Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

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
→ 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
LGBT portal
Transgender portal

Fictional LGBT characters in given media list article and other issues

Something about the list of List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction that i find off compared to other list articles and not just the huge compilation of medias the characters come from. The list is justified per what the show theyre from, not the actual characters (and alot of them dont lead to individual characters). What i find this the most troubling is, compared to real people, how much of their sexuality is exposed or their role in the given series? What separates the "just happens to be LGBT, minor character that rarely reoccurs" to the "Clearly LGBT, constantly reoccuring character"? I think the issue i see now is that the list article as it stands is more of "list of TV series and films that feature LGBT in some way" rather than "List of LGBT characters in TV series and Films" and also it will vary to "they just happen to be the LGBT achetype" and "character that revolves around LGBT".

Basically, i think the list will vary significantly by role, by relevance, and by notability of the character. Its very broad, and i dont think the list is actually useful then people made it out to be in the last AfD nomination. I think a list more concrete such as "List of TV series with LGBT themes" would be much more narrow searches to show entries that have significant LGBT rather than having small bit.

This is also more of an issue to bring up anything that is what should we restrict and what should we look into more? Articles such as LGBT Themes in comics and various similar articles look well written and well researched. However unlike the list mentioned. It appears longer list of LGBT characters in comics. Im starting to wonder if theres a good reason behind it. Anyways i hope maybe we can discuss this issue and maybe others similar to it.Lucia Black (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can think of some concrete criteria by which the list can be split and/or its contents expanded, feel free to propose them. The close at the deletion discussion made it clear that all the purported problems can be addressed by normal editing, so in what direction do you think that editing should go?. Diego (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I think your efforts at cleanup of lists would be welcome with much more receptive replies if you centered at improving and organizing the lists instead of deleting them. Diego (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

i think people should have the chance to understand my point of view. I looked for hope in the article time and time again, but always ends up too broad and ambiguous. Theres not much to "expand" i just dont think things like LGBT can be flung around so easily into list articles or main articles. I think the entire list could be moved to a more stricter more focused such as "List of TV films with LGBT themes" or "List of LGBT themed films/Tv series". At the moment, any entry can be made into that article aslong as the article of the series exist. Sounds like "list of LGBT authors" and the onlyway to make them have an entry is if their works had an article. You understand?Lucia Black (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with including entries when the article of the series exist. I think that characters could be included even if no article existed (and only in that case a verifiable source for the character should be added). Given the results of the several deletion discussions that you promoted, it seems that many other editors agree with me. So if you want to make some change, I suggest you to follow a different strategy. I agree that there's room for improvement, but not if that improvement requires deleting verifiable information from Wikipedia. Diego (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont think removing verified information considering its a list article and its entries are dependent on the existence of the series its shown in. I find it to be too broad and thats with splitting the list with separate media. I myself find it wrong because its too ambiguous, people will be looking for anything lgbt. And yes editors have agreed, but then again other editors stayed away fearing of being accused of homophobia. And also the last counter argument was odd as someone tried to trump guide over rules. Others also used Wp:otherstuff exist. But i dont want to use previous discussions. Plus the article will never be finished, lgbt has beeen used alot more in comedy or parodies and even as an archetype. Its like making a list of "protagonists" in given media article.

A more settling article would be "LGBT themes in TV and films" or "LGBT themes in radio". Basically, a prose format of all the characters that have made significant part in history of the given media. Most of these are categories. I think theyre best suited so. But i find the issue of how ambiguous these list are, and i dare say "shallow".Lucia Black (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, it shows lacking "studies" part of the wikiproject.Lucia Black (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dmitry Kuzmin

This article about rather controversial Russian LGBT author was the subject for few attacks in the past (see the first and the second attempts for deletion); now one of the users who participated in the latest attempt is persistently cutting the article to clean out any supportive quotations and references: see Talk:Dmitry Kuzmin#Deletion of the relevant content and links. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Updating the map of U.S. SSM laws

As a heads-up, there's a discussion going on about the map of same-sex marriage laws in the U.S., and when and how to update it as legislation is passed/signed/comes into effect, if anyone wants to contribute their thoughts on that. Textorus (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

LGBT professions by nationality categories

Hello, everyone! A couple people have been discussing the possible deletion of "LGBT sportspeople by nationality". The closing admin basically said WP:OTHERSTUFF, mentioning that there are several categories in Category:LGBT people by occupation and nationality. User:Bearcat and I pretty much agree that a bunch of those don't need to exist - especially:

• Category:LGBT comedians by nationality‎
• Category:LGBT radio personalities by nationality‎
• Category:LGBT television personalities by nationality‎

I'm not convinced that some of these need to exist, mostly because they violate WP:OVERCAT#Intersection by location:

• Category:LGBT journalists by nationality‎
• Category:LGBT musicians by nationality‎
• Category:LGBT politicians by nationality‎
• Category:LGBT writers by nationality‎

What does the project think? Should the first three be brought up for CFD? All of them? None of them? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree myself they are needed when there are categories. Maybe it should be drought up for CFD. I myself have not completely dedicated the project as im bsy with others.Lucia Black (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, nationality is an accepted way of diffusing large categories even when it is not itself relevant. Some of these categories are very large. This was all pointed out in the previous discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Roscelese, nationality is an accepted way of diffusing large categories, though one could argue that it's not the preferred method of diffusing them (see WP:OVERCAT#Intersection by location). The first three, however, have very few articles - Comedians (125), Radio Personalities (81), and Television Personalities (224). None of those require diffusing - by nationality or any other method.

Of the other four, Journalists only has 116 and Sportspeople has 172 - those don't seem to need diffusing because of size. The other three have arguably enough to need diffusing: Musicians (674), Politicians (603), Writers (1,379). The question there is whether nationality is the appropriate method for diffusing them. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There can be better done. I honestly think the scope of this project should expand/restrict. Things to "anything that happens to be LGBT to something with a more narrow aim". By occupation should be enough.Lucia Black (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've started a CfD regarding LGBT comedians. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppinion

Can u guys look at this. Its about the timeline of same-sex marriage. Thanks (: --DrkFrdric (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Question on two similar articles

Please see question raised at here re two similar articles gay bashing and Violence against LGBT people --Noleander (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I Will Survive

I'd like to tell wikipedia that the article about the song "I Will Survive" has been constantly re-editet in order to erase all references to the music as a 'gay anthem'...

If this is can't be changed with a simple revert and a couple of reliable sources, you could place a Template:NPOV tag on the article and some good old dispute resolution. But posting this comment here could be seen as a sign of canvassing, which is discouraged in situations like this. Diego (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Amber Heard

There's an ongoing RFC at Talk:Amber Heard#Bisexual label on how to categorize her sexuality. Siawase (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

I lowered the rating to start, but this may be to low to some so, please feel free to adjust as the project sees fit. The article had a great deal of unsourced material, but some may still see this as a possible C class. Unsure, so I am making note on all the projects for input.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

User:NYyankees51

Has anyone else noticed this user's edits and AfD nominations almost exclusively on LGBT issues? Just wondered. Altairisfar (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes.--В и к и T 23:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Yes! Shrigley (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well now they appear to have a like-minded partner (diff) too on an article I recently created. I give up, not going to edit war. Altairisfar (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, as they've tag-teamed on LGBT-related articles before. At any rate, I've found sources on Udaan Trust and IGLYO, and I do wonder if the other nominations are just as frivolous. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Altairisfar, this user seems to be marking a bunch of articles for speedy deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This user probable just joined so he could nominate more articles for deletion and get in more edit wars JayJay^{Talk to me} 04:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I joined because I "aim to improve Wikipedia's coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and Queer studies topics". Part of that is purging the advertisement articles in this project. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay well I hope you do continue to improve LGBT-related articles JayJay^{Talk to me} 04:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed. Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 09:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow WikiProject LGBT members! Anyone want to help me in my purge of all the brochures? NYyankees51 (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're doing a "purge", perhaps you could post a list here and add articles you think are "brochures" as you find them? That would give members of this project a chance to review them, chime in if they need to be deleted or merged, and/or find sources for keeping the articles? Then if they do need to be deleted or merged, you'll have several opinions already when they get taken to AfD. Just a thought :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

SatyrTN's suggestion is a good one. NYY, you've shown that you're not very good at WP:BEFORE, so maybe if you find problems, you could let people know who are better at it, rather than wasting everyone's time at AFD. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that while NYyankees51 has said he no longer works for the Susan B. Anthony List, he has been blocked for edit warring and sockpuppetry in the past. He has recently been warned that he will be given a one month ban if his edit warring continues. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 22:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Relevance? NYyankees51 (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Noted. - Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 01:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Re the subject here, I recently stumbled across NYY and got grief for complaining about notable subjects being put up for AfD that all just happened to relate to gay topics. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassing_messages_from_User:Milowent. I am appalled.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else noticing misleading edits like this from User:Lionelt(see above) with the edit summary of "merge non-notable", although the content was simply blanked rather than merged and a redirect put in place of the article? It possibly did need to be merged, but no merge proposal was made and nothing was merged from the article into the target. Doesn't exactly conform to WP:MERGE. Altairisfar (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Populating "SSM in fiction"

