Talk:Boyfriend loophole

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Politics in Global Perspective

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 26 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Metroblum (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sylvierichards, Mckalet.

— Assignment last updated by A.lejla (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Hi, This draft page is for the term ' boyfriend loophole'. It is being created as a part of a school assignment. I have written broadly about this topic and ventured into broader categories of law which brought about this loophole. `Debate99 (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will be adding more topics and building up the current ones to ensure it produces a good article. Debate99 (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added in a section for Gun surrender. this section also includes current developments regarding Legislative bodies in the USA trying to 'close the boyfriend loophol'. Debate99 (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated Source

If you would like to find an alternative source to replace the claim referenced in the Daily Caller, you are free to do so, but the claim exists regardless of attempts to discredit right-leaning sources.Kphawkins (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source is literally not trustworthy for any claim, which is why it's been deprecated. There are plenty of right-leaning sources that haven't been deprecated for lying - David Gerard (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is completely reliable and you have offered no evidence to suggest it isn't. You are welcome to find a different source which supports the same claim. Please read WP:GOODFAITH and help contribute to the article.Kphawkins (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The line in question is citing a senator, Joni Ernst, explaining her position directly to the media outlet, The Daily Caller News Foundation, and I have updated the line to reflect this fact. She spoke directly to this news outlet when providing these positions, not any other. Whether you believe it is biased or not is irrelevant, since her position exists even if they are biased in favor of the claim. I sincerely believe the removal of this line demonstrates blatant partisanship, attempting to game the system to remove disagreeable opinions. I rewrote the first two sections of this article to remove severe POV language, fairly representing both sides and clearly illustrating what the discussion is over, but the only action you have taken with respect to this article is to remove the line which takes a right-leaning position. Please see the "Acceptable uses of deprecated sources" section in WP:DEPRECATED, especially the lines "Editors are also expected to use common sense and act to improve the encyclopedia." and "Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately."Kphawkins (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find an RS that notes it? No? You don't get to try to form a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS all of your own, and especially not when it's literally just you. If you want to argue that actually the Daily Caller is good, WP:RSN is the place to do that. I've also added a note to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Correct_action_when_someone_persistently_adds_back_a_deprecated_source? on what to do in the general case of this - David Gerard (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it hasn't been reported on by a reliable source, then we can't include it in the article; the WP:BURDEN is on you to produce a reliable source for the material you want to add, so it doesn't make sense to demand that others produce such a source for you. --Aquillion (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted this discussion to dispute resolution. - Kphawkins (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kphawkins, where it failed. Please see WP:1AM. Guy (help!) 18:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm abandoning this discussion and reverting all of my changes to the article. I regret wasting my time trying to contribute to Wikipedia. - Kphawkins (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legalese

The tenor of this prose makes it almost impossible to wrangle meaning from it. Revise. Robshort (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- YES. Perhaps a phrase like "adjudicated dating abusers" is perfectly clear to a lawyer, but the rest of us it's basically a word salad -- something about abuse, dating, and law, leaving us to wonder: what does this have to do with gun laws? Ocsirpeoj (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was MUCH clearer early last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boyfriend_loophole&oldid=1013533240 Then it was edited by User:RIlanaG. RIlanaG has only one edit outside of this page and has not edited at all since January of this year. I would almost recommend reverting to the old version linked above and re-adding any comprehensible and useful material that has been added since. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There seems to be at least a rough consensus that it was better before. Reverting to rev. 1013533240 of 03:34, 22 March 2021, and restoring User:X201's short desc edit of 12:44, 18 January 2022, which was a clear improvement. Notifying editors whose edits after that date have also been removed in the rollback but which may have been improvements to the article, to see if they want to redo their good-faith edits (assuming they were not corrections of now removed material): D4R1U5 (re: S. 29438), NotJackhorkheimer (POV fix), CrazyPredictor (gun bill). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Within the last day I made an edit to this article, adding a section about the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. This was unfortunately before I saw this discussion. While I note that Mathglot "agrees" with the earlier comment of Khajidha, circumstances changed significantly in the week between the comment of Khajidha and the agreement of Mathglot with the new legislation. Even if the article was deemed better a year ago, I do not think it makes sense to revert a lot of new material about major new legislation very relevant to this topic. So even had I agreed with Khajidha as of 21 June 2022, I would no longer agree as of 28 June 2022 since the new legislation materially changes things. As such I added my own section New federal restrictions, not realizing at first that others such as D4R1U5 had already written about the new legislation, only to have their changes reverted. I definitely believe the material about the new law belongs somewhere in the article, but I would not have reverted the additions by D4R1U5 had I known. If someone therefore wants to remove my material about the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, and restore the work of D4R1U5, I would be OK with such a change. The main thing I feel strongly about is that the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act should definitely be covered in this article. Not mentioning the most significant legislation affecting the Boyfriend loophole in many years a full two weeks after the legislation was signed into law seems bizarre to me. Dash77 (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dash77: Your revision seems fine, and you're right. Something as major as this new bill deserves to be in this article. I'm fine with how it is now. D4R1U5 (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Kentucky house of representatives

Can a caption be added to explain how this image is relevant to the "boyfriend loophole". 2600:6C56:4E08:105E:D447:9863:AFE:FA86 (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted source

I was confused by the statement "An analysis in the American Journal of Epidemiology argues that the impact of these state laws includes a 16% decrease in intimate partner homicide rates and a 13% decrease in intimate partner homicide rates." as it seemed to give two different values for the same thing. So, I checked the source (https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/187/7/1449/4655044) and rephrased the sentence. However, I then noticed that the source had been retracted. Here is the authors's statement of retraction: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/187/11/2491/5154820. Given this I have removed any statement that depended on the Zeoli paper that was not a simple statement of fact (such as the number of states that had passed such laws). --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]