This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is blatantly non-neutral, exclusively covering the advancement (or mere non-advancement) of pro-same-sex legislation, and utterly omitting the existence of anything contrary, despite contrary legislation actually not only being introduced, but passed, signed, and in force for the last 15 years. Even the title is a non-neutral, implying that the goal to be focused on is "Recognition of same-sex unions in Illinois" in a state that has never recognized same-sex unions, instead of "Marriage and civil union law in Illinois" or "Status of same-sex unions in Illinois" or something neutral like that. Before I rewrote the first sentence, the article started with simply "Illinois does not currently have a civil union law." as if it were the Genesis 1:2 of LGBT marriage politics in Illinois or something. It still begins with a 2005 survey — a bit old considering the subject, especially considering that this article was created in December 2007, and the survey was performed December 2004, so it was already 3 years behind when it was added to this article. (Unfortunately, the same surveys dated 2006–2010 don't seem to address this topic.) Even when citing the survey, the article pointed out the two types of "yes" responses yet omitted the "no", as if opposition was just a side issue one could calculate later if one was interested that sort of irrelevant response. The article then exclusively discusses 2 failed/stalled bills from 2007 on. This article needs the history of contrary legislation, particularly the Marriage Protection Act, since it's actually the law in force. The 2009 versions of the bills still have a chance of coming to a vote in the current 96th General Assembly, but the claim of one bill's status has, as its source, a Chicago Tribune article with no relation, and the other's status has no citation at all. The claim that governor Pat Quinn supports the act is a WP:BLP claim whose citation is a broken link on a pro-gay-rights website. In short: The title needs to be changed to a neutral subject, rather than implying a one-way march towards someone's idea of manifest destiny in which the opposing elephant in the room is either characterized as an unwelcome delay or simply omitted as being out of scope; and the treatment of the issue needs to be likewise neutrally scoped. -- Closeapple ( talk) 03:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Rrius, why are you deleting this section? The page talks about proposed legislation, and so a brief section on the current law is relevant. As a gay citizen of the State of Illinois, I think people have a right to see what exactly the current law says. This is not a long section and it is pertinent to the topic. Please explain your rationale for deleting. Thank you.
This is the text that User:Rrius is deleteing:
Full Statutory Text: (750 ILCS 5/) Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act
-- Denovo1 ( talk) 17:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for trying, but I personally think that would be too wordy for the intro. I think the intro reads well as it does now, especially the matter-of-fact style of the first sentence. I just thought that it would make sense to have a "Current Statute" section preceding the "Proposed Legislation" section to help put it into context, especially considering the "Proposed Legislation" section discusses a specific amendment to the current statute (see the second to last sentence). Also, the before and after style of a "current law" section and then a "proposed legislation" section just seems to be a logical sequence. Finally, I think that mixing the statutory text into the article, as you have proposed, no offense, would give the article a bias tone. On the other hand, the albeit formal style of listing the current statutory provisions would make it read more neutrally.
What if there were only two provisions, as below? Still too much?
