of any persons, nor be against the interest of the state or of any given establishment ... Wherefore, the court understands that select circumstances, such as this case, require judicial intervention in order to prevent discrimination. Moreover, the explicit requirement of surgical procedures or medications that may be deemed unsuitable, dangerous, or unnecessary to the Petitioner by medical assertion shall be given relief notwithstanding Mo. Ann. Stat. § 193.215(9)..." Because of the judicial precedent established in this case, there are many transgender individuals and lawyers seeking similar relief in other restrictive states.

References

Other gender marker changes?

Wondering if it would be good/useful to include a section discussing the various state requirements for changing one's gender marker, say, on their driver's license? The requirements for changing gender marker are often vastly different (read: less strict) than the requirements to change the gender marker on one's birth certificate. A potential transitioner may find this information very useful. Thoughts? TeaganK (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If the requirements for amending the driver's license are different from those for amending the birth cert, this is certainly worth mentioning; but we do need some sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

examples added 2602:306:80B0:28E0:ACEC:6E3D:EDAD:433A (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The importance of birth certificates

There is mention of birth certificates, in the article, and the ability to get them changed, but... Nowhere is it explained why it would need to be changed. This is an issue that rather baffles some people (well it certainly has me confused, anyway). Also, why is birth certificates and marriages in the same section? If there is a connection between them, then that should be explained.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think i clarified this 2602:306:80B0:28E0:ACEC:6E3D:EDAD:433A (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Legality map...?

This map has not been updated in a few years and while looking for michigan law I noticed that everything online says that it requires SRS, can somebody take a look and maybe update this map? --71.79.180.123 (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

For the maps about changing birth certificates, I'm not sure if there's a problem on the iPad with Safari, but both maps seem to be in the same colors, while their respective keys are completely different colors. Gitchel (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Rhode Island will be Purple on SRS/ Gender Confirmation Surgery requirement rolled back in Rhode Island effective Nov 11, 2014

Rhode Island is changing its policy. It will be purple. SRS/ gender confirmation surgery will no longer be a legal necessity to legally affirm one'sself as a certain gender for official documents other than the one coercively assigned at birth. It goes into effect November 11th, 2014. Source: http://www.providencejournal.com/news/health/20141025-process-to-be-eased-for-transgender-people-in-r.i.-to-revise-gender-designation-on-birth-certificates.ece http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/10/rhode-island-drops-surgery-requirement-for-transgender-birth-certificate-changes/ 98.253.175.243 07:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 98.253.175.243 (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Rename (Transgender Rights in the United States?)

"Legal aspects of transsexualism in the United States" sounds a bit dated/archaic, as "ism" implies a doctrine, an ideology, a negative belief system, etc.; whereas being trans* is part of a person and I think classifying being a trans* person as an ideology lumped in together with things like, say, sexism, racism, and other -isms is a bit dehumanizing. Also, not everyone who is trans* considers themself to be transsexual and may find being labeled as transsexual as offensive--granted plenty do actually identify as transsexual and are not offended. I think non-trans* (cisgender) people would also quickly ignore a human rights article titled "Legal Aspects of..." as they may perceive such a page to be a boring legal document. I think people can relate to "Rights" better.

How about we call this page "Transgender Rights in the United States" to mirror the title for "LGBT Rights in the United States."

I think that name would be more inviting to read and learn if changed to that.

The one downside I see is that not everyone in the trans* community identifies as transgender, as some do self-identify as transsexual, as well as genderqueer, non-binary, agender, and many more identities.

Can someone who is trans* (or multiple people) give feedback on this proposed name change? (I'm not trans*) Tenor12 (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm weighing in as a transsexual male who identifies as agender. I would support a change of the article title to Transgender Rights in the United States, but some editing would be needed especially to the lead. The lead as it currently reads only refers to male and female and "opposite" sexes. Nonbinary-identified people, many (but not all) of whom identify as transgender, also face legal discrimination, and that should be addressed in the article. Funcrunch (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Not taking any side in this, just want to note that should the change go through, it should be "rights" (no capital) in the new title, not "Rights". This matches the style guide for titles, and keeps it in accord with the title you wish to mirror, LGBT rights in the United States. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I support a name change as to what NatGertler says. It seems more concise and accurate, and follows the manual of style. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 18:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I am a transgender woman (and at the risk of sounding like I may have a conflict of interest), but I finally created a Wikipedia account so that I could contribute to articles about the trans* and wider LGBT communities. At least where I'm from (New England) around people in my age range (mid to late 20's), unless a person self identifies as such and indicates a preference for the label, we generally do not use the term transsexual. It refers to a very specific type of individual - somebody transitioning from one binary gender to another binary gender in all aspects, by definition a transsexual has already undergone, or has definite plans to obtain, GRS. The term is not inclusive, it leaves out individuals such as myself who undergo hormone replacement therapy and socially transition, but for personal, religious, health, or financial reasons cannot or choose not to undergo GRS. It also excludes individuals who have any type of a non-binary identity (genderqueer, bigender, agender, two-spirit, etc...). Personally, I think Transgender Rights in the United States is a much better title for this article since the concept being discussed applies to all manners of individuals under the trans* umbrella and not just transsexuals... whether this is also true for other country-specific articles I'm not sure (and that discussion should probably be left to transfolk from those areas). Linkle KMF (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I consider myself transsexual and I have not had surgery and currently have no plans to do so. I recognize that my dual identification of agender and transsexual male is unusual, however. Funcrunch (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

As someone who deals with transgender law and history, I have significantly updated and added this page to reflect something resembling the full array of legal issues that transgender people (including transsexuals) face. It is now in keeping with the major legal issues confronted by the leading legal firms who deal with transgender law, the history of trans issues in the courtroom and legislatures, and recent incidents in the news. I have been very careful to write this in a non-biased manner, focusing on (1) why issues are issues (2) particular laws and cases, and (3) particular developments.

However... it is immediately apparent that even before I did all this work, the current title was insufficient. Transgender people who are not transsexual confront the same legal issues in discrimination, for instance! The title should be changed to... "Transgender Law in the United States" or "Transgender Legal Issues in the United States" or "Transgender Rights in the United States" I do not know how to change titles, however, given the consensus below, would someone else please make the switch?

Let me just add that while not *everyone* in the trans community identifies as transgender, in academia there is now a consensus of people who consider "transgender" an umbrella term for transsexuals, non-binary transgender people and crossdressers 2602:306:80B0:28E0:C920:F748:CDC7:7A3 (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Important point here.... "transgender" is the umbrella term used by legal organizations who deal with these issues, by academics who study the subject, within the trans community (for the most part) and it has become the standard term used in style guides by english language newspapers. These are all good reasons to change the page title (along with the sister page "Legal aspects of transsexualism" to *Transgender Rights in the United States* and *Transgender Rights*, respectively 2602:306:80B0:28E0:C920:F748:CDC7:7A3 (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 August 2015

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Legal aspects of transsexualism in the United States → Transgender rights in the United States – Consensus on talk page and discussion at User talk:Zumoarirodoka – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 03:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree, transsexual is no longer the commonly used term and has not been for awhile. -Euphoria42 (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Support per prior discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Support per Euphoria42's comments. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Links

Now that this page has been renamed... It needs to be better linked to the other Transgender pages, and the LGBT Rights page. There are also transgender and LGBT menus elsewhere on wikipedia which should include this in it. I do not know how to do this otherwise I would 2602:306:80B0:28E0:ACEC:6E3D:EDAD:433A (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

New Sections

Material added and reorganized. Marriage rights. Reproductive Rights. Third Gender Option. Hate crimes. Name Change. Military. If others have particular cases to add to these, that would be beneficial. 2602:306:80B0:28E0:ACEC:6E3D:EDAD:433A (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

More maps

The maps on employment discrimination and birth certificate policies in this article are awesome! We could use some additional maps showing:

• Which states have specifically anti-transgender laws, such as those mandating using bathroom of one's biological birth sex, or prohibiting local anti-discrimination ordinances
• Which states have anti-hate crimes laws for transgender people

-- Beland (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

New Jersey incorrectly listed as a purple state on the birth certificate SRS requirements map

The current map purporting to show the requirements for each state to change the gender marker on your birth certificate regarding GRS incorrectly lists New Jersey as a state that does not require GRS. New Jersey does currently require proof of GRS to update this information. This is even noted in both of the sources listed for the map's information (Lambda Legal, and Dr. Becky Allison). -- SlothFacts (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Requesting clarification of article topic following rename

I'm requesting discussion and consensus on what this article is now about, following a rename discussion (above) two years ago, which resulted in the move discussion and a rename of the article from its former title, Legal aspects of transsexualism in the United States to its current title Transgender rights in the United States.

