Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Gay flag.svg WikiProject LGBT studies:
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable
 
Drawing-Gay flag.png WikiProject
LGBT studies
Project navigation links
Main project page
 → Project talk page
Watchlist talk
Members
Coordinator
Departments
 → Assessment talk
 → Collaboration talk
 → Community talk
 → Jumpaclass talk
 → Newsletter
 → Peer review talk
 → Person task force talk
 → Translation talk
Useful links
Infoboxes and templates
Guidelines talk
Notice board talk
Sexuality and gender
deletion discussions
Info resources
Bot reports
Newly tagged articles and
assessment level changes
Article alerts
Unreferenced BLPs
(Biographies of Living
Persons)
Cleanup listing
New articles with
LGBT keywords
Popular pages
Portals we help maintain
Portal LGBT.svg LGBT portal
Portal Transgender.svg Transgender portal
edit · changes

Help with Simple English Wikipedia[edit]

Could some people help expand the following articles on the Simple English Wikipedia? You don't have to get it perfect, just expand it to the point where it is no longer a stub.

LGBT critics categorization?[edit]

Why can't I find Fred Phelps in any anti-gay related category, I'd suppose something like Category:People who reject homosexuality, Category:Critics of homosexuality, Category:Anti-gay people or Category:LGBT critics?

  • When he died Wikinews reports: Kansas anti-gay church leader Fred Phelps dies at 84 (emphasis added), anti-gay is pretty much defining I suppose.
  • Phelps' biography is in following categories: 1929 births / 2014 deaths / African-Americans' civil rights activists /American civil rights lawyers / Baptists from the United States / Christian fundamentalists / Critics of Catholicism / Critics of Islam / American critics of Judaism / Disbarred lawyers / Disease-related deaths in Kansas / Eagle Scouts / Kansas Democrats / Kansas lawyers / People excommunicated by Baptist churches / People from Meridian, Mississippi / People from Topeka, Kansas / Westboro Baptist Church / People banned from entering the United Kingdom. At least the "Kansas lawyers" category seems against the recommendations of WP:COP#N (and redundant wiht the "Disbarred lawyers" category which seems justified). Anti-gay activity appears much more characterising imho.

Maybe there's some prior history of anti-gay like people categories being deleted or so? Or I'm not looking in the right place, and Phelps was just overlooked when filling such category? Can somebody enlighten me? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You're looking for Category:Homophobes which was deleted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Tx. OK, had a look at the last Cfd discussion, I'd not try to rescue Category:Homophobes either. Bad name to say the least. Which of these would appear better:
?
Or other ideas that would make this something stable, as far away from pejorativity (like homophobes) as possible? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
We do have Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights; maybe individuals could fit in with that? Funcrunch (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Phelps would fit into any of this. We do have things like Category:Critics of Judaism, which is not the same thing as anti-semites for example, so if there were serious scholars or cultural critics who critiqued LGBT or the LGBT movement then such a category could potentially exist, but Phelps wouldn't fit in it, he was just a hate spewer - but for now we don't use the category system to categorize such extreme ideologies because of the potential for misuse for more tempered biographies.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Phelps would fit in Category:Anti-gay people, reminder: Wikinews Kansas anti-gay church leader Fred Phelps dies at 84. It wouldn't deform any of what he was vocal about. Phelps was an American civil rights lawyer (according to the categories), so level of critique = serious (this is not about the appreciation of whether he made sense or not). Again, I'd avoid any pejorativity.
Re. "but for now we don't use the category system to categorize such extreme ideologies because of the potential for misuse for more tempered biographies" - now that's sillyness, unknowingly I'm sure, no offense intended. "Assasin" and whatnot is quite more extreme than an ideology that limited itself to words, and we can have a category on them. We don't get rid of the Assassins category because it might be misused on more tempered criminals (like murderers, which is a different category and is apparently no big trouble to keep separate). Wikipedia can handle that. Apparently loosing touch with WP:COP caused more trouble than I imagined yet. Endless LGBT categorizations. Heterosexuals, never categorized as such, and I'm more than OK with that. People acting against LGBT people, in the open, publicly taking that stance to the point of becoming one of their most defining characteristics, can't be categorized for some lukewarm reason, while, on the other hand the principles of how to handle such sensitive categories in the Wikipedia system have been written down 10 years ago.

Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (...) an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the person's notability.

applies to people who have as most notable points "Kansas" "anti-gay" and "church leader" as much as to anyone who has sensitive and non-sensitive categories attached to his or her biographical article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Consensus has been against creation of such categories. Anti-gay is equivalent to "Homophobic" more or less. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories. It's not silliness Francis, this is long-standing consensus. If you can find sources which call him a critic of gay rights or something like that, perhaps a category of Category:Critics of LGBT rights could be created, but not Category:Anti-gay people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Tx for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories - outcome of that discussion seems logical to me.
Category:Anti-gay people was my least favorite one in the list above, most pejorativity / least neutrality.
Category:Critics of LGBT rights, no that's not what this is about.
Category:Critics of homosexuality would probably do best, along a myriad of other categories like Category:Critics of alternative medicine, Category:Critics of atheism, Category:Critics of feminism to name only a very few. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I forsee a mess on our hands, so I think we should think carefully about this. Critics of homosexuality has a v. different meaning than critics of LGBT rights. Critics of LGBT rights may say "I do not judge them, I have nothing against them, I just don't think they should be able to get married", whereas a critic of homosexuality is someone who says "Being gay is unnatural, we should forcibly convert them", etc. Better to go with a tighter category rather than the broader which would again cause problems with tons of politicians being "gay-critic" tagged.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
We need to differentiate. Above I wrote "Category:Critics of LGBT rights, no that's not what this is about," I should have added in Phelps' case. For (most of?) the ones now removed from Category:Discrimination against LGBT people the other one would be more appropriate I suppose. Most importantly categorizations on such sensitive topics need to be correct, there's no software impediment to create more than one category: an applied category should cover the topic with an acceptable degree of accuracy. See also WP:COP#Inappropriate categories, second bullet "If still needed, (...) create a more appropriate category, for re-categorizing this single article." --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We normally categorize people in situations like this based on what they do, and usually in an active vs passive sense - and not on what they believe - thus we have white nationalists and neo-nazis instead of racists and anti-Semites. In this case I think there may be a way out - Category:Anti-gay activists this certainly describes Phelps and is how he is described in reliable sources, but this would filter out politicians who simply voted against gay marriage for example, and also couldn't be used to tag people who have simply expressed anti-gay sentiment. Instead we focus on those who have taken direct action - who could be called - and are called by reliable sources - anti-gay activists: can you think of 5 other names that fit? If so that may be enough for a category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Doing a web search for "anti-gay activist" I came up with a list from the Southern Poverty Law Center which I tried to parse (very hard to stomach) for commonalities that might translate into a non-loaded term we could use. As the very nature of this proposed category is controversial I think it's going to be nearly impossible to come up with something that won't raise NPOV complaints. It seems clear that anti-gay activists almost universally have a religious agenda, usually from the Christian Bible. They speak of "traditional values" but obviously using that as a category is misleading. I wish I knew what to suggest. Funcrunch (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
(e.c.) Yeah (@Funcrunch), Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights is about the rights (like marriage and so). Would be too narrow for someone like Phelps who opposes the whole idea of being gay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Category:Discrimination against LGBT people has mixed people/non-people entries, against Keep people categories separate. I don't think that's a very good situation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yup, that should be purged of people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem is, people differ significantly in how they reject homosexuality. I'm not sure a category is necessary, because it would be too broad.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Right. That's why one of my proposals was Category:Critics of LGBT rights - this is a more narrow category, into which Phelps wouldn't fit, but for which one could likely find some notable people who have written or critiqued extensively extensions of certain rights and privileges to gay people. Category:Homophobes is at the other end of the spectrum, and too broad and too liable to abuse.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Re. "I'm not sure a category is necessary, because it would be too broad.": ??? Wikipedia has broader categories (e.g. Category:People, Category:Critics of religions) and narrower (e.g. Category:Rosicrucians, Category:Critics of Objectivism). Don't think broadness is an argument. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Two categories[edit]

(see more in list from the Southern Poverty Law Center — of course needs to be checked against their current Wikipedia biographical articles, just an outline here)
(and more recently purged from Category:Discrimination against LGBT people)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the "critics" categories are in large part a way of avoiding labeling hateful people with hateful labels in instances where some Wikipedia users share their opinions. (Not referring to anyone in this discussion, this is a general observation of WP's preference for this term.) Someone like, I don't know, Maggie Gallagher isn't really any more a "critic" of homosexuality than Fred Phelps. Homosexuality isn't a belief system, there isn't really matter there to criticize in the sense in which we usually talk about critics. It's unfortunate that Phelps isn't categorized according to the thing he's far and away the best known for, but creating a weaselly "critics" category isn't the way to go. Instead, consider trying to change the system by which people who virulently oppose the rights of others are gently labeled as "critics." –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 07:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Tx, maybe I wasn't clear: I propose to create both categories mentioned above (with Phelps expressly in the first). Maggie Gallagher could be in Category:Critics of LGBT equal rights (judging from Maggie Gallagher#Views on same-sex relationships): rational criticisms, written down in writing, explaining why etc. and axed on a "rights" retoric. Whether she should be in Category:Anti-gay activists too: judging from the present content of Maggie Gallagher#Conversion therapy I'd play on the safe side (not judging people on what they don't want to be part of their public image), and leave her out of that category. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Re. Critics categories and belief systems: most "critics of ..." categories are not about belief systems (see subcategories of Category:Critics) — or is Wikipedia a belief system (Category:Critics of Wikipedia)? We do have "Critics of ... rights" categories that are not about rights related to belief systems (Category:Critics of animal rights). So no, I don't see an argument there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


Would that work as a categorization scheme? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Would like to go through with this, and would appreciate any more comments? --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
@Obiwankenobi, it's not possible to go through with this if WP:COP#N wouldn't automatically apply to these newly proposed cats per WP:SNOW. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I think anti-gay activists could work, it avoids the problems that homophobes had for example. I'm not yet sure on critics of lgbt equal rights, let's wait on that till we get more input. I don't understand what your point is on COP#N however.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Celebrities might take a stance on gay marriage. Without WP:COP#N active on these categories just about anyone with a few soundbites on the topic could be categorized in such "critics" cat.
I think it is important to start the Category:Critics of LGBT equal rights at the same moment. Otherwise there would be no other option than to label any activist having a strong viewpoint on some topic relating to LGBT rights (and not completely approving) as "Anti-gay". Which would be trouble all over the place (especially for the BLP ones). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Francis, wikipedia wasn't built in a day, and we've somehow survived all these years without such categories, as they are delicate. I'd suggest start with the anti-gay one, and put some clear inclusion criteria. WP:COP#N, before your recent unilateral/no consensus change, applied just to occupations, which "activist" is by default, as is "critic". Someone can be a film critic, or a critic of theater, or a critic of Judaism, and this can be seen as an occupation, in that they derive some income from it or they are known for this as an activity - that is quite different from classifying someone according to their belief, which we usually don't do.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not going WP:SNOW on this. Foundations need to be strong, superstrong before attempting a new go at this contentious matter involving very, very sensitive categories.
(clarify:) when an "interpretation" is needed for occupation w.r.t. these categories the foundations aren't strong enough in my view.
Yes there is time. Just saying: I'm not missing the courage to go forth with this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe attempt a category definition for the proposed Category:Critics of LGBT topics (keeping an eye on WP:COP#Clearly define the category):

This category is for people who criticised LGBT topics:

  • criticicism about ideas, not merely criticism directed at one or more (LGBT) people;
  • outspoken criticism, explaining the grounds of the criticism, outdoing a context of parody or loose remarks;
  • acknowledged as such criticism by the critic, more than something the LGBT community might take issue with.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

History of bisexuality article - worldwild view[edit]

