Talk:LGBTQ rights in Texas/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about LGBTQ rights in Texas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Age of consent
In the summary table, the 'Equal age of consent' parameter was recently changed from "Yes" to "No". To me this is not justified by the addition of a comment about the so-called "Romeo and Juliet" law−that it's not available to people of the same sex. That law, in my inexpert understanding, cannot be construed as instituting unequal ages of consent. It provides an affirmative defence in cases where, essentially, the age of consent has been violated. Not the same thing, to my mind.
For accuracy's sake, I'd like to change it back, but I don't want to be caught up in a back-and-forth, so I am asking for opinions, please.
There's two options that I've thought of:
- Changing it back to the previous entry; OR,
- Inserting a separate row for an entry on the "Romeo and Juliet" law itself, something like the table rows shown below:
| Equal age of consent (17) |  Age of consent is equal for same- and opposite-sex sexual activity. It is 17 years for all sexual conduct, except for "sexual performance" for which it is 18 years.[1][2][3]
|
| "Romeo and Juliet law" exemption |  Defense for sexual activity with underage (below 17 years) persons is available only for opposite-sex parties; same-sex conduct is excluded under Texas Penal Code §21.11(b) This exclusion is yet to face a post-Obergefell constitutional challenge.
|
This would be in line with the information currently in the "Romeo and Juliet law" subsection. On the other hand, no other LGBT summary tables have such an entry. What do people here think? AukusRuckus (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Just for clarity, I would change it back, the law says 17 years of age for all sexual activity. I am not sure that Romeo and Juliet laws apply to this table, or for that matter, what the requirements are for being included in the table. If someone doesn’t like it they can come to the talk page, I am open to any options that portray information in an clear, reader-friendly and encyclopedic manner. What is there now is confusing. (Both yes and no??) 2600:1700:1111:5940:356F:1AE:3BD9:73F2 (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Separate sections, just because it's a divided set of info doesn't mean we shouldn't include both sets of info so the reader ha s both in front of them. I reverted this IP's edit for now as they did not discuss it and decided to just jump in without consensus. Let's discuss it. —Lmharding (talk • contribs) 20:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)blocked sock AukusRuckus (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Sources
|
|---|
|
Fresh start
I would love to have a short summary of the nexus of the content dispute in this article. AukusRuckus and Lmharding, would you mind sharing a short (maybe 3-5 sentences) statement of what (if any) problems there are with the article text and what you think should be done? I have some light familiarity with the discussion above, but there's too much for new visitors to this talk page to trudge through if they want to get caught up. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I've at least skimmed all the discussion. I know there are ancillary disputes, but the key issue still seems to be how to handle the 2019 Prohibited Adverse Actions by Government law. So far, I see no compelling reason to support the disputed prose content, infobox entries, and table content based on the existing sources. It looks to me like all that article text is over-reliant on editor analysis of primary sources, making it original research. Many of the conclusions drawn, like that federal anti-discrimination protections have been nullified by the state law, are extraordinary claims which should be supported by multiple reliable, secondary sources if true. I'd like to leave some time for content-focused discussion on this matter, but I believe there already exists consensus to remove the content, and I'm confident there is not consensus to include it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Lmharding: you reverted my changes without explanation (in edit summaries, or here at the talk page). Have I missed some place where a consensus has formed for your edits? I'm seeing three users who reverted the "nullification" edits and two who've voiced their opposition at this talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I still think the sources are enough to support possible nullification but I can leave the disputed tag attached to it if that makes you feel more relaxed about the whole discussion. There was not enough people on either side for consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmharding (talk • contribs) 22:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock.
- If there's no consensus for or against your changes, we should restore the status quo from before your edits. See WP:NOCON. Also, between Codetalker, AukusRuckus, and me, there's pretty solid local consensus. Either way, the version that's up right now needs to go. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Actually "In article title discussions, in the event of a lack of consensus the applicable policy preserves the most recent prior stable title. If there is no prior stable title, then the default is the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." It's still stabile and not a stub so policy states it should be ;eft as it is now. Lmharding (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)- This is not, in any way, an article title discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Please note: I posted about this discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#LGBT rights in Texas. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I came here after seeing the notice. Having reviewed the article and the sources, my position is that the “nullification” content is entirely unsourced original research. I think we need to be very cautious when making claims about the law, and this doesn’t come close to meeting even the normal threshold of reliable sourcing.--Trystan (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand what is going on anymore, but FWIW, I would like to point out that seven separate editors have removed the "nullification" claims, and a further, uninvolved, editor has given their opinion, which concurs that it is OR and unsourced. (Thank you for your time, Trystan.)
- For the record, I show the edits which removed these contentious statements in a table below (in part to reduce my own internal sense of "gaslight") AukusRuckus (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC):