Jump to content

Talk:LGBTQI+ rights at the United Nations/Archive 1

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

Albania

Albania is listed as a signatory on the Pink News article cited as a source but is missing from the list of countries here (which only adds up to 65, not 66 as claimed). Further complicating this is the fact that Albania is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which opposes the declaration. The article says an opposing statement was made by 57 member nations, led by the OIC, which has 57 members. Does this mean that the 57 OIC member nations are the same 57 that oppose the declaration, and if so, did Albania both support and oppose the declaration? KirarinSnow (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, Gabon and Guinea-Bissau are also both OIC members and signatories to the declaration. So it would appear that the 57 members who signed the opposing statement include nations outside the OIC (unless Albania, Gabon, and Guinea-Bissau all signed both statements). I would be interested in knowing which 57 nations signed the opposing statement. KirarinSnow (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Map

We really need a list of countries supporting the competing declaration. As for non-supporting countries, I think we should just leave them grey; a red / green map speaks for itself about the status of every country which isn't either. --IdiotSavant (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really understand that; but every map I've seen includes both sides of the argument, otherwise it may meet NPOV statements. However, I'm willing to remove the red countries at the moment since the only valid citation is "all 57 members of the Islamic Conference." --haha169 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry; I was trying to sugest a straight supporters (green) and supporters of the counter-declaration (red), with no orange. --IdiotSavant (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is no citation that "all 57 members of the Islamic Conference" signed the opposing statement, only that 57 UN members did. In fact, 3 OIC members signed the declaration itself (Albania, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau), so it is certainly possible that other OIC member states signed neither statement. Until we have a list of which 57 countries signed the opposing statement, I suggest reverting the map to show just the 66 nations that did sign the declaration; putting all the remaining OIC states on the map is just guesswork at this point. KirarinSnow (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
No guesswork, all truthful facts. It said that members of the Islamic Conference are red - but the caption never mentioned that they all signed the opposition. In any case, I have updated the map to reflect your updates, but I couldn't find your list in the source: (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10801.doc.htm). --haha169 (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
It's in the video starting at around 2:32:00 ... I'll update the reference. (Note that the list originally included Tajikistan Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, which was apparently an error, as a correction was announced at the end of the Syrian representative's speech.) I don't think it's on this list since it wasn't a vote, just two opposing statements read out that contained a list of supporters on each side. KirarinSnow (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, the map needs to be seriously updated. 6 African nations support the declaration, but the map only colors 2 - and there are perhaps others missing. Would someone care to do it? --haha169 (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I can do it ... and the updated map has a few errors... KirarinSnow (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I've uploaded a new map that covers all 66 signatories to the declaration and all 57 signatories to the opposing statement, which corrected a number of errors on the previous version. I left off the orange countries because I find the NY Times list vague and not at all an exhaustive list of countries that "refuse to participate in the process". The Times article lists the US, Russia, China, and the Roman Catholic Church as refusing to sign the declaration, but it also says "members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference". It is certainly not true that all members of the OIC refused to sign the declaration, as 3 did. And it is also not true that all remaining members of the OIC signed the opposing statement. A number of them signed neither. So I don't think the orange category is clear-cut and belongs on this article, unless we find a reliable source that enumerates all member states that have made a definite decision not to participate. KirarinSnow (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah...its in the video, not the text list. Ah well...the video requires Real Player to view it, and I don't have it. I'll just assume good faith, then. --haha169 (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I found an article on Turkey and they said that they refused to participate, citing concerns about their current EU status and OIC membership. But unless big countries like US, Russia, and China say the same thing, having an orange is rather useless. --haha169 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. KirarinSnow (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the story with South Africa??

They have same-sex marriage but have not yet ratified this article? Does it need to go through some political process there first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.145.220 (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting article to read for a basic idea on the events there, but don't place too much reliance on it. It is an opinion and I have read some exaggerations in the article. It does, in short, answer your question. --haha169 (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Might it be that South Africa is trying to 'lead' the African nations in the same way certain member states of the EU 'lead' during their presidency. In which case, South Africa may be having to adopt the majority view. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Changing of position of United States under Barack Obama in UN

I read in newspapers, that United States now supports under Barack Obama this declaration. 212.95.118.15 (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article was edited yesterday to reflect that - see Opposition - but note that "support" does not yet mean the US is a signatory. —EqualRights (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone change the map now that America supports the declaration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.226.254 (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, the map is of actual signatories, so the US does not yet belong on the map —EqualRights (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
US has now signed though, so it should be on the map Eraserhead1 (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


67 or 57 opposing signatories??

The copy currently says 67. Discsussion above, along with the wikinews article say 57. Typo? Please fix. --Ajasen (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Monaco?

I've read in several places that all Western European nations have signed for, but Monaco is missing in the list, does anyone know whether they did indeed sign? It seems odd that they'd be the sole exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TF100 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

When it shows up in an official UN record, someone should put the declaration on Wikisource. --IdiotSavant (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The declaration has not yet been formally adopted by any UN intergovernmental body. At this time, it remains a private initiative of a group of countries. From a UN perspective, it remains a draft. BonifaciusVIII (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by BonifaciusVIII (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Template usage

Is the term "belligerent" sensible here? We aren't at war for a start. Perhaps use an alternative template, listing the two parties as opposing sides, but not "belligerents". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Costa Rica

There seems to be some confusion about whether the declaration has been signed by 67 or 68 states. The website of the Permanent Mission of France to the United Nations claims that Costa Rica "signed this declaration in March 2010". However, I couldn't find any confirmation for this. On the very contrast, two Costa Rican articles from the daily newspapers "Diario Extra" of 5 March 2010 and "El País" of 28 September 2010 suggest that Costa Rica hasn't signed the declaration, at least not until the date of the latter newspaper report. I think that the Costa Rican media must know better what's going on in their own country. Interestingly, this article from the website of the French Foreign Office from July 2010 confirms that the declaration had only 67 signatories (i.e. without Costa Rica) by July 2010, which is an obvious contradiction to the statement given by the French Permanent Mission. To make confusion perfect, a statement by the German Foreign Office on LGBT rights of 2 February 2011 says that the declaration has been signed by 68 states so far but it doesn't say who's number 68. That's the latest statement I could find.

The assertion that Costa Rica signed in March 2010 seems to be wrong but it may be possible that this or another country signed between September 2010 and February 2011. Can anyone bring light into this matter?--Colomen (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

2006, 2008, and 2011 Distinctions

I'm not sure exactly how to best change it, but I find this article confusing as someone familiar with the three versions of the declaration. It seems that this is about the 2008 version, but the signatories have been updated to the 2011 list. I would be happy to update but am new to Wiki and not sure what would be best--use this article title for all three versions and include information to clearly differentiate, or create a new article? There should be at least some information, I think, about what's been going on this year at the UNHRC and in the EU on this. Judithavory (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Angola

Somebody added Angola to the list of supporters of the 2011 declaration. Source?--Colomen (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Time for a new title?

Now that this article includes the 2011 HRC resolution, which is not a statement or declaration, perhaps it is time to rename the page to cover all UN actions? I would suggest that it be updated to "Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity at the United Nations" or something similar. The current title is misleading, based on the broad variety of LGBT UN info now on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.253.4.21 (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That and the fact that the article already includes multiple initiatives (2006, 2009, etc.,). I'll be bold and do the move change now. --haha169 (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

¶ 2 of lede

The second sentence is incomprehensible due to run-on. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Misleading Argument/Wording

The first paragraph of the main page has this: "Opponents criticized it as an attempt to legitimize same-sex civil partnerships or marriage, adoption by same sex couples, paedophilia (although all major psychological and scientific institutions have rejected such a link[2]), and "other deplorable acts"[3] and curtail "freedom of religious expression" against "homosexual behavior".

