Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 4

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

Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5

Contents

Admin Help Please

The article Adam4Adam has been deleted by the decision of a single administrator with no warning, discussion or observation of process. The article was referenced to The Washington Post and asserted its notability well. An avalanche of evidence could have produced to improve it if need be. Being privy to this admin's personal info via a link on his page, his self-appointed role as 1-man judge, jury and executioner of an article with a GLBT topic is particularly bothersome. Please assist. (Backstory: This article has no similarities to previous versions; I didn't even know about them). House of Scandal 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I responded on the deletion review page, and provided two NYTimes articles as sources, for the notability requirement. Jeffpw 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added it to the open tasks template. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I feel that as this site has been mentioned in at least two NYTimes articles, it definitely passes the notability requirement. I don't know many sites that've been mentioned in such a globally notable paper. LuciferMorgan 02:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The same admin who deleted the article in violation of policy has taken issue with it being included in the LGBT page's "deletion discussion". I don't think he's winning any GLAAD Awards this year. Shaundakulbara 07:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Shaundakulbara, I have to take exception to your most recent comment because you seem to be suggesting that this is some sort of 'Gay' thing instead of a notability thing. I ran a Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual BBS for 7 years (1989 through 1996) in Oregon called the Antares Dawn. Your tacit implication that this is a discrimination issue is out of line, and your liberal use of smearing does more to hurt the community than deleting any website advertisement could. Between this and your personal attacks against me you've done yourself and your cause a disservice. I've been civil and polite to you, and you have not responded in kind. - CHAIRBOY () 13:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict--comment not edited to take into account Chairboy's response): Are you insinuating that the deleting admin did so out of homophobic feelings? I sure hope not. As for his objecting to noting the article's deletion review on this page, while deletion notifications are not exactly against policy (and many WikiProjects have them), they do tend to skew the results of such "votes" in one direction and bring in people who are really not "voting" on policy considerations.  OzLawyer / talk  13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Notes and advice: Accusing admins of anything is almost always counterproductive. It's the fastest way to get your problem ignored on WP:AN/I, and the most reliable way of ensuring that other admins will prefer to simply steer clear of you in the future rather then offer help. Flies with honey, and all that. Admins make mistakes, and as with almost every other editor, it's always more helpful to wp:assume good faith as far as the wings of generosity can carry you. There are times and cases when admins do abuse their power. However, such cases are drowned out by the constant deluge of exaggeration and overreaction that is daily directed toward almost every admin who ever touches a controversial article. Because thousands of other editors have cried wolf in the past, accusations now fall on deaf ears. There are even in-jokes about it now, like Wikipedia:Rouge admin. If there are real, recurrent problems, wp:dispute resolution can help, as there are formal processes already in place. But a scattershot of complaints on talk pages usually does not help, and often creates more problems for bystanders in the nearby vicinity. Particular to this case, I have seen no evidence that Chairboy acted from any kind of bias. Chairboy handles dozens or hundreds of speedy deletions per week, some are going to be lgbt-related articles, some are going to be wrongly-deleted, and some are going to be both. I believe that a very simple request for restoring the article for further work, either to article-space or user-space, would have been sufficient. I also understand that things get heated and it can seem like one is being unfairly slighted, and with that in mind I want to clarify that the above is not intended as judgment upon any editor, but is rather a piece of advice for everyone for the future. — coelacan talk — 18:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter

The latest edition of the newsletter is ready to go (fuck me, it's long), and I will be sending it out in a few hours. If there is anything you would like added, say quickly, as the deadline's tight! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, Dev! Thanks for putting it together for us. Jeffpw 22:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the great work. Parammon 07:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Category question

So I'm looking at Category:LGBT political advocacy groups in the United States and wondering if it oughtn't go under Category:LGBT rights organizations and be renamed. Or is there a difference between "political advocacy groups" and "rights organizations"? Almost all the articles listed in the former are "...rights" or "...equality" or such-like. Thoughts? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between the two. I looked at the category, and many should be moved to the rights category. There are some PACs listed, and they should stay in the advocacy category. There is a difference between the two. Jeffpw 08:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Shudo

Does anyone know much about Shudo? The category doesn't have a description, and only has 11 articles in it - one of which (Oda Nobunaga) needs major cleanup. So if anyone's knowledgeable about Homosexuality in Japan, could you step up? Thanks! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot answer for the articles, but I will write a short intro for the category. Haiduc 01:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Half-naked guy

Is that attention getting? Keep your eyes on the main page. I moved the "banjee" DYK hook to the DYK next update and it will appear on the main page in a few hours. Unless someone puts the kibosh on it the half-naked guy photo that HoS took will be on the main page too. I get undue perverse amusement from this and just wanted to share! Shaundakulbara 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

<giggle> Yes, that got my attention :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(Discussion archived per request.)

Collaboration experiment.

The Collaboration has changed this month to Bisexuality. As we are working towards (oh so slowly) creating a FA a month from this process, I have put it up for peer review so that editors wishing to contribute can have some ideas to work from if they are stuck. Input to both would be welcome. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist userbox

I never got a rainbowed eye from y'all, so shame on you. :( I've created the watchlist userbox anyway, so here you go. It's {{LGBTWatchlist}}:

Blueye.JPG
This user keeps track of the
LGBT Watchlist




Hope you like. I wanted to make it gold and something else like the normal userbox is, but I just couldn't find a colour to match! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool beans! Nice work,Dev. I'll pop it on my userpage. I'm more of a pink triangle guy anyway, so I'm perfectly at peace with not having a rainbow flag/eye. Thanks for the great work. – ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This is seriously cool. I love it. Can we add to the watchlist, if need be? Raystorm 20:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Are members allowed to add to the watchlist? I think all of the Lists of Gay, lesbian and bisexual people should be added as they receive frequent attention. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all members are welcome to add to the watchlist, it is only a rough compilation of the most controversial articles at the moment. If you're only putting on something that has been vandalised or unstable for a short while, though, for example if you're having an edit war, do mention that on the page so it can be reviewed at a later date. An unwieldy list is an unhelpful list. ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have a separate list to include everything LGBT-related? -Emiellaiendiay 03:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Smack me hard if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment contain the 'everything' list? I mean, if you don't mind that it's subcategorized by assessment. -FisherQueen (Talk) 03:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right. But I think what Emiellaiendiay was asking for was a watchlist that would comprise every single LGBT project-tagged article.... WJBscribe 03:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. -Emiellaiendiay 04:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It is possible, and I will get onto Ingrid and ask her to run Watchlistbot to give us a full watchlist. Be warned though, I'm not sure if it would be much help tracking the last 50 changes of over 4000 articles. We're gonna need two userboxes... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I changed the text to "This user keeps track of the LGBT Watchlist? So it matches other userboxen? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to, I certainly don't mind. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Quilt

And this is my final new section before I prise myself away from Wikipedia. Ze quilt zat was proposed has now acquired a form, with some well-timed aid from Coelacan. My suggestion is that we create a square for every active member and allow them to fill it at their leisure - as adding 92 squares is going to be somewhat time-consuming, I place the quilt for your criticism now, so we can change the colours/format it differently/set fire to the entire thing and never speak of it again, before I do anything else. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks wonderful, Dev, and I can't wait to think of something to properly express myself here. Can we start adding to it while it's in the sandbox, or should we wait until you and Coelacan have finished working on it? Jeffpw 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I found it tricky to figure out where to add an image to it (hope you don't mind my adding to it... I wanted to see how it worked... I'm happy to take my fishie out again if you like). My trouble might be just as strongly related to my general idiocy as to the format, which is groovy (and would look even groovier with lots of patches), and I did work it out after some thought. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah it took me a few tries to add an image too, so you're not alone. :) I can take the image out if you want Dev920, I just wanted to test the quilt. I think it's awesome! Raystorm 23:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
So, is your sandbox really a featured article candidate? :) -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks wonderful. Great work, again!-- ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
My "two merged cells" idea works, but it's kludgy, and it does make it difficult to see what one is doing. I think it might be a good idea to add corresponding html comments to the spaces where one would add one's name and patch, and these comments can be replaced by cut out and replaced by contributors. This should make it a lot easier to work with the quilt without breaking it. I've got some work to do on the Commons: and around the house (eep!) tonight, but I can add these comments pretty soon if no one beats me to it. — coelacan talk — 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, everyone seems so enthusiastic about the quilt! If Coelacan would like to add the html comments she mentioned, I'll get to work on our community department and we should have it fully up and running by this weekend.

Btw, has anyone had any more thoughts on starting our own IRC channel? WP:TROP has #wiki-hurricanes and it seemed like a cool idea... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The quilt looks great! But how did you guess my second favourite Oscar Wilde quote? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

quilt ready now

Okay, it's ready to go at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Quilt. I didn't copy over anyone's patches from Dev's sandbox, since I didn't know where anyone would put them on the larger quilt. There's a guide to using the quilt there in the comments, click on "edit" to see it. Improve the guide however you can, and go get started adding your patches! — coelacan talk — 19:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So anyone just picks the square number they want, or is there some kind of pre-arranged order? Raystorm 19:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
No. If you dot it around, then it'll look more patchwork-like. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Okie dokie. Just added myself. :) It does look patchwork-like I think. But there are more members than squares, isn't that right? Raystorm 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Currently. But many members are occasional users. When the quilt fills up, we add another 30 squares to the end. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, does anyone mind if we remove the linked names? I really like the stark contrast between the black and the white. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, here we return to the eternal debate between form vs. function. I agree the contrast is nice, but on the other hand, it is awfully handy for anyone looking at our puzzleboard (quilt brings up some negative connotations for me) to be able to click on the name and go to the user page. I have no objections no matterhow it ends up, but that is something to consider. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffpw (talkcontribs) 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
Damn that bot is fast! Jeffpw 20:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Black links: Coelacan See? — coelacan talk — 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice! :) Raystorm 21:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No copyright images please. Fair use does not apply to material used in the quilt, so make sure its all copyright free. Cheers, WJBscribe 23:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

completely unrelated to this WikiProject...

... and fun! Wikimedia Commons is having a Picture of the Year 2006 contest; the winning picture is selected by community vote. The gallery of candidates is right this way and the actual voting is just over yonder (interwiki links are ugly)! Anyone with 100 or more edits on any Wikimedia project before February 1 can vote. If you don't have a commons account, you might want to make one, or you'll be voting by IP. Anyone who doesn't have 100 edits on Commons will have to post on their Wikipedia userspace, "I am the same person as XYZ on Commons" and then link to that diff in order to establish identity and eligibility to vote. Please follow the instructions, pick no more than 5 pictures (that's the hard part), and enjoy the show. — coelacan talk — 05:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Notification of AfDs etc

Asking for project imput into deletion discussions is getting controversial and is at the borderline of what is acceptable under WP:CANVAS. On the one hand, members of Wikiprojects may have useful knowledge of the article in question and may be able assist in finding reliable sources to support notability. On the other hand, they are often likely to support keeping articles that are within their project's scope and can be rallied in large numbers. This often leads to allegations of votestacking. I suggest that we clarify amongst ourselves what sort of responses to deletions or XfDs are acceptable and what are not to avoid difficulty in future. My thoughts:

  • Symbol confirmed.png Adding an AfD (or other XfD) discussion to the noticeboard
  • Symbol confirmed.png Making a request on a project talkpage (or members' talkpages) for help finding reliable sources to confirm notability or other changes needed for the AfD to be survived
  • Symbol unrelated.png Asking on a project talkpage (or several members' talkpages) for help in preventing an article being deleted
  • Symbol unrelated.png Project members contributing to an XfD discussion of which they become aware through the project (and to which a number of project members have already contributed) when they have no new argument to contribute (XfDs are not votes)

The above is erring on the cautious side but seems the best approach to me. What do people think? WJBscribe 18:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good for us to look at this proactively; thanks, WJB, for raising it. My initial responses:
Point #3 seems to be basically the negative version of point #1--I agree with both points as phrased, but wonder if they shouldn't be combined into a single point that just succinctly states the distinction between notifying and asking for help/particular "votes".
Point #2 is a helpful thing that people can and should do for articles whether subject to AFD or not. I'm not sure how to phrase it in a way that handles the canvassing issue. Maybe, it's a sort of "things that can be considered canvassing in the context of an AFD" with suggested neutral / notification / general improvement language ... ?
Point #4 is a sort of general reminder of the point of xFDs.
Hmm. But maybe WJB's initial instinct is right, to just bullet a list of do's and don't's. Mulling .... --lquilter 18:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Two comments / questions:
1) XfDs are not votes?
2) I think we should stress adding XfDs to the S&g DelSort board, not particularly the noticeboard.
 – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
User:BenAveling/AFD is not a vote (that's the official line and I'm sticking to it ;-) and yes, the Deletion Sorting board now supercedes the noticeboard. I think the idea of a blatant, colored, bulleted list is spot-on; it's better to be painfully clear than to screw up and start canvassing. Good call, WJBscribe, and thanks for being the one to keep bringing this up until it gets explicitly dealt with. — coelacan talk — 19:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up WJB. I agree with erring on the cautious side. If, worst case sceanario, an article is deleted a new one can always be built and sourced. I'd rather that, than the project get a bad name. And thanks for that link Coelcan, it was very helpful.-- ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 20:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I see this as a still-open thing to move forward on. Need to try to come to consensus on what to do with this list, if there's anything else to add to it, and then put it somewhere prominent. In my opinion, it should go on all deletion-discussion-related pages and also at the very top of this talk page, since this is another place the problem can arise. — coelacan talk — 06:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Community department is done.

The Community Department is done. I place it here for your criticism before it goes "live" and gets added to the page, template etc. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that my little speech above about consolidation is still my view, and after this department, I intend to keep my ideas to myself this month. Too much too soon is harmful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No-one likes the community department? *pouts* Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I dig it. And I've rearranged it a bit.[1] I guess the question now is how to advertise it prominently on the project main page. — coelacan talk — 06:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Added a little more quilt instruction. I think this talk page section is getting overlooked because the whole page is so busy in general. I would just put the link to the department on the main page and let people start discovering it from there. — coelacan talk — 06:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Poster

I came up with this in January, so my "keeping my ideas to myself" promise doesn't count. With the help of Ouro, I created an LGBT advertising poster last month, and have only just edited it in response to his criticism. Thus, I present it to you now. I have built us a website to host it, you can find it at http://wplgbt.tripod.com/Wikipedianeedsyou.doc (you have to directly cut and paste the url, or it won't let you download it). I checked the Foundation policy on my usage of a copyrighted image and they freely give permission for anyone to use their logos to promote Wikipedia, so I think we're OK. I was thinking we could put it up in LGBT reference libraries, centres and cybercafes, or just normal places which are situated in gay communities (so pretty much anywhere in Provincetown). What do you reckon? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I'd be more comfortable though if the poster made clear that edits should improve the quality of article in a neutral manner, not advance any particular LGBT agenda. We don't want to be blamed for an influx of LGBT POV-pushers into Wikipedia :-). WJBscribe 01:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That is a very good point. I have edited the poster accordingly. Now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine to me now. WJBscribe 02:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I sent it to the Foundation Communication Manager, and she was delighted with it. She asked if she could send it on to the core PR team! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Coordinator Proposal

Full details at coordinator proposal

This project is nearing 100 members- this is a fantastic achievement. But as the project grows, it becomes increasingly more difficult to ensure that we know who is doing various procedural tasks and that people know who to ask if they have questions and problems. Some WikiProjects have responded to this problem by electing a coordinator as the designated port of call for these issues. As this project continues to grow, I think it important that there be someone to be responsible for the procedural running of the project and to respond to questions from members. You can read full details of what I propose here. This I how I propose to move forward:

  1. Nominations will be open for 3 days.
  2. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else to be coordinator please do so below.
  3. After 3 days there will be an informal election on a subpage. WJBscribe 02:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the proposal itself

Suggestions/objections to the proposal or questions about it
Comment/Question: Does a coordinator also act as a spokesperson for a wikiproject? Raystorm 17:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no. They tend to because they are a likely port of call when someone wants to ask about the project or something the project has done. But that doesn't mean anyone else is unable to speak for the project, just that they're more likely to be asked. I wouldn't express the role as something as formal as spokesperson, and certainly the coordinator shouldn't say "the LGBT project think X". But there prob will be quite a bit of explaining the project and what it is about. WjBscribe 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I would not say a Co-ordinator could say "WP:LGBT think X" - we don't agree much on anything, as the various discussions below demonstrate. When I give interviews, or talk about the Project, I usually differentiate between what we have done and are doing and what I personally think of it and would like to do next. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nominations are now closed. I shall take the emptiness of this section as an endorsement... A brief election (or I guess endorsement as there was only one nomination) will now be held shortly. WjBscribe 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nominations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Nominations ended. Result was Dev920 is the sole nominee. WjBscribe 17:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Dev920 (talk · contribs). OK. I'll start the ball rolling. A few months ago this project had very much lost momentum and was virtually dead in the water. Dev920 resurrected it and has kick-started a number of brilliant initiatives. Over 80 people have joined the project since then. The project pages have been updated and the portal is looking pretty good. Dev920 has started a vast number of initiatives to keep people involved and focus efforts. Notable examples include Jumpaclass and Peer review. I cannot even guess how many articles have been tagged since she joined (though someone is bound to tell me shortly). Her enthousiasm for new ideas appears boundless and her guidance has been inspirational. In my opinion she already acts as this project's coordinator and deserves to be recognised as such. WJBscribe 02:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. Jeffpw 09:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
About 4300. ;) No, really, I'm deeply honoured. I suppose now would be a good time to tell you that I'm now an official press contact for the Wikimedia Foundation and the "ComCom rep for GLBT magazines". :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


LGBT journalists, Muslims, and Jews

I've made the category, LGBT journalists.[2] It's a bit sad at the moment, with only a handful of pages in it, but if any knows any journalists to add — or would be willing to search around a bit to find some (I've had trouble finding lesbian journalists, for example), it would be much appreciated. There's a page for LGBT people by occupation[3], and I think it should include some more occupations. I've also made a category for LGBT Muslims[4], but I think that will be a much harder one to add pages to. I was considering making other categories based on religion, such as LGBT Hindus, but even searching around I can't find anything to start with. The closest is hijras, but I can't tell if they're Hindu. LGBT Jews[5] should be easier, considering there's a list of LGBT Jews to work from. Anyway, I just wanted to let you all know, in case anyone wants to contribute. Thanks! — Emiellaiendiay 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality for guidelines on creating new LGBT categories. LGBT categories should be significant, and not simply intersections with other existing categories. Otherwise, they are likely to be deleted. Also, read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT Jews. It was proposed to delete the list and create a category, and after discussion it was decided not to. – Samuel Wantman 10:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I've read it through, and I think they're significant. -Emiellaiendiay 02:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the journalist category is significant, but I don't know what other occupations you are considering. The intersections with religion are bound to be controversial, as they have shown to be controversial in the past. My reading of the policy would take it to mean that if someone were classified as being a "LGBT Jew" it would be because they were known for being an LGBT activist in the Jewish community or something similar. If they just happen to be LGBT, and just happen to be Jewish, it would not be a significant intersection. In such cases it would fit the criteria for overcategorization. – Samuel Wantman 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about the scope of the project

Hi all. I've been trying to find a way into working regularly on this without having to be more wikified than I am, which isn't very. So i was reading the various forms of guidance, and ran into something I thought might need discussion and possibly even change:

  • This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of transgender status or same-sex romantic relationships, and related societal reactions.

So... the measure of queerness is same-sex relationships? I'm bi, so that obviously is an issue for me, but also... I know I'm bi whether I'm in a relationship or not. I think this definition is a bit excluding (it definitely isn't bi-friendly) - what do others think? White hotel 09:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Getting the wording right can be tricky. Please consider the project's scope to be bi-inclusive until better phrasing is chosen... and adopted retroactively. =) Who's got suggestions? Would "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of transgender status or same-sex or bisexual romantic relationships, and related societal reactions" work okay? — coelacan talk — 10:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
On second thought I still missed addressing part of what you're saying, that the "relationship" part is not necessary. I'll wait for other suggestions though, it's late and I'm getting slow. — coelacan talk — 10:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, don't get me wrong, I love this project and I feel included - I was invited following my edits to the pages on biseuality and biphobia, and I have no problem with the project approach, as I understand it... I just think maybe this wording doesn't reflect that. Perhaps something like 'This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of queer gender and sexual identities, and related societal responses'? I know some people have a problem with 'queer' as an inclusive term... maybe use 'LGBTIQ' instead of queer if people feel that might be better? White hotel 10:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm bisexual, and how are we not included by "same-sex romantic relationships"? If they're not same-sex, they're straight relationships. Those are hardly under the scope of an LGBT project. A much more vague definition is "everything pertaining to LGBT cultural, political, societal and historical issues". You're trying to be too over sensitive. Perhaps if people have a problem with "queer" or "LGBT" as the inclusive term they they have external-identification issues, as they're just words. Should we make the whole thing more friendly to men who have sex with men, too?~ZytheTalk to me! 12:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer your first question, I think it's pretty straightforward - bi people are bi, and queer, whether we're with a same sex, opposite sex or trans partner. So if this project, or any project, is only interested in bi people as long as we're in same-sex relationships, then it's not particularly inclusive. I'm not gya, but I imagine gay identity doesn't simply disappear if gay people are single or celibate, right? Another question for you- if a bi woman is in a relationship with a bi man, are they in a straight relationship? White hotel 20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm bisexual and single, and I still feel included. However, I think this entire thing can be dealt with simply by changing "relationships" to "attractions". Thus: "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of transgender status or same-sex romantic attractions, and related societal reactions." Might want to add an "and sexual" in there too. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That really doesn't help. I think it needs to address identity, but it can't *only* address identity since the project covers historical figures to whom the very concept of sexual identity would have seemed extremely strange. It's hard to manage that without getting too wordy, but something like "transgender status or non-heterosexual identities or relationships" might do it. —Celithemis 05:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't "same sex attractions" cover the historical aspect you mentioned, without getting in to the identity part?
Or we could just go with "queer"... – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
"Attractions" doesn't deal as well with the issues White hotel raised, and honestly it just seems weird to me to center the definition around attraction like that.
I like the word queer well enough, but hestitate to apply it to Alexander the Great.... —Celithemis 07:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, is this line of the scope definition even needed? It already says "LGBT and queer studies articles" – that seems clear enough to me. —Celithemis 07:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have anything to do with identity. With that sentence to be included in the project, a person has to have same-sex attractions. They don't have to recognise or embrace those attractions, but let's face it, that what makes an LGB person. That's what separates us from everyone else. Why not simply go with it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe for you bisexuality is just a set of sexual behaviours, but not for me. And what makes a biseuxal person is engagement that precisely ISN'T single-sex oriented! Bisexuals aren't queer only for the proportion of the time they're in relationships, or feeling attraction to, members of the same sex. Bisexuality is a sexuality like any other, not half of one sexuality and half of another - biphobia thrives on that misconception. White hotel 12:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but we do not need that kind of snide remark on the project. A bisexual identity is based on the fact that we have same-sex attractions - if we didn't, we'd be straight. What is a bisexual identity if not a "manifestation of same-sex romantic attractions"? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I refer you to my comments earlier in this para: I am not being snide, I really value this project and am happy to be part of it. I'm sorry if I offended you - I'm sure you don't need it at the moment!

To answer your question, 'what is a bisexual identity if not a 'manifestation of same-sex romantic attractions' - bisexuality is a manifestation of BOTH-sex romantic attractions; an identity in itself separate from gay identity and subject to biphobia based on the idea that when we're with opposite-sex partners, we're straight. Not the case, and so I believe bisexual people are within the scope of this project whether we are currently in a same-sex, or an opposite-sex (or a trans) relationship. White hotel 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact is we are bisexual because we have same-sex attraction - if we are in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, we don't suddenly switch those attractions off, do we? The sentence as I have suggested it covers us for all time, regardless of who we are dating. To take one example, Lord Alfred Douglas comes under the purview of our project on the basis that he was attracted to men, even though he renounced his "vice" an got married to a woman for the latter half of his life. We are included in that sentence - I just don't see the need to push home the fact that we have heterosexual attractions as well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Your first sentence makes little sense to me - sure, what marks us out as different from the heterosexual norm is same sex attraction, which exposes us to homophobia. but what marks us out as different from the gay norm is opposite-sex atrtraction, which exposes us to biphobia. Neither one is by itself an adequate definition - it's our predisposition to both that defines us. Validating one above another is, then, misleading. White hotel 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't really understand what you want changing, but it might be a good time to re-evaluate our scope guidelines - much of it reads like goals rather than areas we cover. For example, what does "collect information for possible high-quality LGBT/Queer studies textbooks for Wikibooks" have to do with our scope? (Though we should totally do that). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Celithemis brought up a point about the word "attractions" that I'd stil like hir to address, but until then, does this work with Dev and WhiteHotel's points listed above?
Comments? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Slight adjustment: "transgender status or sexual/romantic attractions" can be read to mean "transgender status or [transgender] sexual/romantic attractions". I'm not a grammarian so I don't know what this ambiguity is called, but it disappears with this arrangment: "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of sexual/romantic attractions or transgender status, and related societal reactions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coelacan (talkcontribs) 04:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Hmmm - so maybe switch the two? "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of sexual/romantic attractions or transgender status, and related societal reactions." – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I still would like something in there about identity (taking on board Celithemis' point about identity being a historical construct) - how about "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of queer and genderqueer attractions, relationships and identities, and related societal responses."? White hotel 12:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely detest the word queer and oppose its use anywhere in our scope. I have no intention of using a slur to describe myself. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind 'queer' when used among fellow LGBTetc people, but I think it's not the right word to use in defining ourselves. As Dev920 says, it's a slur, and though many have reclaimed it for more positive uses, its primary usage is still derogatory. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

scope proposal

"Queer" can be confusing for many straight people, too, who may not be familiar with the scope of the word. L-G-B-T-listing is self-explanatory, for the most part. So anyway, I've tried to synthesize all the different concerns here. The result is exhaustive and grammatically unambiguous, I hope. "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of same-sex, bisexual, or transgender identities, attractions, and relationships, and related societal reactions." I expect someone will feel this is unwieldy, and I won't jump to disagree, but I think that's preferable to being inaccurate or making accidental omissions. Thoughts? — coelacan talk — 03:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(margin reset) I won't oppose that synthesis, and I don't see a way to make it more wieldy without losing meaning or omitting something/one. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for those I offended by using that term... I'm aware that it isn't to everyone's liking. I like your synthesis, Coelacan, and wouldn't oppose it, but maybe it would be simpler still to say "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of LGBT identities, attractions, and relationships, and related societal reactions."

