Jump to content

File talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg/Archive 7

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

Footnote translations requested

[edit]

Anyone adept at other Wikimedia languages, can you guys please updated the footnote 1 for as many languages as you can? Thanks. I will take my go at the much needed French translation when I get a chance. Per existing consensus and a reliable source ([1]), I have update MD to full blue. Since MD already recognizes OoS marriages, I am wondering should we put the footnote 1 on the legend entry for that as well? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC/MD border

[edit]

Now that DC and Maryland are both equal marriage jurisdictions, the visual distinction between DC's dot and the Maryland color has disappeared. How can some kind of boundary/edge line be put in there to show the distinction? Right now it's almost like DC doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.160.51 (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. Didn't you see that Retrocession passed last week? :) Serious, I think either a state border should be expressly placed there or a small circle outlined in the color of a state border.Naraht (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is rather simple - simply outline DC with a thin white circle to separate it from the rest of Maryland. Raul654 (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Current one ok? /Lokal_Profil 16:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Raul654 (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, I'd prefer if the circle was smaller since it extends out close to 40 miles out from downtown rather than maximum 7 miles that the city really does, (and thus puts my house 10 miles north of DC inside the circle) but I appreciate that the pages that are using it are using it at a smaller size than we see it on the file page here. I haven't been able to see it on one of the pages that uses it, but that probably has more to do with Wikipedia catching up with itself. Hopefully (from both a NPOV and a NNPOV), we won't have to deal with the concept of striping DC, since the only likely solution will be "state" tags sitting out in the Atlantic Ocean.Naraht (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made the circle smaller so that it plus the new frame are about the same size at the circle by itself before. /Lokal_Profil 19:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thank you. Keep your fingers cross that it won't have to be striped...Naraht (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's already stripable (but the white frame will remain white). See Blank US Map, striped, w territories.svg for an example. Still let's hope less rather then more stripes are needed. /Lokal_Profil 17:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was afraid that one stripe would cover the entire circle. In any event my NNPOV opinion is hoping DC's situation won't change. Naraht (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recoloring the map

[edit]

A User:Fry1989 took it upon themselves to recolor this map without any discussion whatsoever. Their action has been reverted in full. Such action in the future merits major discussion. Also, whenever the colors on the map are redone, efforts need to be made to update the legend in all Wikipedia articles (in all languages) that cite the map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may say, the recolored map was much better. While I agree it should be discussed first, the new colors he used synchronized the US colors with every other major same sex marriage map. The yellow being used for statute bans as opposed to pink is also much easier on the eyes. chase1493 (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those colors actually hurt my eyes more than the current colors. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should revive this discussion. Obviously we have disagreements on some of the colors that were used in the altered map, so let's have a compromise. How about we keep pink for statute bans so that it continues the two color scheme Blues = more rights, Reds = less rights. But, can we at least update the Dark blue for marriage? It really bugs me that it isn't standardized with the other LGBT maps, and it isn't a huge change. Any thoughts? Specifically you, Thegreyanomaly, considering you keep this map up-to-date almost 24/7. - chase1493 (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. will the dark gray color be deleted from the legend after Rhode Island turns dark blue? --adamlance —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change coloring to reflect reality

[edit]

It would greatly simplify this map, and reduce confusion, if states were colored to reflect the law as it stands now, and not what may or may not happen in the future. When someone reads the article on same-sex marriage in the U.S., they don't want to know what may or may not be the law, but what IS the law. As much as I would like to see Maryland and Washington colored deep blue, this simply would not reflect present reality. If you were to go to city hall in either of these states wanting to marry someone of the same gender, you would be sorely disappointed as you would be turned away. By changing states' colors only to reflect what is presently true, we can eliminate both pesky footnotes and endless debates on when during the legislative process a state should change color. Am I right? --Wbush89 (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this has so far been brought up by three diffrent editors and an IP, not a vote count people's input here. I thank Grey for adding the numbers on the map for the footnotes to clarify but why make it more complex than it needs to be? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The map should definately reflect reality. As it stands you can't have a same sex marriage in either Washington or Maryland. You most likely will be able to in the near future, and as and when these laws come into effect the colour should be changed. It also simplifies the map, as you say. Del♉sion23 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The map reflects what reliable sources do. They say that 8 states have legalized same-sex marriage and then go on to qualify that Washington and Maryland laws have not yet come into effect. Our map reflects what reliable sources have chosen to do by coloring 8 states blue and then having a footnote to qualify Washington and Maryland. And I think it would be more confusing to have a map that conflicts with sources on the number of states that have legalized same-sex marriage. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again this map is confusing and misleading as long as same-sex marriage and same-sex marriage legalized are lumped into one color, I had said okay with the numbers added to the map but as more editors are speaking out against it I feel that there must be an easier way. Nobody is doubting the sources here, the colors are what the problem is. Same Sex marriage legal, enforced, and has come into effect is not the same thing as legalized. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The map is neither confusing or misleading if you read the footnote. And reliable sources disagree with your assessment that Washington and Maryland have not legalized same-sex marriage. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We just had this debate a couple weeks ago... I literally just archived it a few days ago... We do not need to go through this discussion again. There is no consensus to change the map.
Here are the facts, you guys wanting to change the map say that the map as it stand misleads and/or confuses readers; "my" side of the argument says that we are following reliable news sources that describe WA and MD having legalized SSM and that not having the map updated for not-yet-effective laws and court orders as the sources do will confuse readers. Neither side has any dataset to show how users react either way, all we have is the opinions of editors ("votes"). Based on the "votes", we know there is no agreement on whether or not to change the map rules; since there is no agreement to change the map, there is definitely no consensus to change the map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That precedent was changed when the footnotes were inserted, so the consensus you claim for keeping the map does not hold, otherwise you would have reverted the changes. People have made good arguments for a change which was partly accomplished by adding footnote numbers into the map, despite the claim there was no want or need to change the map. The continued insistence on "no consensus to change the map" is belied by the file history. Hekerui (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The footnotes have always been there. If you're referring to the overlaid footnote numbers on the states, I wasn't a huge fan of that, but it seemed to be an acceptable compromise to people who said the map was misleading. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The footnotes have been here since May 2009 [2] almost three years ago. The footnotes have been long supported. Inserting footnotes onto the map was supposed to be an alternative compromise to the proposition of adding new color(s) for legislation pending enforcement. There is still no consensus to stop editing the map on signing dates. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I was the IP person who raised this question in the most recent debate (archived very recently). I became convinced that the map in its current form (with WA and MD blue AND footnotes) is the correct solution. So, to the extent necessary, I "switched sides" on this issue.71.217.86.230 (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina

[edit]

Just a heads up, North Carolina is having a vote in 10 days on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions. If it passes (which it probably will) North Carolina will need to be recolored. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I think it will pass (sadly), I do think it do think it would be a good idea to do the update once the NC State Board of Elections certifies the result, which way it goes. This should happen by the end of the month. This alows any challenges to the vote count to settle itself. BTW, I live in NC. - Thanks, Hoshie 05:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the amendment passes tonight by a decent margin (more than 1%) then I see no reason to wait to update the map for a formality that has virtually no chance of changing the result. Maybe if the vote is close (less than 1% difference) that would make some sense. Otherwise the map should be updated when the amendment passes as we usually do to give the reader the most up to date information. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The amendment has passed npr.org [3] The map should be changed now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone who is an expert in SVG add a line connecting the 1 that points to Maryland to point to North Carolina as well? I'd do it but I'd end up adding sodipodi artifacts which is evidently verboten. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why, doesn't the ban in the North Carolina referendum go into effect immediately?Naraht (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think the "1" is needed for North Carolina. It was added to Washington and Maryland because there is a legal mechanism that could potentially change the law legalizing same-sex marriage before it comes into full force. I am not aware of any legal mechanism that can stop the North Carolina constitutional amendment before it comes into full force (other than the U.S. Supreme Court striking down all state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, which would completely obliterate this map anyways, and even that isn't possible since the Court does not currently have a case on the issue pending). Rreagan007 (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island

[edit]

Governor ordered the state agencies to recognize out-of-state marriages. See [4] Ron 1987 (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't he realize that as the governor of the smallest state in the union, he has a responsibility to keep the policies of the state so there is only one color for the state in this map? :) I don't think we currently have any of the Dark Gray currently on the map, do we?Naraht (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, another small state being striped. Oh well, we gotta do what the governor orders I suppose. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland signatures

[edit]

[5] When the referendum officially qualifies, we need to revert MD. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article more closely, this is still a while off before it reaches qualification, but it is worth noting. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

California

[edit]

Today, the 9th said they would not re-hear the proposition 8 case. Before random new editors pop in saying CA should be made full blue, I would just like to reiterate that we should wait to see if the SCOTUS actually takes the case before we do squat, since there is an indefinite hold on the original decision by Walker as well as the agreeing decision by the 2-1 panel. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't know if the SCOTUS denying cert would automatically cause same sex marriages to start again, but if they take the case, we'd have to wait until getting some level of decision, even if it is a 4-4 tie.Naraht (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem waiting to see what the Supremes do before changing California on the map, but if they deny cert then the decision of the appeals court would stand and at that point California can be colored blue. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on exactly how the holds are written, but almost certainly correct.Naraht (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the SCOTUS says no to the case, we would change it to dark blue. If there was still a stay to allow the bureaucracy to update itself, them we would put a 1 subscript on it. If the SCOTUS takes the case, then we do nothing. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.Naraht (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I have the feeling they will take the case it is an election year and it has been talked about alot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhhh... people like Jeffrey Toobin are of the opinion that legally the ruling was to narrow to be worth revisiting. Also, they might be taking up DOMA cases that would be better (i.e., broader) cases for them. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Washington and Maryland signatures

[edit]
Washington state should be reverted right now. See [7] Ron 1987 (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

[edit]

I propose that this map shows the as-is status of marriage in the United States, whether same-sex couples can legally marry at the moment, not maybe in the future. This would preclude later reverted changes to the map, as with Washington and Maryland. In short: let's not show "not entered into effect yet" but what is "in effect". Hekerui (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The laws for SSM change too much and this saves the extra step of reverting if things happen. I say we should wait until the law is firmly in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The colours should only change once the law takes place. Del♉sion23 (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The map should reflect the current situation. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose We've just had this discussion a few months back. There was no consensus to change when we update the map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Knowledgekid and Ron1987. It would be easier and more truthful to show how things actually are, not as they will be.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Global map I wouldn't really find this necessary, taking Denmark as a recent example, it was changed to dark blue after the law passed parliament but before it was signed by the Queen because there's no way she wouldn't have. But considering how contentious this issue is in the US, with referendums, stays, over-rullings and the like, I'd agree we should only edit the US map when a law regarding same-sex marriage is in effect, not when it has only been approved. Fry1989 eh? 01:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above, the haters often have the laws change before they go into effect. CTJF83 01:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As I have noted in these previous discussions, reliable sources often say that Washington and Maryland have legalized same-sex marriage and that the law has not yet gone into effect. This map as it is currently colored along with the footnote reflects this. Our current policy of updating the map reflects what reliable sources tend to do and gives the reader the most up to date information. Also, if our current practice of updating the map when laws are passed were to change, Maryland and Washington would not necessarily be the only states that would need to be changed. North Carolina recently passed a constitutional amendment, and I do not know whether or not that constitutional amendment has officially come into effect yet. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we really need footnotes for "Same-sex marriage legalized" though? Just because something is in references alot does not mean it needs to be here. If you note there are no footnotes for north Cariolina, which you are right about the law comes to effect the 1st of next year so how it is now is also incorrect. Stop all the confusion already if we update when the law comes into full effect:

Comment: We should not use "confusion" as an argument. For every reader confused about updating early, there will be another user confused about updating late. Confusion is a moot point. For example, let's say the governor of State A signs a law regarding action B that pertains to this map, and then CNN and other new sources talk about it and say that State A did action B and that some status is now (il)legal in state A. When they see action B not on the map, there will be people confused about that. Also, we should not use WP:Crystal Ball in our arguments. Yes, haters often do get stuff put onto the ballot, but refraining to edit under the speculation that they will be successful is wrong. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. People can just as easily be confused when they read an article in the NY Times saying Washington has legalized same-sex marriage and then view a map that does not reflect that. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusion isn't a moot point; most stories I have read list the dates when laws should go into effect and I doubt people will misunderstand a map showing laws currently in effect. Also, simply stating the crystal ball argument is wrong does not make it so. The fact of the matter is that when a law goes into effect the event is no longer uncertain while the current policy of adding new legislation is.Weebro55 (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you are saying is not true and does not actually cite any data, I'll show you some articles that do not list any dates in the morning/afternoon (just making quick comments before bed). It is Crystal Balling to speculate that signed laws will be taken to the ballot. When a law is signed, it is final and we assume it is so. Further action can be taken to stop a law (a signed bill) from going into effect, but presuming such an action would occur is speculation and violates WP:Crystal Ball. Pretty much any law anywhere can be repealed by legislatures (or voters depending on jurisdictions) before it is put into full effect, per Naraht, do we just assume all that legislation does not exist? No we don't. Obamacare is not fully in effect, does that mean it is not the law yet? No it doesn't Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all I was mentioning a personal experience, and merely linking to articles without dates doesn't mean articles with dates aren't common and just as easy to cite. The New York Times mentioned earlier mentions that law will not take immediately effect after passing, which even without dates supports my argument some article readers will understand the law in not in practice. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/us/washington-state-set-to-legalize-same-sex-marriage.html Your argument about crystal balling makes less sense than ours. Not including Washington and Maryland is not the same as assuming the referendums will occur or succeed. It is crystal balling to assume that a law will go into effect or not go into effect, however it is not crystal balling to acknowledge both possibilities exist and behave accordingly. The article assumes that a law will go into effect while the proposed system will never make any assumption about a newly passed law's future status. Laws that are not in effect do not reflect the reality of a given situation. Until very recently it was a criminal offense in Middleborough, MA to use profanity in public, yet this was almost never practiced and might as well have never even existed. http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2012/06/12/public-swear-jar-mass-town-institutes-fine-for-cursing/ Weebro55 (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've seen articles where it will say "State A" has legalized "Status B", without any date notices. It turns out I am bit busier today than I thought (grad school, stuff came up), so I will post them tonight. Amongst all types of legislation, it is an assumption to say a law (a signed bill) will go into effect, it is a bigger assumption to say that the law will be repealed/stayed before it reaches the effective date. The position of holding off is a greater level of Crystal Ball. A law that no one enforces or is rarely enforced is still a law. Before that profanity law was repeal, whichever type of law enforcement that is responsible for enforcing local ordinances probably could have enforced that law if they wanted to. Rolling stops are illegal but not often enforced, does that mean they are not illegal? No. Anyways, I need to get off Wikipedia and get back to work, I will (hopefully) not be back until late tonight (Eastern Time). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I said before, the existence of articles without dates does not disprove or discredit my point. People reading news articles will not be as confused as readers who have not read articles on same-sex marriage. At least a notable portion of article readers will be under the correct impression that the law is not in effect. Also, the proposed change isn't a change from "Law A will go into effect" to "Law A will not go into effect" it is the policy of only writing "Law A is in effect". No assumption is ever made and any indication that it would is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the desired change. Your proposal violates Crystal Ball by only allowing one outcome of a set of potential events while the proposed system makes no assumptions. I am also not arguing a law is not a law, I am arguing the application of the law is more important than a piece of paper because it has real world consequences. If same-sex couples do not have access to marriage at this point in time, it should not be marked as a same-sex marriage state.Weebro55 (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - there are hundreds of Laws that the State of Maryland passed in the last session of the Legislature that were signed, should all of those be treated as not existing until they come into effect?Naraht (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not familiar with how these laws have played out in the past. About how often are laws passed in favor or against same-sex marriage/unions repealed or voided before they take effect? Leonxlin (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, From Nov 2008 to present, only twice has right expansions been taken to the ballot box (and there have been several right expansions since). Those two were in 2009 when WA had "everything-but-marriage" up for vote and Maine had marriage up for vote. In WA the law was upheld, in ME it was overturned. Marriage laws are being stayed and will be on the ballot in November in MD and WA. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Current map creates unnecessary confusion about the status in the U.S. Laws. I don't opposed adding new legislation simply because it is not affecting the current situation, but because it may never go into effect at all. MOS:CAPTIONS also states that captions "should be succinct; more information about the image can be included on its description page, or in the main text." The current image doesn't even allow for that.Weebro55 (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Map colors should NOT be changed until the exact day that a law comes into effect. Footnotes can indicate pending changes. But it's important to think about general readers unfamiliar with the legislative history - they should be able to tell at a glance what the situation is AT THAT MOMENT when they see the map. Otherwise, we are misleading readers. In addition to footnotes, a header could also indicate that the map is a continual state of change. Also, I urge my fellow editors to go take a look at the excellent maps that are continually updated by HRC and Freedom to Marry as a guide to how WP might handle this question. Textorus (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note [8] The HRC map is actually wrong, at least the asterisk caption for CA there is wrong, OoS marriages performed after Prop 8 are not considered DPs, they are considered nameless unions with all the state level rights of marriage. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but with footnotes or some other indication of laws passed but not yet in effect. The current approach is a bit arbitrary in terms of the "default", and there are enough states allowing SSM that the in-effect status provides significant information. But footnotes are necessary if for no other reason than to keep people from changing the map whenever anything passes. Alternatively we could have a second map (yeah, I know, there are always suggestions for second map) that displays the progress on passing laws on SSM (prohibited by constitution, introduced, passed, in effect, etc) without information on partnerships/civil unions. Bennetto (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion this problem stems from the fact that this map has no clear intent. The matter would be greatly simplified if this point could be clarified. Is the intent of the map to show the current status of SSM? Then I would support this proposal. Is the intent of this map to show a summary of SSM laws? Then I would oppose the proposal. Unfortunately this map is trying to do both at the same time, communicate the current status as well as the existing laws, which in some cases do not easily mesh. That's why this map is such a mess of different colors and crosshatching and footnotes. It's trying to do too much at the same time, and unfortunately that leaves me unable to offer a clear opinion on whether or not I support this proposal. Thus if it were up to me, I would say that the status-quo should be maintained until the deeper question of intent can be answered. Shereth 19:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Not only is this map utterly hideous, as you say it is trying to do way too much, and regardless of when colors change, is confusing to readers - hence defeating it's reason for being. I've made this point time and again in these discussions, but nobody seems to get it. Again, I urge editors to look at the much clearer maps from HRC and FtoM linked in my comment above. I never come to WP to get an overview of SSM laws, and I doubt anybody else does after their first look at this dog's breakfast of a map. Textorus (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I feel the problem is that we are trying to include laws that have not gone into effect yet but due to how complex things are it is making a big mess, the map here really doesnt need all these footnotes, as it is North Carolina now needs one as the amendment has not gone into effect yet as well that does not happen until January 1, 2013. All the map needs is one or two footnotes not one for every color. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I'm not sure that fdate for North Carolina is correct. This points up another problem with waiting until the law takes full effect, determining exactly when that date is or will be. Can you cite to where you got that January 1 date or the North Carolina amendment taking full effect? Rreagan007 (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Source: (Washington Post) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's interesting, but I think it may be incorrect. Article XIII, Section 4 of the N.C. Constitution says, "If a majority of the votes cast thereon are in favor of the proposed new or revised Constitution or constitutional amendment or amendments, it or they shall become effective January first next after ratification by the voters unless a different effective date is prescribed in the act submitting the proposal or proposals to the qualified voters."[9] And the amendment's legislative act, Section 3 and 4 stated, "SECTION 3. If a majority of votes cast on the question are in favor of the amendment set out in Section 1 of this act, the State Board of Elections shall certify the amendment to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall enroll the amendment so certified among the permanent records of that office. SECTION 4. The amendment set out in Section 1 of this act is effective upon certification."[10] So it looks to me that according to the NC Constitution and the language of the amendment, that the constitutional amendment becomes effective when the State Board of Elections certifies the amendment to the Secretary of State. Now the question then becomes when is (or was) that? Rreagan007 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The salient, interesting, newsmaking moment is when a law regarding same-sex marriages/unions is passed, not when it goes into effect. Regarding the discussion on the purpose of the map: if the purpose is ambiguous, then I would lean toward supporting the "laws" intent. Leonxlin (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same can be said about the amendments against SSM though, I feel we should follow the reliable sources and their maps. The whole legalized and amendments that have not yet gone into effect yet makes the map a mess as pointed out above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree and Some Observations.
    I take a very pragmatic view of content - and WP:IAR does not mean I may Politicise pages and content for my own interests. I am very much aware of the Issues linked to this map, but it is the first time I have looked at the map and it's usage in Wiki Land, so I may have some perspectives and views that are fresher than others.

    It is not possible to simply assess this map without looking at it's usage in Wikipedia. I support and endorse total equality of LGBT rights globally - and in fact all Human Rights Globally. That can even be seen to operate in Wikipedia. Readers have the right to receive information free from other people's bias.

    When looking at the page Same-sex marriage in the United States I have alarm bells ringing from paragraph 1 in the Lede. Language is being used in what would appear to be partisan and political ways. The use of the words "delayed or derailed" and the references linked to (internal Wikipages) smacks of politics and politicisation and not Encyclopedic content. To use such words It really does need a quotation from a reliable source, and even balance with a counter quote.

    In my opinion, a reader would be looking for simple information, mainly where same sex marriage (as that is commonly understood ) is legal in the USA. That is "In Force" and allowing them say as an LGBT person to have protection under the law, or as someone looking at the subject to see the subject revealed in a rational and clear manner which does not POV Push. The minutia of how State Legal processes work is unlikely to be of interest, and should have it's prominence reduced, and made into suitable bite sized chunks (if appropriate on a state by state basis) within the page.

    It is interesting that there is a link to a page that discusses the State by State issues - Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state - and this map may have value there, but it's "Generic Usage" across multiple pages is poor wikipedia content and does no serve the interests of Wikipedia USERS. So I have to wonder - if there is a page dealing with state by state issues, why is there an over prominence of certain states in the lede for Same-sex marriage in the United States coupled with language that appears partisan?

    Considering a none interested party coming to Wiki Land, looking for information which they can investigate and build upon, they are unlikely to be interested in the minutia of all aspects of the subject from first contact with a Wiki Page. They will be interested in first the bare essentials from the lede - No federal - some states yes - other's no - legal issues meaning flip flopping in other states. That is not there at the moment. What is there is a jumbled set of information that reads as political - even propaganda and not encyclopedia.

    "Same-sex marriage in the United States is not recognized by the federal government, but such marriages are recognized by six states. The lack of federal recognition was codified in 1996...." Taking just the first lines of the Lede and looking at the map it is not possible to see readily and rationally which six states are involved.

    "lack" .... that word has implied meanings as to a deficit and the word should not be present. Sorry but - the USA is a democracy, and has legal process which has been followed. If Federal Law has been set it should not indicate lack, just that federal law does not allow. If a person believes lack exists that can address that by the correct legal and political processes - and if their actions are WP:NOTE+ WP:V they can be presented in Wiki Land with WP:NPOV. I would recommend that the whole wording of the page be revisited as presently there is WP:BIAS, and it needs to be removed.

    The map also needs to convey the required level of information that best suits the reader - and not the author's or graphic artist's interests. Presently the map is needlessly complex and confusing - the colour banding combinations are also misleading when you look closely at Deleware and Rhode Island.

    So I agree that the map should show "Statute In Force" - and not "Maybe In Force", "Could be In force one day" or even indicate "This is where some people are having a battle and we as authors on this page want to TELL YOU to take note and focus there and fix bayonets - the LACK will be attacked and - We will fight them on the beaches ..... ". Even a map can be Churchillian in it's presentation.

    I also believe that the map and the whole page on Same-sex marriage in the United States needs to be looked at carefully - the politicisation needs to be dropped - and the whole subject rewritten from a WP:NPOV that places the reader first and foremost on the page - and The WP:SOAP needs to be gotten rid of.

    That does not mean I object to WP:SOAP on the issue of Same Sex Marriage - just that WP:SOAP is not the Wiki Land way.... the bubbles do tend to get in the way of WP:NPOV and confuse readers who are looking for good content and not to become embroiled in others views and ideas.

    Now That will put the cat amongst the pigeons. .. But you can not separate out the image/map from it's usage. The map it is an information/communication tool and has no intrinsic meaning on it's own, other than to be a map of the USA with state boundaries indicated, and confusing use of colours that mean nothing until they are given meaning on a Wiki page - and that page is supposed to be Wiki in nature - and "above" all other considerations or POV's that are off page, where they are supposed to stay!
    Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put. Del♉sion23 (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giving up on debate I would make respond to some arguments above, but I am too busy and it seems consensus is against me anyways. Given the ratio of supports to opposes, I think (unfortunately) we can say that the consensus is for update upon effective date. We still need to have footnote saying only includes effective law though, I don't think there is anyway around no footnote. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that a change isnt a bad thing, we can always go back ideas help us go forward. Anyways yes I agree but I think just one or 2 will do it not one for almost every color. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assuming the time of updating is changed, there is still the problem of knowing exactly when laws take effect. I'm pretty sure the North Carolina amendment has already gone into effect, as the amendment says it takes effect when the results are officially certified by the board of elections. This would have almost certainly happened by now, as it is merely a formality that usually happens within a few weeks, but as that event had no real consequences, it's hard to find news sources confirming that. I assume something similar may happen with the Washington and Maryland (and Minnesota and Maine) ballot measures. If Washington or Maryland vote in November to uphold same-sex marriage, we couldn't change the map right away but would have to wait until the results are certified to take effect. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thegreyanomaly - re Giving up on debate - Awwww... Don't "give up" mate. This was a good discussion. Raised some important ideas. Just b/c consensus fell against your view doesn't mean you didn't have a point worth consideration. NickCT (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per Hahc21. WP:CRYSTALBALL seems to obviously apply in this case. NickCT (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you're a graduate student who is supposed to be putting in 50+ hour weeks, you learn that some debates aren't worth the time investment. If you look through my contrib histories, you'll see over the last year my edits/week fell massively Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This map is hard on the eyes and maybe not that informative. The fewer the colors, the better.
Also, why is there color information in other languages? Okay in Wikimedia, maybe with instructions to "copy it over and delete non-applicable language" but languages other than English should be removed as long as en.Wikipedia is host.
Also, I guess everyone is happy with unlabeled states? Never paid much attention before, but map is utterly meaningless to non-US educated readers. Try to imagine a map of France with Loraine or Limousin colored in without a label. Or some other country! And no, I don't want to be the one to come up with a scheme to write state names in Delaware and New Jersey at this granularity! Student7 (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, reliable sources aren't always right

[edit]

Above there is some talk about NC news sources not being consistent with the text of the amendment. It is important to note that reliable sources are not always right on the matters that this image deals with. They will be fairly accurate about bills progression through legislature, them being signed into law, said laws going into effect, ballot measures qualifying, etc, but it isn't always so. For example, the HRC and the Freedom to Marry maps (which one would think are the most reliable sources on the matter of this map) have CA pretty wrong on the map. In summary, we need to be careful when going by news sources alone. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically the point I've been trying to make. We're going to have to be very careful about exact dates for updating the map from now on, particularly where laws banning same-sex marriage go into effect are concerned. In the case of legalization, the date that same-sex marriage licenses are first issued will likely still be well covered in news articles, but for laws banning same-sex marriage the high profile date is when the law passes and very little attention is given to the date the ban actually goes into effect. Because of this difficulty, perhaps it would be better to still update the banning laws when passed rather than when they become effective. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No the bad still outweighs the good here by going when the law is legalized and adds to more confusion, there has been no problems in the past finding sources on when the law comes into effect for SSM take for example Maryland I see a source there found that states "Under its provisions, same-sex couples will be permitted to marry beginning January 1, 2013" As for the sources and anti-SSM states wikipedia relies on reliable sources you can decypher the amendment all you want but unless its published someplace that it is a fact its pretty much useless. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is the amendment itself a reliable source, it is the most reliable source possible as to when the law is effective. If the amendment says it becomes effective at a certain time and a news source contradicts that, then the amendment language itself is what we must go by. Rreagan007 (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Amendment texts (and the certification of the votes) constitute primary sources. News articles are secondary sources describing the primary sources. Primary trumps secondary. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible upcoming changes

[edit]

(forgot to recreate this after the last archive)

*California: Prop 8's cert decision is expected in October [11] Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Minnesota: constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is on the November ballot. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC) *Washington and Maryland: see above. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maine: ballot initiative to legalize same-sex marriage on November ballot. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maine and Maryland: both measures were approved by a popular vote. I updated the map of states, and there has been a flurry of updates to the article itself. I just wanted to put a note here on the talk page. AstareGod (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The consensus was that the map should reflect whether SSM is currently legal. I'm not sure about Maine, but Maryland won't allow it until January, and Washington (not updated yet on the map) won't allow it for another month. It would be good to add footnotes on those states in the map but the change to Maryland (and probably Maine) should be reverted. Bennetto (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/2012/11/07/gay-couples-maine-look-ahead-marriage/62yWWU4yZHOleStbYdqksO/story.html , "The effective date of the Maine law will be set after the vote is certified and the governor signs a proclamation. It will go into effect no later than Jan. 5, according to the secretary of state’s office." I agree they shouldn't change until the actual date that marriages will actually be allowed.Naraht (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There seems to be some confusion going on about updating the maps (apparently). On the Same-sex marriage in the United States article (same in Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state), the footnote below the map says, "May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet," while the one on this image's page says, "Does not include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet." I edited the original image to conform to the footnotes on the article page, not this image's page - plus, I did not make Washington blue because at this point it is still unclear whether the measure passed or not, even though there are multiple news articles declaring victory - someone else made the change for Washington. However, we need to make all of these footnotes on all article pages and image pages consistent. Having them contradict each other doesn't help us figure out what to do when laws change. AstareGod (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Colorado: Democrats control both Houses once again. The Everything-but-marriage bill may see its return. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No action has been taken to implement the new consensus

[edit]

I just wanted to point out, we had that long discussion and we changed the consensus on when we update the maps, but the consensus has not gone into effect yet. There is one major thing we need to do first (and then we are good to go).

We need to re-translate all the Footnote 1's to say "Does not include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet." Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the argument for changing the map when the laws become effective is that it would no longer be confusing and therefore no longer require a footnote. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, we will never be immune to footnotes. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All we need though is one at the top. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you learned anything? Just because the issue has been voted on doesn't mean that the file should be updated. As you said, the consensus has not gone into effect yet. Until then, please don't edit the image or its description! :P Leonxlin (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah right.... I feel we should take this step by step here and bring the consensus into effect. What should be done: 1. Change the color of Maryland back to striped. 2. Get rid of the footnote for california. 3. Get rid of every footnote next to the colors, 4. place a SINGLE footnote at the top next to "Laws regarding same-sex partnership in the United States" that reads "Does not include laws that have been passed but not gone into effect yet." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have gotton rid of the footnotes per consensus what needs to be done now is the map needs an update on the current status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledgekid, you've overstepped the consensus! There was absolutely no discussion on removing the CA footnotes. The CA situation is still very confusing even when considering only laws in effect.
Sorry I thought Calkifornia was included in the discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will fix MD in a few minutes. I will strip all footnote 1 translations for now so people can put in negative translations, but all the 2s need to stay. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Maryland has been reverted, the incorrect 1 footnotes have been deleted, the 1 and the line for MD have been deleted Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done The 1 footnote needs to be translated into other languages. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Just to clarify, during the period when a state has passed a law legalizing (or banning) same-sex marriage, but before the law has officially come into full force, are we going to be superimposing the "1" over the state? Also, is there anything we can do to expedite translations of the new footnote? A couple of languages still don't even have a footnote 2 translated. Perhaps we could just put "translation needed" in the blank spot where the footnote translation should appear. Seeing that might provoke someone to do the translation. Alternatively, we could use a computer translation to try to translate the footnotes into other languages. It wont' come out perfect, but when someone sees the imperfect translation they might be inspired to fix it. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question but why does the description still have the footnotes for every color, wouldnt it make sense to just have one next to the summary? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad update

[edit]

For me the file is corrupted and shows a red shadow behind one of the territories. Could please someone fix this along with the colors for Maine and Maryland states which do not yet perform marriages? Thanks Hekerui (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maine and Maryland also have be uncolored as the laws have not yet gone into effect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded an edit to my original file with Washington now colored blue to hopefully remove the red shadow. The shadow still appears on PNG-rendered versions of the SVG, but the SVG render itself was not affected. It shows up fine in Inkscape (but note I did not use Inkscape to edit the file; I only used Inkscape to check the rendering of the edited file). This issue goes all the way back to the earliest image available in the edit history. As noted above, I updated Maine and Maryland according to the footnote on the article Same-sex marriage in the United States which states "1 May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet." We need to get these footnotes consistent, because I updated the image in good faith according to the footnote on the article, not on the image's description page. However, I have no problem if the image itself is reverted back to pre-November 6, and then reverted back as each state's laws go into effect. The edits to the image are there. Revert as necessary. AstareGod (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

California update will be coming soon

[edit]

Now that the election is over, the SCOTUS will be more apt to make decisions on the Prop 8 case. The much awaited day to turn CA dark blue again may be soon. To be clear, this is just a discussion. No actions will be taken until SSM resumes in my native state or a new consensus forms on the issue of updating. WP:Crystal is being respected. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible upcoming changes (take 2)

[edit]

U.S. Virgin Islands

[edit]

U.S. Virgin Islands should be pink. Territory's statute defines marriage a union "between a male and a female". See [18] Ron 1987 (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not like stripes

[edit]

Surely there is a cleaner way to do this page that to have the stripes. It just seems way too complex to follow. It just looks sloppy. (Tigerghost (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Do you have a better suggestion? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oddity in current striping...

[edit]

Right now on both Chrome and Opera, I'm seeing an out of place stripe just below Arizona and a dark red stripe over the bottom right of the five island groups...Naraht (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually noticed the same oddity. I'm not exactly sure why it's there or if anything can be done about it. When I click on the image to enlarge it, the 2 wayward stripes disappears. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado

[edit]

Heads up: Colorado's marriage-in-all-but-name civil union law will take effect on May 1. We'll need to change Colorado's coloring from the current "Striped-enum-constitution" to "Striped-similar-constitution". - htonl (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So basically the same as California/Nevada/Oregon?Naraht (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. - htonl (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone going to update Colorado on the map? Rreagan007 (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the Governor hasn't signed the act yet. - htonl (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is signing it Thursday 3/21/13 at 3:00 local time.75.179.42.181 (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then the striping should be changed and the "1" added to Colorado. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When he signs it, it should change, not now. *Theoretically*, the governor could veto it and send it back to the legislature.Naraht (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread the above comment as he had signed it last Thursday. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And done. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/21/colorado-civil-unions/2007255/ Naraht (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it is. I'm not sure what the situation is with the consensus on when we update the map, though: there seems to be a dispute between updating it when the law is passed, or waiting until it comes into force. Previous discussion here seems to imply the latter, but the footnotes as currently written are congruent with the former. Could someone more familiar with the situation for this file comment, perhaps? - htonl (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, this is *exactly* what footnote 1 is for, a "1" should be placed on the territory of Colorado and removed when the law actually comes into effect.Naraht (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right. That's the whole reason footnote 1 was created in the first place, as a compromise between those who wanted to update the map when the law was officially passed and those who wanted to update the map when the law became effective. Otherwise, the footnote would be completely meaningless. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look up a bit in this talk page, there was a discussion where the consensus seemed to be to change footnote 1 to be, "Does not include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet," which would basically invert the situation. But, given the current state of the footnote, I'll update the map. - htonl (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Well, it seems someone has already updated it. - htonl (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 1 still needs to be added.Naraht (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage laws of tribal jurisdictions

[edit]

Would altering the map to reflect the laws of tribal jurisdictions be a possibility? I noticed on the map for Homosexuality laws of the world, they show the Coquille reservation in southern Oregon as a small blue dot and it used to have the Suquamish tribe before WA state turned blue. Would make sense to have it on the map for the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.246.61 (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

State names?

[edit]

Would it be possible to do one of the following:

  1. Add the names of the U.S. states (à la File:Map of USA States with names white.svg)?
  2. Create another version of this file which contains the names of the states?
  3. Add a thing to this file which displays the name of the state your cursor is hovering over?

Thanks. It Is Me Here t / c 12:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States.svg/Archive_7&oldid=922283795"