Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

Contents

Tamsin Wilton

I am interested in creating an article for the late Tamsin Wilton, Professor of Sexuality at University of West of England. She was my external PhD supervisors for two years, and published on a range of LGBT issues including sexuality, lesbianism, AIDS and transsexualism. Although she could be located within sexology or sociology of medicine, she was primarily concerned with LGBT health issues. She is notable, being the only person (as far as I am aware) to be appointed as Professor of Sexuality in the UK. I have made a few contributions to Wikipedia since 2006, and now I have submitted my thesis intend to do more editing, but would appreciate any advice people could give in creating an LGBT project. Mish (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, i would check out WP:PROF. I'm not sure if being the only Prof of a subject makes on notable enough (as it could apply to lots of fringe studies), so you need to decide if she meets the other notability requirments listed. It's not a certain defence against such an article being deleted (people can still disagree), but it quite widely applied. My PhD supervisor had a few books published, but imo is not wikinotable, as he was never a Dean or somesuch and is not particularly highly cited for the field.YobMod 11:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand, Professor in the UK is different from the USA - it is a formal position within a school as well as a formal title. So, most usually schools have only one professor in any subject department, and that person being awarded their professorship after many years. Professorship is usually assessed in relation to publication. In that respect, while of lower 'rank' than a Dean, it is of higher 'rank' than a post-doctoral researcher or lecturer - as it can take ten to twenty years of work before being invited to become a professor. After she died an award was made in her name, and she published books and papers on lesbian and gay health (in the UK), many of which are referred to by others. Thanks for the reply, so I can clarify this. Mish (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I studied in the UK too. My school for example had 4 current profs (Organic-, Inorganic-, Physical-, biochemical-chemistry) and many emeriti-profs, but i still doubt any were truly wiki-notable. But having an award named after her would seem to make this one in a different league. Mentioning the award in the lead would almost certainly stop a premature deletion, as it is an implicit claim of notability. Good luck!YobMod 15:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I have pulled together a first draft in my user area, and will get the format right as per MoS for biographies, and ensure appropriate citations are included as well as a bibliography, and then get it set up as an article. Mish (talk)

The page is constructed (go gently on me, it is my first). Mish (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox LGBT rights - ready to roll out to rest of country/state articles?

{{Infobox LGBT rights}} has been on live trial at LGBT rights in New Zealand for 2 weeks (see original thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 25#Replacing LGBT rights series box with country-specific infoboxes on country articles?). Does anyone think the wording needs more refinement, or is the current wording good enough to roll out to the rest of the LGBT rights in country/state articles? Thx, Wikignome0529 (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The infobox may need elaboration on transgender-specific issues which may not be relevant to same-sex relationships as trans people have a variety of orientations depending on attraction and gender identity. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I adjusted the Discrimination protections field on the NZ example to specify sexual orientation & gender ID (the New Zealand anti-discrim act covers both), and added a "Gender identity/expression" field which could cover other legal aspects of gender ID/expression -- though I left it blank on the NZ article due to lack of info (according to the 2008 ILGA report (page 48), NZ passed leglislation on gender reassignment in 1995, but haven't found any more specific info to put in the infobox). Feel free to tweak it any further. Wikignome0529 (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears good to me. I think its ok to use on other articles. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's time to roll it out. Good job. — Becksguy (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks... if there are no objections, will start rolling it out ... Wikignome0529 (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Intersexuality incorporation as LGBT project

This page is currently listed as WP:SEX and WP:MED. Because there are social and identity aspects to intersex as well, I am looking to propose that this be included as WP:SOCIOLOGY and WP:LGBT as well, so that the relevant aspects can be addressed from those projects, and should RfC's be necessary, they can be broadened beyond the medical perspective. I would appreciate feedback on how this should be managed, as I am relatively new to wikipedia. I have asked whether there are any strong objections, and the two responses so far have been positive. Mish (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MishMich (talk • contribs)

Include in both immediately, per WP:SNOW. Zazaban (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Get this: "SatyrBot ignore this article for LGBT project - please don't change" Mish (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added the sociology & LGBT project tags to the page, and would appreciate if somebody gets the chance some time to review it and grade it by class and importance. It has been under medicine and sexology/sexuality, but it is evolving towards two sections, one for sociology/LGBT aspects, and one for medical/sexology aspects. I have left a comment on the SatyrBot page, and removed the comment. Mish (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggested change to template

Cooljuno411 has suggested a change at Template talk:Sexual orientation. Since more folks watch this page, I'm mentioning it here (but discussion should happen over there). LadyofShalott 04:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

