Talk:U.S. Senate defeats bill banning gay marriage

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I'm rather certain that obtaining the requisite 2/3 majority (67 votes) in the Senate is not enough to amend the constitution, as suggested in the article. It also needs to be ratified by a majority (2/3? simple?) of the individual states. Siafu 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


I added the pink triangle. The history, if I am correct, is an international symbol. Hitler made the Jewish people wear the upside down triangle, who were gay lesbian etc. This is not POV or a "political statement." It is a symbol. Jason Safoutin 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Also please see Pink Triangle
The pink triangle (German: Rosa Winkel) was one of the Nazi concentration camp badges, used by the Nazis to identify male prisoners in concentration camps who were sent there because of their homosexuality. Jason Safoutin 20:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) It looks quite silly with the two flags there but from a POV POV it's probably okay now. I think I'd choose an image of the Senate building for this.

Umm. Hang on are you saying US are Nazis for persecuting gays? Are gays persecuted? Actually from a POV POV it might be more POV than before. But I'm not an expert on the meaning of flags.

I never said that. You stated that the flag was a political statement. The flag maybe. but thr triangle is an international symbol. During the concentration camp times, thats what Jewish Gays/lesbians had to wear to identify themselves. It is not a made up symbol but has a very very deep history. Its not a political statement but an international symbol for GLBT. Jason Safoutin

Ealturner 00:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) I'm alright with such a neutral symbol - it was the thought that the Nazis invented that particular one. Take the Nazi symbol and put it next to the American flag and there's a right Pick n' Mix group of people you might offend - Jews, Germans, Americans, maybe even Gays. The attempt to be neutral is obvious but underlying that is the dark thought to anyone who knows that triangle's history "Americans are Nazis".

Ealturner 00:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC) On reading the Pink Triangle link I don't agree this flag is a neutral symbol - as I said I'm not an expert on flags.

>>The pink triangle, now a gay pride and gay rights symbol,<<

Seems it's like the rainbow one. It promotes a political agenda. Removing the images.

No...the images are not agendas but factual history. the flag represents a nation and a coiuntry as the triangle represents a culture. Its NPOV and removing images that are both relevant to the article, and iting them as agendas IMO is your POV. I NEVER said americans were nazis and I NEVER said gays were or anythingf else. Read the facts and the history. Jason Safoutin 00:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Example of NPOV: Maryland Judge throws out law banning gay marriages. Both flags represent NPOV. To not have them IMO would be censorship. Jason Safoutin 00:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Ahem - you put the flags on that article yourself. Is your point that nobody bothered to delete them? (w:User:Audacity) 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Regardless of whether it's POV or not, having a picture of an American flag is pretty dumb, and a waste of space. And the caption ("American flag") is even dumber, considering that this article is written in English. 17:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (w:User:Audacity)

English yes, but this is an international news site. The both represent NPOV and both are related to the article. Jason Safoutin 17:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't mean they're newsworthy. That's the critical thing you're missing, Jason. These pictures might be suitable on Wikipedia, but they are not news.
In terms of giving context: theoretically, someone could not know what a woman was, and need a picture. But realistically, that's such a small minority that it makes no sense wasting space catering to them. We know you're not a five-year-old, but seeing the history of this page might make one think so. (w:User:Audacity) 18:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
And just for clarity, neither the person who last removed them, nor I, objected in any way based on NPOV grounds. (w:User:Audacity) 18:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Well objecting to them as a basis that "a 5 year old put them there" is not actionable either. Jason Safoutin 18:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
If they are not news...then ANY image on any article is "not news." both images are in direct relation to the article. Thats why they are there. As to the article that "no one bothered to delete them", thats because they are related to the article. Jason Safoutin 18:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

These illustrations are ridiculous![edit]

consider them removed. + ½½½½

I think the story appeared more serious and neutral without the images. Anyone can remove the images who feels the same. Is there a consensus? That would help to prevent an edit war. Karen 18:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

20:10, 7 June 2006 DragonFire1024 (added gay symbol and american flag...The symbol is not NPOV its recognized as a GBLT symbol)

DragonFire1024 probably meant to state that he felt the symbol was neutral, but mis-stated. Perhaps if images of U.S. President Bush and a cross were added, the images in the story would reach a balance. Perhaps that's an absurd suggestion, but it makes my point. Karen 18:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral is both images. Not neutral is one of them. Bothe are clearly related to the story, and at the moment no actionable objections by the anonymous uses have been made. Simply removing them because they feel a "five-year-old added them/wrote the article" is not actionable. Jason Safoutin 18:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
But removing them to make the story look more professional is actionable. Why not wait to see if there's a consensus to keep the images - obviously some people feel the story looks better without it. I think that's what the "five-year-old" comment was meant to express. Karen 18:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


This discussion is little unnecessary. I talk for the rainbow flag and if findig a image or symbol for US senat it would be perfect. Rainbowflag had the undertext a symbol for gaypride. That symbols is not pov themself but to removing it is a symbolic act of silencing gay people. And silencing gays is... not a Wikinewsy thing. I say it is less pov than a nationflag. Put it back. international 18:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree...but the triangle is an international symbol whereas the rainbow flag is mostly only represented in the US. I will agree to a senate symbol, if there is one available. But the reason for their removel, even by Karen, is not actionable. Jason Safoutin 18:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
"Looking better without the images" is certainly actionable. Karen 18:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd not object to the two flag images. Karen 18:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
So I think that many images look better not in an lets begin to remove all the ones we feel are not making the articles look good. Now thats rediculous. 18:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly your editorial prerogative to do so. Consider the American flag and the Rainbow flag - the story is about U.S., so why use an international symbol? Karen 18:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at my suggestion. Happy editing! international 18:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks good, international. Thanks for colaborating on this story and adding your voice to the discussion. Karen 18:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking here to see why I reverted Jason Safoutin's edit, it's because I thought the offset images looked better. Of course, if you don't think that's actionable (as Jason Safoutin suggests) please mention it here. Karen 19:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)