Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Gay flag.svg WikiProject LGBT studies:
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable
 
Drawing-Gay flag.png WikiProject
LGBT studies
Project navigation links
Main project page
 → Project talk page
Watchlist talk
Members
Coordinator
Departments
 → Assessment talk
 → Collaboration talk
 → Community talk
 → Jumpaclass talk
 → Newsletter
 → Peer review talk
 → Person task force talk
 → Translation talk
Useful links
Infoboxes and templates
Guidelines talk
Notice board talk
Sexuality and gender
deletion discussions
Info resources
Bot reports
Newly tagged articles and
assessment level changes
Article alerts
Unreferenced BLPs
(Biographies of Living
Persons)
Cleanup listing
New articles with
LGBT keywords
Popular pages
Portals we help maintain
Portal LGBT.svg LGBT portal
Portal Transgender.svg Transgender portal
edit · changes

Help with Simple English Wikipedia[edit]

Could some people help expand the following articles on the Simple English Wikipedia? You don't have to get it perfect, just expand it to the point where it is no longer a stub.

LGBT critics categorization?[edit]

Why can't I find Fred Phelps in any anti-gay related category, I'd suppose something like Category:People who reject homosexuality, Category:Critics of homosexuality, Category:Anti-gay people or Category:LGBT critics?

  • When he died Wikinews reports: Kansas anti-gay church leader Fred Phelps dies at 84 (emphasis added), anti-gay is pretty much defining I suppose.
  • Phelps' biography is in following categories: 1929 births / 2014 deaths / African-Americans' civil rights activists /American civil rights lawyers / Baptists from the United States / Christian fundamentalists / Critics of Catholicism / Critics of Islam / American critics of Judaism / Disbarred lawyers / Disease-related deaths in Kansas / Eagle Scouts / Kansas Democrats / Kansas lawyers / People excommunicated by Baptist churches / People from Meridian, Mississippi / People from Topeka, Kansas / Westboro Baptist Church / People banned from entering the United Kingdom. At least the "Kansas lawyers" category seems against the recommendations of WP:COP#N (and redundant wiht the "Disbarred lawyers" category which seems justified). Anti-gay activity appears much more characterising imho.

Maybe there's some prior history of anti-gay like people categories being deleted or so? Or I'm not looking in the right place, and Phelps was just overlooked when filling such category? Can somebody enlighten me? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You're looking for Category:Homophobes which was deleted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Tx. OK, had a look at the last Cfd discussion, I'd not try to rescue Category:Homophobes either. Bad name to say the least. Which of these would appear better:
?
Or other ideas that would make this something stable, as far away from pejorativity (like homophobes) as possible? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
We do have Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights; maybe individuals could fit in with that? Funcrunch (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Phelps would fit into any of this. We do have things like Category:Critics of Judaism, which is not the same thing as anti-semites for example, so if there were serious scholars or cultural critics who critiqued LGBT or the LGBT movement then such a category could potentially exist, but Phelps wouldn't fit in it, he was just a hate spewer - but for now we don't use the category system to categorize such extreme ideologies because of the potential for misuse for more tempered biographies.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Phelps would fit in Category:Anti-gay people, reminder: Wikinews Kansas anti-gay church leader Fred Phelps dies at 84. It wouldn't deform any of what he was vocal about. Phelps was an American civil rights lawyer (according to the categories), so level of critique = serious (this is not about the appreciation of whether he made sense or not). Again, I'd avoid any pejorativity.
Re. "but for now we don't use the category system to categorize such extreme ideologies because of the potential for misuse for more tempered biographies" - now that's sillyness, unknowingly I'm sure, no offense intended. "Assasin" and whatnot is quite more extreme than an ideology that limited itself to words, and we can have a category on them. We don't get rid of the Assassins category because it might be misused on more tempered criminals (like murderers, which is a different category and is apparently no big trouble to keep separate). Wikipedia can handle that. Apparently loosing touch with WP:COP caused more trouble than I imagined yet. Endless LGBT categorizations. Heterosexuals, never categorized as such, and I'm more than OK with that. People acting against LGBT people, in the open, publicly taking that stance to the point of becoming one of their most defining characteristics, can't be categorized for some lukewarm reason, while, on the other hand the principles of how to handle such sensitive categories in the Wikipedia system have been written down 10 years ago.

Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (...) an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the person's notability.

applies to people who have as most notable points "Kansas" "anti-gay" and "church leader" as much as to anyone who has sensitive and non-sensitive categories attached to his or her biographical article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Consensus has been against creation of such categories. Anti-gay is equivalent to "Homophobic" more or less. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories. It's not silliness Francis, this is long-standing consensus. If you can find sources which call him a critic of gay rights or something like that, perhaps a category of Category:Critics of LGBT rights could be created, but not Category:Anti-gay people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Tx for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories - outcome of that discussion seems logical to me.
Category:Anti-gay people was my least favorite one in the list above, most pejorativity / least neutrality.
Category:Critics of LGBT rights, no that's not what this is about.
Category:Critics of homosexuality would probably do best, along a myriad of other categories like Category:Critics of alternative medicine, Category:Critics of atheism, Category:Critics of feminism to name only a very few. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I forsee a mess on our hands, so I think we should think carefully about this. Critics of homosexuality has a v. different meaning than critics of LGBT rights. Critics of LGBT rights may say "I do not judge them, I have nothing against them, I just don't think they should be able to get married", whereas a critic of homosexuality is someone who says "Being gay is unnatural, we should forcibly convert them", etc. Better to go with a tighter category rather than the broader which would again cause problems with tons of politicians being "gay-critic" tagged.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
We need to differentiate. Above I wrote "Category:Critics of LGBT rights, no that's not what this is about," I should have added in Phelps' case. For (most of?) the ones now removed from Category:Discrimination against LGBT people the other one would be more appropriate I suppose. Most importantly categorizations on such sensitive topics need to be correct, there's no software impediment to create more than one category: an applied category should cover the topic with an acceptable degree of accuracy. See also WP:COP#Inappropriate categories, second bullet "If still needed, (...) create a more appropriate category, for re-categorizing this single article." --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We normally categorize people in situations like this based on what they do, and usually in an active vs passive sense - and not on what they believe - thus we have white nationalists and neo-nazis instead of racists and anti-Semites. In this case I think there may be a way out - Category:Anti-gay activists this certainly describes Phelps and is how he is described in reliable sources, but this would filter out politicians who simply voted against gay marriage for example, and also couldn't be used to tag people who have simply expressed anti-gay sentiment. Instead we focus on those who have taken direct action - who could be called - and are called by reliable sources - anti-gay activists: can you think of 5 other names that fit? If so that may be enough for a category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Doing a web search for "anti-gay activist" I came up with a list from the Southern Poverty Law Center which I tried to parse (very hard to stomach) for commonalities that might translate into a non-loaded term we could use. As the very nature of this proposed category is controversial I think it's going to be nearly impossible to come up with something that won't raise NPOV complaints. It seems clear that anti-gay activists almost universally have a religious agenda, usually from the Christian Bible. They speak of "traditional values" but obviously using that as a category is misleading. I wish I knew what to suggest. Funcrunch (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
(e.c.) Yeah (@Funcrunch), Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights is about the rights (like marriage and so). Would be too narrow for someone like Phelps who opposes the whole idea of being gay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Category:Discrimination against LGBT people has mixed people/non-people entries, against Keep people categories separate. I don't think that's a very good situation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yup, that should be purged of people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem is, people differ significantly in how they reject homosexuality. I'm not sure a category is necessary, because it would be too broad.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Right. That's why one of my proposals was Category:Critics of LGBT rights - this is a more narrow category, into which Phelps wouldn't fit, but for which one could likely find some notable people who have written or critiqued extensively extensions of certain rights and privileges to gay people. Category:Homophobes is at the other end of the spectrum, and too broad and too liable to abuse.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Re. "I'm not sure a category is necessary, because it would be too broad.": ??? Wikipedia has broader categories (e.g. Category:People, Category:Critics of religions) and narrower (e.g. Category:Rosicrucians, Category:Critics of Objectivism). Don't think broadness is an argument. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Two categories[edit]

