Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies: Difference between revisions
→Homosexuality Talk Page: new section |
|||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
:::Why? [[User:Insomesia|Insomesia]] ([[User talk:Insomesia|talk]]) 21:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC) |
:::Why? [[User:Insomesia|Insomesia]] ([[User talk:Insomesia|talk]]) 21:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::The figure does not qualify as self identified by any standard although it is possible to list under transgender without self identification I suppose.--[[User:Amadscientist|Amadscientist]] ([[User talk:Amadscientist|talk]]) 04:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC) |
::::The figure does not qualify as self identified by any standard although it is possible to list under transgender without self identification I suppose.--[[User:Amadscientist|Amadscientist]] ([[User talk:Amadscientist|talk]]) 04:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
I think that Women's History would be a much better fit. There are no indications that she dressed as a man for sexual reasons; the more logical inference is that she dressed as a man because women are not allowed to be ordained in the Roman Catholic Church. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/70.113.67.75|70.113.67.75]] ([[User talk:70.113.67.75|talk]]) 22:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Neutrois]]? == |
== [[Neutrois]]? == |
Revision as of 22:02, 7 March 2013
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject LGBT studies and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | LGBT studies Project‑class | ||||||
|
|
Per no objections here for over a month, I've created the above page. The lead is horrible now, so if someone wants to help with that! CTF83! 01:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Discussion about merging the Gender bender and Genderfuck with each other
Hey, everyone. The title of this section essentially explains it all. Opinions are needed on the matter it mentions. The discussion it found at Talk:Genderfuck#Merge proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Merger discussion regarding List of LGBT slang
Discussion here. More opinions welcome and necessary. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Help needed with this article
I have just created a new article called Transexual pornography if anyone can help I would appreicate it.Dwanyewest (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
LGBT Free Media Collective on Wikimedia Commons
I wanted to invite people to check out and comment on a new project being organized by Wikimedia LGBT, the LGBT Free Media Collective on Wikimedia Commons. The LGBT Free Media Collective is a collaborative effort by LGBT organizations and Wikimedia projects to collect, archive and make available media files related to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities. To date the collective has contributed 740 media files to Wikimedia Commons. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 05:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Pride
I wanted to invite people to check out and comment on an additional new project being organized by Wikimedia LGBT, Wiki Loves Pride. The idea behind "Wiki Loves Pride" is a global campaign to expand and improve LGBT related content across several Wikimedia projects. The activities of Wiki Loves Pride are focused on June and October. Thousands of LGBT cultural events and celebrations are held around the world during the month of June. October is observed in several nations as LGBT History Month (others observe it in February - which may be added in future years) and is also when "coming out" is celebrated. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 05:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Pope Joan: transexual?
Pope Joan is currently in Category:LGBT history prior to the 19th century and Category:Transgender topics and religion. I almost unilaterally removed both of these, but I thought it best to clarify the issue first. Though almost certainly just a legendary figure, Joan was a woman who dressed as a man and was named pope. None of this says anything about her sexuality. I was always under the impression that transvestism and transgender were separate categories (even if some individuals could fall under both), but now I'm hesitant since the former is discussed in the latter's article. Now, Pope Joan isn't actually tagged as of interest to this project, and I think that's appropriate (Women's history is a much better fit), but again, I wanted to ask. Is a transvestite always transgender? Apologies, this must have been asked before. Maybe there should be a FAQ. --BDD (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Transgender is an umbrella term that includes cross-dressing, gender-bending, as well as implicit sexuality issues. The LGBT project covers sexuality and gender issues, sometimes they overlap but not always. Those categories seem accurate to me. Insomesia (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would probably include it in discussion of transgender although not necessarily transsexual. Sceptre (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with the removal of the categories.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Why? Insomesia (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- The figure does not qualify as self identified by any standard although it is possible to list under transgender without self identification I suppose.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why? Insomesia (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with the removal of the categories.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that Women's History would be a much better fit. There are no indications that she dressed as a man for sexual reasons; the more logical inference is that she dressed as a man because women are not allowed to be ordained in the Roman Catholic Church. 70.113.67.75 (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Neutrois people are people who do not identify with male or female and seek to remove any body parts associated with either gender. This wish to remove such parts comes from what is known as dysphoria, a strong displeasure with something, and transgender people feel the same feelings.
Anyone heard of this? Or is it just a non-notable neologism? Insomesia (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't heard of it, but that's probably because I don't really know much about the "T" in LGBT, being one of those boring "G's". As for notability, I was initially rather put off by the fact that there is a website that just started with a 2013 copyright date and a Twitter bootstrap theme. There are some sourcing issues: for instance, it claims that "Brazil, Thailand, and the United Kingdom allow nullification surgeries to be performed", but there is no source I can find for that. I'm very skeptical about the claim that nullification surgery is performed in the UK. Again, I don't know much about trans stuff, but that seems a bit off.
- There's a potential GNG issue here. I just had a look on Google Books and can't find any in-depth academic discussion of Neutrois. It may not actually satisfy GNG, and a redirect to something like genderqueer may be more appropriate. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have head the term used occasionally in LGBTetc communities on the web. The article as it currently stands has a problem with demonstrating notability; the only reference that actually refers to "neutrois" is "neutrois.com"; the others are about third-gender recognition in general. (The article has also been deleted twice before.) - htonl (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Jose Antonio Vargas
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#Blanking of content verified by multiple reliable sources. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48
Notification of discussions under project scope
I wanted to let the project know about two discussions taking place that fall within its scope.
--Amadscientist (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I came across this neglected, little orphan of an article today, and have expanded it somewhat and provided more references. I've added the LGBT studies project banner to the talk page. If not appropriate, please remove. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- That seems a reasonable thing to do. Thanks for the good work improving the article. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Proposal for creation of "Gay propaganda" article
We have no article on Gay propaganda? I've created one at that link in my user space here. If you have any tips, advice, or contributions then chuck them in. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see your draft in your userspace; your link is a redlink. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- It was a red link at the time but there's some basics there and a crude lede if you wish to take a look. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- There is already Anti-LGBT rhetoric, which seems to cover what you want to cover. I do not support the creation of a page called "Gay propaganda". Propaganda is a loaded term because it has a negative connotation when actually it denotes both positive and negative media. There could be a complementary article created called LGBT rhetoric if we wanted to cover the spectrum of propaganda, but the "anti" article seems to be doing enough for the negative side. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I concur with Blue Rasberry. It doesn't seem like there's enough to justify the creation of this article. I don't dispute that people exist who believe there is an elaborate gay propaganda machine. But if we're going to create an article everytime someone makes an unfounded accusation about LGBT people, we're gonna have a lot of poorly sourced articles. I mean, a while back some nutter in North Carolina suggested that gays and lesbians be put behind an electric fence. But it would seem rather churlish to create an article called "Proposals to detain LGBT people behind electric fences". There's plenty of LGBT-related articles that clearly do meet the GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- There is already Anti-LGBT rhetoric, which seems to cover what you want to cover. I do not support the creation of a page called "Gay propaganda". Propaganda is a loaded term because it has a negative connotation when actually it denotes both positive and negative media. There could be a complementary article created called LGBT rhetoric if we wanted to cover the spectrum of propaganda, but the "anti" article seems to be doing enough for the negative side. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Don't we have Homosexual agenda for this? Shouldn't this be a redirect perhaps? And 'Gay propaganda' is generally seen as being anti-LGBT rhetoric indeed. --Scientiom (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- And Gay agenda redirects to Homosexual agenda. That article is entirely US-centred, which is because the phrases themselves are used amost exclusively in the States. There could be a case for expanding it to include international content if similar phrases are used in Russia and elsewhere. There's also Homosexual recruitment and Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. Paul B (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- It was a red link at the time but there's some basics there and a crude lede if you wish to take a look. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Homosexuality Talk Page
There are some worrying comments on the Homosexuality talk page. It seems that there will be consideration by some to add biblical reasoning for why homosexuality should be warned against due to AIDS. The community should weigh in. Sean Egan (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)