Talk:Civil partnership in the United Kingdom/Archive 2

Opposition
'''Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place here, and if I am, my apologies: but where in the name of hell is the section of this page that mentions opposition to Civil Partnerships? There many legitimate and well known, independent polls (most through simply googling "Independent civil partnership poles"), that show the majority of people in this country were (regardless of whether they still are) opposed to civil partnerships. Yet there is no mention here of any opposition. Again, apologies if I'm looking in the wrong place.'''


 * Kindly sign your comments with four tildes. New points should also be raised at the end of the page and not capitalised in this manner.  (I have corrected this) There are any number of polls showing support and disagreement with any number of subjects, we are not required to regurgitate them here.  Tho, for the record, even chaging "poles" to the correct spelling, your google search produces nothing of the sort, indeed the results contradict your assertion.  Oposition, if indeed there is any, seems to be statistically insignificant and unworthy of inclusion on a well-researched and well-written article 86.153.93.200 23:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is about civil partnerships in the United Kingdom. The existence of civil partnerships in the United Kingdom is not in dispute, and therefore a section on "opposition" is inappropriate here.  Where mention of opposition is appropriate is in the article about the Civil Partnerships Act 2004, where there is a description of the legistlative process - and, sure enough, here is the section that deals with opposition to the Bill that eventually became the Act.--GuillaumeTell 00:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Article's rating
I noted some controversy about Dev920's rating of the article. I would like to point out that realistically, B-class is the most an article is going to receive without being nominated as a good article. If those editing this page feel it meets the criteria, please nominate it at WP:GAN.

Although technically an A-Class could be given without GA status, this is unusual and I draw your attention to the stingent criteria (beyond GA and practically FA) is requires: ''Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.''

I hope that explains why a B-rating (which I have restored) is appropriate for now. It is not an indication that this article would not qualify for GA if nomininated. -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 15:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that despite a IP's ranting on my talkpage, this article is a B-Class because it has a grand total of five references throughout. This is abysmal, and this article would immediately fail GA if nominated, for that reason. That is why I rated it B-class. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I must concur with Dev, though I only noticed three references when I looked at that section. For those who aren't aware of it, a Good Article should have at least one reference per paragraph, and additional references for any claims that could logically be questioned. Additionally, the references in this article are improperly formatted. "B" is not a slam, just an indication of where the article currently is and what you need to do to get it to featured status...which is, by the way, the Herculean task the LGBT project has set for itself: to have every article in the LGBT category be of FA status. Jeffpw 16:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Far from being a 'rant' the complaint on your talk page seems to be reasonable. It is a shame that this well-researched and written article is rated so poorly when it clearly meets the vast majority of criteria mentioned by WJBScribe.  Dev920 is entitled to his/her view however describing the refs as "abysmal" is unhelpful and inappropriate - the QUALITY of the linked refs is outstanding regardless of their QUANTITY.  The choice of such a provocative term suggests that the article is being rated by an editor who may not themselves display a suffcient grasp of what quality control really involves.  Dev902 really must learn to respond in a measured, collegiate manner or not at all.


 * If the LGBT Project has set itself a Herculean task then the appropriate course of action would seem to be for members of that project to improve the article rather than a) suddenly annexe an article claimig it as part of their previously unmentioned Project and then gripe that they find bits of it "abysmal"!


 * In summary: technicalities or no, this is a well-written article and sadling it with this rating does nothing expect cheese off the editors. So far, it has annoyed two to a sufficient degree that we have complained in writing.


 * The simplest option would be to remove this seemingly arbitrary and unrequested rating altogether - should the main editors wish to have the article rated, they may then do so by their joint decision.
 * Joel on the SOL 16:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody has annexed the article, Joel, and you are free to remove the rating if you wish, though that would be silly, in my opinion. First off, as WJBscribe has already stated, "B"is the highest you can expect without nominating it for "GA" status. Also, please remember that nobody owns an article at Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it, and an article often has a different rating rating from various projects that choose to add it to their project list. Most people are very happy when their articles get that rating. I know I was when an article I wrote received it. Rather than complaining, it gave me incentive to work harder and get it all the way to "FA".
 * Dev's comment was not about the article quality, but the references. As I stated earlier, you need at least one reference per paragraph, and often more. They also need to be properly formatted (eg: Author name, article name, publication, access date, retrieval date, and no external links in the body of the article). This article simply doesn't comply with Wiki protocols in that respect. In its current state, if it is nominated as a GA, it will fail.
 * If you want help from members of the LGBT project, I am sure you will get it if you ask. We have a long list and not so many editors, but most of us choose to focus on LGBT issues on Wiki. However, snarling at those who are editing in good faith is not a way to encourage them to help out. Jeffpw 16:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, and I do now seem to know most of the main contributors here quite well now, nobody here is pushing this article to GA. Nobody involved in providing a rating has edited in gold faith or otherwise.  The only member of the LGBT Project who has commented here (and now on my talk page) is someone whose interpersonal skills are lacking and who has succeded in iritating three editors already.  This sort of help we don't need!  If the refs need a format tweak, it will be done but there are ways of pointing this out (the best being to simnply repair rather than comment.)


 * The unsigned editor points out that the rating could be removed. As the rating was not requested and casts an unfortunate light on a well-researched and written article, I will delete it: should the main editors consider that they want to go for GA then we will no doubt club together in due course and make that decision. Joel on the SOL 17:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What's unfortunate, Joel, is your attitude. The references need more than a "tweak". you need lots more of them, and need to use them liberally. References are the only way to ensure verifiability. I fail to understand why you are so incensed about this, and would like to point out that you are alienating people who are sincerely trying to help you.
 * Further, I noticed when I was editing that you removed the entire LGBT template. This article clearly falls under our project heading, and I have thus reinserted it, though without the disputed rating. I should point out, though, that anyone at any time is free to rate an article. you do not own this article. That's the nature of Wikipedia. If you don't like the policies, don't create or edit here. Jeffpw 17:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not incensed about this and you will do me the courtesy of refraining from hystriconics. I do not claim ownership of any article and resent your suggestion.  The refs provided are few in number because they link to sources of the highest calibre: if you feel otherwise then I urge you to start 'helping' and do a better job than the many editors of this article have do so far.  To date not one of these alledgedly helful new editors has done anything constructive!  My apologies for the accidental deletion of the LGBT Template: it was not my intention to do more than remove the disputed rating.  Joel on the SOL 17:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Joel's list of editors I have irritated appears to be growing every post, though I see no new people getting involved who disagree with me. Your petulant foot-stamping over my giving this article a B-class rating is bizarrely disproportionate. All I've done is add a rating - an accurate rating, one that has been backed up by two other editors, WJScribe and Jeffpw, whereas Joel has an abusive IP. Yet somehow, I'm the villain in this piece, apparently I don't "understand" the grading system, although we have all quoted liberally from the relevant policy, and Joel hasn't. This is a case of one person trying to own his article, taking personal offence at a rating. If you don't intend to go for a GA rating, more fool you, and Civil Partnerships in the UK will stay B-class forever more. The WikiProject is there to help you, as, in fact, I am, so you should stop being so sensitive and hysterical and be more collegial, as you put it. Improve the article, don't attack peopel for giving it an honest rating. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and your references are to BBC News. That is not to cources of the highest calibre, and in any case the references are only in the second section and the lead paragraph. The bulk of the article, the section on law, has no references or links whatsoever. That's what you need to improve. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am happy to let the above sheiking ad hominem stand as a perfect example of precisely why I belive Dev920 is perhaps not the mistress of her own subject. :-) Joel on the SOL 17:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive
On a different matter, I notice that we're being prompted to move some of the older bits of Talk into an archive as the page is getting a tad lengthy - Happy to start the archive, but unsure which date we might wanna cut off at. Any thoughts? Joel on the SOL 18:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Up to the Article rating section seems a good idea. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought that, but then noticed that the Differences section had recently (well, ish!) been added to and I'd thought that was long dead! :-)  Oh, I dunno, will pick a randowm date.  Hmm.  Over 3 months old is as good a choice as any other, I suppose!  Joel on the SOL 18:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment rating
What assessment would you like to give it then, Joel? I say B, because this article has no references, which is clearly a requisite for a better rating, but it is clearly a better article than a Start. To quote Jeff, who also thinks it should be a B, "For those who aren't aware of it, a Good Article should have at least one reference per paragraph, and additional references for any claims that could logically be questioned. Additionally, the references in this article are improperly formatted."

How would you rate it, given that you're the only one who disputes it is B-class? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are working on the incorrect assumption that I would like to rate the article at all. You have not allowed sufficient time (I believe a week to a month is considered usual) for any consensus to emerge here therefore you cannot make any claim as to the level of any support (I calim none) that my position may or may not have.  My name is not Joel. by the way.  Joel on the SOL 18:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mine's not Dev. If there's something else you'd like me to call you, specify, and I'll use it. This is a rating assessment - you don't have consensus to rate an article. If it's disputed, ok, say why and we'll discuss. But the article will be rated, it Wikipedian policy, very nearly. If you don't want to rate the article, don't - I will. If you aren't interested in discussing the accuracy of the rating which I have given, I'll put it back. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I mentioned consensus as you implied it ("given that you're the only one who disputes it is B-class?") I believe Mediation on this point has begun - or will do once the Mediation page has had a format adjustment - and therefore the appropriate forum for discussion on this point, as you must be aware, is there.  Joel on the SOL 18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, most mediations are carried out on the talkpage of the article is dispute. But let me clarify one thing.

What issue do you actually have with my rating? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I do not believe you are qualified to make the judgment.
 * 2) Your rating was given with no appropriate comment on this page to indicate your rationale.
 * 3) You (and others) claim to be here to help. There have been many dozens of editors here, the vast majority of whom have genuinely added to the scope and detail of this article.  Not one editor commenting on this page today has improved any perceived weakness in this article.  This leads to an impression (and I claim that it is no more than that) of being the type of editors who point out faults then do nothing to correct them.


