Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 →

Articles in Category:Christian denominational positions on homosexuality

Currently these articles tend to be of the form 'Homosexuality and blank-ism' (e.g. Homosexuality and Methodism, Homosexuality and Anglicanism). There are two separate issues with this naming scheme:

  • the use of 'homosexuality' as opposed to 'LGBT topics' (as agreed above)
  • the use of denominational families instead of specific denominations/churches

The denominational families don't necessarily have any views in common, so the articles instead become collections of views of specific churches within the family. For example, Homosexuality and Methodism should be split into LGBT topics and the United Methodist Church, LGBT topics and the Free Methodist Church and LGBT topics and the Methodist Church of Great Britain. Articles like Homosexuality and Anglicanism and Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism (which are each about one religious entity) could get renamed to LGBT topics and the Anglican Communion and LGBT topics and the Roman Catholic Church to follow the pattern of other articles. Thoughts? -Mairi (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, rename all of these as proposed. --Alynna (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree to some extent, although in the light of the recent ECUSA convention and the ABC's response regarding churches within the covenant and churches outside it, Anglicanism could be split as well. What North America, and the South say appear to be becoming quite different things, and the ABC has made it clear that as primate of the CofE he is taking a position somewhere in the middle in steering a course that bishops etc. in North America will not be regarded as speaking for Anglicanism. As this becomes more evident and open over the coming months, it may be best represented by treating this in separate articles - rather than reproducing how this plays out as what has the potential to produce an edit-war on the current main-article. Effectively, what will happen is that if the North American church is contained within an article on Anglicanism, objectors to their views will be able to argue that their views should not be cited within the article because the ABC has stated that their views are not Anglican views - and I doubt very much that many Episcopalians will accept this. Mish (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we could have separate articles for the different parts of Anglicanism. Although, we'd still need somewhere to cover the controversy itself. --Alynna (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard Isay

This article has come in for some rather strange editing recently, which has among other things removed all the categories without explanation. I am not sure what should be done here, but it clearly needs some work. Born Gay (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I readded the cats and ex links. But we really shouldn't have this artice at all, with it's lack of sources and personal claims.YobMod 10:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Richard Isay is a reasonably well known writer, so I'm not sure that the article should be deleted. But it clearly needs more work to verify that the information there is correct - note that the recent editing changed Isay's year of birth from 1939 to 1934, without giving a source. Born Gay (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Cities and counties with Domestic Partnerships

Since I was directed to this talk page with regards to asking questions about the following page:

I was wondering, did the author included domestic partnerships that were only open to local employees or only included registries that were open to the full public?

The question arose after a person asked about including El Paso, TX because of the following story:

Thank you Yankhill (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The list now seems to list domestic partnership registries for the general public [residents or inhabitants of the city]. It can be expanded to include domestic partnership registries for local government employees, but it would be even less comprehensive. The Homosexualist (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I actually prefer the idea of only including ones that are open to the public but was curious. Seems to make the most sense. Thank you Yankhill (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Collab of the month? August 2009

I've just read in the newsletter that re-starting the collab of the month is a target for the project. Do we have editors willing to collaborate next month? It is only worth doing if we get actual contibutions (the lack of which caused it to fizzle out previously). If we choose something notable enough, i will dedicate some time to writing sourced paragraphs on whatever it is.

Any suggestions on an article? I was thinking one of the smaller religion articles might be interesting, as there are so many, so we could provide a positive role model for the others, now we have renamed them. Maybe Homosexuality and the Bahá'í Faith (expanding it enough to merit an LGBT title would be good), or Voodoo or Shinto or Zoroastianism? The larger and more popular articles (Christianisty especially) would be too ambitious at this stage, imo.

One of the smaller religion articles sounds good to me. A while ago I tried to find info on Zoroastrianism and trans issues, without much luck... --Alynna (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Homosexuality and The Baha'i Faith gets my vote. It pretty much only talks about gay men, and is rather singularly glowing in tone about the Baha'i Faith. Not that I have anything against the Baha'i Faith, I often speak of it in glowing terms myself, but it's a bit odd. Plus, I haven't been working on a Baha'i article in ages and ages, it would be nice and nostalgic for me. ^^ Zazaban (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
So, i searched just about my bookshelf and every book on google books for "Baha'i and: transgender, transgendered, transgenderism, LGBT, bisexual, bisexuality, queer, transexual, transvestite, and lesbian". I wrote a paragraph on the talk page from sources, but i have come to the conclusion that finding any more would require an expert. Hence i suggest LGBT topic and Zoroastiranism should be the colab of the month, if only because it is much smaller, so it is easier to expand. I've already made a start and added a paragraph there. Any objections to making it official? (even if only i work on it, i'm pretty sure it will get one assessment class higher).YobMod 11:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