There has been some conflict about adding LGBT musicians from the United States , Bisexual musicians and Bisexual people categories to the page, those who actually did reply to the issue on her talk page were divided but I guess it needs more editors to help decide. She has stated in interviews that she was not lesbian, but bisexual. Raintheone (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

When asked if she is bisexual Lohan replied "Maybe. Yeah." and "I don't want to classify myself."[1] hence the conflict. If she had actually stated flat out that she is bisexual, there wouldn't be much to discuss. Siawase (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I know this sounds bad as we know sexuality really isn't a personal choice, would it be fair to just put the category on her page. As she has actually had the relationship, so that is LGBT atleast, obviously she can still decide she is straight afterall and put it down to experimenting. Raintheone (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This issue is marked resolved. The catergorey is not to be included. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Another thing that made the debate so messy is that people on the Lohan talk missed or ignored earlier threads about the issue and just started new ones. There were two more threads started earlier where debate has been (slowly) ongoing. Siawase (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Carrie Prejean

There is some controversy developing over the "Miss USA 2009 controversy" section in this article. It would be helpful to have a few more editors watching this. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Content review

This edit needs review and if relevant and reliable, could use counterpoint content. I'm assuming good faith here, but it's just so hard... - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 01:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder if the suicide rate has anything to do with the idiots who discriminate? And if the lower life expectancy has anything to do with hate murders? Gee, I wonder. Zazaban (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I can probably get the articles tomorrow and read them, but my question is why health information is in the article about LGBT rights opposition. Poor people have many more health issues. What is the point? --Moni3 (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree the section shouldn't even be in the article.. but the "dark side" thinks it's relevant to opposing rights for LGBT people.. "they spread disease and are crazy.. they don't need rights, they need purging".. something along those lines I imagine. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 01:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Which individuals or organizations actually use health issues as a basis for opposition? Naming them will clear up that "Some opponents of gay rights argue" beginning (weasel), but I want to know, for encyclopedic content, which people actually try to explain that gay people should not have job protection or, (frejeajfekjfsjf) health insurance because they have health issues, assuming the information is accurate. Should segregation come back because blacks are more prone to sickle cell anemia? Speaking of anal cancer, I can only image the damage done to one's rectum by pulling this one out. --Moni3 (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggest this article be nominated for deletion. Such material should feature in an 'opposition to LGBT rights' section under LGBT social movements and/or homophobia. Note that Anti Semitism is dealt with as a separate topic, but not in this way.Mish (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Material is important and meaningful and should be kept, but not in this article and minus the polemic slant. Haiduc (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, needs POV dealing with and merging - I begun inserting and rewording away from polemic content. Mish (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

section on Long John Baldry's sexuality added to his biography

As he was one of the first public figures in the UK entertainment industry to live openly as a gay man, I have highlighted this in his biography: Long_John_Baldry#Sexuality Mish (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

New article needs major help

Homosexual Equality Rally in London 1974 is a new article that was PRODded for deletion. This is the UK version of our Stonewall riots so this article definitely needs some love and attention. Sources are out there as I searched before removing the PROD tag. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 00:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Assume you've looked for the Campaign for Homsexual Equality or Gay Liberation Front? Problem is, much of this is part of oral history - and that doesn't fit in with the Wkipedia ethos, unless it has been documented already. I have notes taken from interviews in the Hall-Carpenter Archives held in the British Library about this period, and there are references to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and Mary Whitehouse & Lord Longford's Festival of Light action, as well as the Coutes Bank Protest over aversion therapy at the Maudsley, but I don't recall this coming up in them. Not sure if those would be seen as sources but original research anyway. The books 'Walking After Midnight' and 'Inventing Ourselves' (details on the HCA page) based on the interviews might have something. I have a friend who was in CHE at the time, and have e-mailed to ask if they have anything. The other option would be to try the HCA media archive in North London - they will be bound to have press cuttings on it, as there material goes back to the second world war. Mish (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've dug around and there are references, I'll put what I find on the talk page. Thing is, this was organised by CHE, and I am wondering whether it would be better on that page? Mish (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you're in the UK (I'm assuming), you'll have to be the designated one to get us info on this! :P - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to do some work on the GLF's Festival of Light action, start building it up as an article in its own right in a sandbox, because it is an interesting topic. I can simply reference the archives I got some of the material, I guess? It might take a couple of weeks to sort out though. I think the 1974 CHE rally page would be a good place to discuss this, because it might be possible to pull the limited material on that and the first 1970 rally either into CHE. The FoL action is mentioned in Gay_Liberation_Front#GLF_in_the_UK already, whereas Campaign for Homosexual Equality has no mention of either the 1970 or 1974 rallies. Mish (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd also suggest leaving a note for McKenzie Leo (talk · contribs), as the creator of Homosexual Equality Rally in London 1974. He may have gotten the content from a source we don't know about. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 12:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have tidied up the CHE article, inserted the 1971 and 1974 rallies with references, and put 'merge to' and 'merge from' discussion templates on both articles. CHE appears not to have had discussion yet. Problem with sources - some say the 1st rally & march was 1971, others 1970 - so have plumped for 1971 as that is in a national newspaper (although an LGBT history month publication has 1970). Other problem with online sourcing is that reports on GLF(UK) and CHE appear almost discrete, one set giving GLF history as if CHE didn't exist, the other giving CHE history as if GLF didn't exist. But I think there is enough reliable independent source to make sense of events. Mish (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Systematic sabotage of homosexual topics needs attention

Please look in on these article, as I am being followed around by another editor who is systematically interfering with routine edits. Hasdrubal the Fair‎
Pederasty
Historical pederastic relationships‎
Nicolò Giraud‎
Haiduc (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you could provide a little more information, it might be easier to respond to this. What exactly is the nature of the dispute, and why do you think your changes are being reverted? I see that Nandesuka wants to remove a lot of content from articles that you want to include there - I'm not sure about the pros and cons of this, but if you could say what this editor's problems are with the material that would help. Born Gay (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot speak for this fellow and his motives, though they are transparent enough. Maybe you should ask him. However, following other editors around and deleting material arbitrarily and without proper explanation is blatantly unacceptable. That on its face is not appropriate Wikipedia behavior, and should be a disciplinary matter for the authorities here, but I am not versed in the system and do not want to be. I come here to write not to prosecute. If a few people can approach the matter rationally maybe we can develop a consensus and resolve matters intelligently rather than through the judicial system. But you have to look at the pros and cons, otherwise this can't work. Haiduc (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't really recommend anything here, except persuing normal dispute resolution. Ask for third opinions or discuss the matter on the relevant talk pages. If you feel that Nandesuka is behaving unacceptably, then you might try starting a discussion on an administrator's noticeboard. Genuine cases of administrator misbehavior should be dealt with appropriately. And remember that it helps to remain civil - implying that someone may have unpleasant motivations but not saying what you believe they are does not really help matters. Where the content is concerned, some of the dispute (eg, at Pederasty) looks to be over relatively minor changes to wording. I wouldn't say that this was worth fighting over. Born Gay (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Born Gay - I restored that article to its current status. All information there is provided by me. It was originally up for AfD and I brought sources to it. I have taken sources from those who see Byron as homosexual and have incorporated -every- opinion by critics on the relationship. The current reversions is from Haiduc moving biographical -fact- into a section devoted to critical -speculation- by people who did not witness if there was an actual relationship or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is one addition that is worth while - Hobhouse's comments on Moore, but a primary source would be more appropriate in the situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

These are matters to be discussed on that article's talk page, not here, but yours is the correct way to proceed, not the arbitrary deletions of that other editor. So we have gained something by airing these issues. But that still leaves the damage to three other articles to be addressed.

