Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 →

Just for fun

A man wearing an A-shirt

I thought some of us would enjoy this latest addition of mine to Sleeveless shirt. Also uploaded backstage photos from last night at Rock of Ages starring Constantine Maroulis from American Idol. --David Shankbone 02:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, he is probably like, "Why is this homo taking my picture!" CTJF83Talk 20:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I played it off good! I acted like I was taking a picture of the wider plaza and audience, but then focused in on him. I was pretty far away. Besides, perhaps I caught him checking me out! Eh? Eh? --David Shankbone 00:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Foreign marriages recognition

Ok, I need clarification on which is correct. This map says New York, Rhode Island, and New Mexico all recognize foreign gay marriage; but this template says only New York does. Which is right? I did a brief Google search last night, and couldn't find anything on any of the three states. CTJF83Talk 20:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Shepard vs. Murder of Matthew Shepard

Currently there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Murder_of_Matthew_Shepard#Page_move about what title this article should have. Any interested parties feel free to comment. AniMate 18:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Shephard, Gwen Araujo, and Amanda Milan were moved back to their biography names. The admin who did it is getting yelled at. Some appreciation would be nice: User talk:Gwen Gale#Amanda Milan and Gwen Araujo. --Moni3 (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Article improvement offer

When I was mostly finished with the suite of articles about the Everglades, I turned back to WP:LGBT and considered which would be the highest profile articles to get to FA. Stonewall riots and Harvey Milk are done. One of these days, I'm going to take on the entire world's concept of Lesbian, which freaks me out, but I'm looking for an intrepid editor to rewrite Matthew Shepard from top to bottom. Since I have access to a university library, that includes news articles for most major newspapers as far back as 1996 or so. If one or more of you will be the writer(s), I will send you this material. Make your email address available to me and I will send you several dozen reliable sources. Please consider it. It would take about 2 months to get to GA or FA. I will help with copy editing. --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Other article renames

There are appears to be a campaign underway to make the victims of anti-LGBT violence the object rather than the subject of their articles. In addition to Shepard, notice:

Also, notice that the Araujo & Milan articles have been stripped of relevant facts and decategorized, including removing the Category:Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes.

I plan to move these back to their original names and have started a thread about these renames here.

Could editors please keep an eye on these articles? Queerudite (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was not able to move Murder of Glenn Kopitske or Murder of Gwen Araujo. Could an admin please help? Queerudite (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
As the editor who moved Roxanne Ellis to the Murder of Roxanne Ellis and Michelle Abdill I'd like to say I have no problem with this move. It just didn't make sense for the article to be located at one victim's name, and I certainly have no problem lossing the "Murder of..." prefix.
Also, you should take the two you're unable to move to requested moves. AniMate 04:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the decision to rename these articles and disregaurd the lengthy title discussions on the individual talk pages and the consensus reached there, some of whom (such as user:rebecca) are admins that belong to this project. There is no LGBT targeting going on at most of these articles. Although what happened at Matthew Shepherd was weird and I wouldn't have supported that move. That being said. The "Murder of..." is actually the recommended title for articles about murder victims. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Article title which clearly explains the policy. Most of these articles should really be titled "Murder of..." Matthew Shepherd would be a rare exception though given the high profile nature of his case. In the cases of Murder of Gwen Araujo and Murder of Amanda Milan the titles were discussed first by those editors who have contibuted to those articles the most. We decided they were the prefered titles. I can't speak for the other pages. Nrswanson (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring certainly isn't going to help you win an argument. There's nothing here that is all that urgent, so I'm unsure why anyone feels the need to move an article multiple times in a 24 hour period. Clearly people at this project feel passionate about the location because some feel that moving to "Murder of..." dehumanizes the LGBT victims. You feel passionate about naming conventions. For the time being I think it would be a sign of good faith to stop move warring and start a broader policy discussion. AniMate 04:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually this project can't set policy and I find the suggestion to be a massive case of WP:OWN. There is already a policy in place and I'm following it. Furthermore, there were two lengthy discussions at Amanda Milan and Gwen Araujo which were made before we made the title changes. The decision at both articles was done through majority consensus. That's exactly the process recommended at Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Article title. This titling of articles should really be left to a page by page discussion not a blanket policy established by a cadre of editors in a wikiproject. FYI I am gay and proud of it, so there's no hate mongering going on here. I think the benefits of the "Murder of..." titling outway any negatives. First of all, articles titled after victims tend to turn into biographies which is not acceptable for an encyclopedia or by wikipedia's guidelines regarding victims which says, "Victims of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on their status as victims. Notability with regards to this is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question. As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission. Thus, attempts at inclusion prompted by appearance in the press should not be excluded if notability can be otherwise asserted." Second, articles entitled after victims tends to attract a lot of personal information about the victim's personal life which can be tasteless, disrespectful, and an invasion of the privacy of the victim and their family. Third, articles entitled after victims can tend to memorialize the person and wikipedia is not a memorial. Those are just a few of many reasons that I prefer the "Murder of..." titling. In some cases, as in Matthew Shepherd, I think the person became an icon so they deserve their own article. That is my two cents.Nrswanson (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Amedure and Shepard are the only two of the above articles that I, personally, think ought to stay under their names. The others should probably stay under "Murder of...". Just my opinion. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
A useful comparison of similar naming problems would probably be Murder of Eve Carson vs. Natalie Holloway. In the first case, the retitling was deemed appropriate by the editors based on a discussion at an AfD and subsequently on the talkpage. In the second, it was decided that Holloway had achieved notability in herself that went somewhat beyond her disappearance. These cases predate WP:N/CA#Article titles, but were the principal reason that it was formulated. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there a centralized location for these discussions? They seem to be all over the place. --Moni3 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Constructions of Subjectivity in Franz Schubert's Music

This article is up for deletion here if any members wish to comment. Voceditenore (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured lists

If people have time, could they jump over to featured list candidates and review my 3 lists of gay science fiction award winners? They have no opposes, but need 4 supports to pass, even if they are perfect. here and here and here. (Link to review page through talk)

I also have 2 more to do for the gaylactic spectrum award, then will try for a featured topic on that. Its a pretty specialist topic (at least according to stereotype, we're not supposed to be interested in science, huh?), so i suspect will allways have problems getting comments from general users (who all only care about sports! - it goes both ways :-D)

AFAIK, there are no LGBT themed featured topics?!Yobmod (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Recgonition in newsletter

In a related note, i've made my first LGBT good article, and with these two (soon to be) featured lists, and the featured topic on the way, i was wondering about recognizing contributions in the newsletter. There aren't that many promotions each month, and would make a nice positive note compared to all the politics (Obama isn't my president, we didn't ban "gay marriage") and delisting of articles that get included.Yobmod (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Will certainly do that. I was thinking about starting December's next week. I'll call for submissions as well. --Moni3 (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Josephine Herbst

SatyrBot tagged her as lesbian, yet the page does not mention her lesbian subjectivity. I've found this [1]. Could someone please insert it so it makes sense in the article?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair Play (book)

By Tove Jansson, creator of Moomin. I haven't read the book myself. I just translated the plot description from swedish wikipedia, which characterized the relationship between the two women in the book as a close friendship, but from all I recall of reviews etc it's a lesbian relationship. If anyone who has read the book or knows more has some input that'd be great. Siawase (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

help with article on UK lesbian columnist and anti-trans campaigner Julie Bindel

The disagreements between some elements of the lesbian community and the transgender community that boiled over at the 2008 Stonewall Awards have found there way onto the pages of wikipedia with frequent deletions by anonymous editors and a talk page longer than the article.

I only got involved to clean up formatting (!) could people knowledgeable about the subject and sources please assist. Thanks CyntWorkStuff (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye Transgender?

I'm rather upset to note that User:SatyrTN has apparently decided to start redefining transgender in order to exclude cross-dressers. The tip of the iceberg appears to be a decision on his part to side with the anti-LGBT types who have been attempting to remove the LGBT category from Eddie Izzard for some time. I don't know whether this is a misunderstanding on SatyrTN's part or whether he genuinely wants to exclude transgender people from the LGBT community.

To me, this is a very fundamental issue. As a cross-dresser, I have a social life as a female that is entirely separate from my life as a male. I live a significant portion of my life as a female even though I am, by definition, a heterosexual male. If this doesn't meet the definition of "transgender", then I don't know what does.

I'm trying to figure out where we go from here. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Crossdressing does fall under the scope of tansgender studies, but the act of cross dressing itself, is fundamentally different from gender identity. Children develop a sense of gender identity by age 4. I myself knew my gender identity to be female at that age, despite my genetic sex being male. The core concept here is "identity". Despite the fact that I have not had sex reassignment surgery, nor hormone therapy, and although my physical appearance is always male, I have viewed myself as female since childhood- I do not view myself as a man in any way, regardless of my genetic sex. Cross-dressing, then, is not necessarily the same as gender identity. Numerous transgender people throughout history and today have lived closeted lives, without outwardly expressing their gender identity even once. In contrast, there are a number of heterosexual men, who view themselves as men, and will dress in female clothing, strictly for sexual gratification or for entertainment value. The act of cross-dressing then, still falls under the scope of transgender study, even though they do not have a female identity. If they do not actually understand themselves to be female with the body of a genetic male, then they are not cross-dressing because they actually identify or understand themselves to be the opposite sex. Gender Identity is a constant/permanent interpretation/perception of one's self as male or female. If Eddie Izzard views himself as a woman in a man's body, then his cross-dressing would be an outward expression of his identity as a woman. However, if he views himself as a man, who happens to wear women's clothing and is comfortable having a male identity or believing himself to be a "man", then his transgenderism would be a reflection of something else. Either way, he would still fall under the scope of the project, but I think people are trying to resolve whether he actually identifies himself as a man or a woman. Its one of those fine lines. Cross-dressing is an aspect of being transgender, but not all cross-dressers are necessarily transgender. I think the project would only exclude someone who would only cross-dress for entertainment value (ex: Martin Lawrence as "sheneneh jenkins" from Martin (TV series)). I'm rambling cause its almost 4am, but I hope im making sense. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I mostly agree with you, Bookkeeper, that the act of cross-dressing does not make you transgender. But the practice of cross-dressing and identifying as a transvestite makes Eddie Izzard transgender. Otherwise, we may as well untag cross-dressing & transvestism and rewrite transgender. Queerudite (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree - being a transvestite does not automatically make you transgender, except under the very loose definition of "gender queer". Being transgender very much includes a personal statement of belonging to a gender other than the one you were born with, which is stressed in all the literature about transgender studies (including our article). If everyone who put on a dress was considered transgender, we'd have to tag Bob Hope, who would be *very* surprised indeed to be labeled trans. Furthermore, there's the issue of self-identification. Izzard does not identify as transgender - a cross-dresser, perhaps, but not transgender.
I'm going to briefly state that I'm upset you would imply any sort of bad-faith on my part, Alice. I'm a big believer in transgender rights, am (today) honoring Transgender Rememberance Day, and even occasionally wear dresses, though I prefer the self-identification of "Queer" rather than trans. So please remember a) to assume good faith, and b) requesting clarification on one particular article does not mean I'm out to wipe transgender folks off the map. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you here too. Transvestitism is clearly within the scope of transgender topics, which automatically includes Izzard, who has 1) self-identified as a transvestite (on stage no less) and has incorporated his transvestitism into his public persona. I know a few trans people both pre-op and post-op who have never used the word "transgender" to describe themselves, but they none the less can be labeled as such. I use the word transgender to describe myself, but I've never used the word transsexual, even though by clinical definition the label fits, regardless of my surgical status. Izzard may never identify as transgender, but as a open transvestite, he still falls within the scope. Being a transvestite is an aspect of his personal identity, not just his stage persona. As I pointed out above, people such as Martin Lawrence, who would only put on a dress to portray a comedic character, which has absolutely nothing to do with his personal life, would not be within the scope. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
SatyrTN, I apologise if my comments came across as assuming bad faith. That was not my intention. I was probably too emotional when I posted my initial comment here. Perhaps I should have simply taken the course of action that your comments inclined me towards and simply silently quit wikipedia. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Um. Hello. Cross-dressers literally go across gender (transgender) they have been and always will be a part of the LGBT community. Just because they experiences are unique in that they often personally are able to fly under the radar when it comes to many human rights issues doesn't mean they aren't a part of what makes the LGBT communities unique and outsiderish. Izzard is certainly within the transgender spectrum and one of the more well-known openly transgender people in the world in the cross-dressing spectrum. Just as there are more questions than answers as to why each subset of the communities are the way they are there are still plenty of questions as to what makes cross-dressers tick. In addition all our communities face isolation and traditional forms of descrimination which often leads individuals on a bumpy path to self-actualization. Crossdressing is a part of the history and culture of LGBT communities. -- Banjeboi 02:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Alice, whyever do you believe that my comments have suggested you silently quit Wikipedia? And furthermore, you have deftly attempted to turn an attack on me around to be an attack on you - why, exactly? Aren't we both trying to work towards a better encyclopedia? I'm simply requesting information and asking to correct an article - Eddie Izzard. Note that I haven't even touched the article, merely started a discussion on the talk page. I'm sorry that you have taken that as a personal attack.
Benji, I'm learning as I do some more research that there seem to be two definitions of "Transgender". See Cromwell, Jason (1999), Transmen and FTMs, University of Illinois Press, p. 23, ISBN 0252068254  for example:
First, it designates individuals who do not fit into the categories of transvestite and transsexual. ... Transgender is viewed as a "viable option between crossdresser [transvestite] and transsexual". (Holly, 1991:31)
Second, "transgender is used as an encompassing term for transvestites and transsexuals as well as for those who do not fit neatly into either category.
I'll continue this at Talk:Transgender, but I'm glad to participate in the discussion and learn from it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN, you and user:21stCenturyGreenstuff both made comments at Talk:Eddie Izzard#Transgender, transsexual, transvestite that were direct attacks on my gender identity. The statements in question were your first 2 posts to that section, and this from 21stCenturyGreenstuff (after already being warned about WP:NPA):

But in the wider scheme of things technically no you are not transgender, you are a transvestite (in older parlance) or more modernly a "cross dresser".

Telling a transgender person that they are not transgender because you don't agree with the reliably sourced definition of transgender (which happens to also correlate quite well with the legal definition in every state and territory of Australia, where I live) is directly in contravention of the first point at Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Personal attacks. The pain that your comments caused me would be on par with telling an infertile woman that she wasn't a woman because your personal definition of woman required that they be able to bear children. I am devastated by these personal attacks and will consequently be taking an indefinite wikibreak. I don't know whether I will be able to return. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Alice, I sincerely apologize if something I've written has offended, but I've re-read the talk page and believe that I have kept on the subject of the article and have not said anything personal at all. I am terribly sorry, though, if my ignorance has caused you hurt. I've requested that 21stCentury re-read his comments and retract them, because you are right that there is no call to address your situation, only the situation of the article. Please consider coming back from your WikiBreak and educating those of us that freely admit their ignorance? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly consider someone who cross-dresses to be transgender, the act of putting on the clothes of a different gender is transgressing gender roles. Bob Hope would be considered surprised to be called trans and indeed so would I, because there's a big difference between someone who wears dresses for entertainment, and someone who finds cross-dressing to be a significant part of their life and gender presentation. Alice is very much part of our LGBT community and I have logged on today to be utterly astonished that anyone would question that. I hope Alice that you can see past this out of the blue comment and see it simply as a reason to keep on educating and keep on raising trans awareness so others in your situation does not suffer more of the same in the future.

