Talk:Recognition of gay unions in Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Recognition of gay unions in Ireland has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Reference

I have removed the sentence below - as the department of Justice website does not state this at all

}}</ref>. In June, the terms of reference were amended so that the committee was no longer precluded from considering full marriage rights for same-sex couples[1].

This is what the DOJ website says

The Group is charged with preparing an Options Paper on Domestic Partnership for presentation to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform by October 2006, within the following terms of reference:

to consider the categories of partnerships and relationships outside of marriage to which legal effect and recognition might be accorded, consistent with Constitutional provisions, and to identify options as to how and to what extent legal recognition could be given to those alternative forms of partnership, including partnerships entered into outside the State. The Group is to take into account models in place in other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirage26 (talk • contribs) 06:06 4 July

Ok, fair enough. I will go back to my source and check.--Rye1967 17:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass
2. Factually accurate? Pass
3. Broad in coverage? Pass
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? N/A


Additional comments :

  • May we have a citation for Examples are those of a man who sought to use his partners free-travel rights, and of a man whose partner, the leaseholder of their residence, died.
  • Inline citations should go after punctuation in WP.
  • have commented publicly in recent years is not acceptable because WP is time independent.

Well-cited text, it is really informative and keeps a neutral tone. Only a few comments have been made that can be fixed in a jiffy and then we can consider awarding the GA status. Lincher 14:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

This article has looked into the majority of the comments and now meets the requirements. Lincher 01:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger with Same-sex marriage in Ireland

It is proposed to merge this article and Same-sex marriage in Ireland into a new (to be created) article called Same-sex marriage and civil unions in the Republic of Ireland. In order not to prejudge the result of the discussion I haven't created this article yet. Other suggestions for the name of the destination article are welcome.

This is part of a general proposed merger of the "Same-sex marriage in..." with the "Civil unions in..." series. Any general points can be discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#"Same-sex marriage in ..." v. "Civil unions in the ...".

In essence these articles deal with the same subject matter and unified articles could deal more comprehensively with the topic and avoid unnecessary repetition. Caveat lector 17:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the merger. On Talk:Same-sex marriage in Ireland, I had attemped to do this before but it foundered, one of the issues being the lack of a suitable title. I don't like your suggestion, how about Recognition of gay unions in Ireland --Rye1967 17:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
So I noticed. I figured a neutral merged article title would stand a better chance of success. In risk of repeating myself I'll go along with Recognition of gay unions in Ireland. As far as the Ireland articles go I think only the public opinion section of the Same-sex marriage in Ireland article is worth keeping. Civil unions in the Republic of Ireland is clearly a much better article. Caveat lector 18:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Before you merge, please take a moment to consider the issues I raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Let.27s_think_about_this--Textorus 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The new para. on Proposed Civil Unions

This paragraph is based on the policy statement of the Taoiseach at the recent re-launch of outhouse in July 2007. I think that the statement is not unique or sufficiently notable to deserve a paragaraph of its own. There have been many similiar Government statements in the past that have not been given paragraphs such as:

  • The FF/GP Programme for Government of June 2007
  • Statements by Justice Minister McDowell and others during Dail debates on the Labour Party Bill of Feb 2007
  • Govt response in Nov 2006 to the Colley Report
  • Taoiseachs comments in Jan 2006 at the launch of the Constitutional Committe report
  • Taoiseachs comments during his previous visit to Outhouse in 2006

etc etc so we don't need to even mention every one.

What is notable and probably deserves mention in the opening paragrph, or on the public debate section is that the programme for government promises the introduction of Civil Partnerships during the lifetime of the Govt. That is a new elevation of the issue and notable as evidence of continuance by the new Govt of the same attitude already mentioned in the OP Comments?--Rye1967 13:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the history of promises as you mention; I had seen the latest one mentioned in a couple of news articles, and, taking the words at face value, thought it seemed significant. Delete if you like; but hey, why not replace my paragraph with the mini-history of these failed promises that you just wrote above? That seems even more significant to the subject of this article.--Textorus 00:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Replaced para with additional opening sentence. Promises above were sufficiently vague to never have failed, and, I think, not sufficiently notable in the bigger scale of things to deserve their own para.--Rye1967 22:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review — kept

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards,Ruslik 10:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)