![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place here, and if I am, my apologies: but where in the name of hell is the section of this page that mentions opposition to Civil Partnerships? There many legitimate and well known, independent polls (most through simply googling "Independent civil partnership poles"), that show the majority of people in this country were (regardless of whether they still are) opposed to civil partnerships. Yet there is no mention here of any opposition. Again, apologies if I'm looking in the wrong place.
I noted some controversy about Dev920's rating of the article. I would like to point out that realistically, B-class is the most an article is going to receive without being nominated as a good article. If those editing this page feel it meets the criteria, please nominate it at WP:GAN.
Although technically an A-Class could be given without GA status, this is unusual and I draw your attention to the stingent criteria (beyond GA and practically FA) is requires: Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.
I hope that explains why a B-rating (which I have restored) is appropriate for now. It is not an indication that this article would not qualify for GA if nomininated. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 15:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
On a different matter, I notice that we're being prompted to move some of the older bits of Talk into an archive as the page is getting a tad lengthy - Happy to start the archive, but unsure which date we might wanna cut off at. Any thoughts? Joel on the SOL 18:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
What assessment would you like to give it then, Joel? I say B, because this article has no references, which is clearly a requisite for a better rating, but it is clearly a better article than a Start. To quote Jeff, who also thinks it should be a B, "For those who aren't aware of it, a Good Article should have at least one reference per paragraph, and additional references for any claims that could logically be questioned. Additionally, the references in this article are improperly formatted."
How would you rate it, given that you're the only one who disputes it is B-class? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
What issue do you actually have with my rating? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
So here is a call - per discussion above - to come to consensus on a rating for this article. I ask all participants (editors, readers, lurkers, etc) that wish to comment to please add their ideas of what the rating for this article should be - NA, Stub, Start, B, GA, A, or FA. For more information on the ratings system, please visit {{ Grading scheme}}. Comments in this section should be strictly a rating and reasons for that rating. Thanks, -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Please limit all discussion of the assessment rating of this article to the article itself or the guidelines for ratings, period. The "qualifications" of other posters are not relevant here (or anywhere on Wikipedia, for that matter), and personal attacks will not be tolerated. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I see this argument has become rather heated- I think it should be noted that everyone involved is dedicated to improving this article. It is already a strong article and in due course should achieve a high rating. I don't think this article is yet ready for GA but hope it can be soon. Lets cut out the personal antagonism. Here are some of the concerns I have about the article and how I think it can be strenghtened.
No one involved in creating/editing this page should feel disheartened however. It is a strong article and should achive at least GA given some work. I hope that everyone involved in recent discussions can work together to improve the article and ensure that it does well in a GA nomination and beyond... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
These points aside, well done for WJBSCribe for actually doing something constructive to support the article: sadly Tom has already told me that he is no longer prepared to work further on it and, frankly, I begin to share his view. But it has been given a good start and it's comforting to see that it has friends who are willing to contribute instead of just carp. It's in safe hands. Chris 81.159.212.153 08:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC) "you have to have the last jibe, doncha?" Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
In response to the above points:
I look forward to responses and hope for support in strengthening the article beyond its present standards. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 09:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Any positive contribution is welcome:
Chris 81.159.212.153 10:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
In the lead section of this article, it is stated that "Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage (bold is mine). Further down in the body of the article, it is written that "Adoption provisions will also be amended so that civil partners will be treated in the same way as married couples" (again, bolding is mine). If civil partners will at some undefined point in the future be treated in the same way as married partners, then at this time the rights and responsibilities are not identical. Please clarify this point. I have added the word "nearly" to the lead to make it consistent with the body of the article. If you have another solution, please feel free to discuss or change. Jeffpw 09:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
If you compare the list of rights and responsibilties with those on the linked page in para 1 Legal consequences of marriage and civil partnership in the United Kingdom you will see that they are indistiguishable. Furthermore, family law solicitors are far from infallible (hopefully my father-in-law doesn't read this! - grin) Any differences fall outside the area of rights and responsibilities (peer's coutesy titles, etc) and so the opening line seems reasonable - I'd ask for it to be retained in its original form and will revert to that for now to maintain consistency with the related article. Please do add refs where you feel they are needed. Chris 81.159.212.153 11:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Please note that I have now, at Jeffpw's suggestion, adopted a user name and will edit using that (unless I forget to log in!) from hereon. Chris NoStringsAttached 11:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Some of the links in the info box are duplicated at the bottom of the page. Is this usual/acceptable? NoStringsAttached 11:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the main infobox is the same across several articles, so it's the lower, UK specific 'See Also' that needs a prune. Will get onto it. NoStringsAttached 12:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
A couple of points.
