Talk:LGBT rights in Taiwan

message: http://focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201501040018.aspx 217.247.109.63 (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenous lesbian couple 'adopts' daughter in tribal ceremony 

message: This page should be moved to reflect the article's move. --Tærkast (Discuss) 16:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk wasn't moved 

message: Someone needs to edit this page to reflect 24 May 2017's court ruling in favour of same-sex marriage. (I'm new to Wikipedia and don't want to mess anything up by trying to do it myself.)
LivaG (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional court ruling 

message: As far as I know, Israel’s civil union protection for same-sex couples is better than that of Taiwan. They can Joint adoption, IVF, and even donate blood. Israel recognizes same-sex marriage abroad. Taiwan’s protection for transgender is not even as good as Israel and Pakistan.--S59112024 (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan's LGBT rights are regarded as the most progressive in Asia 

message: Apologies if I am missing an obvious reference guide or similar, but I have searched for one before posting this. I am unsure of how to reffer to the sources and citations used, for ease of understanding I have decided to refer to the citation number as of the 25th of May 2023 at 9 am Greenwich time, clarification and direct links to these sources will be provided if asked.
As of posting this the article clearly states that married LGBTQ couples now have the right to jointly adopt children  since 2023 in the first paragraph with clarification that they have full adoption rights/ the child does not need to be related to either parent much later on. Yet in some places it states that a same-sex partner can only adopt their partners biological child. As the more recent sources clearly specify that the bill has already been passed with the implication that it is effective immediately, why is the article still maintaining that stepchild adoptions are the only available form of adoption for married same-sex couples?
It would be prudent to not use citation [53], [54], [55], [60], and [63] as the sources for adoption rights in 2023. Instead, they are now relevant in regards to adoption when same-sex marriage was first legalised and leading up to and part of May 2023. Citations [1], [66], [67], and [119] seem more useful for the situation during and after May 2023.
Similarly, the use of citation [63] to state that no legalisation to codify the court ruling seems outdated, as citations [66] and [67] are used in the next paragraph to support the statement that legalisation in support of said ruling has been passed, with the implication that it became effective immediately. Unless there is a difference larger than minor semantics between passing and codifying a legalisation these two statements seem to contradict each other. 
As such I propose a larger overhaul of the [Adoption and family planning] subcategory to update it in regards to what is the status of adoption rights in 2023 and what it was before that using more precise language. Similar edits seem to be needed in other places too. Furthermore, a complete rewrite of everything adoption-related in the [Adoption and family planning] subcategory that increases the coherency without losing any information anlog the way would be personally appreciated. Citations [1], [66], [67], and [119] seem to be the most suited for the current status while citations [53], [54], [55], [60], and [63] seem to be better suited for the historical background. Some of the more recent citations refer to the same source without any jumps and just linking to it without retrieval date, that should also be undertaken. 
I am willing to do all of this myself, but as these would be major edits I want at the minimum some feedback beforehand in this plan so that I don't do a mistake or preferably someone more experienced in editing takes on some of the more tricky parts. 176.10.220.162 (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adoption, conflicting status and possibly outdated information? 

message: What does "LGBT people in Taiwan are regarded as the most comprehensive" mean? Comprehensive people? That's ridiculous. I'd say you guys overdid it. Again. Cyanmax (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would be ridiculous if that's what it said. What it does say is that their rights are the most comprehensive. Largoplazo (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird wording