(see more in list from the Southern Poverty Law Center — of course needs to be checked against their current Wikipedia biographical articles, just an outline here)
(and more recently purged from Category:Discrimination against LGBT people)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the "critics" categories are in large part a way of avoiding labeling hateful people with hateful labels in instances where some Wikipedia users share their opinions. (Not referring to anyone in this discussion, this is a general observation of WP's preference for this term.) Someone like, I don't know, Maggie Gallagher isn't really any more a "critic" of homosexuality than Fred Phelps. Homosexuality isn't a belief system, there isn't really matter there to criticize in the sense in which we usually talk about critics. It's unfortunate that Phelps isn't categorized according to the thing he's far and away the best known for, but creating a weaselly "critics" category isn't the way to go. Instead, consider trying to change the system by which people who virulently oppose the rights of others are gently labeled as "critics." –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 07:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Tx, maybe I wasn't clear: I propose to create both categories mentioned above (with Phelps expressly in the first). Maggie Gallagher could be in Category:Critics of LGBT equal rights (judging from Maggie Gallagher#Views on same-sex relationships): rational criticisms, written down in writing, explaining why etc. and axed on a "rights" retoric. Whether she should be in Category:Anti-gay activists too: judging from the present content of Maggie Gallagher#Conversion therapy I'd play on the safe side (not judging people on what they don't want to be part of their public image), and leave her out of that category. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Re. Critics categories and belief systems: most "critics of ..." categories are not about belief systems (see subcategories of Category:Critics) — or is Wikipedia a belief system (Category:Critics of Wikipedia)? We do have "Critics of ... rights" categories that are not about rights related to belief systems (Category:Critics of animal rights). So no, I don't see an argument there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


Would that work as a categorization scheme? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Would like to go through with this, and would appreciate any more comments? --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
@Obiwankenobi, it's not possible to go through with this if WP:COP#N wouldn't automatically apply to these newly proposed cats per WP:SNOW. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I think anti-gay activists could work, it avoids the problems that homophobes had for example. I'm not yet sure on critics of lgbt equal rights, let's wait on that till we get more input. I don't understand what your point is on COP#N however.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Celebrities might take a stance on gay marriage. Without WP:COP#N active on these categories just about anyone with a few soundbites on the topic could be categorized in such "critics" cat.
I think it is important to start the Category:Critics of LGBT equal rights at the same moment. Otherwise there would be no other option than to label any activist having a strong viewpoint on some topic relating to LGBT rights (and not completely approving) as "Anti-gay". Which would be trouble all over the place (especially for the BLP ones). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Francis, wikipedia wasn't built in a day, and we've somehow survived all these years without such categories, as they are delicate. I'd suggest start with the anti-gay one, and put some clear inclusion criteria. WP:COP#N, before your recent unilateral/no consensus change, applied just to occupations, which "activist" is by default, as is "critic". Someone can be a film critic, or a critic of theater, or a critic of Judaism, and this can be seen as an occupation, in that they derive some income from it or they are known for this as an activity - that is quite different from classifying someone according to their belief, which we usually don't do.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not going WP:SNOW on this. Foundations need to be strong, superstrong before attempting a new go at this contentious matter involving very, very sensitive categories.
(clarify:) when an "interpretation" is needed for occupation w.r.t. these categories the foundations aren't strong enough in my view.
Yes there is time. Just saying: I'm not missing the courage to go forth with this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe attempt a category definition for the proposed Category:Critics of LGBT topics (keeping an eye on WP:COP#Clearly define the category):

This category is for people who criticised LGBT topics:

  • criticism about ideas, practices, etc. — not merely criticism directed at one or more (LGBT) people;
  • outspoken criticism, explaining the grounds of the criticism, outdoing a context of parody or loose remarks;
  • acknowledged as such criticism by the critic, more than merely something the LGBT community might take issue with.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Save Our Children[edit]

Hi!

I am translating into French your article about Save Our Children. It is an interesting work and I am happy to make it part of the French wikipedia (although I am only working on a subpage now). Unfortunatly, some paragraphes need citations and I am not sure that the articulation of all the ideas is always well-done... I wanted to tell you that because I think Anita Bryant's campaign is one of the most important moments of LGBT history in the US. And perhaps someone here has material which could improve the actual page...

Sorry for my English, I read it better than I write it.

Konstantinos (from the French Wikipedia)

Genderfucking[edit]

Hello, WikiProject LGBT studies.

I´m posting this in case someone interested wants to take a look, it´s not my particular field of interest.

An IP posted a very general concern at Help Desk [1], and I took a quick look.