As for Born Gay's comments, I was not looking for recommendations. I was looking for individuals with intellectual integrity and an interest in the honest presentation of homosexual history. A kind of RfC, if you would. The behavior of other editors is their problem, not mine. These are matters that can be resolved academically. That is how you avoid a fight, not by caving in to edits that damage Wikipedia. Haiduc (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Haiduc, I asked Moni3 to look over the situation as an objective observer. My intentions are to get the page to GA/FA level. Moni3 knows about FA class LGBT pages. I am concerned heavily with presentation and yes, Giraud is notable because he had a serious relationship with Byron that has sparked quite a bit of speculation of various degrees. The poem written about Giraud ensures that there is a heavy sexual slant towards interpretations. However, we need to be sure to present factual things in a simple chronology, discuss critical interpretation in their own chronology, and not to be anachronistic. The best thing we can do is let scholars speak for themselves and let readers decide. Now, I would really like for the will to be moved back to the biography section as that is one of the few factual biographical details that we have and we need to have the citations repaired. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous response. Let's discuss this further at the article page. And I will repeat here that while the Nicolo Giraud issues are likely now to be resolved in a civilized manner, the other three articles remain damaged, some heavily. Haiduc (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we can separate Giraud from the others, no? Now, for the only other biography, Hasdrubal the Fair, the issue seems to be the heavy use of primary sources. Primary sources can be used but should be stated as primary. What you need to do is include critical works that discuss the sources in order to put the context. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article is only a stub right now, there is more that can be added. I would love to have you join in! Haiduc (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Haiduc, your comments concerned a dispute you were having with another user. The focus was on behavior. You didn't specifically refer to content issues. I thought my comments were reasonable - especially the part about remaining civil. Your comments above ("I was looking for individuals with intellectual integrity", etc) may come across as rather less civil than you intend them to. Born Gay (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not see this as a "dispute." I see this as blatant, objective damage to Wikipedia. As for civility, I don't think it is a good use of our time to lecture each other on what we think that is and is not. My only interest in this forum is to work on building an accurate encyclopedia. Haiduc (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The page is a battleground, so there will be incivility on each side. As such, it is probably best to push that aside, as it is minor rudeness and nothing worth bothering about. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at this one - Historical pederastic relationships‎ - because I wanted to see what was said about Byron and about Lawrence, but these seem to be subject to the edit warring. I'm not sure what the problem with these two is, and the only way I can make sense of it would be to revert back to your edit. This is not a topic beyond that I am that interested in, so I am reluctant to get involved - however, I did notice the comment from the reverter is to take your changes (i.e. edits) to the talk page. You have not done this. I am going to revert the edit, and kick off the discussion. You can take it from there. Mish (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I had a look at that one article, and reverted back to the edit which inserted material so I could a sense of what it was like, and I cannot see what the problem with it might be unless the reverter has another agenda. The bits I am familiar with are hardly news, and they are properly sourced. I think expecting discussion on a board that has had little for months is odd when the person suggesting discussion has not attempted to discuss their reverts either. So, I have opened up a section for discussion, point out the reason for my reverts (so I can actually read what is there - novel concept, but believe it or not some people do come to Wikipedia for that reason!), said how it seems fairly unproblematic to me, and requested the edit be allowed to stand (as it is not news and the people are dead), and that if there are any issues with what has been inserted, each is discussed one-by-one on the talk page rather than reverting the whole lot. I don't know if that is Wikiteque or not, but it seems to make more sense than what is happening at the moment. I won't be visiting the other pages. Mish (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Violence against LGBT people

Despite being under discussion on Files_for_deletion/2009_May_7#LawrenceFobesKing.jpg and as yet unresolved, somebody decided to remove the photo. I have reverted the edit, and directed the editor to discuss in the appropriate place. There seems to be a concerted effort at the moment on the part of another editor to eliminate as much material from the article as he can at the moment. Mish (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to corroborate this. Too many things happened at once for it to be coincidence, I'm afraid: questioning the existence of the list part of the article, deletion of the article's lead image (repeatedly), IfD proceedings on said image (the second in six months), massive sudden overtagging of the article—and then the deletions began. Big time. If they had been consistent in deleting everything that was unsourced, I could accept that (grudgingly), but much of it seemed to be almost at random. My ongoing work on copyediting and checking cites has gotten a bit derailed, as I am restoring the deleted entries one at a time while digging up RSes (no easy task when it comes to murdered minorities, sad to say). Would much appreciate any help that could be given on finding citations, particularly periodical archives that aren't on the Web. Rivertorch (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done what I can for now, but I have other projects that need urgent attention too. Will do citations as I can. I only have reliable archival sources for UK trans killings pre-internet, but will go through my collection of books to see what is in there as well. This article should have been approached better originally to prevent this happening - building in a sandbox, ensuring the sourcing was in place at the beginning. It is a shame. It also needs some kind of inclusion about theoretical and research texts on the matter, to build it up more as a substantial article with the 'list' as illustrative examples of the types of violence experienced. As I have said elsewhere, maybe worth looking at merging TG killing, using that as a redirect, and then start re-inserting the TG material one-by-one with reliable source. Mish (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my naiveté

What's the general likelihood that Terence Koh released some of his work into the public domain? Does Wikipedia have protocol for verifying the identity of contributors? Queerudite (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As they are pictures of himself, and it's pretty much his only contributions, it's plausible. I guess if someone wanted to push it, they could nom the images for deletion based on the rationale that we have no proof that Asianpunkboy (talk · contribs) is really Terence Koh and as such we require permission for use to be on file at WP:OTRS. Asianpunkboy uploaded File:TerenceKoh 2006 Saatch selfportrait.jpg first here on Wikipedia and File:Koh-Saatchi.jpg seven months later on Commons. I'll also note File:Terence koh artist china canadian photo by christopher peterson.jpg on Commons. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Does it require any special scrutiny because it's BLP? Queerudite (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

National Organization for Marriage

There's a lengthy and circular discussion going on at Talk:National Organization for Marriage regarding how the article should be categorized. It's currently under "Homophobia," but some are arguing that it doesn't belong there, that a new category is needed, that the category is inherently biased, etc, etc. Cue lots of debate about "rights," the definition of "homophobia," whether NOM is anti-gay and whether anti-gay=homophobia, and whether being opposed to same-sex marriage=homophobia.... Exploding Boy (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)