Jump to content

Talk:2011 in LGBTQ rights

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT rights

[edit]

this is not a list of LGBT events it is a listof rights certain events here are not rights, just because they happen doesnt mean any right was fained or lost. (for that matter even the deaths are dubious) This is same discussion as the 2010 page.Lihaas (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction to this article says "This is a list of events in 2011 that affected LGBT rights." It does not say "This is a list of rights that were gained or lost during 2011." The idea that things like court rulings in major same-sex marriage cases or government filings withdrawing support for defending anti-gay laws or police crackdowns on people marching for gay rights in Russia or Prague or legislators passing anti-marriage amendments and sending them to voters don't belong on this list makes no sense. If you have issues with specific inclusions, please discuss them here before taking it upon yourself to gut the list. As far as this list having a global perspective or using American English, it looks to me like roughly half of the items are from outside the United States, including England, Nepal, Russia, Czech Republic, Mexico and many others. I'm not sure how that doesn't indicate a global perspective. If there are things from other countries that should be included but aren't, please include them. As far as American English is concerned, it seems reasonable that items on the English Wikipedia that are about things that happen in the US should use American English. In some cases the American English is within quotes that are drawn from legal decisions and those should not be changed for any reason. I don't know what your issue or history is with this page but it seems like it would be more productive to try to talk things out then go back and forth adding and subtracting things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.148.158 (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. that was added without consensus, 2. many of the things readded are either unsourced/dubious or have no affect whatsoever on rights. taking something to court doesnt mean its a n achived right, or for thatmatter notable. Police respionses top a march are not rights, police crackdown on protests all over the world for a multitude of reasons.
Youve just gone and BLANKET reverted exactly as you claimed not to do. Anyway, youre a clear sockpuppet with multiple blocks Otto.Lihaas (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sockpuppet but i agree with IP user.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 23:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiwind, your edits and comments are certainly more valuable and worthy of debate, but you didnt say what you agre about. Consensus is not vote-vounting.Lihaas (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


RFC: The scope of this article

[edit]

One user thinks that this article should be list of rights that were gained or lost during 2011 (see above discussion). He is removing large parts of article. I disagree with him. I think that this article should document events that affected LGBT rights, just like the intro says. This article is also target of sockpuppetry, but that shouldn't affect this discussion. This discussion is about the article content.--В и к и T 14:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not "one user" read the 2010 article discussion for such comments. Other users think its about rights not EVENTS. Though deaths are added even though it was dubious at the time. Furthermore get consensus THEN add back per BRD.
Also please dont blindly rvert content as you undid grammatical stuff unrelated to content.(Lihaas (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
The "grammatical stuff unrelated to content" is your unilaterally imposing non-American English on the article, including changing words within quotes from legal documents and words in the titles of sources, which is completely and unalterably wrong. 76.201.157.70 (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that drawing a line between "LGBT rights gained/lost" and "events affecting LGBT rights" is unnecessary and arbitrary. The title "2011 in LGBT rights" doesn't imply to me a limitation to events in which a right was specifically gained or lost, and as others have pointed out, the lead says, "events in 2011 that affected LGBT rights" not "LGBT rights gained or lost in 2011". That being said, I do feel that some of the disputed events aren't notable enough to be included in this list; but most of then are. (Full disclosure: this was brought to my attention by the notice on WT:LGBT, but I have previously been involved with "X in LGBT rights" articles.) - htonl (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Should we discuss the ones that merit inclusion? The lead is also a copy paste from each year, btw. Perhaps we can change the article title.?(Lihaas (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
I'll come back tomorrow to comment item-by-item on the disputed events, but as far as the article title, what would you suggest changing it to? - htonl (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool,
Id suggest somethign akin to "2011 timeline of LGBT events"(Lihaas (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
See, that seems too wide to me. There are definitely LGBT events that are not related to rights; celebrities coming out, for example (although I don't want to say that's a hard-and-fast rule: if a celebrity in an anti-gay country comes out and there's an effect on public perceptions that might count). I've created a new section to discuss the disputed items. - htonl (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
but thats not a RIGHT.
do you have other suggestions? we can worj through them.(Lihaas (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
That's exactly my point - a celebrity coming out shouldn't be included on this list, because it has nothing to do with LGBT rights. If we said "LGBT events", then such a thing could be included, and I don't think it should be. I think "2011 in LGBT rights" is the correct title; I also think it's wrong to interpret that title to imply that only events where a right is actually granted or taken away should be included. There are lots of events that affect LGBT rights which don't involve a specific right. - htonl (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: LGBT content isn't my usual content area. Looking over the page, I think the biggest issue is geographical coverage. I suggest that whatever coverage rule is settled upon, it actively encourages coverage of rights-related events in non-Western and non-English speaking countries / cultures. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article about rights gained versus lost in a year is an interesting idea. But it's not this article. This article is part of a series of articles that follows the event format. Lihaas seems to be making good-faith edits (unless he is an excellent troll) so I wouldn't say he's a vandal. But he is definitely a combative editor. If he's sockpuppeting, why hasn't he been blocked? Johnathlon (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is whether you take a broad or narrow definition of the word "rights" in the article name. If you take it to mean rights in a wider context of issues affecting LBGT rights in 2011 then the article should be about anything affecting those rights. I think celebrities would be included in that definition, on the basis of addressing increasing public acceptance of openly gay people. However, if you read "rights" as a narrow more legal definition, essentially meaning LGBT civil rights, then really only legal issues should be included or events that impact on legal issues. Personally, I'd go for the narrower legal definition. It reflects the article more accurately as it currently stands and is also consistant with the usage of the word in other articles, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which talks about the specific legal issues without looking at the wider social context. Robinr22 (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed items