LGBT matters and religion

There was some material inserted into the Homosexuality and religion article that covered LGBT religious views in Australia and New Zealand (not confined to Xtian). Most of the article focuses on religious views on homosexuality. I have created a new page LGBT matters and religion and moved this material there, and copied over the LGBT-related stuff as well, and established some sections with links to relevant articles. Can I get some clear understanding - I had suggested that we use 'matters' instead of 'issues', and I see that many articles are now named 'topics' rather than 'issues'. Does this mean that we want them called 'LGBT topics and religion', rather than 'LGBT matters and religion'? If so, I'll need to change those. Mish (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, i think topics sounds better than matters (Matters sounds less encylopedic, and more day-time chat show :-) ). But the few i renamed i only did as most of the others had already been renamed to "topics". Issues/topics/matters are all fine, imo, as long as they are consistant - it is a big help to be able to predict a page name to avoid redlinks and discover gaps in coverage.YobMod 09:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine, I'll go with topics then. I guess matters has a different meaning here, where it also tends to be used in a legal context (I've never heard it used on talk shows). Mish (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I had put that material in Homosexuality and religion because there was some discussion that that article should contain content on how LGBT people view religion (and the broader article that you created didn't exist). If it's just going to have religious views of homosexuality, maybe it should be renamed to Religious views of homosexuality? -Mairi (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The homosexuality and religion article should have views of homosexuals about religion, imo. But as the survey covered LGBT and queer groups, they go better in the new LGBT and religion article (especially with other identities like Takatāpui, that are not synonymous with homosexuality). But great job in adding content rather than arguing about naming. I'm now inspired to do the same! :-)YobMod 07:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I originally moved this material from the homosexuality article to the LGBT article, because it was about LGBT and LGB groups - and I made the reasons for doing so clear. Homosexuality is not LGBT, and all the articles that appear to be 'religious views on...' tend to be about homosexuality, so having articles that cover LGBT ticks a number of boxes - neutrality for a start, as well as allowing for inclusion of groups that might not generate enough material to warrant articles in their own right (bisexual and transgender). Apologies if this was not clear in the context, but it should be clear in the wider context of trying to balance these articles to cover both parts of the subject (LGBT as well as religion). Mish (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that Religion and homosexuality is going to end up discussing bisexuality (as the lead mentions), since a large number of the views are about same-sex activity and attraction, and not specifically about gay people, but not bisexual people. I'm not sure how to fix that, even if we create a Bisexuality and ... series. -Mairi (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest address it upfront in the lede, bisexual concerns are addressed here in tandem as a person's bisexuality is often viewed as being problematic regarding same-sex activities and desires, or similar. Try to explain why these issues are intertwined and maybe bring up bisexual erasure. -- Banjeboi 20:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of William March

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:William March/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

APA rejects gay to straight therapy

Check out my thread at Talk:National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality on the very recent broadside from the American Psychological Association against NARTH and others that believe gays can be converted to straight through therapy. This information and change has implications for other gay articles, such as Homosexuality and generally on changeability of orientation elsewhere. — Becksguy (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What was the APA's position before? The Homosexualist (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The previous statement was in 1997, which was not as strongly worded - just that it didn't seem to work and might harm people. Now they are saying it doesn't work, is likely to harm people, and APA members shouldn't be doing it. Specifically, that for people who are conflicted, they should be advised to find a different church that doesn't have problems with people being gay, or to be celibate if they can't do that, but not to try and change their sexual orientation. Mish (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a major mainstream science based positional change and that it weakens the foundation of reparative or conversion therapy in general, and NARTH specifically, since NARTH is an advocacy organization that claims to be scientifically based. — Becksguy (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A non-exhaustive list of articles where this change will (or may) come into play (feel free to add):

Becksguy (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This issue has produced a controversy over at conversion therapy, which is now protected against editing for a week. User:Joshuajohanson made an addition that proved unacceptable to other editors, leading to multiple reverts. I would ask editors interested in this subject to discuss it there so that we can build consensus. Born Gay (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
"With regard to the policy, we recommend that the 1997 policy be retained and that a new policy be adopted to complement it".Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation p.89 This means that there is no need to rush into making changes, what is necessary is to work through what supplementary material needs to be added where, and update citations as necessary. The new policy and resolution is on p.119 to 122. Mish (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


This article is a bit... Odd... It seems to be making the claim that the act of trainfucking is some profound work of art. Example: "trainfuck adheres to the criteria of a Gesamtkunstwerk." and "From a philosophical point of view the trainfuck can be seen as synthesis - the unification of thesis and antithesis in one place and at the same time." I liked the article at first, but it's parading off into looney land. Zazaban (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It was also filled with wildly inappropriate references, including several to porn blogs, which I've now removed. But it still suffers from fairly major problems. Is there any reason why this couldn't be just redirected to List of sex positions, group sex or some other article? Exploding Boy (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Another Meister und Margarita (talk · contribs) creation. I do think they mean well but really their inserting very poor sourcing and original research all over the place. I too see no reason it can't be sent to group sex where daisy chain resides. -- Banjeboi 05:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
But a Gesamtkunstwerk? They are comparing a form of group sex with the opera of Wager? Zazaban (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I've removed that particular nonsense, and some other stuff, and am nominating it for deletion. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the whole article, but I must admit that I am disgusted by the way people treat a different point of view here. :-((((--Meister und Margarita (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
No one disputes it's an interesting point of view but this isn't a master's class where we simply discuss theory and propose novel synthesis. We report on notable topics as supported by reliable sourcing. There are other websites that have other or no standards for publishing - Wikipedia's policies apply to all articles. -- Banjeboi 23:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your changing the article into a redirect, since it is currently at AFD. Wikipedia has no problem with different points of view, but we do insist on notable topics with reliable sources. --Alynna (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Project guidance on 'homosexual'

Is it possible to provide a clear guidance on the use of this word?

My understanding is that this word should never be used as a noun in comtemporary usage, as people prefer to be referred to as 'lesbian' or 'gay', but if discussing a historical source prior to the 1960's (i.e. lesbian and gay liberation movement) I tend to use the term that would have been used then. 'Homosexuality' seems to be acceptable to describe a sexual orientation, what about homosexual as an adjective, rather than a name?

Clear guidance would be useful, along with sources to point to for verification. Any ideas? Mish (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think "homosexuality" as a noun is problematic, not because it's a slur, but because it's vague: it can be read as either orientation or behavior. I prefer specifying "homosexual orientation" or "homosexual sex" -- clumsy though that may sometimes sound.
Dybryd (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think official guidance can/should be given. For pop culture "gay" may be preferred, but searching for sources on academic topics (eg. currently mythology and folkloristics) shows that homosexual and homosexuality are still massively used in acedemic contexts, and it is not always possible to substitute gay or LGBT.
Scholarly papers are usually on "Homosexuality in China" for example, not "Gay and Lesbian people in china" or "Gayness (?) and Lesbianism in China". "Homosexual rituals" cannot be simply replaced by "gay rituals" without being either ambiguous or strange sounding (yes, i still find many sources using gay to mean colourful and happy).
In articles where i have to write gay, homosexual and same-sex dozens of times each, removing one of these would result in massive repetition, so i think any restrictions would prevent brilliant prose, and make FA more difficult. Being vague is also one of the best attributes of "homosexuality" - if a story features men having sex, it is best not to make unsubstantiated claims about whether it is orientation or situational behaviour.
The choice of gay or homosexual or queer or LGBT or Same-sex should be made based on tone and appropriatness for a given context - any project guideline would be too crude a tool, and get used for wikilawyering in POV debates, imo.YobMod 10:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. The only rule I'd like to see written in letters of fire is "Don't say LGBT when you are really referring solely to gay men!"
Dybryd (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
'Homosexuality' isn't a noun, it is an adverb. I don't see issues about referring to 'homosexuality', or describing somebody or some behaviour as 'homosexual' (adverb), only referring to somebody as a 'homomosexual' (noun), such as when used in the plural to talk about 'homosexuals'. Particularly in article titles. This what I suppose I am looking at guidance about - should we be letting articles that refer to lesbian and gay people as 'homosexuals' in the title pass uncommented? This seems to happen in some of the religious articles. 'Religion and homosexuality' is one thing, But 'Religion and homosexuals' (not a real example) would be another. Mish (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me the nitpicking, but "homosexuality" is a noun. And "homosexual" is an adjective, not an adverb either. "Homosexually" would be the adverb. Or, er, "gaily"? Gonzonoir (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm also unconvinced about developing a formal guideline on this. I think real-world usage is too various to set up a straightforward policy: we should reflect the terms used in reference to the subjects of each article, to some extent. OTOH there are certainly cases where the noun form "homosexual" should be changed to "gay person" or "gay people", or some alternative, as in article titles. But a blanket rule for article contents is, I think, too blunt an instrument. Gonzonoir (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking back at your original post I see you weren't actually suggesting that we develop a formal rule - apologies, I went off on a slightly weird track there. I think it sounds as though what you've been doing so far is fine. "Homosexual" as an adjective is fine so long as you're using it properly, to qualify some noun: "homosexual behaviour", or "homosexual people", or something. So guidance-wise, er, stick with it! Gonzonoir (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
My mistake, yes, it is a noun, but not in the same way it is applied to a person, so people cannot be called homosexualities, but they can be called homosexuals (noun) or they can be homosexual (adjective), in certain contexts, homosexuality is fine, and as an adjective too, in certain cases; what I am trying to get at is there ever a valid contemporary reason for calling somebody a homosexual, or calling people homosexuals? Especially when people described this way do not seem to like it, and consider it a slur. It is like transsexual - we do not refer to people as transsexuals, or transgenders - but we do use transgenderism/transsexualism/transsexuality, and talk about transsexual people, treatment, etc. I am asking whether we need some guidance on using the noun 'homosexual' to refer to a person, or 'homosexuals' in the plural. People refer to this as being inappropriate, some guidance that gives the details, might make doing this easier - and we have a section for guidance on the project page. I would have thought that unacceptable terminology for people editing relevant articles could be helpful. Mish (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


How about we add a section to the guideline page, reading: "Avoid using "homosexual" and "gay" as nouns, except where quoting directly. Both are better used as adjectives." Any objections? Gonzonoir (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
With perhaps an example, e.g.:
Avoid "He identified as a homosexual";
Prefer "He identified as homosexual" or "He identified as gay." Redacted; see comments below Gonzonoir (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds OK, although I tend to think it is OK in historical contexts (50 years ago people were imprisoned or treated as homosexuals, not as gay men (or lesbians)). Mish (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes... how about "Avoid using "homosexual" and "gay" as nouns, except when clearly referencing historical usage or where quoting directly. Both are better used as adjectives"? Gonzonoir (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Redacted; see comments below Gonzonoir (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll go with this. Mish (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but I also think that it should also say that 'gay and lesbian' are preferred to 'homosexual' in all contexts except when necessary in scientific or medical contexts. Even as an adjective, it's as archaic and offensive as 'chinaman', and is most often used disparagingly. In some cases, 'gay' is more accurate, as those who use 'homosexual' as a blanket term could also mean bisexual and transgender people. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. These terms may be prefered by you, but not by others. The vast majority of uses of "homosexual" are not perjorative, and people claiming they are here without doing any study of the literature does not make them so (search googlebooks for "gays"). I strongly oppose telling people how to write, when this should be an editorial decision for individual pages. I can find hundreds of quotes from gay peole calling themselves or others "homosexuals" - over-sensitivity and wikipedia learned memes does not mean these people are insulting themselves or others.
At the vary most, we should say "please consider carefully the use of descriptive terms, particularly as nouns", and give examples. I'm sure there are many contexts where "queer" is undesirable, but any guideline that said "use LGBTQQI+ in preference to queer" would be equally terrible. We all know any such suggestion would result in people trying to rename articles inappropriately, and too many peopole are easily impressed by guidelines, no matter how well-meaning, for us to be giving amminution to one side of what are usually trivial matters. We should not censor ourselves in an effort to combat bogeyman homophobia.YobMod 12:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree wiGonzonoir et al on this, we don't need this for most well-meaning editors, we need this for POV warriors. There are at least four regulars who seem to be injecting this all over, on this wikipedia, who knows what shows up on the others. A great example is "Tyson Homosexual"
The American Family Association obviously didn't foresee the problems that might arise with its strict policy to always replace the word "gay" with "homosexual" on the Web site of its Christian news outlet, OneNewsNow. The group's automated system for changing the forbidden word wound up publishing a story about a world-class sprinter named "Tyson Homosexual" who qualified this week for the Beijing Olympics. The problem: Tyson's real last name is Gay.[1]
I would support a strongly worded section addressing the use of self-descriptors and culturally-appropriate language as being preferred and homosexual being deprecated except when used in scientific and historical contexts; similar fag, dyke, poofter, et al. Modern usage should lean towards gay and lesbian. Also someone comes out as lesbian, not "a lesbian", etc. -- Banjeboi 19:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Yup. That is what I was getting at. Tks. Yobmod's point taken - not a rule, but guidance as to what is preferable. Then we have some kind of standard to work with. Mish (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
If the images project created a guidline saying "pictures of affection or sexual activity between heterosexual couple is preferred over homosexual couples, as some people may be offended by the latter", would that not be the same thing? Is it ok if it is "only a guideline"? We should be better than the homophobes, trying to reduce editorial freedom is a step backwards. If we want freedom of expression, then they should have too, and let consensus decide. I fail to see the need for this guideline, when every page with problematicl anguage gets solved through consensus already.YobMod 10:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
No, that is a different issue - if they said "pictures of affection or sexual activity between heterosexuals is preferred over homosexuals, as some people may be offended by the latter", that would be a problem, because it refers to homosexual people using homosexual as a noun, using the word as an adjective is not the problem. It is the same with calling people Papists when people who are Roman Catholic have made clear that they don't like it, as they consider it a slur, and prefer to be referred to as Catholic. That is all, it is just about a guideline about respect. Homophobia doesn't even come into it - nobody is saying calling somebody a homosexual is intrinsically homophobic - any more than calling somebody a Negro is intrinsically racist. As Banjiboi says, the usage is deprecated.
Can someone give an example of an article where editors have used terminology in a way that seems inappropriate? I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I'd like to know what kind of problems we're actually seeing and in what way a guideline might be used. A set of tips for well-meaning editors who are sincerely seeking guidance is one thing; a stick to beat perceived POV violators is quite another (and something I'd be much less comfortable instituting unless we can get very clear consensus on what terminology is acceptable. I'm not seeing any signs of such a consensus yet.) Gonzonoir (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there was an article called Ordination of homosexuals - it is now called Ordination of LGBT Christian clergy. On a slightly different tack, just today somebody tried to insert a section on homosexualism somewhere - another deprecated term that has had limited use for nearly fifty years (apart from very old sexologists like John Money, and in countries like India or from the former Eastern Block). That is rarely used in the West because it still has homophobic overtones that date back to the time when people were still being pumped full of electricity and hormones to try and cure them - people often referred to as homosexuals - and because it is all tied up with notions of some 'homosexualist' movement with an agenda to undermine the moral fabric of western society as part of a communist plot.
I brought it in part up because I did try to use 'homosexual' as a noun in the context of treatments up to the 1950s, when people were referred to as homosexuals, and encountered objections that gay was preferred, and my edits reversed - which is historically wrong, because people were not generally referred to as gay before the 1960s, and gay tends to refer to men. If we had some guidance like this, it would be easier to ensure that historical details are managed with some credibility (i.e., not sanitised with hindsight by calling people who were treated as homosexual gay and applying a contemporary reference retrospectively, and at the same time be in a position to offer guidance on the least problematic way to refer to lesbian and gay people in a contemporary context.
The best parallel is with hermaphrodite - people were called this, but the intersex movement managed to shift people away from this term, preferring the term intersex. Despite a legacy of some confusion, where people talk about intersexuality (which is not a sexuality at all) and people being intersexed, people rarely describe somebody as an intersex, or people as intersexes, but as intersex. Same with transsexual or transgender - we try not to talk about transsexuals or transgenders, we say somebody is transsexual or 'transgender, not that they are a transsexual or a transgender. I don't see why this would be more problematic when describing somebody who is homosexual, and avoiding saying that they are a homosexual, or calling people homosexuals. Mish (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, got it. So now I have two objections to the principle of adding a guideline (I'm going to strike my suggestion of one above, to avoid confusion!):
1. I don't think we practically need one: it looks as though we've been able to handle situations like those you describe above without any guideline. (Two dimensions to that: well-meaning editors can be convinced to change their minds when they've clearly, inadvertently given offence; agenda-pushers won't be impressed with this project's guidelines. To give any rule enough weight to overrule them in e.g. formal dispute resolution would require a lot more consensus than I'm seeing here.)
2. I don't think there's clear enough consensus on how one should be worded. Two parts to this too: for one, we are disagreeing about the contexts in which the word 'homosexual' might be acceptable: some are saying never, others that it's ok in "medical and scientific" context, others suggest it's interchangeable with e.g. 'gay'. It's news to me that 'homosexual' can be deemed as offensive as 'chinaman'; an argument from my ignorance isn't worth much, but we'd need strong evidence that that view has traction before making it our policy. I see no clear sign that any view on the matter gets clear consensus, so I'm reluctant to support enshrining one as policy. Secondly, usage is so various that we can never make a rule that says "an edit that adds the word homosexual/homosexuality/etc is a bad edit". And a rule with enough qualifiers to fit all imaginable situations is... not a rule, but a discussion to have on a case-by-case basis. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. I've seen enough instances of openly gay changed to openly homosexual to know this is certainly needed and, guess what, everything on wikipedia changes so we just start somewhere and see how it progresses just like everything else - it will change and likely improve. -- Banjeboi 16:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I get 130+ hits for "openly homosexual", anyone want to help clean these up? -- Banjeboi 16:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Benjiboi above. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
And so we already move from banning te use of the noun to the adjective? That didn't take long!YobMod 09:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Any case for the use of "homosexual" over "gay" is obliterated when the post-Gay Liberation construct of the closet is the question. People today, as in the sources given for their articles, overwhelmingly identify as openly gay or lesbian, not as "homosexuals". This "homosexual" epithet, not only being wantonly offensive to a whole class of people, violates a bunch of rules about fidelity to sources, original research, and synthesis. The Homosexualist (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Not true, and simply POV. Many people still call themselves homosexual, and we are not all clones who conform to some LGBT groupthink. [Wainwright] (uses it as a noun) and [Franco Zeffirelli] ("I am homosexual but I am not Gay, a word I hate and which is offensive and obscene."): what right do we have to deny and denigrate their self-identities, and force upon them labels they reject?YobMod 11:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD of possible interest

No homo has been nomintated for deletion. BTW, am I the only one who finds our current deletion noticeboard unweildy? Can we get one set up under the general DELSORT project? LadyofShalott 15:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender? --Alynna (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, like that, but separate from it. LadyofShalott 17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Why separate? That one encompasses everything LGBT-related, along with straight sex-related topics and non-trans-related gender topics. --Alynna (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, maintaining anything is the long-term challenge. -- Banjeboi 05:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
There are LGBT topics that would not be bundled with sexuality and gender i think. Gay icons or simply LGBT people are not usually tagged with the sexuality oe gender projects, so i assume they are not delete-sorted in a useful way to the LGBT project (unless someone here wants to lose more article writing time to do it). I have no idea how to create the sorting, but support anyone else who does, unless it is made clear that all LGBT project tagged articles go into the S&G sorting, even when not concerned with sex or gender (which would itself be strange!). YobMod 11:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Transwoman vs. Trans woman vs Trans-woman

Heated debate has now evolved into an actual discussion on what is the most appropriate spelling and ergo title for transwoman. Anyone have reliable sourcing or ideas on how to actually prove which is best? -- Banjeboi 05:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

...perhaps, um, opting for the least offensive? Rebecca (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
We seem be on a path now looking at who uses which spellings, does transman get treated the same and what can we actually source and add to the respective articles. We also seem to be headed towards creating Trans (identity) as a way of discussing just the terminology issues. -- Banjeboi 23:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, trans man gets treated the same. If a purported ally uses "transwoman" or "transman", there's a good chance these days they're going to get ripped a new one for it. The same does not apply to using the space. Rebecca (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
What happens when a trans person uses it? Mish (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
They obviously didn't get the newsletter informing all trans people which words they are no longer allowed to identify themselves with! I have no problem with the page(s) being moved if the spaced term is now preffered by the trans community (and such is sourced), but are we seriously saying trans people that use the unspaced term are "wrong", or that allies that use the unspaced term deserve punishment? Frankly, i'm beginning to think we should ban every word that a single person here says is offensive, and see how long it takes before we are moving all our pages to esperanto names so no-one has any idea if it offensive or not.YobMod 10:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I deal with a lot of transmen who certainly don't agree with you but I'd rather have some reliable sourcing for whatever we do. -- Banjeboi 11:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


The LGBT article is currently at GAR, and imo is heading for a delisting. It currently is stuck at defining the scope of the article (is it about the concept of LGBT people, the concept of the political/social alliance between the different groups, or just about the term itself) and depending on which of the possible scopes, does broad coverage include non-English language uses.

No matter what decided, the review and article itself need input from concerned types.YobMod 11:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I completely forgot about this. I've tried to address the issues raised. -- Banjeboi 21:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks much better. I'll add a support for keeping.YobMod 10:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality in association football

Greetings from WP:FOOTBALL. I have created an article on Homosexuality in association football and wondered if you guys could improve the article further. Thanks, GiantSnowman 14:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, beat me to it. If any of you guys could add to Homosexuality in English football then that would also be greatly appreciated. I think in the former article a general overview of each country would be good. I'm sure there must be some countries where its pretty normal, others where it would be totally unheard of. As you will read from the England article it is a complete taboo, quite out of step with attitudes within England in general. Anyway, would be nice to hear from you.--EchetusXe 15:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


Just popping in for a sec to ask if anyone remembers where we had the discussion about LGBT versus GLBT (vs LGBTI, GLBTIAQ, etc)? I remember having one, but can't find it in the project archives. Thanks! SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you queery so? -- Banjeboi 13:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mormon kiss-in thing

After Prop 8 there were all sorts of articles about various protests, demonstrations and boycotts, but I can't find anything in Wikipedia about the Temple Square incident nor any of the follow-up actions. Are they non-notable things, or too current? They are getting a fair amount of media attention here in Europe.--Bhuck (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would add it to Protests against Proposition 8 supporters. -- Banjeboi 13:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC), a free, educational, MediaWiki-based website about LGBT and heterosexual history is holding a contest for the best local LGBTQ histories of local villages, towns, cities, counties, and states. We would love to have an entry on the history of the Fire Island Pines. Here is info about the contest:

OutHistory is also interested in volunteer administrators and/or content providers. Take a look at the site and volunteer.

Jonathan Ned Katz, Director, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnkatz1 (talkcontribs) 15:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Pronoun throwdown at Chevalier d'Eon

lived life as both a man and woman, court case in there and opinions galore. Anyone familiar enough or want to wade in and help source gender identities et al? -- Banjeboi 14:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Francis Spellman

Resolved: Sourced content added. -- Banjeboi

A few editors are making a concerted effort to disappear information on Spellman's sexuality. More eyes would be helpful. Otto4711 (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

2 requests

1) Is am gearing up for the final push on LGBT themes in Hindu mythology before GA nomination (or first a DYK by tomorrow?). If people have time to copyedit for flow (paragraphs need rearranging at least), or write up a lead )I always leave this until last), that would be great.


2) Would one of the regulars here like to nominate me for adminship? I could do it myself, and initial queries to regulars at RfA seem favourable, but i'd much prefer a nom from someone who has some experience with me (and as i've disagreed with everyone here at least once, i think it shouldn't be overly biased by project membership :-) ). Another (active) admin on the project would seem to be a desirable too.YobMod 15:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not been here long, not sure how, what to say etc., but I'd be happy to support your nomination. Mish (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suppport. Nomination seems like a maze - one last hurdle i guess!YobMod 13:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd ask LadyofShalott and Moni3 for advice, also maybe look over Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. I know we have quite a few admins lurking about I'm not always sure who is or isn't one. The RfAs can be brutal as well as it's seen as the last chance to stop someone from wielding the powers so go in with eyes wide open. -- Banjeboi 13:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The unpleasantness of RfA is the main point i got from everyone. I think i can take it - i don't involve myself in much drama, but i'm not (only) a precious flower :-) ). I'll ask the Lady - Moni3 seem too stressed at the moment. As i don't post at RfA, i was at a loss for who to ask, so though the friendly neighbourhood gay-bar was the place to start.YobMod 13:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia_talk:Requests for adminship#Interested in going for an RfA. -- Banjeboi 14:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, LGBT themes in Hindu mythology now has a lead and is nommed as a DYK. There was a spate of vandalism this morning (reeason: Hiniusm is pure, LGBT is a christian thing), so if it gets onto the front page, there may be a big upswing. Any vandal fighter watchlisting it might get some work to do.YobMod 13:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this thread. I'm not sure I have any advice, but if you have specific questions, feel free to ask me. However, I'm about to be on wikibreak. LadyofShalott 15:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


Caster Semenya. --Moni3 (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

South African teenager Caster Semenya won the women's 800 meters gold medal at the World Athletics Championships in Berlin, just hours after the sport's governing body asked for the 18-year-old's gender to be verified. -- Banjeboi 20:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have one of these books and a scanner?

If anyone has either Stryker and Van Buskirk's Gay By The Bay or Tropiano's The Prime Time Closet and can scan one or two images for me I would greatly appreciate it. I'm doing an article on The Rejected, a documentary from 1961, and would like to include either the image of the ad on p. 46 of the Stryker or the ad image on p. 6 of the Tropiano or, preferably, both. My scanner's broken. Please let me know. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm dying with curiosity - what are the images of? Could they be online already or found elsewhere? -- Banjeboi 17:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The Stryker is an image of an ad for ordering the transcript. The Tropiano is an ad for the program itself. I've looked and haven't been able to find any decent images for the program (which is unsurprising since the show itself is apparently lost). Otto4711 (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's put an appeal in the next newsletter. You might also ask at the reference desk. -- Banjeboi 20:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Map update request

Paraguay should be dark red on this map; constitution limits marriage to one man and one woman as well as other "marriage-like partnerships."[2] VoodooIsland (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessment Team

Do we have an assessment team, that is, a group of project members that regularly assess articles in some kind of structured, semi-structured, or unstructured way? And have experience doing so.

Do we have any requirements for the assessment process in this wikiproject, other than following the quality criteria at WP:LGBT/A (based on the Version 1.0 Editorial Team criteria). For assessment process I mean who can assess: (1) one uninvolved project editor (2) two uninvolved project editors agreeing, (3) one involved editor with agreement from an uninvolved project editor (4) Wikiproject consensus for the A-class assessments (and maybe B-class). Or what.

The reason I'm asking is that I noticed that the backlog of unassessed LGBT articles was 309 yesterday. I don't remember it being that high. So I went on a mini assessment binge and knocked off a couple of dozen, with plans to do major cutting down of the backlog. Which leads me to my third question.

Is there a script or tool that helps with assessment, much like WP:Twinkle or WP:Huggle helps with vandalism fighting and housekeeping actions?

Just wondering. — Becksguy (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For a script, try WP:ASSESSOR--BelovedFreak 11:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sexual identity

User:Joshuajohanson has recently created Sexual orientation identity on the back of his edits of various articles based on his reading of the recent APA response to Conversion Therapy. He has also edited Sexual identity to the point where he has split Sexual identity leaving 'sex identity', and moving the rest of 'sexual identity' to Sexual orientation identity. This has been followed by editing the LGBT template to replace Sexual identity with Sexual orientation identity. I have reverted these edits, and suggested that discussion takes place here - because such a series of edits may have wider implications than just those articles. Also, 'sexual identity' has been the term generally used to describe the how people identify in relation to their sexual orientation for some time, as well as their 'sex identity' (as opposed to 'gender identity'). It seems this needs some discussion. Mish (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have provided the results of Google Scholar searches here which show the frequency of use of 'sexual identity' in relation to lesbian/gay/homosexuality and excluding such words, as well as in relation to 'sexual orientation identity' here:
I have also notified the Sexology/Sexuality project of what is going on (as the article falls within their project), added the LGBT project template to the article, and notified the Sexology/Sexuality project that I have opened up discussion within this project's talk page:
    • Comment, First could you clarify at which of the three spots the discussion is happening, I would recommend here as it's much more active. Secondly do you think Sexual orientation identity is a POV fork? -- Banjeboi 23:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
No, Ive changed my mind, seeing as it's happening here. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll copy relevant comments here:

Google Scholar yields the following results:
  • "sexual identity" = appx 60,000
  • "sexual identity" -homosexuality -gay -lesbian -homosexual = appx 20,000
  • homosexuality OR gay OR lesbian OR homosexual "sexual identity" = appx 40,000
  • "sexual orientation identity" = 926
  • "sexual orientation identity" -"sexual identity" = 372
  • "sexual identity" "sexual orientation identity" = 554
that means it would be inappropriate to remove the section on sexual identity that relates to sexual orientation from Sexual identity and move it to Sexual orientation identity - there are twice as many references to sexual identity in this context compared to those relating to sex identification. Relatively few sources use 'sexual orientation identity', and most also refer to 'sexual identity'. It would be WP:OR to extrapolate what is said about 'sexual identity' to 'sexual orientation identity', and if there is enough weight to justify such an article, it should rely on WP:RS that relate to 'sexual orientation identity'. It may be confusing to some people that 'Sexual identity' has two meanings, and that may be why some have tried to specify it more clearly by inserting 'orientation', but in fact it is inadequate for either use - the other meaning of sexual identity is about sex, not sexuality, and would be better described as 'sex identity' to parallel 'gender identity'. However, we do not edit according to what is true, right, makes sense or is straightforward, we edit to reflect the usage as determined from WP:RS, and if we didn't, it would be WP:OR. Mish (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
You know my hunch is that this has something to do with PFOX - Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays - trying unsuccessfully to claim that ex-gays is a sexual orientation. Yes, I know that sounds absurd but there you go. Apparently they don't feel as an ex-gay they are now heterosexual but some new antithetical sexuality. Want to go to an ex-gay bar? Neither does anyone else. -- Banjeboi 02:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. It occurs to me that similar the Non-heterosexual there is scholarly writing on the subject but similar to Men who have sex with men no one really uses the term outside a need to scientifically study it or describe studies et al. Looking at Google the use of "sexual orientation identity" is used almost solely for this use beside some recent advocates within the Ex-gay movement.
    • For Google News ...
"sexual orientation identity" is used 50 times;
"sexual identity" is used 16,400 times;
  • To me this suggests all the edits should be rolled back and Sexual orientation identity be either deleted or conversion therapied into NPOV expressing it's a phrase chiefly used for scientific study that is recently been co-opted by the ex-gay group PFOX. -- Banjeboi 12:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It is confusing to have one article discuss two different topics, and how one identifies their sex and how one identifies their sexual orientation are two completely different things. I chose sexual orientation identity because it is more specific than sexual identity, not because it is more widely used. It is also the term used by the most recent APA paper on the subject. That is where I heard of it. I did not know it was used by PFOX. The purpose is to avoid confusion. It is very clear that sexual orientation identity relates to sexual orientation, whereas it is not clear which of the two topics sexual identity refers to. The two topics need to be separated. The current state of the article is really poor and part of it is because it is hard to accurately cover two very different topics in the same page. If sexual orientation identity and sexual identity are not satisfactory, I would suggest having Sexual identity (sexual orientation) and Sexual identity (sexual characteristics) to separate the two topics, but the two very different topics need to be covered on two different pages. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess you have a point, but not the proposed solution; the way to go would be to have a Sexual identity disambiguation page, with links to Sexual identity (sexuality) and Sexual identity (sex). Mish (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
My hunch is that sexual identity should be cleaned up more; gender identity would seem to help here. And, as many trans and intersex folks will tell you, these subjects are indeed intertwined so having one article that helps discuss their interrelatedness then discusses each separately would likely serve our readers best. Then look to if an actual split is even needed. -- Banjeboi 04:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It is confusing at times, even for somebody dealing with such matters for many years, and it is not for the encyclopedia to 'clear up' such confusion - rather to represent it. I don't think that sexual identity (sex) precisely maps on to gender identity (gender), because 'sex and gender are different' (to borrow a phrase from Milton Diamond). Not that it needs discussion, as that is a conversation that goes beyond this talk page. Mish (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
What's the best way forward then? In the effort "sexual orientation identity" can be represented as the term for how it's used but what's the fix for sexual identity? -- Banjeboi 09:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
A disambig page for sexual identity, which links to two articles, one for sexual identity (sexuality) and one for sexual identity (sex/gender) - and sexual orientation identity could be merged as a section within sexual identity (sexuality) - unless you feel there is enough material and merit to have a top-level article which links to sexual identity (sexuality), sexual identity (sex/gender), and sexual orientation identity. I do think that given there are two quite separate meanings for sexual identity, JJ is right when he argues they need to be dealt with separately - but I don't see most of the sources can be seen as substantiating his approach. Mish (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I also agree that the edits need to be rolled back to the point where the article began to be prepared for splitting, maybe we sandbox drafts for the new setup? so that interested editors can work together on this, and discuss this there. Otherwise we could simply split Sexual identity into Sexual identity (sexuality) and Sexual identity sex/gender, and that would free up Sexual identity for disambiguation, with a comment about the dual-usage. If the Sexual orientation identity article is to stand in its own right it needs more text relating to sourced material - I just removed half of the text as it was hypothetical scenarios without any sources, and effectively WP:OR. Mish (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Portal:LGBT/Did you know

At Portal:LGBT/Did you know, it states "The following "Did you know" items have appeared on Wikipedia's main page." Fairly straightforward, but I've found a couple that have been added, that were never actually official DYKs. I presume they need to be removed, but I just wanted to check there is consensus for this. Cheers, --BelovedFreak 21:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There is at least one DYK that is not listed there - UK Gay Liberation Front 1971 Festival of Light action - which was featured 2-3 months ago, but I cannot locate it in the archives, so I guess the archives are not a reliable source. Mish (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
They can be tricky to find, so I haven't actually checked the archives yet. I will before removing any, but the ones I have noticed - Men who have sex with men, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association don't have DYK notices on their talkpages. They are interesting statements, but either we're only using official DYKs, or we're not. The one you mention is there, by the way, on Portal:LGBT/Did you know/9 (they get rotated).--BelovedFreak 01:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe Men who have sex with men, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir have ever been DYK's. I know there are many that should be there however I've completely failed to upload mine as well < hangs head in shame >. -- Banjeboi 17:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
So... I guess the best thing to do is to remove the ones that weren't DYKs and gradually go through the archives to add any we've missed? --BelovedFreak 10:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
D'oh - i assumed there was some kind of bot adding DYKs for any page with the LGBT project banner. I'll add those i wrote at least.YobMod 11:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Yikes. What a job. Many, most? DYKs are noted as a FYI on those articles' talkpages which, in theory, would also have the LGBT wikiproject banner. What about asking at Village pump technical about how to get this information pulled? There may be a solution already or a bot could be tweaked to do it. -- Banjeboi 23:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of a bot doing it. I will try to look into it.--BelovedFreak 17:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

LGBT articles as Featured Articles is a breach of WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV

People here might be interested in the discussion over at the pump that making LGBT articles Featured articles and the like is breach of NPOV and that the criteria should be changed so that it restricts the nominations of persons or subjects, that are notable primarily by LGBT issues in any field (as a part of FA and GA neutrality criterions --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link? Mish (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
here--BelovedFreak 17:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah.. I never can understand how those internal links work - it seems that Harvey Milk was only a civil servant for 11 months so it's unclear why he'd be a featured article unless wikipedia were promoting homosexuality. 0_0 --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks I found it - never been there before. I see Lynden LaRouche is there as well (too messy, I'll avoid this time round). The recent film maybe? I think the proposer has the wrong agenda, it is the film-makers recovering from the script-writers strike during a recession agenda, not a gay agenda - taking over the film industry was ticked-off the agenda long before taking over Wikipedia ever went on the agenda. Hey - maybe we should try and get Homosexual agenda worked up to FA status? That'd be a larf... Mish (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The logic there is amazing - "wikipedia FA should not be about gay people because it is a recruitment tactic, wikipedia FAs can be about gay people when they have worked hard and it is more popular than hetrosexuality. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Not a single person is taking this seriously, except for the person who proposed it. I cannot fathom how this person can think he's being perfectly sensical. Zazaban (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
LMFAO! I've seen some stupid shit in my life, and this about takes the cake. Mish, we should totally work on getting the gay agenda to FA! Let me know if you are serious about that, I'd love to help! CTJF83Talk 21:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I am busy with something till the end of sept but will have plenty of time then for some hard research to use wikipedia to promote the gay agenda to innocent heterosexuals help work on the article. I think the best line in that discussion was "I hope to see more heterosexual FAs". --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
LMFAO, Ok message me Cameron when you got time. Ya, all 22 of my GAs are "heterosexual GAs" CTJF83Talk 21:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm in! :D Zazaban (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the tenor of that discussion was so over the top I hardly know what to say about it. If anything, perhaps a Brandmeister LGBT barnstar, just to remind us all why we improve articles. --Moni3 (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I second this notion. Zazaban (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Finally has been striken, so the straight barnstar fits better :) I hope it remains a matter of personal choice, not influence. Brand[t] 22:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ya! I'm up for working on the push to get the gay agenda to FA status - where to start? What is the consensus on as a WP:RS for that article? Mish (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the average porn site is more reliable than that. Zazaban (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This nonsense goes on every day, I'm glad the wider community is alerted to it though. -- Banjeboi 00:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar sounds good to me! CTJF83Talk 00:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It goes on and on, and it gets tedious, and it wears you down. There are whole un-NPOV articles out there with hardly a source to be seen, and nobody goes round whittling away at them. But. They never get to be nominated for anything. Whereas, these articles get honed through this process, to the point where they have to get better to survive. That is the effect of the critical focus - in the long run, I am sure LGBT articles benefit from such attention. Mish (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point, Mish. In small face-to-face groups, or in large collaborative projects such as WP, when everyone agrees, no one is challenged to better defend positions, make improvements, or to consider alternative viewpoints. It isn't even necessarily about being right, it's about growth and development. So the quality of articles that are challenged should be better, once things settle down. Of course, it's still a pain to go through it. — Becksguy (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

From my own perceptive (and someone I've had run-ins with multiple members of the Special interest group about) is that there is a understandable tendency to try and turn some of the LGBT articles into memorials and it's something that needs to constantly watched for. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but I don't think they are likely to get to FA status, however hard you try and edit them. Mish (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Clearly the answer is to segregate the articles into Featured Article and Featured Article, Gay. So Hilary Putnam would be an FA while Harvey Milk is a... Why do I always miss the entertaining lunatic discussions? Otto4711 (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Cameron. Brand[t] 16:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's be clear - My stance on the issue I think we have with WP:memorial is an editorial issue related to the fact that our editors are human and have feelings and has nothing to do with editors wishing to promoting homosexuality, the gay agenda, the gay mafia etc or any other such nonsense. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
In any case Wikipedia should not promote the homosexuality, but merely describe it, that's within the basic rules. Brand[t] 18:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, just like it should not promote the heterosexuality. -->David Shankbone 19:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Or homophobia, anti-homosexuality, opposition to LGBT rights, or efforts to change homosexuality, etc. Articles that relate to these are not about promoting homosexuality, far from it, and have significant input from LGBT editors - just as many LGBT articles have significant input from other editors to ensure that they are not promotional. Mish (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)