Talk:LGBT rights in the Pitcairn Islands

When did same-sex sexual activity decriminalised in the Pitcairn Islands?
When did same-sex sexual activity decriminalised in the Pitcairn Islands?

The current version citing the 2015 State-Sponsored Homophobia report by ILGA says it was in 2001. However after some research, I found that the laws in force in England are generally apply to the Pitcairn Islands, especially the laws related to sexual offences. Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004 showed that the Sexual Offences Act 1956 was applicable to the Pitcairn Islands. The Judicature Ordinance 1961 of the Pitcairn Islands stated that

‘7. Subject to the provisions of section 8 of this Ordinance the substance of the law for the time being in force in and for England shall be in force in the Islands.

8. All of the laws of England extended to the Islands by this Ordinance shall be in force therein so far only us the local circumstances and the limits of local jurisdiction permit and subject to any existing or future Ordinance and for the purpose of facilitating the application of the said laws it shall be lawful to construe the same with such formal alterations not affecting the substance as to names, localities, courts, officers, persons, moneys, penalties and otherwise as may be necessary to render the same applicable to the circumstances.' ( para 93)

Therefore I think the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which decriminalised same-sex sexual activity should also applicable to the Pitcairn Islands.--42.3.195.74 (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about the subject, so will only comment on what you say above. "Therefore I think the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which decriminalised same-sex sexual activity should also (be) applicable to the Pitcairn Islands." Perhaps it should have been, but for some reason wasn't. Perhaps it was never tested in court whether it had become decriminalised. What you need/we need is a source that says explicitly when decriminalisation occurred - otherwise it's WP:SYNTH, for us to conclude that because ordinarily UK law=Pitcairn law, therefore it's the UK date.Pincrete (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Same-sex marriage in the Pitcairn Islands
Why? Why do we need two articles for this???? 50 people there, none of which are even known to be LGBT (it says no same-sex marriages have been performed) yet for some reason this needs to be split into two articles??? Reywas92Talk 21:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge – These topics can very easily and better covered on one page. --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge, as above. No clall for a standalone articleTheLongTone (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge Best discussed in the larger context of LGBT rights. Pichpich (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * NOTE I am undoing the merge as there as no notice on the Same-sex marrige article per policy. This can be closed 7 days after now per policy. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't get to just instantly merge it after barely a day of discussion. That's against the rules. You have to give time for consensus. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I DID put a notice on the other page. No, there is no rule that a discussion must be open 7 days: if may be closed "if there is unanimous consent to merge". Sure, that wasn't very long but this is pretty damn obvious there shouldn't be a separate page. So do you oppose the merge or are you just wasting people's time? Reywas92Talk 05:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I had missed the tag in the article's history. Per WP:MERGECLOSE - During discussion, a rough consensus may emerge to proceed with the merger. Any user may close the discussion and move forward with the merger if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent to merge. Admins are not needed. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * KEEP - These articles are typically separate as the topics are somewhat different. It's irrelevant how many gay people actually live there, otherwise, they may never have legalized same-sex marriage. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No. They're not. Same-sex marriage is a subset of LGBT rights. What is relevant is that there is so little content on this subtopic, a split is not necessary from the main topic. Whatever assumptions you may make about if or when it would have been legalized may still be noted in the main article. The single page with all pertinent information was in no way too long to require a WP:SPLIT. Reywas92Talk 20:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)