Two things struck me:

  • I´ve heard "Gender Bending" but never "Genderfucking", so I wonder if the terms are used in the extent that they should. There seem to be about three times more fucking than bending.
  • The sections "Examples" and "In fiction" are probably original research to a great extent, as in these examples do not come from reliable sources about Gender Bending that gives them as examples of Gender Bending. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I've replied on the Help Desk page, but I'll copy paste here: The language is a result of a page merge of genderfuck into gender bending. The term "genderfuck" is an actual term in gender studies and as you can see in the article is well-sourced. The information is not inaccurate. Regarding the concern about "inappropriate language" I would point to Wikipedia's policy of "not censored". The page does need to be smoothed out though. Flyer22, your thoughts on balancing the page? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not 100% sure regarding the balance, except to use the word gender bender or gender bending more often in the article (such as for the headings How people genderfuck, Non-political genderfucking and Genderfucking and childraising); I state this especially since the article's topic is under that title and, like I mentioned when arguing for the aforementioned merge (seen at Talk:Genderfuck#Merge proposal and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 48#Reminder), gender bending is the far more common term out of the two and genderfucking (a notable WP:Neologism) is a synonym of it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It would also help for the Gender bender article to have a terminology section addressing these terms (gender bender and genderfuck) and closely related terms, with WP:Reliable sources of course. And, as you might have guessed I would mention, something we should keep in mind regarding material that is likely to be offensive is the WP:Offensive material guideline. Sure, WP:Not censored is a policy, but the WP:Offensive material guideline is just as important as that policy. Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Andreja Pejić[edit]

Andreja Pejić (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) Pejić has come out as trans, having undergone the surgery back at the beginning of the year. I've started the ground work; some help fleshing the article out would be appreciated. :)

Additionally, I've left some of the male categories in. Ordinarily, one wouldn't, but given Pejić's career, I think they're relevant regardless of transition. Sceptre (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I just read about this news. I am wondering if Pejić should be removed from the Genderqueer article now. While she doesn't specifically state her gender identity in the People article, it seems clear that she now identifies as a woman? Funcrunch (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure... we don't want to assume that because she changed her body that she changed her identity as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I strongly agree re the body changes, but she did also change her name, and in the article says "I always dreamt of being a girl," and "[I] became pretty good at acting as a boy. But I was hiding who I was." Funcrunch (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Genesis P-Orridge[edit]

I apologise if I have stepped into a giant elephant trap, but I have started a discussion at Talk:Genesis P-Orridge#Pronouns (again) about the appropriate pronoun to use in the article. Your thoughts would be very much appreciated. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A response to Mr. Obi-Wan It seems clear that anti-gay activists almost universally have a religious agenda, usually from the Christian Bible.[edit]

It seems clear that anti-gay activists almost universally have a religious agenda, usually from the Christian Bible. Since English is a recognized international language I do not think that it is, or it should only be limited to the culture of the West. Here in the Eastern world, (e.g. China, India), there are prominant Buddhist who oppose homosexuality. I do not think that a religious agenda should be especially for Christian. I understand that while 'religious' in USA might mean 'Christian' in U.S., but that is not what it means in the world. Maybe wikiers on the English version should think outside their predomineant Western bias? Excuse my poor English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.42.164 (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That was my comment, actually. I thought I made it clear with my wording that I did not equate "religion" with "Christianity", which is why I specifically said "usually from" and "Christian Bible" instead of just "Bible" which could also refer to Judaism or other religions. But I appreciate your input regardless. Funcrunch (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Poland[edit]

Several edits in non-neutral manner were made. See [2], [3], [4], [5]. See discussion at Talk:LGBT rights in Poland#LGBT propaganda. Ron 1987 (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Catherina Margaretha Linck[edit]

Like the wikipedian just above wondering about what pronoun to use on Genesis P'orridge's page, I'm wondering the same about Catherina Margaretha Linck, see Talk:Catherina_Margaretha_Linck. Suggestions would be appreciated. Arided (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Homosexual vs Gay in articles[edit]

