Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of defense of marriage amendments to U.S. state constitutions by type/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by The Rambling Man 16:44, 11 July 2009 [1].

List of defense of marriage amendments to U.S. state constitutions by type edit

Featured list candidates/List of defense of marriage amendments to U.S. state constitutions by type/archive1

Featured list removal candidates/List of defense of marriage amendments to U.S. state constitutions by type/archive1

Notified: WP LGBT, Interwebs

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the article fails to properly use "civil unions", which are legal arrangements between same-sex partners with benefits equal to marriage, but instead uses it as a term to refer to all same-sex unions with legal benefits, including those with less benefits (some domestic partnerships) or substantially less benefits (few enough to not be effected by a constitutional amendment banning "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals", as in Wisconsin). This leads to confusion. It's difficult to come up with a legal term that is usable and encompasses what the article means with civil unions, which are legal unions between to people of the same sex with benefits that are not private contracts, especially since the degree of benefits granted impacts whether the amendment restricts it, even if it is a same-sex union (again, see Wisconsin), thus making the language inconsistent. I propose delisting until a solution is found. Hekerui (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is an issue of editing and should be worked out on the article's talk page rather than in FLRC. Geraldk (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Geraldk - I don't see how the incorrect use of the term "civil unions" affects the FL status of this list.—Chris! _ct 22:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more to the point: the failure to correctly apply a word necessary for a basic understanding makes its featured status unwarranted. The article is misleading. My long explanation is about how I don't think this can be easily fixed. Hekerui (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing Wisconsin - arguments about Wisconsin seem rather hard to reconcile with the issues raised in the nomination, since Wisconsin's DP bill hasn't even gone into effect yet (slated to take effect July 1), let alone having been the subject of any legal action regarding its allowability under the state's amendment (itself the subject of a current WI supreme court case). Since as has been noted this appears to be an issue which can be reconciled within the normal editing process I can't see any reason why this should be de-listed. Otto4711 (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

Shouldn't material lifted directly from consitutions be in quotes?

I think so. Hekerui (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the FLRC nominator: what exactly is wrong here? Is it an issue of factual inaccuracy? If so, was it brought up with relevant WikiProjects first?

The page has great graphics and generally looks good, but the basic terminology is so wrongly applied in that civil union has a specific meaning since 2000 and yet is used differently here - I wonder how this even passed in the first place. It didn't occur to me to drag this out, especially since the main contributor is retired. Hekerui (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this in excellent shape and I see no reason why it should be delisted. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.