Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3

Spin-offs from the Homosexuality article

If I can be so bold as to make some suggestions . . . First of all we should view much of this material as "legacy" material since it has cost a significant amount of work by a lot of very dedicated and judicious editors to bring it to this stage. Perhaps we can remove the bulk of the history section and make that into an article of its own. I never understood the logic of trying to shovel all that material into the generalized History of human sexuality article. We need to have a dedicated History of same-sex relations article, and I would even venture to say there should be two articles, History of male same-sex relations and History of female same-sex relations.

So a good one-paragraph abstract should be left at the homosexuality article, and a new article started. Also, the History of human sexuality#Same-sex relations section could be mined for info or parts removed as necessary (while leaving summaries and consolidations) and that material folded into the new article(s). Haiduc 13:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Two things:
  1. Not all of it is legacy information. Upon the suggestion to CoM the Homosexuality article, I watchlisted it. There's still lively discussion going on, though much of it is not very civil... In fact, wading in to that morass is a bit daunting to me...
  2. Would it make sense to start the new pages and work for a week or two on them before abstracting and wikilinking the old one? I'm not entirely sure how this works, so that's just a newbie suggestion.
-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
There's always minor griping and vandalism there, though from what I can see things have been relatively stable for some time now. There is nothing wrong with doing things in the order you suggested, though doing it the other way may entrain a number of users currently watching the page into the process at an earlier stage of the game, which may well be very beneficial (as opposed to presenting them with a fait accompli and then possibly having to redo a lot of the work). Haiduc 18:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
If you want to separate the male and female parts, start by doing an edit to the Homosexuality article, in which you create separate History of male same-sex relations and History of female same-sex relations and separate the content there before splitting off.
I would suggest creating each new article, into which the section of the existing article would be moved verbatim. That gives the tracability of edit history. Save that new article, and the existing article with only a {{main|History of male same-sex relations}} tag in the space that it was cut from. Then go and edit both articles, adding the synopsis under the tag line in the existing arcticle and doing whatever restructure is needed in the new article.
Alternately, create an empty 'template' frame in the new article, which you save before pasting in the moved content. Look at the history of Passing (gender) (which I still need to get back to) for an example of this. --AliceJMarkham 23:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

{{LGBT_Current_collaboration}}

As a start, I've just created the LGBT Current collaboration template. If it looks okay, I'll give it a couple days and then put it on the Homosexuality article.

As an aside, we probably need some collab guidelines, etc... :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've created the collaboration page - it's a bit short, so if someone wants to add to it feel free. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
What collaboration guidelines do you think we need? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
A bit off topic, but I would like to recommend that Gay stereotyping be made a collaberation, possibly in January above the other three. Those three, while in need of improvement, are at least decent; Gay stereotyping is a gigantic mess. Koweja 14:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Gracious, Koweja, that article is a shambles. I would nominate it for Afd, myself, but if you think it can be helped, I am certainly willing to assist. Jeffpw 15:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think further discussion should take place on the Collaboration talk page. Thanks for suggesting it! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Good article promotion

I've added my article Lesbian American history to the good articles list on the project page as it was promoted today. Have a look and let me know what you think. :) Cheers! Chuchunezumi 16:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations - and good job!! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln?

Just wondering what Lincoln is doing among Wilde, Socrates and the rest of the usual suspects in the Core Biographies part of the project page. I am not particularly familiar with the details of Lincoln's personal life, and a cursory inspection of the Abraham Lincoln article doesn't help, either.--GuillaumeTell 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He is alleged to have been bisexual by queer theorists. Apparently whenever his wife was away from home he used to invite this man he knew to share his bed. 18:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

{{LGBT Navigation}}

I've just created a template for navigation within the WP:LGBT scope: {{LGBT Navigation}}. If anyone has any comments or improvements, please feel free. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made the picture bigger than that, but besides that I have only one issue - do we really need a meet up thing? There's only 21 of us (though presumably not for long, as the rate we're gaining members), and I think we're flung out across the globe, from the Netherlands to Israel. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen 500+ member, US-only online groups strive unsuccessfully to hold a meetup. And what would be the purpose of a WikiProject meetup, anyway? Would we all sit around in an internet cafe and edit together? - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I was certainly planning to create a Wikipedian editing club in my library as soon as they get wireless... But no, you're right, even if we did meet up, I don't suppose we would actually have anything to say ("Oh, you're gay too? Wow! Let's talk about how oppressed we are for an hour!" or least this is my impression from Jeff's comments. :), so we may as well delete it until someone comes up with a fun trip. Maybe a mass meetup at Big Gay Out or national equivalents when we have enough people. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Would that be such a bad idea? Anyone got a good coffee shop to recommend for this? Okay - so maybe we don't really need that in there.. I'll delete it :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Council

I have been invited to join the WikiProject Council to represent us all, so I am now semi-officially your Council delegate. Hope that's OK with y'all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I dunno. I mean, your userpage says you won't be editing until the 13th. Can we really have a rep that's going to be offline so much <grin> – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the key word there is trying, SatyrTN. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. :-) Jeffpw 06:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:LGBT and bias

After a year of mild involvement with LGBT-related areas of Wikipedia, I have accumulated an intense frustration. I am expressing my concerns here on the WP:LGBT talk page in the hopes that they will aid us in writing NPOV articles and avoiding knee-jerk deletion decisions.

I am a lesbian. I've had my photo on the front page of the paper for Coming Out Day; I've represented "the lesbian perspective" in round-table discussions, interviews, and even once on a radio show. I ordinarily refuse to mention this on Wikipedia because I don't think that my personal idiosyncracies and affiliations should have anything to do with how I edit here. For a long time I have been trying to bite my tonguge when I get accused of homophobia for my edits and deletion decisions.[1] [2] I've fumed over the way we could have ten or more pro-gay-marriage, pro-HRC, etc userboxes, but the one userbox promoting heterosexual marriage was immediately deleted by an angry mob. I've stood by with increasing frustration as I've watched editors get accused of homophobia, bigotry, bias, and POV for no other reason than that they nominated some LGBT-related article for deletion.[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] It's time to stop biting my tongue for a moment. I think this is unacceptable behavior and I think that we, as the WikiProject dedicated to LGBT issues, should be on the front lines of the effort to do something about it.

I ask people on this project to please work to discourage the use of ad hominem attacks making unsubstantiated accusations of bias, and to be careful that your personal and political opinions don't lead to knee-jerk editing reactions. Thanks. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 00:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said, AdelaMae! In fact, I was thinking earlier today that this project should have some specific guidelines on topics like this. Thanks for bringing up and un-biting your tongue - doesn't that feel better? :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well said. How would a guideline go? Perhaps any AfDs you see like that should be put on our AfD section, so we can vote and/or support good faith editors accused of homophobia? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Well said indeed, however I find that ignoring irritating users to be the best policy :). I think that wikipedia's Civility, Don't be a dick, and Assume good faith more or less cover everything, though being explicit about not accusing others of bigotry just because you can't think of a better counter-argument isn't a bad idea. Also, don't forget that the *fDs are not votes, so people who resort to character attacks and strawman arguments will simply have their opinions discounted.Koweja 20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

{{Transgender sidebar}}

Contrary to my own expectations, I've today created the infobox {{Transgender sidebar}}. It is a fairly quick and rough creation and I have every reason to expect that others will find changes that need to be made. I will point out, however, that the term transvestite has been deliberately omitted in favour of cross-dressing because 'transvestite' is now fairly widely considered to be insulting and derogatory --AliceJMarkham 01:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the template looks great, Alice. And I thank you for explaining that transvestite is now considered an insult in many circles. I just read the article and learned a lot. Jeffpw 06:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I didn't realise that too. I will stop using it. :) I think that the template is very good. I've edited the template so the links don't break across lines, but I have two small points: do you know the colours of the transgender flag in hexadecimal? It would be nice to have the line dividers bearing the colours of the transgender community rather than the bisexual community :); Were you aware that you added Androgyne twice? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I said that it was quick and rough. :) I would have preferred one of the other TG symbols such as Image:A TransGender-Symbol Plain3.svg but chose to go with the flag for consistency. Yes, I admit that I copied some formatting from the Bi template rather than reinventing the wheel. :) --AliceJMarkham 22:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Why not add a new image imposing the symbol over the flag? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Boy Scouts article?

Can we claim Boy Scouts of America membership controversies (talk) as part of this WP? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I think so, SatyrTn. there are several sections that detail the Scouting Association's discrimination, and lawsuits arising out of it. I note, also, that the Atheist group has tagged it. I have already gone there and applied our template, though I didn't want to rate it. Is there any to just add the tag without the rating section being included? Jeffpw 16:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I've rated it at FA, so a fairly easy rating. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
As an outsider butting in to a discussion, I've recently found it easiest, in cases of possible contention like this, to formally define on the project page which categories fall within the specific scope of this project, and then, if you think an article does qualify as within your scope, to put it in one of those categories. If the article clearly falls within one of the categories which fall within the scope of the project, it would be a lot harder for any other group or individual to argue that you can say that it falls within your scope. Also, in such cases, stress that you are stating only that it falls within your scope. Make it clear that you are not seeking to lay any sort of "claim" on the article, but just indicating that at least some of its contents are relevant to your project. Badbilltucker 16:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Badbilltucker, why would anybody think we (or anybody) was "claiming" an article? We were accused of that on another article page only an hour ago--though they would not have minded (I think, judging from the comments) had the article been assessed higher. To me, we are all working towards the same goal. The LGBT Project tag only shows that the article relates to what we are focusing on. And just to be perfectly clear, I would object if we tried to include this particluar article as an "FA article" for our project. We had nothing to do with its promotion. I think we can only include articles on our list if we created or significantly improved them ourselves. Jeffpw 17:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that, Jeff. I mean, especially now when we're just starting out, we're tagging articles within our scope as part of the project. Since the project itself wasn't particularly active when the article was raised to FA, there's no way we (as a project) could have participated. But now that the project is gaining steam, it seems logical to say - here's an article... it's in our scope... and it's rated FA. The alternative, it seems, is to rate every article in our scope as stub until the project has put in any work - and that seems kinda silly.
Just my $0.02US... – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Satyr, it just seems kind of tacky to me to claim credit for an artiucle we had nothing to do with. I didn't mean not rate it on the template (though that could be argued as well, I think), but rather not to list it on the Project page as a FA. I think that should be done only to articles we are substantially involved with. Otherwise it seems almost like poaching. Jeffpw 17:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
One particular point of controversy happened when an editor who struck me as being rather fond of himself removed a Cats banner I had placed from an article which his Animal Rights project had created. I had placed the banner there because a significant section of the article dealt with cats. He removed it because he stated that he could not see how our having anything to do with the article could in any way increase the possibility of its improvement. It should be noted that the Cats project has until only recently been perceived as a bit of a joke, basically a bunch of cat-lovers who never actually did anything. In fact, it was even nominated for deletion at one point on that basis. In the case above, the other editor struck me as being one who was showing excessive proprietary interest in the article who didn't want a bunch of useless losers (like he might have thought the Cats project was/is) perhaps ruining the article. This attitude is a clear violation of WP:OWN, but it is one that I have repeatedly seen displayed in wikipedia anyway. I would also note that, to many people, your group here, which also can be seen (rightly or wrongly) as a bit of an advocacy group, might be one they want their content to be distanced from to prevent addition of POV or other information. I want it understood that I am not myself saying you would do that, simply trying to perhaps consider their thinking. They might object on that basis. Also, I personally have no objection to seeing as many banners relating to the article on the talk page as are warranted. The greater number of hands potentially involved in a Start or B class article, the better the chances of improvement. The greater number of projects overseeing a GA or FA class article means the less chance there is of that article being damaged to the point of being delisted. Other people, however, do occassionally display a more parochial view. Having reviewed your banner, I think it might be possible to decrease the possibility of this happening by perhaps changing some of the phrasing. I personally (surprise) like the phrasing of the Cats banner and Germany banners. Yes, I was involved in the creation of both. But you will note that both banners avoid giving any impression of property, one using the phrase "is within the scope" and the other "is supported by". Personally, I prefer the latter, as it gives the impression that the goal of the project is to support the article, support being something few people can object to. In any event, many people do display an unfortunate, violation of guidelines sense of ownership of articles, and I think you might encounter a few more like that. If you make it clear that you seek only to support the article, and also (possibly) place your banner below their banner, if they have one, on the talk page, implicitly acknowledging their greater "claim", I hope you will find the number of times this happens drop. Hope that was some help. Badbilltucker 18:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm halfway on this one. I think we should tag all articles, regardless of how much effort we put into them, but add only articles to the mainpage that the WikiProject, or members who consider themsleves part of the WikiProject, have improved. That's why, although I have tagged Paragraph 175, I haven't added it to the main page - I didn't think it was right. If we do need to change the banner, it should be "supported by" rather than "within the scope of" - for the simple reason I really hate the word scope. : ) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Bisexuality guideline

There has been some discussion at Talk: List of bisexual people, as to what counts as "bisexual". To prevent repeated debates, we figured that it would be best to develop a guideline for the whole Wikiproject to use, so your comments and input there would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there any german speakers in the house?

...cos Transgender over at the german Wikipedia is Featured. Not sure what their standards are over there, but if we translate it, it will surely give us a good grounding for FA, no?

Actually, this raises an idea I've been thinking about. Should we develop a translation section? I suggest this because we have a few non-Native speakers amongst us, and from my limited French and German there are some good LGBT FAs over there we could use, and vice versa. Maybe we could hook up with the othe LGBT WikiProjects as well? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I speak some German, Dev, and my husband is fluent, so we can probably translate it well enough to at least use it as a guide for our article. Sadly, though, I don't think that would ground us for FA status, since none of the Wikis except the English one require references. I noticed the German article doesn't include even one.
As to translating, I could look at the Dutch Wiki for articles that relate to our project, but (he says with chagrin) it is not even as well developed as the German site. But it would give us some direction for expanding the knowledge base here. Jeffpw 17:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, can you translate Oscar Wilde? FA over there...GA here.
But yes, it is quite strange that they can get away without references over there. Do they not have massive edit wars? Still, if the information's correct, then references are easy. Maybe we should translate a draft article on a "Translation" subpage and then merge useful content either way, depending on whichever is better quality? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Lord, Dev, that article might make it to "B" here! LOL! I'll translate it tonight, and put it on a sandbox or translation subpage if you make one for the project. Jeffpw 17:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Created a Translation page for you - wow, we're racking up the departments now... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
There are groups out there several groups that deal with foreign languages (many of the national projects) and also a Wikipedia:Translation into English group, which offers to assist in translations. Maybe you could see if there are any people there who would be willing to assist you in translations. Badbilltucker 18:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I will bear that in mind, Bill, though I admit that the low level of LGBT articles on other wikis means we probably won't need them. Given the number of comments you've made here, why not join the WikiProject yourself? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the offer, but have only actually contributed about three paragraphs of article text in the past two or three months. I've actually already formally withdrawn my membership in several projects on that basis already. Doing assessments and other things seem to keep me away from doing any more. Also, the majority of the projects I work with are severely understaffed, which, thankfully, this one doesn't seem to be. If and when I get through all my personal backlogged to-do list, though, I certainly wouldn't have any reservations about joining what looks to me to be one of the better functioning projects around, which this one clearly appears to be. Badbilltucker 20:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Translations into English would be great, but it would also be great to go the other direction and translate our articles into other languages. I'd help but I don't speak any other languages well enough. Koweja 20:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Not to be an egocentric, self-centered son-of-a-bitch, Koweja, but what would be the benefit in that for us? :-) Jeffpw 21:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
OMG, Jeff - that made me laugh! A lot! :) – SatyrTN (who's willing to translate, but only moderately knowledgeable about French)
What's the benefit for editing the English Wikipedia? Same as the benefit for editing other languages. Koweja 21:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
While I admit I had never even thought of it like that, I have barely enough time to edit here. I am willing to translate articles from the Dutch or German sites if they will help our project, but I won't be translating the other way around any time soon. Perhaps if they other Wikipedias start raising their quality standards I would reconsider. Jeffpw 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'm certainly not involved in all wikimedia projects so I can't expect anyone else to be. I was just throwing the idea out since many editors are more concerned with a wikipedia process (translations, etc) than specific topics. Besides, one of the best ways to get an project to raise their standards is to raise the quality of their articles (en.wikipedia's standards have certainly gone up over time). And since our articles are so much better, moving ours over would be a fast way to raise that quality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koweja (talkcontribs) 23:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Good Lord, you're fast. The page hadn't even refreshed :P Koweja 23:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom

There is some rancor on this page about Dev's (appropriate) rating of this article as "B". In fact, they have removed the rating and tried to remove the tag, which I reinstated. Perhaps some of our members could go there, read the article, and give some constructive feedback. Jeffpw 17:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Template rewording

So I've been thinking about BadBillTucker's comment that maybe we should reword the {{LGBTProject}} template. Does anyone object to saying "This article is supported by WikiProject LGBT studies" instead of "covered by"? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, saying "is supported by" suggests that the page is actively edited by members of the Project, which isn't always the case. However, I would agree that it is better than "covered by" as it implies that this Project has control over it. In any case, both are better than "is part of" which is very territorial (and sadly the most common form). Personally, I like what the Television, Military History, Politics, and other Projects use: "This article is within the scope of..." which lets people know that it is of interest to the project but doesn't come across as laying claim to the article.
So, from other banners, our options are:
  • "This article is part of WikiProject LGBT studies"
  • "This article is covered by WikiProject LGBT studies"
  • "This article is supported by' WikiProject LGBT studies"
  • "This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies"
Of course, we could always go with something else entirely. Koweja 00:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
"Within the scope of" works, too. Or "This article is painted with the rainbow of WikiProject LGBT studies." But maybe that's overkill? – SatyrTN (who sometimes gets a bit silly :) ) 01:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I prefer "within the scope of...", myself, primarily out of my experience when an article I wrote achieved FA status. Suddenly there was a "this article is supported by..." tag slapped on it, when the members had done nothing to support it through the arduous process. "Within the scope...", to me, implies that it relates without our having actually responsibility for its creation. Jeffpw 07:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I was looking at the TG template just after I created it and thinking that all of our templates should have a common statement about their connection to the wikiproject. I lean towards the within the scope of option. --AliceJMarkham 07:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I like is supported by. It gives off a much better impression of the project (we're there if you need us, just call) rather than (the article is part of our project, but we don't really care all that much). Also, my synesthesia, makes my head hurt when I see the word scope... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Purview? Domain? Sphere of influence? Demesne? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Domain would be best. Support gives me warm fuzzies though, so I hope you go with that. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I strongly support the option- within the scope of. It is accurate and least likely to suggest credit taking for others work. It also leaves the project free to be actively involved or not. Also helps for borderline topics that also fall into other areas. (Also gives the impression of a large pie diagram of the various project's scopes- which seems accurate.) - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
On "supported by": not every article within our scope is an article that we like. I'm mildly opposed to that language because of this. "Supported by" might be construed to mean that the content of the article is endorsed by this Wikiproject, whereas "scope" is just something we deal with. — coelacan talk – 21:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Let's vote on if we should change it to "This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies" since that seems to be the most agreed upon term. If you want a different phrase, please oppose and we will resume the discussion. I think this would be easier that "vote for one of 20 different things" type straw polls. I just want to make sure this is the consensus before changing the template.

Support

Oppose

  • Suggest "supported by" - It has helpful connotations, "We don't want to take over, but we're there is you need us". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jacques Damala

This article has become the source of some disgreement amongst members of the project. It has now been looked at by Dev920, Jeffpw and myself and we have come to different conclusions, would be useful if other members could have a look at it and express an opinion on the following points:

  1. Should this article be covered by project LGBT at all?
    Jeffpw and myself think not.
    Dev920 thinks it should.
  2. What rating on the project's assessment scale should the article have?
    I think it merits 'B' for now but is a strong contender for GA (and have nominated it).
    Jeffpw thinks it is 'B' class only.
    Dev920 thinks it is 'A' class.

