Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 39

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40

Contents

Got a Name

Just wanted to say thanks for all the support on the Zachary Quinto article. I decided to go for a user name. It seems only fair after all the effort folks here put into trying to keep that from becoming a total disaster. If all LGBT articles come under as much attack from the Christians as that one, I think I may have to learn quite a bit about wikilawyering in order to just survive around here. Goodness. Is there any particular policy page or FAQ which LGBT editors can read? It's not easy to work with people who consider their hatred of us NPOV and our demand for human status and full civil rights 'advocacy'. Thanks againPauci leones (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Pauci!
I don't believe there is any page about being under attack. In my opinion (and this is just my opinion), you might consider taking a step back before you respond to those that you see as hateful. From what I've read, you tend to respond very forcefully to comments that may or may not be actually hateful. Try taking an hour or two before responding, and see if what you read the first time is still an issue. Since editing Wikipedia isn't in real time (as in, we're not all on at the same time), taking a moment can be beneficial and doesn't hurt anything.
Just my opinion :) Happy Editing! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that is worthwhile and I've made a note of it - give it time to 'settle'. My virtual reactions are not, obviously, divorced from real life. Right now, my husband and I are in Europe and our marriage is not only legal and valid, it is also a non-issue. When we return to the US - where we spend half our time - the harassment begins at customs where they see our names and marital status and goes on from there. One can't help but notice such things. Our civil rights are violated, period. Our human status is diminished, period. The challenge is, of course, not to respond forcefully to what I see as attacks on me as a person but to defend, what is verifiable and notable. It comes down to realizing that 'truth' - is a concept which has no place in Wikipedia. And, yes, I don't do a good job of keeping a cool head when being called a vandal, a troll, when wikilawyering is used against me by Christians. In real life, it makes sense to defend oneself immediately when the Christians attack. In the virtual world, there is time. That's a new concept for me and one I'm going to have to work very hard to grasp and apply. After all, as you point out - not all disagreements are necessarily attacks. Thanks - May I post your comments to my talk page so I don't lose them?Pauci leones (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
We'll all get personal attacks Pauci, both here from other editors and at home (wherever that may be).
Just try not to let it get to you and always remember two important things.
  • Comment on content, not contributors
  • Act in good faith
There's a lot to learn here but basically it's what you can prove, not what people believe and there are articles where people will take an edit as a personal attack and argue and argue and argue until you give up trying to add to them.
Don't give up and just keep trying!
Thanks Jenova20 09:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Albert Fish

Hello. Could someone please just run through the rationale behind grouping the serial killer Albert Fish under WikiProject LGBT studies? In what way is a sexuality and gender identity-based cultural approach, a concept itself stemming from the 1990s, applicable to a figure known to the public purely for his cannibalistic and paedophiliac crimes in the 1920s? Whether or not the overall aim was to find causation between the former and the latter, as I suspect it may have been, is neither here nor there; the very connection here on Wikipedia serves as implicit confirmation.

To put it more simply, 1. how is it possible to define Albert Fish using terminology and cultural concepts developed over 60 years after his death? 2. why is this necessary when we consider his notability, i.e. the reason he has an article on Wikipedia? 3. and by making this connection, is it not encouraging a casual, lazy connection between our definition of LGBT and his crimes, most seriously paedophilia? Would love to hear your views. 83.244.230.115 (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it because there is no obvious connection pending further discussion on article talk page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I can see a reason to keep the article "within the scope of" WP:LGBT. While the cultural phrase "gay" didn't have it's present meaning in the late 1800's, there were still men attracted to men, and women attracted to women - and there were still people we would today consider transgender. Fish's relationships with men (the article refers to a couple of them) surely puts him in the category we today call "gay". -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the removal and this is absurd. But it is also absurd co-opting famous people who are not activist and editing their biographies of homosexual famous people like it was done to the Brazilian singer Cassia Eller. She was a lesbian, made public her steady relationship and that is all. She was not an activist and Brazilians don't see her this way because she was concerned with her music. Maybe she will become an activist in America because some people want so.--Justana (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a blog and did an interview with a transgender woman. It is heartbreaking and I will fight for transgender's right doing what I can. --Justana (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Antinormative sexual practices

I was just wondering if anyone would be willing to give their views on the following topic regarding the scope of this Project. There has recently been a divergence of opinion and it would be useful to see what other people think.

Does 'WikiProject LGBT studies' cover sexual behaviour that could very broadly be called 'antinormative'? Here I include castration (either to oneself or to others, with or without consent), paedophilia, rape, necrophilia or cannibalism. To name a few.

Some examples:

Westley Allan Dodd molested, raped and killed several young boys before his arrest and execution in 1993. Richard Chase derived sexual pleasure from drinking the blood of both men and women, and young children of both genders, performing both necrophilia and cannibalism.

If we find that these practices stem from sexual desire, and therefore call them 'antinormative', are we ultimately obliged to include them under this Project and give them the relevant banner? 83.244.230.115 (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Those would be the province of WP:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, surely. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I would say no. This is called "WikiProject LGBT", not "WikiProject non-normative sexuality". (Though I think we could/should extend it to LGBTQI.) There is no reason it should cover articles dealing with non-consensual sexual behaviour simply because it is non-normative. Indeed, we don't even cover consensual BDSM, although many people would consider that non-normative. There is WP:SEX for general coverage of sexuality. - htonl (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Partner? Girlfriend? Wife?

I'm wondering if there is-- perhaps in the WikiProject Biography somewhere I can't find-- guidelines on the use of terms for same-sex relationships? That is-- in a lot of cases you can go off what someone has identified their relationship as, sure-- but are there actual stated guidelines? I could see this being a theoretically contentious issue, so I'd like to have some kind of recognized policy. mordicai. (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that some jurisdictions do not allow gay marriage but do allow civil partnerships; in such cases, "partner" is not just a chosen way to describe a same-sex partnership, it is the actual legal status of the relationship.Cervenka (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
"Partner" seems to be the preferred term for non-married couples, as it is the Infobox alternative to "spouse". I personally much prefer it to "boy-/girlfriend", which seems unsuited to an encyclopedia. It would be useful to have a written guideline (if one doesn't exist already) on how to refer to people in a civil union/-partnership or non-legal marriage. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
That infobox alternative is a strong point! In some cases-- & increasingly so as laws catch up-- there will be clear legal terms, whether they are civil union terms or terms brought into use through marriage equality legislation. Anyhow, yeah, guidelines-- if, as you say, there isn't one I'm just overlooking-- seem like a smart way to go.
Just doing a little more digging, & came across Template:Close_relationships. Actually, on a closer look it doesn't seem so helpful, but at least points to a starting place.
& it might be worth noting that I've cross-posted this discussion at WP:BIO-- if either this thread or that one seems more appropriate, let me know. -- mordicai. (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Most of the disputed use of "partner" has, thus far, occurred in the Personal LIfe or Family section of wikipedia entries, so I really don't think there's any ambiguity about using the term (people won't confuse it with a business partner). Also, the terms "boyfriend/girlfriend" impose gender roles on the relationship status; "partner," like "spouse," is gender-neutral. Cervenka (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you're probably right in that regard-- obviously I think we're falling on the same side of the spectrum-- but I'd still like to see something concise &...well, "official" is the wrong word, but guidelines with some group consensus to give it a little oomph. - mordicai. (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's important to specify that whatever guideline is created should not override the terms used by the LP to describe the relationship, if information about this is available. If A refers to B as her wife even if they live in a jurisdiction where they cannot legally be married, we too should do so. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Should we? I mean, what restrictions do we place on that? People use all kinds of terms to describe their partner, many of which aren't very encyclopedic (including "boy-/girlfriend"). I think "husband/wife" should be reserved for partners who are actually married (meaning a wedding or commitment ceremony). Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree, some people class a civil partnership as a marriage but classing a boyfriend or girlfriend as a marriage is a bit far.
Political correctness gone too far if you class a bf or gf as a marriage and this is an encyclopedia not a politically correct one.
Thanks Jenova20 08:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see where you're getting that from my comment. We certainly don't go hunting for the marriage licenses of opposite-sex celebrity couples - don't we generally accept that someone is married if they say they are, in whatever form is meaningful to them? Church wedding, private commitment ceremony? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal opinion.
I don't see what you're getting at, i agreed with the most part of your statement but if a living person wants to refer to their spouse as something other than what we would then i don't think we should go by what they say.
Thanks Jenova20 12:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please help me?