[edit]

Please feel free to interpolate your comments inbetween mine since this is quite a long list. This of course only represents my opinion.

  • Jan 2 - Turkey - seems dubiously notable to me, though I can see the argument going one way or the other.
  • Jan 4 - New Mexico - seems definitely notable, as it establishes the right to have out-of state marriages recognized in NM.
  • Jan 4 - Perry v Schwartzenegger - not sure one way or the other; seems more like an intermediate procedural ruling than one of major importance.
  • Jan 12 - CBSC ruling on "Money for Nothing" - was this the first time the CBSC banned a song because of homophobic lyrics? If so, and we can cite it, probably notable, otherwise perhaps not.
  • Jan 18 - Jackson v DC - seems notable to me because it prevented SSM from being repealed.
  • Jan 20 - HUD regulations - should probably be listed on the date the rules are adopted, not when they are proposed.
  • Jan 21 - Ohio executive order is definitely notable as a major anti-discrimination rule.
  • Jan 27 - Wyoming senate resolution is notable for the same reason that the Iowa senate vote of the same day is notable.
  • Jan 28 - DADT repeal training - probably not notable for this list - I would say that the passing of the repeal law, the certification, and the effective date of repeal are all significant events, but not every intermediate step.
  • Jan 28 - Brenda Namiggade - seems like an intermediate stage in an individual case, probably not notable for this list.
  • Jan 31 - Iowa house vote - equally notable as Iowa senate vote earlier.
  • Feb 24 - DoJ not defending DOMA - should be merged with the previous day's item on the same topic but different cases.
  • Mar 8 - Mexico - definitely notable.
  • Mar 11 - Maryland - doesn't seem so significant on the face of it; was the vote political or procedural?
  • Apr 5 - HUD again - not sure about this one.
  • Apr 26 - Clovis MN - this got a lot of media attention, didn't it? Maybe notable.
  • May 17 - International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia - not notable since it's an annual recurring event.
  • May 21 - Minnesota - notable like the other propositions sent to the voters.
  • Jun 1 - Illinois civil unions - definitely notable; a new right granted, after all.
  • Jun 4 - France - not sure about this, though being called the "first same-sex marriage" probably makes it notable.
  • Jun 11 - Croatia - being the first pride march, and the extremely violent response, makes in notable to me.
  • Jun 14 - Perry v Schwarzenegger - unlike the other ruling, this seems significant enough to me, since it touches on the competency of gay judges to rule on gay rights cases.
  • Jun 21 - WHO - I'm not sure about this one. Does it represent a change in WHO policy, or just a restatement?
  • Jun 29 - New Jersey - if this is a serious challenge, probably notable.

