Talk:Civil partnership in the United Kingdom/Archive 2

message: Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place here, and if I am, my apologies: but where in the name of hell is the section of this page that mentions opposition to Civil Partnerships?  There many legitimate and well known, independent polls (most through simply googling "Independent civil partnership poles"), that show the majority of people in this country were (regardless of whether they still are) opposed to civil partnerships.  Yet there is no mention here of any opposition.  Again, apologies if I'm looking in the wrong place.
: Kindly sign your comments with four tildes.  New points should also be raised at the end of the page and not capitalised in this manner.  (I have corrected this) There are any number of polls showing support and disagreement with any number of subjects, we are not required to regurgitate them here.  Tho, for the record, even chaging "poles" to the correct spelling, your google search produces nothing of the sort, indeed the results contradict your assertion.  Oposition, if indeed there is any, seems to be statistically insignificant and unworthy of inclusion on a well-researched and well-written article 86.153.93.200 23:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is about civil partnerships in the United Kingdom.  The existence of civil partnerships in the United Kingdom is not in dispute, and therefore a section on "opposition" is inappropriate here.  Where mention of opposition is appropriate is in the article about the Civil Partnerships Act 2004, where there is a description of the legistlative process - and, sure enough, here is the section that deals with opposition to the Bill that eventually became the Act.--GuillaumeTell 00:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition

message: On a different matter, I notice that we're being prompted to move some of the older bits of Talk into an archive as the page is getting a tad lengthy - Happy to start the archive, but unsure which date we might wanna cut off at.  Any thoughts?  Joel on the SOL 18:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Up to the Article rating section seems a good idea. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought that, but then noticed that the Differences section had recently (well, ish!) been added to and I'd thought that was long dead!  :-)  Oh, I dunno, will pick a randowm date.  Hmm.  Over 3 months old is as good a choice as any other, I suppose!  Joel on the SOL 18:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: So here is a call - per discussion above - to come to consensus on a rating for this article.  I ask all participants (editors, readers, lurkers, etc) that wish to comment to please add their ideas of what the rating for this article should be - NA, Stub, Start, B, GA, A, or FA.  For more information on the ratings system, please visit .  Comments in this section should be strictly a rating and reasons for that rating.  Thanks, -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per an admin's advice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I have changed the rating back to "B" Jeffpw 22:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment rating - REALLY 

message: Please limit all discussion of the assessment rating of this article to the article itself or the guidelines for ratings, period. The "qualifications" of other posters are not relevant here (or anywhere on Wikipedia, for that matter), and personal attacks will not be tolerated. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment rating discussion

message: In the lead section of this article, it is stated that "Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage (bold is mine). Further down in the body of the article, it is written that "Adoption provisions will also be amended so that civil partners will be treated in the same way as married couples" (again, bolding is mine). If civil partners will at some undefined point in the future be treated in the same way as married partners, then at this time the rights and responsibilities are not identical. Please clarify this point. I have added the word "nearly" to the lead to make it consistent with the body of the article. If you have another solution, please feel free to discuss or change. Jeffpw 09:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the second line refered to "will also be" is just out of date.  As far as I know (and http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2004/40033--g.htm seems to back this up in Section 79) covers this point.  Have altered the line to read "virtually identical" in the meantime as somehow "nearly" seemed a bit too vague.  Will leave it to others to decide how to go from here. 81.159.212.153 10:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I did a search, and it seems clear that as far as adoption is concerned, Civil Partners may indeed file an adoption request. I will change the adoption section to reflect that. The page I found stated this: rights and responsibilities similar to those of married couples. Perhaps that is the best way to state the lead? It was, after all, written by an attorney specializing in family law. As a quick aside, I see lots of wonderful references that could be sprinkled through the article to comply with WP:V. If there is no objection, I will make a list of them, and start adding them tomorrow. Also, the Civil Partnership Act itself is used as an external link. It is perhaps better used as a reference within the article itself (it cannot be put in both places). Jeffpw 10:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apparent inconsistency

message: Some of the links in the info box are duplicated at the bottom of the page.  Is this usual/acceptable?  NoStringsAttached 11:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done  NoStringsAttached 12:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox/links 

message: A couple of points.
*1 - The article now says that as of 5 Dec 31000 CPs have been formed.  Can we have confirmation fo that from somewhere other than a broken link (see 2 below) which I assume relates to this point   As far as I know, the figures up to December will not be published for another few months.
*2 - The link/ref seems to be broken and/or improperly formatted.  Have looked at it but can't work out what's up.
NoStringsAttached 13:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Had a look at that ref. Its not broken- it refers to the paper edition of the Telegraph for that day. Not an online article on their website... -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Per my Talk page, I have decided not to edit further on WP.  The photo looks fine, however, so why not ask 'em.  NoStringsAttached 14:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  31000!?  Plus problem with ref 5 

message: Chris, I've managed to find a shot of people actually signing the register. . Don't worry about the look of it at the moment- its a v good quality photo and I can easily sort the brightness and saturation problems. Was wondering what you think of it. Its a free image but I think we should drop them a message to ask if they mind being the illustration of "civil partnership" on Wiki and if they want their names in the caption. -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per my Talk page, I have decided not to edit further on WP.  The photo looks fine, however, so why not ask 'em.  NoStringsAttached 14:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: There is widespread criticism from queer activists/groups that CP is 'normalising' and 'assimilating' homosexuals into existing hetero structures.  For example, a lot of early gay rights activism was considerably more 'radical' than OutRage and Peter Tatchell et al - such as about creating alternative family structures, getting rid of the concept of 'the family' all together and getting rid of political/legislative hurdles to people living in ways that was different to the hetero-norm.  
Some of those people who are still around today are criticising the mainstream gay rights groups for being amoungst other things a)too middle class eg. fighting for gays in the military or rights for gay (usually male) city-lawyers and b) comprimising/assimilating by accepting a modified form of what was seen as an oppressive structure (marriage) and not campaigning for a change in legislation away from preferencing the traditional Christian family system (don't have any references to hand, nor the time right now to look any up so please don't disregard this comment for that - i'll pop back later with some)  Perhaps it's valid to include a mention of this so that people researching the topic are getting a broad picture.  Any thoughts? Gazzelle 21:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the outcry "widespread"?  Setting that aside, such claims are better suited IMHO to more general discussion of gay rights in the UK (indeed worldwide) rather than here.  Vacant Stare 15:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: some queer criticisms of CP

message: The main photo on this article is cool: but have the two ladies in question given their permission?  The copyright seems to be unknown, also.  Would be a shame if it got wiped. :(  86.153.93.200 17:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: A merge has been suggested in the Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom talk page. Much reference is made to civil partnerships in that article. Please discuss on the other talk page. Bamkin 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The merge (which by the by was mooted six months ago and gathered no support in that time) is a terrible idea and will confuse this well-written article.  86.153.93.200 07:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The merge suggestion has not even been tagged properly!  Pffff!  86.153.93.200 12:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I was going to suggest this merge. Although merging may be difficult, it does not mean it should not be done. Lawyerbot (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal