Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Same-sex couples' children do not "fare better" than opposite-sex ones

@Guycn2: Seen that gay and lesbian couples are discriminated/persecuted, it seems odd that their children grow healthier and happier than the children of other couples. So that implies at least WP:REDFLAG. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what he said, since those research articles only have "some" people arguing that same-sex couples have "better off" children. Most researchers do not believe that. You could also find research stating that straight couples have children who "fare better" than those of same-sex parents. BobRoberts14 (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Freshacconci and Sander000 also agree that this claim is not sourced and should not be included in the article, since they reverted Guycn2's edits. BobRoberts14 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

If we were to deal with dictatorial countries where gay and lesbian couples are discriminated against and persecuted, this indeed would be odd to assume that their children grow healthier and happier. But in this article we are not dealing with counties like Russia or Iran where homosexuals are persecuted. We are dealing with the western world, where both same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption are permitted by law. Countries where same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption are illegal are not relevant for this article; it is obvious that children to same-sex couples in Russia will not grow healthier and happier.

In my opinion it completely makes sense that children to same-sex couples are more likely to grow happier. Since same-sex couples experience many difficulties in bringing a child into the world, it is far less likely that they will neglect their children, for example. They are also far less likely abuse or mistreat their child, since adoption agencies check the petitioners' qualification before placing children in their home. Adoption agencies also check the petitioners' financial status before letting them adopt a child, so children to same-sex couples are also less likely to grow without basic living needs. That's why researches that have found that children to same-sex couple are more likely to be healthy and happy are not odd at all. They make perfect sense.

Also, note that these findings are not rare. Many researches throughout the last decade have found similar findings. Guycn2 · ☎ 21:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

You're not citing any sources, you're just making unlikely claims. It is far more likely that for children of same-sex parents, they are worse off. They are far more likely to be bullied in school because of the sexual orientation of their parents. I'll add more later but have to go for now. BobRoberts14 (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BObRoberts14

That's a confounding variable, so the claim is not generalizable. Also, being lawful does not mean that discrimination has stopped. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Freshacconci: and @Sander000: both made the same edit as I did, and they agreed that your claim of same-sex couples' children being "better off" is highly contentious and needs proper sourcing. BobRoberts14 (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Nobody claims that they are "better off". Most researches have found that children to same-sex couples grow just as well, while a few other researches have found that they are likely to grow even better. Whether it's true or not, that's what researches have found. And whether you agree with the researches' findings or not, the article should still reflect them. Your claims, however, are completely unsourced. "They are far more likely to be bullied in school because of the sexual orientation of their parents" – where did you get this misleading data from? This is your own speculation. This is not based on any research or statistics, as far as I know. Guycn2 · ☎ 22:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"Fare better" and "better off" mean the same thing, since you said it is because of their same-sex parents. Now you are going to say that you never made edits saying that they "fare better"? And my "claims" are not in the article, they are just in the talk page, and they don't need to be sourced for anyone who knows LGBTQ parents. I have met multiple, and from my experience, their children are bullied more often than their peers. Your claims are the ones in the article, and they are the ones that need to be sourced. LGBTQ children, even if their parents are very well off, still are disadvantaged because of their parent's sexual orientation. "Some researchers" found that the Holocaust never happened. That doesn't make their "research" true, since the majority of researchers did not find that. BobRoberts14 (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d38aea66c7cb that is the only source cited saying that they "fare better off". The other ones say they are "just as well", which is what should be in the article. The one source cited is of a small sample study of a few hundred people in Australia. That is not statistically significant, or applicable to the entire rest of the world. BobRoberts14 (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

You use the false argument that children to LGBT parents are more likely to be bullied at school as a justification for your edit. Therefore, of course this argument must be sourced if you want it to be taken into account. The sentence that you have modified in the article was: These claims are refuted by science which shows that homosexuality is a natural and normal variation in human sexuality, that sexual orientation is not a choice, and that the children of same-sex couples fare just as well or even better than the children of opposite-sex couples. Unlike what you are trying to suggest, the paragraph does not try to make any research "true". It just reflects the science's stance on this topic. It is up for the reader to decide which research to rely on. But we must reflect the science's stance as is: some claim that children to same-sex couples fare just as well, some claim they fare even better. But instead, just because you do not agree with the science's stance, you decided to distort it to make it conform to your own view on same-sex parents. Guycn2 · ☎ 22:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

For starters, it is well known that children are more likely to be bullied if there is something that is disliked by many people about their parents. Second, what you are calling "science" is a single study that does not reflect what the majority have determined. BobRoberts14 (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Some findings are not controlled for income, social class, education, etc., so such findings are not representative for the whole LGBT population, compared to the rest of the population (apples and oranges). Otherwise, I did not claim that the finding would be false, I just claimed that it is apparently an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim and therefore needs rock-solid evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

As he said, making such an unlikely claim requires far more evidence than a few sources. It makes it seem like children should want to have LGBTQ parents because they are more likely to have a better future, which it contentious to say the least. You can cite all the sources you want, but you have to prove that the majority of research supports your claim. BobRoberts14 (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

There is the WP:RS/AC proviso. But that was his/her argument: LGBT parents were cherrypicked, the rest weren't. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

MrX This is currently being discussed, don't revert it back to Guycn2's edit yet until it is resolved. BobRoberts14 (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

I know children being raised by a same-sex married couple at my church. They were married in a church and they are raising the kids great and are growing up with values. I had the honor to be at the service where one of the sons *chose* to be baptized and told the church he wanted to be baptized because he loves Jesus. Children being raised by same-sex couples are being raised with values just like other children. Marriage only strengthens relationships and children of same-sex couples do better when their parents are able to get married. In terms of the text written under discussion, it is deeply and extremely well-sourced. It is from scholarly sources that are trustworthy. Beyond anecdote and study, furthermore, it is simply common sense. Some parents are amazing parents and some may need to be better parents. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation. It makes perfect sense to keep the "as well as or better" text. If someone told you that you were incapable of being a parent, wouldn't you want to know that you can raise a child as well as or better? I know when I learned this it helped me continue to aspire to my deep commitment to family values as an LGBTQ person. -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't make much sense. You are saying that same-sex couples' children are better off, but in the same paragraph said that "Children being raised by same-sex couples are being raised with values just like other children," the key words being just like other children. You also said that "This has nothing to do with sexual orientation." Have you been paying literally any attention to this at all? This is only about sexual orientation. Your statements aren't backed up by sources, you just say " it is deeply and extremely well-sourced. It is from scholarly sources that are trustworthy. Beyond anecdote and study, furthermore, it is simply common sense," but then provide no evidence to back up your claim. Again, the whole reason for this argument is that the claim "same-sex couples' children fare better than opposite-sex ones", which is not well enough sourced and does not make any logical sense. Your personal opinions on the matter are irrelevant, all that matters is actually sourced information. There are far more sources stating that same-sex couples have children who do not "fare better" than opposite-sex children than there are sources stating that they do "fare better". I can cite numerous ones, and they outnumber the ones that support your argument.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/23/children-raised-by-same-sex-parents-do-as-well-as-their-peers-study-shows, https://www.mother.ly/news/lesbian-parents-impact-kids-mental-health, https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/yet-another-study-finds-children-samesex-parents-fare-just-well-others/, and many others, all say that same-sex couples' children do "just as well", not "better". Most of the articles that show up prove you wrong. Only a select number, which are in the minority, say that same-sex couples' children "fare better". Bob Roberts 03:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'm confused. Is the issue that it was in the lead? The comments above and in the edit summaries seem to reference people's thoughts on what researchers say, but with no sources (e.g., it is well known that children are more likely to be bullied if there is something that is disliked by many people about their parents; pretty sure plenty of researcher will "conclude" same-sex parents are worse). Let's see what secondary reliable sources say, preferably meta analyses or literature reviews. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I just cited multiple sources stating that same-sex couples have children who fare "just as well", but the article said that "children of same-sex couples fair better", which is inaccurate and not the conclusion of the majority of sources. Bob Roberts 04:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The example you listed was just me saying one reason as to why it needs to have better sources, because it seems unlikely that they "fare better" than straight couples' children. In response to this, Guycn2 went on TenorTwelve's page and accused me of having an "anti LGBT agenda" and trying to force that onto other people. I am just asking them for more sources regarding their inaccurate claim, since most sources disagree with them. Bob Roberts 04:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Support original wording. The Washington Post is a reliable source. Some sources say "just as well", the Post's article says "better". It's fair to have both included in the article. It's possible that these are not even contradictory; children can fare "better" in some areas and "just as well" in others. Besides, contradictory information can still be included if both studies are from reliable sources. Sometimes science is messy like that. Constant nitpicking by one user who doesn't like the source is not a justification to remove a statement from a reliable newspaper.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, it does not matter if some sources state that they "fare better", most say "just as well". Do I need to cite even more sources than the ones I already listed? Just doing some quick research, you will find that there are some sources agreeing with you, but the majority say "just as well". Saying that they "fare better" mots certainly needs to have the majority of sources backing you up, and that isn't "nitpicking". Also, it's not just one user, most people have agreed with me. I understand that you are all a part of the LGBTQ+ community, but that does not mean you're always right. One of the people opposing me said that I was spreading my "anti LGBT agenda" and going against science for my own personal beliefs. I am a supporter of LGBT rights, so don't try to call me a bigot. I am far from it, and spend a lot of time defending people's beliefs. I just removed two words from a Wikipedia article. You know nothing about me in real life. Bob Roberts 06:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You are being antagonistic and are not citing any Wikipedia policies. Please do not take this personally. Please read WP:RS. I am saying that the Post is a reliable source and should not be removed. It is reporting on a scientific study. Even if those results contradict or offer additional, slightly different information from other studies, it should be included in the article per Wikipedia policy. When you are making arguments, please cite a specific Wikipedia policy. Do not use phrases like “common sense” or “most people agree with me”. That is not how Wikipedia consensus works. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

