Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 53

"Homosexual" vs. "Gay" – Wikipedia policy?
I'm sure this has been brought up before but I can't remember seeing it anywhere: There are a few LGBT related pages I've been editing, where certain Wikipedia editors have insisted every use of the word "gay" be replaced with "homosexual" instead, and vice versa. I just want to know what Wikipedia's official policy/consensus is on the issue, or isn't there one? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no direct policy. Usage will depend on sources and context. In the modern age people self identify as gay rather than homosexual, and changing this to homosexual can be pointy or even deliberately offensive. For example mass changes of gay marriage to homosexual marriage would be disruptive and is not supportable by neutral sources. Historical use however may well be accurate, so a big difference between BLPs and articles about dead people.
 * It has been discussed before, worth searching the archives. --Fæ (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe modern style guides favor "gay" over "homosexual." There's a feeling that "homosexual" is better in historical articles, but really "homosexual" is no less anachronistic than "gay" in articles on people who lived before the word's coinage in 1892. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * For discussions regarding the offensiveness and/or flexibility of the term homosexual and/or homosexuality vs. gay and/or lesbian; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 47. There was also a discussion at WP:Med about it: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 56. Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the archive search, very useful . I had in mind the GLAAD media reference guide when making my first comment, and I have successfully used it in discussing similar issues. This is the NY Times guidance from the GLAAD page which nicely could be used to hit the nail on the head:
 * gay (adj.) is preferred to homosexual in most references. Generally confine homosexual in specific references to sexual activity or clinical orientation.
 * --Fæ (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In the WP:Med debate, I also pointed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 49; like I mentioned there, we should do a FAQ on this because it keeps coming up. Use of homosexual is definitely a case-by-case basis at times. And use of homosexuality, as opposed to homosexual, is usually more accepted because it more often refers to behavior instead of to a person or to a person's sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Where would an FAQ go? To have a real impact across Wikipedia, there could be a minor amendment to MOS. This question has a track record spanning several years, so there should be sufficient grounds to create a sensible RfC or proposal for change. --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of the FAQ going at the top of this page. And as can been seen in the "Style guideline of gay vs homosexual" discussion I linked to above, there was a minor attempt to make this matter into a guideline; see the vote there at the end, in the Suggested guidelines for gay and homosexual section. I have my doubts that a guideline on this would work, given that homosexual should be used in some cases and Wikipedians have a tendency to blindly cite Wikipedia's guidelines without thinking of the exceptions and when they are hurting instead of helping; I see that often with WP:Words to watch, and there is currently ample debate at that talk page showing it. Flyer22 (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I support amending LGBT project level guidelines with a clarification similar to the NY Times quote above (nobody seems in disagreement to this sort of distinction between gay and homosexual). This would be a nice uncontentious first step and would be good evidence for how this specialist project has established a consensus for any further steps to promote the guidance more widely, or just as something solid to link to (along with a handy shortcut?) to use in article discussions.
 * I sympathise with a feeling of pointlessness at the prospect of trying to get this explicitly in MOS, Wikipedia being 'democratic' in a way that more often that not means that minority views are too easily put aside as 'fringe', 'advocacy' or just trolling. Establishing a local guide along with identifying the best supporting independent sources, such as GLAAD and the NYT, is a powerful friend to prop up your point of view. Times change, and the wide Wikipedia community reflects evolving social values, so it is worth testing the waters with an RfC on this type of issue, even if similar proposals were wikilawyered away a year or two ago. --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Gay is for people, homosexual is for when absolute specificity is needed, e.g. in sociological, psychological, etiological or medical contexts. That should be the policy.Zythe (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal
As the issue of when to use, or swap, the terms "gay" and "homosexual" to describe a living or deceased person is a perennial subject (as per the archive links above), it seems worth setting down a standard in project level guidelines.

I propose the following basic text be added as a new section to WikiProject_LGBT_studies, with its own easy to remember shortcut (perhaps WP:gay?) to refer to in future discussions for preferred style:

--Fæ (talk) 10:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Amended to break out quotes from AP and NY Times as a reference. Added Canadian Press example. --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Amended to include cases where homosexual could be describing a woman. --Fæ (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it would be better to briefly quote (and cite) the GLAAD style guide rather than simply external link it. Don't force users to unnecessarily go outside Wikipedia for basic information. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should provide a few references to support this point of style, it would help to give it weight in any discussion? I'm happy to see the GLAAD link turned into a footnote as the text I have used closely follows the NY Times reference in the GLAAD guide (the guide is actually a list of citations from other sources). --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Fæ Rather directly quote and cite mainstream guides such as AP and NYT because GLAAD could be regarded as non-neutral per WP:RGW. When I was involved in creating the WikiProject Disability style guide objections were raised against using "activist" style guides as sources. Try to find a few non-US sources too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try having a hunt around such as checking the online full OED, may take me a few days so I'm happy to others to step in. Yes, citing AP and NYT directly makes sense. I think the last time I searched around this area was two or three years ago, and finding credible non-US centric sources proved almost impossible. Hopefully a few other style guides have addressed this specific terminology since then. --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Found a few British guides - Guardian newspaper, The Telegraph newspaper (both unfortunately very brief) and an interesting blog, Clarity about 'the gay thing', on the Oxford Dictionary website. Our own list article List of style guides links many different guides. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestions Roger; quick Sunday morning feedback, but yet to do a proper search myself:
 * The Telegraph's guide is a mixed bag of poor quality or even misleading, I suggest parking it/discouraging anyone from using it as it seems poorly maintained.
 * The Guardian's style guide is weak, the entry for gay being okay, but there is no entry for homosexual, only "homosexual rape" which guides you to drop the word homosexual and if necessary use "male rape" (perhaps there is more guidance for the word homosexual somewhere non-obvious, I could not find it).
 * Gary Nunn's article is informative, it could be considered an advocacy piece (he did work for Stonewall) but does expand the issue. I've sent Gary a tweet, hoping that he knows of some credible sources.
 * As I suspected finding non-US alternatives may only find weaker or less up to date guides. I have stumbled across this sensible Canadian Press based alternate:
 * 'Sexuality
 * ''Gay is usually preferred as an alternative for homosexual men and is also commonly used for women, although lesbian is preferred by many women. Use sexual orientation, not sexual preference. Language is still evolving on what to call the individuals in a same-sex relationship or marriage. Partner, husband and wife are all acceptable options depending on preference.
 * Ref ucalgary.ca and j-source.ca --Fæ (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support new section being added (although why only "gay man"? Surely the same applies for lesbians?). Although style guides from a wider variety of English-speaking countries could be somewhat more useful, as there may be cultural biases in cases like this. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point about 'man'. I have amended slightly, by all means suggest further improvements to wording, noting that the objective is to address use of homosexual as an adjective rather than any other frequently problematic words. If there are no strong objections, I suggest this is created as a new subsection by, say, the end of June; after which as better, credible alternative non-US, or new sources/style guides become available, the examples can be updated. --Fæ (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Being a convenient Sunday near the end of the month, the proposed text has now been been added to WP:Gay?. Thank you to those who helped with different viewpoints to reach a consensus. --Fæ (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Should states with no recognition of same-sex marriage be described as having a ban against it?
If someone has past experience on other articles, especially if they know of good reliable sources, they may be able to help at Talk:LGBT_rights_in_Belarus.

This may have potential to create a RfC to ensure consistency, it appears that this may be as issue for many articles about constitutional level LGBT rights. --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

FAC of Murder of Dwayne Jones
Hello all; just a quick note to say that I have nominated the Murder of Dwayne Jones article over at FAC; for those not familiar with the case, it was an incident in which a young Jamaican man was murdered in a mob attack motivated by anti-LGBT sentiment. I've already had two responses at the comments page but I would very much appreciate some more if anyone on here was interested. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Changing of LGBT rights opposition
There is a proposal at the LGBT rights opposition page to rename the article "LGBT rights debate", and reorganisation of the article's text along the lines of the Abortion debate article. I support this decision, but what do you people think of it? (Probably best to have the discussion at the talk page itself, just thought I'd notify all of you here.) – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Political lesbianism article
Considering this and this edit by an IP, and this and other edits by (which I reverted), at, some of you might want to keep an eye on this article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know my post violated anything. I had to update a Wikipedia page for the final project in my Undergraduate Women Studies: Feminist Theory Course. Kendlenico13 (talk) 9 July 2015


 * , I see. Thanks for explaining and discussing this here. My problem with your edits at that article is that Wikipedia has formatting standards (see WP:Manual of Style) and sourcing standards (see WP:Reliable sources) that your edits didn't fully live up to. The WP:Lead, for example, should usually have the title of the article bolded; see WP:Lead sentence. And the sources for this topic should not be poor; you definitely shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source in a Wikipedia article. I'm also not sure what POV you are aiming for. See WP:POV. Wikipedia defines POV differently than how it is defined in common discourse. What are your problems with the Political lesbianism article (which, yes, I know is a poor article), and what is your plan for fixing them? Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Transgendereds
Given that "transgender" is more common and more concise than "transgendered" ([//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=transgender%2Ctransgendered&year_start=1985&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=1&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ctransgender%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ctransgendered%3B%2Cc0 ref]), and that "transgendered" is often considered offensive and compared to saying someone is "blacked" or "blackened" rather than "black" ([//www.glaad.org/reference/transgender ref], [//www.vox.com/2015/2/18/8055691/transgender-transgendered-tnr ref], [//cltampa.com/bedpost/archives/2014/01/11/savage-love-gayed-blacked-transgendered#.VOTB9Z8afIE ref], postscript also ref, ref), I propose we go through the 454 articles which use "transgendered" and update them to use "transgender" (except, obviously, where the word appears in a quote, an organization's name, etc). (Even if one does not personally feel that "transgendered" is offensive, I submit that it's still preferable to use "transgender" since it doesn't offend people and is more common.) -sche (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully support this intention and think it would be a great improvement. How do you best go about finding those 454 articles? SPACKlick (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=transgendered&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 Using Special:Search] - htonl (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support this. But we must be careful to not alter quotes. We might also ask someone at AWB to add a regex to change "transgendered" to "transgender".  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd hesitate to ask for replacement to be made a default in AWB, because on the first few pages of Special:Search (all I've gone through so far), greater than 50% of uses turned out to be in book titles or quotations. I don't know if that ratio holds true for all 454 pages or not. I suppose I'll make a careful pass with AWB with such regex and find out! (So far I've only changed a few pages, and those by hand.) -sche (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * it's possible to get AWB to ignore stuff in quotes, refs, or even italics.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * is it? Great! I'm using AWB right now to go through all the pages that currently use "transgendered". It turns out that the ratio I found in the first few pages (mentioned above) was indeed misleading, and a large number of articles do use the word in Wikipedia's voice. If someone could make replacement of "transgendered" → "transgender" outside of quotations part of the general copy-editing regex, that'd be useful. -sche (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I fully support this. Should an amendment be placed on the "Transgender and intersex people" section at WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines to reflect this change and the reasons why, if it does occur? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and thanks for pointing out that page; I had wondered if this wikiproject had a page for recording suggested terminology. I notice an earlier discussion of the same words. I would like to also add language explaining that transgender should not be used as a noun denoting a person ("the film features two transgenders", "Smith is a transgender"); any opinions on that? (Transgender is sometimes a noun denoting the state of being transgender, and that seems OK.) -sche (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd support that. The BBC News style guide seems to agree (at least for the term "transsexual"), as well as the Guardian/Observer style guide. (I've tried to avoid organisations such as GLAAD as per its advocacy (which some people might view as soapboxing) – if anyone knows of any neutral style guides that mention the issue please let me know). The past discussion over the use of the terms "gay" vs. "homosexual" may also be informative on this matter. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK; I've overhauled WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines, mostly just to make it more concise but in some cases to address the "this is out of date" tag by bringing it up-to-date with the current MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BIRTHNAME guidance. I also [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_LGBT_studies%2FGuidelines&type=revision&diff=670285232&oldid=670285085 added a section] on the use of transgender as a noun and on transgendered. I think it's alright to cite GLAAD's style guide in this matter, particularly because we have other style guides which say to do the same things GLAAD says to do — GLAAD just does a better job of explaining why to do those things. -sche (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for rewriting/adding to that section. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Experts on Oxford literary, history, and arts scene, 1920-1990
… please see, referring to anyone you know who might be interested (Evelyn Waugh experts, etc.), and, as immediately as possible, reviewing for the article's current representations regarding his sexuality. Cheers, Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

LGBT history in [country]
For most countries, type this in and you will get a page about it. However, that page is usually only one sentence long, saying if it is a criminalized or not. I believe that these were mass-created, and there is information in other articles that say the same thing. I think we should attempt to delete these articles. I will not do anything yet, but if anyone has anything to say, feel free! RES2773 (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)RES2773
 * I've noticed the same. I agree that they were largely mass-created, and I also agree that if the year that homosexuality was criminalized is all we can say about LGBT history in any given country then we don't need that article. We should of course keep any "LGBT history in (Country)" article that has genuinely substantive content, but that fails to describe the articles you're talking about. Bearcat (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you both 100%, these articles can easily be re-created if there's any additional information to add. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"Eurogame"
The usage and primary topic of is under discussion, see talk:German-style board game -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I Am Jazz
I'd love to get I Am Jazz recognized as a Good Article or Featured Article. I'm not an expert in this area... is there anyone from this project who can help, at least take a look at it before I submit it for review? It needs to be fleshed out a bit with more sources from LGBT news. Thanks! —Мандичка YO 😜 01:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Phyllis Burke
Phyllis Burke is a possibly notable author of interest to this project. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

Yishai Schlissel
Just created this stub under construction. Feel free to expand it with referenced info. I am off to bed and will try to work on it again tomorrow. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Adventure Time - does it qualify for LGBT category?
Hi friends, a topic came up at Talk:Adventure_Time about adding an LGBT category to the series Adventure Time. My main note was that before the cat gets added, there should be prose that supports the addition. Someone provided a reference in the form of a video, and it involves a voice actor confirming to an audience of fans at Barnes & Noble, that two characters dated in a backstory that seems to exist in the series creator's head. Anyhow, rather than me mucking up the discussion with a lot of blah blah blah, if any of you wish to help sort through this and make sure the assertions are suitable for inclusion, I would dig that. The kids seem excited, so it seems learned LGBT editors might be able to best guide the content, if suitable. Thanks mucho! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The question isn't really whether a same-sex pairing is canonical, but whether reliable sources have discussed it as relevant to LGBT studies. Is that the case? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Angela Davis
The article on Angela Davis states:
 * In 1997, she declared herself to be a lesbian in Out magazine. 

NNDB appears to be a questionable source per various discussion on WP:RSN, so I'm looking for a better source. Davis did appear on the cover of the February 1998 issue of Out, so I'm wondering if anyone might have access to back issues or archives to confirm the statement. Thanks! - Location (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

NAMBLA Needs looking over
Hello guys. There seems to be plenty of WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL issues with this page and those associated with it. The problem is that is seems to gravitate towards the idea the paedophilia has a direct relevance to the LGBT community. I'd appreciate people with some knowledge in the area to edit out information that is unreferenced ect then steer it towards a more factual article. olowe2011 (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to note that I have already edited the page so please refer to edit history. Thanks. olowe2011 (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Karen D. Thompson
Hi there. This article was declined, with the comment that Thompson is not notable enough for an article separate from her involvement in the Guardianship of Kowalski. The article says that she is a well-known speaker about human rights, but I haven't been able to find reports of her speeches, only announcements. Also, if she is notable, likely some of the detail which is already covered in the other article should be trimmed. Are there any opinions here? Or can someone who knows where to look find references about her more recent activities?&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Regional US/Canada Wikimedia conference - Washington DC - 9-11 October
Hello. I would like to invite you to WikiConference USA. This community gathering will be Friday-Sunday 9-11 October (with Columbus Day being Monday the 12th) in Washington DC at the National Archives and Records Administration.

Persons interested in participating may present a submission, request one of about 25 travel scholarships, or plan to attend. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  17:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Kinky Boots (musical) at WP:FAC
Please join the discussion at Featured article candidates/Kinky Boots (musical)/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Same-sex union recognition tables
Recognition of same-sex unions in Oceania, Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe, Recognition of same-sex unions in South America and Recognition of same-sex unions in North America articles includes the tables listing jurisdictions legally recognising same-sex relationships. Each article has the different version of the table. Perhaps we should adopt one version for all of them. PS: If I did something wrongly in making this request, then I'm sorry. Ron 1987 (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Standardization - I'm also glad you shifted the discussion here. I have three main points to make about the pages. 1). I did a revision of the North America map and an attempted one on the Oceania map. The reason for doing so was to standardize them to a degree; making it easier for readers to navigate across them. After I made changes to the North American sub-national section, I was satisfied with the layout. I found that the Caribbean and Oceanian regions have a higher concentration of European dependencies. As a result, I crafted the tables so that they could easily show which dependencies fell under each countries jurisdiction. 2) I noticed that the European and Oceanian versions show relationship schemes that have been replaced with legislation granting more (or equal) rights. For example, The Netherlands has listings for marriage, registered partnership and unregistered cohabitation. While all were important strides for gay rights in the country, I was under the assumption that these recognition pages were to detail the current (and greatest) relationship scheme available to LGBT people in each country; further research into the history reserved for the individual page, which was always linked to the countries listing. 3) Lastly, I think that the population break down on the South American page is something that should be brought to the remaining ones. I would propose using the North American layout (showing the highest attainment of rights & national jurisdiction over dependencies), including South American style population counts and the European style "future legislation" section on all other pages. Chase1493 (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also be happy to make all the necessary changes across all pages myself, if no one else wants too. It's becoming quite the hobby for me ;). Chase1493 (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Standardization as per Chase1493's suggestions. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Standardization, there are some easy things to do (removing the EU flags in Europe, as the EU is very explicitly has no competence regarding the status of people), and other things should be thought about. I wouldn't be very happy to remove "earlier" or "less complete" recognitions (like same sex unions in the Netherlands), as that amounts to recentism and it is a personal choice what is the "greatest" option (people may prefer same sex unions). In the sidebar that is needed to avoid clutter, but in those regional articles, there is space to get into more detail.... L.tak (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional support for standardisation – I would like to see the countries with a same-sex marriage constitutional ban included in the standardised tables. – Sdino (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you take a look at the North America page; as well as the Oceania page I revised (see history) I included constitutional ban states. I agree with you though, it is a necessary inclusion. Chase1493 (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

So, Ron 1987 now that we have accrued some feedback; is there consensus to make any changes or do you wish to wait? Also, I haven't yet heard what steps you believe should be taken. I would like to get this process moving if we could so I look forward to your feedback. Chase1493 (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not going to oppose the proposition. I think there a sufficient agreement. But, please, don't remove the links to the laws (in European and Oceanian articles). If some minor technical issues will arise, then we could deal with them without RFC. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I support L.tak's suggestion to remove EU flags from european article. I think the other issue, raised by Him would be problematic. Read the european article's history and talk page (from April and May) and you will find out why... Ron 1987 (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, well after reading that lengthy discussion, all I can say is that my proposal to remove previous partnership schemes would solve that problem. Spain's de facto union scheme isn't really relevant since there is a national law extending marriage rights. All of the local registries could be appropriately placed in the marriage or rights articles. All I'm trying to say is that if we are to choose between relationship schemes, we should represent the one which affords the most equal attainment of rights and obligations. To see it in a different way, we wouldn't list the civil unions in the U.S. if the state had attained marriage. The general concept of LGBT rights is to be in closest parity with those maintained by heterosexuals (IMO). Chase1493 (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant that the IP user was opposed to exclude earlier forms of recogntion and may to try block the changes. Ron 1987 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh gotcha, well the North and South American and Oceanian pages are all pretty much standardized. I'm gonna through some links into the Americas pages. I think I'll try to tackle the European one tomorrow. What do you think of them? Chase1493 (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the sub-national tables also should have population counts. Ron 1987 (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think that is a good idea. I'm just not sure how this will square away when we do the European table and should I leave the Native American tribes out since they are covered under the U.S. in terms of population? Chase1493 (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1."I was under the assumption that these recognition pages were to detail the current [...] relationship scheme"
 * Civil unions (by whatever name) are a current form of recognition in BE, FR, IS, LU, NL, ES, UK, Brazil, New Zealand, South Africa, Uruguay, etc. Their civil unions are not "history".


 * 2."replaced with legislation granting more [...] rights"
 * In almost all same-sex marriage countries civil unions were not replaced by marriage; they were supplemented by marriage.
 * And in the Caribbean Netherlands and South Africa marriage and registered/civil partnership were established on the very same day, by the very same law. In Malta civil union and recognition of foreign marriage were established on the very same day, by the very same law.
 * By the end of this year French Polynesia will get civil solidarity pacts; and they will of course not "replace" "earlier" marriage but supplement it.


 * 3. Civil unions in those countries are not (anymore) a "less complete" step to equality. They form an integral part of equality. All of those civil unions (except in the UK) are available to opposite-sex couples, too. Their purpose is not to keep same-sex couples down. They are an alternative to marriage, for all couples - gay and straight.176.0.114.40 (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 4. Just because YOU think marriage is a "higher" form of recognition - doesn't make it a higher form of recognition. That's highly POV. As one user wrote above: "It is a personal choice what is the greatest option (people may prefer same sex [civil] unions)".


 * 5. Those articles are called "Recognition of same-sex unions ..."
 * You cannot ignore the fact that civil unions are a current form of recognition of same-sex unions. Those laws are in effect in this very moment. Civil unions can be entered into in this very moment.
 * Don't discriminate against civil unions just because YOU don't like them !176.0.114.40 (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ron 1987:"I meant that the IP user was opposed to exclude earlier forms of recogntion and may to try block the changes."


 * Yes, because that IP user, that is me, tends to be into facts, into accurate information.
 * Remove DK, NO and SE - as civil unions cannot be entered into anymore. I don't care. The other countries have to be included though.
 * They've got civil union laws in effect (and no plans to repeal them).176.0.114.40 (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding me here. I'm not inferring that one is better than the other, that is personal choice, yes. However, in many of the previously mentioned countries, civil unions (in the scope of LGBT people) were created as a specific alternative for them and in many, they allowed for same or opposite sex couples but continued to deny the right to marriage for same-sex couples. There are fundamental differences between marriage and civil unions and they are not equal in many instances. The right to adoption, changing of a surname, access to assisted reproduction, and some tax benefits are left out in varying places that you mentioned. Malta, as you mentioned, created civil unions and foreign marriage recognition the same day; but the performance of marriage is still denied within the its borders. That is a right denied. Forgive me, but I am being led to believe that you are trying to justify separate but equal, which we both know isn't the case when a country would go the route of creating a new relationship scheme instead of amending its family code. For as long as I can remember, our policy for relationship recognition has always been marriage surpassing any form of alternate scheme, no matter how close the latter is in terms of being equal with the former. Each and every country that has marriage has its own page, complete with all the details about its past and current legislation. However, for the purposes of these recognition pages, complete and equal parity without distinction (i.e. marriage) displays the countries highest attainment. Just because YOU FEEL differently about civil unions, doesn't mean it overrides years of policy on the matter. Chase1493 (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Where have I ever talked about "separate but equal"? Where have I ever supported "separate but equal"? I support giving accurate information on countries' available relationship recognition schemes.
 * In BE, FR, IS, LU, NL etc. civil unions are not past legislation. They are current legislation. Civil unions can be entered into in this very moment - by all couples, whether gay or straight. How is that "separate but equal" ?
 * "complete and equal parity without distinction (i.e. marriage) displays the countries highest attainment"
 * The highest attainment is equality without distinction, yes, exactly. But that doesn't necessarily mean marriage only. Equality means equality. In the aforementioned countries civil unions form part of equality.
 * What about the UK ? Gay couples have the choice, civil partnership or marriage. For straight couples it's marriage only. That's the same situation as in Chile, Estonia etc. - just the other way round (discrimination against straight couples instead of gay couples). Still you list the UK as having "complete and equal parity without distinction". Just because they got marriage for gay couples ? And also gay couples are still not equal to straight couples when it comes to marriage. They are still discriminated against in certain areas - even though they are allowed to call their union marriage now. The UK does not have equality ! (Neither does Portugal btw.) Equality is not just about a relationship registration scheme's name. Equality is about equality, obviously.
 * All laws have to be listed. All marriage laws, all civil unions - whether they grant equality of gay and straight couples or not. All those laws do exist in this very moment and they do provide for "recognition of same-sex unions". (Just to remind you ... That's what the articles are titled)176.2.12.88 (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (Copied from some talk page:) In countries that offer both, marriage and civil union, those civil unions form a real alternative to marriage, exactly because they don't include the same rights and obligations as marriage. Ever thought of the likelihood of some couples going like "We don't want to carry all those burdens that come by marriage", "We don't need all those rights that come by marriage", "Let's first try a civil union and if we still get along in a few years we could still get married maybe", ... or something?176.2.12.88 (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not listing those laws is
 * 1. denial of the very fact that those laws do exist, and
 * 2. dicriminatory, discriminating against all those couples that have, for whatever reason, chosen a civil union over a marriage and those that ever will choose a civil union over a marriage.176.2.12.88 (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "doesn't mean it overrides years of policy on the matter"
 * Because it has been like that for years it cannot be changed? Do you say the same to people that demand their rights, people that try to "override years of policy" of not allowing same-sex marriage ? You treat civil unions the same as conservative bigots treat same-sex marriage.
 * The Europe table had been accurate for a year or so, while the other tables have never been. Now they are harmonized. That's good somehow. Unfortunately harmonizing them went the wrong direction. Now they are equally discriminatory and equally un-encyclopaedic.176.2.12.88 (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Stonewall (2015 film)
Can some experienced editors take a look at the article, particularly the controversy section being discussed on the talk page? Three good-faith but relatively new editors are involved in an edit-war and any help in reaching a consensus would be appreciated. The article is already semi-protected to prevent disruption from misclenneous IPs, and I would like to avoid escalating to full-protection (or blocks) as far as possible. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

BLPN discussion
There is a discussion regarding Jazz Jennings' (a trans girl) surname at WP:BLPN.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 15:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)