 * I cannot claim to know weveryone wwho edits this page, but I do know many - you would be surprised at what a varied bunch we are! And I do not claim to speak for the regular editors, but I know enough of them well enough to be pretty certain that positive and visible contributions will be warmly and generously accepted: sniping won't.  Joel on the SOL 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But what issue do you have with the rating? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I note you have replaced the rating despite it being the subject of Mediation. You have also made an untrue, POV and permanant comment in the History - I did not have a problem with you (I do now!) however I do have a problem with you ability to rate an article as you are manifestly not qualified to give such a rating.  Your bad faith reinstatement, edit and comment are categorical proof of this.  I will allow your rating to stand unchallenged as it is clear that your sole aim is to win an argument at any cost, regardless of WP protocol.  Disgusting behaviour! Joel on the SOL 19:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Joel, you have now violated Wiki's 3 revert rule. Please try to follow the protocols here now matter how angry you are. Jeffpw 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You might wanna check that claim (one is a clear accidental duplicated actioning) and also use the correct tag on User Talk page. And the User page clearly says "my name in the real world is not Joel" 81.159.212.153 20:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I counted 3 reverts. No matter. As to using the correct tag, I didn't use a tag at all. I was just pointing something out, not giving an official warning. As to the name, JOel is the first part of his username. you seem awfully preoccupied with him and his page, if you don't mind my saying so. Jeffpw 21:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are three reverts and, if you really knew the WP:3RR you'd know that it says (with my emphasis) "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia page within a 24 hour period." Also, you are meant to use a tag.  If it was not a warning, why phrase it so stroppily on the guy's Talk Page and why did you the need to suggest to Dev920 that she might wanna pass it to an admin, and why did you then raise it on the incidents board?  And I am pre-occupied with this article because today two new editors seem hell-bent on disrupting it and annoying someone who has worked very hard to make an article worth reading whislt themselves contributing noting.  You owe Joel On The SOL an apology for your baseless accusation, you own this Talk Page a retraction.  81.159.212.153 23:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good grief Joel you are strange. What bad faith did I assume? You do have a problem with me because you have manifestly refused to explain what problem you have with my rating, you merely attack my qualifications to do so. You have accused me of POV editing, of being rude and high-handed, and of "disgusting behaviour", all because I put a rating on a page that you, though REPEATEDLY invited to, have categorically refused to dispute. This article ia B-CLASS ARTICLE, and, whatever you may think about my qualifications to carry out that assessment, you seem manifestly reluctant to explain what is wrong with that rating. I have asked you, several times, to state what you feel is wrong with the B rating, and what you would replace it with, but you would rather indulge in personal attacks. How can i haev any kind of discussion with you if you would rather attack me? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You called him a fool, love. You then reverted while the subject was up for moderation and still under discussion.  Even now that the guy has said he'll let your decision stand, you have to have the last jibe, doncha?  Sounds rude, POV and high-handed to me, too: or perhaps you view your actions as appropriate?  And we have still yet to see you or your chum contribute anything to this article.   81.159.212.153 23:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I never called Joel a fool, I called him ignorant of policy and incapable of separating his work from himself. I've never intended to edit this article, it's not in my sphere of interest. I saw an unassessed article in the category, looked at the article, rated it, and moved on. You then threw a hissy fit that the rating was not good enough, and Joel has been attacking my ability to rate ever since. Neither of you have ever been able to put forward an argument for changing it, and a large amount of my time has been taken up with trying to get you to actually discuss rather than attack. Even now, you would rather harrass me than debate the article rating. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, I'm going to vote to agree with your rating. That way we'll get some peace here.  I'll suggest to Tom that he does the same so that we can get back to continuing, with the other more collaborative editors, the improvement and development of what has been one of the best argued articles on this site.  81.159.212.153 23:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, continue improving the article til one day it reaches a higher standard than a B. But if you have an issue with my rating now, please say so. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and now I am supposed to be Tom's sock-puppet according to a note that just popped up on my user page! So, any two gay guys who live within 5 miles of each other and happen to (surprise!) edit articles relating to gay related themes are the same person.  Sure, that makes sense!  Sweet baby Jesus, what will you three come up with next?  We've had the 3RR that wasn't, now Tom and I are twins despite certain rather,er, obvious differences...  Quite, quite mad!  It must be the nights drawing in, people with time on their hands...  Come back Ros Power, we didn't know when we were well off!  81.159.212.153 23:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting point - how do you know his name is Tom? He hasn't mentioned it in a single one of his edits. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL! He was the guy who told me about Wikipedia in the first place: get it?  I knew him BEFORE visiting here.  I also know his boyfriend's name and both their birthdays: and guess what, that info isn't in an edit either.  Your paranoia is amusing but probably against WP:AGF.  81.159.212.153 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My paranoia? You're the one tagged as a suspected sockpuppet. But this is getting us nowhere. Either discuss my rating or stop replying. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As I was replying to a snide comment YOU made that had NOTHING to do with your rating. You may not attempt to limit the extent to which other editors use this page particularly when defending themselves against juvenile jibes.  I agree that this is getting us nowhere - but if you believe that editors will allow you to cast aspertions and then politely allow them to stand you are sorely mistaken.   81.159.212.153 13:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment rating - REALLY
So here is a call - per discussion above - to come to consensus on a rating for this article. I ask all participants (editors, readers, lurkers, etc) that wish to comment to please add their ideas of what the rating for this article should be - NA, Stub, Start, B, GA, A, or FA. For more information on the ratings system, please visit Grading scheme. Comments in this section should be strictly a rating and reasons for that rating. Thanks, -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I go on record as assessing this article as "B"class until it is properly referenced. Jeffpw 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Common sense would suggest that the refs are tidied first (nice idea if the critics stop telling us how to format and just do it!?) then the article is graded GA. Would seem to resolve this whole silly nonsense.  81.159.212.153 20:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Anonymous IP, the article will not be graded GA. GA articles are nominated, not assessed, That has been discussed above. "B" is the TOP grade one can get without being nominated for GA, and it is a rare exception that an ungraded article is made GA or higher. May I suggest that one of you submit this for a peer review? That is the usual procedure when one is trying for a GA rating, which you have just indicated you want. I should point out, though, that in that peer review, you will probably get a "B" rating while they critique the article and suggest ways to improve it to GA. Jeffpw 21:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Per an admin's advice at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I have changed the rating back to "B" Jeffpw 22:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment rating discussion
Please limit all discussion of the assessment rating of this article to the article itself or the guidelines for ratings, period. The "qualifications" of other posters are not relevant here (or anywhere on Wikipedia, for that matter), and personal attacks will not be tolerated. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
I see this argument has become rather heated- I think it should be noted that everyone involved is dedicated to improving this article. It is already a strong article and in due course should achieve a high rating. I don't think this article is yet ready for GA but hope it can be soon. Lets cut out the personal antagonism. Here are some of the concerns I have about the article and how I think it can be strenghtened.
 * 1) Lack of references. I think this problem has been overstated. Much of the current coverage describes the effects of the enabling legislation. The relevant legislation is cited in the text of each section. Were the number of the section to have been made a ref, the criticism would be overcome. In any event, those passages are not unsourced.
 * 2) Coverage. Although this article gives a strong coverage of the relevant law in the UK, I belive it would be strengthened by addressing some of the issues surrounding and following the legislation.
 * Cross-party support. It should be noted that all major political parties in the UK now support this legislation. This can be contrasted to many countries where same sex 'marriage' has been a controversial issue that has significantly affected elections. This should be noted.
 * Extent of the legislation. The scope of the act is truly astounding. In all laws that previously read spouse or equivalent, civil partners are now included. This includes for example, right not to be compelled to give evidence against one's civil partner, right for a foreigner to enter the country and remain if engaged to become the civil partner of a British citizen. Fuller coverage of these elements would seem appropriate.
 * Response/criticism. This can be subdivided into 2 areas. (1) those who feel the law has gone too far- mainly religious groups. (2) those who feel the law has not gone far enough- esp. the response of Outrage and Peter Tatchell. Tatchell argues that Civil Partnerships are intrisically divisive because they actively promote different law for gays and lesbians to straight people. The thrust of his argument is that a different form of 'marriage' for black people would not be acceptable and therefore it should not be for gay people. The present article seems to present the current arrangements in too positive a light given such criticisms.
 * Examples of civil partnerships. A number of notable people have now 'married' their same sex partners in the UK. A section on such notable people would add human interest to the article. e.g. the lesbian vicar who was first to 'marry' her partner, Sir Elton John, Anthony Sher etc. See In pictures: Gay couples 'marry'

