Talk:Same-sex marriage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Same-sex marriage is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 24, 2003 Featured article candidate Promoted
March 1, 2004 Featured article review Demoted
November 21, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article


Greenland[edit]

Please actualize the Greenland status and color in the map, since marriage is legal since 1 october.

New Zealand[edit]

Cooks Islands and Niue are not "New Zealand territories" but self-governing states in free association with New Zealand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.170.112 (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2014‎

The "Religious views and practices" section, formerly "Religious views"[edit]

My recent edit of the former "Religious views" section requires some clarification to aid editors making additional fixes. My edit merely indicates where sourcing falters and adjusts the text to conform to cited sources. In addition to some sparse copy editing, I also changed the section title to better reflect the content, and fleshed out /edited references. I will take the section one sentence at a time, the numbers below corresponding to the sentence being discussed.

  1. The first sentence was originally sourced to a less-than-ideal reference that had nothing to say about the claims made. Appropriate sourcing is required.
  2. I then added this suitable topic/summary sentence for the section, and separated this short introduction from the rest of the section. Properly speaking, of course, this whole section, in its current form, should be one paragraph, but I am attempting to abide by the current Wikipseudoparagraphstructure.
  3. The cited source here concerns only the RC Church. While both the RCC and the Orthodox Church oppose all same-sex marriage (ssm), the source addresses civil marriage only. Additional or replacement citation is necessary.
  4. All but three of the sources cited here address religious marriage only, including with regard to the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches named in the text, so I limited the text's language to that, providing hidden comments (wherein other problems, too, are noted) in the notes to aid editors. While faiths affirming religious ssm naturally also tend to support civil ssm, most of the sources don't reflect that fact. Additional or replacement sources must be found. The sourcing here is a bit of a mess. Though I could have separated out the various sources on different kinds of marriage, that would have complicated the text, only to be changed back once proper sourcing were provided. It seems easier to change just the marriage designation. I also removed the superfluous source quotes from one of the notes. I moved a later reference here, where it belongs, and removed one that belongs elsewhere.
  5. I separated the Alliance of Baptists into its own sentence. The cited source indicates support for civil marriage only, and the organization's website would seem to corroborate that view.
  6. The cited sources address religious marriage only. While faiths affirming religious ssm naturally also tend to support civil ssm, the sources don't reflect that fact. Additional or replacement sources could be found, and the text augmented accordingly. I also moved a previous reference here, where it properly belongs, and removed one that did not belong.
  7. Updated claim and reference, which actually addresses civil marriage with regard to this claim.
  8. Sources only partially support claim. Claim is reasonably supported on religious ssm, but is only partially supported on civil ssm. UK Muslim leaders are a tiny portion of all Muslim leaders. Additional or replacement sourcing is needed.
  9. Cited sources address religious marriage only. While faiths affirming religious ssm naturally also tend to support civil ssm, and Orthodox Judaism opposes all ssm, the sources don't reflect those facts. Additional or replacement sources could be found, and the text adjusted accordingly.
  10. The first clause's claim of Buddhist ambivalence is not actually supported directly by the cited source.
  11. The vast majority of the cited source is addressing religious marriage, including in this regard. I adjusted the language of the text accordingly.

There remain problems, however. Perhaps the most serious is the flawed structure. The section keeps toggling between supportive and opposing faiths. Grouping each separately, entailing some rewriting, might make the text read better and more logically. (Properly speaking, again, this whole section, in its current form, should be one paragraph, but I am attempting to abide by the current Wikipseudoparagraphstructure.) Antinoos69 (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I will say this again for the sake of form, although it has been said a dozen times already. Find a source to substantiate and define your supposed division between civil and religious ssm. Otherwise it is original research. TimothyJosephWood 12:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Unacceptable. Nobody has ever agreed with you on that point, which constitutes but one phrase of my edit, so you should never have touched the rest. As for that single phrase, I direct you to the first sentence of the article, as well as the links provided in the phrase itself. You know, the whole article on "Civil marriage," for starters. Now, I will expect your detailed commentary on points 1 to 11. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I have addressed this over and over, as have others. The fact that you cannot WP:LISTEN does not constitute a crisis on my part, nor does it put the WP:ONUS on me to provide consensus against your preferred change. That's not how this works. The article is on SSM. The division you are attempting to impose is original research, and an arbitrary classification of sources based on what you personally think they are talking about based on your personal definitions. TimothyJosephWood 13:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect. You are the only editor who has ever so much as whispered about your ignorance of civil vs. religious marriage--which, by the way, concerns only one phrase of my edit. Why are you even touching the rest? As for that one phrase, see the links and the first sentence of this article. If you don't understand what references are addressing, and no other editor has ever so much as whispered about that either, start RfCs on each to see if other editors share your lack of understanding. It is always up to Wiki editors to interpret secondary sources. So, which source would you like to start with? Antinoos69 (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Look, I'm never going to agree with this rather spectacularly singular view of yours, and you clearly won't see reason, so you might as well start some RfCs right now, just get my OK on the wording first, as there's a tendency for misunderstanding the points in dispute. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Same-sex marriage. 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}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing "Religious views and practices" section controversies[edit]

Timothy, what gives? Why are you reverting changes having nothing to do with your "issue," many of which had remained as is for over two weeks, without the slightest objection from anyone? Why are you reverting all my individual edits, rather than just the one(s) to which you object? You can't possibly have objections to all of them. For example, what objection could you possibly have to the "citation needed" tag after "Orthodox Church" in the first sentence of the second paragraph? Are you claiming the cited source discusses the Orthodox Church? And why do you omit any rationale for your multiple reversions? I simply cannot begin to fathom your problems here—unless, of course, your problem is actually with my editing this section/article at all. Antinoos69 (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

There's already been pages of discussion on this, an RfC, and you've been blocked for two weeks over this content. That I forgot to restore the version prior to your edit war/block until the page popped back up on my watchlist is immaterial. TimothyJosephWood 10:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
You're not listening. My current changes pointedly avoided your "issue." Can't you see that? Can't you see that the above indicated cited source makes non mention of the Orthodox Church? Of course, we both know you just don't want me editing this article in any way. Tough. I suggest we take things to arbitration. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
If you do not self revert I will report you again to WP:ANEW for returning and resuming exactly the edit war from your last report. As has been made clear from your own actions, your intentions are not to improve the article, but to discredit a section you personally would prefer were deleted. TimothyJosephWood 22:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
No. You're not listening. Your much discussed "issue" is not implicated in my recent edits, very purposely so. In other words, I very pointedly made sure not to do the very thing you mysteriously insisted I not do. Didn't you bother reading my edits? I am utterly perplexed by your behavior. Explain it to me. Are you actually claiming the above indicated source does address the Orthodox Church? I have absolutely no idea what your current problem(s) could possibly be. Obviously, you're not capable of engaging me rationally, so let's take this to arbitration. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
To be perfectly clear, I edited the current section specifically to avoid your source interpretation issue, such as it is. So I can't begin to fathom what you could possibly be objecting to now, unless you object to my being an editor on Wikipedia. So, please, explain your current objections to me, whatever they may be. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)