Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 213: Line 213:
David Berger lives open [[homosexual]] and now in 2010 he wrote a new book "Heiliger Schein", in which Berger writes 20-40 percentage of catholic clergy is homosexual. [[User:Frank Marco|Frank Marco]] ([[User talk:Frank Marco|talk]]) 13:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
David Berger lives open [[homosexual]] and now in 2010 he wrote a new book "Heiliger Schein", in which Berger writes 20-40 percentage of catholic clergy is homosexual. [[User:Frank Marco|Frank Marco]] ([[User talk:Frank Marco|talk]]) 13:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
:Did this "good and relevant" article contain usable sources to prove his homosexuality and the openness of it? If not, I am sure it was deleted for legal reasons as it would be libellous, although I would have thought editing it would have been the proper way forward. [[Special:Contributions/87.194.86.204|87.194.86.204]] ([[User talk:87.194.86.204|talk]]) 21:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
:Did this "good and relevant" article contain usable sources to prove his homosexuality and the openness of it? If not, I am sure it was deleted for legal reasons as it would be libellous, although I would have thought editing it would have been the proper way forward. [[Special:Contributions/87.194.86.204|87.194.86.204]] ([[User talk:87.194.86.204|talk]]) 21:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
now for the second time user:Lectonar speeddeleted this article of German theologian and author David Berger. [[Special:Contributions/92.252.89.233|92.252.89.233]] ([[User talk:92.252.89.233|talk]]) 16:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


== Richard Wilson of interest to you? ==
== Richard Wilson of interest to you? ==

Revision as of 16:17, 6 December 2010

Template:LGBT Navigation

Greek love - delete and disambiguate?

Discussion here for those interested. Thanks.McZeus (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lihaas, who based on hir edit history has no particular interest or expertise in LGBT issues has asserted serious ownership over this article, to the point of waging a three-month edit war. In hir insistence that hir way be the only way, s/he has completely broken with the format developed by consensus over nearly four dozen similar articles and has mass-deleted entire months from the year. My history with the article is...complicated...so I hope some of you will review it and the changes s/he is trying to unilaterally impose and try to keep the valid, reliably sourced information s/he keeps removing in the article, under the correct dates and in line with the present-tense formatting of all of the other articles. Thanks. Eddie Tenley (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is a sock of blocked user User:Derek_Tenley who is a sock of User:Otto4711 - Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I have been involved with Lihaas on other occasions and I strongly suggest that this be followed-up. This user has some strange notions on what is appropriate editing practices. __meco (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, the account has been blocked now, so you are free to delete the comment if you so desire, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the LGBT articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source about bullying of LGBT

Hi! I found:

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lesbian Literature (now renamed as "List of books portraying sexual relations between women")

Could someone take a look at this page? It was listed as of interest to this project, B class. Recent overhaul and renaming seem to have muddled and minimized rather than improved it, but I'm not sure what the best way is to proceed Voila-pourquoi (talk) 08:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for GL

I have now nominated Greek love for deletion. I have no idea exactly when it will pop out of the admin workshop, piping hot and ready for voting. Soon I expect. McZeus (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tobey

In an interview for Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution Jan Thompson says Mark Tobey was homosexual or bisexual. Any other sources that would also be acceptable to Wikipedia as reference(s) for Mark Tobey article? --EarthFurst (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(An easy way to find the relevant comments in the interview is to search for the word, bisexual.)
I suggest that a transcript of an interview is a poor source:
  • Jan Thompson is not a biographer of Mark Tobey. Possibly not even a personal friend of Mark Tobey. "But, you know, I was around Morris and Mark Tobey at times, and I never heard them talk about anything."
  • Jan Thompson does not say "Mark Tobey was homosexual or bisexual" directly, but instead agrees with statements Sue Ann Kendall makes.
  • There is no indication that the transcript was reviewed by Jan Thompson for accuracy.
The interview does have a couple places to start looking for more info:
  • Jan Thompson mentioned Mark Tobey's will. Would there be news articles that comment on his will?
  • The interview transcript starts with the WPA art center in Spokane. I suggest this was the Spokane Art Center that was started as part of the Works Progress Administration. If so, maybe the typescript, "The Spokane Art Center-Notes on its History," by Jane Baldwin, mentioned in Spokane Art Center records, would have more information.
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While this is a fascinating read I can't see it lasting very long if some strong references aren't added to it in the immediate future. The creator has also missed off one or two glaring omissions, such as Chris Smith, Baron Smith of Finsbury and Michael Cashman. Anyone fancy the job of rescuing this article from the duldrums? -- roleplayer 16:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are always problems and pretty much unread also. Actually if I remember correctly it was deleted earlier this year a AFD, any one remember? Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it was. Oh well, pity really, but you have to go by consensus on these things... -- roleplayer 16:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 -- roleplayer 16:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well found. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was recently created; I just found it and tagged it for the project. Considering that the group is very active (and controversial) right now, it might help if a few people add it to their Watchlists. The WordsmithCommunicate 07:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuals Anonymous is a new article about a 14 step program which I think falls into the category of conversion therapy. The article contains essentially no information on the scientific / medical views of attempts to alter an individual's sexual orientation / identity, and I consider it unbalanced and (at present) unencyclopedic. It has recently been nominated to appear on the main page under the DYK project - nomination here. I am posting here to invite comment on the article or the nomination, or editing contributions. I intend to post a similar notice at the Psychology WikiProject and the Religion WikiProject, and am willing to notify any other projects that might have contributions to make. I don't mean to violate WP:CANVASS and I would welcome any contributions from any editor, irrespective of whether their views on the article or the nomination are in agreement with mine or not. EdChem (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greek love at AfD

