Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 →

Template:Infobox person

I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox person#Spouse and Partner parameters and I'd appreciate additional input.

The reason I'm posting here is that this issue is of relevance for WikiProject LGBT studies in that the "Spouse" infobox parameter appears to place undue emphasis on marriage over non-married unions.

E.g., a married or formerly married person's infobox may state their marriages under the "Spouse(s)" parameter, and then below that their non-married partnerships under the "Partner(s)" parameter, clearly setting them apart and placing undue emphasis on marriage.

This also means that e.g. a homosexual person living where they cannot marry, or anyone just choosing to not get married but living in a relationship, would be assigned the --in context-- "lesser" or at least substantially-different-from-marriage label of "partnership".

This is not the only issue I see with these infobox parameters. They also lead to unwieldy things like e.g. on Natalie Portman, the article that initially brought me to the template. See the template talk page for more on that.

Imho, the Spouse and Partner parameters should unified, in order to remove the cultural bias of unduly emphasizing marriage over non-married relationships. Your input is welcome. --213.168.108.17 (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Rfc

You probably want to know about this. Rcsprinter (state) @ 17:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Delsort

Could somone transclude Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Spark (2nd nomination) to the proper related delsort(s)? Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Style guideline of gay vs homosexual

This in reference to me changing the offensive term "homosexual" to "gay". Are there similar WP:MOS guidelines on referring to classes of people? Common sense tells me and probably most people not to refer to black people as nigger or Jewish people as kike, but it's a little different in reference to gay vs homosexual. Is this better discussed at WT:MOS? CTF83! 08:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If a quote uses "homosexual" then go with that, otherwise use the more preferred term(s). I don't at all like the connotations of "homosexual" and it's mainly used by homophobes and religious speakers who are again quite often homophobes. Probably better to try WT:MOS. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 09:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I hope British and Australian users can also comment on that. For me (a non-native speaker), it's puzzling that bisexual and omnisexual aren't considered offensive by the Americans. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
As Jenova said on my talk, and is said in the GLAAD term reference guide "homosexual" is a term from the 1970s and before when being gay was considered a disesase. As GLAAD says, "the word 'homosexual,' it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered". I'm unaware of the term "bisexual" being labled as a disease even back in the 1970s...well maybe the gay half of them.
Also, FYI, Jenova is British.CTF83! 10:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe people will leap to assumptions about me on the grounds of this, but I certainly do not recognise the term homosexual as outdated, aggresive or biased. I would consider it as simply the opposite of heterosexual, and compared to gay, more formal and technical, and therefore more suited to a project that is meant to have a formal tone. Kevin McE (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that there are people that want to avoid use of the term does not mean that Wikipedia ignores reliable sources out of sympathy for a particular point of view. When one term has several meanings, some of them pejorative, and the other is a formal term with a precise and unambiguous meaning, I don't think it makes sense to avoid the formal wording for the sole purpose of avoiding offense to a minority of individuals. - SudoGhost 11:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure I'll draw criticism from this but of course you don't think the word homosexual is outdated being a Catholic Ministry of 21 years, those are exactly the kind of people who promote that word as all link to the past clinical connotations of the word. like I've said before we don't use nigger anymore because it offends black people, it doesn't offend me but the fact that offends a group of people we shouldn't use it. CTF83! 11:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Too damn true you will draw criticism for personalised prejudice. You know nothing of the position I took in disputes when I was a member of the church, of my reasons for leaving ministry, or of my current beliefs. Blatant prejudice of exactly the type that I'm sure you think you are railing against. Kevin McE (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
For the record, CTF83 has been asked to consider either justifying or retracting this highly prejudiced comment, but deleted the request, made an unfounded accusation on my talk page, and then threatened to report me at admins' noticeboard, without specifying what offence I am meant to have committed. Kevin McE (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
You've already been told that using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views is rather inappropriate, and has no bearing on how Wikipedia articles are presented. You've ignored this request on my talk page, but please show any evidence that "homosexual" is anywhere near the same as "nigger". This argument of yours has absolutely no weight, as reliable sources do not use that racial term to describe people, where as reliable sources do use homosexual. - SudoGhost 12:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
"However, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is more offensive". To me that says if there is the less offensive word that means the same that should be used instead CTF83! 12:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
"simply because it is more offensive" is kind of the key part there. It being "more offensive" is rather disputed, and a less precise term being percieved as "less offensive" does not take priority over everything else. - SudoGhost 12:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Even though I agree with you for the most part, you have offended me for addressing me a "minority". Intended or not, I sincerely ask you to strike your last sentence. SudoGhost. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I have not addressed you at any point; that you share this viewpoint is not intended to be an insult and no insult is intended, but I don't see how it being a minority viewpoint is offensive. If you can show any reliable sources that contradict what I said then I'll gladly strike it, but since it's relevant to discussing the implementation of Wikipedia policy, it's kind of relevant. - SudoGhost 12:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflicts) Context, context. When used as a noun, "homosexual" is widely considered offensive (see Usage Note here); such usage should be eschewed in favor of "gay" if possible, but it isn't always possible (e.g., in certain instances dealing with historical figures or events, "gay" would be an anachronism). When it isn't possible, an alternative is to use a phrase such as "homosexual persons" or "homosexual men". That approach can lead to tedious prose if it has to be repeated over and over in an article, but there certainly are fewer objections to the adjectival usage of the word. It's probably worth noting that many people who self-identify as LGBT do not consider the word offensive, even when used as a noun, and that's true among Wikipedians as well as in RL. There may be generational, geographical, and various other cultural differences in play here, and I'd suggest that a one-size-fits-all solution may be a tall order to fill. Rivertorch (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Grossly biased selectiveness in quote of thefreedictionary.com there: it says of homosexual, " It is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally". Kevin McE (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
That's what I implied above, I think. Btw, thefreedictionary.com is the aggregator; the source is The American Heritage Dictionary, a major dictionary that has contained this usage note for at least the past three editions (i.e., for over 20 years). Rivertorch (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

One thing we should note here is that there is some slightly subtle usage differences, and context will determine which ones to use. 'Gay' can be used to refer both to people who are attracted to people of the same sex, and it can also be used to to refer to a gay identity. David Halperin has written a book on the topic that I'm planning to write an article on shortly. Chris Morris says he doesn't identify as gay in this article. There's different uses: Halperin uses it to refer to a shared culture of camp and so on, while Chris Morris is referring to it pejoratively as being like a "mask" that some people hide behind. All of this differs from Men who have sex with men, the clinical category which is used in things like HIV/AIDS prevention. I guess what I'm saying is that we shouldn't have a hard-and-fast rule about whether to use "gay" or "homosexual" or even "men who have sex with men". It depends on context and sources (go back far enough and we'll start talking "homophiles"). That said, I will be rather disappointed if the next time a celebrity comes out, their article gets updated to talk about how they are gender "inverts" or some such nonsense. There shouldn't really be politics here: most of the time and in most contexts, if you are referring to a man who is sexually and romantically attracted to other men, you probably want the term "gay". Probably. Not always. There will be exceptions. But that's the term that is in wide use in academic and media sources.

On a personal note, I'm not offended when someone refers to me as a "homosexual"; I just ask them whether they are going to ride in their horseless carriage to visit a phrenologist. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

All we have here is two people who don't give a shit that the term is offensive, and advocate that because it's in some publications it's okay to use. The original link I provided shows 3 major sources, too hard to look on my phone advocate using gay over homosexual, in their major newspaper publications. SudoGhost is just saying because some publications use it it's okay and doesn't give a shit what is offensive when a perfectly non offensive term can easily be inserted with updated 21st century terminology CTF83! 12:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
There you go again, casting aspersions against people about whom you know nothing. How about you address the direct act of prejudice that you made against me? Kevin McE (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
If you believe that "homosexual" isn't used in the 21st century and that "don't give a shit that the term is offensive" is what you took from everything that was discussed here and on my talk page, you need to go back and read a few things, because that's an incredibly over-simplified red herring. "Gay" also has pejorative uses, and there shouldn't be a blanket rule saying gay is what Wikipedia uses, even when reliable sources use something different, because context is key in understanding what words are used at any given time. . - SudoGhost 13:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to point back to my earlier post on this as i believe we should leave it to the editors to decide. If a quote uses "homosexual" then so should we, otherwise leave it to the editor to decide. As a personal preference and being British i certainly wouldn't use homosexual and would avoid sources using that word since they do tend to be more of the religious variety then if i search for "gay" or "lesbian" etc. Homosexual is still offensive to some and there's not going to be a policy decided on using that word in a million years because it will immediately become a thorn people will ignore or use to push POV.
Do a couple google searches for both words and see what you get. It ain't pretty for "homosexual" and the amount of biased crap it brings up wouldn't be usable as reliable in any sense. And i also take offense to use of the word where it isn't necessary. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 12:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure, the point is that offensiveness isn't the issue. The fact is "gay" and "LGBT" (of which "gay" is a component part) are in wide use in academic and other reliable sources. If we are to have a general rule, it should be based on the fact that "gay" is now the widely used academic term. Whether you or I find it offensive isn't a particularly strong argument. Universities teach courses on lesbian and gay studies and so on. The argument for using the term "gay" on Wikipedia begins and ends with the fact that it is the current widely used terminology. Offensiveness doesn't need to come into it at all. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Google search is a horrible metric to use. For a general Google search, reliable sources are mixed in with blogspot blogs and unreliable crap on both search terms. Using Google Scholar, "gay" returns a great many more hits than "homosexual", but looking through the first few pages, it turns out that "Gay" is somewhat common last name, and the results were about documents published by indivuduals with that name, as opposed to being the subject matter. Looking deeper, it appears that in a formal context, homosexual isn't as uncommon as is being suggested. This is especially true when being used as a verb, gay is very uncommon as a verb in a formal context. I agree that there shouldn't be a blanket "use homosexual" or "use gay" guideline, because I think that context is critically more important and should be assessed at the article level. - SudoGhost 13:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


Looking for published style guides, I note that the Guardian simply states that gay is an adjective, not a noun; the Times notes gay as a "fully acceptable as a synonym for homosexual or lesbian"; the Economist points out that homosexual refers equally to men and to women, and the Guardian and the BBC are silent on the matter. None of the online journalistic style guides linked at style guide indicate any preference between the two terms, and none deprecate homosexual. Are there major established style guides that take the opposite view? Kevin McE (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes.1 2 Rivertorch (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Those are both pressure groups for change, not established style guides of major outlets: the fact that there are such active campaigns for change demonstrates the fact that vocabulary has not changed as many here would prefer. While I can appreciate that it may be frustrating, the role of an encyclopaedia written in formal tone is to follow the practice of other publications, not to be in the vanguard of change. Kevin McE (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
That's ignorant, should we not have changed slavery laws, voting discrimination, or interracial marriage? If you actually look at the GLAAD page, you'll see they have the guidelines of the Associated Press, New York Times, and Washington Post CTF83! 10:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The GLAAD page is not written by GLAAD; it simply reports the style guides of the AP, the NY Times and the Washington Post. And I don't think that using "gay" over "homosexual" is anything close to putting us in the "vanguard of change". - htonl (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Kudos to those who actually followed the link, which leads to a page that resoundingly answers Kevin McE's question in the affirmative. Rivertorch (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I just Googled for use of the word "homosexuals" and the word "gay" in the New York Times. On the first page of results, all of the results for "gay" are from 2012. The results for "homosexuals" aren't: they are mostly from the 1980s and early 1990s. A search for "gay" and "homosexuals" in The Guardian leaves the latter outnumbered "about 9,100" to "about 150,000". (One of the top results is a piece advocating that the Guardian stop using the word 'homosexual'.) BBC has the same: about 113,000 for 'gay' and "about 4,410" for 'homosexuals'. Not a scientific study, but if we're going to follow reliable sources... —Tom Morris (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I also prefer the usage of gay over homosexual especially in a non-medical article. The tem homosexual tries to emphasize the sexual nature of gays and ignores any romantic scope. Pass a Method talk 14:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, that is another problem with the terminology. Asexuals have started using the terminology of "heteroromantic", "homoromantic" and "biromantic" to deal with the fact that you may be romantically attracted to people of one gender, the other or both, but not sexually attracted. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I prefer to use "gay" and "lesbian" as well. But in the context of sexual orientation topics, such as homosexuality, use of "homosexual" is often fine because it's often what the scientific sources use (although they also often use "gay"/"lesbian") and consistently covers more than just exclusively gay men; as we know, it covers lesbians and can cover any same-sex sexual contact. "Homosexuality" as a term covers gay/lesbian/bisexual and any same-sex sexual contact. Also, linking to the Homosexuality article with regard to such topics is usually more beneficial than linking to the Gay article, such as in the case of the Homophobia article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention, too many people think of "gay man" when they see or hear the word "gay," as even the Homosexuality and Gay articles note that "gay" is more commonly associated with men who are exclusively romantically/sexually attracted to men. Flyer22 (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Historical articles should use the word gay with care. For example, discussions of service by gay men and women in the US military circa 1945. The word gay is jarring in that context. Many (I think just about all) of the first set of edits made last night to DADT were well considered, I thought, but ham-fisted when dealing with background decades. I figured I'd wait until the undo-ing festival ended and then do a few modest repairs, with quotes if need be, but one really shouldn't be required to re-write with quotes to make simple points. Words like homosexual and queer are occasionally appropriate. Categorical rules never work. ;) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Even more so for women. There are women who had they been born today would probably self-identify as lesbians, but who, living 150+ years ago, wouldn't and didn't. It's something that curators who have put together LGBT history exhibits at museums have had to think hard about. The fact that 'lesbian' became an explicitly political label during second-wave feminism doesn't help with that. So, yeah, common sense plus following reliable sources (and by that I mean actual reliable sources, not tabloid newspapers). —Tom Morris (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
What we got here is 2 people advocating for homosexual, and several for gay when content approriate. If you look at my original edit/summary I didn't change homosexual when in quotes or in reference to pre-1970ish references. I don't have a problem with the word homosexuality, there is no equivelant word excpet gayness maybe, my problem is calling gay people homosexuals. CTF83! 23:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Homosexual is an outdated term that presently is employed by the religious right to further the campaign to denigrate LGBT people. Except in medical usage we should avoid the term, and even medically, non-heterosexual and MSM is used. Sources that prefer the term are generally homophobic or demonstrating how homophobic someone is for using it. The famous example of this is the religios-based hate group American Family Association's news website, OneNewsNow. In 2008 they replaced all instances of "gay" with "homosexual" in re-posted Associated Press articles – changed an AP profile of Olympic sprinter Tyson Gay, rendering his name as "Tyson Homosexual". OneNewsNow similarly altered the name of basketball player Rudy Gay, naming him "Rudy Homosexual". Insomesia (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The only problem is that reliable sources don't agree with that assessment. We don't pick and choose only sources that agree with our viewpoints, and dismiss any that say something we don't like. - SudoGhost 00:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
In the absence of use in a medical article, "gay" and "lesbian" should be used instead of "homosexual", given the context and history of the word. Referring to gay people as "homosexuals" isn't proper. As many others have pointed out, using it does generally portray a prejudiced attitude towards gay people, and that's not neutrality. It's different if you are directly quoting a source. Teammm talk
email
00:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
So, what's your argument, Sudo? That because right wing and religious sources use the word homosexual, which as Teammm and others pointed out doesn't follow WP:NPOV, we should use the term? CTF83! 00:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Sudo is clearly biased when I call him/her out on their shitty sources. CTF83! 00:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
If that's still the tired old story you're sticking to, you need to read what's already been said. The term "homosexual" is used in a formal medical context among other things. Wikipedia does not value sources based on how "left wing" or "right wing" they are; we don't use only sources we agree with, and that precludes the fact that your assessment of the type of sources that use the term is inaccurate. Newspapers, sure. Medical journals et al use the term, it's inappropriate to claim that a given term is "inappropriate" at any given time without actually looking at the source and the situation it's used in; that is a context-blind analysis and I seriously doubt you'll get any consensus to implement any such "blanket" prescribed rule. I'll forgive your ignorance, but your analysis of "stay off my talk page" leaves much to be desired, especially because your "calling out" wasn't very well done, you pointed out things that I had already said and blissfully ignored half the sources, but that's fine since you have made your point clear. Calling me "clearly biased" is rather hypocritical of an editor that only wants others that agree with his points of view to discuss the topic, using personal attacks to discredit those that disagree with them. - SudoGhost 01:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Like removing only some of what is said on a talk page that someone doesn't agree with, oh, I see. CTF83! 01:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
If that's what you took from that, you have an amazing way of coming so close to what actually happened, and then steering very, very far away from it. However, that has nothing to do with this discussion, and shows the merit of your argument. - SudoGhost 01:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Mind you CTF83! Alt, I consider "shit" swear and unconstructive in any discussion. If you would, please stop using such word and labeling people biased who doesn't pro your view. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
FYI sudo users have agreed to using homosexual in a medical context what you and sameboat reverted was not in a medical context. CTF83! 02:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
That kind of goes back to the blanket generalizations thing. I don't see how you came to the leap of logic that "I believe users agreed to one thing therefore everything else must be the opposite." On that, you're not going to find a consensus to agree to any context-blind generalization. - SudoGhost 11:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we try to establish what we agree on here? How does everyone feel about the following points?

  1. When referring to a particular source (e.g. a quote, an opinion poll, etc.) we should use the same wording used in the source.
  2. When dealing with people and events before about the 1960s we should be careful about the use of "gay".
  3. We should avoid using "homosexual(s)" as a noun. (I think it's clear that this is widely considered offensive?)
  4. When talking about specific modern people (BLPs in particular) we should refer to them according to the way they have identified themselves - which usually, these days, means "gay" or "lesbian" rather than "homosexual".

I'd also say that I agree with everything Tom Morris has posted here. - htonl (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I think those are excellent guidelines. The only addition I would suggest is to the second point, to note that homosexual is also a relatively modern word and its use can be anachronistic as well. From Epistemology of the Closet by Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick:
"There is, I believe, no satisfactory rule for choosing between the usages 'homosexual' and 'gay,' outside of a post-Stonewall context where 'gay' must be preferable since it is the explicit choice of a large number of the people to whom it refers. Until recently it seemed that 'homosexual,' though it severely risked anachronism in any application before the late nineteenth century, was still somehow less temporally circumscribed than 'gay,' perhaps because it sounded more official, not to say diagnostic. That aura of timelessness about the word has, however, faded rapidly — less because of the word's manifest inadequacy to the cognitive and behavioral maps of the centuries before its coining, than because the sources of its authority for the century after have seemed increasingly tendentious and dated. Thus 'homosexual' and 'gay' seem more and more to be terms applicable to distinct, nonoverlapping periods in the history of a phenomenon for which there then remains no overarching label."--Trystan (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. A good summary, and a useful addendum from Trystan. There may be valid exceptions to all of the above, but it gets the gist of it right. Rivertorch (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • These are good points, I would amend the first one, as to use of sources, to utilizing the best sources possible and attempt to match the wording within reason. Sometimes we need to quote directly, other times we need to use Wikipedia's voice. I think we also need to underscore the legacy of homosexual which is lost on many editors but has seeped into sources for decades.

    The study of mental health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations has been complicated by the debate on the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder during the 1960s and early 1970s. That debate posited a gay-affirmative perspective, which sought to declassify homosexuality, against a conservative perspective, which sought to retain the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder (Bayer, 1981). Although the debate on classification ended in 1973 with the removal of homosexuality from the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; American Psychiatric Association, 1973), its heritage has lasted. This heritage has tainted discussion on mental health of lesbians and gay men by associating—even equating—claims that LGB people have higher prevalences of mental disorders than heterosexual people with the historical antigay stance and the stigmatization of LGB persons (Bailey, 1999).

The religious right still promotes the persistent use of homosexual to spread Anti-Gay Myths. Insomesia (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

    • I'm not seeing the connection you're making here. What you quoted is saying that homosexuality was once classified as a mental disorder, and that it is no longer. It says nothing about usage of the term in particular. The link you provided also says nothing about the term itself, but rather itself uses the term, not only when quoting "the religious right", but in their own words as well (but only as a verb, unless I'm mistaken). - SudoGhost 01:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
      • If you're not seeing the connection after it's been explained elsewhere I'm not sure how it could be more clear. LGBT people were demonized as being diseased solely on the basis of who they were attracted to and loved. This was institutionalized homophobia endemic in scientific literature. Since the mid-1970s LGBT people have fought for less demonizing self-descriptors for themselves and mainstream society has accepted gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, as well as queer and other terms replacing any usage homosexual just as negro has been replaced with more modern terms: During the American Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, some black American leaders in the United States, notably Malcolm X, objected to the word, preferring Black,[4] because they associated the word Negro with the long history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination that treated African Americans as second class citizens, or worse. Since the late 1960s, various other terms have been more widespread in popular usage. These include "black", "Black African", "Afro-American" (in use from the late 1960s to 1990) and "African American" (used in the United States to refer to black Americans, peoples often referred to in the past as American Negroes).[5] Arguing that negro is more offensive to some people is ridiculous. That the term is offensive to anyone, specifically those to who the term would apply, is the point. Insomesia (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
        • You're still making a leap of logic there. Yes, "LGBT people were demonized as being diseased solely on the basis of who they were attracted to and loved." That isn't being disputed here, so I don't know why you're saying it, what I'm missing is where this turns into "the word homosexual is specifically where the problem is". Also I think that comparing negro to homosexual is where you're shooting yourself in the foot. Sources, including ones you're providing, use the term homosexual, in a way that you're suggesting is offensive, yet they're using the term. This seems to contradict what you're saying about the term. In contrast, I think if you're to find a modern source that uses the term negro to describe someone, it's going to be in the context of appropriateness. - SudoGhost 02:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
A lot of people have used the comparison between race and sexuality as both are inbedded traits. That's how hate crime laws work - you can't treat people differently for something they can't help.
I've used the same comparison before on this very page and i believe it was Teammm then who defended it against Lionelt taking offense to the use of the term "slave name".
The discussion was very similar to this one. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 11:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
That's quite a red herring you've made there. Nobody is saying the comparison between race and sexuality isn't valid. However, that doesn't mean that any given word is as offensive as another just because of that, and reliable sources contradict that comparison. - SudoGhost 13:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
No, multiple reliable sources used in this discussion have shown the opposite of your claim - the word is offensive to a large group of readers and so we should seek to minimise that where possible. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 10:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't believe I missed this discussion and am amazed at some of the comments. One in particluar that glares is the comment about the term homosexuality not being a reference to the romantic side but just centering on the sex. Really? because a very recent discussion on the article Homosexuality was clear that the term does indeed refer to romance. Hey...I even brought the discussion here and it gained little momentum. Comparing homosexual to "nigger" is a point of view. I would think that the comparison would be "fag" as the terms are bastardisations of other words where homosexual is just a 19th century invention based on latin terms.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggested guidelines for gay and homosexual