My issue is that the criticism that the comment "although all major psychological and scientific institutions have rejected such a link" implies that the criticism of the statement put forward at the UN is that it attempts to legitimize paedophilia, in legitimizing homosexuality, because homosexuals are paedophiles. Although the wording is not misleading in relation to this criticism, it is misleading in relation to the criticism that the definition of "sexual orientation" is worded so broadly that it includes paedophilia (because this criticism is not rejected by "all major psychological and scientific institutions", even if their opinions were relevant).

I suggest that the bracketed text "(although all major psychological and scientific institutions have rejected such a link[2])" should be deleted, as the only citation for this criticism (citation 3) does not actually go into detail about whether the "legitimizes paedophilia" criticism is on the grounds of a homosexual-paedophile association, or on the grounds of an overly broad definition of sexual orientation.

According to the Yogyarta Principles, 'sexual orientation’ refers to each person’s capacity for profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender or the same gender or more than one gender (I couldn't find the actual UN statement - no link was provided in the article). Although not the merit of the criticism isn't relevant to my argument - it does appear on the face of this definition that paedophilia is a sexual orientation, as the age or physical development of the individual the person is attracted to is not a part of the definition. Unless paedophilia was intended to be included, this does seem like a case of careless drafting, as it would be simple to add the word "pubescent" in front of the word "individuals" to firmly exclude paedofilia from the definition.

130.216.167.25 (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Opposition section

Half of the opposition section's text is detailing Vatican's opposition to the declaration. While it could be mentioned in a sentence, isn't this rather off topic because the Holy See is not even a member of the UN? It's only an observer. The real opposition to the declaration was spearheaded by the Islamic and African countries, would be good to find quotes about that and concentrating on it more. --Pudeo' 02:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Accept the point that Vatican is just an observor but I would prefer to see more material added on Middle East and Africa rather than the sourced stuff on the Holy See reduced. It is very influential. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead and opposition section

Opposition makes up a big part of the article and so it's ludicrous to remove it from the lead. There's really no debating this point, see WP:LEAD. The view of scientific organisations with regard to homosexuality and pedophilia does not belong in brackets proceeding the statement by 57 members of the UN. Govgovgov (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does belong - see WP:PSCI. They make a controversial statement not grounded in facts, and thus the existing scientific facts in regard to the statement must be presented alongside it. --Scientiom (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
If you look at the policy, "Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods." The statement by the UN members do not do that. They give their opinion of what the proposed resolution will do. The statement did not even say pedophilia is more common in homosexuality than heterosexuality, as the opposing statement alleges. Govgovgov (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Their attempted linkage is very clear, and thus the statement does not belong there without presentation of scientific data alongside it. And this is the opposing statement we are talking about. Also see WP:VALID and WP:FRINGE. --Scientiom (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless, whatever their attempted linkage may be, it is still WP:OR to assume what it is and then place an opposing statement. The current text needs to be removed and only a source that specifically responds to their statement and criticises their attempted linkage can replace it (not in brackets after the statement, but in a subsequent paragraph). Govgovgov (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not OR because that's what they're directly stating, and that's what our sources including the NYT has reported it i.e. as a direct reaction. --Scientiom (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
You used this source as a refutation of their declaration [1]. By doing this you have interpreted the declaration yourself and responded with an opposing source and statement. That would be okay if what you responded with was clearly about what they said. It isn't. Govgovgov (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
It's the opposing statement we are talking about, not the Declaration, and it clearly is about what they said - look at the NYT source, it's clearly presented as a direct reaction. Also, again, see WP:VALID and WP:FRINGE - a controversial statement with no grounding in facts does not belong on a Wikipedia article without presentation of scientific data in relation to it alongside it. --Scientiom (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm talking about the opposing declaration. If you mean this source [2] then you can say that they report it as a direct reaction. It's still irrelevant to what we're arguing about. Govgovgov (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Factual mistake

In the article it's written: The United States, citing conflicts with US law, originally opposed the adoption of the nonbinding measure, as did Russia, China, the Holy See, and members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

But nor Turkey, neither Albania joined to the opositional statement. However, they are also members of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. So this exemptions must be described. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT rights at the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT rights at the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT rights at the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

LGBT rights at the United Nations?