More sources to support original wording. In case your issue is the number of sources, here are more. [1]. From the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy- "Most research studies show that children with two moms or two dads fare just as well as children with heterosexual parents... Where research differences have been found, they have sometimes favored same-sex parents." Here's another article. [2]. "The scores psychological adjustment for the children were within the normal range for all three groups, with no major differences. The researchers note that the kids in same-sex homes actually reported fewer difficulties than those born to heterosexual couples." Another source [3]. "In fact, growing up with parents who are lesbian or gay may confer some advantages to children." I'm sure I can find more reliable sources. If you would like to remove the original information, you will need to provide sources that contradict this.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I already did provide sources. If you want more, I can get them. All you have to do is read every source when you google search "same-sex couple's children vs opposite-sex couples' children" and read all the articles, and you will quickly see that the majority say "just as well". Bob Roberts 20:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I just provided sources to you which disagree with your assertions, from sources Wikipedia considers reliable. As I have stated earlier, I prefer the original language because it is concise and accurate. As a compromise, I will suggest the following language, which I believe is also accurate. "These claims are refuted by science, which shows that homosexuality is a natural and normal variation in human sexuality and that sexual orientation is not a choice. Many studies show that children of same-sex couples fare just as well as the children of opposite-sex couples; some studies have even shown benefits to being raised by same-sex couples." Does that satisfy your concerns? Michelangelo1992 (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Michelangelo1992. Your latest edit is clear, neutral, and perfectly reflects the professional science's stance on same-sex parenthood. Guycn2 (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree @Guycn2: and @Michelangelo1992:, the newest edit makes sense, because it states that most say "just as well", but some do in fact say "better". Bob Roberts 21:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Glad we have reached an agreement;) Guycn2 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

10,000 BCE

I removed the following from the lead-

Recorded same-sex unions around the world date back at least to 10,000 BCE.

There are a few problems with it. (1) it does not summarize the body of the text, as the lead is supposed to. (2) it failed verification (though with no page numbers, it's hard to be sure). (3) at least one of the refs is not a RS. (4) it is inherently dubious -- how can SS "unions" (whatever that means) be "recorded" millennia before there were records? I subbed with the number of countries where SSM is available, which IMO should be stated up front, as it's the kind of factoid that people are likely to be looking for, and it ties in to the list of countries in the following para. I'm not opposed to a statement of the earliest attested SSM in the lead, as long as it follows the body of the text and is well sourced. (E.g., currently we note Biblical accounts of Egypt, meaning our dating in the lead was off by about 10,000 years.)

Also, the Bible does not mention SSM. According to our source, it's the Sifra that interprets the verse as referring to SSM. It may be that SSM was practiced in Egypt at the time, which was the 3nd century CE, rather than during the time Leviticus was written. I don't know how we'd know. — kwami (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I changed it to,

There are records of same-sex marriage dating back to the first century, and it was banned in the Roman Empire in the fourth. Today, same-sex marriage is available in 28 countries.

This matches the text: Nero is 1st century. I mentioned the ban because our sources debate whether Nero's SSM was really a "marriage". The fact that SSM was banned in the 4th century indicates that there was something to ban. The Sifra interprets Leviticus as intending SSM, but Leviticus is not a source for SSM, so that record only goes back to the 3rd century. — kwami (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Date

• diff it's used so editors don't have to update the date when the next country legalizes marriage equality

The IP involved in the mini edit war has a point: it's misleading to have {{date}} in an article (which is why the template includes This template should only be used internally in other templates). There may be no edits for a month, and the article (when purged) would display "As of 20 July 2019 ...". That will be misleading because there is no assurance that an editor has checked that no relevant legislative changes have occurred. I take the point about it being irritating to change the date after editing, and that is why the date should be omitted. Just assert the fact: "Same-sex marriage is legally performed and recognized...". Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It should be the date of the last legislative change. Otherwise the date is redundant and may as well say "currently..." or "today...". Consider examples below:

• As of 29 March 2014, same sex marriage is legal in England and Wales.
• As of 14 May 2024, same sex marriage is legal in England and Wales. (uses {{date}} template)

Both are correct, but the first is much more informative as it tells you when the current set of circumstances started. The last legislative change at the county level globally was Ecuador, so it should say 12 June 2019 and be updated as and when. It's a popular page, so it will be done by someone pretty quickly. Del_Usion23 (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Was about to come here on the same issue. Of the two examples you list, the first is poorly worded; "Since 29 March 2014, same-sex marriage has been" would be preferable, as it establishes that as a start date and not just a checking date, and suggests the likelihood that it has changed since then. But "as of" with today's date makes a definitive statement that the list has been kept up-to-date, and while that will tend to be true (this is a very well-tended article), it is not definitively true. For places with a long list of jurisdictions without a unified start date, we are better off just leaving all dates off. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Users will have to update the list itself anyway by adding the new country or jurisdiction that legalized same-sex marriage, so updating the date isn’t that much of an issue in this case. There’s absolutely no point in having today’s date be there as it serves no informative purpose. --184.151.179.207 (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The date should be manually updated to reflect verifiable sources. Using the date template is effectively the same as writing "as of now", and is wrong. William Avery (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I like the suggestion of omitting the date entirely. It is clear and avoids confusion about dates. For example, someone might read the phrase "As of 2018, SSM is legal in X". This could mean that the legal status changed in 2018, that it was most recently verified in 2018, or that the article has not been updated since 2018. For that reason, I think omitting a date might make the meaning more clear.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, omitting the date would be a good solution. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Another problem I've thought of with the {{date}} template is that it even shows today's date in article history. Del_Usion23 (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Estonian court confirms lack of marriage rights

Story here. — kwami (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Should we remove Japan, Cambodia and Armenia from the map?