Adding a break for accessibility, and hopefully to help coalesce agreement around htonl's suggested guidelines from above (modified):

  1. When referring to a particular source (e.g. a quote, an opinion poll, etc.) we should use the same wording used in the source.
  2. When using a term to refer to a period before it was widely adopted (1960s for "gay", late 19th century for "homosexual"), be careful to avoid anachronism.
  3. We should avoid using "homosexual(s)" as a noun in Wikipedia's voice.
  4. When talking about specific modern people (BLPs in particular) we should refer to them according to the way they have identified themselves - which usually, these days, means "gay" or "lesbian" rather than "homosexual".

Regarding the SPLC article there was some disagreement as to how to characterize its use of homosexual, which it might be helpful to clarify. It uses the noun homosexuality 28 times, including in the SPLC's voice; I don't think there is any question about this usage. Outside of quotes, it uses homosexual as an adjective 4 times (all of which occur when attributing positions to others), vastly preferring gay. It uses homosexual or homosexuals as nouns only in quotes from anti-gay organizations ("the homosexual must be completely eliminated," "the Nazi party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals"). In other words, it agrees strongly with the points suggested above. As an adjective, homosexual is occasionally appropriate, especially when paraphrasing. It should not be used as a noun in Wikipedia's voice. This is in strong agreement with the AP and WP style guides. So can we agree that the above points (with suggested modifications) are a good guideline, and that further discussion on specific uses can occur in articles?--Trystan (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but conforming to point 3 will require changes in a lot of articles, and some of those changes will inevitably be contentious. I've stumbled across unnecessary usage of the noun form in innumerable articles over the years. I used to change it, when it seemed appropriate, but I sort of gave up at some point. Rivertorch (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Support 100% - as stated above. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 10:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Support. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Support CTF83! 00:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Support Pass a Method talk 22:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Support Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Support Teammm talk
email
08:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose AP standards are not that of Wikipedia and should not be. We are an encyclopedia and should not be introducing such POV into our articles. We should not be suggesting to editors to copy wording as it encourages copyright violations by actually suggesting to repeat the intention of the original author. We already do use whatever term the figure uses....until they die and then we seem to say whatever anyone claims about the figure (Joan Crawford).--Amadscientist (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

lgbt rights in years

Proposal to change the 2013 naming to 2013 in LGBT events or something similar because currently it lists "Deaths" and there are often disputes in what constitutes a right, whereas a process of laws and comments are not so, though they could be influential in LGBT affairs

Aso just noticed Talk:2012_in_LGBT_rights#.22X_in_LGBT_rights.22_to_.22X_in_LGBT_history.22(Lihaas (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)).

Talk:The Amazing Race 21

Please comment on whether Category:American LGBT-related television programs is an appropriate category for this particular season, which featured three openly gay contestants (including the winning team). Category was added and removed, once by someone who says that the show is not "just for Gays" and it's "not just directed at those people". A second editor removed the category with the comment "absolutely not" and has refused to comment further. Buck Winston (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe past discussions resulted in a consensus that any wiki-project was free to express interest in an article, although it was considered a good practice to note why the wiki-project was relevant, especially in the case of BLPs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Expressing interest" means tagging the article with this project on its talk page. A Category is something quite different. I think the Cat is justified. The show is "related" -- that doesn't mean just for any audience segment or just about any one thing. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the question. You are correct that wiki-project tags and categories are completely different things. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, people, please comment ON THE TALK PAGE of the article in question. That's where consensus is built. Buck Winston (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    Buck Winston, stop categorizing whatever you think has even the vaguest connections to LGBT studies with this project and stop referring to category removals as "homophobic". Local consensus is against this inclusion so you should respect that instead of going over everyone's heads by canvasing for people to come to your side.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Split Androphilia and gynephilia article?

Opinions are needed on the topic of whether or not to split the Androphilia and gynephilia article so that there are separate articles, with one titled Androphilia and the other titled Gynephilia. The discussion is at Talk:Androphilia and gynephilia#Split and restore. Like I stated there, I would also leave a note about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, but that WikiProject is pretty much dead. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Improving Gay literature and renaming it LGBT literature

Discussion is starting on how to best improve and expand Gay literature and move the article back to it's old title, LGBT literature. Interested editors should give their input on the article talk page. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Dispute regarding Laura Jane Grace article

Hi! I'm a newbie to editing Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I'm not using the appropriate channel here to address my concerns. Basically, I'm having a dispute with another editor on the Laura Jane Grace article. For those not familiar with her, Laura Jane Grace is a trans woman and the lead singer of the American punk rock band Against Me!. There is another editor who insists that virtually the entire article on her be written using her former male name, Tom Gabel. I believe that this editor is injecting his own personal opinion about the validity of Grace's identity into this article and that in doing so he is violating NPOV.

Reputable articles on The Guardian and MTV.com describe Grace by using her current name--even for events that happened to her long before she came out. This other editor, however, is reverting all my edits that attempt to incorporate information from these articles as well as my other attempts to update the rest of the Wikipedia entry to reflect Grace's current identity. I believe that continuing to use Grace's former name throughout 90% of the article is not consistent with the precedent on Wikipedia regarding other transgender individuals or with the spirit of the MOS:IDENTITY guideline. I would appreciate it if anyone here has any advice to me as to how I could best handle this situation. Thanks! Rebecca (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Ellengay.jpg nominated for deletion

Just letting the project know that this image is nominated at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 6#File:Ellengay.jpg. Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Segunda piel / Second Skin (1999)

This film is currently described here:

However, although there is a film released in 2000 of this name, the film described is not that plot. The film described on this page is a Spanish film in Spanish and released in called Segunda piel released (English title Second Skin). Clearly the title of the page should show 1999, not 2000. Also, since this is a Spanish film, maybe the title should be the original Spanish name? I have made the minimum edits to correct the year in the Info-box and lede paragraph, but leave it to others to amend the page title, etc. Enquire (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Pink List

We are missing a few articles from the IoS' 2012 list: Note some of the blue links are pages or may be otherwise incorrect.

  1. Nicola Adams
  2. Clare Balding
  3. Peter Tatchell
  4. Lee Pearson
  5. Carl Hester
  6. Greg Barker
  7. Heather Peace
  8. Nick Grimshaw
  9. David Laws
  10. Luke Anderson
  11. Phyll Opoku-Gyimah
  12. Evan Davis
  13. Sue Perkins
  14. Stephen Twigg
  15. Charlie Condou
  16. Iain Dale
  17. Sir Paul Jenkins
  18. Jessie J
  19. Gareth Thomas
  20. James Wharton
  21. Chris Bryant
  22. John Partridge
  23. Henry Holland
  24. Nick Boles
  25. Carol Ann Duffy has an article - -sche
  26. Derren Brown
  27. Mary Portas
  28. Pratibha Parmar
  29. Alan Carr
  30. Sir Terence Etherton
  31. Simon Hughes
  32. Gok Wan
  33. Antony Cotton
  34. Sarah Brown
  35. Will Young
  36. Steve Reed
  37. John Barrowman
  38. Val McDermid
  39. Sir Nicholas Hytner
  40. Jane Hill
  41. Stella Duffy
  42. Christine Burns
  43. Jonny Oates
  44. Dr Ashley Steel
  45. John Amaechi
  46. Sir Adrian Fulford
  47. Jonathan Harvey
  48. April Ashley MBE
  49. Jennifer Fear
  50. Casey Stoney
  51. Christian Jessen
  52. Eddie Mair
  53. Mark Gatiss
  54. Guy Black
  55. Sue Sanders and Tony Fenwick
  56. Russell T Davies
  57. Alan Davey
  58. David Allen Green
  59. Michael Salter
  60. Anthony Watson
  61. Philip Hensher
  62. Scott Mills
  63. Louise Englefield
  64. Russell Tovey
  65. Roz Kaveney
  66. Ceri Goddard
  67. Jackie Kay
  68. Lynette Nusbacher
  69. Susie Orbach
  70. Allegra McEvedy
  71. Dominic Cooke
  72. Angela Eagle
  73. Mandy McBain
  74. Phyllida Lloyd
  75. Michael King
  76. Alan Duncan
  77. Shaun Dellenty
  78. Lisa Egan
  79. Steven Davies
  80. Mark Healey
  81. Jay Stewart
  82. Ben Bradshaw
  83. Sara Geater
  84. Evelyn Asante-Mensah
  85. Simon Blake
  86. Lucy Spraggan
  87. Margot James
  88. Sir Nick Partridge
  89. Gary Everett
  90. Bisi Alimi
  91. Kelvin Holdsworth
  92. Dean Atta
  93. Nigel Owens
  94. Steph Keeble and David Viney
  95. Susan Calman
  96. Ruth Davidson
  97. Dan Bunker
  98. Christopher Bailey
  99. Jackie Crozier
  100. Claire Harvey
  101. Michael Black and John Morgan

Rich Farmbrough, 15:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC).

Have corrected a few Wiki links above. Of the top 20, people with short or no articles:
~Excesses~ (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
From 21 down to 54:
~Excesses~ (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
What does this mean: "IoS' 2012 list" ? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be this, IoS == Independent on Sunday. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. That explains why I recognize so few. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
IoS 2012 Pink List Rich Farmbrough, 02:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC).

We've started a new LGBT project on Wikivoyage, and you're invited!

As the banner notices at the tops of articles may have informed you, Wikivoyage, the Wikimedia Foundation's fork of Wikitravel, has recently made its debut. Expeditions are the project's analog to Wikipedia's WikiProjects, and the LGBT Expedition has been started. The goal is to develop and maintain content that aids the LGBT traveler. We hope you join us. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 19:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Lynette Nusbacher

There is a BLP sourcing dispute which I have attempted to summarize at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lynette_Nusbacher. At issue is outing this person's change of gender. She is a LGBT hero in the UK. Insomesia (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious... I laughed out loud in real life. An lgbt hero???? --Hinata talk 22:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hinata seems to have the mind of a child. No wonder. Teammm talk
email
00:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I laughed (though not out loud) at putting "a" rather than "an" in front of "L". Be that as it may, I thought this was settled a couple of weeks ago. The person in question has, at the very least, changed their identification from masculine to feminine. That's verifiable. That doesn't mean they underwent sex-change surgery, necessarily. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, I am very disapointed in the way I, and others were used by this "person". I am glad this issue is over and that we can move on. I have a feeling, however, from the last post on the user's talkpage (before it was protected) that this is not the last we hear from them.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you mean? I think they were not happy their genitals were being discussed worldwide when in fact any possible surgeries were private. Insomesia (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Transgender sidebar

