This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
LGBT rights in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 7 days
![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about LGBT rights in the United States. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about LGBT rights in the United States at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
![]() | On 26 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to LGBTQI+ rights in the United States. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Not sure how to do this, but maybe this?
The lead seems to make two un-evidenced claims, both of which look questionable on their face. First, the claim in the first line that the US is one of the most advanced countries on the world in respect of LGBT rights is supported by two references. The first is to a book where it is not at all clear how the reference justifies the statement. The second is to a table of most LGBT friendly countries where the US is listed at 26. That puts it just a little above the midpoint of the [ list of full and flawed democracies]. Even if you include hybrid regimes the US comes in the second quartile. In other words, the 'most advanced' claim does not seem to be true. The second claim which doesn't look right is that "public opinion is overwhelmingly supportive of same sex marriages". I don't want to break the rules on WP:OR, but there's plenty of sources available through Google which show that while same sex marriage is strongly supported by educated white people of the centre and left, the picture with most other groups is far less supportive. I will wait to see if there are any other comments before editing. Charlie Campbell 28 ( talk) 21:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I have edited the start of the introductory section to note that the US comes below most full democracies in the relevant index of the social acceptability of LGBTQIA+. I have also edited to include SCOTUS 2023 ruling permitting limited discrimination against LGBTQIA+ people. Charlie Campbell 28 ( talk) 10:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 10 June 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Koolkat822 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Koolkat822 ( talk) 18:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The following text has been removed (along with references) from the lead on the basis that it is; "controversial".
"The United States is listed below almost all full democracies (except Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Costa Rica) in the UCLA Williams Institute world index of social acceptance of LBGTQIA+ people ( https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Global-Acceptance-Index-LGBTI-Nov-2021.pdf).
and;
"In 2023, the US Supreme Court ruled that providers of creative services could, given specified conditions, discriminate against LGBTQIA+ people.( https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/30/us-supreme-court-ruling-lgbtq-rights-colorado)".
Both sections are surely entirely and very relevant to the article? In what way are they controversial? They are simply facts, there is nothing contested about them. I have reverted on the basis of BRD and begin the discussion here.Do any other editors have an opinion? Thank you in advance. Charlie Campbell 28 ( talk) 07:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
I don't think either lede is very suitable for this article. I agree that the one provided by @ Charlie Campbell 28 pushes a POV too strongly for the lede, while I also agree that the status quo lede unnecessarily frames the topic in terms of 'progress since the 1980s'. I think a better lede would attempt to describe the current state in very high-level terms, and at the end note recent changes and areas of activism and reaction. In the meantime, I recommend keeping the previous (again, disagreeable to me) status quo, as this is a relatively high-activity article, so it more plausibly represents a consensus. Note that unfortunately LGBT rights are a contentious topic, so extra caution is needed when editing. Drastically changing the lede in a CTOP article without prior consensus is usually asking for a revert. StereoFolic ( talk) 23:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC) |
US is gay friendly, fu*kin* fa**ots! 2A01:5A8:40D:D940:0:0:8BD:AE7B ( talk) 16:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I believe a sidebar (at the top of a page) would be very useful.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
LGBT rights in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 7 days
![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about LGBT rights in the United States. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about LGBT rights in the United States at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
![]() | On 26 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to LGBTQI+ rights in the United States. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Not sure how to do this, but maybe this?
The lead seems to make two un-evidenced claims, both of which look questionable on their face. First, the claim in the first line that the US is one of the most advanced countries on the world in respect of LGBT rights is supported by two references. The first is to a book where it is not at all clear how the reference justifies the statement. The second is to a table of most LGBT friendly countries where the US is listed at 26. That puts it just a little above the midpoint of the [ list of full and flawed democracies]. Even if you include hybrid regimes the US comes in the second quartile. In other words, the 'most advanced' claim does not seem to be true. The second claim which doesn't look right is that "public opinion is overwhelmingly supportive of same sex marriages". I don't want to break the rules on WP:OR, but there's plenty of sources available through Google which show that while same sex marriage is strongly supported by educated white people of the centre and left, the picture with most other groups is far less supportive. I will wait to see if there are any other comments before editing. Charlie Campbell 28 ( talk) 21:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I have edited the start of the introductory section to note that the US comes below most full democracies in the relevant index of the social acceptability of LGBTQIA+. I have also edited to include SCOTUS 2023 ruling permitting limited discrimination against LGBTQIA+ people. Charlie Campbell 28 ( talk) 10:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 10 June 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Koolkat822 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Koolkat822 ( talk) 18:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The following text has been removed (along with references) from the lead on the basis that it is; "controversial".
"The United States is listed below almost all full democracies (except Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Costa Rica) in the UCLA Williams Institute world index of social acceptance of LBGTQIA+ people ( https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Global-Acceptance-Index-LGBTI-Nov-2021.pdf).
and;
"In 2023, the US Supreme Court ruled that providers of creative services could, given specified conditions, discriminate against LGBTQIA+ people.( https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/30/us-supreme-court-ruling-lgbtq-rights-colorado)".
Both sections are surely entirely and very relevant to the article? In what way are they controversial? They are simply facts, there is nothing contested about them. I have reverted on the basis of BRD and begin the discussion here.Do any other editors have an opinion? Thank you in advance. Charlie Campbell 28 ( talk) 07:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
I don't think either lede is very suitable for this article. I agree that the one provided by @ Charlie Campbell 28 pushes a POV too strongly for the lede, while I also agree that the status quo lede unnecessarily frames the topic in terms of 'progress since the 1980s'. I think a better lede would attempt to describe the current state in very high-level terms, and at the end note recent changes and areas of activism and reaction. In the meantime, I recommend keeping the previous (again, disagreeable to me) status quo, as this is a relatively high-activity article, so it more plausibly represents a consensus. Note that unfortunately LGBT rights are a contentious topic, so extra caution is needed when editing. Drastically changing the lede in a CTOP article without prior consensus is usually asking for a revert. StereoFolic ( talk) 23:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC) |
US is gay friendly, fu*kin* fa**ots! 2A01:5A8:40D:D940:0:0:8BD:AE7B ( talk) 16:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I believe a sidebar (at the top of a page) would be very useful.