Sometimes with a rename, there is really no change in topic. Other times, it's less clear, hence this discussion topic.

This question arose now, because I wished to add something to the article about the January 2017 change in the Boy Scouts of America's attitude and regulations concerning membership of transgender boys, previously prohibited. I started thinking about where to put that, and thought about maybe adding a new H2 section, #Social organizations, with a couple of H3 sections under that, starting with #Boy Scouts (or, now that I think about it, probably starting with #Girl Scouts, since they were first, chronologically) and moving on to other kinds of institutions which have been wrestling with this same question.

And when I looked at the article in light of the former name, it seemed to me that anything concerning internal decisions by the Boy Scouts not arising from a legal case wouldn't have been appropriate in the article at that time (outside of occasions when there have been legal cases pushing them to act). I see a distinction between "Legal aspects" and "rights" more generically— the former clearly having to do with the justice system in the country, and the second a superset of that which could also include rights of other types, moral, ethical, and non-legalistic rules, regulations, conventions, or customs of clubs, private organizations, and so on.

Putting it more succinctly: if the article still carried the old name, I would not have considered adding anything about the January changes at the Boy Scouts because they were not related to legal cases. However, under the new name, I am thinking that it is appropriate now. But that represents a slight change in focus in what this article used to be about, and for that, I would like to hear others' opinions, and to establish a consensus, if possible. That is the crux of the question, namely: is this article now about more than just legal cases, and can we now talk about the Scouts, 4-H, churches, and other organizations with rules or regulations concerning transgender rights more broadly, that are not strictly related to U.S. jurisprudence? Mathglot (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

References

It really comes down to how you define rights. If it's a question of civil rights, and that more or less limits the scope to legal matters. That doesn't mean just the judiciary, however; legislation is relevant, and so are policies promulgated by the executive branch. And activism (for or against) directly affecting any of the above. Alternatively, for the purposes of this article, if rights are human rights, the scope could be legitimately broader. If you were to use LGBT rights in the United States as a model, which probably would make sense, it would be the former. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: The issue that led to the rename from how I see it was more with the term "transsexualism" than with the phrase "legal aspects". I think the Boy Scouts policy change you mention might be included in the scope of this article, but I am not sure. Funcrunch (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Funcrunch, yes I see where it came from, and thanks for your feedback about including Scouts, which is also my preference.

Rivertorch, you nailed the issue, it depends on the definition of rights. Good point introducing the analogy of LGBT rights in the United States which would tend to militate for the more limited scope. On the other hand, the first sentence of Wikipedia's article on Rights, says:

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

and I think whoever worked on that job did a great job as it seems precise, clear, and comprehensive to me, and would tend to argue for the more expansive scope. (As it would for the LGBT rights article as well.)

Would like to hear from other users as well, before I go add something to the article that might get reverted as outside the scope. Mathglot (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The existence of this page

Editors who work on this page may be interested in a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#"Intersex"_articles LGBT Studies where it has been asserted that "Intersex rights in country pages" should not exist because "Gay rights in country" pages do not exist. This has obvious consequences for transgender rights pages. Trankuility (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Transgender rights in the United States

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Transgender rights in the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nbc":

• From 2016 in the United States: Siemaszko, Corky; Johnson, Alex (March 9, 2016). "Cops Arrest Quadruple Homicide Suspect Pablo Antonio Serrano-Vitorino". NBC News. Retrieved March 9, 2016.
• From LGBT rights in Maryland: "Bill Allowing Unspecified Gender on Licenses Passes Maryland Senate". Nbcwashington. February 22, 2019.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Corrections

The article has a couple of errors or misleading statements. First, the Obama policy on Title IX and school treatment of transgender students has been rescinded by the Trump administration. Emanuella Grinberg's article is out of date. This should be noted. On the other hand a number of courts have ruled in favor of those advocating access by gender identity (but courts are split). I would suggest that the Grinberg point be deleted or that it be noted that the policy was rescinded. Second, Obergefell did not rest solely on Equal Protection. There is a debate about whether it was decided on more on due process grounds, buttressed by Equal Protection as suggested. The point is important because advocates wanted a solid equal protection holding and some have complained they did not get it. The court relied heavily upon due process and also mentioned equal protection. It might be better to say due process buttressed by equal protection. Olliemae (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Map on hate crimes legislation

