Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 33

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34

Contents

Misc.

I bought a telescope about a month ago, and about the same time decided I was a bit sick of some of the editing approaches, and certain approaches to insert 'normative' views into minority articles, so took a break. I'm not sure how to pick up on the editing where I left off - I only came here to work on intersex, and not to get as involved as I seem to have. If there is anything anybody wants looking at specifically, try e-mailing me, and if I'm not trying to figure out how to control a telescope using linux and get a signal from a webcam stuck down the hole for an eyepiece back to a laptop, or (heavens forbid - I live in England) actually looking at the stars, then I'll go have a look. I'm sorry, but some of the stuff going on really started to get to me, and I had to break out of it for my own peace of mind. Mish (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. We've all been there and the nonsense just seems to pile up. What amazes me is when other people catch on to what we've been stating all along. Take a break and when you return try to stay focussed on subjects you enjoy writing about. This way the extra drama and research involved won't seem as much of a bother. -- Banjeboi 21:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Gay serial killers" or "LGBT serial killers" category

Shouldn't we create this category considering that there are a lot of LGBT serial killers including Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Aileen Wuornos, Ronald Dominique, Dennis Nilsen, etc, etc --190.50.86.22 (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a defining characteristic though is it? They are known for murdering people, and being gay has little to do with that. Sort of like having a Category:White serial killers. Zazaban (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Category:LGBT serial killers has been created and deleted twice: Wikipedia:Categories for_deletion/Log/2006 January 31#Category:LGBT serial killers and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 16#Category:LGBT serial killers --Alynna (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Do we have Category:Hetrosexual serial killers? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Although i agree that it is not a defining characteristic, and does not need a category, i would say the same about category:LGBT comedians or category:LGBT musicians. Why do they exist if there is no heterosexual counterpart? Why are negative attributes like being a criminal not treated the same as career achievments?YobMod 14:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Because that category presumes a connection, ie. mental illness. The fact that the gay community has produced many artistic geniuses is a recognised one. There's a quote from D.H. Lawrence to that effect. Also, the two interact in another way: how the singer or writer (whatever) is received by the public, and perhaps the content of their work.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I think gay serial killers are far more likely than most entertainers to be pigeon-holed according to their sexuality, and their notable acts can just as easily be linked to their sexuality. The argument seems to be simply "we don't want anyone to link LGBT to crime, even in cases where LGBT people commit crime", which is not NPOV. Many of the other LGBT careers cats have entries of people not notable for their sexuality, but they don't get deleted.YobMod 23:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Now, wait a minute. I realize that the categories in question probably go beyond this, but the LGBT status of many LGBT comedians and musicians (and writers and artists and so on) has a profound and obvious influence on their work. I'm not sure there's any parallel there with the "work" of serial killers. Might the minority status—be it sexual, ethnic, or whatever—of a serial killer play a role in their killing? Maybe, and that could go in an article if it were impeccably sourced. But to combine a minority status with serial killer status in a category seems unwarranted. Imagine Category:Black serial killers or Category:Jewish serial killers. Does Category:LGBT serial killers make any more sense? It panders to misconceptions and intolerance and has NPOV problems of its own. Rivertorch (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Sourcing would be easy, google book has hundreds of books using the term "gay serial killer", including books discussing the phenomenon and the term itself. Blindly asserting that the artistic works LGBT people are inherently linked to their sexuality, when even a cursory look at the categories shows this to often be untrue, is prejudiced and stereotyping. The fact that many (most?) LGBT serial killers chose their victims based on their sexuality, and their sexuality is part of what prompts them to kill is a far stronger link than the fact the Tracy Chapman had on rumoured same-sex relationship which she has never mentioned in her music. But the project likes her categoristion, because being a famous musician is desirable, so we slap an LGBT category on her, while making every effort to hide and unlink undesirable traits from LGBT people.YobMod 09:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not sure who was making such an assertion (blindly or otherwise) that the artistic works of LGBT people are inherently linked to their sexuality. I said (quoting myself from two paragraphs ago): "I realize that the categories in question probably go beyond this, but the LGBT status of many LGBT comedians and musicians (and writers and artists and so on) has a profound and obvious influence on their work" (emphasis added)—very clearly acknowledging that this was not the case with all artists and that the categories were broader than that. I'm a bit fuzzy on the rest of what you said, but it seems to me as though the questions raised here have implications way beyond LGBT-related categories. Should there be any categories fusing a minority status, identity or gender with something like occupation or claim to fame or notoriety? Rivertorch (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The last sentence you wrote is what i am trying to get at. There are many comedians whose sexuality is important to their act, so argument tht a fusion cat is useful holds weight. But it should not be used for every comedian who happens to be LGBT - then they should be categorised in the seperate LGBT and Comedian from country cats. There are likewise many seial killer whose crimes are directly and sourcibly linked to their sexuality. I just dont see any argument as to why these should not be categorised in a fusion cat, while not including any serial killer who happens to be LGBT. We go to extremes in categoriesing comedians and musicans in fusio cats, even when their sexuality has nothing to do with their work, but people want the opposite extreme for negative cats, trying to minimise any link link to sexuality, even if improtant and sourced. It is this differing standatd that i see as POV.YobMod 13:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's sustainable to have a category "LGBT Foos", but insist that not all LGBT Foos be placed in it. That asks every editor who categorizes an article to make a (fairly subjective) judgement about whether being LGBT has influenced the subject's work as a Foo. The influence of LGBT-ness on Foo-ness is a justification for a category, but once the category exists, it can't be limited to people who demonstrate such an influence. --Alynna (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Spadone: original research?

Much of the material that would have been expected to be under the headword eunuch is now in an article called spadone. I had not previously heard of this term. Nor, apparently, have the New Oxford Dictionary of English, dictionary.com, the Cambridge Dictionary of American English, or (except as a back-reference to the Wikipedia article in question) in OneLook. The word does not, as far as I can tell, occur in the current mainstream medical literature, based on a search of abstracts of articles stored in PubMed.

As far as I can tell, the word "spadone" is being used in this article as a "more correct" term for a castrated or impotent man because it occurs in Latin literature. However, I can't find any references to support this. The term "spadone" appears to be almost universally translated into English as "eunuch": see, for example, this reference used within the article itself. So does this reference, also used to support the spadone article: [1]; indeed, in its own words, it translates spadones et steriles as "eunuchs and the sterile", rather undermining the distinction being made by the article.

See also the UND Latin lookup tool, Whitaker's Words, which lists it as one of three words cognate to the English word "eunuch" [2]. Perseus appears to concur. Lewis and Short make a distinction between spadon and castratus, but this does not seem to me to be enough on which to base the distinction between "eunuch" and "spadone" made by the authors of the article.

While I can't say I've made an exhastive search, none of the web-accessible references given in the article actually appear to use the term "spadone" as an English word, either in the sense given in the article or any other. (Furthermore, several of the references given in the article only point to top-level pages in sites, and not to the material they cite, so it's impossible to use them to confirm anything at all.)

Nor can I find any usage anywhere else. Given my failure to find such usages, I can only conclude that the term is at the least very rarely used, in either common or scholarly English, or in medicine. Without evidence to the contrary, this suggests to me that the distinction being made in splitting the "eunuch" material into a "eunuch" article and a "spadone" article may well constitute original research based on extrapolating from Latin usage to English.

I therefore propose that the material currently in spadone either be merged into the eunuch article, or moved to another title. -- The Anome (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've read User:Newman Luke's references on their talk page. I don't think they show sufficient evidence for this term being common English usage. Accordingly, I've reverted the recent article split of Eunuch into two articles. -- The Anome (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems possible to support a distinction between "Eunuch (castrated man)" and "Eunuch (bedchamber guardian or something)". But I definitely agree that they should both be under "eunuch", with disambiguation if necessary, rather than putting one under "spadone". --Alynna (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Maine merge

Do we really need Same-sex marriage in Maine and Domestic partnership in Maine? Shouldn't these be merged into one article for easability? CTJF83 chat 20:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely recall there being a discussion at some point about standardizing the names of the state articles, and having one article per state on same-sex relationship recognition in that state. I don't remember what the outcome was, though. --Alynna (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Greek Love rewrite

There is a proposed overhaul draft at the talkpage; could folks have a look and comment, etc. Any extra eyes would be appreciated. -- Banjeboi 01:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Input requested: Gay community

There's a discussion going on at Gay community that I'd like some more input on. It started out as a proposal to rename, but we're now starting to discuss whether there's a coherent topic for an article at all. --Alynna (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The article should be about what is meant by the phrase and why there actually isn't a single definable community. The etymology and use of the phrase as well could echo to what we have at LGBT. -- Banjeboi 02:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

wondering how shutdown of the Washington Blade, et. al. should be handled

since they were in many ways a "Newspaper of Record" for the LGBT Community and have taken down all their related websites. Some of the articles are undoubtedly used as references in a number of articles. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If we acted about this in advance we could have saved the texts en masse with WebCite or a similar service (This is good practice for the future!). Now there is an at least six month wait from when the article first appears on the internet, but we can use the Wayback Machine to correct references. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Leave everything for now. As needed, cites can be updated with Wayback Machine. No reason to remove anything, IMHO. -- Banjeboi 03:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Just FYI right after I wrote note I reached out to the (by then former) staff to see if they could help save it. While they couldn't find a way to have the stuff left online while the courts battle, they understand the intrinsic historical value. They pointed me towards the "Rainbow History Project". Does anyone else have any other ideas or wish to join up to try to save the archival materials? CyntWorkStuff (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

LGBT rights by issue

There are lists of LGBT rights by country or territory, a list of LGBT rights organizations, and the main LGBT social movements section is organized in a timeline. However, nowhere on Wikipedia is there a breakdown of what LGBT rights include. I think it would improve Wikipedia if there were an article that would discuss all the different LGBT rights, and point to relevant articles. This would help us to easily spot places where information is lacking. For example, there is a lot of information about same-sex unions, but little information about employment rights and housing rights for LGBT people. I think there should be one article that talked about same-sex unions, immigration rights, housing rights, parenting rights, employment rights, hospitalization rights, military service, and other anti-discrimination laws. I have added a category for Category:LGBT rights by issue, but this only accents the lack of information for some LGBT rights. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be useful to have a more in-depth article on what LGBT rights are, separate from LGBT rights by country or territory. However, I'm not sure the types of rights you suggest are the right ones. I'd categorise rights like this:
  • Legality of same-sex sexual activity: sodomy laws, age of consent
  • Legality of trans/gender-variant behaviour: anti-cross-dressing laws, laws about SRS
  • Relationship recognition: adoption & parenting, hospitalization, immigration
  • Gender transition laws: ability to change name, ability to change legal gender, gov't recognition of new legal gender
  • Discrimination by the government: military service
  • Non-discrimination laws: housing, employment, public accomodations
  • Hate crimes laws
--Alynna (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I would add bodily autonomy; not being coerced into conversion therapy or a sex change by the government as in Uganda or Iran as pretty high on the list also. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like a good break down. I wasn't trying to do a complete break down. What should the article be called? LGBT rights redirects to LGBT rights by country or territory. Should the redirect be removed and the breakdown be put on that page? Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
LGBT rights sounds like the right place, with a hatnote pointing to LGBT rights by country or territory for people who want that. Note that if we do that, we'll want to go through all the redirects to LGBT rights by country or territory and point some of them to LGBT rights. --Alynna (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It may make sense to compile a directory of LGBT rights articles in a disambiguation page as well as a template. -- Banjeboi 22:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Template clean-up

Could anyone interested have a look at {{Gender and sexual identities}}? Im concerned we have a kitchen sink effect where everything could be listed which would seem to defeat the purpose a bit. -- Banjeboi 22:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Invite

Interested members of the LGBT WikiProject are invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections because of the many cross-over articles our two WikiProjects share.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

More eyes on LGBT CfD

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 24#Category:LGBT ordained or vowed people of faith needs more opinions to make the best path forward. -- Banjeboi 14:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex

The deletion of the above article is at deletion review

Newman Luke (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

DRV speedy closed (sigh) and article userfied to me - not my request - and will be sent to the incubator. DRV2 may be needed but for now it's at the incubator. -- Banjeboi 13:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I've now contested that action, see Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#A question about ignoring consensus in DRV itself. Newman Luke (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:John Barrowman/GA1

There's an interesting question about why we should/shouldn't describe John Barrowman as "openly gay" in the lead section. The discussion is over at Talk:John Barrowman/GA1. Any thoughts on this would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems fine now, I agree that linking it to something notable is quite helpful. -- Banjeboi 21:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I need additional feedback regarding the use of AfterElton.com as a reliable source. I would like to use it to quote Barrowman's book (there's an informative review posted on the site). I have a question about this posted at the bottom of the review page. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Crisco

Some editorial input from this project on the Crisco article might be helpful. I notice it has been subject to repeated edit warring over whether the article should include Crisco's use as a lube for fisting. Material has repeatedly been removed with cries that it is "nauseating" etc etc--feline1 (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It likely is nauseating to some folks but certainly relevant enough to leather subculture and fisting to find a way to include it. I added a note a the talkpage. -- Banjeboi 20:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Googling for "crisco lubricant"[3] brings up at least two sources that discuss the use as lube among gay men outside of fisting too.[4][5] Siawase (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Mentions of homosexuality have been removed again. Zazaban (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, definitely needs a bit of work. -- Banjeboi 04:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
After you returned it, it was immediately removed as "unsourced garbage/spam". This is one for the watchlists. Zazaban (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
What an odd place to have this discussion. It was immediately removed because the sources are all garbage and akin to SPAM of the electronic sort. If you wish to restore said material please find and cite reliable third party publications as per WP:RS. Thank you. JBsupreme (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes quite, I believe you. That is why the article's talk page is full of comments about fisting being 'nauseating', and why your user page states that you "Do not give a fuck".--feline1 (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

LGBT in the Philippines

The article LGBT in the Philippines is essentially an essay, complete with a 'conclusions' section, and needs help very badly. Zazaban (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do with it.
More generally, should we have top-level "LGBT in $place" articles? They seem useful, but we generally don't seem to have them. We have categories with that naming scheme, but articles tend to be specifically about culture or rights. (The better-developed categories have subcategories for culture, history, organizations, people, and rights -- see Category:LGBT in the United States.) For smaller countries, we'll generally have either a culture or a rights article, but all the LGBT-related information gets crammed into it. Having a top-level LGBT article for each country might help with this. Thoughts? --Alynna (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
That is a very good idea. Is there anywhere with a list of all possible LGBT in XYZ articles, showing blue and red links? Zazaban (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of. One could be constructed by going through Category:LGBT by region and List of sovereign states. --Alynna (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe there is a template that has them all but a category may make sense as well. -- Banjeboi 01:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hole punched in LGBT television coverage

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 4 and the related discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

watching eyes on Richard Halliburton

Yet again a paragraph of well-sourced material about the adventurer and travel writer Richard Halliburton (1900-1939) has been removed without discussion. When I discovered it, I re-instated it. It would be great if a few people could keep it on their watchlists. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Bible's ban on gay sex

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newman Luke (talkcontribs) 16:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Angus Oblong

Hello. I just reorganised and supplied references for Angus Oblong, identified by The Advocate in this 2001 article as the "the out creator of the WB's The Oblongs ." The reason I mention this here is that the article's history suggests that there have been various edit wars about his life. Even his talk page was vandalised by anons who would remove comments from other anons as well as registered editors. A review of the sources I introduce make it sound like he values his privacy, so I'd like members of your wikiproject to (1) review my recent edits to see if I've violated his rights to privacy, and (2) keep an eye on the article for any future vandalism. Thanks. 72.244.203.160 (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Pediatric Neuroendocrinology: Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation

Could someone contribute to discussion on Talk:Homosexuality#Pediatric Neuroendocrinology: Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation? We are discussing the way of presenting conclusions "gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb." and "There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation" of recent peer-reviewed study to several related articles. These are essential points with very important implications in homosexuality-related topics. --Destinero (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable?

Can someone offer an opinion on this subject? Gracias. APK whisper in my ear 17:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I found some refs and cleaned up the article. I have no idea if it's notable enough for Wikipedia, but at least now it's sourced. --Alynna (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Gaza gender identity story in CNN

[6] This must suck in Gaza. --Moni3 (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

V for Vendetta (film) FAR

I have nominated V for Vendetta (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Book-class

Since this is one of the bigger projects, and that a couple of Wikipedia-Books are LGBT-related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WP LGBT people can oversee books like LGBT themes in science fiction, fantasy and horror much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.

There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In theory it sounds like a good idea ... does that mean though that an AfD would only show up somewhere else or in addition to the one on the top of this page? I guess i do only so much with book articles that I really don't get what this actually doing. -- Banjeboi 20:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood, this is for Wikipedia-Books, i.e collections of articles that can be printed or downloaded (see Help:Books for details), and not for articles on books. Think of it as the "template-class" but for Wikipedia-Books. This will add them to automated process such as Article Alerts or the Cleanup Listings if you are subscribed to them (for example). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Unarchiving. I take it no one objects? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Monteagle, Tennessee

I am not tagging Monteagle, Tennessee, but just letting you know that I added a reference for William Alexander Percy's summerhouse with gay professor Hugh Jervey there. Please watch it.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

United Methodist Church Article

I have recently run into an editing issue regarding a LBGT topic. It has to do with the article on the United Methodist Church. I would appreciate help dealing with the issue. A user is trying to keep LGBT issues hidden by accusing me of vandalism or POV.

You can see what is going on by reading the talk page at Talk:United_Methodist_Church#Inclusivity_item.

Wshallwshall (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A little advice

Thanks for taking the time to read this! I've just started to do a bit of editing on here and would appreciate it if someone who knows what there doing could have a look at the stuff that I've been doing! Just want to make sure it's of an acceptable standard. I've been looking the clean up/ rough translations list and have worked on the following article;

What do you think? Regards! Orionsbelter (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Orionsbelter, welcome to Wikipedia and WikiProject LGBT studies! I had a quick look at the articles you've ben working on, and it looks like you're doing a great job. One thing I would mention is that we only use the little flag icons for very specific purposes, you can read more about it here: WP:MOSFLAG. Also, probably the most important thing to remember with any article (and especially with potentially contentious issues) is to always provide references to reliable sources to back up any information that could be challenged. I see that you have added references, so that's great. With the Gerhard Schick article, I see that there is a statement that Schick is openly gay. This needs a reference or could be removed at any time. I realise though that that was added by another user before you edited the article. Keep up the good work and don't be afraid to ask any questions here or anywhere else on Wikipedia.--BelovedFreak 19:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Another small point I just thought of - try to write in prose style rather than list style eg. the Political Career section of the Schick article - (Manual of style). I am nitpicking now though, so don't worry too much about style details as you're still learning the ropes, just something else to think about!--BelovedFreak 19:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Gay Blue Jeans Day

Gay Blue Jeans Day has been nominated for AfD It seems important for editors participating in this project to have a voice in that discussion Anniepoo (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I weighed in, tweaking the search results pops plenty of sources. If the nonsense blows in I'll work on listing possible sources as well. -- Banjeboi 22:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

new Homofascism article

(Is there a better place to discuss editing issues & problematic articles?)

There was a previously-deleted WP:Articles_for_deletion/Homofascism article, and now there's a new Homofascism article - the text itself seems non-notable, referring to a term created by Scott Lively and having no reliable primary news sources referencing the term, so it too seems like a candidate for deletion.

Meanwhile, I removed a link to it from Protests against Proposition 8 supporters on POV grounds.

Thoughts? AV3000 (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, kill it. Hardly a notable term. Zazaban (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homofascism (2nd nomination). --LadyofShalott 20:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality again...

It's a core article. It should be better. Help. Talk:Homosexuality#Rewrite_agenda_2 Phoenix of9 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Biographies

If anyone is bored and looking for things to do to help out the project, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Cleanup listing#BLP articles lacking sources lists articles that are biographies of living people and need references. They are tagged either as being completely unreferenced, or requiring extra references. BLPs are a hot topic at the moment and biographies without any references at all are in danger of being deleted. Obviously, we don't want to lose valuable biographies, many of which can be easily referenced to reliable sources in a few minutes.

A more up to date selection of articles that are totally unreferenced can be found by doing specific google searches eg. "does not cite" contentious "lgbt people" site:en.wikipedia.org - where "lgbt people" targets likely categories being used. --BelovedFreak 22:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell

People interested in the thoughtful treatment of historical subjects should pay close attention to what is being done to this article. Haiduc (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

list for deletion

I have nominated List of gay and lesbian resource centres in Ireland for deletion here, in case anyone wants to comment. --BelovedFreak 14:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Elton John

It is a concern that such a high profile article on a living person is so poorly sourced. It is a matter of priority that statements are sourced. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Quotations from Elton John or any other person must be closely cited, as per Wikipedia:Quotations. If reliable sources cannot be found then all contentious material should be removed - [7]. It is better for us to have no material at all than to have incorrect, misleading or potentially libelous material. SilkTork *YES! 10:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Link says it all

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical pederastic relationships (3rd nomination). Pcap ping 11:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Need a hand?

Does anyone need a hnad working on any article? Orionsbelter (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Moni3 and I are working on Jane Addams, but neither of us have really done a lot lately. Feel free to help us at User:Moni3/Chicago. CTJF83 chat 21:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

rfC to remove notable performers from list who don't yet have articles

There is an RfC to remove dozens of entries from the only list of male performers in gay porn films because the articles for the performers don't yet exist. More eyes would be appreciated. -- Banjeboi 21:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Same-sex divorce - religious aspects

Anyone know anything about how same-sex divorce would work in Orthodox Judaism (among Orthodox Jews who support gay marriage) - its only a stub section at the moment ?

Newman Luke (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Harisu

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Harisu/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

POV alert

I considered posting this to ANI, but in the current wikipolitical climate, I know nothing will happen. So, posting here instead.

User:Tonalone has returned form a long wikibreak to remove the edits of User:Haiduc, after the ban of the latter. Unfortunately Tonalone's actions have been bordering vandalism, and they are certainly pushing a POV, the exact opposite POV of Haiduc (pretty much: pederasty never happened, Byron and many others had no gay affairs with younger men, etc.) Here are some examples:

He also removes traces of gay affairs from obscure biographies. While Haiduc colored these in this favorite terminology ("pederasty", or course), Tonalone completely removes the sexual aspects. Example [8]. Compare with the source [9], which was (of course) removed as well. More of the same: [10] [11].