This article here: history of bisexuality seems to be only a merge between history (inside bisexuality article) and Bisexuality in the US article. It contains detailed history of bisexual movement in the US, it makes reference twice about BiCon which is an event in the United Kingdom and there are no information at all about bisexual history around the world. There are organizations, asociations, groups and events going on in Europe, Oceania, Central America, South America and Middle East, at least. The reasons that I'm writing here is that 1 - it seems polite (i could just go and edit it), 2 - that the article is already marked with the worldwild view box 3 - and because I used wikipedia just a few times (old user) and don't want to make a mess. --Danieladelvalle (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Already made some edits, with a couple of information on brazilian bisexual movement wich I know best, and lookign forward to put some south american wide info, wich I have to pull together still. Know, I have a doubt: the references are all in portuguese, and I understand that sometimes it is asked to translate some portion of it. How does it work? Is it always necesary? --Danieladelvalle (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

There are three different problems with the references you've added:
  1. Blogspot and other blogs, youtube videos or channels, and other primary sources, are rarely considered reliable.
  2. WP:BAREURL web references are subject to WP:LINKROT. Consider using WP:Citation templates instead.
  3. And, probably the least important, having "in Portugese" is recommended so that readers and editors can easily understand what language is involved. (I think citation templates have a parameter to specify this.)
(Sometimes the citation for a foreign language reference might also include a very brief English translation of the key phrase, but I've rarely seen people insist on this.)
Sorry this is rather a lot to change all at once! WP:REFB might make it easier to understand. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Danieladelvalle Thanks for bringing a Brazilian perspective into this. No, it is not necessary to translate non-English sources, and yes you should use them. As Demiurge said, it is nice to use citation templates so that at least you can tag non-English sources by their language. This just spares people the disappointment of clicking something they cannot read. I encourage you to do what you can. It is very hard to find good English sources about the history of the LGBT movement anywhere outside the US, so I hope you have good luck in whatever perspective you see to source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't state that non-English sources should be used on the English Wikipedia. But it's not prohibited. Wikipedia has a policy on this matter; see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, which states, in part, "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. (See Template:Request quotation.)" Flyer22 (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
That policy also addresses translation; for example, it begins with, "When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should always accompany the quote." Flyer22 (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Thanks everyone for your help. I understand they don't seem to be reliable, but it's all I have now, since the matter is really under erasure. Some other sources may be available to some of these (like a big newspapper that say something about bi-sides), I'm going to look after them... as for the translations, I don't really understand were to put it, but I could translate (going to study it in wp). As for the links in another lenguage, I saw that I could use a tiny code to specify the lenguage on links but not on references, I just don't know how to put them on the references or if it is done another way. The same goes for the spanish info I'm about to collect. --Danieladelvalle (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see any specifics on the lenguage of a reference when reading the templates article, but the webreflinks recongnize one of them so I knew how to do it, now the portuguese links are specified and I'm going to fix the other references on the article as soon as I have plenty of time to do it. Also, I got some other references that I think are more relevant, at the last edit before that. Thanks again for your kindness :)--Danieladelvalle (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

June 21 - Wiki Loves Pride[edit]

A few meetups are being organized today as part of Wiki Loves Pride. If you have a few minutes, please join us by creating or improving LGBT-related articles. The WLP page offers some article ideas, and feel free to showcase the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A big THANK YOU to everyone who participated in the inaugural Wiki Loves Pride campaign this month. I invite you to visit the Results page to browse newly-created and improved LGBT-related content from around the world, including Atlanta, Houston, Philadelphia, Portland (Ore.), NYC, Seattle, Seoul, South Africa, Vienna, Warsaw and Washington, D.C. It's not too late to add to this list, if you feel so inclined. Thanks again for your participation and support. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Dee Palmer[edit]

See recent edit here [1], presumably by the subject (can't be sure, of course). Not sure what the best course of action is - subject is covered as "David" on the official Jethro Tull site (http://jethrotull.com/the-attic/past-band-members-and-guests/david-dee-palmer/), so I don't know if the attempt to hide the old name should stand, but OTOH the birthdate seems to have been added on multiple occasions, incorrectly, and if this is indeed the subject the subject doesn't want the birthdate, so we should leave it off. Anyway, just informing here for ideas on what to do.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't see that the birth date adds anything to the wikipedia article; their age and/or relative time of their birth seems of no significance. However I'd be inclined to beef up the Persondata to include birth name and better short desc, because that's going to help better tool assisted interlinking with other datasources (i.e. Linked data) which is made more challenging by dropping DOB. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Stonewall "riots" vs. stonewall "rebellion"[edit]

