| Revision as of 19:02, 26 May 2020 editRoscelese (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,788 edits →Popular Culture section: re:← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 08:46, 14 November 2024 edit undoDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers805,698 editsNo edit summary |
| (43 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
⚫ |
{{American English}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
|
{{ITN talk|17 May|2004|oldid=3614178}} |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Law|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies|class=C|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|collapsed=yes|class=B| |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies|class=}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States Public Policy|class=C|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes|American-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=mid|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=mid|category=}} |
|
| blpo=yes |
|
|
⚫ |
{{Wiki Loves Pride talk|2014|2015}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Genealogy|importance=Low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
| Line 17: |
Line 19: |
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
⚫ |
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap|style=long}} |
| ⚫ |
{{American English}} |
|
|
|
{{Refideas |
| ⚫ |
{{discretionary sanctions|topic=ap|style=long}} |
|
|
|
| {{cite book |editor-last=Herdt |editor-first=Gilbert |editor-link=Gilbert Herdt |title=Moral Panics, Sex Panics: Fear and the Fight Over Sexual Rights |date=2009 |publisher=New York University Press |pages=157–204 |isbn=978-0-8147-3723-1 |doi=10.18574/nyu/9780814790847.003.0008 |chapter=Gay Marriage: The Panic and the Right}} |
| ⚫ |
{{Wiki Loves Pride 2014}} |
|
|
|
}} |
|
{{Wiki Loves Pride 2015}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Number of Same-Sex Couple Households Exceeded 1 Million in 2021 == |
|
|
There were about 1.2 million same-sex couple households in the United States in 2021, according to recently released Census Bureau data. |
|
|
Roughly 710,000 of the same-sex couple households were married and about 500,000 were unmarried. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Two claims to being the "first" with no acknowledgement of the other == |
|
|
|
|
|
It appears that this page and the ] page disagree on which same sex marriage was the "first," between ]'s in 1971 and ]'s in 2004. Clearly either of the two could count as the "first" depending on some nuances, but it makes no sense to make the same claim for two different marriages on two different related pages. Am I missing something here? I can't see a discussion on either page about the discrepancy. ] (]) 22:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:McConnell & Baker weren't married in San Francisco. ] (]) 23:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== errors introduced in January 2015 == |
|
|
|
|
|
] introduced at least one error which is still present as of the ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
By my count, there are at least 4 errors that were introduced by way of deleting content without any apparent reason. One of the 4 data items that was deleted has subsequently been reinstated, in one case, the specific deleted data remains missing from the current revision, and in two cases, the phrase from which the data item was deleted is not present in the current revision, most likely because of the fact that the relevant data had been deleted. ] (]) 00:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Are you asking someone to fix it? If so, your count doesn't help us much if you don't tell us what it is. Which errors remain? ] (]) 23:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::To be clear, you have given up. Evidently you think it's not worth your effort. Fair enough. ] (]) 07:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Opening paragraph problems == |
|
|
|
:::Seems a rather straightforward question. You seem to be deliberately obscuring your concern. Rather than making others redo whatever work you've done to identify errors, either specify them here or, better yet, address them yourself. -- ] (]) 13:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::To me, it seems pretty funny that so far, nobody who has noticed this post has felt motivated to even take a look at the ''diff'' that I provided. My contribution has been to point out that the problem exists. It's not as though this is a puzzling problem, but I do find it perplexing that other editors would rather complain that I haven't precisely identified the problem than to even take a look. I guess I shouldn't wonder that fairly blatant errors in WP go uncorrected for lengthy periods of time. ] (]) 16:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
Currently, over half of the opening paragraph is used to define the terms "gay marriage" and "marriage equality". These may be reasonable in the generic ] article, but that is a waste of prime real estate here; it does not give information specific to the topic of same-sex marriage ''in the United States'', nor is it summarizing any part of the article. I tried deleting it, but {{user|Justthefacts9}} reinserted it. I ask for other voices on whether it should remain. |
|
|
|
:::::@] I find it perplexing that you would rather complain about the errors here than to just fix them in the article. --] (]) 16:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::@] Hmmmm... perhaps I'm trying to see how many people will object to my pointing out that a problem is present (which includes identifying the area where the problem is present) rather than take a couple of minutes to look at the details that I provided. ] (]) 16:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::@] We're all volunteers, why should we take a couple of minutes to re-do work that you've already done. ]. --] (]) 16:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::@] I'm making a contribution by identifying a bona fide problem. It's ] that I actually fix it. I will assure you that the errors I have identified are not subjective, nor what somebody would be likely to consider as ''inconsequential''. |
|
|
:::::::: Some of the responses seem to find this approach to be vexatious, but I contend that it's constructive. To the extent that it's a "puzzle", it may be viewed as entertaining. And at the same time, it's a data point that errors such as I have identified are introduced into Misplaced Pages and yet don't get corrected (at least one of them continues to persist). But I am amused how other editors would rather object to my pointing out that an error exists (and doing so in the form of a puzzle) than to just take advantage of the opportunity to correct it. ] (]) 17:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Treating other editors like your toys who must jump through the hoops you construct is not "constructive", it is deeply disrespectful to them. We are not here for your entertainment. If that's what you seek, I suggest there may be better spaces than Misplaced Pages in which to exercise this urge of yours. -- ] (]) 21:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I'm sorry you feel that way, though I take exception to your characterization of it as "disrespectful". ] (]) 02:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::"To be clear, you have given up." Yes, you were disrespecting the people you felt should be dancing for your pleasure for having failed to do so. The disrespect is neither hidden nor subtle. -- ] (]) 04:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::@] Thank you for your edit! ;-) ] (]) 19:48, 15 April 2024 |
|
|
{{outdent|:::::::::}}Here we are, just about ninety days after this issue was resolved, and i came back across this, with complaints that I had ''disrespected'' other editors. I will point out that I provided this '']''. The ''diff'' showed one change where some content was added as well as 4 places where some numbers were removed. It shouldn't have taken anyone more than a minute or two to be scratching their heads over the removal of those numbers. Of course, one might spend a few more minutes to figure out whether these portions of the text were still present in the article, nine years after the edits were made, without being corrected. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
My perspective on this isn't "Hey, look here, we've got some content to fix", it's "Hey, look here, someone can go in and effectively vandalize an article (intentionally or otherwise), ''and'' it can be pretty blatant that something's wrong. We have this really massive amount of content, able to be edited by anybody who happens to come along, and either nobody noticed it or people did notice it, but couldn't be bothered to address it. Of course I understand that it's nobody's responsibility. Something as blatant as this seems to be a pretty isolated occurrence; on the other hand, with more subtle changes, it's less clear that they're harmful. Regardless of whether this was intentional vandalism or not, content gets changed in ways which may be harmful and it's just random chance whether harmful changes get reverted. |
|
Additionally, that same editor reverted my correcting of the description of ] to being MLKing's widow, as opposed to his wife. As the events being described were well after the death of MLK, the "widow" descriptor is more appropriate; legally, one stops being a wife when your spouse dies. The edit summary indicated that the reversion was because Coretta's own article indicated that that was the basis of her notability, but that article is currently in the past tense ("was the wife of") as she is dead. Before her death, that article . Again, I seek consensus to correct this. --] (]) 05:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If my approach bugged people, great! You were free to ignore it if you didn't care for the way the message was presented, but had I presented it in some other way, i.e. explicitly indicated what the problem was, it would just get fixed with no further discussion. If the "puzzle format" bothers you, nobody's forcing you to act on it, but it was effective at calling attention to something that seems to be a systemic problem. So I've made my point, it is hopefully an isolated incident, but it seems like there's really no way to know. ] (]) 19:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Regarding the inclusion of the definitions of those terms, those brief references (which only take up a small portion of the lead overall) are helpful to readers as those are the common alternative terms for same-sex marriage. Regarding the description of Coretta Scott King as the wife of MLK, that is what she is notable for (rather than as his widow, as such) and how she is described in her Misplaced Pages article. --] (]) 06:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::If we feel the need to convey definition for SSM to anyone who is confused, that can be handled simply by rephrasing the first sentence to contain a wikilink to ]. And for someone who claims to be "Just the facts", that you want to include the lie that CSK was MLK's wife when she made that statement flies in the face of it.... and "widow" covers the facts more accurately, makes explicit that she had been his wife, and takes only one more letter. She was his widow for much longer than she was his wife. Two of the three sources listed quote her as saying that after she was MLK's wife, she was his widow. (Also, she is not just notable for having been married to MLK, she had her own impact on civil rights.) --] (]) 13:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There is no need to be needlessly offensive by saying, "{{tq|And for someone who claims to be that you want to include the lie }}", which verges on a ]. You do make a valid point regarding ]. It simply seemed appropriate to use the descriptor "wife" rather than "widow" as she is, ''per se'', notable as the wife of MLK (in addition to, of course, being a civil rights leader). --] (]) 13:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If you don't want people to react to your user name, pick a less self-aggrandizing one. To suggest that she was not notable as the ''widow'' of MLK is to overlook decades of coverage of her. And phrasing it as if he were his wife decades after he died is simply false. --] (]) 04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Are you serious? It's just a username. Per ], "{{tq|Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor.}}" Don't be petty. --] (]) 05:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The article currently describes ] as "a leader of the ] and the wife of ]". Given that she ''was'' the wife of MLK when she was leading the civil rights movement, is it not appropriate to describe her as such? --] (]) 05:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You may want to read up on CSK; she was not just a leader during the period when she was married to MLK. In fact, if you'd read up to the first sentence of the second paragraph of our article on her, you'd find "King played a prominent role in the years after her husband's assassination in 1968 when she took on the leadership of the struggle for racial equality herself and became active in the Women's Movement." She had her highest prominence ''as a widow'', and was certainly a widow during the prime events being covered here. --] (]) 05:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::That sentence, particularly "{{tq|when she took on the leadership of the struggle for racial equality herself}}" is actually pertinent here. Given ''that'', it may be acceptable to describe her as the "widow" of MLK (truly, it does not matter either way, but given your insistence). --] (]) 05:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Actually, facts truly ''do'' matter. It's not just that it "may" be acceptable to call her MLK's widow, a position which I am shocked would be at all in doubt; it is far preferable than calling her his wife decades after the fact. --] (]) 05:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Yes, "facts truly ''do'' matter" as you put it and the fact here is that ] can accurately be described as ''either'' the wife or the widow of MLK. --] (]) 05:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:"If my approach bugged people, great!" If your goal is to bug people, hey, there's a great wide Internet for you to do so. You do not have to pick the volunteers at a free knowledge project to target. You made... what point? At what audience? The people on this page who are already fixing material? If you think there's a general problem, you think the talk page of some random page is the way to draw attention to it?? -- ] (]) 20:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Popular Culture section== |
|
|
Do we really need this? There are hundreds of TV shows that feature same sex couples. Unless the show was somehow culturally significant, I don't think we need it. ] (]) 15:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:As someone who contributed to the section, I'd be fine with it being axed. Just thought if it was there, it should be better. --] (]) 16:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think as a cultural history thing it would be good to keep in a curated form (first SSM on mainstream TV, first SSM on children's TV) with sources attesting importance, but agreed that we're at a point where it does not make sense to include every example. –] (] ⋅ ]) 19:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC) |
|
There were about 1.2 million same-sex couple households in the United States in 2021, according to recently released Census Bureau data.
Roughly 710,000 of the same-sex couple households were married and about 500,000 were unmarried.
By my count, there are at least 4 errors that were introduced by way of deleting content without any apparent reason. One of the 4 data items that was deleted has subsequently been reinstated, in one case, the specific deleted data remains missing from the current revision, and in two cases, the phrase from which the data item was deleted is not present in the current revision, most likely because of the fact that the relevant data had been deleted. Fabrickator (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Here we are, just about ninety days after this issue was resolved, and i came back across this, with complaints that I had disrespected other editors. I will point out that I provided this link to the diff. The diff showed one change where some content was added as well as 4 places where some numbers were removed. It shouldn't have taken anyone more than a minute or two to be scratching their heads over the removal of those numbers. Of course, one might spend a few more minutes to figure out whether these portions of the text were still present in the article, nine years after the edits were made, without being corrected.
My perspective on this isn't "Hey, look here, we've got some content to fix", it's "Hey, look here, someone can go in and effectively vandalize an article (intentionally or otherwise), and it can be pretty blatant that something's wrong. We have this really massive amount of content, able to be edited by anybody who happens to come along, and either nobody noticed it or people did notice it, but couldn't be bothered to address it. Of course I understand that it's nobody's responsibility. Something as blatant as this seems to be a pretty isolated occurrence; on the other hand, with more subtle changes, it's less clear that they're harmful. Regardless of whether this was intentional vandalism or not, content gets changed in ways which may be harmful and it's just random chance whether harmful changes get reverted.
If my approach bugged people, great! You were free to ignore it if you didn't care for the way the message was presented, but had I presented it in some other way, i.e. explicitly indicated what the problem was, it would just get fixed with no further discussion. If the "puzzle format" bothers you, nobody's forcing you to act on it, but it was effective at calling attention to something that seems to be a systemic problem. So I've made my point, it is hopefully an isolated incident, but it seems like there's really no way to know. Fabrickator (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
.svg)