It would be interesting to hear from those more knowledgeable in the linguistic matters surrounding this issue. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Crist again

Discussion is underway at Talk:Charlie Crist and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Charlie Crist about whether any mention of Outrage (2009 film) should be in the article, specifically, the film's allegations of hypocrisy, that Crist is a closeted gay politician who voted against gay rights. Also discussed is whether Bob Norman's October 2006 news article outing Crist or Max Linn's radio interview from the same period, one in which he said Crist was bisexual, are suitable for the article. This has been discussed before with inconclusive results. This looks to be the time when a decision can be determined. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Youjian

Here is a CNN article about Wu Youjian, known in China for her LGBT advocacy after her son revealed his orientation to her:

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now is a good time as ever to make a true LGBT rights in the People's Republic of China article, not one that weirdly redirects to Homosexuality in China, which is heavy on the historical, as it does now. Quigley (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of stuff, I moved LGBT rights in Taiwan to LGBT rights in the Republic of China because the Republic of China government covers territory outside of Taiwan (Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu) - I support the creation of LGBT rights in the People's Republic of China WhisperToMe (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Singapore public gay parties for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Singapore public gay parties, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.Andy Dingley (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article John Gordon Home has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published work (gBooks) supporting this residences as a Hospice. though web entries do suggest it is. Fails WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The {{prod}} tag has been removed from the article. It now has references from The Sudbury Star and London Free Press to establish its notability.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay bar comments

Input is requested here CTJF83 chat 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon sexuality sources

There's a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding sources on the sexuality of cartoon characters that may be of interest. Siawase (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bible sections in Same sex marriage

Its getting ridiculous [1]. Phoenix of9 01:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of interest at WT:BLP

There is an ongoing policy discussion that may interest members of this project at WT:BLP#Reports in reliable sources about people who are allegedly "outed". LadyofShalott 02:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dudesnude

hey guys let me get some help finding more sources for dudesnude so that we can save it!Hemanetwork (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing the Math

I added the following information to Talk:Hate crime#Doing_the_Math[2]:

I found the following article from Southern Poverty Law Center to be interesting:
  • <ref>"Anti-Gay Hate Crimes: Doing the Math". Intelligence Report. Southern Poverty Law Center. 2010. Retrieved 2010-11-28.</ref>
It gives total victimization of target groups in the U.S. population for 1995-2008.
Here are its results in table format:
targeted group percentage of U.S. population (A) hate crimes against persons (B) percentage of hate crimes against persons (C: B/(sum B)) ratio (C/A)
homosexuals 2.1% 15,351 17.4% 8.3
Jews 2.2% not given 7.7% 3.5
blacks 12.9% not given 41% 3.2
Muslims 0.8% not given 1.5% 1.9
Latinos 15.8% not given 8.8% 0.6
whites 65.1% not given 13.3% 0.2
total 88,463
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana C. Gfoeller - new page for US diplomat somewhat involved in LGBT rights

While I was checking this new article I found a few links to her involvement in LGBT rights. The article needs lots of work. Richiez (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings community,

i need help by speeddeleted article of german author and theologian David Berger. User:Lectonar speeddeleted this good and relevant article.

David Berger lives open homosexual and now in 2010 he wrote a new book "Heiliger Schein", in which Berger writes 20-40 percentage of catholic clergy is homosexual. Frank Marco (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did this "good and relevant" article contain usable sources to prove his homosexuality and the openness of it? If not, I am sure it was deleted for legal reasons as it would be libellous, although I would have thought editing it would have been the proper way forward. 87.194.86.204 (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

now for the second time user:Lectonar speeddeleted this article of German theologian and author David Berger. 92.252.89.233 (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wilson of interest to you?

Why exactly? Fine, I personally believe he is gay, considering the evidence, but why is it listed on his talk page that he is of interest to this group? It might be because of his work for "gay causes" like stonewall, but there's nothing mentioned in the talk page to actually say WHY he is listed as of interest...perhaps someone should pop over there and add a note? Preferably someone involved in the decision to add him? Or perhaps someone should remove him from the list? Either way, I think this post should be replied to before any action is taken so other people know something is being done :-) 87.194.86.204 (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which Richard Wilson? There are quite a few. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that Richard_Wilson_(Scottish_actor) was meant - there's an LGBT banner on his Talk page. --GuillaumeTell 00:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he's one of these figures who almost certainly is gay, and is certainly not opposed to homosexuality (so not a closet case), but who simply talks so little about his sexuality and romantic life that it's hard to find a good citation for Wikipedia. This source claims that he is gay, but I'm not sure it's really quite strong enough support on its own for inclusion in Wikipedia. garik (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was added by an IP without explanation. Speculation aside, I don't think there's any basis for it being there and have removed it. WJBscribe (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks...I felt it needed to be removed but thought it best to leave it to someone of the relevant group to check in case it was treading on anyone's toes. He is indeed very likely to be gay, but unless there's something in his own words that has been published and is verifiable, it isn't a wikipedia fact...and we don't have a "possibly gay" or "probably gay" tag :-) 87.194.86.204 (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT musical groups category

  • There was talk here about inclusion criteria for this category back in 2007, but the discussion became stale as soon as it started. I personally think only groups where most (or all) of its members identify as LGBT should be included in the category. Thoughts? Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]