In Japan and Cambodia, the certificates are voluntary and have no legal force. In Armenia there is no demonstrated right to marriage -- we've had other cases where a court has ruled and been sidestepped in practice. Currently all three are striped, so as to not claim they're equivalent to the solidly colored states. But we've had objections to including Japan at all (by user:Paullb), under the argument that the certificates there confer no mandatory rights and can be ignored at will. — kwami (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ron 1987:, @Jedi Friend:, @AdamPrideTN:, trying to get a discussion going on Commons. Is it worth including these three countries? Are they similar enough to be treated the same way, whichever we decide is best? Personally, I like including them because it shows some progress, however slight, in parts of the world with relatively little. However, Paul's correct that we don't want to mislead readers as to the extent of that progress. Organizations and local govts are free to ignore the certificates in Japan and (I believe) in Cambodia, and it's yet to be demonstrated that the court order in Armenia actually means something on the ground. Yet all three give hope to the people involved and establish some precedent. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you concerning the idea of keeping them included to show the on-going progress. Furthermore, there's an article taken from bloomberg.com (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-03/japan-opposition-parties-submit-bill-to-allow-same-sex-marriage) saying there is a possible law concerning a same-sex marriage bill in Japan. It also refers to Article 24 of the Japanese Constitution, already mentioned in the article. Should this information be added?--HRwatcher (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we have it in the Japan article. BTW, Paullb seems content with the current solution of striping Japan and clearly stating in the legend that there are no actual legal rights there. — kwami (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Oglala Sioux Tribe

See here. TheUnknown285 (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Don't want to get sucked into an edit war, so starting a discussion to make sure I'm not mistaken. The amendment passed in Westminster today says that the UK gov should legislate for SSM if the Northern Ireland Assembly isn't restored from deadlock before 21 October 2019. I don't believe this makes it legal on 21 Oct, only that the gov needs to start the process. Any thoughts? BBC article. Del_Usion23 (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It passed the House of Commons. It is not law yet, as the House of Lords also needs to pass it and then the Queen (or her representative) needs to sign it into law. We are jumping the gun here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC):

Today, the bill had Committee of the Whole House stage, still awaits for final, third reading in the chamber. The amendment obligates the government to issue regulations, which must be in force no later than 21 October, if the Northern Ireland Executive is not formed by that date. See [4]. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

If this means it has only reached second reading, then it is even earlier in the legislative process than we thought, and certainly not a law yet (ie not binding on anyone).[5][6] We seem to have jumped the gun.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Third reading in the House of Lords is set for 17 July, assuming it passes second reading this afternoon.[7] Del_Usion23 (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't tell from that link whether it is the same version of the bill though (ie. whether the same sex marriage and abortion amendments are incorporated in to that version of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill). If not, then it is back to the drawing board until one of the houses passes the other's bill in the exact same form.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It is the same bill. It goes through Commons, then Lords, then back to Commons for approval, then to royal assent. Looks like it will likely be passed in the Commons tomorrow and royal assent is a formality. Government would then be made to pass a law on 21 Oct if devolution isn't restored, though (depending on whether the Lords' amendment passes) SSM would only become legal in NI on 1 Jan 2020. See article here. Del_Usion23 (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Oglala Sioux Tribe on timeline

Which is the appropriate date for the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the timeline? January 25, 2016 when the tribal attorney announced in a memorandum that SSM is not prohibited under the tribal code (followed by a SSM a few days later) or July 8, 2019 when the changed marriage code explicitly aknowledged SSM? 155.245.69.178 (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Once Northern Ireland has legal same-sex marriage then it will be legal in the whole of the UK. Should this be included in the timeline? I think it should be, in the same way that United States [nationwide] and Canada [nationwide] are included. Though there is the question of what we do regarding the Netherlands and Denmark. Del_Usion23 (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It shouldn’t be because the central government of the UK did not legalize same-sex marriage with a law nationwide. It’s only the separate countries of it and its territories that have done it. Denmark, Netherlands and New Zealand are also similar examples with the notable exception that, for example, the Kingdom of Denmark did not legalize it nationwide with a law. The 3 parts of the Kingdom of Denmark did it separately: Denmark, Greenland and Faroe Islands. That’s why the flags of Greenland and Faroe Islands are also included even though they are not UN members/ separate countries. They are constituent countries. Taxydromeio (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. We may also need to reconsider claims that same-sex marriage is legal "nationwide" in the US, as it appears to still be illegal in the territory of American Samoa.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

But the UK government did legalise it nationwide. The UK parliament passed the law for all the countries except Scotland. Thus the UK parliament voted to extend same-sex marriage nationwide. If anything, we should remove the "Northern Ireland" instead, as NI hasn't legalise SSM itself, it was a Westminster decision. I don't see how that's too different from the US Supreme Court or Canadian parliament extending SSM to all the states that had not yet legalised it. Del_Usion23 (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The UK government passed legislation which applied to Wales and England. Then more recently they passed legislation which applies to Northern Ireland (in certain circumstances). No Westminster legislation on the issue applied to the Isle of Mann, Channel Islands, or British Overseas Territories. So it is not nationwide. Since, it has become legal in Mann, the Channel Islands, and some but not all Overseas Territories. If you have a WP:RS that says that the legislation passed in Westminster applies to Crown Possessions and Overseas Territories feel free to share.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Those are Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories, they are not part of the nation of the UK. For example: ""The Isle of Man is not, and never has been, part of the United Kingdom, nor is it part of the European Union. It is not represented at Westminster or in Brussels." Del_Usion23 (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The UK likes to pretend that Crown Dependencies are not part of the UK, but every other country in the world considers them part of the UK, and the UK claims to be able to pass legislation affecting them, so it is a bit of a legal fiction. They are often said to be "territories for which the UK is responsible", but that doesn't really matter here, because the Crown Dependencies have now all separately legalized same sex marriage. Some of the British Overseas Territories have not, and they are part of the UK (ie under the "jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom"). While the British like to say they are "not part of the UK" that statement is semantics because they are the United Kingdom in all the ways that matter, the rest of the world (with limited exceptions) considers them territory of the UK, the UK retains jurisdiction to legislate with respect to them and sovereignty over them. As such, it is misleading for us to say that same-sex marriage is legal "nationwide" when it is not legal in jurisdictions under the control of the UK. The same is true of the US and American Samoa (though officially, no one says American Samoa is not part of the United States). When we say same-sex marriage is legal "nationwide" in Canada, we mean nationwide (ie all provinces and territories).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I don't have any desire to edit war about this, but you are going to have to show some proof that somehow American Samoa is under the jurisdiction of the US, but not part of the US. It is rather insulting to readers that some are willing to gloss over the truth, favouring instead to pat their home country on the back. We are supposed to write for a global audience not what the uninformed in the US or UK think. Leaving out the "nationwide" claim and adding a footnote that it remains illegal in jurisdictions under the control of a country (and listing them) seems like a pretty fair compromise. It also has the benefit of being true.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's uninformed, it's simply the nomenclature that is used in these circumstances, even by the British government, who aren't uninformed about their own country: "Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK but are self-governing dependencies of the Crown." And for the territories: "These territories are not part of the UK and each has its own constitution". However, I also don't want to get into an edit war about technicalities so am willing to accept the compromise of removing [nationwide] from the US and UK entries. Del_Usion23 (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Ohh... I know the British spin this nonsense about the dependencies and territories being under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the UK, and subject to UK legislation (if Westminster chooses to legislate concerning them, which it tries not to do), but at the same time not part of the UK. They are not part of any other country, and they are not independent so from an international standpoint they are the UK. The American government does not get so cute about their territories not being part of their country, but most Americans are painfully unaware that Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands (US) or American Samoa are part of the US or that their populations are predominantly US Citizens. This is certainly an opportunity to educate those masses that their country has territories under its control.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

If we have a reference for United Kingdom [nationwide] then we must put also reference about Kingdom of Denmark [nationwide] when the Faroe Islands legalized it. In all cases, this is a false information as the United Kingdom, the Kingdom of Denmark, ( the Kingdom of the Netherlands) have not legalized same-sex marriage with one law in their entire territory. It’s just that their constituent countries of those kingdoms that have done it. (England, Scotland, Wales, metropolitan Denmark, Greenland, Faroe Islands etc). An easy comparison is France, which when legalized same-sec marriage, that law covered its overseas territories including French Guiana, French Polynesia etc. Taxydromeio (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

By the same argument we should remove the [nationwide] for USA too. American Samoa doesn't have SSM yet. Del_Usion23 (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

This has now been noted on the US entry. It no longer suggests it is "nationwide" and has a note explaining that American Samoa remains an outlier. Taxydromeio is correct that we need to make a distinction between countries that legalize things nationally vs. by its constituent parts. In addition to France, Canada is another country which actually legalized it nationally (as marriage and divorce are federal jurisdiction issues in Canada). The US is a tricky case because one would think that Obergefell v. Hodges would apply to the whole country including American Samoa. In reality, it seems that question remains not yet fully answered because the American Samoa government seems to be saying Obergefell applies to the rest of the country but not their territory, and that position does not seem to have been challenged in the courts yet. That will be a legal question for another day, but for the time being one cannot get married in American Samoa today.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

American Samoa is a possession of the US, but is not in the US, so the argument that SSM is not legal nationwide in the US is spurious. The crown dependencies are weird, but e.g. Bermuda is similar re. the UK. The reason for not having a 'nationwide' designation for the UK is twofold -- we've already provided flags for the constituent countries, just as we have for NZ, Netherlands and Denmark, and there will be no nationwide decision, as there was for Canada, Brazil and the US. We'll see which way Mexico goes when it happens. Also, if we remove 'nationwide', then IMO we'd need to move the flag to when SSM started in the US, which was in 2004. — kwami (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? American Samoa is a US territory. It is part of the United States. It is spurious to suggest SSM is legal nationwide while it remains illegal in American Samoa.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, I am not going to edit war about this but you are wrong and perpetuating your wrong WP:POV. American Samoa is a US territory, it is part of the US. Do you really disagree? It sends a non-voting representative to the US Congress like other territories (ie Guam, Peuto Rico, the US Virgin Islands). "America" is in the damb name. Our articles on the US, US territories and American Samoa all make clear it is a US territory, and part of the US. Based on what nonsense are you arguing otherwise?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course it's a US territory, but why don't you read the article, so you can answer your own question? It's a territory. The people are specifically prevented by international treaty from being granted US citizenship -- that is, from being Americans. That is what the SCOFUS decision didn't apply to them. And I don't see you objecting to us excluding the Navajo Nation. Regardless, a nationwide ruling with a few exemptions would still be a nationwide ruling. — kwami (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware that not all American Samoa residents are US Citizens. That is a stain on the US, like the fact that all territories do not have voting representation in Congress. None of that however, changes the fact that SSM is not legal in all US states and territories. American Samoa is a US territory and SSM is illegal there. It is misleading to say it is legal "nationwide". Native American "jurisdictions" are a different kettle of fish. Any Navajo person can get married in Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, or Arizona. They just can't be recognized by their indigenous community. They can also be married in any other US State or territory (except American Samoa).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Kwamikagami You state that for the UK "there will be no nationwide decision", but in fact the legalisation of SSM in Northern Ireland was a Westminster decision extending SSM to that part of the UK, the only "official" part of the UK that had not yet legalised. This is the same as when the Canadian parliament extended SSM to all provinces/territories that hadn't yet legalised, or when the US Supreme court did the same for US states and most territories. The UK should be [nationwide] in the same way that the US currently is in the article, or neither should be as it is not legal in all places under their respective jurisdictions. Del_Usion23 (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that extending a law to the single remaning holdout is the same as extending a partially recognized right to the nation as a whole. The Canadian and SCOTUS decisions weren't for the holdouts, but established a nationwide right. But if you're going to argue that they're equivalent, that the UK in not analogous to Netherland, NZ or Denmark, then we need to remove the flags for England, Wales and Scotland, and never add the one of N.Ireland. — kwami (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happy for the constituent country flags to be removed and replaced by a UK one with [nationwide]. I feel this would be consistent with US and Canada, as what is the definition of "hold-out" if not provinces/states that haven't yet implemented the law. I don't think that distinction can be made easily. Besides, flags and Northern Ireland can be a difficult subject and the one on the page isn't NI's official flag (not that I think their "official" one would be any less controversial!). Del_Usion23 (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The distinction is easy: the territories of the UK and US aren't in the UK or US, they're possessions. — kwami (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

They are territories. Calling something a "possession" is just a colonial way of pretending that something is part of your country in ways you want it to be, and not in the ways you don't. Try going there hosting the flag of country ______ and claiming that the territory is now part of country ______. The American/UK response will be "it sure isn't... it is ours". That is the test for whether a territory is part of a country. I recall something like this happening with a British Overseas Territory or two before. I think it happened with some American ones too.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

That would not be consistent with Canada which actually legalized SSM nationwide. There were earlier provincial/territorial court decisions that in effect legalized SSM in their respective provinces and territories (at least temporarily). Before the matter could be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), the Parliament of Canada passed the Civil Marriage Act which did not only legalize SSM in the remaining holdouts (Alberta, PEI, Northwest Territory and Nunavut), it also made the situation permanent in the provinces and territories that already had. Once the Civil Marriage Act was passed, a contrary decision from the SCC would not cause a reversal of legalization. It didn't matter whether SSM was a right guaranteed by the Charter or not because the Civil Marriage Act guaranteed it in all provinces and territories anyway. That is what "nationwide" means. Federal legislation that applies to ALL state/provincial/territorial jurisdictions OR a high court decision that applies to ALL state/provincial/territorial jurisdictions. The situation in the UK and in the US does not fit that definition and as such we should not include the term "nationwide" on them and simply include a footnote that indicates the territories in which SSM remains illegal.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed re. the UK, but your definition of 'nationwide' fits the US just fine. — kwami (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, based on what are you saying that American Samoa is not part of the US? It clearly is part of the US. Yet, it seems that the Obergefell v. Hodges does not apply in American Samoa (part of the US), or at least the government there is refusing to apply it (so it is de facto illegal). This is really simple. Remove the "nationwide" untruth and add a footnote noting that it remains illegal in American Samoa (or something like "The legality of SSM remains disputed in American Samoa. The territorial government advised following the Obergefell v. Hodges that the decision does not apply to American Samoa and have declined to issue SSM licences."). These options gives the reader all the information they need, and have the benefit of being true. Any reader reviewing that will understand that SSM is legal across the US, except for American Samoa.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is really simple. It's like the Peloponessian warrior on my talk page. You might want to read the relevant articles so you know what you're talking about. That you morally disapprove of colonialism is utterly irrelevant. — kwami (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

What makes you think I haven't read them? Nothing you have said suggests American Samoa is not part of the US. Nothing. You are going around and around without saying anything.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Read the list at the UN Special Committee on Decolonization. Note that the N.Marianas and Puerto Rico aren't on that list, because they've been accepted as commonwealths (which Guam should've as well a long time ago). For France, none of the integrated outlying regions are there, just the territories. For the UK, all outlying regions all territories, and they only have citizenship in the couple cases where another countries claims them. — kwami (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, this comment and your earlier one (which you subsequently deleted) are non sequiturs. The fact that residents of American Samoa are denied the vote (which is also the case for all territories except DC), or that they generally do not obtain citizenship upon birth, do not mean that the territory is not part of the United States. The fact that it is included on a UN list also does not mean it is not part of the United States. What is clear is that the Unites States claims the land and waters that make up the territory as its own, and perhaps more importantly, it claims jurisdiction to make laws concerning the territory. SCOTUS also claims jurisdiction to determine which rulings and which laws apply to the territory. These things, along with other countries acceptance of them makes American Samoa American.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

How should we treat China on the world LGBT-laws map?

There is a discussion on Commons, on the talk page of File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg, as to whether China should be colored tan like Russia etc. This is primarily re. the latest TV/cinema censorship rules, which (if upheld) single out homosexuality for the first time, mentioned alongside sexual perversion. On the other hand, the govt states that LGBT people need to be respected. There's also periodic purging of LGBT material online, which if quickly reverted in the face of protest is also a recurring problem. Is this egregious enough for us to put China in the same category / color them on the map the same as those other countries? If so, are there additional countries that should be treated this way? — kwami (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not edit the introduction without achieving consensus on the talk (discussion) page first.

The warning on the lead has no basis, to my knowledge, in Wikipedia rules. Anyone can edit any section of any article (any unlocked article in the Mainspace). There is no need to seek consensus first. WP:Be bold is a guideline.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 12:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I changed wording to: "Please consider achieving consensus on the talk (discussion) page first before editing the introduction." OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 12:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Performed but not recognized anywhere, except Mexico?

Puzzled as to why Mexico is listed in "Recognized" (in the box on "Legal status of same-sex unions") when it also performs and when the list of other countries also appears in "Performed" yet none of those apparently also recognize. Presumably all of the countries that perform this type of union also recognize it? Not amended in case there is some peculiarity of the law in every performing state except Mexico which means that these marriages are performed yet not recognized in any place except Israel and Mexico including the place in which they are performed. Aspaa (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

no 2019 AmericasBarometer report

The 2018/2019 report] doesn't appear to cover SSM. But there was a 2019 report for Ecuador, which I'll add. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The choice of colors on maps on this page and political implications

I think it's very interesting how a deep NATO-ish colored blue is chosen for states with gay marriage (as if it is the flagship policy of some sort of western coalition) while various shades of "scary" red are reserved for countries that don't allow it. I think there are more politically-neutral colors to use. Perhaps some beiges, greys, and tans. I know the pride flag is the whole rainbow; please don't think this is a joke. Colors can be political and I think the maps on here should be more-boring colors. 76.79.113.210 (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Although I agree colours can be political, neutral colours such as beige, grey and so on won't be readable... Maybe shoud we change blue into green. Like when we're on the road, green says go on and red says hold on. What do you think ? Martin m159 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Red and green together would be a bad combination due to people with red-green colorblindness. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

How does purple and orange sound?2600:387:8:11:0:0:0:55 (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I find the map's colors fine as they are. They present the existence of rights to do something and the existence of bans to do it. Using blue and red fit those. --Aréat (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not biased to use red to indicate a ban. TheSavageNorwegian 07:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Monaco

We currently classify them as having CUs, but do they, or are they closer to e.g. Poland? — kwami (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

More on "Nationwide" status of SSM in the USA

Further discussion above, it is also worth noting that the current Legal Recognition Section the article makes claims about SSM being legal nationwide again without any mention of the situation in the territory of American Samoa. I continue to believe this is not WP:NPOV and seems misleading to readers. I can see the argument (though I disagree) that there is just not room in the table. That reasoning doesn't apply to the prose though. The map is also confusing in that section as grey suggests it is "Only recognized by the state and federal governments" whatever that means. We seem to be using the same language for the territory that we do for indigenous governments. I do not wish to have an endless debate with one editor about whether a US Territory counts as part of the US, there has been endless discussion of that which has not gone anywhere but in circles. I do however further note my concerns here for the record.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sex/gender

Same sex marriage is, as per the title, marriage of people of the same sex. Marriage is a legal phenomenon. Countries which currently ban same sex marriage do not ban marriage between those of opposite sexes one or both of whom identity as a different gender. Indeed, none so far as I know recognise this identification at all. This position is the same for countries that once banned same sex marriage and now do not. Gender should not appear in the definition of same sex marriage. FerranValls (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Once again, this issue has cropped up. I thought my note was a sufficient compromise, but evidently not. FDW777, if you read the style guide you mentioned, we see that *no flag* at all should be used in this situation. That's reinforced in Template:Country_data_Northern_Ireland#Other_information. In non-sporting contexts it's recommended not to use a flag. I'm not entirely sure if that's right for us, since we have here a list featuring country flags, and then Northern Ireland will be notably absent. Using the Union Jack is not the correct solution, and I'd move for us to have no flag at all if consensus determines the Ulster Banner is inappropriate. I thank you for finding and citing WP:IRISH FLAGS. This whole situation is frustrating for me (and I'm sure a few others), since it seems like all three solutions, Ulster Banner, Union Jack, and no flag, are bad in their own way. TheSavageNorwegian 17:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I did look on here first to see if there was any discussion, it was only after my edit was made that I looked in the history and saw the brief back and forth. To be honest I don't see " Northern Ireland " being confusing compared to " Northern Ireland". The text is the same, and hovering over either flag brings up a thumbnail for the Northern Ireland article, and clicking obviously takes the reader to the right article. Template:Country data Northern Ireland#Other information contains a little more information about the use of the Ulster Banner, as this isn't a sporting article it really can't be justified in this article. I have no preference whether the Union Jack is used or no flag at all. FDW777 (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Well perhaps confusion isn't the prime concern, but the sensitivity of the subject. The style guide mentions "At this time, neither the island of Ireland nor Northern Ireland has a universally recognised flag." Just because the Union Jack is the only official flag doesn't make folks stop using the Ulster Banner. That's what I meant by my note. It is de-facto used by people in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, it's used more by Unionists, so you can see why we shouldn't be effectively taking a side. No flag is the solution. It's growing on me. TheSavageNorwegian 17:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem with no flag. Initially changing to the Union Jack rather than removing the flag entirely is the path of least resistance, as it's less likely to result in a prolonged dispute potentially across a wide range of articles with many different editors. FDW777 (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I tend to come in on the side of the Ulster Banner for the reasons Thesavagenorwegian states above. That said, "no flag" is also a reasonable compromise. If we are going to go with that compromise, we should use it throughout the article, and the Union Jack should be removed from the Opinion polls for same-sex marriage by dependent territory and sub-national entities in the Public Opinion section, so that Northern Ireland appears without a flag.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

If we use the Ulster banner is sport context to refer to NI, I don't see why we couldn't use it in other contexts ? Otherwise, I thing the no flag is less confusing than the UK flag. Maybe we could aslo copy the French article on SSM and accolate the national flag next to the State/Nation/regional/local flag when it's not an entire contry legislating. So it could become for NI : Northern Ireland

WP:IRISH FLAGS - At this time, neither the island of Ireland nor Northern Ireland has a universally recognised flag. Template:Country data Northern Ireland#Other information - At present, Northern Ireland does not have any official flag. This template should only be used for instances where the Ulster Banner is used in reliable sources as the flag for Northern Ireland. Typically, these are sport-related articles, such as those involving the Northern Ireland national football team or its players, athletes competing for Northern Ireland at the Commonwealth Games, golfers from Northern Ireland, etc. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations - Some flags are politically contentious – take care to avoid using them in inappropriate contexts. Some examples are . . . Use of the Ulster Banner to represent Northern Ireland in inappropriate contexts; see Northern Ireland flags issue and Wikipedia:Irish flags for details.