No one involved in creating/editing this page should feel disheartened however. It is a strong article and should achive at least GA given some work. I hope that everyone involved in recent discussions can work together to improve the article and ensure that it does well in a GA nomination and beyond... -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wjbscribe, that photo makes a big improvement to the article. You're right, the article needs more. May I suggest that until you get more, you move that photo down a bit, in order to break up the text? Also, I should add that I hope you don't have problems with your Fair Use rationale for that picture. Copyright paranoia runs rampant on this site. Jeffpw 07:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While generally agreeing with WJBScribe, some areas he has mentioned have already been tried and, in some cases rejected, by the main editors.
 * This is not the place to rehash the rights and wrongs of the Act coming into Law/its scope. That would be on the page relating to the Act itself.
 * The notable partnerships idea was claimed as unencyclopaedic by Joel on the SOL and Trance or Daze? and I agree - this isn't a lifestyle magazine and human interest is not the point of WP articles, factual accuracy is.
 * A photo is a nice addition (tho I suspect the current one will fall foul of the Copyright Brigade!) but it is not illustrative of the concept: again, it's just a photo of the nation's two most famous CP's whereas any photo of two girls/guys getting hitched would be more representative.

These points aside, well done for WJBSCribe for actually doing something constructive to support the article: sadly Tom has already told me that he is no longer prepared to work further on it and, frankly, I begin to share his view. But it has been given a good start and it's comforting to see that it has friends who are willing to contribute instead of just carp. It's in safe hands. Chris 81.159.212.153 08:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC) "you have to have the last jibe, doncha?" Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ...she said, once again insisting that she have the last word! Look forward to your next attempt! (snigger) 81.159.212.153 08:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to the above points: I look forward to responses and hope for support in strengthening the article beyond its present standards. -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 09:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Right place to rehash rights wrongs of the law. Though I agree to some extent, I think the right/wrongs of civil partnerships are very much within the scope of this article. Some thought may need to be given to how to divide material between this page and the Act. Some of the technical descriptions of provisions of the act could be moved to the Act's page. This page can then have an overview of their effect (citing the relevant sections as references).
 * 2) Appropriateness of notable partnerships. Well given that these people have indeed married, I can't see how their inclusion is factually inaccurate. Many articles include sections on notable people who share the view/trait discussed in the article. Such illustration is an aid to clarity. In this case I think it goes further- these people have flown the flag for civil partnerships and played a big part in engendering the mainstream acceptance they now enjoy.
 * 3) The photo(s). Well it is a picture of the most the nation's most famous couple on their wedding day, in their outfits celebrating their CP. As to the ordinary people I agree. I have located some very nice copyright free pictures on Flickr of such people enjoying their CP day. But, even though these are free to use, I think it might be polite to ask them before including their photos on Wikipedia! As to the copyright issue- well if someone objects one can rehearse the old arguments. Its a borderline case but all one can do is add the photo and wait and see.
 * 4) Editor disatisfaction. I hope that those who have edited this page will reconsider staying on. I have my own ideas about where this article could go but I think it would be better if we could come to agreement. If the issue is with Dev920, she has indicated to me that she solely intended to give the article a rating and move on. She does not wish to be involved in its editing.

Any positive contribution is welcome:


 * 1) We have had the rights/wrongs section in the past and it was removed - details will be in the new archive, somewhere - if you can come up with a good argument for reinstating it, fine.  As I recall, it contained the bleatings of a few religious figures and that was pretty much it.  Not being one to want to give bigots the oxygen of publicity I'm happy not to have their views regurgiutated here, but if you believe it adds to the strength of the article...
 * 2) I remain of the opinion that fame alone does not justify using John and Furnish in the photo.  It's also somewhat obvious - why do we so rarely see articles in papers and elsewhere using pix of female couples as illustrations?
 * 3) As to notability, this is bound to become unweildy over time, plus some of the notables were not really that notable.
 * 4) I agree it is a shame that Tom has decided not to participate further - but he's a big lad and makes his own decisions.  Despite suggestions that he and I are one, I will remain as I believe the article in its present form is largely adequate and therefore will offer my opinion to damp down any radical overhaul.

Chris 81.159.212.153 10:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK Chris. Just a couple of thoughts re: 2 & 3. If the notable people section becomes unweildy, we can split it off. May even be worth having a list of people (across the world) who have 'married' their same sex partner- but that is a project for another day. I see your point about the picture. I shall also include a photo of a notable lesbian CP. -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 11:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wish, add the Notable Partnerships section however if it is just going to trot out John & Furnish, a couple of Fleet Street hacks and the odd MP then I would probably argue against retaining it. The marriage section doesn;t feature pix of Taylor and Gabor, after all!  There is no reason for the couple pictured to be a 'notable' lesbian couple: celebrity threatens to shift the thing into "Hello!" magazine territory.  Any two Jane Does would be fine.  81.159.212.153 13:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you have added a rather nice image of the two ladies after their CP. I have moved this to replace the John-Furnish image and hope you agree.  The replacement photo is more representative of everyday CPs and you can tell at a glance what the occasion is - the J-F image could have been taken on pretty much any occasiona that required a nice suit! :-)  81.159.212.153 13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparent inconsistency
In the lead section of this article, it is stated that "Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage (bold is mine). Further down in the body of the article, it is written that "Adoption provisions will also be amended so that civil partners will be treated in the same way as married couples" (again, bolding is mine). If civil partners will at some undefined point in the future be treated in the same way as married partners, then at this time the rights and responsibilities are not identical. Please clarify this point. I have added the word "nearly" to the lead to make it consistent with the body of the article. If you have another solution, please feel free to discuss or change. Jeffpw 09:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the second line refered to "will also be" is just out of date. As far as I know (and http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2004/40033--g.htm seems to back this up in Section 79) covers this point.  Have altered the line to read "virtually identical" in the meantime as somehow "nearly" seemed a bit too vague.  Will leave it to others to decide how to go from here. 81.159.212.153 10:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I did a search, and it seems clear that as far as adoption is concerned, Civil Partners may indeed file an adoption request. I will change the adoption section to reflect that. The page I found stated this: rights and responsibilities similar to those of married couples. Perhaps that is the best way to state the lead? It was, after all, written by an attorney specializing in family law. As a quick aside, I see lots of wonderful references that could be sprinkled through the article to comply with WP:V. If there is no objection, I will make a list of them, and start adding them tomorrow. Also, the Civil Partnership Act itself is used as an external link. It is perhaps better used as a reference within the article itself (it cannot be put in both places). Jeffpw 10:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you compare the list of rights and responsibilties with those on the linked page in para 1 Legal consequences of marriage and civil partnership in the United Kingdom you will see that they are indistiguishable. Furthermore, family law solicitors are far from infallible (hopefully my father-in-law doesn't read this! - grin) Any differences fall outside the area of rights and responsibilities (peer's coutesy titles, etc) and so the opening line seems reasonable - I'd ask for it to be retained in its original form and will revert to that for now to maintain consistency with the related article. Please do add refs where you feel they are needed. Chris 81.159.212.153 11:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC) '''Please note that I have now, at Jeffpw's suggestion, adopted a user name and will edit using that (unless I forget to log in!) from hereon. Chris NoStringsAttached 11:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)'''

