Talk:LGBT rights in Canada

message: New article Gay rights in Canada taken from part of article Gay rights
Wuzzy 04:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article was removed from the :Category:Canadian law category on February 8, 2006.
I think that the article belongs in the :Category:Canadian law category, among others, because most of the article is about amendments to laws, and interpretation of laws (ie caselaw). Also, a right is a legal concept. What do you think? Wuzzy 13:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is more political than legal. Ardenn 15:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian law category

message: On April 11, 2006, NTK replaced the Canadian flag in the "Gay rights in Canada"  template with a rainbow version of the Canadian flag. 
Since this is only one of the articles affected, please give your comments at this central location: Template talk:GR-C 
Wuzzy 03:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is rainbow Canada flag better?

message: Currently this article focuses primarily on legal rights. While these are important, we should probably mention social attitudes, as does Gay rights in Spain and other articles in the series. Unfortunately I don't know where to start looking for sources, although books such as Pink Blood or Mort ou fif would be good places to look for the negative side. - Montréalais 17:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Society

message: The opening sentence "Canada has provided more legal rights for LGBT people than many other liberal nations." is kind of bad, I think. It sounds way too subjective (how many is many?). Maybe it should be changed to something along the lines of "...is one of the forerunners in LGBT rights in the world." or the less sensational "Canada provides significant legal rights for LGBT people." --69.159.228.177 14:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first suggestion has a pro-LGBT bias. The second sentence I can live with but it suffers from the same issue you raised in the original article wording (how is "significant" defined?).  I think the current article lead is accurate to all sides regardless of what view one has on the topic, and it has stood the test of time for a while. Deet 00:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: :Image:Charter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Charter.jpg

message: The article needs more on the pre-1967 period. For example, what exactly did the criminal code prohibit? Was it specifically male-male sexual contact that was criminalized, or lesbian sex as well? And how was it defined in the legislation and interpreted by courts? I did a brief Internet search but could not find the text of the pre-1969 Criminal Code. --Mathew5000 (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  criminality 

message: From another article (LGBT adoption), it would seem that adoption and parenting rights vary from state to state. Seems like it would be worthwhile to add a section about this rather important aspect. Perhaps a knowledgeable Canadian can assist? Ikzing (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parenting rights 

message: At LGBT rights in Canada#Same-sex marriage it says "By July 2005, same-sex marriages were legally recognized in all  provinces and territories except Alberta,  Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories and Nunavut,..." but at Same-sex marriage in Canada#Same-sex marriage by province it says "20 July 2005 (Civil Marriage Act): Alberta, Prince Edward Island,  Nunavut territory, and the Northwest  Territories". Now I realise that this article could mean as of July 1 but I think that the most common reading of "By July 2005,..." is that it refers to 30 July. something lame from CBW 08:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly contradicts [[Same-sex marriage in Canada#Same-sex marriage by province]] 

message: In the Living Conditions table, the row: MSMs allowed to donate blood: Yes But after a 5-year deferral
It's not a "deferral".  It's 5 years of no sex with men.  A man who does not have sex with men for 5 years can't reasonably be described as MSM.  This should still be marked with an X for "no".24.57.218.21 (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't a 5-year "deferral" effectively "NO"? 

message: I don't understand what you mean by "Only after a 5-year deferral".
Could you please make it more clear? Are homosexuals allowed to donate blood, or not?
--83.130.107.195 (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are homosexuals allowed to donate blood in Canada? 

message: Under the table that describes whether trans sexuality has been taken off of the DSM, should it be trans sexual or trans gender?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.25.94 (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trans sexuality 

message: User:67.71.119.188, can you please explain your intent behind this edit, where you changed the section title to #Hate propaganda and like minds?  I don't understand. (Leaving you a message at your talk page pointing you here. Mathglot (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  like minds? 

message: Strange! Not in the source. Can delete or rewrite? -- Флаттершай (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you for coming back with your comment. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: changed "prominent" to "extensive";  there are now sources in the lead that provide comparative background;  "extensive" is a better descriptor for the wide range of LGBT rights in Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  (re some of the most prominent in the Americas and in the world.) 

message: I've removed the tick and cross marks from the article.  The documentation for both of these marks is that they are not to be used for articles.  See Template:Tick:  "This template inserts an inline green tick or check (✓) image, indicating agreement (or other affirmatives: acceptance, completion, etc.). It is not for use in articles."  See also Template:Xmark: "This template inserts an inline red diagonal cross (X) image, indicating negation (or some other negatory message: rejection, failure, etc.). It is not for use in articles."  The reason why these symbols are not to be used in articles is apparent from these comments:  the green check mark indicates agreement, while the red X indicates rejection.  Neither of these are consistent with NPOV, which is required for articles. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I also went to check the Accessibility guidelines to see if the green check mark and the red X mark are consistent with Accessibility.  It looks like they are, since the two symbols are used extensively in the article:  to indicate approval for certain practices/formatting, and disapproval for other practices/formatting:  Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility.  That usage on a Style page highlights the concern which I have:  these marks have a non-neutral symbolism, are used in a non-neutral way, and therefore are not consistent with NPOV. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the "Guardian of the Wikipedia", responsible for consistency in all articles.  For one thing, I don't know enough. :)  However, this article was  using those marks contrary with the directions in the template documentation, and in a way that is not consistent with NPOV, which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Using marks that are designed to show approval ("indicating agreement (or other affirmatives: acceptance, completion, etc.)", on the one hand, and disapproval ("indicating negation (or some other negatory message: rejection, failure, etc.)"), on the other, is not consistent with the NPOV duty to avoid advocacy. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Lots of pages to fix full of ticks not to be used in article namespace. Its really too bab all these articles dont work for anyone with accsibilty problems. Let alone meaning is not yes/no.Moxy- 15:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed tick and cross marks 

message: Have re-inserted the section on provincial and territorial hate speech restrictions in the Summary table.  For the details, see the section in the article:  "Hate speech and propaganda :  Provincial laws" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Canada#Provincial_and_territorial_laws_2 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hate publications 

message: Nothing here on the homosexuality detection device used to avoid hiring undesirables into the rcmp until the mid 80s?  Or about that horrible taskforce that worked to remove suspected gay people from office up until the late 90's?  Seriously, this reads like a tourism ad. 170.10.253.226 (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has clearly been whitewashed to diminish anti-lgbt government action 

message: I stumbled upon this phrase in the "Constitutional Framework" section, and found it a little surprising.
In addition, "the Supreme Court identified a number of interests as significant within the context of section 15", namely "access to homosexual erotica for gay and lesbian culture".
I went to check the citation that immediately follows, but the cited page doesn't seem to contain any text relating to the claim? A quick CTRL-F for any portions of this quote doesn't turn up any related results. I could just be failing to read correctly but it'd probably help to link to a specific heading or something if it's simply just buried.
173.31.53.74 (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right.  My guess is that the wording of that Charterpedia article has been modified since the quotation.  It's a perpetual work in progress from the federal Justice Department and gets updated as the cases come out.  The reference to gay and lesbian erotica probably was a reference to the Supreme Court's decision in Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), which does refer to a finding by the trial judge that "access to homosexual erotica was central to gay and lesbian culture " (para. 122).  However, since the majority decision doesn't appear to adopt that, and it's no longer in the Charterpedia, I think it's best just to delete that sentence, since it's no longer sourced and doesn't come directly from Little Sisters.  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seemingly unsourced claim? 

message: I decided to add as much as possible to the Summary Table starting a couple of months ago. It was a painstaking job to find as much as I could. I based it on the United States summary table. However out of nowhere someone went in and starting removing content and also stated that I committed vandalism by adding the additional info to the summary table. This individual's IP address is very long and he does not have a user name. I felt saddened that he did this. So what I am asking for is that in the future when we all decide to do any changes to the summary table we should try and do so in a mature and polite manner and and in doing so act like adults and not as kids. If it is felt that something should be discussed on the talkpage because something is in error or not factual than lets do that for transparency. Thank you tom950. Tom950 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary Table