Also, Eddie Izzard has previously said publicly that he considers himself a transvestite, and that deifnitely comes under our umbrella. Our big, gay umbrella. :) Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 00:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've had some time to calm down, I realise that I over-reacted a bit. I am a little surprised that SatyrTN believed that a long deprecated meaning for "transgender" was current, but I now realise that he didn't mean any harm by it. As WP:NPA suggests, I'm going to ignore user:21stCenturyGreenstuff's personal attack, which I'm pretty certain was also an unintentional consequence of believing the same deprecated meaning of transgender. My apologies to all for being such a big sook. :p --AliceJMarkham (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Renaming issue Pride Week 1973 (Vancouver)

The new article Pride Week 1973 (Vancouver) has been listed at request moves as the first sentence and article refer to Pride Week in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Saskatoon and Winnipeg. Discussion is welcome.SriMesh | talk 18:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Greek Islanders, gay, bisexual and transgender project

Bet you didn't know the primary use of Lesbian in English refers to Greek Islanders. I have reported a user for inserting this information 10 times into the article. If you have any input, the discussion, such as it is, is here. Any eyes on the article as well would be welcome. --Moni3 (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of housecleaning over there as well concerning the lesbian "health" section - input welcome concerning that content. -- Banjeboi 14:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing help

I'm putting together an article that mentions Paul Cameron and am looking for a concise source that mentions that his views on homosexuality have been repudiated by the American Psychiatric Assn and the American Psychological Assn. Everything I can find talks about his getting chucked out of the latter APA but nothing that specifically says that both APAs hold official policy stands that are in opposition to his. Anyone got a suggestion? Otto4711 (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

UC-Davis has a concise but thorough examination of Paul Cameron here. For Cameron's relationship with APA, see the fact sheet. For repudiation of his "research" see here, here, and here. Queerudite (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
PS - If you didn't see the episode where he was interviewed by the Daily Show's Samantha Bee, I highly recommend you watch this. It may be my favorite episode of all time. Queerudite (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks for the sourcing, just what I was looking for. I'll check out that video. Otto4711 (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Abel Bonnard

There is a bit about Petain calling him a sissy. Could this be verified or should we remove it?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for referencing it. I've added the WP tag to his talkpage. I'm not sure he should be categorised - the referenced don't say for sure whether he was gay or simply targeted as gay. BTW, I find this strange - since Nazis killed so many gays, why was he a collaborationist?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Gertrude Lawrence

I recently have read two Lawrence bios, neither of which even remotely suggests she was lesbian or bisexual. In fact, it appears she had a steady succession of male lovers, in addition to two husbands. Does anyone know what led to this article being included in the WikiProject LGBT studies? Another editor suggested it could be that she was considered a gay icon, although I've read nothing to support that. I'm hoping someone very familiar with the project and its guidelines can explain why the LGBT template is included on the discussion page for this article. Thank you very much for any enlightenment you can offer me! LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this is being addressed on the article talkpage. -- Banjeboi 13:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Yemen

Could anyone please improve this page?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a bit. -- Banjeboi 16:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I've seen that. Thank you. Just one thing, when you say, 'Other sources state that many problems persist alongside allegations that these reforms have not been fully implemented' - which reforms?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Yikes. I dropped a sentence somewhere, I've re-added it now. I didn't find anything on transgender issues but they might term it differently so I just didn't find it. -- Banjeboi 13:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

List of people killed because they were transgender at AfD

Your input is welcome. -- Banjeboi 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless this list is expanded considerably beyond the two names it contains, I don't think it warrants a Wikipedia article. LiteraryMaven (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
At one point, this was a good list. IMO, it's been hijacked, reworked, destroyed, and is now just about useless. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I can see the point of keeping it to people whom we know were killed because they were trans. More names probably need to be added back, though. There's now debate over the title (currently List of unlawfully killed transgender people) - could use some opinions on the talk page. --Alynna (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
SatyrTN's right, it was highjacked in the middle of me doing an entire rewrite and now is being rather owned by some seemingly unique POV editors. IMHO, it would be smarter - and less stressful - to simply start all over pulling the good bits from the history and build from there. In an atmosphere of cooperative consensus - rather than what drove me away - I think a meaningful list article could emerge. I simply walked away as it felt like a pack of wolves snipping at my ankles - some of these same folks have been targeting articles about murdered LGBT people in various ways. Very alarming and distasteful - technically allowed but distasteful editing - I guess that's our special curse. -- Banjeboi 13:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
You need to quit with this shit - all I see is you running around wikipedia badmouthing people because they wanted a sourced article. I've *never* removed a sourced entry that confirms to the criteria set down at the article. Your constant attempts to paint me as a homophobe have failed, when you take it to AN/I nobody was interested in your slurs, when you tried it at the article nobody was interested. All of my changes are documented on the talkpage and me and a number of other good faith editors have just got on with it. I'm actually a bisexual male but when I edit here I check that in at the door and I work as an NPOV editor - you might want to give it a try. In addition, you give this project a bad name because your constant attempts to paint people at homophobes and "haters" gives the impression that this is some sort of activist group rather than a wikiproject trying to product quality articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Good gracious, Cameron Scott. This is not the place to address whatever problems you have with the editor. I have not, as I state below, been involved with the list, so I don't know its problems intimately. However, I am familiar with a style of collaboration, such as it is, where editors "help" by removing information only, or add a single paragraph that puts undue weight on an issue. This project sees a lot of this kind of editing in quite a few articles. This wouldn't happen as much if the sourcing were better. True collaboration means all editors involved have the article's best interest in mind. Not only do they remove poorly sourced information, but they look for better sources and do their damnedest to add to it before removing it completely. They work to make it a fuller article that is the best it can be. I cannot characterize your actions or Benji's in this AfD, and have no interest in becoming involved in it right now. However, I think the material intended for this list should exist, and I hope it gets as much assistance as possible. It deserves true collaboration. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for the disruption - I'm just getting a little tired at how I'm being run down over this matter in multiple places. I reserve the right to reply I'm afraid. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been involved with this, but as I can't deal with a lot of crap from tendentious editing, it's often easier for me to build in my sandbox and impeccable article, post it, and let the opposers deal with reliable sources at their will. I find most arguments are over poorly sourced information. If you start with strong sources, your list will be less likely to erode. --Moni3 (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Bluntly - the sources in that article were complete and utter shite - people were just wholesale lifting names of dead transsexuals and adding them regardless of the cause of death. For example, if someone was found murdered in their flat - that was added as a hate crime, even if nobody had been caught and no motive was established. And that's the worst thing in the world to do because it makes it look like hate crime isn't a problem because we are adding such weak and non-existent cases - and that's also what left it open to AFD and would leave it open to AFD again in the future. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Bluntly, I was in the middle of NPOV rewriting and sourcing each entry and had the {{in use}} template to indicate it was in process. Perhaps you were within your rights to act WP:Dickishly by interupting but that doesn't mean it didn't feel like yet another round of harassment on a murdered transperson article. If I had been treated this way on every article I would never edit again and i wouldn't blame others from walking away as well. Just because thuggishness is allowed doesn't make it right. Congrats - you win - out of the 240+ listed I gave up after less than a dozen. Wikipedia is just so much better for having watchdogs keeping editors like me from adding neutral and sourced material. -- Banjeboi 00:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Cameron, any reason you can't work *with* Benji to add references to listed entries? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, working with this editor isn't doing anything but causing me stress so I'll cite health concerns as a valid reason to avoid them. -- Banjeboi 17:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Article on opposite-sex marriage?

Since we have an article on same-sex marriage, maybe it would be good to also have one on opposite-sex marriage. Such an article could discuss, for example, the motivation of legislators in restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, as well as the effects of such restrictions, and the ways in which opposite-sex marriage does or does not differ from same-sex marriage or marriage in general. That article could be linked here, as well as in the California Proposition 8 (2008) article. Anyone feel inspired to do this?--Bhuck (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is pushing the envelope. It should just be called marriage, whether you marry a man or a woman. Same-sex marriage has its own page because it is a topical issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "pushing the envelope"...I have the vague notion that it implies "trying to do more than you can get away with", but I would like to at least know more about why we wouldn't be able to get away with doing that. I notice also there is no Category:Heterosexuality. I think by making a big deal out of one phenomenon, but ignoring its counterpart, this imputes that only LGBT people have sexual orientations, and that people without sexual orientations are "normal". Of course, it doesn't do this explicitly, only implicitly. Since Proposition 8 was about ensuring that opposite-sex marriage would get a monopoly on marriage, I think opposite-sex marriage is just as topical as same-sex marriage. Particularly since 30 of the 50 states have laws guaranteeing the heterosexuality of marriage.--Bhuck (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
How would this be different from Marriage? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Marriage includes both same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage. Opposite-sex marriage would be an article in which the motivations for ensuring that same-sex couples don't wed could be analyzed, and the effects of such restrictions (both positive--evangelicals feel happier, the sky does not fall, civilization does not disintegrate--and negative--gay couples feel discriminated against) could be described.--Bhuck (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know - it sounds a bit like WP:COATRACK, and a bit like WP:OR. Furthermore, it seems like all that content is why OSM *isn't* SSM. So why not keep the content in the SSM article? But that's just my opinion. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Ideally, it would not be WP:OR--my rather flippant summary above might be OR, but obviously, the real article would need to be supported by real sources, and probably wouldn't contain fake arguments about the sky falling. The Coatrack criticism comes closer for being a better counter-argument. However, I note that in the WP-page about that, it says "Coatrack articles can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias" -- in this case, the coatrack article would be created purposefully to counteract a particular bias. I suppose if we wanted to keep that content in the SSM article, we should move that article to something less one-sided like marriage of particular gender constellations, where we could then discuss both same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage with regard to the particularity of the gender constellation, as opposed to more general discussions of marriage that apply to all constellations equally.--Bhuck (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't buy into it.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess my opposition in the coatrack realm is that there isn't much difference between promoting a particular bias and "purposefully counteracting" a particular bias. IMO. But the real question is, is it encyclopedic? Are there books on how opposite-sex marriage is not same-sex marriage? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to an opposite-sex article in theory, I'm just wondering if its actually necessary for an encyclopedia. Marriage by default primarily concerns opposite-sex marriage which is the primary reason why there is social/political debate over same-sex marriage; its the very reason "same-sex marriage" has an actual term/label. The same-sex marriage article overwhelmingly deals with opposition to the subject including every conceivable reason as to why it should not be legalized. Basically, is there anything that an opposite-sex article could cover that isn't already covered by both marriage and same-sex marriage so we aren't simply repeating the exact same information? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

we also have Traditional marriage movement I just noticed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Chiming in a bit late, I don't think that (at least for now) we have any need for a separate article on OSM. Aleta Sing 21:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Deborah Warner

i was wondering if i could get some comment on what's looking to be a war at Deborah Warner over the use of the term domestic partner. --emerson7 03:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

followup: what is the accepted use in wikipedia for the the term 'partner' and/or domestic partner beyond the legal context?
AFAIK, we don't have a guideline or any "accepted use" indicated. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

POV template?

I remain convinced that {{BBL sidebar}} is a pile of POV-pushing to help legitimize the rather controversial theories and research by this trio of folks. IMHO, this content should be laid out in the relevant article(s) not presented as established mainstream accepted content that templates imply. If this is fine then what's wrong with all sorts of templates laying out the main structural concepts of any fringe POV? Anyone else see this as problematic? Should this go to templates for deletion? -- Banjeboi 21:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the template should definitely go for deletion. It's arguable whether some of the related articles should too. Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy is a blatant POV fork and should go or get merged. homosexual transsexual should also be deleted or merged to Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. In effect, BBL is about a minority theory that borders on WP:FRINGE and its wikipedia coverage should be significantly cut back. I'm very concerned at some very significant POV pushing and abusive behaviour from one or two editors in that area, which seems to be successfully scaring off neutral editors. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and having a bit of a look at the other articles on that template, I agree with User:James Cantor that Etiology of transsexualism should be merged to Transsexuality. I don't have a lot of time to put up merge proposals, deletions etc but if you want to, go ahead with my blessing. :) --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Basically echoing the above here. It's not just the template, but that whole group of articles convey WP:UNDUE weight to what is really fringe material. But as for the template specifically, the mixing of fringe topics and established fields of study gives undue credibility to the fringe stuff. At the very least, keep the template focused on just the specific Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence articles. Siawase (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Yikes - each article worse than the next. Various merge discussions deserve some thought but you'll note each article is longer than the next and all just full of facts - which are helpful but detract from the actual articles and our readers understanding of the various subjects. I still don't see a need for this template at all. POV-pushing should be restricted to articles, and when found there rewritten or otherwise fixed. These articles do seem to be a fringe-a-thon of sorts but it will take a bit to unravel it all. -- Banjeboi 03:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Westfield?

He received the Gay Men's Debut Fiction and the Gay Men's Fiction Lambda Awards in 2006 for his first and only novel, Suspension: A Novel. Does he deserve a page? (Where do we find out how many copies were sold?)Zigzig20s (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If he won a Lammy (or two), I think that passes notability. Beyond that, I don't know :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone found the number of copies in libraries for Randall Kenan's A Visitation of Spirits at one point. I'm not sure where to find that again though.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
He's also a NYC tour guide. I don't know.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll create a page with a summary of his novel when I've read it. Objections?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

VOLUNTEERS NEEDED: OutHistory.org, a free, educational, MediaWiki-based website about LGBT and heterosexual history

OutHistory.org needs volunteer administrators, content providers, etc. Please take a look at the site and see how you can help.

http://www.outhistory.org/wiki/Main_Page

CONTACT: outhistory@gc.cuny.edu

Thank you. Jonathan Ned Katz, Director, OutHistory.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.106.187 (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Bourges - homophobic harassement led to gay club closing down.

I was wondering if we could add this story [2] to the page on Bourges. Because of police harassement, a gay club in small-town France is going to close down on December 31st. It seems symptomatic of homophobia in provincial France. However, it is bound to be met with reverts and accusations of "trivia". What do you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother based on previous deletions of material along the same lines. There may be a better target article about homophobia; also you may want to also use the English translation. -- Banjeboi 20:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama's LGBT appointees

I was reading this article [3] and I realised there was no page on John Berry (well, there is, but he doesn't seem to be on the list John Berry); no page on Fred Hochberg (who comes up in the search results [4] as Fred P. Hochberg); and Mary Beth Maxwell's page is topsy turvy. Anyone care to create referenced pages on Berry and Hochberg, and possibly improve Maxell's page?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Although not directly related to Obama, I think there should also be a page for Garnet Lewis - see [5].Zigzig20s (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Nancy Sutley's article could do with some extra input too Gonzonoir (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
All of it - do it yourself. Create the article, and show it off here...then I will know if I can link it somewhere. Collaboration - showing photos, sharing ideas and doing your own thing in the ultimate end. Welcome. Now...dazzle us with your possibility....David Shankbone 10:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, sure - but part of the point of the WikiProject's to enlist others to help. Let's do it! :) Gonzonoir (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
After a bit of investigation, isn't John Berry (zoo director) the guy referenced in the article as a candidate for interior secretary? Gonzonoir (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, good one! I didn't bother to look because...zoo director sounded slightly flip...Also, I have put this request up here because I am very busy atm - so I hope other people can help.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Heh, perhaps we'll have cause to change the article's name in the near future :) I've also just gone ahead and created Fred P. Hochberg. Perhaps someone wants to go and rescue it the stubby status I've inflicted on it? Gonzonoir (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you could add a reference for his being gay? (I think the Advocate article may be enough.) I added the WP tags...must dash to the library!Zigzig20s (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hochberg seems to be on facebook, in the New York network. Anyone from NYC care to message him to take his picture?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave that to someone else; having worked on the article all day I kind of feel like I'm too far into the poor guy's personal space anyway ;) Gonzonoir (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

NYTimes "gay mafia"...

Please read the quotation on Stefano Tonchi's page... I looked them up and there is also a page for Ben Brantley, Adam Nagourney, Frank Bruni, but not the other ones...Please note that this group was mentioned by Out Magazine in their April 2007 list of most powerful gay men: [6]. What to make of it?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a tired old conspiracy theory. Instead of the Illuminati, Rosicrucian, Freemasonry, Liberal, Italian, Evangelical, Jewish, or Lavender Mafia, as examples, it's the Gay Mafia. Whoever or whatever it is, they are said to be secretly controlling or protecting something: Hollywood, Banks, the Eastern Establishment, what we read and watch, schools, the Press, protecting and promoting other members, whatever. Or maybe even influencing or controlling the whole world. Regardless of the target group, this is discrimination against any group the discriminators don't like for ethnic, religious, cultural, racial, economic, or other reasons. Gays are still mostly a despised minority in much of mainstream America and just don't have that kind of power. Not yet, anyway :-) See Gay mafia. — Becksguy (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I've heard of the gay mafia but never regarding the NYTimes specifically...Should we change Tonchi's page?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems notable, so I guess so. Maybe as a link to the Gay Mafia and NYT articles? Tonchi's page is barely a stub at this point. I added a ref and reflist. — Becksguy (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Mississippi

FYI: Please "watch" Mississippi#Gay and lesbian community as User:Christchild777 and User:AlexiusHoratius have decided this section is irrelevant. - ALLST☆R echo 08:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

New featured picture

Dropping by with a piece of good news. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 06:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Category: LGBT Democrat, LGBT Republican?

Do we have categories for LGBT Democrats and LGBT Republicans? I think not. Shouldn't we create them?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken ... Category:LGBT politicians is the place to start and it looks like it's broken down geographically rather than by party lines. It may be because additional categories explain which parties they are associated with and also because many politicians are in more than one party. -- Banjeboi 03:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Who is in more than one party? I am talking about US politicians. For instance, Mark R. Dybul is a gay Republican, but Tammy Baldwin is a lesbian Democrat...I was wondering which party Jeff Trandahl was affiliated with. I do think the categories would be useful.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Didn't we have those categories, but they got deleted? Or we at least had one but not the other, maybe? Aleta Sing 17:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I think they did get deleted but I'm not sure why, maybe NPOV? Politicians sometimes change political parties in their careers. -- Banjeboi 23:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Men's spaces

It is currently prodded. If it is kept, should it be added to the project? Aleta Sing 17:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(revised comment) removed prod... the article does need serious attn (ideally from someone w/ more knowledge than me of non-westernized gender roles etc) but it is an interesting article. as for project inclusion, if what the article says goes on in men's spaces really goes on, that would seem to fall in our scope. (lol) Outsider80 (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association

I have deleted the notability tag because there were references, it was inserted back; I have now added two more references...Does it still require more references?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there are currently sufficient RS in the article to establish notability, so I endorse removal of the tag. But I added some additional ones on the talk page if you want to check them out for even more backup. NLGJA actually grants an award in addition to Outlook receiving them. — Becksguy (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni

Would anyone mind checking out this article? --Silvestris (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Checking relative to what? Please clarify request as there is nothing on the talk page since January 2008, and the only recent change history is about the charge of rape against the two kids. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 09:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible new LGBT stub types

Hi - just a heads-up that I've initiated a proposal at WP:WSS/P about some possible new LGBT-related stub templates that should hopefully reduce the load in the main Category:LGBT stubs. Discussion of the proposal can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2008/December#LGBT split. Any input from this project is welcome on that page. There's also currently discussion at WP:SFD about renaming Category:Sex stubs as Category:Sex and sexuality stubs, or just Category:Sexuality stubs, which would allow Category:LGBT stubs to be a more appropriate subcategory of it.Again, input is welcome there. Grutness...wha? 22:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

I'm running up against a good deal of resistance at Pope Benedict XVI in terms of including information about his anti-gay speeches and positions: such additions have been repeatedly removed (see talk page). Additional input would be appreciated. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Governor Jim McGreevey

Has anyone read his memoir? I assume that David Letterman's spoof was homophobic [7]. Shouldn't we mention that on Governor McGreevey's article?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have neither read the memoir nor seen the spoof, but that does not sound important enough to me to add to the article about McGreevrey. Aleta Sing 18:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I gave you the link on youtube. The article mentions his books. David Letterman appears to be watched by millions of viewers in the US and worldwide. I suggest that we add 'the book was met with homophobia, such as David Letterman's spoof'.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I would support "the book was spoofed", etc. Characterizing it as homophobia might be OR unless we state who is calling it that. -- Banjeboi 23:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
"The book was spoofed" would discredit Governor McGreevey; a mention of the homophobic tone would discredit Letterman. I am actually disappointed in Letterman for this homophobic spoof - this is me voicing my opinion...Zigzig20s (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I googled, but found no commentary whatsoever on that particular spoof. However, also back in 2006 McGreevey apparently dropped out of a Letterman appearance, and Letterman did a McGreevey top ten list. This did receive some commentary in WP:RS, including McGreevey's co-author calling the list a "nasty collection of sexual innuendoes". However, I found no one outright calling Letterman or the jokes homophobic. But this all might be something to add. [8][9][10][11] Siawase (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like an interesting start, doesn't it?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Milk - one important character/actor missing from the list?

I was wondering if anyone else had seen Milk yet. I can't seem to remember who the curly-haired bespectacled young guy is...I'm looking for the actor's name - he doesn't seem to be listed on the article and yet he is a rather important character in the film.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about the young guy with black curly hair and large glasses, that Milk meets on the street (while with a bunch of friends walking by Milk's photo store), and who initially can't be bothered but shows up later waiting by the store, then it's Emile Hirsch who plays Cleve Jones. But he's listed. — Becksguy (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, thank you. I didn't recognise him in the pictures on wikipedia I suppose? He is so incredibly cute in the film lol!Zigzig20s (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is a link. He's wearing a wig, apparently. — Becksguy (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Now everyone knows I have a thing for curls and big glasses. How embarrassing!Zigzig20s (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
lol - Becksguy (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I have a thing for Emile Hirsche in Into the Wild (another Sean Penn film). --David Shankbone 20:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Omicron Epsilon Pi

I found the article Omicron Epsilon Pi, which seems to relate to your project, on the notability backlog. The article is in a bad state, it was apparently created in WP:COI and does not establish notability of the subject (the warning tag is on the article since September 2007). Does anyone of you know of secondary coverage, etc. about this organization? Or should the article rather be removed as non-notable? --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that editor has been run off and likely won't bother posting again. As the first sorority group for lesbians of color it would seem to squeak by on notability and there are some bits in books confirming what the article states. I would consider just trimming it if needed. As lesbians of color, especially in The South, aren't known for actively promoting and publicizing their presence I'm guessing sourcing will be a hunt. Maybe college and LGBT media where chapters are known to exist? -- Banjeboi 05:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I found a short article from 2004 from Curve, the best selling lesbian magazine in the U.S., and also a reference from a college guide and added them to the article. I think some of the stuff in the middle about philanthrophy projects could be trimmed as non-encylopedic, but I haven't checked out other sorority articles to know what gets by as encyclopedic. I agree with Benjiboi that the article should at least squeak by on notability. Thanks for checking in!Scarykitty (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Brandon Teena

an anonymous editor made two changes to gender words (he to she) but left a lot in tact. I'm not familiar enough with the guidelines on gender use to revert. One change is that Brandon's mother still referred to "her" (changed from him) as "her daughter" The second is "In 1993, after some legal trouble, Teena moved to the Falls City region of Richardson County, Nebraska, where she (formerly he) identified solely as a man. These seem wrong, but given that there are only two in an article full of gender references, I'll leave it to those more familiar with the guidelines. Scarykitty (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The first one is clunky but OK, the 1993 one has been changed. This article is simply plagued with anons and spas. It needs to be completely rewritten but until it's all done at once it remains a bit of a battleground. If the anons are numerous and persistent then WP:RFPP may make sense. -- Banjeboi 07:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Somebody reverted pretty quickly. Scarykitty (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikification request: Molly McKay

Could someone tuck this little article under their wings? It's about a current LG marriage activist, and she's both well-known enough and little-known enough that a brief, well-written biography on Wikipedia is appropriate and useful. I met the article in an AfD and helped it out a bit, but it's really outside of my area (botany and geology, especially when the two meet in fossils). Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Back on Nov 24, I nommed some categories to be merged. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 15#Category:LGBT actors from individual countries. This followed some discussion that some of us had at WT:LGBT/CAT, where a couple of us have been reviewing the category situation as a whole. The Nov 24 !vote didn't get much input, so it was re-nommed on Dec 15. That one *still* hasn't gotten much input. Would anyone who wants please stop by and give opinions and !votes? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, but I know after going through some politicians's pages that categories need mending.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
This was approved. Now they want someone to do the work. I'm happy to take a piece of it. Any idea how we'll categorize people who we can't be sure whether they are L, G, B or T? I have two more category things, but I'll put them at the bottom. Scarykitty (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Send them up to the next general category. -- Banjeboi 04:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohm Phanphiroj

Resolved: Deleted as a copyvio. -- Banjeboi 01:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohm Phanphiroj seems to be the autobiographical puff-piece of a photographer of softcore gay erotica. The man claims to have been exhibited and widely awarded, without deigning to offer a shred of confirmatory evidence. The article has had an "Oh really? So prove it" template for over two years, and I think richly deserves inquisition by AfD. Still, I know squat about gay erotica; maybe this really is somebody who merits a worthwhile article. Can somebody here who knows about this stuff either start to go through the (self?) awards and the like, or send the drat thing to AfD? Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Brazda - request for German translation

Does anyone speak German? This page [12] would do with a translation I think. It's about the last gay survivor of the Holocaust of course. I found a short article in The Advocate: [13]...There is a page on the French Wikipedia [14], but as always there is no reference...Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to read his full interview in Tetu; if it is in this month's issue, newsagents have no more copies to sell where I live. I think the best thing would be to get the German page translated into English, then add the Advocate reference and possibly the short Tetu one too [15].Zigzig20s (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a friend doing German at Oxford who was willing to help out with WP:LGBT articles, I'll give her a bell. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 19:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
She's happy to do it, shall I just create the page when she'd done? Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 09:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
By all means. The German page is long and referenced, that would be a good start.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Over a week later...Is she on holiday? lol!Zigzig20s (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes! It's the christmas holidays... Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 23:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently she's now halfway through. :) Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 03:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Jolly good.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)