Infobox/links
Some of the links in the info box are duplicated at the bottom of the page. Is this usual/acceptable? NoStringsAttached 11:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Looks like the main infobox is the same across several articles, so it's the lower, UK specific 'See Also' that needs a prune. Will get onto it. NoStringsAttached 12:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It just seems redundant to me. Is there a reason to have the second box at the bottom of the page? if there are any countries listed in one and not the other, could they not be better merged? Jeffpw 12:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done NoStringsAttached 12:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

31000!? Plus problem with ref 5
A couple of points.


 * 1 - The article now says that as of 5 Dec 31000 CPs have been formed. Can we have confirmation fo that from somewhere other than a broken link (see 2 below) which I assume relates to this point   As far as I know, the figures up to December will not be published for another few months.
 * 2 - The link/ref seems to be broken and/or improperly formatted. Have looked at it but can't work out what's up.

NoStringsAttached 13:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Had a look at that ref. Its not broken- it refers to the paper edition of the Telegraph for that day. Not an online article on their website... -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just spoke with the Department itself. Although the woman there sounded a bit hazy, she claimed that they don't have figures for CPs up to Dec 5 yet, so something is wrong somewhere! Have deleted this claim of 31K CPs and the ref. Wherever they are getting the figures from it seems not to be the government. Also, have checked a few of the usual gay & lesbian online news services, including PinkNews which is usually very reliable. Not one has mentioned this remarkable jump in CPs in the past 3 months. I suspect the Telegraph confused the number of CPs (15.5K) with the number of partners (obviously, 2 x 15.5K) and ended up with this figure. NoStringsAttached 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That number and reference were taken from the article Same-sex marriage. I have messaged the contributer to see if they can provide additional information. Jeffpw 15:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo
Chris, I've managed to find a shot of people actually signing the register. . Don't worry about the look of it at the moment- its a v good quality photo and I can easily sort the brightness and saturation problems. Was wondering what you think of it. Its a free image but I think we should drop them a message to ask if they mind being the illustration of "civil partnership" on Wiki and if they want their names in the caption. -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Per my Talk page, I have decided not to edit further on WP. The photo looks fine, however, so why not ask 'em.  NoStringsAttached 14:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Civil Partnership vs. marriage
Maybe I overlooked it, but the article does not seemt o discuss the fact that CP, while giving the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, creates another category of marriage (eg: "Gay" marriage) and can be seen as a sort of Jim Crow, "separate but equal" sort of discrimination. I would be interested to know what the reaction to this new law and \category is among British gay activists. Has anything been written about this in the British press? If so, I think it would add to the article here. Jeffpw 18:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, UK law stopped short of calling CP marriage leaving the possibility for a future government of creating new legislation that grants more benefits for heterosexual marriages (for example tax breaks for married couples) that need not apply for CPs. Time to dig out some references, here are a few:
 * BBC News Q&A: Civil partnership highlighting some simple differences.
 * Fulcrum response discussing differences and similarity quite critically from a "Anglican" POV.
 * Judge endorses the ‘sexual apartheid' of same-sex marriage ban from Peter Tatchell's website this is a neat legal example showing the legal difference is quite important:
 * The High Court judge who has considered the case said in his interim ruling (handed down on 12 April 2006): “I consider that there is sufficient material available for an argument based on principle ... that the requirement of the Civil Partnership Act that a marriage between same-sex partners abroad must, on registration, be treated as a civil partnership and not a marriage, is on the face of it discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation” (Wilkinson v. Kitzinger, Her Majesty's Attorney-General & The Lord Chancellor).
 * -- Ashley VH 18:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It was one of things I suggested needed adding above (during the rating debate). Tatchell's arguments in the Guardian at are of note. Guess its just a question of someone finding the time to write about it... WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with introducing Tatchell's opinion is that we are then obliged to balance it with a full range of counter-'arguments' and the article gets bogged down with quotes from every activist and religious conservative on the planet.  As I understand it, Tatchell made these comments during the legislative process - if you feel Tatchell's is an opinion worth including (I don't) I'd suggest that it's included in the article on the Act itself... not that I fully understand why the two articles haven't been merged. Vacant Stare 15:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the content probably should be moved to the Act's coverage, but not this in my opinion. The Act article is the proper place for covering the detail of provisions and the passage of the legislation. An overview of the law, its implementation, take up and reactions etc. seems the appropriate focus of this article. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the bulk of what you say, but I doubt the value of including "reactions" from various rent-a-mouth commentators. Who's acceptable?  Tatchell?  Those charmers at the Christian Institute?  The BNP?  What value is there in putting Stonewall's thumb's up against the Evangelical Alliance's wailing that this is the end of the world?   I am probably just voicing my own dislike of self-appointed guardians of civil liberties and/or the spiritual wellbeing of our nation, but even so...  Vacant Stare 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