I'll come back later and comment on the rest of the disputed items. - htonl (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concern on most of these is about them being RIGHTS as opposed to a mere timeline. Some for example just involve a case coming to court without anything ordained, its also biased to the excessive nd unclarified US point (though thats easily changed). Some like the Schwarzneggger thing are repeated during each step of the judicial process. Like in the case of MN, id be more inclined to support AFTER its law, not the first step.(Lihaas (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
The thing about laws that still have to be sent to the voters is that their adoption (or their rejection) by the legislature still says a lot about public and government attitudes to LGBT rights in that state/country. I do agree that there's particularly heavy focus on American events, although to be fair it seems like America is where a lot of the LGBT rights stuff is happening at the moment. I'd definitely like to see more info from other countries in these lists; I've been working on adding South African things (mostly court decisions). I do see your point about Perry v Schwarzenegger and I'm open to the idea that we should only list court cases when there's a substantive (non-procedural) ruling handed down. - htonl (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No probs with stuff happening in America but content presumes that its accepted as America unlesotherwise stated. For example "in TX" but doesnt say "In TX, USA" or something of the sort.
Ok so were agreed on the rulign bit...but on the same vein the application to a legislature doesnt indicate much because it could be a lone rep if its shot down and thus not representative. Thus it would be more indicative when passed. How are yu on the name change?(Lihaas (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
It doesn't need to say "In Texas, USA" because every item contains a link to the article on Texas. If someone is unfamiliar with Texas, or Slovenia, or any other location, they can click on the appropriate link. Applying the {{Template:Globalize}} to say that you think that people outside the US might not recognize some American place names is a mis-application of the template. "This tag should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist (e.g., that people in China have a different view about an idea or situation than people in Germany or South Africa)." That the list contains more items from a particular country than another doesn't mean that it doesn't reflect a worldwide perspective. And if you're so concerned about it, it's puzzling that you continually remove items from outside the US.
Also, if you could stop changing words in direct quotes and source titles to non-American English and re-introducing glaring spelling errors it would be much appreciated.
Thats the point. We have to be consistent. it were going to name the country in one instance then we must do so in all, we cant presume because thats where the globalise tag comes in. it could well then be pov to show an american-centric view.
Globalising it means its not going to be American english per ENGVAR.
Should we break down the edits bit by bit? Instead of reverting blidnly? Per BRD, the point of abvoiding edit wars.(Lihaas (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
WP:ENGVAR only means making the language consistent throughout. It doesn't mean that one editor unilaterally imposes non-American English dating and language on the article, including changing words in American sources and quotes from American legal documents. And not, I might add, uniformly since after your "fixes" the article remains mixed between American and non-American English. And it doesn't mean that using American English means that the article lacks a global perspective.
ENGVAR specifically says not to alter the language of direct quotes and not to change an article's established usage in the absence of consensus to change it. It looks like this article used American English from when it was created until August, when you began unilaterally changing it with no input from anyone else and certainly no consensus to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.252.148 (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In most situations, LGBT rights issues in the US are state-by-state issues, whereas in most other countries they are national issues. That being said, it would seem fine to me to have text like "In the U.S. state of X...", rather than just saying "In X...". I certainly do agree that items shouldn't refer to, for example, the "Department of Justice" and expect the reader to assume it means the US DoJ.
WP:ENGVAR does not say that an article treating worldwide issues should not be in American English. What it says is that, if there is no strong national tie to a particular variety of English, it should use the established variety, or if no established variety can be determined, then the variety used by the first non-stub version of the article. However, it also explicitly says that you should not edit direct quotes to change the variety of English.
Re your last paragraph: I am going to start restoring items which I believe are notable events relating to LGBT rights. If you have objections to specific ones, then perhaps we can discuss them specifically. - htonl (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll try doing that when the revert war stops. - htonl (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the first pt but dubious on the other, nevertheless fine with your bold additions back and ill bring to debate whats dubious and whats not...certainly not having the otto4711 sock's edits standing though Lihaas (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2011 in LGBT rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on 2011 in LGBT rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2011 in LGBT rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on 2011 in LGBT rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2011 in LGBT rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_in_LGBTQ_rights&oldid=1253573595"