There is no entitlement for anyone to remove the edits of banned/blocked user that were made before the administrative action against him. (Should we delete all of Ottava Rima's articles too while he's not around? Obviously not.) Tonalone appears fairly educated. He reminds me of the trolling that Peter Damian has been doing, although it's not necessarily him. There is fat chance in hell any admin will block him, even though the WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics and WP:DISRUPTIVE editing are rather obious. Editors here better review his edits. One POV pusher undoing another doesn't result in NPOV articles. Pcap ping 18:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Another one

Another editor who may be familiar here, User:Amadscientist, has descended on Pederasty in ancient Greece and is removing text left and right because it's not "varyfied" (meaning not "accessable" to him, and seems not to even use google books; he removed Percy's theory for instance, book easily available, never mind well-known). Also introduces many grammar errors in text, as you can imagine from that quotation, and changes common terminology like "boy" to "youth" based on his personal preferences and in contradictions with what many, many sources use. Pcap ping 23:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oy vey, I'll keep an eye on both of those. I suggest this guy be reverted. I won't because I'm too busy to commit to the situation right now. Zazaban (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Informational question about the DC marriage bill's Congressional review period

I know it's 30 days. But the bill was signed December 18, almost two months ago. Are we talking 30 calendar days? Business days? Days Congress is in session? — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 06:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me? — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 23:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's days congress is in session. The projected date now seems to be March 3 [12] MaesterTonberry (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, exactly the info I was looking for! Thank you. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 03:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

'Gay' vs 'homosexual' in Ryan White article

In the talk page of the Ryan White article[13], an author argues for the use of "homosexual" over "gay" and points out the absence of objection to this by LGBT project members. What do LGBT project members think? 67.100.222.184 (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

To me homosexual sounds too 1980s, so I much prefer gay. CTJF83 GoUSA 10:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the two references used in the "Ryan White and public perception of AIDS" section, the NY Times article [14] uses the word "gay" many more times than the word "homosexual". I don't have access to And the Band Played On, but the article (which appears well sourced) uses "gay community" rather than "homosexual community". So the sources seem to support a change to "gay" (except in direct quotes using "homosexual" of course), and they certainly don't seem to prohibit the change. Siawase (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Homosexual is reserved for scientific/medical fields and more historical figures (like Harvey Milk) who lived when the term was the standard usage to refer to LGBT people. I don't see Ryan White as fitting either of these usages and generally homosexual is pejoratively used in culture war battles. -- Banjeboi 03:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Homophobia page move

A user is trying to move the article Homophobia to Anti-Homosexualism. Weigh in here CTJF83 GoUSA 02:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this goes under WP:SNOW. There is no possible way the move is going through. Zazaban (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Another LGBT Wikiproject tag battle

On Johnny Weir, who has been proclaimed out by some in the LGBT and alternative press, and whose sexuality is discussed in mainstream media, there is a heated discussion how our Wikiproject tag (not categories) is itself a BLP violation. More input and eyes would be welcome, also I'm trying to clean-up what the article does state about his sexuality so would appreciate any input on that thread. -- Banjeboi 03:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not belong to this Wikiproject, but I feel important to notice it that there is a discussion at the AN/I about that. --Cyclopiatalk 13:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
This is really getting out of hand. Being threatened with blocking for trying to better the encyclopedia is .. almost too much. Bleh. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the status on an RfC for this, or must I initiate an MfD for this project? --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people LadyofShalott 17:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality = mental illness in the Czech Wikipedia (still)

See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Contradicting_informations_between_English_and_Czech_Wikipedia.3B_Czech_Wikipedia_presents_propaganda_for_a_year_and_nobody_care_of_it_there. Pcap ping 23:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As a editor engaged in dispute from its beginning I'd like to point out to the absurd situation when Czech Wikipedia in article "Curing homosexuality" states "The reason to not include homosexuality to ICD (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems) was not a medical one, but political one" and rely on one exceptional and unfounded claim of one religious doctor in his college textbook "Sexology for lawyers" which nobody professionally reviewed/checked before publishing in 1997. I really don't know what to do. After a year almost nobody in Czech Wikipedia listens. The majority of editors don't care and the majority of rest are ultraconservative active editors who promoted such formulation and locked the article for a year. :( --Destinero (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Paraphilia - Homosexuality

Is it appropriate to include homosexuality topic even as historic perspective (40 years old) in Paraphilia article? Or the article should held with real paraphilias and homosexuality theme let be covered in depth in homosexuality? See Talk:Paraphilia#Homosexuality_2 --Destinero (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Femina Potens Art Gallery

Is Femina Potens Art Gallery even notable? My inclination is to post it for AFD, but wanted some outside opinions. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Cliff Richard

Should his BLP be tagged by the project? In the case of Weir, recording the facts about remarks by commentators about his gender and sexual orientation, and hios response to this, as well as tagging his BLP as part of LGBT studies project was rejected by one admin, and referred to discussion. Cliff Richard has been the subject of speculation for several decades, and now lives in a relationship with another man, although feels what he does in his private life is his business (and I would support this), so like Weir feels no need to state whether he is gay or not. However, he has come out in clear support of civil partnerships, and as a committed Christian has criticised the churches' attitude to gay partnerships and limiting marriage (and thereby love) to people of the opposite sex. On this basis, and not on the basis of any speculation about his domestic arrangements, would this justify tagging his BLP within the project? I appreciate that this whole issue is up for discussion, and would not wish to make matters more difficult, so really this is thrown out as a thought for when the dust has settled on that discussion. Given his role as poster-child for the born-again movement in the UK for over 40 years, I could foresee some opposition to such a tag being placed on his bio, even though it would not be done on the basis of any speculation, but because of public stance on gay unions. Would his bio be the sort of bio we could justify tagging in future?

M.

My opinion is not to tag the article. First, there's almost no content in it to support him being "of interest" to this project - one small "personal life" section in a huge article. Second, I'm leery of getting into another BLP drama without strong reasons. In Richard's case, we have some speculation and his support of LGBT causes, weighed against his denials. And just about everyone is supportive these days (George Bush excepted), so I don't think that carries much weight. That's just my opinion, though :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

William Allain

SatyrTN removed our Project tag from William Allain's talkpage. While it's not been proven that he is gay, there is strong suspicion. My approach was to add a tag (mostly to protect the referenced info I added), and of course I didn't categorise him as LGBT. Any thoughts?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The project tag is suitable for articles of clear LGBT interest. Where the project tag is on a BLP article there is no automatic presumption that the article is about someone gay. For example I recently tagged Martin Ssempa, a strong advocate of the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill. If the reason that the article is of interest to this project needs spelling out, then I suggest that this is either added in the the "explanation= " paramenter of the LGBTproject template or, if you wish to be spotlessly super-civil, you start a section on the article talk page in order to reach a consensus for tagging the article first.
I am uncomfortable that, with the recent fuss made over tagging for this project, we may have started self-censoring tagging on BLPs. Effectively pre-empting any policy decision which should apply across all projects, not this one as a special case just because some folks appear to presume that readers are unable to distinguish an LGBT project tag on a talk page from a claim that the subject is a homosexual. Ash (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, there's no proof that he's not gay, too.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position, speculation that someone might be gay would almost never be a reason to tag as LGBT interest. Rare counter-examples may be where a well-known lawsuit for defamation was on the basis of such speculation or where the person was demonstrably notable for the perception that they might be gay even where they have not self-identified as such (e.g. Kenneth Williams). Ash (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe there was a lawsuit here; both parties had to testify with a lie detector, etc. John Howard suggests that Gov Allain went through with the lie detector because of the way the questions were asked, e.g. he did not identify as a homosexual, the men were transvestites, etc. I think we should add the tag again.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
If that is the sole basis of interest then I suggest a talk page discussion first so the rationale for being of LGBT interest can be clearly laid out. Ash (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
My reasons for removing the banner are:
  1. He's a BLP
  2. He's consistently denied being LGBT
  3. The people who initially labeled him as gay later retracted their statements
  4. I have concerns that the one paragraph devoted to the issue (out of four in the article) seems WP:UNDUE - it's a smear campaign run by his opponents in an election - hardly a major part of his life
  5. There's no other LGBT-related info in the article - his voting record for or against issues, any sort of participation in LGBT-related events, nothing.
I agree that we shouldn't self-censor based on the recent BLP discussions, but I honestly don't believe this person is of much interest to the project - a single event of a smear campaign isn't significant enough to warrant interest by our project. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I disagree for mostly the above reasons. This is exactly the case where spelling out on the talkpage why there are no categories but to watch over the article to ensure to content remains NPOV. I could see it going either way but really it should be on a watchlist and the banner is the only one we have. Perhaps we should consider a way to flag our banner for BLP watching. Not every BLP needs flagging but certainly a sizeable number do. -- Banjeboi 22:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Top, bottom and versatile

Since there is an article for Versatile (sex) should we rebreak off Top (sex) and Bottom (sex) or should Versatile be merged to Top, bottom and versatile like the other two? CTJF83 chat 21:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ugh! Please merge them and trim off any nonsense. If nothing else condense it into several paragraphs rather than numerous stubby articles simply begging for every pornstar who wants to be listed as a top, bottom or versatile to hop in. -- Banjeboi 22:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
LOL, we probably should merge Vers into the 3 together article. CTJF83 chat 05:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Mish (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Internal guidelines for tagging BLPs

Thanks for the guidance in the above two instances. TBH, if Cliff is not a suitable candidate for the project banner, I cannot see how Weir can be either - there has been far more interest in Cliff's sexual orientation (in this country, anyway) for much longer than there has been Weir's. In the case cited above I cannot see any justification.

Perhaps we need to establish some clear guidelines within the project for tagging BLPs? So, a clear connection with LGBT issues, self-identity, and so on. Then we float the intention to tag the BLP first, seeking consensus, depositing a rationale for the tag; if it is agreed, once tagged, challenges to the project banner can be referred to the rationale and consensus.

If we were to agree to this internally, then it could be proposed in the appropriate discussion as a possible way forward. Mish (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm. An internal guideline would be good, in my opinion.
Does Cliff Richard have multiple reliable sources discussing his sexuality and how his sexuality reflects on and influences his career? If so, there's more of a reason for the project to be interested. I'm thinking of this NPR article, for example.
BTW, the "process" you've outlined above makes perfect sense, and is exactly what happened with Weir, though the "seeking consensus" part got bogged down in a loop of RfCs. Perhaps another round on Richard's talk page is in order? The last time his sexuality was brought up was in 2008 - perhaps there's more available now? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the interest in finding more peaceful ways to deal with rather drama-filled dust-ups over ... a project tag but I'm opposed to enacting our own extra step which may or may not make any difference in every case that has been blown out of portion, IMHO. I do see that benefit in adding to our general default page about standards used to add content/categories vs. the project tag. Each has it's own standard presently which I generally agree with. But a new process, I'm opposed to that. It may also make sense to have a suggested "steps to take" if a dispute arises. -- Banjeboi 01:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

LGBT-related songs category.

I suggest to include in this category not only songs that deal with LGBT lyrically but also songs that are lgbt-related through music videos like for example Beyonce&GaGa's "Telephone". A Man from Poland (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest asking Otto4711 or Bearian, they do a lot of category work and may understand if there is a way to do this or if not why we don't. -- Banjeboi 23:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Homo (disambiguation)

Anyone care to weigh in on the discussion of describing "homo" as pejorative at Talk:Homo (disambiguation)#abbreviation_for_homosexual ? Thanks. AV3000 (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

problem with Homophobia

Somebody keeps trying to replace sourced material on the origins of the term with unsourced material & circular linked material that "bigs up" a particular individual. I don't want to end up edit warring to retain the previous version, but there seems to be a tag-team of one user and and one anon-IP doing the reversion/insertion supposedly at the request of the individual concerned. I have already had to go to Oversight because they tried to stick the guy's phone number in an edit heading. I have told them to tell the guy to write in if he has a problem. Mish (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors trying to keep a table which plays down HIV transmission risks

Please comment. See: Talk:HIV#HIV_Risk_Table Phoenix of9 00:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project.

Here is an example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects:

There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Unreferenced BLPs.

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 08:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Okip! I've added our project to the list. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Your welcome ;) good to see you again. If your project is ever interested in tagging more articles with a bot, please see: Category talk:WikiProject tagging bots Okip 05:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 22:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and drug use?"

OMG!!! I couldnt believe this. Not only this guy is calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours", he is also comparing them to drug use. And wait, here's the "best" part. This guy is an admin. See: [15] Also see HIV, it seems like it is infested with heterosexism. Phoenix of9 06:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

He's not saying it himself; it's a frequently asked question, which is asked by other people, which is answered in a collapsable box. I see no issue with it. And even if there were, there's absolutely no warrant to embark on a moral crusade like you've done. Zazaban (talk) 07:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
This FAQ could have been constructed without the word 'immoral' quite easily, without losing anything apart from its appeal to certain POV. Whether people do ask this precisely worded question or not, or if it is homophobic to construct the FAQ this way - I have no opinion. Mish (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Reading that with an eye to your perfectly valid concerns, I apologize for my wording. I am openly bi and intended that FAQ question to address the problem of people bringing their prejudices to that page. The point is that neither HIV nor any other encyclopedia article should be describing anything as immoral. I see that that FAQ has received some work today, might I suggest Talk:HIV as the best forum for improving wording? - 2/0 (cont.) 13:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your homophobia is unacceptable, I cant believe you are an admin (Copied from User Talk:2over0 )

Not only you are calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours" here [16], you are also comparing them to drug use. I cant actually believe you can be so openly homophobic. Stop spreading such BS in Wikipedia. Phoenix of9 07:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is being discussed also at: User talk:Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies Phoenix of9 08:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


Phoenix, I'm not seeing anything of the sort in that diff. Cla68 (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I quote: "Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?" Phoenix of9 07:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Cla, have you tried reading the page? 'Q3: Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?'. The depiction of homosexuality as immoral is certainly displaying a particulat point of view, one that could easily be called homophobia.
I hope that 2over0 has some explanation, homophobia seems at odds with the skills needed to be an effective administrator. Weakopedia (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Might I suggest a different approach, such as asking something like, "What did you mean by how FAQ #3 is phrased? I have NPOV concerns over the use of the word "immoral." Don't you think that might help resolve your concern in a more congenial way? Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the issue. It is FAQ, a list of frequently asked question with answers, and the question worded that way is a frequently asked question, whether or not we find it a repulsive thing to ask. No use dumbing it down when people actually ask it. Zazaban (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Hello??? How about reading things in context? It's a FAQ question. It looks to me like a way of telling the kind of person who would ask this kind of question in this way that they are not particularly welcome. I had a quick look at the archives and couldn't find any question that is openly like that, so if it's a frequently asked question then I guess it's also a frequently deleted one. But I am sure it's a frequently thought question, and I guess it motivates at least some of the people who start unconstructive discussions on the talk page. Hans Adler 07:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec but agree with above) This concern was also brought to Jimbo's talk page, and I had a go at answering it here. I'm pretty inclined to assume that, given that we are talking about an FAQ, "Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?" is indeed a rough approximation of a type of Frequently Asked Question on that page. Several other editors also worked on the FAQ and did not take issue with this wording, and unfortunately it's hardly surprising that lots of people would ask this question (which is, of course, wildly homophobic). Remember that the whole point of FAQs is to answer questions, including ridiculous ones coming from a place of deep ignorance. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Tbh, you 2 are being quite silly. Do you really think we need a FAQ in Talk:Black people about Black people's intelligence? How about a FAQ in Talk:Jews about if Jews are really Untermenschen?? Do we really have to include racist, sexist, homophobic questions in FAQ sections while retaining their offensive wording? Phoenix of9 07:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
If people frequently ask them, yes we do. Zazaban (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, Phoenix, a more serious issue here, IMO, than your disagreement with the wording of the question is your approach to resolving your concern. Why do you feel that the correct approach is to immediately throw accusations of homophobia and intolerance here and on Jimbo's talk page without even trying to await a response from 2/0 first? Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Zazaban, if that is your opinion, I see no need in discussing anything further with you. Cla68, if you think that my response is more serious, you are too biased for me to take you seriously. Phoenix of9 08:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Please. For everyone's sake including yours, for you will not last long here if you continue to jump the gun so dramatically. Zazaban (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Weakopedia put it best: "Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article...People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic.". Your defense of homophobia is disappointing, Zazaban. Phoenix of9 08:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The question is written the way a homophobic person might write such a question. It is not answered from the perspective of a homophobic person though. If anything, it's potentially inflammatory toward homophobes due to the assumptions about how they'd phrase such a question. It was not written by a homophobic person and the intent was not to promote homophobia. Reach Out to the Truth 22:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Copied from User Talk:Jimbo Wales

Referring to this: calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours" and comparing it to drug use. [17] What is the procedure here? WP:RFA/U? Phoenix of9 07:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL, why does this even belong on this talk page? (It doesn't) JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a good example of why the assume good faith policy is so important. The page (and edit) to which you are referring is a Frequently Asked Questions page about HIV. The point of any FAQ is to answer questions that people might ask on article talk pages, even ridiculous ones, and even ones that exhibit intolerance in one form or another. For example on the Barack Obama talk page one of the FAQ questions is "Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?" It's there because many people have showed up on the talk page in the past shouting, "how come you're hiding the fact that Obama is a Muslim?" These individuals can quickly be referred to the FAQ which saves time. With respect to the HIV FAQ, my assumption would be that the talk page has received a lot of "how come you don't discuss the fact that the disease is always spread by homosexual sinners?" type comments. So the administrator to whom you refer almost certainly was not endorsing those kind of comments/questions (which are indeed very homophobic to my mind), but rather creating an FAQ to that would preempt them and hopefully keep some of them off the talk page, or at least not force people to answer them for the hundredth time. It would have been helpful for you to read more closely, or at least to wait for a reply from the admin in question before running over to Jimbo's talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Phoenix, you could have asked him nicely about what he meant in that diff. Instead you make severe accusations on his talk page then immediately bring it up here on Jimbo's page. Do you honestly think that this is the best way to handle it when you have a disagreement with another editor? Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
That the FAQ should reflect commonly asked questions is a good thing - that FAQ question would have been equally well served by the stating 'Q3: Why does the article omit that AIDS results from homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?'. That would have answered any question on the subject. Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article. Many people will come to the article who have heard that homosexuality causes AIDS. A smaller portion of those will identify with the 'immoral' statement. People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic. Weakopedia (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Given that this person is an admin, I honestly dont see anything wrong in bringing that here. Do you really think we need a FAQ in Talk:Black people about Black people's intelligence? How about a FAQ in Talk:Jews about if Jews are really Untermenschen?? Do we really have to include racist, sexist, homophobic questions in FAQ sections while retaining their offensive wording? Phoenix of9 07:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Come on. Even so, there's no evidence that this person is openly homophobic. Honestly, I don't understand these people who need to find Fred Phelps around every corner and behind every bush. Zazaban (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe in USA, these things are more common. Being in Canada, I am honestly surprised. Phoenix of9 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I happen to be Canadian as well so please don't automatically assume I'm American, thank you. Zazaban (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Why didn't you give 2/0 some time to respond before coming here? And why did you automatically assume some foul agenda was at play without waiting for a response first? Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
How can I not assume "some foul agenda" was not "at play"? The wording and comparison is pretty clear. Phoenix of9 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
No, no it is not clear at all, it's fairly obviously the opposite, actually. Zazaban (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
<sarcasm> The first steps of the procedure to follow when you notice that an administrator is openly homophobic are as follows:
  • Make sure not to check the facts. Homophobia is one of those crimes that are so egregious that the presumed perpetrator is not worthy of a presumption of innocence.
  • Leave a message on the admin's talk page. This is required for purely formal reasons, but this step should not be left out as it will give you an advantage later on in case other homophobes try to defend the criminal.
  • To avoid giving the culprit any chance of defending themselves, start the escalation immediately afterwards by posting an inflammatory message to a high-profile page. Don't risk that the admin comes up with twisted arguments that somehow convince the secretly homophobic majority of editors that the crime was a mere misunderstanding.
Here is a good example of how it works in practice. </sarcasm> Hans Adler 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful Phoenix of9 07:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Cla68's questions are valid ones, but probably it's best if this gets taken away from Jimbo's talk page, because it never belonged here in the first place. There's already a discussion happening at 2over0's talk page (though ironically that editor has not even had the chance to say anything), so probably this should continue there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


If Jimbo Wales would not be interested at this specific case (User:2over0), he might be interested at:

1) Question of offensive FAQ's in general. Looking at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, this question could be relevant.
2) What to do with homophobic admins in general.Phoenix of9 07:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We should not be mincing FAQ questions just because we don't like how they are usually worded by the people asking. Real people are often nasty my friend. Zazaban (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Weakopedia put it best: "Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article...People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic.". Your defense of homophobia is disappointing, Zazaban. Phoenix of9 08:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Considering that I'm openly gay myself, I doubt that I'm defending homophobia. And I suppose that could work, but the specific wording really isn't the issue more than your aggressive manner of handling it. Zazaban (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I know you are gay, thats why I said your defense is disappointing. Given that this person is an admin, I'm much more concerned about this than I would be if it was written by a regular editor. Phoenix of9 08:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Nothing has happened. It's phrased the way the average homophobe would word it, and is refuted in nearly the same breath. Zazaban (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Phoenix, maybe you might want to sleep on it - then if you feel the same in the morning, take it from there. If youre really Canadian like us, What are you doing up? I'm going to bed. Have fun Zazaban. Outback the koala (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Ugh, I should be writing a book right now, but now my focus has been pulled, and it's after one in the morning. Maybe I should go to bed too. I can see this isn't going anywhere anyway. Zazaban (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Outback the koala, given that you have an anti-gay userbox in your page, I dont think you are neutral here. Phoenix of9 08:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me.. Note to others; Don't feed the trolls. Good night. Outback the koala (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
All he said was that we should go to bed; I don't see what being pro or anti gay has to do with it, that's good advice at this early in the morning. Incidentally, I don't approve of the institution of marriage for any sexual orientation. Zazaban (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you think it is appropriate for this project talk page to move copies of entire conversations from other people's user talk pages and dump them here? Did you get permission from these users to recycle their discussion? I collapsed the above text to avoid overly disrupting this talk page, that was a compromise as it is hard to understand why this blanket cut & paste should not just be deleted. Ash (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea was that this is needed to understand what is going on, and the conversation should be here anyway. Somebody at Jimbo Wales' talk suggested that it should be moved somewhere else, so it was. It seems to be over with now, so I would say collapsing them would be fine. I just felt that when they were still active, they should be open. I wouldn't have reverted a second time. Zazaban (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)