some queer criticisms of CP
There is widespread criticism from queer activists/groups that CP is 'normalising' and 'assimilating' homosexuals into existing hetero structures. For example, a lot of early gay rights activism was considerably more 'radical' than OutRage and Peter Tatchell et al - such as about creating alternative family structures, getting rid of the concept of 'the family' all together and getting rid of political/legislative hurdles to people living in ways that was different to the hetero-norm.

Some of those people who are still around today are criticising the mainstream gay rights groups for being amoungst other things a)too middle class eg. fighting for gays in the military or rights for gay (usually male) city-lawyers and b) comprimising/assimilating by accepting a modified form of what was seen as an oppressive structure (marriage) and not campaigning for a change in legislation away from preferencing the traditional Christian family system (don't have any references to hand, nor the time right now to look any up so please don't disregard this comment for that - i'll pop back later with some) Perhaps it's valid to include a mention of this so that people researching the topic are getting a broad picture. Any thoughts? Gazzelle 21:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the outcry "widespread"? Setting that aside, such claims are better suited IMHO to more general discussion of gay rights in the UK (indeed worldwide) rather than here.  Vacant Stare 15:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Eligibility - i believe it is not the case that parental permission is required for marriages in Scotland. Anyone know?

Photo
The main photo on this article is cool: but have the two ladies in question given their permission? The copyright seems to be unknown, also. Would be a shame if it got wiped. :( 86.153.93.200 17:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
A merge has been suggested in the Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom talk page. Much reference is made to civil partnerships in that article. Please discuss on the other talk page. Bamkin 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The merge (which by the by was mooted six months ago and gathered no support in that time) is a terrible idea and will confuse this well-written article. 86.153.93.200 07:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The merge suggestion has not even been tagged properly! Pffff!  86.153.93.200 12:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was going to suggest this merge. Although merging may be difficult, it does not mean it should not be done. Lawyerbot (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not difficult, just pointless. 81.159.21.128 (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Improvement
Improvement to this article would include more links, there is loads of black that could be blue. Also for the law project, legal citation and referencing may be a good idea.


 * Am I alone in finding this sort of comment pointless? If you feel the article needs more links, do some research and put some in!  I'm not even sure the claim is justified: a read-thru gives me the impression that the article is self-explanitory and I can't see where 'adding blue' is even possible let alone desirable.  There are 12 links in the first 3 lines, for goodness sake!  :-) Pls sign comments.  Cheers! 86.153.93.200 07:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Blowed if I can see what the first editor is on about.  Maybe s/he should get the ball rolling?  Vacant Stare 10:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is good on detail as far as England and Wales is concerned. However the Anglocentric nature of the writing is annoying for those wishing to know the detail for Northern Ireland or Scotland. It might be preferable to break the article down into the constituent legal systems so that the Parliamentary basis of the law of the whole UK can be set out. By way of example the following acts of Parliament referred to in the artcile do not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland:

Children Act 1989, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Magistrates' Court Act 1978, Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and Family Law Act 1996.

The Civil Partnership Act has distinct parts for each of the legal systems of the United Kingdom - Part 2 England and Wales, Part 3 Scotland, and Part 4 Northern Ireland. The detailed section references in the article to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 only apply to England and Wales as they belong to Part 2. GraemeMoughan 00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Breaking down the entire article, as you suggest, is overkill - for the overwhelming majority of the Act, the application is largely the same regardless of where one lives (and I write as a Scot). Where differences exist, these can be noted in in the text, or in parentheses or footnotes.


 * Your claim re Anglo-centrism is unfair towards the main contributors: how can anything which covers, by your own admission, England and Wales in good detail be viewed as Anglocentric?  :-)  It merely doesn't note as fully as you would wish the minor differences in NI and Scotland.  Not at all the same thing. 81.151.37.228 08:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My claims may seem unfair however the differences exist none the less. I will accept that as a Solicitor in England and Wales (who is also a Scot) that I am probably being pedantic :-) However, I do feel that the article needs to either be a basic summary or a detailed summary of the law of the three jurisdictions. The statutes that I originally referred to above are not UK wide and this is actually an important point. The article does not state that this is the case as it presents itself as a UK wide summary.

For example in the formation section of the article reference is made as to how a Civil Partnership can be formed. Statutory authority is made purely to sections that only apply to England and Wales. My point is that if we really need to get down to the dry nuts and bolt detail of section numbers then the relevant sections for all three systems; rather than just one should be cited. 35 sections of the act are given over to forming a Civil Partnership in England and Wales. 15 sections to form one in Scotland and 21 to form one in Northern Ireland. (There is no such thing as "Standard Procedure" or "Special Procedure" outside England and Wale.) Maybe the easy way around would be to confine the narrative to outlining the principles and consigning section numbers to footnotes or to openly state that the article concerns itself in the main with the law of England and Wales.