Hi folks, Why are my changes to the "Stonewall Riots" article being treated as vandalism? I AM NOT A VANDAL! Can't you see that the term "riots" is pejorative? That is why I am trying to get back to "rebellion". Again, I am a real person and not a vandal. You can reach me at mike.putch@gmail.com. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mputch (talkcontribs) 00:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Mputch (talk · contribs), I have reverted you at the Stonewall riots article three times (including when you were adding your material as an IP), and User:ClueBot NG (a bot) has reverted you once, as seen here, here, here and here. While you may not be a WP:Vandal, you are engaging in WP:Disruptive editing by changing the WP:MOSBOLDTITLE and anything else in the article to "Stonewall rebellions." The article is called Stonewall riots, and that is because "Stonewall riots" is the WP:Common name for the topic, what the matter is called in the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources; that's what we go by here -- WP:Due weight; we go by that over personal opinion, or at least we are supposed to. Not your personal opinion that "Stonewall riots" or "riots" is a pejorative. "Stonewall rebellions" can be in the lead (introduction), but as the WP:Alternative title.
How did you find this WikiProject anyway? Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Acroterion. As you can see, the matter is being discussed here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
@Mputch: repeatedly reverting to your preferred name over the commonly used and sourced name is disruptive. Please use the article talkpage if you want to propose an alternate title that is supported by widespread usage in significant scholarly sources. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok folks. If there is a reasonable way to discuss this on the "talk" page I am certainly willing. However in the absence of that I submit that my changes are no more "disruptive" (or an edit war) than your continuous reversions. Consider what that stance really means in the larger scale of things.

So lets talk -- why is "riots" better than "rebellion"? And please give a better argument than "it has always been that way". I mean really -- this is supposed to be stand-out article for the LBGTQ movement and it uses such a pejorative term for such a significant event in the movement's history? What is the basis for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mputch (talkcontribs) 02:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Because of WP:COMMONNAME. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Yep. WP:COMMONNAME. It's not that I don't get your preference, I've had feelings about the title homosexual recruitment, too, and I think that case is slightly more arguable. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't involved in the reverting, and I haven't gone and looked at it, but Mputch, if you're being accused of vandalism for lots of revisions, I'd strongly recommend reading WP:BRD. It is more or less the conventional expectation of how disagreements are dealt with here, and moving too far from that model can often mislead people, as unfair as that may be, into presuming poor motives. Hope that helps you navigate here more successfully. Best regards, --j⚛e deckertalk 06:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I think everyone understands why you have concerns about the name, but that doesn't trump WP:COMMONNAME, and it definitely doesn't permit you to edit-war to insert a term that you have made up. The encyclopedia uses the terms that are current in the world at large, and is not censored: if the consensus of sources in scholarly research and major media changes, then the article will change. Wikipedia isn't the place to start the campaign, it's where the effect of popular consensus may even eventually be recognized. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand concerns regarding calling it "riots". I prefer "riots". It's got some anger and energy about it. "Rebellion" sounds neutered and weaker. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: When you Google "Stonewall rebellions" on regular Google or on Google Books, you can see that this particular time in history is called "the Stonewall rebellion" (not the plural version that Mputch was using) or "the Stonewall uprising" by some WP:Reliable sources. But in a lot of those sources, the more common name "Stonewall riots" is still referenced. The fact that "Stonewall Rebellion" redirects to "Stonewall riots" (has since 2006, created by Subsurd) and is used in some WP:Reliable sources is why I suggested above that "Stonewall rebellions" can be in the lead on the basis of the WP:Alternative title policy. But I don't feel strongly one way or the other on whether or not to include "Stonewall rebellion" (or its plural form) in the lead as the alternative title. And if we include that, a case can be made for including "Stonewall uprising." Flyer22 (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This Oxford encyclopedia source, The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Social History, page 399, gives both "Stonewall rebellion" and "Stonewall uprising" as alternative names for the Stonewall riots. Flyer22 (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Jeffrey Smart[edit]

Hi. Is able able to find a copyright-free picture of Jeffrey Smart and of his paintings?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of any, you might try the WP:Reference Desk. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Year in LGBT rights discussion[edit]

