Talk:2010 in LGBT rights

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Info restored

some info on Argentina's law was removed from this page (twice), even after revert it wasnt discussed. I have this reverted it adn brought it to discussion. (Lihaas (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check the edit summaries and your talk page. Your changes do not comport with the style of this and the several dozen other similar lists. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as per your edit reverted (it was good first to be WP:Bold nothing wrong there), bring the discussion to talk and discuss your changes for WP:Consensus. A reasonable discussion can gather consensusLihaas (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really that difficult a concept that events that happened in May should be listed under May? Is there some reason why you believe that this one entry should be different in both style and format from every other entry on every other similar list? It doesn't strike me as at all unreasonable to expect that when an entire series of articles follows the same format that each entry on each list be in that format. The onus is on you to explain why this entry should be treated differently from the several hundred other entries. I have made reasonable requests that you follow the formatting guidelines and I do not understand why it is such an issue for you to do so. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the onus is to explain why the reverted edit should be moved. Im fine with the move but you removed info without an explanation thereof. You made requests to follow the guidelines, but you never once did explain the removal of info. As per this edit you have removed info WITHOUT splitting off the section with the deceptive summary "please stop changing the format of the july 15 entry. your constant revisions take it out of compliance with the format of every other entry on every list" Format change is one thing, removal of content is quite another.
As for the new reason of moving the various stuffs around, (and now that we're discussion actual content) I think its better to keep info related to once context (same-sex marriage in Argentina) in one place instead of a mishmash to put together by the lay reader.(Lihaas (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever sweetie. There's nothing so important about Argentina that its entry requires that it break the format of every other entry on every other list. There is no "onus" on me to explain why an event that happened in May should be documented under May. If you're so fine with that change then why did you blindly revert it, in the process re-introducing poorly-formatted reference citations in several other entries? I get that you're way over-invested in this one entry but there's really no need to throw around bad-faith accusations and outright falsehoods. And don't accuse me of vandalism because of your foot-stamping stubbornness. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im not even going to bother reading your message that is condescending and in WP:NPA. If you dont want to have a constructive debate then refrain from editing the page with consensus or mention thereof. Your edit will be reverted till you decide to get it done.
If you wish to discuss why information was removed in your edit then we can move towards agreement. Lihaas (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information was relocated to its proper spot. Events that took place in May are listed under May. It's not a difficult concept and your continued trouble with it is unfathomable. You don't own this article and your declaration of an edit war is revolting. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cease and desist from WP:NPA. you can bet bottom dollar everything removed would be readded. If you want to move it then move it verbatim as youve still refused to explain your changes.Lihaas (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've explained to the point of exhaustion why this entry should follow the formatting of every other single entry on every other single list. Your continued pretense that I have not is bewildering. I will explain it one final time: Events should be entered under the day they occur. Period. It is not a difficult concept. Your continued insistence that you will edit war to get your way is a gross violation of the collaborative underpinning of Wikipedia and an act of disruption. Falsely accuse me of attacking you all you want, it doesn't make it true and it doesn't change the fact that you're threatening an edit war. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on 2010 in LGBT rights and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This response is an opinion of that nature.

It appears to me that the dispute here is over the issue of whether follow–up news relating to a previously–listed event should go with the prior entry or become a new entry. If some policy or guideline exists on this question it should, of course, be followed, but I've not been able to find one on a quick look. Similarly, if there is an existing uniform practice in place in this series of articles, then it should also be followed. (Both of those are, of course, subject to being changed through consensus or via IAR.) However, my opinion on how this ought to work in this series of yearly articles is this: The follow–up event should be a separate entry. Here's why (by arguing the opposite case, that they should be concatenated into a single entry):

Let's say that there's an initial event which occurs in 2010, one follow-up milestone occurs in 2011, two in 2012, the far most important one in 2013, and a minor one in 2014. If all events are to be listed with the initial event, then all the follow-up events ought to be listed in the 2010 article, and they shouldn't even be mentioned in the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 articles. That would be very confusing for a reader who knows about the most important event in 2013, but looks there and can't find it. It would also tend to cause duplicate entries: an editor who doesn't know that the important event is listed in the 2010 article looks for the important event in 2013, doesn't see it there, doesn't know that they should look back through prior years to find it, and adds it to the 2013 article, thus causing it to appear in both the 2010 article and the 2013 article. If that duplicate entry isn't noticed and corrected by someone familiar with the convention, then it muddies the convention itself. That logic comes, of course, from having a series of articles, one for each year, but how about the two events in 2012? Couldn't they be concatenated into a single entry? I don't think so, simply because it would muddy the convention and make it confusing for future editors. Putting each event, including follow–up events under the date that they actually happen, rather than under some initial or earlier event, is far less likely to cause confusion and duplicate entries.

A suggestion: If this dispute does not quickly settle, let me recommend asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. Finally, let me gently remind both editors that the three revert rule says, "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per what happens next, the reason that it "muddies convention" is expressly excluded as an arguement by WP:Othercrapexists and it is conversely far more likely to duplicate content as the three' edits on 1 law for Ireland did in fact do here. So i'm rather confused by the assertion that it is "far less likely to cause confusion and duplicate entries."Lihaas (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review additions

Im explaining this again:

Some edits were useful additions and i have reinserted them
It seems the Fiji date thing was put in the wrong place, but its hopefully sorted now.
If one reviews the edit before blindly reverting one would note that such grammatical insertions were obviously uncontroversial "but not LGBT individuals" and "Amid controversy, a law enabling "
"ruled" is past tense, as its over. Spelling is global as in ""legalised"
Other inline and hidden comments were not answered.
relevance instead of wordiness as in "On the last possible day to act" cleaned
once again this is not a timeline of events, it is a calendar of rights. hence bringing a suit doesnt mean anything till the court rules.
I followed up the point of a case (although it can all go for "Perry v. Schwarzenegger" as there is a stay and its not done in practice. (as is "Cabin Republicans v. United States of America"))
candidates running in an election, whether they win or lose, dont constitute any "rights" gained. (see the other discussion on this page about rights)
And as for the DADT law it is not passed yet as the president has not signed it. There is no "right" gained. When that happens then you bet bottom dollar it should and will be added here. No need to rush things in,t he page is not going anywhere.
to explicitly clarify: " The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismisses a lawsuit" is not a right gained or lost.
Likewise "asked by the Court of Cassation, on appeal from a court in Reims, to rule on the constitutionality" is not a right until it rules thereof.(Lihaas (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
You blanket reverted the addition of don't ask, don't tell. Either you don't understand that this is a huge civil rights milestone, or you do understand and are removing everything just to keep out a few minor details. Either is unacceptable. There is a pretty clear consensus (Circeus, myself, and likely Mike Halterman—the fact that we are admins is entirely incidental) against you. Could you please point out in detail which particular instances you object to rather than reverting so blindly you remove things like DADT repeal and allowance of gay couples to adopt children? NW (Talk) 02:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already said the DADT is a right as you point out, which ive acknowledged over and over again, but it is not YET a right because the congress passing it doesnt mean anything. the bill has to become law for it to become a right. at this point its an evolutionary stage in the process. (see clearly point 12 (and 13, although that is an exception).
Not sure about the adoption part, might have been in the melee with the sockpuppet. It would certainly be a right, perhaps it was only passed like the above. if not then add it. (maybe the date was off)
Also see the discussion below which was unanimous in seeing this page as a list of rights as opposed to a list.
and i appreciate that you came to talk to discuss, which as you can see the other editors ahve not done.(Lihaas (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Reliable sources are unanimous in saying that Congress voting to repeal DADT is a civil rights milestone. It doesn't matter if you think it doesn't mean anything, or even if the repeal act has not gone into law yet. Reliable sources say otherwise. Let's go month by month. Which of 2010 in LGBT rights#October do you object to? NW (Talk) 18:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RS sources say lots of things (and it goes on other parts of wikipedia too), doesnt make it inherently notable. Its not me that thats advocating as such, its that no right was given? What right do you think was given? does it now mean that the miltiary will open up? no, because the law is not in place. (although it will be appealed to the courts, but thats a nother matter. See the section below too on rights.
per detailed section, i think ive said above. But again:
  1. the first one can be merged into the section dealing with the case (content is not removed), but it doesnt need to be rehashed all over the place.
  2. "dismisses a lawsuit " is again not a right, because this page is not a "list of LGBT events," nothing happened off it.
  3. as said above, NOTHING happened on nov 2 whether they were elected or not. They ran big deal, people run for office and lose all over the world its no victory or loss for their community. (ivory coast excepted ;))
  4. "French Constitutional Council is asked by the Court of Cassation, on appeal from a court " might be notable WHEN the result is given (either way), but being asked is not a right.
  5. as an admin, please tell me you read the reverts because the ninth circuit part is already in the article. Although now that it is NOT law it shouldnt be there, but im okay with having that there since it is stillpending, if it fails in the court THEN we can remove it. so this is done.
  6. and well december's weve already discussed.Now signed, dont know why the rush to post ;)
Also WP:BRD additions were reversed, i think we can agree that consensus is needed to get them BACK. (btw- the edit summar saying against consensus is not true. See the talk page (below for one), and the above was by a banned sockupuppet, hence negated)(Lihaas (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