Full Statutory Text: (750 ILCS 5/) Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act
-- Denovo1 ( talk) 01:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I would consider putting the short summary in the intro, then starting a new section for current legislation, with the statutory wording above in that section. This article needs a current legislation section anyway; as I discussed in the previous Talk topic above, this article is in desperate need of covering the actual acts of the state that have really happened and become law, rather than the current implication in the article that only coverage of movement in a specific direction (and the direction that has been least effective in Illinois, no less) is worth mentioning. -- Closeapple ( talk) 02:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added a section on current law, please take a look and tell me what you think. - Rrius ( talk) 03:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) --
Javaweb (
talk)
09:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)JavawebCovered now. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/illinois-house-votes-gay-marriages-20795167 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-gay-marriage-illinois-20131105,0,7759837.story http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Illinois-Gay-Marriage-Vote-230660881.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.26.78 ( talk) 04:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is blatantly non-neutral, exclusively covering the advancement (or mere non-advancement) of pro-same-sex legislation, and utterly omitting the existence of anything contrary, despite contrary legislation actually not only being introduced, but passed, signed, and in force for the last 15 years. Even the title is a non-neutral, implying that the goal to be focused on is "Recognition of same-sex unions in Illinois" in a state that has never recognized same-sex unions, instead of "Marriage and civil union law in Illinois" or "Status of same-sex unions in Illinois" or something neutral like that. Before I rewrote the first sentence, the article started with simply "Illinois does not currently have a civil union law." as if it were the Genesis 1:2 of LGBT marriage politics in Illinois or something. It still begins with a 2005 survey — a bit old considering the subject, especially considering that this article was created in December 2007, and the survey was performed December 2004, so it was already 3 years behind when it was added to this article. (Unfortunately, the same surveys dated 2006–2010 don't seem to address this topic.) Even when citing the survey, the article pointed out the two types of "yes" responses yet omitted the "no", as if opposition was just a side issue one could calculate later if one was interested that sort of irrelevant response. The article then exclusively discusses 2 failed/stalled bills from 2007 on. This article needs the history of contrary legislation, particularly the Marriage Protection Act, since it's actually the law in force. The 2009 versions of the bills still have a chance of coming to a vote in the current 96th General Assembly, but the claim of one bill's status has, as its source, a Chicago Tribune article with no relation, and the other's status has no citation at all. The claim that governor Pat Quinn supports the act is a WP:BLP claim whose citation is a broken link on a pro-gay-rights website. In short: The title needs to be changed to a neutral subject, rather than implying a one-way march towards someone's idea of manifest destiny in which the opposing elephant in the room is either characterized as an unwelcome delay or simply omitted as being out of scope; and the treatment of the issue needs to be likewise neutrally scoped. -- Closeapple ( talk) 03:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Rrius, why are you deleting this section? The page talks about proposed legislation, and so a brief section on the current law is relevant. As a gay citizen of the State of Illinois, I think people have a right to see what exactly the current law says. This is not a long section and it is pertinent to the topic. Please explain your rationale for deleting. Thank you.
This is the text that User:Rrius is deleteing:
Full Statutory Text: (750 ILCS 5/) Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act
-- Denovo1 ( talk) 17:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for trying, but I personally think that would be too wordy for the intro. I think the intro reads well as it does now, especially the matter-of-fact style of the first sentence. I just thought that it would make sense to have a "Current Statute" section preceding the "Proposed Legislation" section to help put it into context, especially considering the "Proposed Legislation" section discusses a specific amendment to the current statute (see the second to last sentence). Also, the before and after style of a "current law" section and then a "proposed legislation" section just seems to be a logical sequence. Finally, I think that mixing the statutory text into the article, as you have proposed, no offense, would give the article a bias tone. On the other hand, the albeit formal style of listing the current statutory provisions would make it read more neutrally.
What if there were only two provisions, as below? Still too much?
Full Statutory Text: (750 ILCS 5/) Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act
-- Denovo1 ( talk) 01:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I would consider putting the short summary in the intro, then starting a new section for current legislation, with the statutory wording above in that section. This article needs a current legislation section anyway; as I discussed in the previous Talk topic above, this article is in desperate need of covering the actual acts of the state that have really happened and become law, rather than the current implication in the article that only coverage of movement in a specific direction (and the direction that has been least effective in Illinois, no less) is worth mentioning. -- Closeapple ( talk) 02:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added a section on current law, please take a look and tell me what you think. - Rrius ( talk) 03:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) --
Javaweb (
talk)
09:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)JavawebCovered now. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/illinois-house-votes-gay-marriages-20795167 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-gay-marriage-illinois-20131105,0,7759837.story http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Illinois-Gay-Marriage-Vote-230660881.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.26.78 ( talk) 04:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)