NoStringsAttached 13:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Just spoke with the Department itself. Although the woman there sounded a bit hazy, she claimed that they don't have figures for CPs up to Dec 5 yet, so something is wrong somewhere! Have deleted this claim of 31K CPs and the ref. Wherever they are getting the figures from it seems not to be the government. Also, have checked a few of the usual gay & lesbian online news services, including PinkNews [2] which is usually very reliable. Not one has mentioned this remarkable jump in CPs in the past 3 months. I suspect the Telegraph confused the number of CPs (15.5K) with the number of partners (obviously, 2 x 15.5K) and ended up with this figure. NoStringsAttached 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Chris, I've managed to find a shot of people actually signing the register. [3]. Don't worry about the look of it at the moment- its a v good quality photo and I can easily sort the brightness and saturation problems. Was wondering what you think of it. Its a free image but I think we should drop them a message to ask if they mind being the illustration of "civil partnership" on Wiki and if they want their names in the caption. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I overlooked it, but the article does not seemt o discuss the fact that CP, while giving the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, creates another category of marriage (eg: "Gay" marriage) and can be seen as a sort of Jim Crow, "separate but equal" sort of discrimination. I would be interested to know what the reaction to this new law and \category is among British gay activists. Has anything been written about this in the British press? If so, I think it would add to the article here. Jeffpw 18:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
There is widespread criticism from queer activists/groups that CP is 'normalising' and 'assimilating' homosexuals into existing hetero structures. For example, a lot of early gay rights activism was considerably more 'radical' than OutRage and Peter Tatchell et al - such as about creating alternative family structures, getting rid of the concept of 'the family' all together and getting rid of political/legislative hurdles to people living in ways that was different to the hetero-norm.
Some of those people who are still around today are criticising the mainstream gay rights groups for being amoungst other things a)too middle class eg. fighting for gays in the military or rights for gay (usually male) city-lawyers and b) comprimising/assimilating by accepting a modified form of what was seen as an oppressive structure (marriage) and not campaigning for a change in legislation away from preferencing the traditional Christian family system (don't have any references to hand, nor the time right now to look any up so please don't disregard this comment for that - i'll pop back later with some) Perhaps it's valid to include a mention of this so that people researching the topic are getting a broad picture. Any thoughts? Gazzelle 21:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Eligibility - i believe it is not the case that parental permission is required for marriages in Scotland. Anyone know?
The main photo on this article is cool: but have the two ladies in question given their permission? The copyright seems to be unknown, also. Would be a shame if it got wiped. :( 86.153.93.200 17:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
A merge has been suggested in the Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom talk page. Much reference is made to civil partnerships in that article. Please discuss on the other talk page. Bamkin 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Not difficult, just pointless. 81.159.21.128 ( talk) 00:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Improvement to this article would include more links, there is loads of black that could be blue. Also for the law project, legal citation and referencing may be a good idea.
This article is good on detail as far as England and Wales is concerned. However the Anglocentric nature of the writing is annoying for those wishing to know the detail for Northern Ireland or Scotland. It might be preferable to break the article down into the constituent legal systems so that the Parliamentary basis of the law of the whole UK can be set out. By way of example the following acts of Parliament referred to in the artcile do not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland:
Children Act 1989, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Magistrates' Court Act 1978, Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and Family Law Act 1996.