Perhaps this could seems to be better to replace this "joint statements" only or to complete them with a number of countries that officially accepted at least one of its all received UNHRC UPR recommendations related to LGBT rights. This recommendations were issued under two cycles as of yet and were addressed to 168 out of 193 its member states. Out of them 116 countries officially accepted at last one of all received recommendations declaring by this to obligate himself to upgrade respect of LGBT rights. The three top-priority topics addressed by recommendations were the principle of non-discrimination, the right to security and the right to privacy, through the decriminalisation of same-sex relationships.

Database of Recommendations - 1472 Recommendations & Voluntary Pledges: on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Issue.

Besides of this, we could actually however find 6 different types of public support/oppose for LGBT rights expressed by countries at UN level.

1) UN joint statements (signatories) (directly and exclusively addressed to LGBT issues) support (2005 New Zealand, 2006 Norway, 2008 Argentina, 2011 Colombia) oppose (2008 Syria) (general statement, LGBT issues mentioned only) support (2005 Luxembourg)

2) UN resolutions (voting, co-sponsors) support/oppose (2003 Brasil - draft only, 2011 - 17/19, 2014 - 27/32, 2016 - 32/2)

3) UN draft decision (voting) support/oppose (2015 - de facto recognition of cohabiting same-sex couples for UN employee benefits, and proposed by Russia to repeal this recognition)

4) UN phrase "sexual orientation" (voting) support/oppose (several votings on adding or removing phrases "sexual orientation" (SO) or and "gender identity" (GI) from resolutions on "extrajudicial executions..." during the General Assembly as well as at III Commit meetings: 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014). Only adding this language "SOGI" to general resolutions and not directly addressed to LGBT issues seemed to be very problematic for so many. Some other different topic general resolution was proposed in 2017.

5) UN NGOs consultative status (voting) support/oppose (several votings on several LGBT NGOs to grant them consultative status at ECOSOC).

6) UN recommendations (accepted) support/oppose (accepted at last one of all received recommendations related to SOGI issues. The remaining recommendations were eventually noted only, what does not mean that all of them were automatically rejected. Some voices were heard that there is to short time to implement this recommendations - means 2,5 year only).

Perhaps there were other issues at the UN level like voting on Expert report on SOGI rights, ... ect.

Others could be found at European (CoE), European Union (EU), and American (all countries) level only, and generalny showing public express (support/oppose) not by countries (means its governments) but by individual political parties in those countries (as well as individual politicians), by voting on reports, resolutions, directives, recommendations or issued joint statements. It could be added also many votings by political parties (and its individual politicians) on its domestic legislations related to LGBT issues as well as its official party/politician position on this topics.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.96.37.1 (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

UN LGBTI CORE GROUP

Here is a decent overview of how the Core Group came to be in 2008... they last met Thursday May 17, 2018. It was a very good discussion. <ref>http://www.passblue.com/2015/12/08/keeping-lgbt-rights-active-on-the-un-agenda/Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page). As time permits, I will see how I might update what is here... please jump in if you can sooner. Mrphilip (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Page title should reflect the term "LGBTQI+", as used by the United Nations

The United Nations currently use the term "LGBTQI+" on their official website. See for example https://www.un.org/en/fight-racism/vulnerable-groups/lgbtqi-plus. Therefore, my proposal is to change the title to LGBTQI+ rights at the United Nations. Oski (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with using "LGBTQI+" for this page since that's the term the UN uses. I do wonder if that would mean that other related pages should also be updated, since other pages commonly use "LGBT" and refers to "LGBTQI+" as a variation (like the LGBT main page). 23impartial (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Shorten the lead

As stated by the Lead too long tag, the current lead section is too long with 11 paragraphs. In order to keep the lead's size consistent with the suggested length and summary style in MOS:LEADLENGTH, I suggest that we only keep the first and last paragraphs of the current lead and move the rest to a new History section. Happy to hear what fellow editors think. 23impartial (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will make this change for now. 23impartial (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBTQI%2B_rights_at_the_United_Nations/Archive_1&oldid=1248475923"