GraemeMoughan 23:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Graeme:


 * While I would certainly not suggest that you are being pedantic, I do think you are over-staing the problem. Where differences exist, these can be stated in footnotes/parentheses.  This is far from being the only Act with different section/Part numbers in the constituent parts of the UK, and this is the usual method of dealing with those differences.  Inserting "except in Northern Ireland where Section X applies, Part Y in Scotland only" repeatedly into the text just creates a terribly disjointed read, and such alterations would almost certainly be edited out on that basis.  Alternatively, you could create a sub-article/paragragh (Variations in NI and Scotland, maybe?) if you wish.  This may, in fact, be the best answer.


 * Chris 81.151.37.228 06:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Article name
I'm a little confused as to why this article is located where it is now. Originally we had generically-named articles on "Civil unions in (country)". Now, in some articles, that is no longer the case, i.e. this article and Pacte civil de solidarité. On the other hand, we still have, for example, Civil unions in Sweden, rather than Registered partnerships in Sweden. It seems to me that for consistency's sake, either all the articles should use the indigeneous name or else they should all use "civil union". No? Carolynparrishfan 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We have Civil Partnerships not civil unions. If other articles are at fault, I agree, they should be altered.  Titling this article Civil Unions when there is no such thing as a civil union in the UK is confusing, inaccurate and pointless.  81.151.37.228 16:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My concern is only for consistency. "Civil unions" is used as a generic name for such relationships, whether they are called "civil partnerships", "pacte civile de solidarite", or "registered partnerships". My question is: do we use the generic name or the indigeneous names? I don't see that using the former in some cases and the latter in others is really an option. Carolynparrishfan 21:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I understood the question. The current situation manifestly *is* an option and seems to be causing no real-world difficulty.  The obvious solution is simple: to do a redirect based on the generic term linking it to the local name, thus allowing searches for both.  And as you say yourself, Civil Unions is *a* generic term, not necessarily *the* generic term: I read an article not five minutes ago that referred to "civil partnerships elsewhere in the world...".


 * You'll also notice that Civil Unions (according to the main article for such unions) are quoted as being "similar to" marriage and offering "similar" benefits - this is not the case with CPs, so you'd have to re-write that article, too.


 * I've used this site for reference work on many forms of alternatives to plain vanilla marriage, and not once have I (nor to my knowledge anyone else) been confused or unable to find what they wanted. In all honesty, I suggest not worrying about it... 81.151.37.228 09:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If it says without qualification that civil unions are similar to marriage, I will look at that, since how similar they are varies by country. Certainly, though, the UK law is among the more generous in its provisions, and it's simply inaccurate to say that "this is not the case with CPs". Civil partnerships are expressly designed to provide many of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, and being in a civil partnership is a legal impediment to marriage (and vice versa). I'm sure you're right that it causes no "real-world" confusion, but as Wikipedia editors, we have to be attuned to consistency. Being attuned to the real world, not so much. ;) Carolynparrishfan 21:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Civil partnerships are expressly designed to provide many of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples" - no, I am sorry but it is you who is in error. CPs provide identical benefits and responsibilities to British civil marriage: for goodness sake, this is even stated in the opening paragraph of this article and then linked to a sub-article listing those benefits/responsibilities! When we drafted the legislation (I had the honour of being involved in doing so) we went to extraordinary lengths to ensure this parity.


 * If you genuinely view the naming of other articles as a problem, please feel free to raise it through the proper channels.  Discussing this issue on just one of the articles is not the way to go.  Seek consensus - the help pages will guide you.  I view it as a waste of time but others may view it differently.  I have given my suggestion (using redirects) that covers your point: you did not acknowledge that suggestion.


 * There is a well-worn phrase about hobgoblins that springs to mind. 81.151.37.228 10:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (Shame on you for bringing in this institutionalised inequality, but that is an aside not for Wikipedia purposes.)


 * It is patently not true that they bring "identical benefits" to marriage. Traditional nomenclature is a benefit of marriage. Divorce directly on the basis of adultery is a benefit of marriage. Honorific titles for wives is a benefit of marriage. Civil partnerships do not provide those things; therefore, they are not equal. Salopian (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have created a redirect for Civil Unions in the United Kingdom that brings users to the correct page, this removing the highly unlikely danger of anyone stumbling about unable to find this article. The current title is correct for this article and no alteration is required: the suggested insistence on total obedience to consitency is simply untenable. Vacant Stare 10:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 81.151.37.228, You say that I am "in error", but go on to give a description of civil partnerships that I fully agree with...Is it the word "similar" that bothers you? I don't read that as meaning "but not identical", but I'd agree with you that in many countries (such as the UK) there is "parity" as you say in all but name. I will amend the "civil unions" article to clarify that in some countries, the benefits are not just similar but identical. Carolynparrishfan 01:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The redirect makes sense and perhaps something similar should be applied to the PACS articles? 81.151.37.228 07:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)