The Civil Partnership Act has distinct parts for each of the legal systems of the United Kingdom - Part 2 England and Wales, Part 3 Scotland, and Part 4 Northern Ireland. The detailed section references in the article to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 only apply to England and Wales as they belong to Part 2. GraemeMoughan 00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
My claims may seem unfair however the differences exist none the less. I will accept that as a Solicitor in England and Wales (who is also a Scot) that I am probably being pedantic :-) However, I do feel that the article needs to either be a basic summary or a detailed summary of the law of the three jurisdictions. The statutes that I originally referred to above are not UK wide and this is actually an important point. The article does not state that this is the case as it presents itself as a UK wide summary.
For example in the formation section of the article reference is made as to how a Civil Partnership can be formed. Statutory authority is made purely to sections that only apply to England and Wales. My point is that if we really need to get down to the dry nuts and bolt detail of section numbers then the relevant sections for all three systems; rather than just one should be cited. 35 sections of the act are given over to forming a Civil Partnership in England and Wales. 15 sections to form one in Scotland and 21 to form one in Northern Ireland. (There is no such thing as "Standard Procedure" or "Special Procedure" outside England and Wale.) Maybe the easy way around would be to confine the narrative to outlining the principles and consigning section numbers to footnotes or to openly state that the article concerns itself in the main with the law of England and Wales.
GraemeMoughan 23:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused as to why this article is located where it is now. Originally we had generically-named articles on "Civil unions in (country)". Now, in some articles, that is no longer the case, i.e. this article and Pacte civil de solidarité. On the other hand, we still have, for example, Civil unions in Sweden, rather than Registered partnerships in Sweden. It seems to me that for consistency's sake, either all the articles should use the indigeneous name or else they should all use "civil union". No? Carolynparrishfan 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
If it says without qualification that civil unions are similar to marriage, I will look at that, since how similar they are varies by country. Certainly, though, the UK law is among the more generous in its provisions, and it's simply inaccurate to say that "this is not the case with CPs". Civil partnerships are expressly designed to provide many of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, and being in a civil partnership is a legal impediment to marriage (and vice versa). I'm sure you're right that it causes no "real-world" confusion, but as Wikipedia editors, we have to be attuned to consistency. Being attuned to the real world, not so much. ;) Carolynparrishfan 21:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place here, and if I am, my apologies: but where in the name of hell is the section of this page that mentions opposition to Civil Partnerships? There many legitimate and well known, independent polls (most through simply googling "Independent civil partnership poles"), that show the majority of people in this country were (regardless of whether they still are) opposed to civil partnerships. Yet there is no mention here of any opposition. Again, apologies if I'm looking in the wrong place.
I noted some controversy about Dev920's rating of the article. I would like to point out that realistically, B-class is the most an article is going to receive without being nominated as a good article. If those editing this page feel it meets the criteria, please nominate it at WP:GAN.
Although technically an A-Class could be given without GA status, this is unusual and I draw your attention to the stingent criteria (beyond GA and practically FA) is requires: Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.
I hope that explains why a B-rating (which I have restored) is appropriate for now. It is not an indication that this article would not qualify for GA if nomininated. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 15:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
On a different matter, I notice that we're being prompted to move some of the older bits of Talk into an archive as the page is getting a tad lengthy - Happy to start the archive, but unsure which date we might wanna cut off at. Any thoughts? Joel on the SOL 18:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
What assessment would you like to give it then, Joel? I say B, because this article has no references, which is clearly a requisite for a better rating, but it is clearly a better article than a Start. To quote Jeff, who also thinks it should be a B, "For those who aren't aware of it, a Good Article should have at least one reference per paragraph, and additional references for any claims that could logically be questioned. Additionally, the references in this article are improperly formatted."
How would you rate it, given that you're the only one who disputes it is B-class? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
What issue do you actually have with my rating? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
So here is a call - per discussion above - to come to consensus on a rating for this article. I ask all participants (editors, readers, lurkers, etc) that wish to comment to please add their ideas of what the rating for this article should be - NA, Stub, Start, B, GA, A, or FA. For more information on the ratings system, please visit {{ Grading scheme}}. Comments in this section should be strictly a rating and reasons for that rating. Thanks, -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Please limit all discussion of the assessment rating of this article to the article itself or the guidelines for ratings, period. The "qualifications" of other posters are not relevant here (or anywhere on Wikipedia, for that matter), and personal attacks will not be tolerated. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I see this argument has become rather heated- I think it should be noted that everyone involved is dedicated to improving this article. It is already a strong article and in due course should achieve a high rating. I don't think this article is yet ready for GA but hope it can be soon. Lets cut out the personal antagonism. Here are some of the concerns I have about the article and how I think it can be strenghtened.
No one involved in creating/editing this page should feel disheartened however. It is a strong article and should achive at least GA given some work. I hope that everyone involved in recent discussions can work together to improve the article and ensure that it does well in a GA nomination and beyond... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
These points aside, well done for WJBSCribe for actually doing something constructive to support the article: sadly Tom has already told me that he is no longer prepared to work further on it and, frankly, I begin to share his view. But it has been given a good start and it's comforting to see that it has friends who are willing to contribute instead of just carp. It's in safe hands. Chris 81.159.212.153 08:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC) "you have to have the last jibe, doncha?" Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
In response to the above points:
I look forward to responses and hope for support in strengthening the article beyond its present standards. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 09:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Any positive contribution is welcome:
Chris 81.159.212.153 10:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
In the lead section of this article, it is stated that "Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage (bold is mine). Further down in the body of the article, it is written that "Adoption provisions will also be amended so that civil partners will be treated in the same way as married couples" (again, bolding is mine). If civil partners will at some undefined point in the future be treated in the same way as married partners, then at this time the rights and responsibilities are not identical. Please clarify this point. I have added the word "nearly" to the lead to make it consistent with the body of the article. If you have another solution, please feel free to discuss or change. Jeffpw 09:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
If you compare the list of rights and responsibilties with those on the linked page in para 1 Legal consequences of marriage and civil partnership in the United Kingdom you will see that they are indistiguishable. Furthermore, family law solicitors are far from infallible (hopefully my father-in-law doesn't read this! - grin) Any differences fall outside the area of rights and responsibilities (peer's coutesy titles, etc) and so the opening line seems reasonable - I'd ask for it to be retained in its original form and will revert to that for now to maintain consistency with the related article. Please do add refs where you feel they are needed. Chris 81.159.212.153 11:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Please note that I have now, at Jeffpw's suggestion, adopted a user name and will edit using that (unless I forget to log in!) from hereon. Chris NoStringsAttached 11:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Some of the links in the info box are duplicated at the bottom of the page. Is this usual/acceptable? NoStringsAttached 11:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the main infobox is the same across several articles, so it's the lower, UK specific 'See Also' that needs a prune. Will get onto it. NoStringsAttached 12:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
A couple of points.
NoStringsAttached 13:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Just spoke with the Department itself. Although the woman there sounded a bit hazy, she claimed that they don't have figures for CPs up to Dec 5 yet, so something is wrong somewhere! Have deleted this claim of 31K CPs and the ref. Wherever they are getting the figures from it seems not to be the government. Also, have checked a few of the usual gay & lesbian online news services, including PinkNews [2] which is usually very reliable. Not one has mentioned this remarkable jump in CPs in the past 3 months. I suspect the Telegraph confused the number of CPs (15.5K) with the number of partners (obviously, 2 x 15.5K) and ended up with this figure. NoStringsAttached 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Chris, I've managed to find a shot of people actually signing the register. [3]. Don't worry about the look of it at the moment- its a v good quality photo and I can easily sort the brightness and saturation problems. Was wondering what you think of it. Its a free image but I think we should drop them a message to ask if they mind being the illustration of "civil partnership" on Wiki and if they want their names in the caption. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I overlooked it, but the article does not seemt o discuss the fact that CP, while giving the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, creates another category of marriage (eg: "Gay" marriage) and can be seen as a sort of Jim Crow, "separate but equal" sort of discrimination. I would be interested to know what the reaction to this new law and \category is among British gay activists. Has anything been written about this in the British press? If so, I think it would add to the article here. Jeffpw 18:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
There is widespread criticism from queer activists/groups that CP is 'normalising' and 'assimilating' homosexuals into existing hetero structures. For example, a lot of early gay rights activism was considerably more 'radical' than OutRage and Peter Tatchell et al - such as about creating alternative family structures, getting rid of the concept of 'the family' all together and getting rid of political/legislative hurdles to people living in ways that was different to the hetero-norm.