Please help resolve a question about the limits of content in 2014 in LGBT rights and similar <Year> in LGBT rights lists. See Discussion at the talk page. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

intersex people considered LGBT people?[edit]

Should Category:Intersex people be a subcategory of Category:LGBT people? I don't have strong opinions either way. It was at one point, and then was removed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. They're part of the alphabet soup LGBTQQIAAP. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, aware of that alphabet soup. Just want to see if there's consensus to include them - at least one person disagrees, so I'd like to hear from others. I believe Category:Asexual people is excluded however, and should likely not be added as a subcat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Why not make an umbrella category "Sexual minorities" as that's what LGBTQQIAAP basically is and LGBT says as much. Asexual should be (and is... with lots of RS backing it) included in LGBT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, let's keep this discussion focused on intersex people. We can deal with others separately.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree - let's keep it simple and utilize what is standard within academia and broader non enWP settings rather than try and create a new standard. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 18:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes - for academic and encyclopedic purposes they are often put under the LGBT umbrella. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 17:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
My instinctive answer is "no", as it seems to be a very different sort of category. The L, G, B, and T are identifiers of desire or self-image; "intersex" would seem to be an identifier of surface biology (but then, I've always felt T a somewhat odd fit to LGB.) It would seem a different category for Wikipedia purposes as well, as LGB&T are dependent on self-identification, intersex would not. And in political terms, the more we expand the letter buffet, the less it seems to be lumping folks together who have something in common and more defining some default and simply lumping together everything that has some form of variation from that, which is problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with this distinction. LGBT are not terms I would consider "self-identified" - especially not transgender. Intersex is characterized in academia, political advocacy, and plenty of other places as a part of the transgender community (which often also involves medical institutions in the identification process). See: [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6] for some evidence of this as a "standard" in other settings. I do not see any reason for enWP to diverge from this. It certainly wouldn't make things easier for the reader. This has been decided in a broader setting already - and enWP does not seem like the place to try and reverse that. The LGBT article also includes mention of the intersex community's identifying with (and wanting inclusion in) the umbrella label. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 18:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
From one of the links above "We acknowledge that there is great diversity of perspectives and circumstances among intersex people, just as among other people within the LGBTI 'umbrella' - some strongly identify with the LGBT(I) sector and use it as a framework for solidarity and working towards common goals, while others strongly differentiate themselves from it. Indeed many intersex people do not identify with the term 'intersex' at all. As in all other areas, the Alliance represents the perspectives of its members, who have chosen to work collaboratively and in solidarity - using the acronym 'LGBTI' - to pursue our shared goals. We do not claim to speak on behalf of every single L, G, B, T or I person in Australia, but for our members." and "When the Alliance was being established, those intersex people consulted said they did not identify as part of the LGBT community and did not wish to be represented by the Alliance, but were happy to stand side by side in coalition on shared issues." (although some later did join as the article states) The entire link on "intersex initiative" you linked is pretty much in the same vein saying there is solidarity, but that the identity and issues are not the same.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair point. However, I think for enWP purposes, it would be best to go off academic and general practices rather than get into what is no doubt a never-ending debate. There is a lot of debate about including transgender in LGBT - but for now the generally accepted practice is to include them. However, that said, I will defer to consensus on what seems the most practical and respectful. However, I do think we should avoid saying any of these are self-identified - perhaps self-declared - but an intersex person is equally as capable of hiding that aspect of their life as an LGBT person. The decision to let others know is their own, but it was not their decision to become a member of the L,G,B,T, or I communities - one of the ways they are similar - along with facing other similar cultural and legal challenges. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 00:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Part of the reason trans people are often accepting of being included under LGBT even if they are straight is that all of these categories face similar challenges in legal, medical, and social acceptance. An intersex person may or may not face these challenges depending on the nature of their condition, how they were raised, and how closely they identify with the sex that they were assigned at birth. I would not say that all of these categories of people are equally capable of hiding that aspect of their lives. (For the record, I speak as a queer transsexual male; I also identify as agender.) Funcrunch (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

As an article, it seems that Intersex belongs in the LGBT category because certainly there is enough interaction/intersection from the latter into the former. However, we should not be categorizing all intersex people as LGBT. Many intersex people have a gender assigned to them at birth and are perfectly "cis" from then on. Prior to better medical knowledge there were probably a good number of intersex people where their parents and doctors were not even aware of it if the intersex bits were internal. Certainly there are numerous and notable exceptions to these sattements(perhaps even the majority) but it would be incorrect, and a violation of WP:BLPCAT imo to categorize everyone there without self identification. A great deal of LGBTness is identity, and we have pretty strict rules about not assigning peoples identity to them. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Gaijin42's comment above. There is significant controversy, from what I understand, in the intersex community about whether intersex people should be grouped in with LGBT. There are individual intersex people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or trans, just as there are non-intersex people in each of those categories, but many intersex people do not want to be considered under this umbrella term. Funcrunch (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I concede that is a fair point to a large extent and my personal opinion might be shifting. Although for simplicity we do not always honor an individual's request in classification. Two-spirit and genderqueer people are often categorized in broader term categories. There are also transgender activists against being included in LGBT that are still categorized in the broader LGBT category with everyone else. I am not arguing that applies here per se - but there is some precedent for having a standard categorization method that does not always honor the personal preference of the BLP. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 00:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

LGBT culture by American city[edit]

A number of articles have been created on the LGBT culture of various American cities. I was wondering if anyone wanted to try creating an article on LGBT culture in Baltimore? Thanks. Solar-Wind (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hen is up[edit]

Hen (pronoun) is now an article on the rather successful Swedish gender-neutral pronoun. I've also nominated it as a DYK. Please feel free to provide feedback and suggestions for improvement.

Peter Isotalo 13:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Good article. Could you please post a link to the DYK nomination? Funcrunch (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
ETA above - just found the nomination via the article Talk page, ignore my request. :-) Funcrunch (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Funcrunch. If you have suggestions for more eye-catching hook, don't hesitate to suggest it. And that goes for anyone else reading this.
Peter Isotalo 18:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Save Our Children[edit]

Hi!

I am translating into French your article about Save Our Children. It is an interesting work and I am happy to make it part of the French wikipedia (although I am only working on a subpage now). Unfortunatly, some paragraphes need citations and I am not sure that the articulation of all the ideas is always well-done... I wanted to tell you that because I think Anita Bryant's campaign is one of the most important moments of LGBT history in the US. And perhaps someone here has material which could improve the actual page...

Sorry for my English, I read it better than I write it.

Konstantinos (from the French Wikipedia)

Genderfucking[edit]

Hello, WikiProject LGBT studies.

I´m posting this in case someone interested wants to take a look, it´s not my particular field of interest.

An IP posted a very general concern at Help Desk [7], and I took a quick look.

Two things struck me:

  • I´ve heard "Gender Bending" but never "Genderfucking", so I wonder if the terms are used in the extent that they should. There seem to be about three times more fucking than bending.
  • The sections "Examples" and "In fiction" are probably original research to a great extent, as in these examples do not come from reliable sources about Gender Bending that gives them as examples of Gender Bending. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I've replied on the Help Desk page, but I'll copy paste here: The language is a result of a page merge of genderfuck into gender bending. The term "genderfuck" is an actual term in gender studies and as you can see in the article is well-sourced. The information is not inaccurate. Regarding the concern about "inappropriate language" I would point to Wikipedia's policy of "not censored". The page does need to be smoothed out though. Flyer22, your thoughts on balancing the page? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not 100% sure regarding the balance, except to use the word gender bender or gender bending more often in the article (such as for the headings How people genderfuck, Non-political genderfucking and Genderfucking and childraising); I state this especially since the article's topic is under that title and, like I mentioned when arguing for the aforementioned merge (seen at Talk:Genderfuck#Merge proposal and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 48#Reminder), gender bending is the far more common term out of the two and genderfucking (a notable WP:Neologism) is a synonym of it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It would also help for the Gender bender article to have a terminology section addressing these terms (gender bender and genderfuck) and closely related terms, with WP:Reliable sources of course. And, as you might have guessed I would mention, something we should keep in mind regarding material that is likely to be offensive is the WP:Offensive material guideline. Sure, WP:Not censored is a policy, but the WP:Offensive material guideline is just as important as that policy. Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)