I think the problem is that you are approaching this topic very much differently than anyone else. This page is not solely about "LGBT people have more rights because of this event," but it is clearly about both that and larger things that affect the process of LGBT rights. For example, take a look at 1978 in film (a random year that I picked). In the Events section, things are mentioned like "The first Sundance Film Festival is held" and "Charlie Chaplin's coffin is stolen from a Swiss cemetery three months after burial". Those things were not films that were released, nor did they have anything specific to do with films that were released that year. But they are important to the history of film in general. I agree with you on the first point, but disagree with you on 2-4, so I have asked for uninvolved editors to come in and comment. Right now, consensus is against you, so please do not continue to edit war. NW (Talk) 02:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I noticed this RfC posting. There is a similar discussion taking place at Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi, which I think I should point out here. Because of my involvement at that other discussion, I'm not otherwise going to comment on this RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But its not just me, i wasnt even the the first to remove the info (per below). It was other editors who first did that (see edit summaries of the past), at the time at least (although that can change) it was consensus. But per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS citing something else is not a reason to keep here, and per WP:Trivia it seems like that shouldnt be there either.
So as it stands only the 3 "rights" issues are in controversy and not the rest now?
Consensus at the time was also 2 other editors AND me. (see below...only 1 editor is against!) but anyhoo, lets finish this off quick.
again see the title "LGBT rights" which is not a list as in "LGBT in 2010" or "important events in LGBT..."(Lihaas (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Err, you completely failed to address my question. NW (Talk) 19:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which? i dont see any questions above.
Seems like the issue is over the keayword rights.
Also per WP:BRD additions need consensus to get back in after bold edits.Lihaas (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Let's go month by month. Which of 2010 in LGBT rights#October do you object to?"—you answered some of this, and then you went and made a bunch of changes. I have no idea which concerns are still active. NW (Talk) 18:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ive clarified the dates exactly as to which ones i think are dubious and why. The rest i think are all sorted now:
  1. October 25: "dismisses a lawsuit " is again not a right, because this page is not a "list of LGBT events," nothing happened off it.
  2. November 2:as said above, NOTHING happened on nov 2 whether they were elected or not. They ran big deal, people run for office and lose all over the world its no victory or loss for their community. (ivory coast excepted ;)) Also the "Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal indefinitely extends a temporary stay" should be merged into 1 mention of the court case, this was not removed but moved to the othermention thereof to prevent it beign all over the place. I've removed it as its now mentioned twice.
  3. November 16:"French Constitutional Council is asked by the Court of Cassation, on appeal from a court " might be notable WHEN the result is given (either way), but being asked is not a right.(Lihaas (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Agree on October 25/November 16. Disagree on November 2 though. Such a thing is almost akin to the elections of Blanche K. Bruce and Edward Brooke. NW (Talk) 17:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doing the latter, and waiting for 30 on the other. Although WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to keep this here.
(on 2nd though the Oct 25 might have some grounds..)
I see youve done it. (Lihaas (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
its been more than a wekk..(Lihaas (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
By that veinm, would also agree that 2011 in LGBT rights hasnt indicated a right yet as te court was merely asked to rule.(Lihaas (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

October addition

The USA filing an appeal is not a right granted, this is not a story of events that effect the LGBT community. When the court rules on that then mention it. Also the Log Cabin Republicans details are not needed here, they are duly mentioned (or should be), on that page. Again this is not a detailed tally/log of every event. It is the enumeration of said rights.Lihaas (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dubious "rights" insertion

Some editors have questioned where the establishment of the youtube channel is a right, the edit was then readded without consensus per the WP:BRD cycle. It was well and good to be bold, but when challenged one needs consensus to readd it back.

This particular edit was not recognised as a right but just an event, where this article does not list all events.Lihaas (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Lihaas, it does not belong on an article of rights —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.61.64 (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been edited back in. I can't edit the article... AdamKadmon (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the sock is back. But anyhoo, the is an article on right and not a timeline of events.Lihaas (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Am I the only one suspicious of the many new accounts being made to edit this article? We have already banned this user once. Let's stop them once and for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.61.64 (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is a Sockpuppet. I've registered many cases and he comes back in a few days. Just filing another case, and a block on the article for new users to be requested to.
hopefully solved nowLihaas (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

To "2010 LGBT timeline" or somethign similar. This would then solce the above and also validate placing deaths here.(Lihaas (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2010 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:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2010 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:2010_in_LGBT_rights"