White hotel 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

White hotel, I believe that the breakdown that uses "same-sex ... relationships (etc.)" is worded that way to indisputably include Alexander the Great and Sappho, et al. LGBT terminology did not exist then as it does now and the exact natures of their relationships were quite different from modern understandings and so may not be encompassed by the scope of these terms, but "same-sex relationships" they defintely were. Haiduc is much better at explaining this than I am, but trust me on this one ;-) — coelacan talk — 07:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Any still outstanding objections, then? "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of same-sex, bisexual, or transgender identities, attractions, and relationships, and related societal reactions." — coelacan talk — 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Changed.[6] — coelacan talk — 07:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Vote stacking

The deletion debate regarding the article Adam4Adam contained a statement which several people regarded as an allegation of vote stacking by members of this project. At Chairboy's suggestion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chairboy has been established to discuss this allegation and related issues. Shaundakulbara 21:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to the charges in the RfC. The allegation is disturbing and disapointing, but I hope that my response on the page will help answer any concerns. Best regards, CHAIRBOY () 22:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Both CaveatLector and I have submitted statements regarding the alleged votestacking. I can only offer one small crumb of cheer from this: three months ago no-one knew we existed, now they talk about us everywhere! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Its not the sort of publicity I would have wished for frankly. And the issue of WikiProjects, XfDs and votestacking is now well on the agenda.... WJBscribe 00:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It was on the agenda well before, certainly back in my Islam days. What's more annoying is that we didn't actually votestack at all, but Chairboy's convinced everyone that we did. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I do sort of see Chairboy's point actually. This post to this board is in very strong terms and looks like a rallying cry. He then sees a number of project members voice opinions- some without adding much to the debate. Its bound to look like votestacking to him in those circumstances. WJBscribe 15:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks

I would really, really, like to someday establish an LGBT presence on Wikibooks. The nearest we come at the moment is someone is writing a textbook on the work of Michel Foucault. What I would really like to do right now, though, is write a wikibook on LGBT history. I turn to your expertise and ask, if you were writing such a book, what would you put in it? Here is my table of contents thus far:

Prehistory
Archeological evidence of homosexuality
Antiquity
The Egyptians
Homosexuality in Japan
The Greeks
The Romans
Homosexuality and Christianity
The Age of Empire
Homosexuality and the Victorians
Oscar Wilde, Robbie Ross and the aesthetic movement
Modern times
Slow decriminalisation of homosexuality
Gay rights movements
The AIDS epidemic
Same-sex marriage
The Future

You may have noticed there are massive gaps. Fill them in! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a history book with information on homosexuality in the Rennaissance. It being not exactly antiquity, I don't know which category it would fit into. Also, this list seems slightly Eurocentric. Perhaps if you separated it by time period, and then subdivided each into culture-specific time periods (e.g. Age of Empire, Victorian, Renaissance, Qing Dynasty, etc.) A WikiBook is an excellent idea. — Emiellaiendiay 04:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would hardly have said Egypt, Japan and Greece were in Europe, but I do agree with you. I used LGBT history as a basis, but that is horribly eurocentric, thus my turning to y'all for help. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Lesbianism-related films

Is this a real category? It has a limited number of films in it, but would it be best to dump this category for the Category:LGBT films? Or maybe rename it to something more encyclapedic? Like Lesbian-related films? Or Lesbian-themed films? Is there a significant distinction between Lesbianism and Lesbian for this particular category? I don't know...Seems a little weird. Thoughts? --Zuejay 05:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC) PS - I'll do the footwork if we can change this. Some others have complained about this particular cat title on the cat's discussion page.--Zuejay 05:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a reallyweird cat name, IMNSHO. But even "Lesbian-related films" sounds weird to me. As a counterpoint, Category:Bisexuality-related films has 33 articles to this ones' 51. I don't know - I guess "Lesbian-related films" works okay. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs)
Oh yeah, I remember the CFD on that. It was originally "lesbian films", and people argued that this was not an appropriate category title because movies do not have a gender. I thought that was bizarre, pointed out that "lesbian film" and "lesbian novel" are terms found in academic papers, and wondered if they wanted to rename gay bar (perhaps to "gay-related edifice where alcohol-related beverages are served"), but I came to the discussion late and I'm not sure anyone else was still paying attention. I don't know what the protocol is on changing category names that have already been through CFD. —Celithemis 06:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
No particular separate protocol. Just take them back through CFD again. — coelacan talk — 06:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Can this be a speedy rename or does anyone think it needs significant discussion? There has been no outpouring of discourse here. -Zuejay 03:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Because of the hassle of moving categories (making the new one, deleting the old one, changing all the links), bots do all the work. The only way I know of to get it tagged for bot work, however, is to put it through the standard CFD process. You can ask for a speedy close, but the bot won't be along for a few days anyway. — coelacan talk — 04:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I should clarify. "Speedy" is actually a policy classification, and it allows certain changes under certain limited circumstances. I do not think this fits any of the speedy circumstances, so even if no one opposes the renaming, it won't be speedied. Sorry, I just thought of that after I wrote my last reply. — coelacan talk — 04:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
All good to know. I'm still learning. I don't think there's really much rush on this particular rename anyway. -Zuejay 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Just nominated Category:Lesbianism-related films for renaming to Category:Lesbian-related films according to WP:CFD. Hope folks drop a quick line in support (or not). Thanks! Zue 00:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the change is fine. It doesn't seem like a huge issue though. — Emiellaiendiay 02:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing focus on lists.

I've decided that my optimism about completing List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E sometime this year was somewhat displaced, so what I'm going to do is work on converting all the other lists to the same table format. That way we'll at least be able to cross-reference List of bisexual people, List of LGBT Jews, List of LGBT sportspeople etc. to create a really comprehensive set of lists that we can then feed all of our biographies into. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite possible to finish this list before the end of the year. Of course, this list will never be "finished" per se, but we can work it up to a very high level. I think now that since everything has been table-fied, refernces and images added, there are a few more tasks needed to bring this up to FA level. I know this may be laborious, but I think we should hand check every reference and make sure that it is 1)reliable (I don't doubt many of your references, but some have been dubiously added by others) and 2)properly cited per WP:CITE (I've noticed lots of references from glbtq.com which is a great resource, but most articles name the authors, which should be reflected in the citation). Additionally, I'd like to see the question marks in reference to dates filled in. I think with some of these people, a simple web search should provide us with the information. I'll begin work on this immediately. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget to check the talkpages- I removed vast numbers of uncited names a couple of months ago and listed them on the relevant talkpage so they could be restored once references had been found. If people can go through these lists and find a ref or two every now and again, it shouldn't take too long to have everything fully sourced.
P.S. To clarify IMDB and NNDB are not acceptable sources. WJBscribe 15:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Since the list is never going to be stable, I don't know that it's possible to go for FA status. But probobly GA is attainable. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
In my definition of "stable" it's stable right now with the exception of additions. An article only becomes unstable when there are disputes, edit warring and the like. Granted, it's always a list that may grow, but I think we've becgun to do a great deal in raising it to a stable level. I did just realize that this could never be a FA as it is a list. In addition, there is not a "Good List" section. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPOKEN

Just to let you know, I signed up to WP:SPOKEN a while back, but had dreadful problems with my microphone. Having now dealt with that (I had to buy another computer!), once I'm done with my featured articles, I intend to set to on the LGBT FAs. If anyoen would like to join me in this, or would rather I didn't record an article you worked on, please let me know. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Bugchasing

I expressed some concern on the talk page of this article about the lack of reliable sources, as many of its sources have been actively discredited, leaving a lone documentary with no DVD release (making it difficult to use as a source) as the source for this alleged sexual practice. Could some people have a look at it before I start trying to deal with the somewhat sketchy verification of this? Phil Sandifer 23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Added reference to Sissy page

I found a BBC article on homophobia and sissys. Cleara --Allyn 05:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be this diff for those who are wondering. — coelacan talk — 06:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

New tag format?

What do y'all think of this version of a talk-page tag? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Kinda dull, and not very complete. Our tag gives a lot more info about the article. Ours is prettier, too. Jeffpw 06:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I bring it up because some pages have an absolute glut of wikiproject tags, which clutters the talk page and makes it difficult to wade through. This version would still have all our stuff (and prettiness) in it (click the "show" link). And it would still "tag" the article with the project name. We might even work in either the flag or the ribbon-barnstar that Dev came up with – a small image, anyway. There's a template development group that's coming up with ways to unclutter multiple wikiproject banners, and this is one of the results. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of a streamlined, narrower tag a lot- some pages are very tagcluttered and tags like these would sure make the talk pages neater. I'd love to have a tiny rainbow flag on ours, though. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, after seeing the show link, which I missed in my comatose state this morning, it seems ok to me. But like FQ said, I would sincerely like our flag on the template. Jeffpw 15:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I really don't like it. MILHIST need a smaller banner because theirs are massive with a bajillon different options: ours don't. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way for those pages with a glut of banners, there always {{skiptotoc}}. That's what I do when I see that sort of mess on a talk page. Jeffpw 16:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
And I certainly didn't propose and implement the small parameter for nothing. :) Just convert them all to small templates if it's getting too large. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeh, MILHIST needs a clue. FILM is another one - they have this checklist of "things to do to make this article a <next>-class article" that shows up for each one, depending on what class it is. And it's usually a list of five or ten things. But the point with them is that we can't go in and re-design their banner - we can only reduce the clutter with our banner. Going weth "small" isn't always an option, since not all projects have implemented that option. Anyway, this is one of the things being kicked around. I think, if we put in the flag, it's not a bad option. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs)

Abraham Lincoln

You are invited to the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln and Talk:Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln to discuss the issues. Wjhonson 07:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks the dispute stem from the fact this article needs a bit of work on the NPOV front, with a suggestion that the combination of sourced information may be OR. Jimbo has expressed a view here for those interested. Those with past issues with Knowpedia might wish to tread carefully. WjBscribe 18:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As an FYI, Knowpedia is alluding to a potential third AfD on the article. I don't know serious of an intention that is but it is something to keep an eye on. AgneCheese/Wine 05:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Members

We broke 100! YAY! But, I'm noticing only SatyrTN has risen to my challenge and invited five members. Come on, more people do it! *prods every member who hasn't done it* Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried... and gave up. How do you find users to invite? I've browsed history pages of LGBT-related articles, but to no avail. — Emiellaiendiay 02:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
That's what I did - I picked a couple articles, scoured their history for editors in the past year or so, reviewed their user and talk pages, and maybe edit histories, and then made the invitation. It's rather time-consuming! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You guys are making me feel bad, not doing more than "keeping my eye on ya". hehehe. Let me know when 104 signs up, I'll be 105. Not before then - evens are unlucky numbers for me. ;) ZueJaytalk 06:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I admit, it is more difficult than it used to be - unfortunately I seem to have recruited most of the major contributors. :) But I'm still finding people, so I'm not giving up yet... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You can say that again! It took me forty minutes to find three eligible editors that I could invite to join us... I would typically find the perfect contributor and see you'd already invited him/her (Wuzzy comes to mind). :) Cheers Raystorm 23:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I invited five yesterday, so good editors who haven't yet been invited are definitely still out there. And it's a shame Wuzzy stopped editing back in April. I'd email them, but they haven't got it enabled. I don't think there's an LGBT article they haven't edited.... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Watchall list

Ok, Ingrid created one at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Articles. I've created another userbox for it:

Blueye.JPG
This user tries to monitor the
LGBT Watchall list.

All Ok? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay, thank you, Ingrid, for making it! — Emiellaiendiay 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Add to To do list

Is the list automated? Or when we've got articles we'd like help on, do we just add 'em on? In particular, I started an article on Claire of the Moon which I've actually never seen. little man will have to be next (which I've also never seen - gee, think I get out much?), and then the bio for Nicole Conn needs work. So, anyhoo, help on these'd be great; and info on how to add to the "To-do list". Thanks, ZueJaytalk 06:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's automated by Satyrbot. To activate it, make sure the article is tagged both with our banner and a suitable cleanup banner. Satyrbot should then add it to the to-do list when it runs. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox film.

WikiProject Film is on a drive to add infoboxes to every film articles. I have used AWB to create a list of LGBT films that need the infobox. Some also need general cleanup, separating of film and play, and assessing. The list is here - it's not linked because I have been working on this list for THREE HOURS and do not want to do any more. Please help me in fixing all these boxes, remove articles when they have infoboxes and are tagged with our banner. I'm going to have dinner and lie quietly in this corner now... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've linked the list. I'll try to help with the infoboxes. Cheers and enjoy your dinner :-) Raystorm 22:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, the infobox to be added is this:
{{Infobox Film |name = |image = |image_size = |caption = |director = |producer = |writer = |narrator = |starring = |music = |cinematography = |editing = |distributor = |released = |runtime = |country = |language = |budget = |preceded_by = |followed_by = |website = |amg_id = |imdb_id = }}
Each should be on a separate line, as you can see if you edit this Talk page.
Emiellaiendiay 23:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

This is going to sound like such a newbie question...I run across a user that asked why the LGBT template goes in a talkpage instead of on top of the article in question, 'so everyone can see it better'. I told him that's the way it's done, and offered some kind of lame explanation. Does anyone know exactly which policy says that templates should go on talkpages? Cheers Raystorm 14:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the project tags are about the article rather than about the subject, they're put on the talk page. Any article that has our tag on the talk page should already have some indication in the article itself, so the tag would just be clutter to the average reader. But I haven't done any research in the WikiProjects docs to back that up. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
A WikiProject and by extension banners, are an internal wikiprocess and meant to be used only by people working "behind the scenes". They have nothing to do with an actual encyclopedia entry, thus it would be as inappropriate to put our banners on the main page as it would be to hold a conversation on it. The templates which are placed on the talkpage, such as NPOV or cleanup templates, are there to warn a reader that the article is in some way flawed or unhelpful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! That really helps! :-) Cheers Raystorm 16:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Coordinator Elections

Voting now open on election subpage

After a brief delay, the subpage for voting on the first Coordinator for WikiProject LGBT (see above here if you have no idea what I'm talking about. In the nature of true democracy there is only candidate. Who appears to have been nominated by the user officiating over the election...

Anyway, if you want to show your appreciation for Dev920's work for this project and to endorse her acting as our coordinator in future. Please do so at: the election page. Yipee! If you would like to express contrary views, that is also the page to it. Happy voting- I've kept it to 5 days 7 days (per later discussion) as we have only one candidate and there seems little reason to draw it out. WjBscribe 17:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this is just an endorsement, and not really an election, but maybe we shouldn't have such a short time limit for voting. I think it'd be better to give a real chance for all the members of the project to vote here. I mean, we're 100+ members. Getting more than 50% support from all of us will be the best endorsement Dev can get, and I'm not sure if just 5 days is time enough for it. I know it is not necessary for Dev to get more than 50% (right?), but I think it'd help to validate her position. :-) You know, so no one can complain about the democratic process (which you wittily pointed out) later. Does it make sense? I'm aware it can be a bit bothersome to draw out a bit the election period for everyone involved (especially Dev), so it's just a suggestion. Cheers Raystorm 18:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, um, could we have simple approval voting, without opposes or neutrals? Like MILHIST do? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I guess we should- but not sure how that works with only one candidate... How long do people think the election should last? Should I make it a week? Longer? WjBscribe 18:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
If we don't get a bot to notify all members (as we've discussed elsewhere), I suggest about 10 days. Cheers Raystorm 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful! Then I guess 7 days should be enough. :-) Cheers Raystorm 02:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
How about we let it go five days as planned and see what proportion have voted? We can easily extend it if it seems necessary... WjBscribe 02:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Okie dokie. I was just thinking that some members may log on only on weekends when I proposed 7 days, but you're right, let's see how it goes now that everyone has got a notice... Raystorm 02:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
PS:The notice says 7 days. Raystorm 02:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Then we'll make it 7 for consistency (easier to change it here than on everyone's talkpages). WjBscribe 02:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

CfD attention

I very much urge project members to engage in this discussion and contribute their thoughts.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's already on the open tasks template and WP:DSSG. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm New

Greetings everyone, I'm fairly new to the WikiProject LGBT Studies. I have yet to make any contributions to the articles as I have been reading some of them to try and get a feel for the general mood in LGBT. To further assist me in this I have frequented the discussion pages and made a small number of contributions there.

If anything I am cautious when it comes to things related to LGBT concerns. Admittedly I am a Transexual, although I have yet to begin my transformation from m to f, nor have I had any contact with other transexuals. This is due, in no small part, to the fact that I live in rural Central Louisiana not far from Texas. In this area people such as myself are social pariahs. We literally walk on eggshells around here.

When it comes to transexuality I understand it from my own perspective and research on the internet. While I don't claim to be an authority on the subject at large I do claim authority as it pertains to me. Also, I have gained considerable understanding as on the subject of transexuality and the bible. My faith has always been important to me and only recently I was able to find a balance with it and who I am.

Now all I have to do is strike a balance with my parents. My mom is beginning to accept me, but only as a homosexual and not transexual. My dad, well we don't talk about it, its pretty much a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude with him. At any rate that is the no frills version of my story. I look forward to when I am able to make good and accurate contributions to LGBT Studies. --Clay 12:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the project, Clay. =) I see from your user page that you're also Episcopalian. Might you be interested in helping me add some content to Bishop Gene Robinson's article? I just added a photograph there and noticed that the coverage is heavily slanted toward scandal. I'd like to add positive citations, like about his work fighting the AIDS epidemic in Africa, and whatever other stuff got him promoted to Bishop. I'll be picking over the article in the next few days and I could use a hand. — coelacan talk — 01:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I might be, I'll have to do some research on Bishop Robinson. All I really know about him is from what I've read in my diocese's newspaper and tv news. All of it was less than flattering. The American Anglican Network of Churches (of which I'm on their email list just so I know what they're up to) has steadily been gaining ground. Their endorsement by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his condemnation of the ECUSA seems to indicate he is prepared to recognize the AAN as the "successor" (I guess you could call it that) to the ECUSA. The Anglican Communion is so slanted against LGBTs it would seem they want to promote excluding us altogether. At any rate look forward to cooperating with you in this endeavor. --Clay 07:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Same-sex marriage

Someone has added a "Discussion" bit that seems inappropriate to me. Do we have to leave it, archive it, or can it be dumped. Please check it out at the bottom of the page here. Thanks ZueJaytalk 17:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay...precisely a minute after I asked this, someone removed the section citing "no useful contribution" to the article and/or article discussion. Guess that's resolved. ZueJaytalk 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I second that removal. Pure trolling. No suggestion whatsoever about how the article should be improved. Just someone's personal rant about issue related to same-sex marriage. WjBscribe 17:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Or not related. Green cars? AIDS? Hmph. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Took me a minute to realize someone had already gotten rid of it, but I agree with the removal. It was just someone venting their slpeen. ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 17:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
And promoting a personal webpage. Sheesh. Raystorm 17:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Sorry I had to bring it up here - it was listed for several hours and had me fidgeting. ZueJaytalk 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

ZueJay, for your future reference, the relevent guideline here is WP:TALK, specifically "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." That's useful for determining what to remove as well as to cite when someone whinges about the removal. Talk pages are only for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing the subject of the article. That doesn't mean that every single piece of off-topic blather must be removed on sight, but if anything is detracting from the actual discussion of improving the encyclopedia, it's cartainly fair game. — coelacan talk — 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks, that's what I really needed to know. It's not always easy to find the relevant policy guidelines without reading every single bit of WP:MOS. I'll be adding WP:TALK to my shortcuts list. ZueJaytalk 02:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

List of transgendered people

List of transgendered people. This list had somehow escaped the project's tagging effort until now. It needs a lot of work to bring up to standard. A few concerns with it are:

  1. Its a mess
  2. No entry is sourced
  3. There are redlinks (are these people notable?)

The aim is to create something akin to: List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E. But in the short term just tidying it and maky sure there are referecnes would be good! If people wish to work on these it would be much appreciated. WjBscribe 05:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Since lists of people must also conform to WP:BLP, any unsourced controversial material should be removed immediately. If the statement about them being transgendered is sourced on their article's page, just copy the citation over.
As for the redlinks, it has to be done on a case-by-case basis. Most of those people look notable, but some may not be.
It actually isn't that much of a mess - I've seen far, far worse lists out there. The only thing I would change would be combining the lists of living and dead people. Or at least the early and late groups of deceased. Koweja 06:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems like double work to add a citation to the person's article and to the list. Why is it no acceptable to just say "look at their article for references"? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
When I first tried doing that with A-E, they kept being removed for "lack of references". I gave up. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It might be a pain in the butt, but I think it's better. Without the requirement of sourcing in both places, people can be added to the list who aren't sourced in their articles, and it's even more of a pain to check the articles and see if the source is there (sometimes article "owners" delete that stuff, sometimes it was never there). And at least for some people (like me) a list is more aesthetically and psychologically satisfying (seems trustworthy) when it's directly sourced. It can be a buffer against future AFD. — coelacan talk — 19:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Each article should be able to stand on its own, I guess. Also, it helps control unsourced information since you don't have to check each article - you just delete anything that doesn't have a source. If the other two lists of LGBT people survive AFD then we can't start working on it, but if they get deleted then this one will most likely go up next. Koweja 23:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If you'll excuse a bit of crystal-balling from "Mystic Will": If those lists get deleted they will be up in WP:DRV for a week. Trialsanderrors will probably then relist it at AfD. Then it'll be debated for another week. The ultimate outcome will be no consensus. Ah, the joy of limbo... WjBscribe 23:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

She's Real, Worse Than Queer

I've just tagged She's Real, Worse Than Queer with the tag for this project. Currently there is a deletion nomination for this film, so if anyone knows about it, chime in at the AfD discussion! − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 08:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone besides me and Coelecan check the open task template and deletion sorting page? That AfD has been up there since I nominated it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sort of puts the lie to the WP:CANVASS and wikiprojects issue, doesn't it? :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I only looked today, Dev, and then I went and voted against you. That puts the lie to votestacking, too, apparently. :-) Jeffpw 15:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
SatyrTN, are you saying I am canvassing? − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't know canvassing if it bit me in the canvass. :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Which is why it's still important to figure out some clear guidelines on this. =) WjBscribe proposed some up the page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Notification of AfDs etc... I'm directing everyone's attention up there to try to get some more discussion. By those proposals, I would say that Twas Now was not canvassing, but anyway I'd like to see something finalized and plastered in the appropriate places. — coelacan talk — 06:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well one of the key elements of WP:CANVASS is that posts to partisan audiences are problematic. Given that project members voted both ways in that AfD, I don't think there's a problem. Still these issues are going to keep coming up quite often. I welcome thoughts on how to make the guidelines I set out above (which everyone seemed to generally agree with) more prominent. WjBscribe 07:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Random Announcement

Okay, um, this doesn't really have anything to do with LBGT studies, but, User:Dev920 has been nominated for a Wikihalo, and you can vote here . . . [7] WereWolf 23:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am honoured. :) You're such a nice bloke, WereWolf. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, sorry for the stupid question...but what's a wikihalo? What is it for? :-) Raystorm 11:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a Community Award. Basically, it's like a Barnstar that everyone can vote on. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I see. Like a bunch of people voting to give you a barnstar. Um, wouldn't you rather receive a barnstar from each of those people instead, and hoard them on your userpage? :-) Raystorm 13:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it would be easier, but this is an award that shows that the user who won it is one of the best Wikipedia has ever seen. This "barnstar" is one of the best awards a user can win. WereWolf 17:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Update and challenge

Just to let you all know, I haven't randomly vanished during Coord elections, it's halfterm and I just got two guinea pigs! I'm doing some work behind the scenes - contacting the Comms manager and LGBT mags and suchlike. I'm still religiously checking my watchlist, so if you need to contact me go ahead.

In the meantime, I notice we have only gained 23 members this month! So I renew my challenge (except to SatyrTN and Emiellaiendiay, who rose to it!) - go find 5 LGBT article editors to invite to the project! Go forth my pretties and fly! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I did invite 4 or 5 editors too, with such poor results that I'm gonna accept the challenge again. :-) Dammit, I'm gonna get at least one to join the project! Raystorm 13:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Racism in the LGBT community

I am trying to get this article to be neutral. It is full of information gleaned from biased homophobes, like Scott Lively. The article has changed drastically since I edited it but I hope to make it better, it's still in need of some work. --Revolución hablar ver 12:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if we made this May's COTM? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea, Dev. I actually read it a month or so ago and found it fascinating, if a bit problematic. I didn't have the patience to improve it, but as a collaborative effort, it would be ideal. Jeffpw 14:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Coordinator

Just to announce the (unsurprising) result of the LGBT project coordinator elections: Dev920 is now the project's coordinator. Congratulations! WjBscribe 19:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay, more work! Hehe, no really, I'm honoured that you have such trust in me, and thank you to everyone who voted. I just hope I can keep up! In three months time I've no doubt we'll be needing assistant coordinators... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Footer template

{{LGBT}} This template goes at the bottom of article pages and is intended to replace the present {{LGBT sidebar}} and {{LGBT rights}} templates which tend to clutter article pages. There is no need to change every article immediately, but as you visit articles that use the old templates, please consider whether its readability will be enhanced by switching to this template. SatyrTN will be adding usage notes shortly. For the template to include all possible elements, use {{LGBT|history=yes|culture=yes|rights=yes}} (the different resulting formats can be seen here). The idea is that further detail is given on depending on the article. E.g. rights articles link to other rights articles etc. WjBscribe 23:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Over-infoboxification

A creeping issue on Wikipedia is evident in the Freedom to Marry article and the Lambda Legal article - over-infoboxification. On these articles 2e have an LGBT portal box, an LGBT Rights box, and an LGBT Queer studies box. Why do we need three boxes for what arguably is the same topic? I think these should be combined into one box - many of the same topics are covered in the latter two boxes. These boxes are vying for space on relatively short articles, displacing images of the subjects/concepts, and, generally, junk up the page. One infoxbox is not so bad - but three? --DavidShankBone 18:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed becoming a problem and one that can easily be addressed. We should work on combining Template:LGBT sidebar with Template:LGBT rights. The first will always be needed where the first is present. I suggest either:
  1. A combined template in the style of Template:LGBT sidebar with a fuller rights section;
  2. Change Template:LGBT rights to incorporate all the info in Template:LGBT sidebar so it becomes an alternative to the general template (not an addition to it); or
  3. Giving Template:LGBT sidebar a "rights" parameter that can be enable on rights-related articles to add more links to other rights-related articles.
In any events Gay rights should be LGBT rights. What do people think is the better option? WjBscribe 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Merge! And I'll up you one and call it over-infoboxificationitis ! Who made the other boxes, can we get them to join our party over here? Wjhonson 18:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • A combined template I think is the way to go per #1 or #3. But I think instead of a right-sided info-box we should employ a bottom-screen version. Many of the LGBT articles are short, that on some a large info-box that doesn't relate to the article itself can shifted the article information or make the page look too cluttered. What I like better is what I see on the New York City subway articles (example: Queens Plaza (IND Queens Boulevard Line). Although I think their right-sided info-box is too wide, it at least is relevant to the article at hand. Whereas the more generalized "New York City subway" portal box is at the bottom, which makes the article itself look fuller. --DavidShankBone 19:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
And having a bottom-oriented (no pun intended) info-portal won't mess up infoboxes such as those found on Evan Wolfson --DavidShankBone 19:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I concur with the bottom oriented boxes, they work much better. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll take a bottom with "rights" parameter. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So we need to create the *aherm* LGBT bottom box? Sigh. OK :-). I'll have a go at a draft- Satyr I may (i.e. will) need help with the parameter bit- my coding isn't up to that. WjBscribe 23:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Who knew infoboxes could be so saucy? :p Anyways...I want to throw my support to the infobox merging as well as throw out the idea about trimming them as well. I'm curious as to if there are some "catch all" links that can be placed in the info box that would list things like the "Culture topics" without having a wiki-link to every one and etc. Just something to trim down the relative size of the info box. AgneCheese/Wine 23:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

First attempt

OK guys, check out User:WJBscribe/Drafts. Please improve it- I just wanted to make a start. All comments welcome. WjBscribe 00:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Happy post-Valentine's Day hangover everybody; glad I have off today. I think this bottom-box is banging! Looks great! I like that we can see more potential for it now that it's bottom-oriented. I'm going to push my luck: I personally don't care for the rainbow flag. Just aesthetically, it's never been pleasing to me. I know the long, storied history of it from the Rainbow flag page, but would anybody rather see the pink triangle? I would. It also has a good history, one specific to us, and its use is now a source of pride, but it might also educate the casual viewer that we died in the concentration camps as well. I don't think a lot of people know that. Regardless, I just like the way the triangle looks, more than the rainbow flag. Just throwing it out there. --DavidShankBone 15:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I may be completely wrong but I don't think the pink triangle relates much to transgendered people. Also the pink triangle is not entirely uncontroversial given its orgins. Its one thing in userboxes where people an choose to use it or not but I'm not sure I'm as comfortable seeing it in the mainspace. The rainbow flag is the symbol of the LGBT community and I think it should definitely be used. Thoughts from anyone else? WjBscribe 17:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe put the portal under the title? Makes it more prominent, but also gets rid of that empty bar? --DavidShankBone 15:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Another version is available here. The difference being a parameter for each of the sections "rights", "history", and "culture". Those sections can be turned off or on for individual articles. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the first because the history and culture stuff is already covered in the categories bar. Bottoms up! --DavidShankBone 21:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You don't need to choose a favourite with Satyr's version. If you edit the page you will see that those are all versions of the same template. It allows you to have extra detail on the topics relevant to the article its on. e.g. more history links on history topics or more rights links on rights topics. WjBscribe 21:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What now?

OK, Satyr has converted the template I designed into the all-singing-all-dancing version that can be changed depending on the article its used on: User:SatyrTN/LGBT footer.
The following questions now arise:

  1. Do people like it and should we move it to projectspace so it can be used on articles?
  2. Are we abandoning the old templates?

As to point (2), my suggestion would be to slowly phase them out. Each time we visit an LGBT article with the old templates on, we have a think about whether it would be better to unclutter the article and use the LGBT bottom boxTM instead and change if necessary. Be bold though. There doesn't seem any reason to run around now changing every single article, but in the long run I think its best to keep these sorts of portal-style templates at the end. WjBscribe 00:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • 1. Yes, and move to projectspace. 2. Abandon old templates and slowly phase out. --DavidShankBone 01:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Are we planning on replacing all of the separate templates including bisexuality and transgender with one mega-footer, which drops the odd article that was in the now deprecated templates? I'm concerned that this may overload stub and start class articles just as badly as the existing right-side templates. It also has the risk of further alienating people such as transgender who object the the term "queer studies". This is why the separate, more focussed teplates were created in the first place. I'd still favour having a set of templates, just have them all in footer form. I'm already having problems with random users coming along and removing the transgender template from articles because it is "too intrusive". Oh, and rather than calling it a "bottom box", I'd suggest "footer". --AliceJMarkham 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    Hi Alice, let me address a few of your points:
    1. The footer is intended primarily to replace: {{LGBT sidebar}} and {{LGBT rights}}.
    2. In any event, the change should be progressive. If there's a good argument for sticking to one of the old template on an article, we should do so.
    3. I think the important thing is to have more templates in footer form, if a specific transgendered footer would be useful, one should be created.
    4. To clarify the name of the template will be {{LGBT footer}}. The term bottom box was purely a joke that arose from discussion on this page. It won't be the name of the template (though it may stick as a nickname, I'm afraid).
    Hope that clears things up. I had no idea there was a problem with the term "queer studies", can someone explain? WjBscribe 22:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In Australia, the term queer is an very derogatory term for a gay male, which is often associated with homophobic violence. The majority of cross dressers are heterosexual males, some of whom are very vocal in trying to distance themselves from homosexuality. If you attach the word queer to anything related to cross-dressing, they take it as a personal insult. The same applies to some transsexuals. It can get very ugly at times, with such people arguing that transgender has nothing to do with LGB "because it's not about sexual orientation like they are". Based on those experiences, I do not use the word queer anywhere near transgender subjects! --AliceJMarkham 01:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, that's clearer. Has this been discussed before as it seems kind of important? The present title on those boxes is "LGBT and Queer studies series". According to Wikipedia, Queer studies is "the study of issues relating to sexual orientation and gender identity". If the term queer is nonetheless controversy to some areas, is it necessary to have a reference to queer studies in the template? Why not call the new template "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender series"? WjBscribe 02:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Alice - Queer in the United States was also a very derogatory term. It was adopted in the same way as the word nigga was adopted in the black community here - to take the sting out of it, we used it ourselves. The histories and reasons may not be exactly parallel for the phrases to have been co-opted by the communities. That said, I see no reason it needs to be there. I don't know many gay people who say "Queer studies" or queer anything. It's mostly used for political force, in my experience. --DavidShankBone 03:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I like the word Queer. It's second meaning on wiktionary is "non-heterosexual", and the etymology is "off center". And that's besides the reclaiming aspect of using the word. But that's just my $0.02. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 09:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What's the 411 on the bottom boxes?

Did we decide to introduce them to appropriate articles? --DavidShankBone 23:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, {{LGBT}} see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Footer template. WjBscribe 23:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I replaced the Lambda Legal gay portal, but left the rights box. Put bottom box on Evan Wolfson. I think the right-side box looks better on the nebulous Gay and Lesbian pages. But on ones like Freedom to Marry I think the bottom box looks better. --DavidShankBone 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

About tagging homophobes

Hi there. I was wondering if homophobes came under the interest of this project (wait to hear my reasoning before automatically saying yes please). I went to check Tim Hardaway and saw his article had been recently tagged by us. I saw a discussion about this fact there too (hi Coelacan!). Aside from making sure that his homophobic views are present in the article, are we really gonna try to add to it further and make it a FA? Which technically is our aim in every article we tag. One thing is to patrol a homophobe's article to make sure no one has deleted that info, and another to say the project wants to improve the article further, right? I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear. :-) I just wanted to have a mini-debate on the issue here, if nobody minds, and hear other opinions. Cheers! Raystorm 13:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel it is important to tag homophobe's articles, not because we want to necessarily improve them to FA status (that's just not possible with every article on Wiki), but to provide our readers with pointers to all aspects of LGBT history on Wikipedia. People who come to our portal need to be able to find all subjects in an easy manner. I presume we have a category for homophobes. If not, one should be created. Jeffpw 13:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if a category titled Homophobes would survive CfD. Though I agree that we need a cat along those lines. I just can't think of wording that wouldn't be labeled POV, BLP-slander, etc. AgneCheese/Wine 03:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
True, but I feel that LGBT history has happened in spite of homophobes... ;-) It's not as if they contributed or anything to the LGBT movement. You see where I'm going? Raystorm 14:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Homophobes still had/have an impact of LGBT issues, so it is relevant. I suppose we could say only tag the homophobes that had a significant impact on LGBT issues/history. Koweja 17:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Homophobes certainly have an impact on the LGBT movement. Look at the uproar over the Hardaway outburst. It's opened up a huge dialogue in professional sports. - ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 18:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Then the Catholic Church, for example, should also be tagged? And The Bible? And The Pope? Raystorm 22:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Pope Benedict is not homophobic, he's a lovely, kind, thoughtful man and does not come under the scope of our project in any form.
Basically, I think the best thing to do is only tag people who have based their career on targetting gays. So Fred Phelps yes, Tim Hardaway no. Jarosław Kaczyński yes, Isaiah Washington no. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was aiming for the previous one (J.P. II), but this one did say a few interesting things a propos same-sex marriage in Spain (I know because I had to research it). :-) Your approach does make sense, but except for Catholics and right-wing politicians, I don't think the homophobes out there base their career in targetting homosexuals, right? Does this mean, btw, I should go tag the George W. Bush article? ;-) Raystorm 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
"Pope Benedict is not homophobic, he's a lovely, kind, thoughtful man and does not come under the scope of our project in any form." I beg your pardon... Maybe I missed something but I guess someone else made the comment about homosexuality being "intrinsic moral evil" and that "the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder". And I guess some other leader of the Catholic church has opposed gay marriage in Spain. And a different pope described the new inheritance rights for same-sex couples in Italy as subversive [8]. I'm sorry but if we adopt a policy of labeling homophobes as within this project's scope, Ratzinger comes pretty high on my list. WjBscribe 04:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Many homophobes certainly base their beliefs and actions on the Church doctrine. Raystorm 11:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
From here: "The Catholic Church considers Human sexual behavior that it sees as properly expressed to be sacred, almost sacramental in nature. Anal intercourse and homogenital acts are considered sinful because sexual acts, by their nature, are meant to be both unitive and procreative (mirroring God's inner Trinitarian life). The Church also understands the complementarity of the sexes to be part of God's plan. Same-gender sexual acts are incompatible with this framework:
"[H]omosexual acts are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" ([15]).
These teachings are, of course, not limited to the issue of homosexuality, but is also the general background for the Catholic prohibitions against, for example, fornication, contraception, pornography, anal sex and masturbation.
To be sure, the Church has clearly stated that homosexual desires or attractions themselves are not necessarily sinful. They are said to be "disordered" in the sense that they tempt one to do something that is sinful (i.e., the homosexual act), but temptations beyond one's control are not considered sinful in and of themselves." He doesn't dislike gays for being gay, he dislikes all forms of sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage. Which is stupid (and presumably means he hasn't masturbated for 79 years), but not homophobic. And given that upwards of 50% of all Catholic priests are gay, he can't really be all that homophobic if he goes and consorts with them for 50 years, can he? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
My view of this is that people whose homophobia was itself the subject of significant attention that would satisfy WP:N should be tagged. So Tim Hardaway should be tagged, because his outburst was unexpected and thus he became more notable for his homophobia, but Pope Benedict XVI needn't be tagged because everyone expects Popes to be homophobic; it's non-notable. And in very large topics on Wikipedia, such as Nazism, we should try to be as specific as possible in tagging. So Adolf Hitler doesn't need to be tagged, because Night of the Long Knives should be tagged instead (I'll go do that, actually), along with Paragraph 175. Tag those articles, yes, but then tagging Hitler too would just be cruft. I think if this is going to be contentious, it might be good to hammer out an in-project guideline. coelacan talk — 11:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued Nkras vandalism

Some of you may have noted a recent problem with deletion of LGBT and gender studies templates from articles and their talkpages. I believe that the IPs doing this belong to a blocked user (User:Nkras) who was indefinitely blocked for his disruptive behaviour (mainly on Marriage and related pages) see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive193#Nkras. He now seems to feel he needs to remove templates because the two Wikiprojects are "inherently POV pushing". The following IPs seem to have been used by him:

  • Rather than let this list grow and grow here, it has been superceded by
User:Coelacan/socks and
Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nkras

If anyone is or becomes aware of other accounts making the same sort of edits, could they list them here? It may be necessary for further action to be taken if this pattern of edits continues. Thanks, WjBscribe 18:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, is that him? That makes sense. Have any IPs been blocked yet? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The top three are all on 24/31 hour blocks. My basis for believing it to be Nkras is that a number of them have early edits quibbling with Coelacan as to whether the Nkras block was a block or a ban and that the article edits around the deletions are the same as those he used to make. If he carries on, I'd like to have as much evidence as possible to request indef blocks of the IPs (it doesn't look as if they're shared). WjBscribe 19:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nkras is either banned or pushing to be soon. Either way, User:Luna Santin/sockwatch (and in particular Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Luna_Santin/sockwatch, which will show the recent history of all linked pages) may prove useful, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

GA reviewer needed

I'm having a head to head in Jumpaclass and I've just nominated Trembling Before G-d for GA status. The backlog at GA is quite long though, so I'd appreciate it if someone could review for GA status today if possible, as today the head to head ends. Thanks, Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As I'm not involved in this jumpaclass head-to-head and have done some GA reviews in the past, I shall take a look at it. WjBscribe 20:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Review completed. Sorry but I couldn't pass it (see the article talkpage for my full review). Excellent work on the article and a very honourable 'B', but I don't think its hit the GA mark. WjBscribe 22:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Lol, the second time I ever apply for GA and it fails. I have a better hit rate with FA... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't approve of GAs being reviewed by us within the community. As a member of the Project, I feel that some cynical Wikipedians with an agenda against us will say we are passing our own articles. It lends fire to accusations of bias, even though I feel none of us are biased. Best not to use this avenue in future. LuciferMorgan 22:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Given WJB failed it, I don't think that's likely. And I also think we need to stop fearing the homophobes. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering and all that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I tend to disagree, too. For example: the biography project goes around assessing biographies. They have a large assessment department for that task. Nobody accuses them of bias in passing bios as GA or even A. If someone were to accuse us of that, I would tend to think they had an agenda (WP:ABF), or were truly confused about how Wikipedia projects work (WP:AGF) Jeffpw 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought hate leads to the Dark Side. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree also. I think this plays into assuming good faith in fellow Wikipedians, and that includes assuming they are doing what is best for the articles, not for the individuals. People will use any line of attack when challenging something, meritorious or not. With all the work that needs to be done, we have to remain objective. And assume the good faith in each other that this is the case, until proven different on an editor-by-editor basis. --DavidShankBone 22:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
At the end of the day GA reviews can easily be challenged at Wikipedia:Good article review if someone objects to the outcome of one. WjBscribe 22:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The GA review page says, "It is not necessary to go through this process unless there is a dispute about the article's status." That seems to indicate that it isn't a problem if members of the project review articles within the project's scope, as long as we do so with integrity and in accordance with the criteria. Does anyone know what other WikiProjects do? -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
MILHIST has a really cool internal process for reviewing articles -getting an A there, for example, seems to be really difficult. I guess that later helps for a smooth FAC. Raystorm 23:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of Projects handing out GAs to articles related to their own Project, despite all the above arguments. It's irrespective of homophobia, I just think it's bad practice. Wikipedia is supposed to be a community, not just within one Project. Also, I wouldn't go by anything the GA review page says since it's a total shambles, despite efforts by others to fix it. An article placed there can be there forever :( Well anyway, I've spoken my opinion. I guess the Project wholly disagrees - oh well... LuciferMorgan 02:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not to fond of the idea, either. And we did have a bit of discussion above that's sort of contradictory with what's been said in this current conversation. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying this issue is exactly parallel, but in law there are strings of cases that were brought arguing that black people can't sit on juries involving other black people (because of inherent bias) or that a black judge can't sit on a case involving a black defendant (for the same reason). All of these cases found that there is no inherent bias, and the notion itself shocks us today, but I find the logic parallel. There is such a wide breadth of topics in LGBT articles that topics such as Lambda Legal are only tangentially related to an article such as At Swim, Two Boys. Few of us are approaching all of these articles with one common view, mindset and agenda. Mostly, are agenda is striving for objectivity in how we relay the world around us. But, I can say that we are the most knowledgable on the subjects. It would be difficult to expect, for instance, WikiProject Science to receive decent reviews to their articles from people who aren't knowledgable in the finer points of the topics and the issues inherent to each, right? When we review our own articles, we can more easily spot what is *not* there than those outside the projects. I just don't think it's an issue until....it's an issue. --DavidShankBone 03:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Stupid list *kicks rock*.

Can someone please tell me why this list's reference extermal links have randomly decided to break halfway through, and more importantly can anyone tell me how I can fix them without having to do it all manually? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Dunno what caused the problem but it was introduced by this edit: [9]. So I reverted to the previous version and readded the entries under 'S' in the correct format. WjBscribe 00:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Heads up.

203.87.64.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked by Ryulong last night for legal threats, blanking his talk page and claiming Ryulong was a homophobe. He claims to be a gay man and part of a campaign off Wikipedia to disrupt it. From the way this guy is acting (going from simply being annoying to screaming ACLU court cases and homophobic hate speech in one exchange), he could prove to be a major problem if he starts disrupting LGBT articles (he accused Jacobshaven of being a self-hating gay man for reverting his POV edits to Heroes). Just a heads up. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

List of LGB people

And also List of transgendered people

WP:BIOGRAPHY currently have 206,393 people tagged. Assuming, per latest research, that 6% of them are gay and 2% are bi, that's 16,511 individuals we need to be adding to our list (though this doesn't take the closet into account) - we currently have a little under a thousand, by my rough estimate. If anyone would like to help in this little mission, there are people in the LGBT categories who have not been added to the list, and there are LGBT lists (though somewhat spurious ones, so good sources are needed) here, here, here and here that we can use as well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP. This is a good opportunity to make sure entries in Category:LGBT people are properly referenced. If you come across people who aren't on the LGBT lists but are in the category add them to the appropriate list if their LGBT status is sourced or remove them from the category if it is not. If you can find a source that's even better! WjBscribe 16:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, definitely. Once we've got the lists as they stand straightened out (so to speak), I was going to ask Satyr to use his bot to create a list of people who are tagged and categorised as LGBT but not on the list. then we can either add them or remove the tag. It seems to be the perfect way of creating a comprehensive, referenced list (and no-one so far seems to have created the definitive list as yet), but also ensuring that we don't have anyone cated that shouldn't be. We can also tag everyone on the list, which will improve our assessing. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

I recently added some text on Winston Churchill's page about alegations of homosexuality. I have provided quotes and references for this. However, User:Mrosscan and User:Battle of Britain, who were probably not happy with what that said about Churchill, removed my text saying that there was "No credible citation given for Churchill being a homosexual. A quote listed but no reference. Other references are seedy"

Here is the text I had included and have now reinstated: As a member of the 4th (Queen’s Own) Hussars, in 1896 Churchill became embroiled in a lawsuit wherein he was publicly accused of having engaged in the commission of “acts of gross immorality of the Oscar Wilde type” (homosexual). This case was duly settled out of court for a payment of money and the charges were withdrawn. Also a determinant factor was the interference by the Prince of Wales, with whom his mother was having an affair.[1]

In 1905, Churchill hired a young man, Edward Marsh (later Sir Edward) as his private secretary. His mother, always concerned about her son’s political career, was concerned because Marsh was a very well known homosexual who later became one of Winston’s most intimate lifelong friends. Personal correspondence of Marsh, now in private hands, attests to the nature and duration of their friendship.

"Somerset Maugham claimed that Winston Churchill had slept with Ivor Novello (also a friend of Edward Marsh) to find out 'what it would be like with a man'. Legend records Winnie's verdict on the effects of the experiment as 'musical'."[2][3]

Any suggestion to prevent further deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zefrog (talkcontribs) 11:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

My main suggestion would be to to discuss the validity of this addition on the article's talkpage and move towards concensus. I certainly don't think that these additions justify adding Churchill to the Category:LGBT people. Personally I have reservations:
  1. As to the court case, I dislike reporting the settling of legal actions as being confirmation of the allegation in them. There are many reasons for settling cases, especially for public figures who cannot afford the embarassment of such trials. And frankly I'm not convinced your source is sufficiently reliable.
  2. As to the private secretary, this smacks of "guilt by association". The fact that someone is good friends with a homosexual is a totally trivial fact and shouldn't be used to imply they are gay themselves. I can only see it being relevant in a discussion about someone who has made anti-gay statements, ie. "although x publically expressed disaproval of homosexuality, his best friend y was a homosexual." That doesn't seem to apply here. Again your ref isn't great.
I can see why Mackensen and others have objected to your addition to and I think you need to discuss it before restoring it again. WjBscribe 15:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Reparative therapy nominated for GA

I've made extensive revisions to reparative therapy over the past few weeks, and have nominated it for GA status.

As a side note, I can't find a "Current GA candidates" list in the project page... maybe we should have one? Fireplace 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, no-one can really help you with GA noms, and if someone going to collaborate on an article, it may as well be on an FAC. GA reviews vary wildly in consistentcy, so there's not really any point. That's how I've always seen it anyway, my personal view is that GA status ought only to be sought for articles that will never be more than a few hours away from an edit war, like homosexuality or circumcision. If something's good enough to be a good article, you may as well take it to FAC. GA was started to recognise good quality short articles, but with the promotion of Hurricane Irene (2005) it seems to have been rendered redundant. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

NAMBLA

I voice my strong dissatisfaction with the inclusion of NAMBLA as somehow related to the studies of the LGBT people and community. This is an organisation that advocates ssex between adults and minors of the same gender. This is nothing to do with the LGBT community. The most poignant argument for this is that children are non-sexual beings and a man (or woman) may molest a minor without any purpose to the gratification of their sexuality-preferred desire. The inclusion of NAMBLA or any paedophilic organisation as somehow relevant to us (LGBT) as a people does a great disservice to our cause of inclusion, credibility and equality. I resent this inclusion and I know that I am not alone, and I call on other gay, lesbian, bisexual and transexual people who value us as a community to speak out against child abuse and justification of it as part of our umbrella. Enzedbrit 09:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> Here we go again. NAMBLA (North American Men Boy Love Association) is most definitely covered by the LGBT project. Your diatribe against this organization is clearly POV, and has no place on Wikipedia. Our job is not to defend or condemn any group, but merely to document them in a neutral manner. That's what an encyclopedia does. It's clear this article is part of our project, and it shall remain so. And by the by, I have undid your revision to the talk page of the article. Please do not change the classification of articles without first discussing this on the talk page of the article, or the project page. Thank you in advance for your understanding on this matter. Jeffpw 09:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Enzedbrit's diatribe and POV is probably shared by the vast majority of editors here. I think you've been a little too stern, Jeff. Objections and misunderstandings certainly do have a place on Wikipedia. The thing to keep in mind, Enzedbrit, is that the {{LGBTProject}} tag is not an endorsement of the subject. It is simply part of a tracking system for articles that fall within the scope of this project. Whether the NAMBLA article discusses same-sex relationships, or same-sex rape, both are within the scope of this project's coverage. This project is not intended to promote any "cause of inclusion, credibility and equality"; see Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies#What this Wikiproject is not. The project's only purpose is to improve Wikipedia. I don't like the fact that NAMBLA is within the scope of this project. But, it is. Sorry. coelacan talk — 10:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Enzedbrit, I don't exactly relish the idea of being associated with that group. Since when does LGBT have to encompass all the extremes? These extreme groups are what give the rest of us a bad name. While I do understand that group makes a distinction between pedophilia and what their position is (no pun intended), everyone else sees them as a group advocating pedophilia. I can't help but make the connection that by associating LGBT with them we are essentially giving our seal of approval to their position. Jeffpw, I understand that our job isn't to defend or condemn them, but by including them within the LGBT sphere people are going to assume that we approve of what they stand for and it won't matter how neutral we profess to be concerning NAMBLA. --CC Proctor 12:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't like NAMBLA. I wish they would just go away forever. But they seem to be within the scopoe of the project, and keeping them on the list allows us to more easily monitor the page for changes by editors who would associate them with the mainstream LGBT movement. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I like that idea even less than you, Avazina, but we have no choice if we want to maintain editorial integrity. One might as well object to the articles about barebacking and bugchasing, if the goal were to polish the image of the gay community. Another way of looking at it is that both Enzedbrit an your comments come from the perspective of personal preference and political expedience. Those are not a valid foundation for making editorial decisions. Haiduc 13:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
While that is true I'm not talking about making editorial decisions, what I'm getting at is that perception is everything and as it is LGBT isn't sufficiently distanced from this group with its current article tagging system. LGBTs have enough problems with people's perceptions of their moral sensibilities. Surely a change in tagging where NAMBLA is concerned is in order here. --CC Proctor 14:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
If my tone seemed stern, I apologize. However, it is because this debate has cropped up more than once. Frankly, it seems silly to me to say "This is an organization about men who are turned on by boys, but it is not gay". I don't think we as a project can cherry pick what we cover. We are not here as a project to enhance the image of the LGBT community. We are here to document all aspects of said community. This is one of them, whether we like it or not.Jeffpw 14:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It should also be noted that a number of distateful articles pop up in our scope including Fred Phelps, a vicious anti-gay preacher. Like it or not NAMBLA plays a significant role in the early gay rights movement (see Alan Ginsberg and Harry Hay) and has always been controversial. But mind you, while NAMBLA may be considered to exist on the most extreme fringe of our community, many homophobes consider us to exist in the same place in their world. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the LGBT WikiProject is not here to act as a gay village or as representatives of the gay community. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and we have all come together to improve one part of it. NAMBLA is a distasteful paedophilic organisation, but the significant words are "man-boy love". Same sex attractions fall within our scope, and it is our job to write about them. We should not fear what this will do to "our image", because our image is not what matters (and I seriously doubt anyone will think we condone paedophilia because we have a tag on the talkpage. We have Aileen Wuornos tagged as well, but no-one thinks we condone lesbian serial killing prostitution), the encyclopedia is what matters, and I think we're doing a good job so far. Let's keep it up (and recruit more members!). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While, as I said earlier, I believe that the project tag belongs on the article talk page, I also believe that inclusion of the article itself in Category:LGBT organizations gives undue weight to a POV that is not widely shared among LGBT people. So I'm removing that category from the article. I understand I'm reverting Jeffpw without prior discussion, but I think that for the accuracy of the article, it's best to err on the side of removal unless and until an opposing consensus develops. coelacan talk — 18:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the message you left for me Coelacan (after the fact). I have responded on the talk page of the article, so will not readd my comments here. I will say, though, that I find the post revolution anglo-saxon hysteria about this issue as distasteful as many seem to find the group itself. Jeffpw 19:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Oi, chill out and watch your civility. Not all of us of Anglo-Saxon stock agree over this category being removed. And your comment about "post revolution" is uncalled for: this is an issue about paedophilia, not gay rights. Argue nice, eh? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's post-revolution, Dev. The article makes that perfectly clear. It was only after gays got a measure of civil rights, and a backlash occurred from the heterosexual conservative community, that the LGBT community began to worry about its image and decided to marginalize NAMBLA. I'm old enough to remember what the mid 70s were really like, when lowering the AOC was seen as a logical next step of liberation. I'm also young enough to remember what it was like to be a horny gay teenager. So, to paraphrase Maurice Chevalier in Gigi, I'll close by saying "Thank Heaven for dirty old men". Jeffpw 19:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Bah, I'm not interested in duking it out over NAMBLA - they've got less members than the KKK now, so I'm not going to worry about them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Talk:North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association#Request_for_comment regarding the academic consensus about homosexuality and pedophilia. Vassyana 10:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

ally orgs

Does the project have any kind of guideline (or just as good, ad hoc opinions formed now on the spot) regarding organizations that push for LGBT rights, but are definitely not LGBT organizations? I'm thinking of things like People For the American Way and The Interfaith Alliance. Tag the talk pages? Come up with a categorization scheme? Make a list? Ignore them? coelacan talk — 04:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame our tag doesn't say "supported by" or "within the scope". Then I would have said tag the articles. But saying "This article is covered by..." sort of makes a case for a stronger connection than a simple alliance of philosophies, so I am not sure. Could we make an alternate tag saying "supported by" for articles like this one? Jeffpw 09:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we were voting on changing it in December[10], but the discussion got archived before it finished so I think everyone kind of forgot about it. Koweja 14:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That keeps happening. I'll go change it to supported by. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Peisistratus

Note: The Peisistratus article had too many Peisistratuses (or is that Peisistratae?) in it, so has been split up. The Athenian leader who promoted pederasty can now be found at Peisistratos (Athens) – note the "-atos" rather than the "-atus" latinization – I doubt that any of the other Peisistratuses were the focus of the wikiproject so you may wish to move the tag to the correct page. I would do it were I a member here, but I'm not and perhaps you have some other reason not to move the flag. Keep up the good work. Carlossuarez46 20:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A Challenge!