Thanks for your help... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 16:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the first point is part of a larger question of whether biographies of people who are rumored to have been gay/bisexual should be a part of the project. (e.g. Abraham Lincoln). My opinion is no, they shouldn't, because the gay rumors are such a small part of the information on them, and not really important to the GLBT information on Wikipedia. Cabbers 02:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought about this, too, Cabbers, and I'm torn. Especially with biographies of people who lived before 1900. On the one hand, a rumor isn't enough to say "Oh yeah - they're part of the LGBT community/history/herstory/whatever". On the other, a) "homosexuality" (as such) didn't exist as we know it, and b) the person may have been a raging queen (my words, no offense intended), and a rumor is all we have. So I guess I recommend a case-by-case basis? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The only determining factor is whether the matter is discussed in the literature or not. We are not charged to determine matters of fact, but to report on the work of historians and other academics. And in most of these cases there will not be any "absolute proof" but rather a constellation of circumstances which will lead one or more scholars to identify an individual as having had an erotic attraction, consummated or not, towards other males. At that point that person becomes automatically part of LGBT history. Haiduc 04:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Man, that was eloquent , Haiduc! I nominate that paragraph for our first "Guideline" to be put on the project page! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Which leads us back to the question at hand: Should this subject be included? My answer is no. The only reference supporting it is a quote from a biography of Sarah Bernhardt (taken from a usenet post, no less), that mentions in passing (less than one sentence) that there were rumors he liked young men. That does not meet WP:V as far as I am concerned. For this reason, I think that the article should not be part of the LGBT project, and that the sentence in question should be deleted until a better reference can be found. Jeffpw 07:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why Jeff keeps acting like the reference to a usenet post means it is worthless. The book it refers to is here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't say it is worthless, or that it does not exist. I have also searched for the book. However, the reference itself is to a Usenet post which quotes the book, and that is just hearsay. To be usable as a reference, we need the book, author, and page number of the material. That is standard practice when quoting from a book. Jeffpw 08:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
No, a page number is "essential where possible". At the moment, it is not possible because neither of us have reference to the book. Simply referencing the book is fine - WP:REF. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
A usenet post is not a valid encyclopedic source. Anyone can write anything. That is why the information has to be verified before it can be used. It might be different if it came from some official academic website. Haiduc 11:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Further to what Haidac was saying, this is from WP:REF: Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear. Thus, the credibility of this reference rests on a Usenet post, which does not satisfy WP:V. Please see WP:RS for this: Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. Even if we had the book, it is just a partial sentence that cites hearsay, and makes that clear. So it still doesn't meet WP:V, to me. Honestly, Dev, you know this stuff. I don't understand why you are so insistent on defending this article as a) a legitimate LGBT topic; and b) an "A" class article. Jeffpw 12:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, as Dev has undertaken to obtain a copy of the book we shall prob soon have more information upon which to base the inclusion point. As things stand Jeffpw is in my opinion clearly correct. The rating issue might be settled by the outcome of the GA nom (though I wonder what the reviewer will make of the arguments on the talk page). - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 13:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

- See Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. To address Cabbers's point. I think Lincoln is a very different case. The speculation about Lincoln's orientation is based on actual letters he sent which survive until this day and comments he is recorded to have made in public. Ultimately the article concludes (to paraphrase) that Lincoln seems to have had much stronger emotional relationship with men but there is little evidence of a sexual relationship. I think that is a sensitive treatment of the issue- it reports speculations that have arisen widely, refers to the evidence in support of the speculation and relates the conclusions that have been come to. The reader can develop an informed opinion from it.

- I think with historical figures it should be enough that there has been extensive speculation, based on ascertainable fact, that the person may be LGB. I don't think its necessary for it to have been proved that they were beyond all reasonable doubt. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I think a case for inclusion can be made here, in that there have been entire books written on this subject. Though controversial, there are voluminous sources to cite. Jeffpw 12:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

new Articles recently tagged as related to LGBT section

I've created a new section under articles called Articles recently tagged as related to LGBT. This is designed for articles that while old, have just been added to the project (as in {{[[Template:LGBTProject|}} was just added to the talk page). I did this since even though they are not new, they may have been over looked by members. I've also noted things that require attention about that specific article. Koweja 22:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have some reservations about doing this. I'm just about to start rating and tagging the Transgender articles that seem to have so far been overlooked by others. There are a lot to be done and I'm not sure that I want to add all of them to a list here. I'd suggest that regularly reviewing the categories on Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment might be more productive. --AliceJMarkham 03:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should just limit them to recently tagged articles that need attention of some kind? I mean specific attention such as a lack of citations, not just general improvements & expansions to get it to FA. Koweja 04:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggested addition

I suggest that Camille Paglia, while also under the scope of Wikiproject:Biography, be added to this Wikiproject as well. Any thoughts why this shouldn't happen? If not, let's do it! It's a great article and though I had to fail it for GA status, with *very minimal* help, I would pass it upon resubmission. In order to reserve that right, I won't edit it myself, but would suggest that this project could might consider the minimal revisions it requires. Any takers? Cheers! Chuchunezumi 01:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Incidentally, if you read my comments, please don't consider them comprehensive. If anyone is interested in really improving this article, I'd be happy to write a very thorough review. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 01:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Need help!

Hi everyone. We'd appreciate some feedback and reviews on the article same-sex marriage in Spain, how it can be improved and what it lacks, if anything, and so on. Just nominated it for Good Article status, but we really could use all the help we can get to improve it (we're aiming for FA one day!). I thought someone here (with experience in these kind of articles) could give us a hand. :) Thanks in advance and cheers! Raystorm 16:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Need suggestions for category renaming

An anonymous user at Category talk:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality has suggested that Alan Turing rightfully ought to be in that category, and I agree that since he was forced to choose between imprisonment and hormones, he fits into the spirit of the category. He doesn't fit the letter of the category though. So I think it ought to be nominated for renaming, however, I'd like to get feedback on what would be the best naming proposal, to be neither under- nor over-inclusive. Any suggestions? — coelacan talk – 16:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:People persecuted for homosexuality, perhaps? I don't think that labeling them as persecuted would be considered POV or original reaserch. Even without renaming I don't see how he doesn't qualify since he was almost sent to prison. Koweja 17:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Think presecuted will be perceived as POV. Might I suggest Category:Victims of anti-homosexuality laws? That may also serve to include those who were forced to change their lifestyles to avoid prison/death.... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 17:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Good thinking so far. "Persecution" probably would survive a charge of POV, in my opinion. But it might be too over-inclusive. It would include Matthew Shepard, for instance, who is already in Category:Hate crimes against LGBT people, but the category as it is currently named deals only with persecution under legalistic pretenses (usually state-enforced), and I think we would do well to maintain that scope. Category:Victims of anti-homosexuality laws is closer to the current scope. It made me consider also Category:People convicted, imprisoned, or executed for homosexuality. And are there namings we could use that don't erase bisexuality? — coelacan talk – 17:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Well anti-homosexuality laws seems to me to cover bisexuals- they outlaw same-sex sexual conduct, and there's never been a defence of "I also have sex with people of the opposite gender.- WJBscribe (WJB talk) 17:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider labeling them as victims to be POV, but you never know. Category:People convicted, imprisoned, or executed for homosexuality is good, but a complex name (not against policy, just my personal preference). How about Category:People convicted under anti-homosexuality laws? This would limit it to state persecution and include bisexuals (since they generally aren't charged with being bisexual - they are charged with homosexual activity). Koweja 17:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I like Category:People convicted under anti-homosexuality laws as the most neutral option. Part of me feels that we should go with victim- OK, it is POV because it implies anti-homosexual laws are bad- but that part of me thinks we should take that as a given and dare people to argue the contrary. Still Wikipedia is not the forum for my pro-gay activism, so I guess we should go for Category:People convicted under anti-homosexuality laws. It covers the topic area fully and cannot be criticised for bias. A very strong option. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 18:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg - Category:People convicted under anti-homosexuality laws - SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC) (who thinks "People wrongly and unjustly convicted, abused, imprisoned and hated for loving someone" might be POV, but would be my preference...)

