Wikipedia

Talk:LGBTQ rights in Ecuador

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Self-revert

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
WP:DENY section from blocked sock

Copied from talk page inasmuch as this discussion should be carried on by all editors of this article, not just two. If you disagree, just revert back. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm requesting that you revert yourself at LGBT rights in Ecuador. I wrote that the activist group claims those things, not because the word "claim" is quoted in sources, but because their allegations against the clinics are claims and not necessarily factual. Zaalbar (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Maybe I missed it when I read the sources, and perhaps we are taking about two different, but similar things. Can you please quote one or both sources to show that the sources say that...
"Fundacion Causana began a petition on Change.org to entreat the Ecuadorean Minister of Health to close down over 200 "ex-gay clinics" which [Fudacion Causana claim] are known for starving, abusing, and torturing patients..."
I will gladly self-revert as soon as you point me to a source for that. Cheers. - MrX 00:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
A quote of "Fudacion Causana claim" isn't needed. The group claims those things in their allegations against the clinics. BTW, the specific wording I want attributed as a claim is found in the source about 2/3 down (or 1/2 when you click "see more") and seems to be the petition. Zaalbar (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
We are both talking about source [10], right? Here is the only text that I see that supports the work claim:
"These clinics which claim to “cure” homosexuality have decreased in popularity in recent years yet still remain a horrific reality for many."
As you can see, this does not support your edit.
Here are the related sections of text from the source that I believe support my edit:
  • "The end of women suffering physical and emotional abuse including sexual assault and torture in Ecuadorian clinics trying to cure them of being lesbian."
  • "Fundacion Causana, a human rights group in Quito, Ecuador has been working on behalf of countless women being help against their will in hundreds of these underground clinics."
  • "After over 100,000 people around the world signed the petition on Change.org, the Ministry of Health was ready to meet with Fundacion Causana and take responsibility for the violence against LGBT."
  • "After ten years of outcry, the nation of Ecuador- through the Ministry of Public Health- has entered into a commitment with civic organizations and society in general to deconstruct the belief that homosexuality is an illness and root our the use of torture in these clinics."
To recap, the source does not say that Fundacion Causana claimed anything, so we can' have that original research in the article. - MrX 00:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't really understand what you mean. The source/petition says "Petition by Fundacion Causana" up the top. Therefore, it is a claim by that group. Zaalbar (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
No, a petition is not a claim, it is a call to action backed by the people who sign it. Our policies regarding original research do not allow us to call a petition a claim, especially when using a primary source (the petition itself). - MrX 01:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
No, a petition can be a claim or can contain claims. This petition contains claims and presenting them as fact is against our policies. I don't want to go through an RfC; can you direct me to a board that can deal with this? Zaalbar (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
My best guess would be WP:DRN or WP:ORN. - MrX 01:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Okay, opened a section at ORN. Zaalbar (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Reverts

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A user has been reverting my edits in this article for no reasons. In the section about same-sex adoptions, I wrote that single people can freely adopt and cited the Ecuadorian Children's Right Code as a source, bur he reverted me saying that he doesn't speak Spanish. That's not a reason at all to revert me, he can't just presume bad faith and revert me because he just doesn't speak a certain language. Ecuador is a Spanish-speaking country so all the laws are obviously going to be written in Spanish. I'm going to provide a translation of the article here, but it should be noted that the user reverted me even when he shouldn't have done so.

Also I provided a source that talked about how the article of the Ecuadorian Penal Code that used to criminalize sexual acts between persons of the same sex was overturned by the Constitutional Tribunal (Ecuador's highest court), but then he just reverted me saying that the Constitutional Tribunal can't overturn laws. I don't know if he's some kind of expert in Ecuadorian laws, but he can't just do that. I provided a source that stated what I wrote but he just deleted it without presenting a source saying that the Constitutional Tribunal of Ecuador can't overturn laws. He obviously didn't think that the highest courts of every country work in a different way. So again, he shouldn't have reverted me unless he could provide a source.

Third, I've presented many sources about the legalization of civil unions in Ecuador, both in Spanish and English. He just called them flat out wrong and reverted me again. This is unacceptable. He can't just do that. I presented many sources that give prove of this but he just deleted what I wrote. He didn't present a single source to support his statement that all the other sources were "flat out wrong", so unless he provide one, he can't revert me. I live in Ecuador, so I know from personal experience about these things, but not just that, as I said, I provided sources for every single statement I included in the article. He haven't. He presumed bad faith from me, even when he shouldn't have done so. I'm including my sourced information again, and I expect more than calling them "flat out wrong" or "I don't speak Spanish" if someone wants to delete it.

By the way the article that states that adoption by single people is possible is the 153, which translates roughly to "Legal constituted heterosexual couples will be prefered at the time of an adoption than single people". --DrkFrdric (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Refer to WP:BRD. Reasons were given. It's disingenuous to claim otherwise. I do, in fact, speak Spanish. The problem isn't the language of the source you've cited. Rather, the problem is that you've cited a very long code to support a narrow point. You must be more specific. "Overturn" is not equivalent to "ruling a law unconstitutional". The court did not "overturn" anything. It's a fine but necessary point. The constitution does not, in fact, mention civil unions for LGBT persons. That is one of several problems with your summary of Article 68. I suggest that you review WP:AGF and stop edit warring before you get blocked. AfricaTanz (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
The source cited for the decriminalization of sexual acts between people of the same-sex states "overturned" not "declared unconstitutional", so unless you can't provide a source that says the law wasn't overturned but declared unconstitutional, the article must say "overturned" because that's what our source says. Also, this is the English Wikipedia, so I don't know why you keep adding an article in Spanish. Now, the civil unions thing, maybe you don't know about this, but those "Stable monogamous relationships" that the constitution talks about, are called civil unions when they are registered, because here in Ecuador you get all the rights from marriage whether you register your relationship or not. That's why every single source in this article calls them civil unions, because that's the name they receive by the notaries when they are registered. So, here in Ecuador, those "stable and monogamous relationships" are civil unions when registered and unregistered cohabitation ehrn they are not. For example, here in Ecuador it's common to say "voy a unirme por lo civil", which translates to something like "I'm going to civil union" when somebody registers their "stable monogamous relationship", you are just presuming all the sources are wrong, but in fact it is you who, I assume, don't know a lot about Ecuadorian laws. Anyway, maybe that will not be enough for you to prove you that article 68 refers to civil unions, so I'm just going to add that civil unions are legal and not refer to article 68, because nobody can deny the fact that civil unions are legal there are so many sources everywhere, and none that says the contrary... --DrkFrdric (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Data critical to transsexual & transgender people is missing.

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How does Ecuador deal with transsexual people?

Is transition &/or surgery legal?

Are they allowed to correct their identity documents? Is genital surgery required to correct identity documents?

Are they counted as members of their aquired sex for purposes of marriage?

Likewise for transgender/non-op transsexuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.115.155 (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cyberbot II has detected links on LGBT rights in Ecuador which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.change.org/petitions/ecuador-minister-of-health-close-remaining-ex-gay-torture-clinics-in-ecuador
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cyberbot II has detected links on LGBT rights in Ecuador which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.change.org/petitions/ecuador-minister-of-health-close-remaining-ex-gay-torture-clinics-in-ecuador
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT rights in Ecuador. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on LGBT rights in Ecuador. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBTQ_rights_in_Ecuador&oldid=1248376548"