Guidelines and instructions allow it for use in appropriate (it's not used on sports that are organised on an all-Ireland basis for example) sporting contexts, its use in other circumstances is deprecated. FDW777 (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I changed this template to "no flag" so the article is consistent throughout. I tend to think the Ulster Banner is appropriate in these circumstances, but it isn't up to me.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Why would the Ulster Banner be appropriate though? There are many, but not all, sporting articles where the flag is appropriate due to the teams/athletes/sports actually using that flag to represent Northern Ireland. But Northern Ireland itself doesn't have a flag any more, see Flag of Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland flags issue for more background. So what would make *this* article (and related ones too) an appropriate one? If the only argument is along the lines of "because we need a flag to represent Northern Ireland", then the existing guidance regarding the use of the Ulster Banner may as well be deleted completely since that argument would apply to every article. FDW777 (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to live with no flag. In these circumstances, where we are trying to be clear about the differences between adoption "nationally" (ie political state wide, ie UK) vs sub-nationally (ie devolved jurisdiction, ie NI) use of the Union Jack is a poor choice. Use of a sub-national flag makes the jurisdiction clear. Sure, I also have a preference in favour of using a flag. I think visual cues make it easier/faster to understand. I don't think there is anything inappropriate about using the Ulster Banner, particularly with the note that was next to it. I can also live with "no flag". I think that is a compromise in terms of the ease in reading the article, in favour those who dislike the defacto flag for political reasons. That may very well be an appropriate compromise, and I can certainly live with it. That is why I edited the table to make the article consistently "no flag" throughout. That seems to be the present consensus, unless someone else wants to take up the cause of the Union Jack or Ulster Banner. Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I was going to mention UK versus devolved before, but thought it largely irrelevant to my point, but since you've brought it up I will. The devolved government in Northern Ireland didn't have anything to do with it becoming legally recognised, it was suspended at the time. A last-minute attempt to restore the Northern Ireland Assembly and prevent same-sex marriage and abortion becoming legal failed, and the UK's central government legalised both. See The Guardian, for just one reference covering this. FDW777 (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am quite aware that the legislation was passed in Westminster. It applies to the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland, which is my point. The UK did not legalize SSM nationally. England, Scotland, and Wales all exercised their own jurisdiction through a mixture of legislation and court decisions. Westminster imposed it on NI (but not the others) while the NI Assembly was dissolved. In theory, England, Scotland, and Wales could change the law back (because the legislation that passed to make SSM legal in NI does not apply to them). That is my point, the jurisdiction the law is applied at, and whether it is legislated "nationally". There has been significant discussion of that distinction with respect to other countries here already.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

More on Flags

I just added the Gibraltar flag icon to the timeline table. I was surprised it wasn't there. Then I noticed we also do not have flags for the US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, or any US states/Canadian provinces etc. Is there some consensus on this? If so, it perhaps makes the "no flag" debate above a bit redundant. If we are only using flags for national "political states" (ie. USA, Canada, UK) and not sub-national ones, then this discussion may be a bit redundant. Then perhaps there should not even be the English, Scottish or Welsh flags. We seem to have been quite inconsistent here. I note we have included the flags for Greenland and the Faroe Islands (both part of Denmark). I am not sure what distinction if any we are making here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure a consensus was achieved on the last archived talk page, that we include flags for all sovereign nations and dependent nations. That way we include all the sovereign states like say Australia/Germany, the countries within a sovereign state like England/Scotland, and other “countries” that are independent for most practical purposes but constitutionally are a dependent of a sovereign state like Greenland. There are plenty of jurisdictions that fit those criteria but the overwhelming majority listed which are states and provinces of sovereign states don’t fit, so that avoids us having to put a flag next to every jurisdiction listed, which I think would be overkill. Global-Cityzen (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it appears to have been discussed here, and the discussion seems to have "petered out" according to one editor there. The constituent "countries" distinction seems to be a weak one and not particularly well defined. We seem to be holding Greenland and the Faroe Islands as "countries" when their articles define them as "autonomous territories" not countries. Northern Ireland isn't necessarily a country either. It's often described as a province depending on one's political leanings. This seems like the sort of thing that must have come up before but I am not aware of a policy on it. It seems that "sovereign states" should be the distinction we use, but certain folks argue for their own "sub-national" identity and we end up with this sort of hodge podge.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Flag Northern Ireland

For consistency, we should have a flag. The way I see it, we have two choices. If we use {{flagicon|Northern Ireland}}, we get the unofficial flag . That may be inappropriate. The official flag is the Union Jack, so that would be our second choice. The other benefit to it is that, with the passage of SSM in NI, it's now legal across the UK. Thus the UK flag isn't inappropriate for suggesting the state of the UK as a whole. Anyway, I chose the UK flag, but I don't really care if we use the unofficial NI flag instead. If people insist on being anal about it, we could argue that the Taiwanese flag is equally inappropriate, because SSM isn't legal across the entire country, which Taipei insists is China, not Taiwan. But at some point we need to let idiots be idiots and move on. — kwami (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

We do not need a flag for consistency. You would like a flag. But WP:IRISH FLAGS suggests "no flag", omitting a flag altogether, is the correct approach here. I tend to think NI needs to figure things out and pick one (I also like flags). Until they do I choose to think of the Ulster Banner as their flag, but that is me. We have discussed this before and the consensus was "no flag", consistency be damned.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Kwami, there should be a flag used for NI. Martin m159 (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Also see Template:Country data Northern Ireland#Other information and Northern Ireland flags issue. Northern. Ireland. Does. Not. Have. A. Flag. I would not object to the Union Flag being used if really thought necessary, but it didn't seem to be the case when it was discussed before. FDW777 (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hardly a consensus there. We use flags for countries in the table. Therefore we use a flag for NI. Otherwise we're saying NI is not a country. The problem is *which* flag. I don't care. We can use the Ulster banner. We can use a blank or filler flag. Doesn't matter. The point is that flags are used to signal countries, and NI is a country. — kwami (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the "NI is a country" claim is a whole other debate I don't think we want to get into. Our NI article says There is no generally accepted term to describe what Northern Ireland is: province, region, country or something else. These are the problems we get into when we try to put "countries" (or what some people like to call a country) on the same status as that of a politically/internationally recognized state (usually UN recognized). We have had similar issues when editors try to argue Greenland is a country (or even independent country, despite it falling under the jurisdiction of of Denmark), or editors arguing that American Samoa is not part of the United States despite it being under the jurisdiction of the United States, except in the specific circumstances it is part of the United States (based on shifting and inconsistent interpretations of American law, as opposed to what other political states and international organizations like the UN recognize it as). The wish of the English, Scots and Welsh and some Northern Irish to call their devolved jurisdiction a country despite its existence within another political state (the UK) should not be recognized by us in my view. Quebec is a nation within a united Canada. Should we add a Quebec flag too?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't be purposefully obtuse. If England, Wales and Scotland get flags, then so does Ireland. Those are the four components of the UK. Who cares what we call them. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not being obtuse at all. Why should England, Wales, Scotland, Greenland or the Faroe Islands get a flag as a "country" and not Quebec or Catalonia or the Isle of Man, any of the Channel Islands or Native American/Canadian jurisdictions (that claim to be nations)? Heck, England and Wales and Scotland are just "constituent countries" of the UK because they say they are. The Americans and Australians have full constituent States. Should we included them? Give them flags? Why not Canadian provinces? I am not being obtuse. I am pointing out the tangled mess we create when we start calling things "countries" and blurring that distinction between that and a politically/international recognized STATE. The easiest solution here might be to just remove flags from anything that is not a true STATE... ie no flag for England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, but one for the United Kingdom... no flag for Greenland but one for Denmark etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

That's an entirely different question than which flag to use for NI. If you want to change the decade-long consensus and remove the flags from the UK and Denmark, fine -- but start a new discussion.

(BTW, I suspect that the main reason is that there is no overarching decision for the UK, Denmark or New Zealand, the way there is for Canada, the US, Australia and Brazil, and presumably would be for India.) — kwami (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a bit like saying we can't have a blue link to NI because that's too close to green, and we can't have a red link because that's too close to orange. If the Ulster flag's good enough for soccer, it's good enough for here, though according to our article, the Union Jack is the legal flag of NI. But because ppl are all uptight about this, I put in a blank flag that doesn't signify anything, only marks "here is a country". Really, it hardly matters which flag we use. — kwami (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to use the Union Jack for England, Scotland and Wales as well. Then the NI flag issue would be irrelevant. We'd need to do the same thing for Denmark. — kwami (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations covers the use of the Ulster Banner, as does Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles, as does the template information I linked you which is specifically for the use of flag and flagicon templates. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS means it's highly unlikely there can be an agreement here to disregard Wikipedia-wide consensus on this. We use flags for countries in the table. Therefore we use a flag for NI. Since Northern Ireland doesn't have a flag, we don't need to use one at all. FDW777 (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know which flag to use, and will leave this debate to those more knowledgeable on the matter, but I really don't think using a black rectangle is a good idea. If the idea is to show a "blank state", it would be better to simply show nothing. Having what appear to be a black flag bring over attention to it, will make people wonder why it's there, and we're going to have constant changes from random visitor thinking they're correcting a bug or error by changing it.--Aréat (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a good solution. Union Jacks for all? That also solves the oddity of having two separate flags for England and Wales when there was a single law passed for England and Wales together. Two flags suggests two governments legalized SSM, which wasn't the case.

Not sure we want to do the same thing for Denmark. Although England, Wales, Scotland and NI are unambiguously members of the UK, and the Union Jack is specifically the flag of the UK, the Danish flag is ambiguous between the country of Denmark and the Kingdom of Denmark that includes Greenland and the Faroes. Maybe best to leave those as they are? Same for New Zealand if/when the other member states appear in this table. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

We might also want to start thinking of how we'll handle Mexico. Other countries that legalized SSM piecemeal -- Canada, USA, Brazil -- all eventually had national rulings legalizing it across the country and forcing it on recalcitrant states, so there's a clear date of legalization. That won't necessarily happen with Mexico. What do we do if the final Mexican state gets SSM because a new governor tells the clerks to start issuing licenses? Does Mexico not get a flag? We've probably got a few years to think about it. — kwami (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The simple solution to the flag issue is to remove the flags/bolding from all administrative divisions. Currently that applies to England and Wales, Scotland, Greenland, Faroe Islands, and Northern Ireland. The current set-up is clearly problematic, and is at any rate inconsistent.

As for Mexico, I don't think it needs a new entry (or have a Mexican flag against each bolded state), but perhaps it could be included in a square bracket clarification after the final entry. Whatever the case, we should simply follow whatever the agreement for Northern Ireland ends up being, given it was the final piece of the UK meal. CMD (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

So, what England, Wales, Scotland, Greenland, and Faroe Islands all have in common is a constituent country status. Are they sub-national entities? Sorta. But implying that they aren't countries isn't a good look for WP. That's my understanding of the issue anyway, and why status-quo is where it's at right now. TheSavageNorwegian 19:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it opens a huge can of worms. There are lots of independence movements, or semi-autonomous jurisdictions who claim to be special, independent or countries within a sovereign state. It is peculiar to me that we would allow this with England, Wales and Scotland, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands, but not for Quebec, Catalonia, indigenous first nations, Tibet, Crimea, Northern Cyprus, Transnistria, Hong Kong, Macau etc. The easiest thing to do is to stick to sovereign states. Doing so, is also most consistent with our policy of writing for a world audience, and for this article itself. We should base these things on international recognition not domestic labels. It is odd that we have Faroe Islands with a flag (because they are a "country", in the timeline table) and as a dependent territory and sub-national entity in this one. Nevermind the project as a whole, we are not even being consistent in this article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that it's a can of worms. It's also incorrect that England has any sort of status, and neither England nor Wales is on this list: the entity in question is England and Wales. It's not a good look for Wikipedia to be arbitrarily doling out supposed "status", and as proven by the many discussions here it's clearly the cause of a lot of strife. CMD (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, removed the flags from the UK. Left those for Denmark, the Netherlands and New Zealand. Those situations are different, and no-one's having a stroke about them taking flags. — kwami (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Increase article stability

A lot of edits are made to this page, including those removing content that was recently added. One area in particular frequently edited even though the facts may have not changed in a way that would normally warrant an edit is the legal aspects of gay marriage. I don't necessarily have a solution to this problem but I think it could be beneficial to discuss potential ways we could increase stability of this page especially in this area of legality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al1966zh (talk • contribs) 00:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should keep it with no flag, if we decide to keep the current format as with other countries like Denmark and the Netherlands. Taxydromeio (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest using the flags for England, Wales and Scotland, but using the Union Flag for Northern Ireland. The reasons are threefold: 1) the UK flag is the only legal flag for Northern Ireland as the Ulster Banner is linked to pro-UK sentiment. 2) the Parliament of the United Kingdom legislated on behalf of Northern Ireland in this matter. 3) Northern Ireland is the final constituent entity of the United Kingdom to legalize same-sex marriage. I would further add a note that with Northern Ireland the entirety of the United Kingdom now recognizes same-sex marriage. Andrew1444 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Then we should remove the flags for Greenland and Faroe Islands as well.. Taxydromeio (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Why don’t we remove the flags of Greenland and Faroe Islands as well? And why don’t we add United Kingdom as all the constituent countries of the UK have legalised it? Taxydromeio (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Archiving

I have pushed archiving back to every six months. The talk page is pretty sparse and it seems like some issues (ie. NI flags) seems to come up again shortly after sections are archived. If this page is getting messy, I encourage someone to reverse this change down the way.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

We’ll essentially mention what the reader first reads in the article (“same sex marriage is performed in the following countries”). Now what they read is that same-sex marriage is legal, for example in the UK and Denmark, but in the summary table they see Greenland and Faroe Islands but they don’t see anything about the UK.

We can’t expect them to know that Greenland and Faroe Islands are constituent countries of Denmark (but they have a flag like other UN countries), and that the UK and it’s countries is not included with any flag even though they’re constituent countries as well and the UK is a UN country. Taxydromeio (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should pander to ignorance. You may expect our audience to be functionally illiterate, but that's not our business. — kwami (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree. Having a flag for Greenland, Faroe Islands and for Aruba Curacao and Sint Maarten in the future will be unfair for the constituent countries of the UK (which is/ will not ever mentioned on the table based on that model). The Netherlands and New Zealand should again be mentioned as we mention them in the beginning of the article (but we don’t mention Greenland or Faroe Islands). I would suggest we keep the Netherlands (2001), Denmark (2012), New Zealand (2013), the United States nationwide (2015), and the United Kingdom (2020). That is less confusing to the reader, and is widely known that the Netherlands was the first to legalize same-sex marriage (at least in my country most people know that). Let us not confuse the readers. Taxydromeio (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion we should just remove the flags of Greenland and Faroe Islands. They’re not countries like the Netherlands or New Zealand. New Zealand is an independent state and Tokelau is a dependent territory and Niue and Cook Islands are associated states. As for the Netherlands, most of the Kingdom's affairs are administered by the Netherlands. Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten are dependent on the Netherlands. Taxydromeio (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Flags of Denmark, Greenland, Faroe Islands, UK, Netherlands, New Zealand

There is some confusion with the table. I don’t think most readers will understand or even notice England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland etc but they will notice Greenland and Faroe Islands with the flag, even though all of them are constituent countries. I would suggest we removed the flags of Greenland and Faroe Islands altogether, as well as the bold letters, as we have Denmark mentioned. For the UK, after Northern Ireland, we could mention the United Kingdom but without the reference [nationwide] as it didn’t legalize it nationwide with one law. We could do the same in the future with Mexico after its last state’s legalisation. For the Netherlands we could keep the flag and add a note that same-sex marriage is not legal in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. The same with New Zealand. What do you think? Taxydromeio (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, as suggested above, that all those flags and bolding should be removed. As for the Netherlands, I don't think we need to mention exceptions, as we do not for example mention Indian Reservations or American Samoa next to the United States listing. CMD (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind adding a flag for the UK after the date of legalization in NI (and similarly with Mexico), but I oppose removing the flags from New Zealand and the Netherlands, which to be consistent is what we'd have to do if we remove the flags from Greenland and the Faroes, since SSM is not legal in either the Netherlands or NZ, any more than it was legal in the UK when it was passed in England and Wales. And do we really want to move the date of legalization in Denmark to 2017, which again, to be consistent with the UK, is what we'd have to do if we use the flag for the kingdom rather than for the country? The situation of the UK is not very similar to that of Denmark, Netherlands or NZ. I think this idiocy over Northern Ireland is getting out of hand. — kwami (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing the flag from the Faroes/Greenland would not mean we would have to remove the flags from NZ and the Netherlands. Their political relationships, and their treatment in reliable sources, is very different to that of the United Kingdom. Otherwise, as I noted above, the United States would have to have its flag removed. 2015 alone contains six entries from places ruled by the United States, and within the United States, after the United States entry. CMD (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, different from the UK, but not very different from each other. SSM is not legal in the Netherlands and NZ the way it is in the US or Denmark (and now the UK), so of course we'd have to remove the Dutch and NZ flags. Which IMO would be stupid. And if we don't, then we can't remove the Danish flags either. If we provide flags for, say, UN states plus special cases like Taiwan, then NZ and the Netherlands wouldn't get flags because SSM is not legal at the UN-state level. — kwami (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

How is same-sex marriage legal in the United States in a way that it is not in the Netherlands? CMD (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It is legal in the US, with the exception of many federal Tribes (and even there you get all the federal benefits). It's not legal in 3/4 of the Netherlands. — kwami (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

3/4 of the Netherlands does not seem to be a reasonable way to describe what is almost a rounding error in terms of the country's population and land, especially given the 'remaining 1/4' acts in the capacity of the entire state, supplies all but 3 members of the state government, and whose leader automatically and simultaneously leads the government of the state. In regards to same-sex marriage specifically, marriages that take place in the Netherlands proper are recognised on the islands (although they don't necessarily get marriage benefits from the islands, probably similar to the situation in US Tribes). CMD (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We don’t we simply keep the old format? England Scotland and wales can get their respective flags, and keep the Northern Ireland with no flag. We say how Greenland and Faroe Islands must get flag, but we don’t enforce the same for the constituent countries of the UK. Taxydromeio (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I know you don't mean it this way, but to me that would look rather bigoted, as if the Irish didn't warrant recognition -- we only recognize real nations. — kwami (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Because "constituent countries" is not an actual status in the UK, it's just a vague term of convenience. At any rate, neither England nor Wales has competency in this area, with both following legislation made in the UK Parliament. CMD (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Re. the later, that's why I prefer the UK flag. But the UK is arguably closer to the situation of the provinces of the US and Canada. I'm not competent to judge how similar it is. — kwami (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

So do you agree to delete the flags of Greenland and Faroe Islands or to add again England and Wales and Scotland? Taxydromeio (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Given neither England nor Wales has their own legislation for this, removing seems the best option. I am open to Kwami's idea of putting the UK flag after NI, to note that it covered the whole country. We can then replicate this with Mexico when relevant. CMD (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree too. That’s probably the best solution for both the United Kingdom and Mexico (in the future). Should we move to the change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxydromeio (talk • contribs) 09:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Sub National Entity?

Why is Northern Ireland listed as a sub-national entity? It's part of the United Kingdom. Hanoi Road (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sub-national entity is used to refer to polities that are part of wider countries. CMD (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not remove the bold letters for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and add UK as a whole? Taxydromeio (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I have done that per the consensus in discussion above. In addition, taking into account Kwami's concerns above, thinking about the situation here, and noting the England and Wales text linked to Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom, I have added notes onto countries where the national legislation had exceptions for various reasons. This doesn't solve the theoretical Mexico question, but it does establish consistency within existing entries and answers potential questions that may be raised by eg. saying United States has it nationwide but then in the map lower in the article show a big grey hole in Arizona. CMD (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Saying that the UK passed SSM "nationwide" when only 2 of 4 components had done so is a bit anglocentric. The Scots at least might take exception to the idea that England is the UK. We might as well say that the US passed SSM "except for certain autonomous areas" in 2004.

If we add the UK as a whole, it would have to be when SSM was passed in the UK as a whole, which would be when it was passed in N.Ireland, as per the discussion above. (Without Ireland, there is no UK, there's only GB.)

We don't need to do the same thing for Netherlands and New Zealand, I don't think. Remember, this whole thing only came up because Northern Ireland doesn't have a flag. But it should be useful for Mexico.

Re. the "big hole" in AZ, remember that the ppl there get state and federal recognition and rights. — kwami (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was a law passed by the UK parliament. It is not an anglocentric act, and was literally voted on by Scottish and Northern Irish MPs. Much like the big hole, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 ensured anyone married in England and Wales would get rights in Scotland and Northern Ireland. CMD (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

But the Marriage Act wasn't for the UK. By your argument Mexico has had SSM since 2010. — kwami (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It was for the parts of the UK that the UK Government had competencies over, much like the US Supreme Court decision only affected the areas with which it had competency on the matter. The argument I presented was a mirror of your note on state and federal recognition in the Navajo Nation, I don't know if I would apply it to the Mexican ruling which didn't by itself expand the area where same-sex couples could get married. CMD (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn’t it be better if we mentioned Northern Ireland (13 January) and after that add United Kingdom (13 January) without the reference “nationwide” (as the other parts had already legalised it) ? Taxydromeio (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You're right, 'nationwide' is misleading. But listing it separately makes it look like they were two separate events -- NI passed SSM, and then the UK passed SSM. It should be a parenthetical somehow. Maybe [and thus FLAG-UK] or [final constituent of FLAG-UK]? — kwami (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Northern Ireland [ United Kingdom nationwide] (13 January)
2. Northern Ireland (13 January) United Kingdom (13 January)
3. Northern Ireland [final legal jurisdiction in the United Kingdom] (13 January)

I think part of why it looks like two separate events is the repetition of the date, we should stick to just one date. Mocked-up your suggestion as number 3 using the term legal jurisdiction as per England and Wales. I think you're correct that it looks better as a parenthetical. CMD (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'll copy it over. — kwami (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe then use 1 instead of 3? Taxydromeio (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I prefer 3 as it makes it more clear that the legislation was not made by NI for the UK. CMD (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I think so too. Someone not familiar with the article who just skims the table might not know what to make of (1). — kwami (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)