Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of US ballot initiatives to repeal LGBT anti-discrimination laws/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:42, 28 September 2009 [1].
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria for featured lists or if not can be updated easily to meet them. Otto4711 (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even though it would make it longer, shouldn't the title be amended? This article is entirely about the US, and doesn't even appear to mention that the rest of the world exists. Yes, the US is the only place to use the term "ballot initiative" rather than "referendum", but that's pure semantics; an Italian publicly proposed legislative referendum is exactly the same mechanism, for instance. – iridescent 21:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My only reluctance to rename is that the title is already extremely long. If the title as is becomes a barrier to promotion then I have no objection to a rename. Otto4711 (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does anyone have any comment other than about the name? Otto4711 (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Only refers to American initiatives, therefore massively incomplete. There's a whole world out there... -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 14:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As several people have pointed out, issues of scope can be addressed by adding the letters "US" to the article name. Otto4711 (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose unfortunately. Domestic partnerships and "bans of anti-discrimination laws" are not anti-discrimination laws, but their repeal/approval is included as if they were. Less important and perhaps debateable is the fair-use rationale "no free image is known to exist" for the image - I think one can write an email to any number of organizations involved in these efforts, including the one at hand, and reasonably expect to obtain a free image. Hekerui (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand the first critique. Domestic partnerships extend limited rights to same-sex couples who are discriminated against under federal and (most) state marriage statutes and the repeal of ordinances guaranteeing those rights are certainly within the scope of this list. Leaving out the local Oregon initiatives on the basis of their being proactive presents an incomplete picture of the situation in that state. As for the second, there is no requirement that images must be non-free, just that they comply with fair use policies. As a non-free image of a historical event, I believe this qualifies. Otto4711 (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The two types of laws, partnership and nondiscrimination, are treated as distinct from each other in legislatures and it is not reported that anti-discrimination laws are repealed when domestic partnerships get repealed, or not? There's nothing "anti" from the outset in a domestic partnership law, because rights are extended. Hekerui (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In most cases they are, in some cases they are not. The distinction between removing protections and withdrawing "extended" protections seems a rather semantic fine hair to split. I'm not sure what "there's nothing anti from the outset" means exactly, but repealing partnership benefits strikes me as very "anti" as repeal takes away rights, protections and privileges. Otto4711 (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they always are. How about the fact that anti-discrimination laws apply to individuals and partnership laws don't? Domestic partnerships grant some or a substantial number of rights of marriage, anti-discrimination laws don't. Hekerui (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is having five entries on DP ordinances that have been targeted for repeal really such a massive threat to the integrity of this list? Really? Is it not at all possible that inclusion enhances the list, even just a little bit, by covering instances of laws designed to protect LGBT people being targeted for reversal? Are we really so mired in pedantism? Otto4711 (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll stay neutral on the FL worthiness, as US politics is opaque to me. But i also wondered why domestic patnerships comes under this articles purview. While it could be argued that revoking DP rights is equivalent to revoking anti-discrimination laws, that arguement could be applied to the whole decriminalisation of homosexuality, no? And unless a law is explicitly an anti-discrimination law, many people would argue to not allowing same-sex DPs is not discrimination (I've read at least one article saying it wasn't discrimination, as gay people are still fully within their rights to marry the opposite gender). But reader usefulness trumps all imo, so i would say keep them here (maybe needing a further retittle though).YobMod 18:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.