I challenge everyone this month to invite five editors to LGBT articles to this project! We only have gained two this February. We need more! There are fabulous editors out there who could contribute loads, go find them! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We have only gained two this February. No guys you haven't fallen asleep and woken up in March. It is still Feb 4th ;-). Dev just has an insatiable appetite for project members it would appear. WJBscribe 01:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Compared to 50 last month, we're falling waaaay behind... :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Wait - what two new members? On the WP:LGBT/Members list I only see one new one, an that's just an IP... – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Tell you what Dev, here's easy one for you- why don't you persuade Coelacan to sign the member list? WJBscribe 02:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, blow me down, how come she escaped getting on the list? I thought I'd contacted everyone who had the userbox but hadn't got on the list. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not in the band. I'm just a roadie, good for some heavy lifting when you can find me. =D — coelacan talk — 07:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
We actually gained 53 members last month, and Haljor and Brianna Austin, who has not yet acquired an account, signed up this month. But I've been pondering this for a while and it seems to me that if we all go to our respective editing areas (because Tigermarc, say, knows far more about who works on gay leather articles than I do) and then find five people throughout February who could potentially make really great contributions and invite them, and 2 of those people actually join (my success rate is 52% atm) and at least 15 members actually did this, we'd gain 30 members, all in marvellously diverse areas who could really add something to the project as we stand! And that's not counting the usual drip of about one member a day from banners (I assume it's banners). That's almost 50 members again! YAY! Hmm, we might want to put this as a challenge in April's newsletter, so everyone who doesn't read this page can see it...
Maybe I'm too evangelical about how fantastic I think this project and the people who form it are? :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

/me whines: That was hard! But I've invited five (and gotten one rejection already). – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to help. Can someone invite me? A.Z. 23:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Suspected" LGBT people

(cross-posted from Portal talk:LGBT/Categories) While we are all eager to claim back our own, it seems that some people are not so keen to let us to so. I have come across several biographical articles where there has been "allegations" of homosexual relationships or intrest but with little proof available, the resolution of the question being subject to interpretation. I am thinking for example about Anne of Great Britain, Jarosław Kaczyński or Caravaggio (see discussion pages) or even Winston Churchill.

Or Abraham Lincoln, perhaps? --Viannah 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be useful to create a category (and a suitable name would have to be found for it like "People with disputed sexual orientation" for example) which would indicate that the sexual orientation of the person has been questioned in some way?--Zefrog 22:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there anybody whose sexuality has not at some point been questioned in some way? WjBscribe 22:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Peter Tatchell? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
A Saint of the Sisters - you're probably right, Dev! Definitely a hero in my book :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Zefrog, I'm sure that whatever the good intentions behind such a category, it would be abused thoroughly by all manner of POV-pushers and scattershot vandals. I think I can say with confidence that the category would not survive its first WP:CFD. The much more important thing than having a person in a particular wikipedia category is to have all the relevent sourcees in the article with a NPOV summary of their contents. — coelacan talk — 07:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
First of all if you get 100 self identifying LGBT men 100 women, and the same ratio of heterosexual men and women and asked them all to define homosexuality you are going to get about 400 different definitions. attributing one's identity ("I'm gay" or "I'm straight") based on ones sexual preferences ("I prefer sex with the same sex", etc) then you hit some rational walls (FYI, I think summing up ones's identifty based on their actions is nutty but that's another subject) How many same sex acts does it take to be considered a homosexual or to be bisexual. And as WJBscribe wisely stated above who has not asked themselves some questiosn at some point in their life.
My reason for writing here is that we have had numerous well intentioned editors drop by the Ted Haggard article and add him to one of the many LGBT categories. Keep in mind Ted has admitted to "sexual immorality" but has not publicly claimed to be homosexual or bisexual but based on overwhelming evidence the guy has been having naked, same sex fun with Mike Jones for 3 years or more. After some discussion it was decided that without either Ted claiming to be homosexual (or bisexual) it would be original research to add him to one of the LGBT categories. Perfectly fine to call him gay or bi on a blog or whatnot but for Wikipedia to make this claim by adding him to a LGBT category gives the appearance that Wikipedia is deciding who is gay/bi and who is not. It also reeks of outing people which is not a part of the Wikipedia scope. So I think great care and consideration needs to be given prior to adding people to these types of categories as well as Wikipedia would do well to clarify some of their own policies (or make them easier to find/uncover). So far we have not had any editing wars, though a few spirited discussions. After all this rambling I actually have a question - is their a policy regarding adding people to categories in general and is there one on adding them to a LGBT related cat? If one does not exist we'd do well to create it. Thanks Mr Christopher 22:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't answer your question, Mr. Christopher, but I have a question of my own for you: If the good Lord Jesus Christ just turned Mr. Haggard into a heterosexual, as I recently read in both the NY Times and the Washington Post, what was he before the divine intervention if not gay or bi????? Yours in puzzlement, Jeffpw 22:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeffpw, you actually make a good point. Haggard's "handlers" are now saying he is 100% heterosexual (amazing the power of prayer...) yet Haggard himself has not made this claim. So again, do we categorize anyone we want as gay or bi simply because we think so? Mr Christopher 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, a few of us have been working to cleanup and reform the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. One of the things we are trying to do is make sure that every entry has a reliable reference. Having looked at the categories, I know there are numerous people who would not be included on this list for lack of reliable references. I'm of the opinion that once the entire list has been properly worked through (which could take years), then categories should be scoured using the list. Basically, if someone is included on the list and has reliable references, then they would be included in the category. That way the issue that has arisen with Mr. Haggard will not continue to pop up. Of course, this works marvelously with living subjects, but as seen in the discussion above, there are issues with dead subjects where there is evidence but no actual admittal. I think, however, with subjects like Mr. Haggard where there is an issue of sexuality, that there should be a Project tag on the talk page. Sorry to ramble... *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Ganymead, we have discussed this some too. We have references that he had homosexual relations for several years, but does that give us as wiki editors the right to decide he is in fact gay or bi? That is my dilemma. And if so what is the threshold for "gayness"? If I have sex with my neighbor (please don't make me, he's dreadful to look at) am I now bi? If I have sex with him once a year for 20 years am I gay? It seems to me that a rational approach would be to categorize those who self identify as being gay or bi and otherwise simply quote neutral, reliable sources and avoid categorizing them but I look forward to the imput of others. Mr Christopher 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, the project tag on an article does not imply that the subject itself is gay or bi, but rather is a "person of interest" to the project. For instance, Anita Bryant has our tag on her talk page, for her significant contribution to LGBT history. The reasoning is similar for Mr. Haggard. We're not saying he's gay simply because he had sex with a gay male prostitute regularly for over 3 years. We're saying the fact that he had gay sex and got outed for it makes him a person of interest to a project covering LGBT issues. Jeffpw 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
And to answer your question above, Mr Christopher, we have the Manual of Style - Identity section to answer to. If the don't self-identify as LGBT (in the case of living persons), they're not considered LGBT. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, of course, that there's quite a bit riding on either side about whether or not haggard is gay or never gay, etc. as someone who argued previously for haggard to be considered gay, i think now its best to keep him as not labeled until he writes his nytimes bestseller autobio in which we get all the ecstatic details of trashy sex that i cannot for a second imagine was any fun or good. --Chalyres 23:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, it probably seemed fun and good at the time, given all the crystal meth he wasn't imbibing. Jeffpw 23:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than calling a category for people like Ted Haggard, "People with disputed sexual orientation," perhaps it should be "People who dispute their sexual orientation."  ;) But seriously, that seems to me to be the point: this guy is what he is, but he's been hammered into believing it's wrong so he can't dare to admit or accept it. I can't think of a way to Wikipedify that. Yksin 20:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Gay flag

What happened to the gay flag icon in the user boxes, and other info boxes on the wiki pages?? jtowns 01:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind....I'm on crack or something....I restarted my computer and emptied my browser cache and everything returned.... jtowns 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment and A-class articles

What is the process for rating an article as A-class? Does it have to go through peer review? Can anyone assign an A-class rating? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was looking over the higher ends of the assessment this morning and thinking the same thing. I think we need to make sure that all A-class articles have achieved GA status. I know I have misslabeled a few articles as A-class thinking that it was under GA-class. Certainly, there may also be some GA-class articles that could jump up to A-class, though I think they probably should undergo an official peer review with this project before that is changed. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have just given Evan Wolfson a glance. The article looks like it wouldn't need much work to nominate as a GA (thus raising its assessment). I'll give it a through once over and make some suggestions on the talk page. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
So silly me didn't realize A was above GA. Doh! So B-class articles should next go through GA nomination to raise them any further. Gotcha! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I was in the same boat until yesterday. I think that bottom-oriented infobox discussion has been distracting me the past few days. :-) *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There's still a good question here. Assuming that an article is already GA class, in what circumstances do we rate it as A class? Should a project member do that themselves, or do we need an peer review? I would prefer the peer review route. If we're thinking of rating something A we should be thinking about nominating it for FA so it should have a rigorous examination from a number of editors. Once the peer review criticisms are addressed, we rate it A and go for the FA nom...? WjBscribe 07:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
That sounds about right. A "Good Article" is one that the members of the WP community have reviewed and labeled good, while an "A" class would have the WikiProject (presumably "experts" in a subject) reviewing it, and then FA would have the additional review by a broad range of WP editors. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 09:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, I feel a guideline coming to fruition here... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Does this need to be followed up? WjBscribe 06:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Boring procedural point here, but a lot of talk goes on on this talkpage (which is a good thing). But I was thinking it might be a good idea to have a Bot take over the archiving. The main advantage is that a Bot can easily see which threads haven't had any answers for a certain number of days and archive them, whereas a person usually just works from the top down. I'd like to make a request for EssjayBot II to archive this page. To do so I need an indication of consensus so could people please say 'aye' or 'nay'? I suggest threads inactive for 7 days be moved to archives but feel free to suggest a different timeframe. WjBscribe 03:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The seven-day period for archiving sounds good to me, and I have no objection to using a bot to do it. I have no opinion on which bot should be used, not having the knowledge from which to form a useful opinion about it. Aleta 04:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Seven days sounds good. This page does get long very quickly. ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 04:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.png Sounds good to me! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What they said. :-) Raystorm 09:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As some may have noticed, the Bot is now at work. Remember to comment on threads getting towards the 1 week mark if you want to keep them on this page (though you can of course fish them out of the archive instead). WjBscribe 06:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

changes to New articles related to LGBT and Articles recently tagged as related to LGBT

I've changed[11] the format of these sections. First, I've expanded them to fifteen articles, since they're moving faster now (especially the newly tagged) with all the new members. Second, I've changed New articles so that new articles are added to the bottom, like Articles recently tagged. The two different formats were causing problems, with new articles being added to the bottom and then being taken off in a couple of days when someone else added one to the top. This happened to Alfredo Ormando; it might have happened to other articles but I didn't check the whole recent history. Now that both are going the same direction this should hopefully not be a problem once everyone's used to it. I chose add-to-the-bottom since more users are already familiar with the faster-moving Articles recently tagged. Also, I notice that some articles have been added to the tagged list without having their talk pages tagged. I added a note regarding this. coelacan talk — 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That all makes sense to me. I've thought for a while that 10 articles was too few, esp. in the rapidly-moving "recently tagged" list. Aleta 00:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure - Dev's not gone for long and you jump in and make changes! Just wait til your mother gets home, missy! :) :) :) Honestly, though, sounds good to me! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Righto. What, is Dev on vacation? By the way I went through and tagged the ones that weren't tagged, one of them is likely to be controverial,[12] so fire up your watchlists. coelacan talk — 01:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Awesome! Yeh - she's on a small WikiDrama Break™ – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yarr, we all need one of those now and again. coelacan talk — 02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I was curious about why Saint George was tagged. I glanced at the article and nothing immediately said "gay". I can't recall ever hearing or reading anything that suggested he "sings in our choir." *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I just had another look-see and did see the section about the Coptic tradition and St. George. Still, this section definitely needs expansion, though the source from E. A. Wallis Budge is about as reliable as one can get. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I tagged it since it was within the "recently-tagged" list without a tag. It does need expansion. Ideally every article should have a decent explanation put into the article itself that makes it obvious why it is tagged. However, when I tag non-obvious articles, I use the "explanation" parameter of the project template. See Talk:Saint George; the template includes information on why the article is tagged. coelacan talk — 16:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, that had been concerning me. Thanks Coelacan! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

=) But of course. coelacan talk — 18:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I just tagged three Simpsons episodes, and rather than dropping a fifth of the list, I put all three on one line. Is this a good idea, or should I have done three separate entries? Koweja 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Koweja, I think that's a good approach when adding several very closely related articles. coelacan talk — 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Another idea

Instead of doing x number of articles, let's do a certain period of time, say 7 days. Quite often someone will go add numerous articles at once (I just added 8 today), which might mean some articles only get listed for a few hours before they're removed. Koweja 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea - I'm sometimes surprised at the articles that are NOT tagged. I try to be selective on the ones I actually add to the list(s). ZueJaytalk 06:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Symbol opinion vote.svg It sounds like a good idea, although then there's the possibility of the lists getting too long. I'm adding this little yellow attention-grabber to get more input, as this topic is starting to scroll up the page. coelacan talk — 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if we group related articles (like I have been doing when I tag all LGBT characters/episodes for a tv show) then it'll help cut down on the size. Koweja 16:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

(not my) Bot removal of interwikilinks for Cat:LGBT

Does anyone else think this edit is incorrect? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I do. I left a message for the bot operator.[13] coelacan talk — 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Reading through this guy's talkpage his Bot seems quite literally minded, I particularly like the one "I think you are linking this article to articles about Love on other wikis. This is incorrect, Te Aroha is not about Love, it is the name of a mountain." LOL. Hopefully, the issue should be resolved fairly easily. His English seems fine but let me know if you need a French speaker to take up the issue. WjBscribe 00:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
After further thought I really wonder if it's appropriate at all to have a bot removing interwiki links that humans added. Presumably humans know why they are adding something. coelacan talk — 05:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's the reply:

Hello, The reason was to have consistent sets of interwikis. Some languages have two distinct categories, e.g. fr:Catégorie:Homosexualité and fr:Catégorie:LGBT. If in one languages that have only one you link both, the interwikis cannot be updated by bot. Regards, Vargenau 18:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC) [14]

I'm not making anything of that yet. I need coffee. If anybody wants to investigate whether the wrong categories were being linked, be my guest. (Obviously the French category was already correct.) coelacan talk — 18:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have two thought on this:
  1. Bots do not run the Wikis. Editorial judgment trumps Bot convenience. It is absurd to say that every Wiki must adopt identical categorisation systems to make life easier for Bots. Bots make life easier for us, not vice versa.
  2. I have confimed that German wikipedia does not have an umbrella LGBT category, it uses de:Kategorie:Homosexualität as its main category. Linking our main category, Category:LGBT, to their main category, de:Kategorie:Homosexualität, seems entirely appropriate.
Sorry if the Bot doesn't like it but most editors are not Bots and (as far as I know) most users of Wikipedia are not Bots. WjBscribe 16:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Pederasty categories

I've discovered several categories about "pederasty", all falling under the general rubric of Category:Pederasty. Does anyone else find this word pejorative and NPOV, or is it just me?

--DrGaellon | Talk 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, what wrong with the categories on pederasty? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The word ITSELF is pejorative. I wonder if there's a more neutral word to use. --DrGaellon | Talk 14:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It is no more pejorative than "homosexual" or "gay", which can be pejorative indeed, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. In brief, it can either be used descriptively or pejoratively, and here we are obviously using it as a neutral scholarly term, which it most certainly is. Haiduc 14:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I'm POVing. I'll shut up now. :) --DrGaellon talkcontribs 15:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
No prob. It raised my eyebrow the first time I saw it too! But it does seem to be the best word for course of conduct being described. WjBscribe 16:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

On a related but different note, does American Boychoir School really belong in Category:Modern pederasty? Category:Pedophilia maybe, but pederasty? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, no? coelacan talk — 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

John Glines

That thing I came off Wikibreak for? Well, I was contacted by a friend of John Glines, who asked me for help with his article. There was a copyright issue, but that has now been resolved and I could do with your help. The article needs referencing, NPOVing and general tidying. If anyone is willing to help me with this, I would be grateful, as Mr. Glines is the founder of the world's oldest gay arts production company and also is very nice. :) Cheers, Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Film Infobox Project

I just finished adding the infoboxes to the last 3 LGBT films on the To Do page!!! Good job to everyone who helped with this effort! --DrGaellon | Talk 14:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, may I commend everyone who worked on this! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter

I've created the next newsletter draft here. Any news I may have missed out? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:GLBT redirect

I've changed the WP:GLBT redirect to point to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies instead of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Notice board. It seemed odd to me that two shortcuts that were essentially the same thing except for a region variation go to two different pages. I've created WP:LGBT/N and WP:GLBT/N to go to the notice board instead. Koweja 00:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the noticeboard predates the project page. WP:LGBT used to redirect to it as well. I guess changing the WP:GLBT redirect didn't occur to anyone. WjBscribe 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Stub tag

Wondering about a possible change to the LGBT-stub tag...The text reads:
This article about lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender issues is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Can we make it something like:
This article about lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender related issues is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Or create a second stub for articles related to but not necessarily about LGBT issues? ZueJaytalk 06:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Aleta 12:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Works for me! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this a good idea actually. In my opinion stub tags should place an article in the most relavent category or couple of categories. We don't want a list of half a dozen stub tags on articles or the stub tag list will be longer than the article. If the article is not about "lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender issues", I'm not convinced it should have an LGBT stub tag. Tagging the talkpage will already put it an appropriate list of stub-class articles. I don't think a broader stub tag for the article mainpage would be very helpful. WjBscribe 15:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, if you want to start fiddling with stubs, then you have to deal with WikiProject Stub Sorting - and they're called WP:SS for a reason... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, they were. They probably realised what a bad shortcut they were saddled with. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
LOL. I see WP:Summary style is now blessed with that shortcut.
If anyone is feeling brave with regards changes to stub categorisation, they should raise the matter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. WjBscribe 15:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Judicious placement of stub tags makes sense...There are many articles that fall under the perview of multiple Wikiprojects, are tagged as stubs, and no one is working to expand them (I know a little bit about everything and nothing about one thing...so please don't remind me that I could expand them ;) so stub tagging seems necessary - but the wikiproject tag (with stub class) by itself makes it show up on our lists as a stub, which I didn't think was true... Ok... So advice for now is: place stub tag in article if about one of those issues, else just place the project tag with stub class... (Of course, I assume all this is "for now" until we get a handle on the primary LGBT articles, then we can move into "related" articles' improvement on a more regular basis.) I always worry about weasel words so I have a tendency to tag many things. ZueJaytalk 16:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Gay Pride" series on Wikipedia.

Talk:Queer Eye is currently marked with "This article is part of the "Gay Pride" series on Wikipedia." Is there still a Gay Pride series, or is the tag something that's now outdated since we have the LGBT Project tag? Koweja 16:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I found an old question[15] and response[16] that suggest these are leftovers of a previous attempt at a WikiProject. The template itself seems to have been deleted and wherever you see it subst'd, it can be deleted. coelacan talk — 16:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll go ahead and delete them then. Koweja 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Feedback

I've been working on a merge and clean-up of Straight acting and Homomasculinity. The new combined page is on my user page here. I would appreciate some feedback and/or editing if you feel so inclined. Thanks. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Gay young adult novels

First I was working on Annie on My Mind for JAC. Then I thought I might as well add Lesbian teen fiction. Then I discovered Gay young adult novels, which is close enough so I added it to my list of current projects. I soon realized that it really needs work. Let's put it this way: If you thought that the article LGBT stereotypes in the early versions was a mess, you should see Gay young adult novels. So if anyone would like to pitch in, and make this article decent enough for Wikipedia's quality standards, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, — Emiellaiendiay 06:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Publications

I'm not exactly certain how to go about doing this, but I would like to put together a small task force of editors who would like to focus their attentions on a particular sub-set of articles in this WikiProject. I've noticed a large number of stubs that are all one or two lines for a variety of LGBT publications that say 'X is a publication in such and such place for the LGBT community' or something to that effect which is a real shame considering the vivid LGBT media landscape that exists not only in the US, but around the world. The reason I think some sort of task force seems approriate is that in doing some work on The Washington Blade recently, I noticed that in sources I and others found, they link several different publications together as though they are all intertwined and it is hard to go through and only edit one publication when really the same source could be used on multiple pubs – but there are so many that a small group of editors could tackle more effectively than a solo editor. Only reason I think we need to expand these articles (aside from the standard arguments that putting knowledge into the Wiki is a great thing to spread...) is that I noticed in this talk page discussion [17] of Anderson Cooper that the notability and significance of the Blade was called into question because the article was bare bones and lacked any sort of explanation of why this might be a worth while source even though mainstream media relies on it and many other LGBT publications to gain insight into the LGBT community... So does this sound like a reasonable proposition...and there may already be a model to set up a small task force like this, but I couldn't locate anything anywhere about something like this... Let me know your thoughts...and any volunteers to help? jtowns 10:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a *fabulous* idea! I'm over-committed so can't volunteer, but I support it wholeheartedly! I found two "task forces" I thought I'd bring to your attention as far as organization goes. The Dutch MilHist Task Force has a great organization and seems to be active. The Bio/Science & Academia TF also has a good organization, though they don't seem to be too active. You may also be interested in WikiProject Media, who don't seem to be active, but may answer questions or provide resources. Good idea! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me. If a few editors are interested in participating in this task force / working group we can easily created a suitable project subpage. WjBscribe 14:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Having been prematurely brought back from my Wikibreak for reasons I will explain tomorrow, I'd like to say that I think this is an excellent idea, but we need more than just one person in it. I'd say at least three. Is anybody else interested? If no-one steps up to express their interest in joining this Taskforce, I will put a bullet in the next newsletter to inform everyone and add it to our proposed tasks until we have enough people. That OK with y'all? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dev! jtowns 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Scope.

I want to bring this up again, because we've recently tagged some articles that I really don't think are covered by us. Buffy the Vampire Slayer? V for Vendetta (film)? Why do we want to add these? Specific Buffy episodes, I can understand, but the entire series? What did all of Buffy have to do with LGBT? So V for Vendetta had two gay people in it, does this warrant our splashing our banner all over it? Are people likely to edit the article specifically for its gay content? No? So why do it?

I think we're getting far too liberal about our banner being placed on articles only tangentially associated with our project. We tag to help people wanting to edit LGBT articles in finding them - I do not see how adding every series with a gay person or storyline ever in it helps in any way other than boosting our stats. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. — Emiellaiendiay 02:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we're being all that liberal. There are ~334 cats under "LGBT" with ~6,600 articles. That's about 0.4% of Wikipedia. But if a particular article doesn't belong in an LGBT cat and/or doesn't fall under our scope, remove the banner. As for Buffy, I told Dev I believe it belongs not only for the major character who's a lesbian (and a couple minor characters who are LGBT), but also because the way the show dealt with LGBT issues over time, and because of the way the LGBT community responded to the show. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
In that light, should we tag Xena: Warrior Princess? I just checked, and it's not, so far. Aleta 03:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, now it is.  :) Aleta 03:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about these, but please make certain that all non-obvious taggings use the "explanation" parameter of {{LGBTProject}} coelacan talk — 04:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that makes sense. I'm glad to have learned about the explanation parameter; I hadn't known of it until seeing it in the St. George tag. The Xena article actually has quite a lengthy discussion about the possible lesbian subtext and related matters; so I didn't think an explanation was needed for that one. If anyone disagrees with me, feel free to add one! Aleta 05:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, to comment on the specific examples Dev brought up:

  • Buffy the Vampire Slayer. No strong opinion. Ideally I think the main article should have a bit more converage of its pioneer status in portrayal of LGBT people in such a series and any impact wider impact this had, if this is the case, prior to tagging.
  • V for Vendetta (film). Definitely within our scope. Number of characters isn't the point. One of the main things the fictional totalitarian regime that runs the UK did was outlaw all homosexual conduct, punishable by death and horrific medical experimentation. Anti-gay laws are a major part of that film.

I think we have to trust that project members have a good reason for tagging articles and discuss it with them if we are unconvinced. WjBscribe 08:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Buffy should be included. It had at lest two entire seasons with major gay characters and LGBT topics, such as coming out and showing a lesbian relationship in a positive way on prime time. It's not The L Word, granted, but I think that at the time it was the closest thing anyone could ask for. V for Vendetta, I have more reserves. The lesbian character was important for the plot (it was quite a beautiful story), but... Raystorm 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I think V probably qualifies - asWjB points out, the discussion of homosexuality, etc. in the film goes beyond "there's a lesbian in it" -although, admittedly, LGBT issues are much more prominent in the graphic novel than in the movie. Carom 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. :-) It's much more light in the movie. Still, it could be included. Raystorm 16:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot tagging

Hi, I just wanted to let you know a bot tagged film Talk:Boys Life 2 with your WP template. That's only part of a series of 5 articles, so you might want to tag the rest as well. Cheers! Hoverfish Talk 08:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoverfish! The tagging is a manual process assisted by the bot, and I got tired last night so didn't finish the Boys Life movies. But I'll get to them :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)