Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

List of people killed because they were transgender at AfD

Your input is welcome. -- Banjeboi 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless this list is expanded considerably beyond the two names it contains, I don't think it warrants a Wikipedia article. LiteraryMaven (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

At one point, this was a good list. IMO, it's been hijacked, reworked, destroyed, and is now just about useless. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see the point of keeping it to people whom we know were killed because they were trans. More names probably need to be added back, though. There's now debate over the title (currently List of unlawfully killed transgender people) - could use some opinions on the talk page. --Alynna (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN's right, it was highjacked in the middle of me doing an entire rewrite and now is being rather owned by some seemingly unique POV editors. IMHO, it would be smarter - and less stressful - to simply start all over pulling the good bits from the history and build from there. In an atmosphere of cooperative consensus - rather than what drove me away - I think a meaningful list article could emerge. I simply walked away as it felt like a pack of wolves snipping at my ankles - some of these same folks have been targeting articles about murdered LGBT people in various ways. Very alarming and distasteful - technically allowed but distasteful editing - I guess that's our special curse. -- Banjeboi 13:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to quit with this shit - all I see is you running around wikipedia badmouthing people because they wanted a sourced article. I've *never* removed a sourced entry that confirms to the criteria set down at the article. Your constant attempts to paint me as a homophobe have failed, when you take it to AN/I nobody was interested in your slurs, when you tried it at the article nobody was interested. All of my changes are documented on the talkpage and me and a number of other good faith editors have just got on with it. I'm actually a bisexual male but when I edit here I check that in at the door and I work as an NPOV editor - you might want to give it a try. In addition, you give this project a bad name because your constant attempts to paint people at homophobes and "haters" gives the impression that this is some sort of activist group rather than a wikiproject trying to product quality articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Good gracious, Cameron Scott. This is not the place to address whatever problems you have with the editor. I have not, as I state below, been involved with the list, so I don't know its problems intimately. However, I am familiar with a style of collaboration, such as it is, where editors "help" by removing information only, or add a single paragraph that puts undue weight on an issue. This project sees a lot of this kind of editing in quite a few articles. This wouldn't happen as much if the sourcing were better. True collaboration means all editors involved have the article's best interest in mind. Not only do they remove poorly sourced information, but they look for better sources and do their damnedest to add to it before removing it completely. They work to make it a fuller article that is the best it can be. I cannot characterize your actions or Benji's in this AfD, and have no interest in becoming involved in it right now. However, I think the material intended for this list should exist, and I hope it gets as much assistance as possible. It deserves true collaboration. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the disruption - I'm just getting a little tired at how I'm being run down over this matter in multiple places. I reserve the right to reply I'm afraid. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been involved with this, but as I can't deal with a lot of crap from tendentious editing, it's often easier for me to build in my sandbox and impeccable article, post it, and let the opposers deal with reliable sources at their will. I find most arguments are over poorly sourced information. If you start with strong sources, your list will be less likely to erode. --Moni3 (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Bluntly - the sources in that article were complete and utter shite - people were just wholesale lifting names of dead transsexuals and adding them regardless of the cause of death. For example, if someone was found murdered in their flat - that was added as a hate crime, even if nobody had been caught and no motive was established. And that's the worst thing in the world to do because it makes it look like hate crime isn't a problem because we are adding such weak and non-existent cases - and that's also what left it open to AFD and would leave it open to AFD again in the future. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Bluntly, I was in the middle of NPOV rewriting and sourcing each entry and had the {{in use}} template to indicate it was in process. Perhaps you were within your rights to act WP:Dickishly by interupting but that doesn't mean it didn't feel like yet another round of harassment on a murdered transperson article. If I had been treated this way on every article I would never edit again and i wouldn't blame others from walking away as well. Just because thuggishness is allowed doesn't make it right. Congrats - you win - out of the 240+ listed I gave up after less than a dozen. Wikipedia is just so much better for having watchdogs keeping editors like me from adding neutral and sourced material. -- Banjeboi 00:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Cameron, any reason you can't work *with* Benji to add references to listed entries? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, working with this editor isn't doing anything but causing me stress so I'll cite health concerns as a valid reason to avoid them. -- Banjeboi 17:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Article on opposite-sex marriage?

Since we have an article on same-sex marriage, maybe it would be good to also have one on opposite-sex marriage. Such an article could discuss, for example, the motivation of legislators in restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, as well as the effects of such restrictions, and the ways in which opposite-sex marriage does or does not differ from same-sex marriage or marriage in general. That article could be linked here, as well as in the California Proposition 8 (2008) article. Anyone feel inspired to do this?--Bhuck (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is pushing the envelope. It should just be called marriage, whether you marry a man or a woman. Same-sex marriage has its own page because it is a topical issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "pushing the envelope"...I have the vague notion that it implies "trying to do more than you can get away with", but I would like to at least know more about why we wouldn't be able to get away with doing that. I notice also there is no Category:Heterosexuality. I think by making a big deal out of one phenomenon, but ignoring its counterpart, this imputes that only LGBT people have sexual orientations, and that people without sexual orientations are "normal". Of course, it doesn't do this explicitly, only implicitly. Since Proposition 8 was about ensuring that opposite-sex marriage would get a monopoly on marriage, I think opposite-sex marriage is just as topical as same-sex marriage. Particularly since 30 of the 50 states have laws guaranteeing the heterosexuality of marriage.--Bhuck (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

How would this be different from Marriage? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Marriage includes both same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage. Opposite-sex marriage would be an article in which the motivations for ensuring that same-sex couples don't wed could be analyzed, and the effects of such restrictions (both positive--evangelicals feel happier, the sky does not fall, civilization does not disintegrate--and negative--gay couples feel discriminated against) could be described.--Bhuck (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - it sounds a bit like WP:COATRACK, and a bit like WP:OR. Furthermore, it seems like all that content is why OSM *isn't* SSM. So why not keep the content in the SSM article? But that's just my opinion. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, it would not be WP:OR--my rather flippant summary above might be OR, but obviously, the real article would need to be supported by real sources, and probably wouldn't contain fake arguments about the sky falling. The Coatrack criticism comes closer for being a better counter-argument. However, I note that in the WP-page about that, it says "Coatrack articles can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias" -- in this case, the coatrack article would be created purposefully to counteract a particular bias. I suppose if we wanted to keep that content in the SSM article, we should move that article to something less one-sided like marriage of particular gender constellations, where we could then discuss both same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage with regard to the particularity of the gender constellation, as opposed to more general discussions of marriage that apply to all constellations equally.--Bhuck (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy into it.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess my opposition in the coatrack realm is that there isn't much difference between promoting a particular bias and "purposefully counteracting" a particular bias. IMO. But the real question is, is it encyclopedic? Are there books on how opposite-sex marriage is not same-sex marriage? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to an opposite-sex article in theory, I'm just wondering if its actually necessary for an encyclopedia. Marriage by default primarily concerns opposite-sex marriage which is the primary reason why there is social/political debate over same-sex marriage; its the very reason "same-sex marriage" has an actual term/label. The same-sex marriage article overwhelmingly deals with opposition to the subject including every conceivable reason as to why it should not be legalized. Basically, is there anything that an opposite-sex article could cover that isn't already covered by both marriage and same-sex marriage so we aren't simply repeating the exact same information? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

we also have Traditional marriage movement I just noticed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Chiming in a bit late, I don't think that (at least for now) we have any need for a separate article on OSM. Aleta ^Sing 21:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Westfield?

He received the Gay Men's Debut Fiction and the Gay Men's Fiction Lambda Awards in 2006 for his first and only novel, Suspension: A Novel. Does he deserve a page? (Where do we find out how many copies were sold?)Zigzig20s (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If he won a Lammy (or two), I think that passes notability. Beyond that, I don't know :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone found the number of copies in libraries for Randall Kenan's A Visitation of Spirits at one point. I'm not sure where to find that again though.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

He's also a NYC tour guide. I don't know.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll create a page with a summary of his novel when I've read it. Objections?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Deborah Warner

i was wondering if i could get some comment on what's looking to be a war at Deborah Warner over the use of the term domestic partner. --emerson7 03:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

followup: what is the accepted use in wikipedia for the the term 'partner' and/or domestic partner beyond the legal context?

AFAIK, we don't have a guideline or any "accepted use" indicated. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

POV template?

Template:BBL sidebar I remain convinced that {{BBL sidebar}} is a pile of POV-pushing to help legitimize the rather controversial theories and research by this trio of folks. IMHO, this content should be laid out in the relevant article(s) not presented as established mainstream accepted content that templates imply. If this is fine then what's wrong with all sorts of templates laying out the main structural concepts of any fringe POV? Anyone else see this as problematic? Should this go to templates for deletion? -- Banjeboi 21:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the template should definitely go for deletion. It's arguable whether some of the related articles should too. Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy is a blatant POV fork and should go or get merged. homosexual transsexual should also be deleted or merged to Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. In effect, BBL is about a minority theory that borders on WP:FRINGE and its wikipedia coverage should be significantly cut back. I'm very concerned at some very significant POV pushing and abusive behaviour from one or two editors in that area, which seems to be successfully scaring off neutral editors. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and having a bit of a look at the other articles on that template, I agree with User:James Cantor that Etiology of transsexualism should be merged to Transsexuality. I don't have a lot of time to put up merge proposals, deletions etc but if you want to, go ahead with my blessing. :) --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically echoing the above here. It's not just the template, but that whole group of articles convey WP:UNDUE weight to what is really fringe material. But as for the template specifically, the mixing of fringe topics and established fields of study gives undue credibility to the fringe stuff. At the very least, keep the template focused on just the specific Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence articles. Siawase (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yikes - each article worse than the next. Various merge discussions deserve some thought but you'll note each article is longer than the next and all just full of facts - which are helpful but detract from the actual articles and our readers understanding of the various subjects. I still don't see a need for this template at all. POV-pushing should be restricted to articles, and when found there rewritten or otherwise fixed. These articles do seem to be a fringe-a-thon of sorts but it will take a bit to unravel it all. -- Banjeboi 03:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 17#Template:BBL sidebar. -- Banjeboi 03:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

VOLUNTEERS NEEDED: OutHistory.org, a free, educational, MediaWiki-based website about LGBT and heterosexual history

OutHistory.org needs volunteer administrators, content providers, etc. Please take a look at the site and see how you can help.

http://www.outhistory.org/wiki/Main_Page

CONTACT: outhistory@gc.cuny.edu

Thank you. Jonathan Ned Katz, Director, OutHistory.org