Stephenne
Joined 27 August 2008
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Road Wizard in topic Gender Recognition Act 2004
Welcome
edit
|
Gender Recognition Act 2004
editHi again. I have partially reverted your changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 article. Internal links such as to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 article should not be replaced by links to external websites. Also, linking to external articles about an unexplained term instead of creating a new Wikipedia article is not really appropriate. If the term is important you can either explain it within the article, or click on the "red link" and create a new Wikipedia article about it. Links to external sites are normally provided in an "External links" section at the bottom of an article or are included in a citation to support an individual claim within an article. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- On reflection I have reverted your edit completely. The text you added:
- Although with the Civil Partnership Act 2004, civil partnerships are now available for married people, one of which transitions to their preferred gender, the process of translating a marriage into a civil partnership is convoluted and protracted. Whilst the drafters of the legislation may have expected the annulment of a marriage and recreation of a civil partnership after the issue of the GRC to a be a simple paper exercise, the courts take the view this is like any divorce with the associated paperwork and costs. There are also a number of legal traps awaiting the unwary as the the marriage is ended and a completely new arrangement brought into being which does not in all circumstances (such as wills) necessarily follow on seamlessly. The emotional stress introduced into the relationship is very destructive and cruel to both parties.
- Appears to reflect a particular point of view but has no source to support it. At Wikipedia we try to write articles that are Verifiable, contain No original research and are written from a Neutral point of view.
- As an example of the problem with the above paragraph, the closing sentence says "The emotional stress introduced into the relationship is very destructive and cruel to both parties." This would fail both our Verifiable and No original research policies. Who says it causes "emotional stress" or that it is "very destructive and cruel"? How often does it cause "emotional stress"? Currently the text reads that it is "very destructive and cruel" in every single case. Do you have evidence to support this?
- The paragraph is probably salvageable if we rephrase some of the sentences and provide evidence of sourcing, for example, if we write:
- A professor of psychology at the University of London, Mr XXX, describes the process as "very destructive and cruel to both parties."
- This would retain Wikipedia's neutral tone as we are just quoting another party and we are also providing context for the reader. It is up to then up to the reader to judge whether the originator's opinion is valid or not. If you have any questions about editing, you can ask them here or on my talk page (click the talk link after my name). Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. I have again removed your external links. If you want to create a new article in Wikipedia about those subjects then go ahead, but please don't link to an external article in place of a Wikipedia article. Also, if there is a "lack of any kind of accessible refernce material" then the information should not be added to Wikipedia per the above mentioned policies. If you have any references at all please provide them here, we can then discuss what statements they can support.
- Adherence to the Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view policies are unfortunately non-negotiable. We have to find some method of referencing the statements you are adding if you want to retain them within the article.
- Please discuss the issue here if you wish to avoid your edits being reverted. Road Wizard (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is no need for you to give up, you just need to get used to phrasing your statements neutrally with proper sources to support them. The Daily Mail source supports some of what you said, so what we could write into the article is:
- Although the Civil Partnership Act 2004 allows the creation of civil partnerships between same sex couples, a married couple that includes a transgendered partner cannot simply re-register their new status. They must first have their marriage annulled, gain legal recognition of the new gender and then register for a civil partnership. Tamara Wilding of the Beaumont Society pressure group stated that it was "not fair that people in this situation should have to annul their marriage and then enter a civil partnership. The law needs tidying up. It would be easy to put an amendment in the civil partnership law to allow people who have gone through gender-reassignment, and want that to be recognised, to have the status of their relationship continued." However others, such as barrister Karen Brody, have argued that a change in the law isn't necessary.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-563303/Transsexual-husband-annuls-marriage-enters-civil-partnership-wife-pension-benefits.html|title=Transsexual husband annuls marriage and enters into civil partnership with wife to keep pension benefits|last=Levy|first=Andrew|date=1 May 2008 |work=[[Mail Online]]|publisher=[[Associated Newspapers Ltd]]|accessdate=2008-09-06}}</ref>
- That appears the basics of what the source can support. If you have other sources available we can see if anything else can be added back in. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is no need for you to give up, you just need to get used to phrasing your statements neutrally with proper sources to support them. The Daily Mail source supports some of what you said, so what we could write into the article is: