Talk:Same-sex marriage in Indiana
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sources
editFor those who see just anti Same sex union/marriage things in this article and wonder why: I have looked everywhere for possible civil union and same-sex marriage bills being pushed forward by supporters but have found none, there has not even been a poll on public opinion that I have found using google. Indiana seems to be moving closer to a ban rather than the opposite way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Opposition to ban
editIt seems the apparent lack of vocal support for the ban is enough to remove all opposition to the ban under the guise of violating NPOV rules. I have looked for support, but have found very little. It is not uncommon for articles on same-sex marriage votes to include supporters and opponents. I think the removal is unnecessary because it does not take into account the building opposition to the amendment.S51438 (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that you managed to identify zero proponents does not speak well for your neutrality. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware it is only my responsibility to edit this article. The only notable supporters has already been listed in the paragraph. S51438 (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- You have to consider WP:UNDUE here, by adding a big list of those who oppose the ban it distracts the reader to the list. I would be saying the same thing if it were a list of people supporting the ban. Eyecatchers should be avoided here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Would a collapsible table of sorts be enough to avoid the violation? S51438 (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- No because you have to introduce the section somehow and place a header on it. Right now we have the two sides and why they support/oppose it, as far as I can see the section is neutral. I do not see why there needs to be a stacked list placed in the article. It would be like adding "List of people who supported John Wilks Booth" after opinions on how the public thought about him. Those are notable opinions and I am sure interesting to some but it would not make the article neutral anymore from what is already written in it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Would a collapsible table of sorts be enough to avoid the violation? S51438 (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- You have to consider WP:UNDUE here, by adding a big list of those who oppose the ban it distracts the reader to the list. I would be saying the same thing if it were a list of people supporting the ban. Eyecatchers should be avoided here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware it is only my responsibility to edit this article. The only notable supporters has already been listed in the paragraph. S51438 (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Indiana DOMA
editAny resources on the original debate of the 1986 and 1997 laws that prohibited marriage equality? Any help is welcome, preferably scanned news articles etc? Havin a hard time in my end!--174.28.155.122 (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)