Could some people please watch Template:Transgender sidebar? I removed a paysite for shemales that had been there for a while and now an anon is attempting to re-add it. I put in a request for semi-protection. Insomesia (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be pornographic in nature and should be kept out.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree, i wasn't sure of I was missing something here. Insomesia (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 22#LGBT navigation by gender

I would expect that members of this project might want to comment on this discussion. Mangoe (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Category deletion nomination for Category:LGBT scientists

A category deletion discussion for Category:LGBT scientists and Category:Transgender and transsexual scientists is currently taking place at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 23#Category:LGBT scientists. - MrX 02:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories

A large number of subcategories from Category:LGBT people by occupation has been proposed for deletion in the last few days. Already deleted are LGBT austronauts, LGBT linguists and LGBT psychologists. Category:LGBT_physicians is proposed for speedy deletion. LGBT_scientists and LGBT_historians are currently at CFD. The main argument for deletion is that "Being LGBT and a x ocupation is not a cultural topic in its own right". If that argument is accepted, than all subcategories from Category:LGBT people by occupation will probably be deleted. I think that members of this project should have the opportunity to express their opinion, no matter what that opinion is.--В и к и T 12:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the current guidelines, Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization is the place to discuss it. Nymf talk to me 14:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with notifying Wikiprojects of deletion discussions about categories within their purview, and frankly to me it seems far more useful than only notifying the creator. Without it, we run the risk of WP:CFD becoming a small group on its own that makes decisions without input from the wider Wikipedia community. - htonl (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
This is rather sad to watch. It seems that some people think of human beings in terms of separable characteristics rather than complex rich soups. If we have a notable person who is an actor and is in Wikipedia because of that, that doesn't exclude them from being interesting for other reasons than simply being an actor. If you want to understand a person, you have to understand them in their fullness, not just in the narrow capacity that makes them notable in Wikipedia. That includes things like religion, nationality, sexuality, gender and so on. It seems utterly ridiculous that a small number of Wikipedians seem to think it's okay to decide which characteristics are "defining" of a person and which are just "trivial". How on earth can we say that? What utter nonsense. I'm no fan of religious or nationalist or sexuality-based "BLP warring", but this is the opposite extreme, and it's also bad. We need to calm down and apply some common sense to this, rather than letting this kind of extreme pruning of the category tree to take place. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree - and the folks claiming to be doing the deletions to fight homophobia are just ill-informed. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 17:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have closed a couple of the discussions mentioned, and I noted that the initial notice posted here was not neutrally worded and therefore inappropriate per the behavioural guideline on Canvassing. When you post a notice about an ongoing discussion, please keep the notice worded in a neutral way to avoid this problem. A simple comment that "The categories X and Y are being discussed here: [link]" is the easiest way to post a notice while complying with the behavioural guideline. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
In what way do you feel it is not neutral? It doesn't run afoul of WP:CANVASS to describe the issues at play (indicating why editors might want to participate). As someone on the fence about the listed categories' existence, I felt the summary did a good job of summarizing the issues without swaying me one way or the other.--Trystan (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I agree. One can always nitpick, but the wording appears to fall within the boundaries of "neutral". Rivertorch (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. A reasonable notice with a little "heads up" as to why anyone would care. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I was threatened with a block here because I included that a BLP subject (Lynette Nusbacher now rightfully deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynette Nusbacher (2nd nomination)) is considered an LGBT hero in an above section. Apparently the gang at Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism didn't like it. Insomesia (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Words like "hero" are probably not optimal in the context of Afd notifications. Nonetheless, I took your wording there to constitute a good-faith attempt at concisely explaining why the subject is of interest to editors watching this page. A quiet word, rather than a threat to block, would have been a more appropriate response, imo. Rivertorch (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

When I was writing the notice, I was particularly careful not to break WP:CANVASS, and I'm confident that I haven't broken that or any other policy or guideline. My English is not good enough, perhaps I used some inadequate word or phrase. Be that as it may, from now on I will post only generic template-like notices about categories at CFD. I'm very concerned because it's obvious that a very small group of regular users at WP:CFD makes all decisions without input from community and relevant wikiprojects. There is no deletion sorting for categories, and they are watched by very small number of users, so the problem is not insignificant.--В и к и T 21:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. As I wrote in response to the user's inquiry on his talk page—"There are a couple of different parts that could be interpreted as implying a preference for a particular outcome, though that may not have been your actual intent. In particular, the sentence—If that argument is accepted, than all subcategories from Category:LGBT people by occupation will probably be deleted. That statement (1) is speculative, (2) is very probably not true, (3) goes beyond the necessarily information to inform others of the discussion, and (4) inflates the importance of the individual discussions to appear to make their saving necessary in order to save the entire Category:LGBT people by occupation tree. Based on this sentence, a user might well be influenced to !vote 'keep' on the individual discussions because he wants to keep the Category:LGBT people by occupation tree rather than !voting on the merits of the individual discussions themselves. With these types of notices, less is usually better to maintain neutrality and the appearance of neutrality." I haven't said it was a blockable offence or anything like that; it was just a suboptimal notification because it could be interpreted as favouring one outcome over another. As I said above, less is always better with these notifications. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Less is usually better, but I don't think it always is. Particularly when a series of subcats are being nominated one by one, and there is no place to get a sense of the overall picture, I would be inclined to give the person posting the notification some leeway in presenting one.--Trystan (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
He still didn't have to include the biased comments that were included in providing that "background". That's textbook campaigning per WP:CANVASS. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger discussion regarding Coalitions for and against gay marriage in UK

More opinions welcome here. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 15:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

List of organizations that support same-sex marriage in the United States

Per no objections here for over a month, I've created the above page. The lead is horrible now, so if someone wants to help with that! CTF83! 01:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about merging the Gender bender and Genderfuck with each other

Hey, everyone. The title of this section essentially explains it all. Opinions are needed on the matter it mentions. The discussion it found at Talk:Genderfuck#Merge proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger discussion regarding List of LGBT slang

Discussion here. More opinions welcome and necessary. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 12:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Help needed with this article

I have just created a new article called Transexual pornography if anyone can help I would appreicate it.Dwanyewest (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

LGBT Free Media Collective on Wikimedia Commons

I wanted to invite people to check out and comment on a new project being organized by Wikimedia LGBT, the LGBT Free Media Collective on Wikimedia Commons. The LGBT Free Media Collective is a collaborative effort by LGBT organizations and Wikimedia projects to collect, archive and make available media files related to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities. To date the collective has contributed 740 media files to Wikimedia Commons. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 05:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

I wanted to invite people to check out and comment on an additional new project being organized by Wikimedia LGBT, Wiki Loves Pride. The idea behind "Wiki Loves Pride" is a global campaign to expand and improve LGBT related content across several Wikimedia projects. The activities of Wiki Loves Pride are focused on June and October. Thousands of LGBT cultural events and celebrations are held around the world during the month of June. October is observed in several nations as LGBT History Month (others observe it in February - which may be added in future years) and is also when "coming out" is celebrated. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 05:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutrois?

Neutrois people are people who do not identify with male or female and seek to remove any body parts associated with either gender. This wish to remove such parts comes from what is known as dysphoria, a strong displeasure with something, and transgender people feel the same feelings.

Anyone heard of this? Or is it just a non-notable neologism? Insomesia (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't heard of it, but that's probably because I don't really know much about the "T" in LGBT, being one of those boring "G's". As for notability, I was initially rather put off by the fact that there is a website that just started with a 2013 copyright date and a Twitter bootstrap theme. There are some sourcing issues: for instance, it claims that "Brazil, Thailand, and the United Kingdom allow nullification surgeries to be performed", but there is no source I can find for that. I'm very skeptical about the claim that nullification surgery is performed in the UK. Again, I don't know much about trans stuff, but that seems a bit off.
There's a potential GNG issue here. I just had a look on Google Books and can't find any in-depth academic discussion of Neutrois. It may not actually satisfy GNG, and a redirect to something like genderqueer may be more appropriate. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I have head the term used occasionally in LGBTetc communities on the web. The article as it currently stands has a problem with demonstrating notability; the only reference that actually refers to "neutrois" is "neutrois.com"; the others are about third-gender recognition in general. (The article has also been deleted twice before.) - htonl (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Jose Antonio Vargas

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#Blanking of content verified by multiple reliable sources. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussions under project scope

I wanted to let the project know about two discussions taking place that fall within its scope.

--Amadscientist (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The Metropolis Case

I came across this neglected, little orphan of an article today, and have expanded it somewhat and provided more references. I've added the LGBT studies project banner to the talk page. If not appropriate, please remove. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable thing to do. Thanks for the good work improving the article. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for creation of "Gay propaganda" article

We have no article on Gay propaganda? I've created one at that link in my user space here. If you have any tips, advice, or contributions then chuck them in. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 10:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see your draft in your userspace; your link is a redlink. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
It was a red link at the time but there's some basics there and a crude lede if you wish to take a look. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 15:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
There is already Anti-LGBT rhetoric, which seems to cover what you want to cover. I do not support the creation of a page called "Gay propaganda". Propaganda is a loaded term because it has a negative connotation when actually it denotes both positive and negative media. There could be a complementary article created called LGBT rhetoric if we wanted to cover the spectrum of propaganda, but the "anti" article seems to be doing enough for the negative side. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I concur with Blue Rasberry. It doesn't seem like there's enough to justify the creation of this article. I don't dispute that people exist who believe there is an elaborate gay propaganda machine. But if we're going to create an article everytime someone makes an unfounded accusation about LGBT people, we're gonna have a lot of poorly sourced articles. I mean, a while back some nutter in North Carolina suggested that gays and lesbians be put behind an electric fence. But it would seem rather churlish to create an article called "Proposals to detain LGBT people behind electric fences". There's plenty of LGBT-related articles that clearly do meet the GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't we have Homosexual agenda for this? Shouldn't this be a redirect perhaps? And 'Gay propaganda' is generally seen as being anti-LGBT rhetoric indeed. --Scientiom (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
And Gay agenda redirects to Homosexual agenda. That article is entirely US-centred, which is because the phrases themselves are used amost exclusively in the States. There could be a case for expanding it to include international content if similar phrases are used in Russia and elsewhere. There's also Homosexual recruitment and Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. Paul B (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Homophobic propaganda exists... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think some people have either failed to do the simplest google search here to see what's available before commenting, or have misunderstood. Although i will take the advice of FisherQueen and merge this into Homophobic propaganda. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 09:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a bit rich, coming from someone who initiated the thread with the claim that there was no relevant article! As far as I can see all the comments here are genuine attempts to be helpful. Paul B (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't meant as a personal attack like your comment Paul. There wasn't even a redirect in place this time yesterday even though the term has much notability. I'm still discussing the goal and article name with Scientiom on his talk page. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 14:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)