I agree with Koweja that "Persecuted is the better option, simply because it is more inclusive. For instance, Matthew Shepard would not fall under the "convicted" category, but would fall under "persecuted". Gwen Araujo and Brandon Teena are more examples. In short, where are you going to put all the victims of homophobia who were not State victims? Is their persecution less notable just because it was done on a personal level and not a governmental one? Jeffpw 22:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jeffpw. Matthew was neither "imprisoned" nor "executed", he was murdered. The former terms are legalisms, and that's what this category deals with. Matthew is in Category:Hate crimes against LGBT people, and Category:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality is already a subcategory of that one (which I think is in proper order). If the other people you're mentioning aren't already in Category:Hate crimes against LGBT people, please add them. Actually, I'll go check and make sure right now. — coelacan talk – 22:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, they're already in. So they have their own proper category, no worries. — coelacan talk – 22:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And we have a cfr. Thanks, everyone!

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 16#Category:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality — coelacan talk – 22:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And would everybody who's already voted please come back to give an opinion regarding prosecuted vs. convicted? — coelacan talk – 00:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Gay bar linkspam

Could someone involved in this project please have a look at the discussion at Talk:Gay bar#Notable gay nightclubs? The Gay bar article contains a list of "notable" gay nightclubs that are probably not all notable. In my opinion, this list serves only as a magnet for linkspam. Mike Dillon 23:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this: If the club (or DJ for that matter) has an article on wikipedia, it is obviously notable. Therefore get rid of everything on that list that doesn't have an article. That would be the fast way, plus create a very strong standard for what goes on the list. If nothing else convert the external links into internal links to non-existent articles. Koweja 00:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't plan on getting too involved in the eventual decision, since this isn't my area of interest. That's why all I did was point out the relevant policies on Talk:Gay bar and brought it to the attention of the LGBT project. Somebody else had already tagged the section as spam and you can see that the discussion goes back more than a year. Your comments and/or attention would probably be most helpful at the article itself or its talk page. Thanks. Mike Dillon 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, have edited the list per Koweja's point, which is undeniably correct. Have suggested future inclusions should either be their own Wikipedia article, or have an independent reference asserting notability to support inclusion. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 13:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal

A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned. This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts. Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. DurovaCharge! 16:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

List of LGBT Jews nominated for Deletion/Categorization

Discuss here. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 04:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the list should be deleted. It allows for brief biographical info on each person, which a category would not. Not sure it meets the category requirements anyway. But there is a massive problem with sources. I'd noticed it but was busy sorting sources for other similar lists. Dev920 kindly provided me withn some refs for A-E Jews but the rest is a shambles.- WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

New userboxes--help?

Howdy folks, glad to be here, great idea for a collaborative group. I'll pitch in when and where I can.

Question: this may not be the best place to ask for help on this, but I've cobbled together a couple of original userboxes on my User page--one admiring Canada, and one to show interest in gay history. But the latter won't display the image; I've tried several times. Any idea how to fix that? Feel free to copy these if you like. Textorus 02:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. You had forgotten the "Image:" prefix. =) — coelacan talk – 03:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge Androgyny and Androgyne ?

These two articles appear to be so closely related I'm having trouble seeing how they've existed side-by-side for over 3 years! Should these be merged? --AliceJMarkham 06:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Latter Days FAC

I have a Latter Days FAC going through here, but, for whatever reason, only two people have voted in three days. I would appreciate if y'all would take a look and vote then, in case I fail through apathy rather than sucking. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dev, I think the lead up to Christmas was prob a bad time given the number of people with reduced Wikipedia contributions at that time. I for one am stuck with only limited dial-up internet access for a while. That being said, I promise to try and make some comments in the next few days. I'll do it the old-fashioned way: print off a copy, read it, write some comments, and post 'em on Wikipedia when I'm next online. Best luck with the FA nom though- looks like you've put a lot of work in. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 11:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Christmas isn't really something that takes a big part in my life, so I guess I forgot about that. :) Maybe Raul will go away at the same time and my FAc will be extended. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Category:People prosecuted ..."

After the CfR at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 16#Category:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality closes with the result of either keep as named or rename to Category:People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws, we will still have to work out what to do with the problematic second part of the phrase, which is suboptimal. Two suggestions I've seen so far are "under anti-homosexuality laws" and "for homosexuality", and I've seen pro and con arguments for both. So this section is intended for the further discussion necessary to come to a consensus. Thoughts? — coelacan talk – 17:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I've swung around to favoring the simple, common, and easily understood term "homosexuality" for use in this category. --lquilter 19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm rather uncertain which way it should go, or whether it should be either of the above suggestions. Haiduc mentioned in the CfR that when we start taking this category back through the centuries there's a problem with "the general misconception that there was such a thing as "homosexuality" and laws were passed against "it," when nothing could be farther from the truth." I dunno. — coelacan talk – 23:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, it's well understood that homosexuality as an identity, either to be assumed or criminalized, didn't exist in its modern Western sense until roughly the Havelock Ellis days. I just like "homosexuality" because I think it can reasonably be interpreted to include both same-sex conduct and homosexual identity, and so it would include traditional and modern sodomy/buggery conduct laws, but limit them to same-sex behaviors (so not ealing with heterosexual sodomy convictions for instance); and it would include modern laws/regs targeting homosexual-identities. --lquilter 01:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I know some folks, including highly influential philosophers like Foucault, have argued that no homosexual identity existed before the word was coined in 1869, but I respectfully disagree, based on the plain facts of the literary and historical record. Whether called "arsenokoites" in ancient Greece, "cinaedi" in ancient Rome, "sodomites" in the Middle Ages, "qixiong/qidi" in Ming China, "mollies" in Augustan England, or whatever, an abundance of evidence exists to make clear that "folks like us" recognized themselves and one another, and were so recognized by heterosexual society (and in Christian times were regularly condemned) as a distinct group or class. And that's as much as I want to say on the subject; not interested in debating it.  :-) For anyone who wants to consider the evidence, I highly recommend Professor Louis Crompton's comprehensive survey, Homosexuality and Civilization (Belknap/Harvard, 2003), which deserves to be required reading for all LGBT folks.
I merely want to make the point again that, IMO, categories should make it quick and easy for modern readers to find what they are looking for; they should be NPOV, of course, but not over-elaborate, and not requiring hours of agonizing debate (fat chance, huh? ha). User-friendly is the key idea here, I think. Textorus 05:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
How about Category:People prosecuted under anti-sodomy laws then? While you can argue back and forth as to whether or not homosexuality existed then or not, however sodomy always existed. As mentioned in the discussions the laws were against the act of sodomy, not against any sexual orientation. Personally, I'm fine with Category:People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws, but since some people aren't why not consider this alternative? Koweja 01:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid "sodomy law" is going to be too specific. Some laws are in fact against identity, as in Saudi Arabia. Example: men who apparently were simply attending a birthday party for a gay man, dancing and "behaving like women" were sentenced to 2,000 lashes.[9] Whether that's even a law against "identity" is debatable, but apparently no "sodomy" necessary for prosecution. — coelacan talk – 16:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
But see, this is why I like "homosexuality"; because it can be a referent for both identity and behavior. ... OTOH, the Saudi example raises transgender issues as much as it raises gay sex behavior/identity issues. I'm quite certain that many people would not see "transgender" within "homosexuality". What about cross-dressing arrests/prosecutions? Should they be covered? I guess it depends on what the category is intended to pick up: LGBT identity/behaviors, broadly, including dress code violations; or just prosecutions based on sexual behavior. --lquilter 16:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Those are all good questions, LQ, and I have to admit that I'm stumped at the moment. — coelacan talk – 17:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks more complicated than choosing one way or the other. Perhaps we can make a list of all the concerns brought up before we contine the conversation here. I'm especially concerned about how these categories will relate to parent categories such as Category:Hate crimes, and not creating any POV magnets. – Samuel Wantman 00:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Heck, why don't we just say "People persecuted for offending straight sensibilities or scaring the horses"?  :-) But seriously, it is difficult to come up with a simple phrase that will please everyone. To me--and this is just one man's opinion--all of these various ideas come down to and flow from the Abrahamic religions' prohibition against homosexuality: e.g., "a man should not lie down with another man as with a woman," etc. (The pagan Romans, those butch conquerors of the world, had a problem with that too, but they aren't here.) The rule against wearing women's clothing seems to me to stem from this same underlying homophobia; and as Rita Mae Brown said, "If the worst thing we can say about a man is that he acts like a woman, what does that say about how much we value women?"

For what it's worth, trying to be both as inclusive AND concise as possible, this is the simplest scheme I can come up with at the moment:

Main category: Persecution of LGBT people
Subcategory: Victims of hate crimes against LGBT people
Subcategory: Victims of anti-LGBT prosecutions

I really dislike acronyms; there are way too many flying around in the world already, but I know substituting the word "homosexuality" wouldn't satisfy everyone. Whatcha think, folks? Textorus 19:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

noticed a relevant Category for Deletion nomination

Interested editors should see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 20#Category:Fictional intersexuals. — coelacan talk – 05:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Tolerance

"This project is not a global project to advance the tolerance of others." Isn´t that hypocrisy? A.Z. 21:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? — coelacan talk – 22:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That beings up the point that "tolerance" is utterly inappropriate. Do we "tolerate" Jews? Do we "tolerate" black people? Suggested rephrasing: "This project is not intended to promote equal treatment of people with different sexual preferences from one's own." Haiduc 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Or, "This project is not intended to promote equality."? — coelacan talk – 22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't like any of the options so far. How about just leaving it at #2 "This project is not intended to promote any particular point of view." – Samuel Wantman 22:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Or we could just remove the point altogether... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm down with that. #2 already seems to cover it. — coelacan talk – 22:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the point about the word tolerance but Haiduc's proposed wording doesn't work, since transgender is not about sexual orientation. I like Samuel Wantman's suggestion or complete removal. --AliceJMarkham 23:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Either is fine by me. Haiduc 23:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Deleting is fine. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

List of LGBT events

Recently, List of gay pride events was renamed to List of LGBT events. Is there any call to separate out the Pride events? Or should they stay within the larger LGBT events page? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The more inclusive category seems sufficient. Haiduc 23:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Descriptive, not prescriptive

It seems to me that in our coverage of the topic we should be guided by what individual cultures have adopted as legitimate LGBT expression, as defined in the legal codes of the countries people live in, rather than the opinions of individual Wikipedia editors. But if that is a self-evident truism, the following guideline is inappropriate: "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical impact of transgender status or same-sex romantic relationships among adults and reactions to same-sex romantic relationships among adults." We are not here to impose modern moral codes on history, thus the injection of the term "adult" into the discussion is pov. What we should specify is that: "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of transgender status or same-sex romantic relationships, and related societal reactions." Haiduc 20:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the project Haiduc. I like the wording you suggest. I don't think we need to either constrain or expand what LGBT studies or Queer studies covers in academic settings. I would be interested in how it is defined elsewhere. I also wonder if the B in LGBT is sufficiently covered by either statement. – Samuel Wantman 20:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no exclusivity implied in the phrasing, so I think that if anything it is the G that is underrepresented. But not enough to bother with. I'll implement the change since no one else has raised any objections. Haiduc 02:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, stop bitching about being included, we're all marginalised individuals in society under an oppressive regime of overpowering heterosexuality, leave it at that. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, individuals. If you really are an individual you will be marginalized. What did you expect??? Haiduc 08:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You mean I'm being marginalised within the project now for being transgendered but heterosexual? :p Try explaining that to a teenage bi niece who's recovering from a suicide attempt! --AliceJMarkham 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, what's this about collecting information for Wikibooks? Are we branching out across language and project barriers now? Wow! Why don't we set up a meta-project at Meta and call it "OUR BIG GAY AGENDA!" too?

Problem is, the idea occurred to me seriously a few hours ago. I'll have to think about that some more... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're excluding bi and TG? Who's marginalising who now? :) --AliceJMarkham 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Nobody's excluding you, Alice. Pull up a chair and have a beer. :-) --Textorus 06:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

discussion on protected page Marriage

Interested editors should see Talk:Marriage#This Article is an Embarrassment to Wikipedia. I've had Marriage fully protected to halt a revert war; the current version is less than ideal but now is the time for talks. The issue may have to go to WP:RFC or WP:M soon but it would help to get a few more perspectives weighing in since this is still day one of page protection. Note the article's recent edit history to get a feel for the debate (as though you couldn't already imagine it... but I mean the specific versions in play). Hope to see a few of you over on the talk page. — coelacan talk – 15:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a good inspirational quote on same sex marriage? I'm creating a poster and would like a good inspirational but witty argument for same sex marriage - anyone see one anywhere? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Try Canadians for Equal Marriage and scroll down to the ads at the bottom of the page; may give you some ideas. --Textorus 19:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
That's the poster for "Homosexual Agenda" - were you creating one for same-sex marriage? Let me know - I can convert it for you. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It was meant to be on Same sex marriage, but I realised it wouldn't have much meaning for my target audience, so I've changed it. I would be deeply grateful if you could convert for me. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
What's your source for the percentages? I've yet to find a definitive answer to the "how many" question; maybe you should include a source footnote on your poster. --Textorus 19:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The British government did an extensive survey asking people their sexuality, and that was the result. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I stumbled across this comment on User talk:Nkras, which seems like a blatent attempt on some user's parts to skirt the WP:3RR rule: if you're willing to compromise a bit on how same-sex marriage is referred to in the article, i am willing to defend your edits to the lead section. with the help of User:MPS and User:CC80, we might be able to defend NPOV in the article without running afoul of WP:3RR. unfortunately, it is not objective fact or NPOV that rules here, but majority (of interested editors) rules. r b-j 02:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC). I have a feeling this is going to go to arbitration. Jeffpw 12:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
My initial feeling on reading that page is that everyone is willing to work through their differences with the exception of Nkras, who kinda gave away her agenda when she tried to claim that same sex marriage didn't exist. I think you need to report this to ANI. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

new newsletter

I present the latest edition of the Newsletter for your criticism here. Any news I have missed, please let me know. I'll be sending it out on January 1. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Newsletter looks sort of ok, Dev, but I think you're being prematurely pessimistic about the Latter Days FA. Why not just mention it as a candidate, since it's still under consideration? Jeffpw 18:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not being pessimistic, it just hasn't gone either way yet. Raul will probably pass or fail it before January 1, so I can adjust the text accordingly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It has now passed, so I'll change it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


What is list of names in Particpants section for?

There is a list of names in the Participants section. What is it for? --Tiger MarcROAR! 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a list of members who are part of the WikiProject. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. (Clearly!) If I put the userbox on my User page, do I need to put my name on the list too? If so, it would seem redundant and I would offer to help fix that. --Tiger MarcROAR! 00:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The userbox on your page will help people who happen upon your userpage to know you are part of the project. However, if one of us in the project needs to message other participants, the list makes it easier to know whom we can contact. Jeffpw 00:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't we just add a cat (preferably an existing one like LGBT wikipedians) to the userbox so that the participant list is automatically generated? I don't know. What do other projects do? --Tiger MarcROAR! 00:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Every WikiProject has a members list. This is so we all know who everyone is, so we can gauge the popularity of the project, and specifically to this project, so I can send out the newsletter.
Many WikiProjects don't have userboxes at all, and even less have specific member categories. Personally, I don't think we need the category added, though I'm open to it if there's support. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Good enough for me. --Tiger MarcROAR! 21:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I have tagged Sexuality and gender identity-based cultures to be restructured. There are multiple "External links" and "See also" sections within the body of the article that should come at the end.

Twas Now 23:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of problems with that article, and I've added other tags too. I almost added a POV tag; I did delete one obvious POV phrase. Needs a lot of cleanup, but not sure I really want to tackle that long, sprawling article myself.--Textorus 00:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not planning on doing anything about it. Just giving a shout out to the 'mos. In fact, most people visiting this page in good faith should not be allowed to edit it, as per Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articlesTwas Now 00:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay - that made me laugh! Thanks, Twas Now :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Metaproject

I was kinda joking above, but the thought comes seriously to me. A serious attempt to co-ordinate efforts across projects and languages to improve coverage of LGBT topics might actually be a good idea. Does anyone have any thoughts on that, or how a project might work? (I figure we need to have an idea in mind before we start contacting Wikiquote and Projet:LGBT etc.) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In the same vein, I was recently stunned by the number of people listed in Category:Gay writers (418), and a quick look shows ~400 on the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E (note that that's just A through E!). Would anyone else be interested in putting together a cross-collaboration with WP:Bio?
That is an ongoing problem that has been noted. People like WBScribe are already working hard to correct it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines

I've been thinking about a) the discussion above about bias, and b) a discussion I originally saw on the Talk:Patrick Califia page (see a very recent question and a Jun 2004 discussion). I think we need to discuss and hopefully consense (sp?) on some guidelines. Would it be best to create a Guidelines page and discuss those two and/or others on its talk page? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should simply create the guidelines and stick them on the front page. That's what MILHIST does, and sides, who would visit a separate page is they were simply glancing through? Also, we ought to develop that guideline about a working deifnition of bisexuality - see Talk:List of bisexual people. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess what I'm thinking is we need a page to discuss the guidelines before (and after) we post them. The page itself can just be templated in to the main project page, we don't really need a separate one. But it'd be nice to have a separate space for the discussions. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with having a discussion here? In theory, everyone should have this page on their watchlist, so they will be able to participate more. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Since when did "don't do that" mean "Please, by all means go and do that seconds after being asked not to"? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow - I totally didn't see your comments until after I'd already created the page, gone for a cigarette, and come back. Please don't hate me :) I guess my main concerns about having the discussion(s) here are a) this page is already getting sooo long sooo quickly (we're chatty cathys and charleses here...) and b) not all of us will be interested in coming up with guidelines. If the Guidelines subpage should be deleted, I'll do that, but I personally favor having the separate discussion. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • sigh* Ok. A separate page it is. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

New ideas?

I was just looking through other WikiProjects, and noticed some interesting ideas that we might like to consider in the future:

  • Photography - I saw this on WikiProject Australia. Potentially, having pictures of famous LGBT places and or events could be quite helpful. Do we have anyone here involved with the photography side of Wikipedia to give us some input as to how this works? Or anyone who would be interested in taking this further?
  • Vandalism - I saw this on WikiProject Biography. Given the amount of vandalism we get from friends of gays, this could potentially be quite a good idea.
  • portal upkeep - I have tried to encourage people to update the portal when they can, but no-one really is. Might it be a good idea to put out a rota on the talkpage so everyone knows what to do and when?


Just chucking some ideas out there for your perusal. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and how cool is this? We should totally set something like this up at some point. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How broad should our coverage be?

Noting that the wording of our wikiproject banner for talk pages is intended to say that we are interested in the article without claiming the article as exclusively ours, should we be applying this to articles that are directly relevant to us, but where there are more non-LGBT people interested in that subject than LGBT people?

I'm particularly thinking about makeup, wigs and hair removal, which are very high on the list of interests for many m2f transgender people, particularly cross-dressers.

Of course, if we wanted to get very controversial, we could also tag heterosexual, since this is the orientation of many TG people. Besides, if we cover homosexual, homophobia and heterophobia, shouldn't we complete the circle by also covering heterosexual? :) --AliceJMarkham 22:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The LGBT project shouldn't claim makeup, wigs and hair removal for the same reason we shouldn't claim cars. I'm sure they are of interest to many L,G,B, and T people, but they are also of equal interest to heterosexuals. Despite some members of the LGBT community being interested in them, it really isn't an topic that should be covered by the project. As for the heterosexual article, maybe, but not really. Would the Wikiproject on Atheism cover Christianity, Buddhism, and other religions? Yes there is a connection, but it doesn't really fall under their scope. Koweja 22:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely with Koweja. There is nothing especially LGBT about makeup, wigs and hair removal, and any incidence of these in LGBT articles can be aptly covered there. As to the heterosexual article, the ambit of this project is LGBT studies and not human sexuality in general.WJBscribe (WJB talk) 23:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
AliceJ isn't saying we should claim the articles, and it's a good question and confusing. For instance, makeup should probably have a section regarding drag, regarding it's use by trans people, etc. Are those two sections enough to put our tag on the talk page? Maybe, maybe not. Too bad we can't tag a section of an article. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I was getting at. Hair removal already has Hair_removal#Male-to-female_gender_reassignment. Similar content could occur with makeup if anyone bothered to actually work on it - I'll get to it sometime. There's also a proposed wikiproject languishing for lack of interest. To transgendered people, makeup is one of the fundamental parts of presenting as their desired gender. Ditto for hair removal. Saying that we're interested but it's not our area would be on par with saying the same about marriage for LGB folk. I guess I've opened a can of worms now. :) --AliceJMarkham 01:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I admit that I'd failed to appreciate the subtlety of your point. We may need need a discussion as to the difference between an article that should have LGBT project input (e.g. to ensure that marriage makes some ref to countries where this is possible for same sex couples) and those that should be tagged as within the scope of the project. In many cases it may be a fine line... WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It would seem that WJBscribe and I both misunderstood you in the same way. When it comes to adding a section about the LGBT community in the article, if it is notable and you can find sources on it, then yes it should defiantly be added. In this aspect we should be as broad as possible - we are building and encyclopedia, so any relevant (and encyclopedic) information should get added. I thought you meant should we add the LGBT templates to the article and talk page, which we should have a much narrower standard. Koweja 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Marriage is not tagged as an LGBT topic, but as shown above, there is a lot of debate around same sex marriage on it's talkpage. I think what may be the difference is that, the LGBT interest that would normally prompt us to tag something is much a smaller part of the subject as a whole, and thus it is not really for the project to formally interfere. Which is why I would tag transexual, but not makeup. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that there may be articles where it is reasonable to put a project banner in the talk page but not put a template in the article. This has led me to a new idea. (my head hurts. :p) Perhaps we should consider creating another banner along the lines of:
This article is of interest to, but not directly covered by, WikiProject LGBT studies, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to LGBT issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
--AliceJMarkham 02:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I may not be the best person to comment on this since the purpose of banners is not quite clear to me. However, planting it on topics which are not of strict and obvious interest to the subject cannot fail to dilute its sense and to raise eyebrows. Otherwise, by the time we have finished marking territory we should have claimed much that is of interest to humans, since that is what we are, at least those of us likely to be editing here. Haiduc 02:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I should think using the Notice board page to post alerts on debates like the one at Marriage is plenty. Earlier this year Lion was a gay-related battleground for a while, but it would be silly to slap an LGBT banner on that page. DanBDanD 02:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Lion? Why? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The argument was over how much (if any) coverage there should be of observations of male lions mounting other male lions and general homosocial behaviour. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
...that is so fucking stupid. I can't believe anyone had an argument like that! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Mea maxima culpa. Haiduc 03:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Read WP:LAME and you will never be surprised to see or hear about idiotic fights on Wikipedia again. Koweja 05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I read WP:LAME once a month and nearly die laughing every time, but...I mean... lion! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, Haiduc, I'll stop now.)

Gay rights

Can I please alert everyone to the absolutely dreadful state of every "Gay Rights in..." article, which all need severe cleanup, NPOVing, referencing, copyediting, etc. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I just had this totally cool idea...

..And I had to get out of bed at 4:25am to tell you all.

We have, potentially, a lot of processes to cover high quality articles - peer reviews, GAs, FACs etc., but not a lot for the lower quality articles; Stubs, starts and Bs. This is a shame because a stub is tranformed into a start fairly easily, and so are starts to Bs. So, what I propose is a new department - Jumpaclass. Basically, you choose an article from the LGBT articles by quality, and you list it on the page and put your name next to it. Then you have seven days to improve that article, when it will be checked to see if it deserves a higher class or not. If it does, you get a point for improving it: 1 point for each class jumped. We can have a cool leadership board, and it'll act as a fun incentive for people to edit, and dramatically improve the quality of our articles, which at the moment is all over the place. What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I like the idea of having a place for nominating articles ripe for expansion. As for the points, if you could substitute chocolate truffles instead. . . Haiduc 05:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Now this sounds like a really great Wikipedia game, Dev! Question: if we have a monthly point review, what does the winner get? I vote for an all expenses paid trip to Brazil. :-) Jeffpw 10:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a great "pilot" program for a Wikiproject. I would be happy to particpate, but I'm new to the project, so I would appreciate if someone could find an article and shoot it my way on my talk page:). If it works out, we can promote it as a "best practice" to other Wikiprojects. Nina Odell 14:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the points thing, I thought we might reset it every year (so users who come in with a flurry of editing and then go offline don't sit on the leadership board forever) and offer the winner

the choice of any article for the Collaboration of the Month (of the fortnight by the time we get to that point hopefully). You see how it's all about the editing? No MfDs for us! I'll get on with creating that then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Page created at Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Jumpaclass. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Congrats to Dev920 . . .

. . . for earning FA status for Latter Days, a great article on a wonderful film. Hooray!  :-) --Textorus 18:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tex. Latter Days is my most favourite film ever, and it's a delight to see it be all that it can be. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Awesome! congrats! --Tiger MarcROAR! 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me add my voice to the congratulations, Dev!!! I have the thankless task of adding {{FACfailed} tags to articles that didn't make the cut, and was hoping I wouldn't have to do that to Latter Days. Happy New Year! Jeffpw 21:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Congrats. Impressive article. Now I must get round to seeing the film... WJBscribe (WJB talk) 06:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Departments?

We haven't really cleared this one up, so I figured I'd start a discussion on it. What are we calling the Assessments, Collaboration, Jumpaclass etc. ? I've used the terms Departments, Projects, Tasks and Activities so far, but I think we need to come up with one name. What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Departments seems a good word to me. Jeffpw 21:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)