User:RayneVanDunem has just created Category:Same-sex marriage in fiction. Let's help populate it! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

CSD

List of LGBTQ Related Suicides meets critia of WP:CSD. please help to prevent deletionDexpp (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the article. Pass a Method talk 09:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sex

I'm unhappy with the current Sexual intercourse lede because it seems to give an overly heterosexual feel to the first sentence, as if to say "penis-entering-vagina is whats normal". I have been reverted by good-faith editors though. but i think they are sucking up to societal views, hence want heterosexual sex to be the central in the opening sentence. I personally think our society is too obsessed with maintaining a penis-vs-vagina norm, and think the opening sentence should give a more varied view. Do i have a point? Pass a Method talk 01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

See the Talk:Sexual intercourse#Wording discussion for a more in-depth explanation as to why the lead starts off saying that sexual intercourse "commonly refers to the act in which a male's penis enters a female's vagina for the purposes of sexual pleasure or reproduction." It starts off saying that because that is the initial and more common definition of sexual intercourse in various reliable sources, including many in the Sexual intercourse article. Just like the most common definition of anal sex is penile-anal penetration. In both articles, we start off with the most common definition, then go into the alternate definitions. Most Wikipedia articles do this when there is more than one definition of a term, except for in cases where the most common definition is inaccurate. As can be shown in scholarly sources, such as ones noted in the section about technical virginity of the Virginity article, many researchers are stuck on penile-vaginal penetration when defining sexual intercourse/virginity loss. All the first sentence of the Sexual intercourse article is doing is defining the more common definition of the term before going into other definitions of the term, just like dictionaries and other encyclopedias do, not making a political statement. Would it be great if sexual intercourse consistently meant anal sex, oral sex, digital penetration and dildo use? Yes, in a lot of people's eyes it would. But it doesn't. There is only one way that sexual intercourse is consistently defined, and that's penile-vaginal intercourse. For other sexual acts, it varies (whether or not they are considered sexual intercourse)...depending on the sources. Flyer22 (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been resolved and we've reached an agreement. Pass a Method talk 10:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Years in LGBT rights #2

Again, there is a long term dispute about these articles. Some users believe that these articles should contain only the rights that were gained or lost, while others believe that the articles should contain all the important events of that year. There were two RFCs, the first at Talk:2010 in LGBT rights and the second on Talk:2011 in LGBT rights. However, due to low interest of users, nothing was resolved and the dispute is still alive and well.[1][2]

I invite all interested users to join the discussion in order to find consensus about this.--В и к и T 16:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate language for Sexuality section of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

I am currently updating Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and need guidance. I have been told by one Wiki editor that the term "Homosexual" is a euphemism, outdated, offensive and POV; therefore, it should not be used in the article. I have been told by another Wiki editor that "gay" is still considered informal and would be jarring when related to a 19th-century figure such as Tchaikovsky; therefore, since "homosexual" is still an encyclopedic term, I should use that. Both editors are of same-sex orientation, so this is not a case of heterosexual ignorance. If anything, I'm the ignorant one and feel caught in the middle. What would be the appropriate language to use in this article, as far as this group and WP in general is concerned? Thanks for your help. Jonyungk (talk) 01:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