Hi friends, I recently made a change per a talk page request here, and I was curious if the change was necessary to make. The user pointed out that "homosexual" is "extremely offensive" and "extremely homophobic", so he asked us to change it to some other iteration of gay/same sex, etc. I noticed that GLAAD has said as much, but I also know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and when Muslims complain that depictions of Muhammad on the site are offensive, we disregard their complaints. Does the community have a take on this? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Since they are synonyms when talking about males, I don't see the problem in changing it to the less offensive term. Homosexual still has stigma attached to it from when it was listed as in the DSM. I don't see it as an issue of censorship as of choosing an equally valid term that is less offensive to a marginalized group of people. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Cyphoidbomb. This matter is obviously different than what we dealt with hours ago. But to answer your query regarding this particular topic: It -- whether or not to use gay or lesbian as opposed to homosexual -- has been discussed a few times at this WikiProject; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40#LGBT instead of homosexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46#Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 47#Replacing "homosexuality" with "LGBT" in article titles. We should go ahead and have a FAQ on it since it keeps coming up at this WikiProject. In that second discussion and third discussion, you can see a general agreement (well, more so in that second discussion) to not use homosexual as a noun, unless somehow necessary because of clarity. Using the word homosexual will be needed in some cases, such as at certain points when speaking of sexual orientation or same-sex sexual activity, as is demonstrated by some aspects of the Homosexuality article. Some LGBT people find the term homosexual offensive because they consider it too clinical and stigmatizing (for the reasons that EvergreenFir noted above); see the Gay article for more detail; other LGBT people don't find the term offensive at all. The term homosexuality (which often, not always, indicates behavior more than sexual orientation, as opposed to the term homosexual) is commonly seen as more acceptable than the term homosexual. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Got it. I'm easy like Sunday morning. :) Thank you both. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Ruth Bennett[edit]

You have six days to fix this. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? —Tom Morris (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
To explain: Bearian means here that he nominated the article for deletion under BLP PROD. It has since had the BLP PROD removed. (As the article also falls within the remits of Wikipedia:WikiProject Libertarianism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington, I'm sure they got similarly curt ultimatums...)Tom Morris (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Resolved

Bearian (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying terms the rule applies to[edit]

Go to Wikipedia:Gender identity. We know the rule very well. It is that a trans woman must be referred to with female terms regardless of what stage in her life is being discussed. I would like to know if anyone can clarify that it applies to terms like:

woman, she, her, girl, daughter, sister, aunt, niece

...but not to terms like:

vagina, vulva, ovary

Any thoughts on what wording to use to clarify what kind of word it applies to?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you asking? Vagina, vulva and ovary do not have gender identities. Flyer22 (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Those are examples of terms that the rule needs clarification that it doesn't apply to. Georgia guy (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Why does that need clarification? Who is going to think that gender identity refers to the genitals? And if you mean being gender-neutral regarding the genitals, that generally is not going to happen on Wikipedia either, for reasons I've already pointed out to you before. In that link, I pointed to Talk:Phimosis/Archive 2#Definition, and that is how we do things regarding the genitals and wording when it comes to WP:MED/WP:Anatomy issues on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

RSN discussion of use of TransAdvocate as a source[edit]

Related to trangender topics: Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Transadvocate_use_in_BLP.2C_etc. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Frank/Kellie Maloney[edit]

I happened to be looking at this in the light of recent events, and there is one section that is a bit of a mess. I have made a comment on the talk page here: [[6]] The problem seems to be dead links and WP:SYNTH. Could anybody interested have a quick look and check it out. Thanks.- MishMich - Talk - 12:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles related to transsexualism/theory about sex of the brain[edit]

