Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:00, 19 August 2013

LGBTQ+ studies NA‑class

This page is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:WikiProject International law

Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

A large portion of the text on LGBT rights under international law appears verbatim, or with minor adaptations, in the following articles:

This duplication is the result of a single editor (using one registered account and various unregistered IP accounts). Over the past year various editors (including myself) have objected to some or all of the text, claiming variously that it is original research , biased , factually inaccurate , and/or unnecessarily duplicated across too many articles . However, attempts at removing the text are immediately reverted without discussion. This has occasionally led or contributed to edit warring . Attempts to engage the original author directly about the content, either on user talk pages or via the dispute resolution noticeboard, have been met with silence .

Since the editor contributing this text has been unresponsive, this RFC has been launched to solicit community input on the content. (Note that this RFC is not about user behaviour.) Specifically, comments are invited from the community on the following points:

1. Is the text concerning countries' obligations under international law factually incorrect?
2. Does the text concerning countries' obligations under international law adopt a particular point of view?
3. Does the text concerning countries' obligations under international law contain or constitute original research?
4. Is the duplication of this text across a large number of articles problematic?

Should there be a consensus that any of these questions can be answered in the affirmative, discussion on what material to change or remove is invited. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Yes, this does appear to me to be original research, unless these various decisions have been specifically discussed with regard to each nation. It does appear to be synthesized material for purposes of advancing an argument. It's particularly problematic that almost all of this cut-and-pasted material is from primary sources (court decisions, etc.) rather than secondary sources explaining and interpreting those decisions. I think this material should be removed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Nearly a year on and it's still going on? I quit editing the same articles as this user a long while back because he/she cannot work with others and prefers reverting to discussing. If the user is still doing it, as it appears currently, then we need a solution such as mentoring, adoption, or escalating blocks to show this editor that the community works better together and original research and synthesis are unacceptable. I was able to guess which editor we were discussing just from the first few lines, which is pretty bad. After nearly a year away from this series of articles then the community needs to act. Shoddy opinionated work like this i expect on Conservapedia, not here. Thanks ツ Jenova20 12:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Jenova20, this RFC is for discussing the content itself, not what to do about the user who is (re-)inserting it. If you feel that sanctions against them are required, please take it to the appropriate noticeboard or open a separate RFC on user conduct. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to stick mainly to editing as stuff like that takes too long and drives away editors. Just wanted to put it back out there since I gave up editing this line of articles because of this a while back. Thanks ツ Jenova20 16:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It is because of these two editors (Psychonaut and Jenova20) that I have no intention of participating here. Their agenda pushing incivility is why they are not welcome on my talk page. This is just another forum for their continuing misconduct. AfricaTanz (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Umpteen paragraphs to point out that a country isn't protecting rights that one or more international agreements it has signed obligates it to protect, and then repeating those paragraphs with minor edits under the articles for ten or twenty countries, is agenda-pushing. AfricaTanz's argument that this information is relevant to each of the article is flawed. Imagine someone editing an article, "Accomplishments of Politician X while in office", to add two thousands words on what Politician X didn't do that one might argue he or she was constitutionally or legally obligated to do, and then listing the entirety of the allegedly contravened laws—and then doing this for every officeholder in the same government, repeating the same text every time. Certainly it isn't wrong to mention that "Country C's actual policies and practices are contrary to Agreement 1 and Agreement 2 to which the country is signatory", but as a concise observation, not at such length that the article is, in effect, not about what the state of LGBT rights is but what the author wants us to know it should be. WP:SOAPBOX, WP:COATRACK. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Much of the content is clearly WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Other parts may be acceptable content for other articles (eg. LGBT rights under international law) but not relevant to the country-specific articles. It might be appropriate to briefly mention in country articles any relevant conventions which the country has ratified (eg. ICCPR); on the other, if there are no secondary sources discussing the application of international law to LGBT rights in that particular country I don't see how it can be written about without engaging in SYNTH. I am particularly bothered by the inclusion of the quote from the South African court in all these articles; it is completely irrelevant to other countries. In some cases there are also WP:NPOV issues where opinions are expressed as facts. Some of this might be keepable if it were reworded to attribute it as a particular source's view; for example, instead of saying "the country's laws about same-sex sexual activity are a continuing violation of its obligations under the Covenant" it would be much more appropriate to say "the UN Human Rights Committe has described the country's laws about same-sex sexual activity as a continuing violation of its obligations under the Covenant". - htonl (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

My answers to the four RfC questions are: probably, probably, almost certainly, and definitely. Htonl said it better than I would have, so I'll just add "per Htonl's comment above". Rivertorch (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am not an expert regarding these issues in the African context. However, to give my 2 cents on the RFC (which I came to via wikiproject Africa posting). Basis for the comments: The context does not talk about the African Charter or Ban Ki Moon's comments on the subject in Kenya. These are quite puzzling omissions for me. 1. Yes, it is factually inaccurate. It is nice to find some treaties and some committee decisions that deal with LGBT issues in international law, it is accurate however to find relevant and meaningful legal discussions (as determined by international court cases, statements by high ranking individuals or changes in national policy to be in line with international legal norms). Lawrence v. Texas has zero to do with LGBT issues in Senegal. In addition, the interpretation of some of the laws is way too broad (in terms of mainstream international legal opinion) and although the UDHR has in recent years been seen to have LGBT ramifications, this is a new and still embryonic interpretation and its relevance to Africa is being discussed. Focusing on actually relevant international law not just law that one hopes will be applied, is similarly said by Hton1 and Khazar 2. 2. Yes. 3. Yes, 4. Yes. A focus on the African charter for Human and People's rights would at least make it regionally relevant. Unlike some above, I find the reading of "Obligations" with no eye to relevant context (once again defined not in terms of laws which may bear on the situation but obligations which countries have specifically accepted, or have been used in court cases, or changed policy in the countries) to be of little value to the Articles and it probably should be deleted wholesale. I have no objection to a relevant section, but the acontextual nature of the current sections makes it of little use. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Addendum- I dealt with the "accuracy" of the content on the Africa-specific pages. Its content on this page is similarly problematic in some respects, but may have valuable content for this page (although a rewrite is appropriate). My suggestion is for a rewrite on this page (hopefully with a more global focus) and the contents deleted on Africa-related pages. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with AbstractIllusions' suggestion. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The material should not have been added and should be removed. TFD (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Would someone be so kind as to inform User:AfricaTanz of this RFC? I would do so myself except that, like so many others, he has "banned" me from posting on his user talk page. I asked an administrator to do so yesterday but it appears they're not around. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think i'm in the same boat, but i posted recently in good faith and was ignored...Thanks ツ Jenova20 12:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a message on his/her talk page. - htonl (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• NA-Class LGBTQ+ studies pages
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment