Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

WikiProject LGBT studies
Project navigation links
Main project page
→ Project talk page
Watchlist	talk
Members
Departments
→ Assessment	talk
→ Collaboration	talk
→ Community	talk
→ Core topics	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
Recognized content
Portals we help maintain
LGBT portal
Transgender portal

Intersex, Sex and/or Gender Diverse (ISGD)

Hi, been a while since I have posted here - wear-and-tear from wiki-homophobia, geographical relocation and intermittent internet access led to my having to take an extended Wiki-break.

I am raising a number of issues about this page, on the talk page Talk:Intersex,_Sex_and/or_Gender_Diverse_(ISGD) It conflicts on with a number of guidelines: WP:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#Neologisms_and_new_compounds - WP:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Neologisms - WP:SPS - WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources - WP:SOAP. It needs to be moved towards deletion, but as I have a COI I feel I am not in a position to instigate this, so request some more experienced eyes on this please. It is not registered as part of this project, but the content clearly falls within the domain of this and/or sexuality projects.

Thanks.

Forgot to sign this above, apology, but I see it has now been addressed. Thanks to whoever did that. - MishMich - Talk - 22:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Dog Day Afternoon for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Red Link Recovery Live

Howdy. For a while now, the Red Link Recovery Project has been using a tool (named Red Link Recovery Live) to find and correct unnecessarily red links in Wikipedia articles. For example, for the red link Müllerian-inhibiting factor on the article Intersex it might suggest that the link be changed to Müllerian inhibiting factor.

The tool currently has around 3000 suggestions for corrections to red links on articles relevant to this project (those in Category:LGBT_articles_by_quality). Each time you visit this link, you'll be shown two or three of these suggested fixes. I'll be delighted if anyone with a few minutes to spare would care to do so and help improve the quality of this project's articles. -TB (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The tool works well. Kind of addictive. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

More documentaries on LGBT parenting and adoption

[1] Homo Baby Boom Award-winning documentary from Catalonia (Spain) showing six families with gay dads or lesbian moms. 2008

Queer Spawn Queer Spawn Focused on the stories of several teenagers with gay dads or lesbian moms in the US. 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.23.253.82 (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible merger of articles dealing with recognition of same-sex unions in each US state

This has been discussed on this talk page before (here and here), but I'm unclear on whether a decision one way or the other was made.

I propose that, as a general rule, there be one article for each jurisdiction (such as a US state) titled recognition of same-sex unions in X, where all information on domestic partnership, civil unions, and marriage in that jurisdiction can be found.

For many jurisdictions, especially US states, this information is divided into separate articles. For example, we have the following articles for Oregon:

• domestic partnership in Oregon (Stub-Class)
• same-sex marriage in Oregon (Start-Class)

Same thing for Maine:

• domestic partnership in Maine (Start-Class)
• same-sex marriage in Maine (B-Class)

Regardless of whether you're talking about domestic partnership, civil unions, or marriage, the question is the same: How are unions between same-sex couples legally recognized in [insert jurisdiction here]? Any information on this question could be divided into separate articles based on whether or not you're talking about marriage. And perhaps there are certain cases where that should be done. But in general, I don't think that helps the reader. On the contrary, someone who wants to read about recognition of same-sex unions in Oregon has to know, before they can start looking, the following things:

1. Whether marriage equality has been enacted there.
2. If there's no marriage equality, whether a separate institution exists for same-sex couples.
3. If it does exist, what that separate institution is called.

The LGBT community doesn't push for domestic partnership or civil unions as end goals in themselves, but rather as part of a larger movement towards equal marriage rights. The big question that's always asked is whether same-sex couples should be able to marry; any separate institution is usually an afterthought mentioned only as a compromise. Everything does, however, boil down to one topic: legal recognition of same-sex unions.

Therefore, I think the topics domestic partnership in X and same-sex marriage in X should be addressed under the article recognition of same-sex unions in X more often than not.

Thoughts? — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 19:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. But not entirely sure if you're proposing a general policy or if we just start working thought the list? AdamCaputo (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well, though the argument is best made on the basis of the better way to cover the subject matter and help searchers, not based on what the advocates of same-sex unions have pushed for. I'd be happy to join in the reorg work. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking a kind of wikibreak while I wait for a GA reviewer, but assuming this has a resonable consensus, then just post on my talk and I'll pop back up to help AdamCaputo (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. If there's a consensus for it, then I suppose I am proposing it as a general policy, allowing for the possibility that in certain cases, it may be appropriate to keep the original distinction. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 13:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So where are we with this? AdamCaputo (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If discussion doesn't pick up here, is there a different project or venue that's more active where this decision can be made? Or can the lack of discussion be taken as implicit consensus, allowing us to move forward? — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 02:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with combining everything into one article per state, but I disagree on the title. I think that the article should be titled according to the "highest" form recognized in the state, and information about previous lower-level rights can be addressed in "History" or "Background" or such. This will result in irregular but more informative titles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Gay icon

Do we have inclusion criteria for this page? We should develop some. This good for Betty White? CTJF83 22:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding articles on Gay icons: The divisive word "queer" has a radical connotation. Contrary to what some academics would lead you to think, it does not have blanket approval from the so-called Gay community. "Queer" should not be casually used in write-ups about significant figures in Gay history, such as Vito Russo. It can, of course, appear in quoted text and in the names of organizations like "Queer Nation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.163.212 (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia Loves Libraries and Tom of Finland Foundation in LA

Hi folks, thought you might be interested in helping out this live wiki-editathon on LGBT content, especially if you are around the LA area: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Loves Libraries#Los Angeles: Echo Park.--Pharos (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

gender identity

The first section of this article says that anyone is welcome to join regardless of sexual orientation. I would like to change that to read "regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity". This is because my gender identity (female, assigned male at birth) is separate from my sexual orientation, which is gynephilic (a word I use to avoid people objecting to me saying I am lesbian). I am irritated by people saying that my transsexuality is a "sexuality" or "sexual orientation" particularly because of the theory of autogynephilia which wickedly and demonstrably falsely alleges that transsexuality is a sexual perversion. The project is LGBT studies, which includes me. "Regardless of sexual orientation" without saying "Regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity" does not include me. Abigailgem (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Do it. LadyofShalott 19:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I added this into the previous paragraph, as it should be reflected there that this situation already exists. - MishMich - Talk - 23:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I made the edit on 15 October when I saw no objection here. Abigailgem (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone feel like Wiki-Gnoming?

If anyone feels like Wiki-Gnoming a bit, there is currently a List of Stub-Class LGBT Articles that can be quickly reviewed. Most are still stubs, but there are a few to upgrade. Swing through the list, pick a few and review, upgrade them if need-be, and remove them from the list. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Albert Fish

Hello. Could someone please just run through the rationale behind grouping the serial killer Albert Fish under WikiProject LGBT studies? In what way is a sexuality and gender identity-based cultural approach, a concept itself stemming from the 1990s, applicable to a figure known to the public purely for his cannibalistic and paedophiliac crimes in the 1920s? Whether or not the overall aim was to find causation between the former and the latter, as I suspect it may have been, is neither here nor there; the very connection here on Wikipedia serves as implicit confirmation.

To put it more simply, 1. how is it possible to define Albert Fish using terminology and cultural concepts developed over 60 years after his death? 2. why is this necessary when we consider his notability, i.e. the reason he has an article on Wikipedia? 3. and by making this connection, is it not encouraging a casual, lazy connection between our definition of LGBT and his crimes, most seriously paedophilia? Would love to hear your views. 83.244.230.115 (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it because there is no obvious connection pending further discussion on article talk page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I can see a reason to keep the article "within the scope of" WP:LGBT. While the cultural phrase "gay" didn't have it's present meaning in the late 1800's, there were still men attracted to men, and women attracted to women - and there were still people we would today consider transgender. Fish's relationships with men (the article refers to a couple of them) surely puts him in the category we today call "gay". -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Homophobia In The Media

Hi, i'm trying to get an article off the ground and could do with a hand. User:Jenova20/Homophobia in the media Anyone who has anything they can do to help and improve it, please go ahead. Thanks Jenova20 16:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd worry even if fully-developed and based on third-party sources, it would fail to make it as an article because of the inherent (and unfair!) NPOV debates that the term "homophpobia" incites. Conservative straight editors have tried to argue that homophopbia is a controversial designation, or non-existent, or a loaded term, etc. etc.. It would make a fantastic blog (which I'd love to read), but as I see it, it's a subject which both requires and inspires original research, personal insight, and opinion-giving. Without these, as a collection of "things someone called homophobic" (you can't just deduce Littlejohn's obvious homophobia for yourself), it would fail to justify its presence. It's sad, but homophobia isn't recognised objectively by the Western world quite as firmly as racism or even religious discrimination, because the ignorant are very opinionated. My job at the moment involved cataloging, scanning and archiving every mention of gays in the British press in the 2000s, and while I certainly agree that the problem is there, I think it would be tough-going to use the Switzerland that is Wikipedia to illustrate it.Zythe (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Or you could rename it Heterosexism in the media, which is a less loaded term. Its like the difference between sexism and misogyny: not all form of sexism are the result of a direct hatred of women (such as benevolent sexism). Likewise, not all forms of heterosexism are the result of hatred or irrational fear of homosexuality. (Ex: commercials which prominently feature heterosexual couples using household products/dining out or other family/romantic situations may not be a direct result of homophobia, but simply a lack of diversity driven marketing.)

• Reinforcing the black-heterosexual/white-homosexual binary erased the bodies and experiences of African American LGBT communities, and the ways in which gay Blacks are affected by both racism and heterosexism in media
• Changing Images of Gays and Lesbians in the Media Many theories can be invoked to explain media depictions of gays and lesbians, but it is also important when developing strategies to combat hetero- sexism and homophobia in the media
• Print media have also challenged mainstream culture's heterosexism, thus offering transgendered women and transgendered men a space in which to discuss and represent themselves, on their own terms.

There are of course other examples in google books/scholar. This is a clear subject of academic study, so its not original research. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well it's not original research, i've been careful to avoid that.

Also since the term of homophobia is fairly understood and the definition is on Wikipedia there shouldn't be much point with the POV.

I do understand that the homophobia page comes under constant attack though.

I'm currently getting a few helping opinions on it, including from Wikiproject Journalism, although they are less active on their talk page.

Thanks for your opinions Jenova20 14:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I will look into the books though, thanks for that =] Jenova20 15:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen the 'Homophobia in the Media' article so far and it is just an opinionated list of things which YOU feel are 'homophobic'. I mean this a serious point not a criticism before you attack me. It is all POV/OR, you can't just take things which you feel are homophobic and pass them off as 'homophobia' it doesn't work like that. Its Mac's cartoon, I find it funny and harmless as do many people, just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can come on WP denouncing it as 'homophobic' it is purely POV, not facts. As WormTT rightly said, drop this idea of a list of 'homophobic' incidents, most of which I find dubious anyway and write a properly sourced and fair balanced article. Your current effort is just biased and opinionated. Now please do not abuse me for these comments, I am simply providing constructive criticism. Christian1985 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Christian1985, I have actively encouraged this article. The vast majority of sources there are discussing incidents of homophobia in the media, not incidents that Jenova feel are homophobic. It needs work, and that's what Jenova (and a few other editors) have done. I'm keeping an active eye on things, and will be reviewing it thoroughly before it goes live. I will be focussing on ensuring that the article will be neutral and will not consist of OR - it may however not agree with your POV, but that isn't a massive concern of mine. Oh and for the record, that Mac cartoon negatively stereotypes gay people, and therefore is homophobic - as a satire it is designed to be not "politically correct", and many people will find it funny, but that doesn't make it less homophobic. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It has also been called "anti-semitic" due to the swastikas.

Thanks Worm Jenova20 09:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment WormTT, I disagree however. I am glad to hear you will be overseeing the article, at present it is just a list of things jenova20 feels are 'homophobic'. Like he has put 'Melanie Phillips', she is not homophobic and he has no evidence to back this. Also I do not feel Mac's cartoon is homophobic or anti-semitic and Jenova20 has no evidence to back these claims up. He is simply tryng to reference the cartoon and saying "Look homophobia", this is POV/OR. I also notice Jenova20 has been attacking me again on your talk page accusing me of allsorts, I would appreciate it if you would tell him to stop this. I am simply providing constructive criticism as I do not object to the article, I simply object to its present form which just seems to be Jenova20 settling his personal vendetta with the Daily Mail and other papers. I take very unkindly to being accused AGAIN of 'stalking' and 'hounding', I have done nothing wrong. Please be neutral and tell him to lay off me, thanks. Christian1985 (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

To be blunt, I don't find your tone particularly constructive. Constructive criticism usually implies suggestions on how to improve something, not just saying "this is bad." And you're also incorrect on evidence. A number of sources User:Jenova20 has listed in the sandbox Such as here, here, here, here, and here, are considered to be highly reliable sources, which actually use the term "homophobic" in those articles. As such, the article even in its rough draft format is not "just a list of things jenova20 feels are 'homophobic'," nor a "vendetta with the Daily Mail and other papers" especially when those papers are actually discussing various accusations of homophobia. On the other hand, the rest of the links are mostly blogs, which are inherently unreliable for use on wikipedia and should be removed. Nonetheless, the article currently does not suffer overwhelming POV or OR, thuogh to be safe, only reliable sources such as I links I pointed out or books like the ones I provided from google books should be consulted. As I said, this is an obvious subject of academic study and there would be no need for OR considering the wealth of sources available on the subject. Although I would say User:Jenova20 should start with Heterosexism in the media as the primary article and then focus on homophobia as a sub heading or a sub article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The article is a work in progress - and yes, at the moment, it has areas where Jenova20 may feel that there is homophobia, but has not yet found sources. If he can't find sources, he won't put it in, I'm sure. Have you looked at the sources that he's found for the the article? There's dozens there - more than enough to write a very good article on the subject. Please do ensure your critique reflects the fact that the article is a work in progress and wouldn't be put live in that state.

Regarding the supposed "attacks", I certainly will not tell him to stop. He has reported to me, in my dual roles as his mentor and an administrator, that he feels uncomfortable with the behaviour of an individual and asked for the different ways he could handle it. This is certainly appropriate behaviour. I find it interesting that you are assuming that the individual is you, since Jenova20 said very little and never mentions anyone in particular - do you feel you are behaving in a way similar to that which he described? However, I see you are overtly accusing Jenova20 of having a "personal vendetta" against the Daily Mail and other newspapers - I've seen no evidence of that. What I saw (over 6 months ago) was that Jenova20 was unclear about what information should be put on Wikipedia, due to verifiability and undue weight issues. He's come a long way since then and it would be better if tried to assume good faith. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

WormTT, I accept this is a work in progress but I will be continuing to monitor it and I am perfectly entitled to scrutinise the article which I will do. As I say I do not object to the article in principle, I just want it to be properly sourced and in line with WP policy. Thank You for your comments. Christian1985 (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Like he has put 'Melanie Phillips', she is not homophobic and he has no evidence to back this."

There is much evidence to suggest this, i will add it as soon as i go into greater depth on the media in the UK.

With "constructive criticism" like yours Christian then who needs enemies or vandalism.

Comment on the article if you like but your voice holds only as much weight as everyone elses and i won't respond if your comments are like the ones here.

Thanks Jenova20 11:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your civil comment jenova20, I will continue to monitor the article and I agree my voice holds as much weight as anyone else's. But I will be scrutinising the article and references and I will critique them if they are contentious, that is how WP works. Thanks. Christian1985 (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed your Melanie Phillips references, the First Post one is reasonably sound, but Liberal Conspiracy is absolutely not RS and the other one is simply a blog site, they are not reliable references. This is not an attack but simply pointing out the facts. Christian1985 (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I know full well some are not RS and are blogs but i need a note to look them up in future and know the full story.