It needs fixing. It has an indication for light blue; but there are no states in blue. Instead, there are states in yellow.Dogru144 (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding to the Health Care section

I am planning on adding to the health care section of this page. I want to add information about the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s privacy policies and how that affects transgender individuals. I also want to add information about insurance coverage, specifically Medicare coverage for transgender procedures. Expanding upon this, I want to include information on deductible health care available to transgender individuals. Lastly, I want to go more in-depth about another issue transgender individuals face: the lack of knowledge and education related to transgender health. You can look at my sandbox to see my first draft of my contribution. --Smwhat15 (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Virginia SRS/birth certificate law changed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Virginia

check summary table...reference 44? should map be updated to change VA to purple? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.139.9.55 (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Would OH's birth certificate law be "Unclear due to conflict between state law and judicial rulings?"

Article below shows a ruling that says it's unconstitutional to disallow birth certificate changes in OH. Possible legal precedent for TN too? https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/state/2020/12/16/judge-sides-transgender-residents-countering-state-policy/3922653001/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintermintleaf (talk • contribs) 14:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 December 2018 and 20 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amolina02.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 7 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smwhat15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaitlin.stewart.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead seems to violate NPOV as it says that bills that restrict the irghts but does not mention how many bills were inroduced that removed restrictions

The lead currently says Transgender rights in the United States vary considerably by jurisdiction. By the end of 2021, at least 130 bills had been introduced in 33 states to restrict the rights of transgender people.[1] Seems to violate WP:NPOV as it does not mention the bills introduced that removed restrictions of the rights of transgender people Qwv (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Vera Institute research

@Mathglot

So, the part I added I think is directly relevant to all of those sections, hence it should go in all of those sections, no? Or am I missing something? Snokalok (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Snokalok. I think it's very unusual, to say the least, to add identical or near-identical content in four places in the article (diff), and could give the impression of WP:REFSPAM, although knowing your edits to some extent I don't think that's what's going on here. I thought about keeping one of the copies of it, but I didn't know which one, but it's sourced so feel free to add it back somewhere in the article. With respect to general principles of good writing, I'm trying to think of an example where you'd find something like this in professional writing, and I can't; it would be pretty odd to say the least and unprofessional-looking, and I'd suspect a publishing glitch of some sort. I'm not sure if there's a specific guideline that applies here at Wikipedia, although I'll have a look around, but as far as having multiple copies of it, why don't we let some other editors weigh in, and see what they think. Mathglot (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot

That's fair. My underlying thought was that if someone looks at an article on transgender rights in the United States, they're not going to be reading it top to bottom, they're going to be jumping to individual sections for a snapshot of one particular issue, and my thought is that since the bit is relevant to all of these issues, it should be included in all of them so that anyone looking for that snapshot gets the most accurate picture of directly relevant information. Snokalok (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Snokalok: I understand what you are saying, and at first blush there seems to be some logic to it. However, the problem I see with it is that if this works with the "Vera" paragraph, than why not with this-other-paragraph, and then why not with that-one-over-there, and pretty soon everything is duplicated everywhere, and you've got an article six times as long (or twenty times?) as before, and the article becomes this impenetrable mass of duplicate content all over the place and it becomes even *less* likely that anyone will read the article from beginning to end. (Actually, we already know from studies that they don't, but I don't have a link handy.)

It's a kind of infinite regress problem: once you start in on this, where does it end? As far as guidelines and policies, maybe there are shades of WP:DUEWEIGHT that apply here; namely: what is it about the Vera content that makes it worth including four times in the article, rather than some other editor's favorite bit of content? Would we end up in a "duplicate-war", where you add your fave bit, and then editor B adds theirs? Maybe that's the underlying problem that I couldn't quite articulate the first time. Mathglot (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot

That makes sense. For now I'm going to add back the education and the prisons bit because those are only in one section to my recollection, and I think the repeated piece will belong best in the housing section, but if you have other thoughts, by all means. Snokalok (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)