Judging by this edit by Bridenh (talk · contribs) that I reverted (followup revert of myself here because I'm not interested in getting into a WP:Edit war with her, and what she removed is debated), WP:LGBT editors might want to keep an eye on the Sex assignment and Causes of transsexualism articles; I see that Bridenh also edited the latter article, and that she often engages in problematic (WP:Disruptive) editing. Flyer22 (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Delusions of Gender was the more recent work to debunk "brain sex". Please explain how this is "Disruptive" editing?Bridenh (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
You are speaking of a (seemingly feminist) author's opinion, presented in her Delusions of Gender book, a book she has been partly criticized for (as noted in the Wikipedia article about that book and in the Cordelia Fine article). It is common knowledge that many (perhaps the majority of) feminists take the view that behavioral differences between human males and human females are completely socially constructed; the scientific community as a whole has not taken that stance, not even the majority of that community. And the Causes of transsexualism article certainly addresses evidence that "sex of the brain" is real. Flyer22 (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, as currently noted in the Cordelia Fine article: "...as Fine pointed out in The Psychologist, the book is concerned with scientific evidence presented as support for the idea that males and females are, on average, 'hardwired' to 'systemise' versus 'empathise', rather than the question of the extent to which core gender identity is 'hardwired'; and that she does not subscribe to a behaviourist or social determinist view of development, but rather 'one in which the developmental path is constructed, step by step, out of the continuous and dynamic interaction between brain, genes and environment.'" Flyer22 (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
You seem to have implied that a feminist author (WF:NOR, I don't recall her claiming to be one) is part of what discredits Delusions of Gender, then considering Myths of Gender, Pink Brain, Blue Brain, Brainstorm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences and the works of J. Michael Bailey and Ray Blanchard as well as much more there appears to be a "barely veiled" feminist "agenda", as Baron-Cohen put it. Or in the words of Lewis Wolpert: ""Fine hasn't a clue about biology." (he offered no specific criticisms or rebuttals of her claims)".
I also don't understand the point of using that quote, I don't have a problem with the gender identity part of the paragraph, it's psychological sex I removed. Bridenh (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I care not what you think I seem to be implying. As long as you edit the way you are supposed to, instead of basing your edits on a single author's view regarding a scientific topic and claiming the matter debunked as though that single author has the power to systematically declare whether or not a scientific matter is debunked, I generally won't have a problem with your editing. I cited the Fine quote because she quite clearly is not stating that psychological sex is completely false; gender identity is very much argued as psychological sex or as "sex of the brain," and Fine, in her own words, "does not subscribe to a behaviourist or social determinist view of development." Flyer22 (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
"instead of basing your edits on a single author's view" but that's not what i did and it's not what I do hence I only edit similar topics - because those are the ones I've read about. I clearly stated "Delusions of Gender was the more recent work to debunk "brain sex"." Where does it say only? To jump from that to claiming I'm being disruptive is not assuming good faith. Bridenh (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
You claimed that the matter is debunked; then above, you cited the Delusions of Gender book as proof that the matter is debunked. As for WP:Assuming good faith in you; if I see a reason to, I will. Flyer22 (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Above, I stated that you often engage in problematic (WP:Disruptive) editing; I based that on what I see of your edit history and talk page. I have yet to see a reason for me to WP:Assume good faith in you. I am not the right editor for you to ask that of. Flyer22 (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking at your edit history some more, you also remind me of an editor that I don't trust (one that I have a tendency to report as a WP:Sockpuppet); for example, your visits to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions and use of the word hence above, but that's another matter. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
You went from misunderstanding what I said to accusing me of being a sockpuppet despite the fact that this is my first wiki account, as if my editing didn't make that obvious enough. Goodbye and don't worry, I'll no longer point out debunked essentialist theories. Bridenh (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you of being a WP:Sockpuppet. But, despite your inexperience (or faked inexperience) with editing Wikipedia, I don't believe that you are completely new to editing this site either; experience with this site tells me that you are not. And as for pointing something out regarding science, make sure that you are actually pointing something out instead of claiming something. Flyer22 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and misunderstanding you? No, I don't think that I did. Flyer22 (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with Simple English stubs[edit]

Hi, the Simple English Wikipedia needs help with expanding its sexuality stubs, including the following:

These articles don't have to get up to featured article status right away, just so they're long enough to not be stubs. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"What a dump!", or the big WikiProject LGBT Studies cleanup drive of 2014[edit]

I found out recently that there is now a bot called User:CleanupWorklistBot operated by User:Bamyers99 which produces a big listing of articles for each WikiProject listing all those that have some kind of issue in the form of a warning template, whether inline like citation needed, or a banner like unreferenced.

According to the listing for LGBT studies, as for a few days ago, 49% of articles tagged by this WikiProject need tidying up—or at the very least, someone to check to see if the warning template still applies.

Tidying this mess up is something we should have a go at. It's unfortunate that the interaction most people have with WikiProject LGBT Studies—or indeed LGBT-identifying editors more generally—is either debating the merits of sexually explicit imagery, or in some battle around controversial BLPs and how to represent the sexuality of article subjects. It'd be nice if we could go out and fix Wikipedia rather than being (whether fairly or not) seen as the sort of people who represent the problems of Wikipedia. I hope if this is successful, WikiProject-focussed cleanup drives might be something that other projects start replicating.

I'm going to suggest that we could try and reduce the number from 49% to 25% by the end of 2014. That means fixing up about 3,400 articles. Or about 180 a week. Sometimes those will be difficult and complicated, but other times it might be as simple as finding one source. Last night, I added one source to the article Jodie Marsh (a British glamour model and television presenter) and could then remove one of the warning templates. If we fall short of the target, that's fine—the important thing is we start the process of taking responsibility of proactively fixing up articles with warning templates and find ways to start slowly chipping away at the enormous backlog of doom.

Any thoughts? —Tom Morris (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Content inclusion or exclusion[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#2011 License revocation. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)