That's the only reason they're there at the moment and since it's not a proper article i don't see the harm until i can find proper sources.

If you can note which ones are NOT RS somehow then that will help me later on though.

Thanks for being civil Jenova20 12:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I have sources for Melanie Phillips now if you want to check in periodically.

Can't see her winning any awards for her stance though.

Jenova20 13:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So - based on the article as it is now, and the debate above - how about a list instead? 'List of media reporting accused of bias by sexuality' for example? AdamCaputo (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Help with Zachary Quinto Biography

Hi, I am concerned that there are attempts to either minimize or remove all LGBT aspects of this article. I'm not getting anywhere with those editors making the changes. They've changed things then semi-protected the article. After being accused ov vandalism (I have not made one single change), being called a troll and other confrontations it is obvious that a registered editor who understand how to work with Christians is needed. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.33.191 (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist to keep an eye on things.

It looks fine atm from what i can see though.

Thanks Jenova20 13:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Jenova, Thank you! I want to put quite a bit of the material which was cut back into the article. I am want to work with others. When the semi-protect is lifted, I will give it a try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.33.191 (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fab news.

Remember though to sign your posts with 4 tildes or at least register with Wikipedia for more editing options.

Some people don't take anonymous editors seriously so you can argue a position better logged in.

Thanks Jenova20 13:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The rules say you needn't register, but if that will help get fair treatment then I'm willing to give it a try. I try to keep up on most of the LGBT entries and there seems to be a constant battle, waged through policy and drive-by admins who just happen to take the anti-LGBT side. (George Reekers was how I first noticed this, one of my German colleagues went nearly insane battling through that one). Which is a long way of asking, would it be better, given the enormous level of hostility already there, to just live with you folks monitoring it? It sounds like the anti-LGBT side is already standing-by to revert and wage a procedural war against me the second I make any changes. Thanks again - 92.194.33.191 (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There are tonnes of edit wars going on.

Wikipedia projects can end up warring over things aswell since they both have their thing to promote.

Conservative clubs are a thorn since they keep warring over abortion and gay articles to reword them for their own POV.

As for registering, it may help, it may not. But either way you will have more editing tools to use.

Thanks Jenova20 14:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Still Semi-Protected

I don't understand the process, would appreciate help. The Zachary Quinto article still shows the semi-protect lock on it. Now, I have not made one change, I am not required to register to edit. It looks to me as if the same tactics are being used here as on so many LGBT articles in order to lock things in. Thanks92.194.16.13 (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You can edit it if you create an account when it's locked but I believe the current protection has expired now.

I would not edit the page yet however, instead join the discussion on the talk page and try to avoid personal attacks or accusations.

You can think someone is biased but if you can't prove it then you can't say it (basically again it's comment on content only).

Thanks Jenova20 14:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Jenova, that makes sense. I do take attacks on our civil rights very seriously. I'll probably take a user-name eventually. There is no way to fight the wikilawyering tactics of the anti-civil rights Christians, otherwise. And I'll try hard not to get so personal. Thanks, again.92.194.16.13 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No problemo, let me know if you need anything Jenova20 09:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And again with the attacks and taking text out

I freely admit that I am not good at editing, this is my first time. The personal attacks and no discussion, simply delete approach on the Zachary Quinto article have continued. Is there anyway to mediate this or do we just proceed with several of the editors there using their greater knowledge of how to block things at Wikipedia to prevent any change which doesn't fit their agenda? This is very frustrating. I'm not looking for a fight, I'm trying to improve an article. Thanks!92.194.214.93 (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Partner? Girlfriend? Wife?