Some of those people who are still around today are criticising the mainstream gay rights groups for being amoungst other things a)too middle class eg. fighting for gays in the military or rights for gay (usually male) city-lawyers and b) comprimising/assimilating by accepting a modified form of what was seen as an oppressive structure (marriage) and not campaigning for a change in legislation away from preferencing the traditional Christian family system (don't have any references to hand, nor the time right now to look any up so please don't disregard this comment for that - i'll pop back later with some) Perhaps it's valid to include a mention of this so that people researching the topic are getting a broad picture. Any thoughts? Gazzelle 21:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Eligibility - i believe it is not the case that parental permission is required for marriages in Scotland. Anyone know?
The main photo on this article is cool: but have the two ladies in question given their permission? The copyright seems to be unknown, also. Would be a shame if it got wiped. :( 86.153.93.200 17:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
A merge has been suggested in the Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom talk page. Much reference is made to civil partnerships in that article. Please discuss on the other talk page. Bamkin 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Not difficult, just pointless. 81.159.21.128 ( talk) 00:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Improvement to this article would include more links, there is loads of black that could be blue. Also for the law project, legal citation and referencing may be a good idea.
This article is good on detail as far as England and Wales is concerned. However the Anglocentric nature of the writing is annoying for those wishing to know the detail for Northern Ireland or Scotland. It might be preferable to break the article down into the constituent legal systems so that the Parliamentary basis of the law of the whole UK can be set out. By way of example the following acts of Parliament referred to in the artcile do not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland:
Children Act 1989, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Magistrates' Court Act 1978, Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and Family Law Act 1996.
The Civil Partnership Act has distinct parts for each of the legal systems of the United Kingdom - Part 2 England and Wales, Part 3 Scotland, and Part 4 Northern Ireland. The detailed section references in the article to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 only apply to England and Wales as they belong to Part 2. GraemeMoughan 00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
My claims may seem unfair however the differences exist none the less. I will accept that as a Solicitor in England and Wales (who is also a Scot) that I am probably being pedantic :-) However, I do feel that the article needs to either be a basic summary or a detailed summary of the law of the three jurisdictions. The statutes that I originally referred to above are not UK wide and this is actually an important point. The article does not state that this is the case as it presents itself as a UK wide summary.
For example in the formation section of the article reference is made as to how a Civil Partnership can be formed. Statutory authority is made purely to sections that only apply to England and Wales. My point is that if we really need to get down to the dry nuts and bolt detail of section numbers then the relevant sections for all three systems; rather than just one should be cited. 35 sections of the act are given over to forming a Civil Partnership in England and Wales. 15 sections to form one in Scotland and 21 to form one in Northern Ireland. (There is no such thing as "Standard Procedure" or "Special Procedure" outside England and Wale.) Maybe the easy way around would be to confine the narrative to outlining the principles and consigning section numbers to footnotes or to openly state that the article concerns itself in the main with the law of England and Wales.
GraemeMoughan 23:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused as to why this article is located where it is now. Originally we had generically-named articles on "Civil unions in (country)". Now, in some articles, that is no longer the case, i.e. this article and Pacte civil de solidarité. On the other hand, we still have, for example, Civil unions in Sweden, rather than Registered partnerships in Sweden. It seems to me that for consistency's sake, either all the articles should use the indigeneous name or else they should all use "civil union". No? Carolynparrishfan 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
If it says without qualification that civil unions are similar to marriage, I will look at that, since how similar they are varies by country. Certainly, though, the UK law is among the more generous in its provisions, and it's simply inaccurate to say that "this is not the case with CPs". Civil partnerships are expressly designed to provide many of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, and being in a civil partnership is a legal impediment to marriage (and vice versa). I'm sure you're right that it causes no "real-world" confusion, but as Wikipedia editors, we have to be attuned to consistency. Being attuned to the real world, not so much. ;) Carolynparrishfan 21:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)