At one time, the second editor you mentioned would have been right. However, the word "homosexual" as a noun or adjective has since been appropriated by right wing bigots, and now sounds jarring even in historical contexts, whereas "gay" has become solidly mainstream and sounds less jarring than it used to, even in historical and formal contexts. I would go with gay, except in quotes, of course. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I would generally go with "homosexual". I do not concede that the word has been appropriated by anyone, and that statement directly contradicts the claim that it is a "euphemism". I find "gay" jarring in a 19th-century context. Concert programs routinely refer to T as homosexual and I don't think they reflect any bigotry whatsoever. (On the other hand, I think the word "straight" is at base pejorative and have hetero friends who object to it.) I'll try taking a look and see if I can make suggestions on the talk page. Often the solution is to avoid a war of words by looking at entire sentences and considering their tone. Just substituting one word for another suggests a tin ear. And that seems the last thing we'd want in the entry on Tchaikovsky. Note: terms like "homosexual acts" and "homosexual behavior" and "homosexual lifestytle" are bigoted attempts to establish boundaries for what is and is not acceptable. But I don't think the same can be said of the adjective generally. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Having reviewed the section, I find it unobjectionable. The one use of the word gay is in "He sought out the company of gay men in his circle", which is only a little jarring, but does distinguish them nicely from the conflicted T. Most of the text deals with his difficulties accepting his sexual orientation. "Same-sex tendencies" is rather euphemistic but it matches T's own ambivalence. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule, I'd go with the wording the cited sources use. However, "gay" isn't really any more problematic than "homosexual" when applied to historical figures of the mid-late nineteenth century. "Homosexuality" was a new term—and in some ways a new idea—then. The only thing I find jarring in the current version of the Tchaikovsky article is "homosexual lifestyle", which is a deeply problematic phrase for several reasons. You might consider substituting something like "same-sex relationships". For the record, it also may be worth noting that some sources, including the American Heritage Dictionary and various style manuals), deprecate the use of "homosexual" as a noun. (The article's current version uses it only as an adjective, so no worries on that front.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I would second what Rivertorch said about using the wording used in the sources. I had a similar problem with the DYK for Simeon Solomon when I described him as "gay" and had lots of people jumping up and down and getting irate. I do not have a problem myself with seeing someone described as "homosexual" in an encyclopedia article, seeing as that is the scientific term for same-sex sexuality, although as above I do have a problem with seeing someone described as "a homosexual". -- role^player 07:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuals Anonymous

Added suicide risk to the lead with a reliable source. Keep an eye on this if possible since it's likely to start an edit war from ex-gay supporting groups (notably supporters and religious themed ones) and i'm not online as much as i'd like. Thanks Jenova20 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jose Vargas

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#Immigration status. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Grammar of "LGBT history in [country]" article titles

In my view all articles with titles such as "LGBT history in Ireland" -- of which there are many, dealing with both nation states and continents -- should be moved to "LGBT history of [name]". Titles such as 'LGBT history in Ireland' suggest that the article is dealing with the writing and readership of historical works about LGBT issues in Ireland -- whereas what almost all these articles are about is the history of LGBT itself. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Again woth the timeline

Hey guys, I have another suggestion for the Timeline of same-sex marriage, can you check it here? Thanks (: --DrkFrdric (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Categorization (1)

Some editors have gotten carried away in categorizing articles.

LGBT was a term coined in the 80s or so. Some people have adopted this label for organizations and media attention. That is fine when categorizing. But Plato is not an "LGBT." He may be one or more of those, but not part of that group historically.

Let me give an allied (US) example. Franklin Roosevelt drew together Southerners, union members, Catholics, immigrants, into a successful coalition in the early 1930s. They became the "new" Democratic Party which won many elections. If I identified someone who had recently immigrated and had citizenship in 1938, there is a good chance he would be a Democrat.

But William Bradford (Plymouth governor), who immigrated in the 17th century, could not be classified as a Democrat. It would be anachronistic. Student7 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Another problem is, without meaning to attack anyone, laziness. Some biographies have been labeled "histories" when they are "people." New categories, to identify people should be made. People are not histories. Please define proper categories as necessary. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the second heading because these are not separate issues. One, in fact, solves the other! Our practice is to use the history category on a lot of the articles where an LGBT-people category would be too anachronistic due to different cultural norms about same-sex sexuality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Pansy Craze

You can get lots of verification on "Bruz Fletcher" from the author of the recent book about him, Tyler

---

garrettgla@mac.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.152.135 (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Straight Pride

I'm still working on the last of these articles but now Straight Pride has appeared and is full of bias, POV and inaccuracies, including labelling every LGBT person as an activist. Can someone help out here? I've tagged it but i'm struggling with the workload. Could possibly be nominated for deletion. Thanks Jenova20 09:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Straight Pride just be a redirect to St. Patrick's Day? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Haha. Proposing it for deletion would just be feeding the troll since it's (minimally) sourced. There's a criticism section. Overall, it doesn't seem like such a bad article to me. Nobody will read it, nobody will care about it, it will affect nothing. Why not just forget about it? Exok (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well i've ended up cleaning it up a bit anyway.

It's not as bad now but still has obvious issues.

Thanks Jenova20 11:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)