I'm wondering if there is-- perhaps in the WikiProject Biography somewhere I can't find-- guidelines on the use of terms for same-sex relationships? That is-- in a lot of cases you can go off what someone has identified their relationship as, sure-- but are there actual stated guidelines? I could see this being a theoretically contentious issue, so I'd like to have some kind of recognized policy. mordicai. (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that some jurisdictions do not allow gay marriage but do allow civil partnerships; in such cases, "partner" is not just a chosen way to describe a same-sex partnership, it is the actual legal status of the relationship.Cervenka (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"Partner" seems to be the preferred term for non-married couples, as it is the Infobox alternative to "spouse". I personally much prefer it to "boy-/girlfriend", which seems unsuited to an encyclopedia. It would be useful to have a written guideline (if one doesn't exist already) on how to refer to people in a civil union/-partnership or non-legal marriage. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That infobox alternative is a strong point! In some cases-- & increasingly so as laws catch up-- there will be clear legal terms, whether they are civil union terms or terms brought into use through marriage equality legislation. Anyhow, yeah, guidelines-- if, as you say, there isn't one I'm just overlooking-- seem like a smart way to go.

Just doing a little more digging, & came across Template:Close_relationships. Actually, on a closer look it doesn't seem so helpful, but at least points to a starting place.

& it might be worth noting that I've cross-posted this discussion at WP:BIO-- if either this thread or that one seems more appropriate, let me know. -- mordicai. (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the disputed use of "partner" has, thus far, occurred in the Personal LIfe or Family section of wikipedia entries, so I really don't think there's any ambiguity about using the term (people won't confuse it with a business partner). Also, the terms "boyfriend/girlfriend" impose gender roles on the relationship status; "partner," like "spouse," is gender-neutral. Cervenka (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're probably right in that regard-- obviously I think we're falling on the same side of the spectrum-- but I'd still like to see something concise &...well, "official" is the wrong word, but guidelines with some group consensus to give it a little oomph. - mordicai. (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important to specify that whatever guideline is created should not override the terms used by the LP to describe the relationship, if information about this is available. If A refers to B as her wife even if they live in a jurisdiction where they cannot legally be married, we too should do so. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Got a Name

Just wanted to say thanks for all the support on the Zachary Quinto article. I decided to go for a user name. It seems only fair after all the effort folks here put into trying to keep that from becoming a total disaster. If all LGBT articles come under as much attack from the Christians as that one, I think I may have to learn quite a bit about wikilawyering in order to just survive around here. Goodness. Is there any particular policy page or FAQ which LGBT editors can read? It's not easy to work with people who consider their hatred of us NPOV and our demand for human status and full civil rights 'advocacy'. Thanks againPauci leones (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Pauci!

I don't believe there is any page about being under attack. In my opinion (and this is just my opinion), you might consider taking a step back before you respond to those that you see as hateful. From what I've read, you tend to respond very forcefully to comments that may or may not be actually hateful. Try taking an hour or two before responding, and see if what you read the first time is still an issue. Since editing Wikipedia isn't in real time (as in, we're not all on at the same time), taking a moment can be beneficial and doesn't hurt anything.

Just my opinion :) Happy Editing! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that is worthwhile and I've made a note of it - give it time to 'settle'. My virtual reactions are not, obviously, divorced from real life. Right now, my husband and I are in Europe and our marriage is not only legal and valid, it is also a non-issue. When we return to the US - where we spend half our time - the harassment begins at customs where they see our names and marital status and goes on from there. One can't help but notice such things. Our civil rights are violated, period. Our human status is diminished, period. The challenge is, of course, not to respond forcefully to what I see as attacks on me as a person but to defend, what is verifiable and notable. It comes down to realizing that 'truth' - is a concept which has no place in Wikipedia. And, yes, I don't do a good job of keeping a cool head when being called a vandal, a troll, when wikilawyering is used against me by Christians. In real life, it makes sense to defend oneself immediately when the Christians attack. In the virtual world, there is time. That's a new concept for me and one I'm going to have to work very hard to grasp and apply. After all, as you point out - not all disagreements are necessarily attacks. Thanks - May I post your comments to my talk page so I don't lose them?Pauci leones (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

We'll all get personal attacks Pauci, both here from other editors and at home (wherever that may be).

Just try not to let it get to you and always remember two important things.

• Comment on content, not contributors
• Act in good faith

There's a lot to learn here but basically it's what you can prove, not what people believe and there are articles where people will take an edit as a personal attack and argue and argue and argue until you give up trying to add to them.

Don't give up and just keep trying!

Thanks Jenova20 09:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)