Talk:2014 in LGBT rights

This article is not a list of rights, it's a list of events
It's obvious from the title and the description of the article that this article is not a "list of rights". "2014 IN LGBT rights" is not the same as "List of LGBT rights in 2014". One is a year's events that are related to rights, the other is strictly a list of rights. Which is why the description clearly reads, "This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2014." It does not say "This is a list of rights gained by LGBT people in the year 2014." Those are two different things. Hence I reverted this and this. The first openly gay player in the NFL was reported as a major event in the history of LGBT rights by dozens of news sources.You could reconfigure this article in to a strict list of rights gained, but that would require discussion and consensus. And why would we even want such a narrow article? It's purely pedantic and not helpful to a reader who wants to know about important LGBT events in a given year. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've requested page protection to stop the edit warring. There is nothing in WP:BRD that says you are allowed to revert indefinitely without using the talk page. It says you are supposed to discuss. That's the third part: bold, revert, discuss. Note WP:BRD-NOT: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.... If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing." So why am I the only one on this talk page? Where is the discussion? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As you've quoted, BRD means bold additions when reverted need consensus to readd them. Doesn't mean you add a version you like. So get consensus first
 * Also as the page title says "rights" it clearly indicates rights. If you want then change the title 2014 LGBT timeline of events. Which you've already written as the first NFL player was cited as an importanbt even (in vite you to reread your woen words). YOU can call it pendatnic what whatever you personally please, you have just gone and mentioned again "know about important LGBT events" (emphasis added).
 * And on eperson soesnt constitute a consensus.Lihaas (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * First, WP:BRD is not permission for you to edit war. It is an essay, which is neither a guideline or policy. It suggests a description for how articles are edited. It does not say others are required to stop editing and defer to you merely because you have declared yourself "first" by some arbitrary timeline. You are not first. You are not the "winner". You're just an editor like me. WP:BRD says use the talk page after your edit has been reverted. Please stop edit warring.Second, I fear this is a problem with basic English. It's true that the word "rights" is in the title. But the title is "2014 in LGBT rights". "In" means "related" or "pertaining to". It is a distinctly different title than "List of LGBT rights gained in 2014". The description is "This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2014." Michael Sam's draft in the NFL was a notable event in the history of LGBT rights. An "event in the history" is not the same as a "right".2013 in LGBT rights is the same: "This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2013." Not a list of rights, but a list of events. 2012, same thing. 2011 in LGBT rights says "This is a list of events in 2011 that affected LGBT rights." Events that affected is not the same as "This is a list of rights". The NFL draft was an event that affected LGBT rights. The same phrases are used in 2010, 2009... back to the 1800s. Many, many editors have chosen this statement over the more restrictive interpretation you have imagined. If any of these editors had only wanted a list of rights, and not events that affected LGBT rights, then the would have said so in plain English.The fact that so many editors chose more inclusive titles an wrote an inclusive description at the top of the list is consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In wikipedia  in  articles are under the umbrella of WikiProject Years which standardises the style and content. There is a sample framework at WikiProject_Years which is to be followed. If there is a call for an article on the state of in that would be an entirely separate thing and should be called something different. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the material in question falls well within the scope of the article. No, this isn't a list of all LGBT-related events, but it also should not be narrowly limited to the creation or removal of legal rights only. I would assume that the article would of course cover events like major breakthroughs in equality, or, for that matter, resolutions of the European Parliament about LGBT rights. In terms of WP:BRD philosophy, I would suggest that, as the material was stable in the article for a month and a half, its removal would constitute the bold edit.--Trystan (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Malta and Croatia
Parliaments in Malta and Croatia approved civil partnership bills. 47.64.234.44 (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Luxembourg
Parliament in Luxembourg approved a same-sex marriage bill. 47.64.234.44 (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 2014 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140416192845/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2014/04/federal-judge-grants-partial-stay-in-ohio-marriage.html to http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2014/04/federal-judge-grants-partial-stay-in-ohio-marriage.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)