I have wandered into a morass. An editor is repeatedly challenging pretty much every aspect of the article Pray the Gay Away? for a bunch of different really ridiculous reasons. I don't understand what this guy's problem is but he seems determined to rip big chunks out of the article. Can someone please look at the article and the talk and see what you think? 76.201.145.83 (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an edit war between this project and Wikiproject Conservatism.
They do the same thing to abortion articles.
Keep fighting back and i'll look in aswell occasionally.
Thanks Jenova20 12:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Urgent: attempt to delete pages on gay newspapers

One user [1] is trying to delete the Dallas Voice. After I looked at his edit, he has also added suspiciously notability tags to the Bay Area Reporter, the Southern Voice, The New York Blade, the Windy City Times, Between the Lines. Please help reverse these tags. This may be the perfect opportunity to flesh out these pages and add more references.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll attempt to add some stuff to them later but we need more people than just me as i'm in the UK and it may be difficult to add stuff for me.
Thanks for the warning Jenova20 12:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Most of these don't appear to meet the criteria for deletion anyway but suffer from a lack of content and notability.
Will see what i can do Jenova20 12:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Another journal on UK LGBT stuff

This could help coverage on UK LGBT History WhisperToMe (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Could someone join the discussion regarding the intro to said article before another edit war happens? I have tried to make it as neutral as possible, but would appreciate any other voices. ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 00:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Araignee's edits at that article are anything but neutral. He has recently removed a large amount of information from the lead - relating to the LDS church's historical view of homosexuality - without any explanation. Viramag (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
As per talk on article, my justification for condensing the lead: "There is no consensus on the change, and as stated by Storm Rider, the quotes by SWK, questionably cited but discussed in the text nonetheless, are out of context and are not current teachings nor official doctrine. This is not suppression of content or censorship or even bias. The lead should state, first, clearly and concisely, the current teachings and relationship between the Church and homosexuality, not a historical opinion of a few men. Before changing this yet again, please discuss this further and invite others to join in." ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 01:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible merger of articles dealing with recognition of same-sex unions in each US state

This has been discussed on this talk page before (here and here), but I'm unclear on whether a decision one way or the other was made.

I propose that, as a general rule, there be one article for each jurisdiction (such as a US state) titled recognition of same-sex unions in X, where all information on domestic partnership, civil unions, and marriage in that jurisdiction can be found.

For many jurisdictions, especially US states, this information is divided into separate articles. For example, we have the following articles for Oregon:

Same thing for Maine:

Regardless of whether you're talking about domestic partnership, civil unions, or marriage, the question is the same: How are unions between same-sex couples legally recognized in [insert jurisdiction here]? Any information on this question could be divided into separate articles based on whether or not you're talking about marriage. And perhaps there are certain cases where that should be done. But in general, I don't think that helps the reader. On the contrary, someone who wants to read about recognition of same-sex unions in Oregon has to know, before they can start looking, the following things:

  1. Whether marriage equality has been enacted there.
  2. If there's no marriage equality, whether a separate institution exists for same-sex couples.
  3. If it does exist, what that separate institution is called.

The LGBT community doesn't push for domestic partnership or civil unions as end goals in themselves, but rather as part of a larger movement towards equal marriage rights. The big question that's always asked is whether same-sex couples should be able to marry; any separate institution is usually an afterthought mentioned only as a compromise. Everything does, however, boil down to one topic: legal recognition of same-sex unions.

Therefore, I think the topics domestic partnership in X and same-sex marriage in X should be addressed under the article recognition of same-sex unions in X more often than not.

Thoughts? — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 19:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. But not entirely sure if you're proposing a general policy or if we just start working thought the list? AdamCaputo (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree as well, though the argument is best made on the basis of the better way to cover the subject matter and help searchers, not based on what the advocates of same-sex unions have pushed for. I'd be happy to join in the reorg work. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm taking a kind of wikibreak while I wait for a GA reviewer, but assuming this has a resonable consensus, then just post on my talk and I'll pop back up to help AdamCaputo (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. If there's a consensus for it, then I suppose I am proposing it as a general policy, allowing for the possibility that in certain cases, it may be appropriate to keep the original distinction. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 13:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
So where are we with this? AdamCaputo (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
If discussion doesn't pick up here, is there a different project or venue that's more active where this decision can be made? Or can the lack of discussion be taken as implicit consensus, allowing us to move forward? — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 02:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with combining everything into one article per state, but I disagree on the title. I think that the article should be titled according to the "highest" form recognized in the state, and information about previous lower-level rights can be addressed in "History" or "Background" or such. This will result in irregular but more informative titles. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
That would work. Making the title of the article more informative is a good thing to try to do. I would partly prefer uniform titles (such as "recognition of same-sex unions in...") that make the articles easier to find, but I do recognize that redirects would lessen the need for that.
It doesn't feel like a decision has been made yet. We seem to have a few different ideas on the table. Anyone else game for a discussion? — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 01:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Article names

There are many areticles which have for a while had names of "LGBT topics and [Religion X/healthcare/whatever]". The Transhumanist has recently moved bunches of these to "LGBT orientation and [whatever]", apparently with no discussion. I find that phrasing problematic. Perhaps we can think of some improvement over "LGBT topics and...", but we need wider discussion before a mass move. LadyofShalott 16:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted myself per WP:BRD, and have restored 13 of the 14 titles. The remaining one I've renamed to an entirely new title based specifically on what that article describes. I've started a discussion on that article's talk page. See Talk:Unitarian Universalism and sexual orientation#Title re-rename. The Transhumanist 00:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Transhumanist, thanks for self-reverting. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
(Tips hat) The Transhumanist 02:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for Identities: Journal for Politics, Gender and Culture

Hello. Does anyone object to deleting this stub I created? The person who added the speedy deletion tag removed some info I added, about Judith Butler sitting on their Advisory Board, and about the location of its editorial office.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been moved to proposed deletion stage. Please chip in at [2]. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Correction The article was never tagged for speedy deletion, it was PRODded. Although nobody used the time provided by PROD to improve the article and add reliable sources, it was dePRODded, so now it is at AfD (not PROD). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC: 2011 in LGBT rights

There is an ongoing RFC in Talk:2011 in LGBT rights#RFC: The scope of this article. Some users think that this article (and all similar articles) should only include events when some right is gained or lost. Others think that this article (and all similar articles) should document all major events that affected LGBT rights. Your comments will be welcomed!--В и к и T 20:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Attending Creating Change in DC/Baltimore this January?

Curious if any folks are attending this year's Creating Change conference for LGBT organizers/activists this January in DC/Baltimore. Considering a booth for LGBT wiki outreach efforts. Wondering if others are interested in that and/or perhaps a meet-up at the conference? For folks in the DC area, might be possible to do some things as non conference attendees, if you're interested, let me know - I'd have to check on details. --Varnent (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Page names

A discussion at the Village Pumps suggests that having WikiProjects call their advice pages "guidelines" is confusing at least some editors into thinking that they're the same as the "official" community-wide guidelines like WP:Reliable sources, rather than advice from the members of the WikiProject. WP:POLICY#Naming generally discourages the use of terms like "guideline" or "policy" in page names even for regular policies anyway. So some of the WikiProjects are renaming their pages to something like "Article advice", "Recommendations", or "Style advice". This is just a friendly suggestion that your group consider doing the same. There are templates listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages if you want to tag the pages that way.

While you're at it, if it's been a long time since anyone overhauled those pages, this might be a good time to do that, too. I don't know what the history is for your group, but it's pretty typical for a page to get written and then neglected for a long time. If you happen to find anything that no longer matches up with the community-wide Manual of Style or other general guidelines, then perhaps it would be good to fix it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Identifying deceased people as LGBTI

At the moment we say (in item 3b of the "Guidelines"): "A deceased person may be categorized and identified as LGBTI if they had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes, such as Marlon Brando." That criterion makes sense for identifying people as LGB, but it doesn't apply to TI. Thoughts on the circumstances under which we should identify deceased people as transgender or intersex? - htonl (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a question that becomes more interesting if the person lived before the coining of the term 'transgender.' The question has come up at Billy Tipton, and the consensus there has been to describe the verified facts (this person identified as, and lived exclusively as, male) without explicitly drawing the conclusion (this person was transgendered). -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a very nuanced and thoughtful approach. I'd add that it's okay to include a transgender-related category in such cases, even if you avoid the label in the article, because the purpose of categories is to help readers find articles that might interest them, not to "define" or "label" anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Stonewall awards

There has been a discussion on the Melanie Phillips talk page, Talk:Melanie_Phillips#Stonewall_Award about including the fact that she was awarded the Bigot of the Year title by Stonewall. In connection with this, mentions of the award have been deleted and restored from articles on other recipients, Jan Moir, Iris Robinson‎ and Anthony Priddis, and the nominee A. A. Gill. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I only just noticed this.
Wikiproject Conservatism defending Daily Mail writers from criticism it seems.
Jenova20 14:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The Melanie Phillips debate has once again spilled over onto WP:BLPN#Stonewall Awards - Bigot of the year "award". Editors - including an administrator - are arguing that gay media sources such as Pink Paper and Diva are "niche" and cannot be considered independent, with only mainstream coverage of LGBT stories conferring notability. Exok (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Steve McQueen gay?

I thought so but there's no mention of it in the article at all. Am i wrong? Thanks Jenova20 13:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  • The actor Steve McQueen was not to the best of my knowledge gay. You may be thinking of the artist and director Steve McQueen (artist) who a lot of people think is gay, but isn't. 70.226.167.200 (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, well thanks for the response =] Jenova20 09:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone to check Carmen Rupe please?

I've just written Carmen Rupe, could I get someone to check it please? I'm mainly after correct use of names in the body and lede; balance; handling of links to non-reliable sources; etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I used he until she began living as a woman. Referred to her by last name throughout. Some copy editing. Didn't review sources. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Rename of List of LGBT slurs

Please comment on the talk page for the proposed renaming. CTJF83 13:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather have it reviewed for deletion since it's of no encyclopedic value (it's more like a VIZ dictionary)
It serves no purpose but to offend or educate others to offend in worse ways.
This and List of ethnic slurs should be deleted in my opinion.
Thanks Jenova20 13:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Then feel free to list them at WP:AFD CTJF83 13:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
List of LGBT slang, fair enough, that's not as bad.
Racial slurs and LGBT slurs are just not appropriate i feel.
So i'm glad you're changing the LGBT one, the other i will list at AFD.
Thanks, have a nice day Jenova20 13:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Forget it, i'm not nominating them.
They're all actively being added too, there's a fair few articles like this, and i can do without the agro.
Thanks Jenova20 14:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Same-sex marriage map Europe

One user removed File:Same_sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg from template and added File:Same_sex_marriage_Europe.svg. It's absurd. The template is about recognition of same-sex unions in europe, not recognition in the European Union member states and others. This distinction is dispensable. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Until we have a European Union-wide marriage or the Sovereign state "United European States" (or: on a more serious note: a EU wide rule to recognize eachother's same sex unions and that point is discussed in the article), I agree with Ron 1987 and see no reason to expressly include the distinction and prefer the older version... L.tak (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe the map Ron prefers has been restored as of Dec 26. Those concerned might want to monitor the template. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I also watchlisted it, thanks. I like the detailed map much better. Hekerui (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm going with Ron's map too. CTJF83 00:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

New source

This discusses the changing attitudes towards LGBT Americans, and LGBT issues involving CNN staff. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Greek love GA review

The article Greek love has been nominated for a GA review. The nominator has commented that It probably wont make it, but it is important to try. The article can certainly use more eyes on it and GA nomination is a good way to start, so I'm posting a notice to all projects that have a banner there. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Materials about WikiProject LGBT studies for use? Update on Creating Change

Greetings - as a follow up to my above post about Creating Change, I wanted to share that the Wikimedia Foundation has agreed to provide funding for a Wikimedia presence at Creating Change. Members of the Wikimedia DC Chapter will be volunteering, and we're still looking for more if folks are interested. Additionally, we'll have materials on Wikimedia projects. I think it would be fantastic to have at least a one-sheet flyer promoting this WikiProject. Does such a flyer exist? The conference begins on January 25th, any info before then would be greatly appreciated.  :) --Varnent (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:LGBT sportspeople by nationality

I've just opened a discussion on this categorization. Please feel free to participate. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

LGBT and Martin Luther King

CNN posted an interesting article about MLK and views about LGBT issues

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sean Eldridge

Soliciting comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Eldridge (since the nominator didn't add a notice here.) AV3000 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sportspeople

I don't even know where to begin, so I'm putting this out there for help from other editors.

In the past, I've worked on six or seven lists to get them to WP:FL status. I've recently been working on List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sportspeople, to that same end. At the moment, everything is ready to go *except* it needs a lede. Three or four paragraphs explaining what the list is, with references.

I'm not great at writing, and in this case, I'm not even sure where to begin. I've taken a look at Homosexuality in sports, but that article needs quite a bit of help.

Does anyone feel like helping me put something together? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky Featured Article Review proposal

See here - comments welcome.--Smerus (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"LGBT rights in FOO" at WP:VP (policy)

Just a heads up, the "LGBT rights in FOO" are being discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#LGBT_articles. Peachey88 (T · C) 00:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

People task force?

Would anyone be interested in creating a "People Task Force" as a sub-project of this one? Specifically to deal with BLP issues, the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and associated lists, etc? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone's interested: Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies/Task forces/Person has been created. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:LGBT will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in LGBT studies. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Fictional LGBT characters in given media list article and other issues

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

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

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

If you can think of some concrete criteria by which the list can be split and/or its contents expanded, feel free to propose them. The close at the deletion discussion made it clear that all the purported problems can be addressed by normal editing, so in what direction do you think that editing should go?. Diego (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I think your efforts at cleanup of lists would be welcome with much more receptive replies if you centered at improving and organizing the lists instead of deleting them. Diego (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
i think people should have the chance to understand my point of view. I looked for hope in the article time and time again, but always ends up too broad and ambiguous. Theres not much to "expand" i just dont think things like LGBT can be flung around so easily into list articles or main articles. I think the entire list could be moved to a more stricter more focused such as "List of TV films with LGBT themes" or "List of LGBT themed films/Tv series". At the moment, any entry can be made into that article aslong as the article of the series exist. Sounds like "list of LGBT authors" and the onlyway to make them have an entry is if their works had an article. You understand?Lucia Black (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything wrong with including entries when the article of the series exist. I think that characters could be included even if no article existed (and only in that case a verifiable source for the character should be added). Given the results of the several deletion discussions that you promoted, it seems that many other editors agree with me. So if you want to make some change, I suggest you to follow a different strategy. I agree that there's room for improvement, but not if that improvement requires deleting verifiable information from Wikipedia. Diego (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Dmitry Kuzmin

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

Updating the map of U.S. SSM laws

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

LGBT professions by nationality categories

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

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

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

I agree myself they are needed when there are categories. Maybe it should be drought up for CFD. I myself have not completely dedicated the project as im bsy with others.Lucia Black (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, nationality is an accepted way of diffusing large categories even when it is not itself relevant. Some of these categories are very large. This was all pointed out in the previous discussion. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Roscelese, nationality is an accepted way of diffusing large categories, though one could argue that it's not the preferred method of diffusing them (see WP:OVERCAT#Intersection by location). The first three, however, have very few articles - Comedians (125), Radio Personalities (81), and Television Personalities (224). None of those require diffusing - by nationality or any other method.
Of the other four, Journalists only has 116 and Sportspeople has 172 - those don't seem to need diffusing because of size. The other three have arguably enough to need diffusing: Musicians (674), Politicians (603), Writers (1,379). The question there is whether nationality is the appropriate method for diffusing them. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Oppinion

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

Question on two similar articles

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

I Will Survive

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

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

Amber Heard

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

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

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

User:NYyankees51

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

Yes.--В и к и T 23:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Green tickY 718star.png Yes! Shrigley (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Well now they appear to have a like-minded partner (diff) too on an article I recently created. I give up, not going to edit war. Altairisfar (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not surprised, as they've tag-teamed on LGBT-related articles before. At any rate, I've found sources on Udaan Trust and IGLYO, and I do wonder if the other nominations are just as frivolous. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out, Altairisfar, this user seems to be marking a bunch of articles for speedy deletion. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
This user probable just joined so he could nominate more articles for deletion and get in more edit wars JayJayTalk to me 04:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I joined because I "aim to improve Wikipedia's coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and Queer studies topics". Part of that is purging the advertisement articles in this project. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay well I hope you do continue to improve LGBT-related articles Face-smile.svg JayJayTalk to me 04:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed. Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 09:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

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

If you're doing a "purge", perhaps you could post a list here and add articles you think are "brochures" as you find them? That would give members of this project a chance to review them, chime in if they need to be deleted or merged, and/or find sources for keeping the articles? Then if they do need to be deleted or merged, you'll have several opinions already when they get taken to AfD. Just a thought :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
SatyrTN's suggestion is a good one. NYY, you've shown that you're not very good at WP:BEFORE, so maybe if you find problems, you could let people know who are better at it, rather than wasting everyone's time at AFD. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Please note that while NYyankees51 has said he no longer works for the Susan B. Anthony List, he has been blocked for edit warring and sockpuppetry in the past. He has recently been warned that he will be given a one month ban if his edit warring continues. Gobōnobo + c 22:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Relevance? NYyankees51 (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Noted. -Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 01:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Populating "SSM in fiction"

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

CSD

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

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

Sex

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

See the Talk:Sexual intercourse#Wording discussion for a more in-depth explanation as to why the lead starts off saying that sexual intercourse "commonly refers to the act in which a male's penis enters a female's vagina for the purposes of sexual pleasure or reproduction." It starts off saying that because that is the initial and more common definition of sexual intercourse in various reliable sources, including many in the Sexual intercourse article. Just like the most common definition of anal sex is penile-anal penetration. In both articles, we start off with the most common definition, then go into the alternate definitions. Most Wikipedia articles do this when there is more than one definition of a term, except for in cases where the most common definition is inaccurate. As can be shown in scholarly sources, such as ones noted in the section about technical virginity of the Virginity article, many researchers are stuck on penile-vaginal penetration when defining sexual intercourse/virginity loss. All the first sentence of the Sexual intercourse article is doing is defining the more common definition of the term before going into other definitions of the term, just like dictionaries and other encyclopedias do, not making a political statement. Would it be great if sexual intercourse consistently meant anal sex, oral sex, digital penetration and dildo use? Yes, in a lot of people's eyes it would. But it doesn't. There is only one way that sexual intercourse is consistently defined, and that's penile-vaginal intercourse. For other sexual acts, it varies (whether or not they are considered sexual intercourse)...depending on the sources. Flyer22 (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been resolved and we've reached an agreement. Pass a Method talk 10:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Years in LGBT rights #2

Again, there is a long term dispute about these articles. Some users believe that these articles should contain only the rights that were gained or lost, while others believe that the articles should contain all the important events of that year. There were two RFCs, the first at Talk:2010 in LGBT rights and the second on Talk:2011 in LGBT rights. However, due to low interest of users, nothing was resolved and the dispute is still alive and well.[3][4]

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

Appropriate language for Sexuality section of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

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

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

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

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

As a general rule, I'd go with the wording the cited sources use. However, "gay" isn't really any more problematic than "homosexual" when applied to historical figures of the mid-late nineteenth century. "Homosexuality" was a new term—and in some ways a new idea—then. The only thing I find jarring in the current version of the Tchaikovsky article is "homosexual lifestyle", which is a deeply problematic phrase for several reasons. You might consider substituting something like "same-sex relationships". For the record, it also may be worth noting that some sources, including the American Heritage Dictionary and various style manuals), deprecate the use of "homosexual" as a noun. (The article's current version uses it only as an adjective, so no worries on that front.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I would second what Rivertorch said about using the wording used in the sources. I had a similar problem with the DYK for Simeon Solomon when I described him as "gay" and had lots of people jumping up and down and getting irate. I do not have a problem myself with seeing someone described as "homosexual" in an encyclopedia article, seeing as that is the scientific term for same-sex sexuality, although as above I do have a problem with seeing someone described as "a homosexual". -- roleplayer 07:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuals Anonymous

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

Jose Vargas

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

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

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

Again woth the timeline

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

Categorization (1)

Some editors have gotten carried away in categorizing articles.

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

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

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

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

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

Pansy Craze

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


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

Straight Pride

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

Shouldn't Straight Pride just be a redirect to St. Patrick's Day? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Haha. Proposing it for deletion would just be feeding the troll since it's (minimally) sourced. There's a criticism section. Overall, it doesn't seem like such a bad article to me. Nobody will read it, nobody will care about it, it will affect nothing. Why not just forget about it? Exok (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Well i've ended up cleaning it up a bit anyway.
It's not as bad now but still has obvious issues.
Thanks Jenova20 11:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Corrective rape

I want to bring up the issue of corrective rape in the context of LGBT studies because corrective rape is a practice used in South African countries to "turn" lesbians straight. We think this issue is pertinent to describe on Wikipedia because the current entry is lacking in depth and only gives a very basic description. A classmate and I are writing this article together under the mentorship of Dianna Strassman and Anne Chao because we feel that information about this topic is extremely important and hopefully more and more people will learn about it all over the globe. User:TasneemIslam1025 User:Rachelpop- 0:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Corrective rape is already under watch by this project. Granted it's not the best article but thanks for bringing it up Jenova20 09:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

I want some opinions for this rename proposal here Pass a Method talk 11:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)