Portal talk:LGBTQ

Trans-people pronouns

I've been doing some Wiki-ing tonight and I found that the same annoying topic kept coming up on pages about people who are transgendered and the pronouns to use, so I made up a quick box to put on those talk pages:

As I said, was a quick box without doing much fiddling. Tried to get the short-cut box to center, but it didn't want to follow orders. Anyway, from I think that Help:Infobox says that I'm supposed to post it on the project page for approval. If I'm supposed to post it somewhere else instead, please let me know :) Kaotac (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This portal page could really benefit from a little overhaul...

Dreadful, boring color scheme. Not enough pictures and icons to draw readers in. Pretty unexciting content-wise—e.g. where are the birthdays?

The Serbo-Croatian (interesting, varied content, colorful, inviting; perhaps too many rounded corners) and Russian (colorful; love the banner) equivalents are much better IMHO. Time for a redesign? --Morn (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the page a little more colorful. What's still missing though are the anniversaries/birthdays... --Morn (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that should be fairly easy to compile from categories. Where are they going? -- role^player 11:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

They should probably be set up like the "On this day..." box on the WP main page. But I haven't taken a closer look at how that works. Probably there has to be a separate Wiki page for every day of the year?

WP-SH has a long list of stuff here: sh:Wikipedia:Portal:LGBT/LGBT_godina Perhaps that's a translation of an article on en.wikipedia? --Morn (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think it would involve a separate page for each date. That's a good list - what language is that in? -- role^player 12:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian presumably. Does Google Translate even support that? But I could have sworn I had seen a similar list here somewhere.

I'd say the "Topics" box should be edited down a little, perhaps sprinkled with some icons to make it less text-heavy. That would also make enough space for "On this day..." --Morn (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think you're right re topics. It does look a bit text heavy. -- role^player 12:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed some items from the topics box. It's still huge and suffers from the wall of text syndrome, but perhaps a little less so than before.

One remaining issue with the selected content on the page is that there is too much emphasis on abstract concepts as opposed to things that physically exist or existed. It might be OK for the topics box (where overreaching abstract concepts are useful), but under selected articles only two entries (about gay bars) are about real things. Everything else is basically abstract. (I count movies as abstract here). So I'd say more coverage of persons, works of art that can be touched (books, paintings, sculptures, photographs, etc.), and places would make this page a little more approachable and less like an academic portal for Gender Studies.

The welcome box could probably also be more succinct. OTOH, the time dimension is missing entirely. The second paragraph talks about "around the world" but makes no mention of the past whatsoever. That's also an issue with the selected biographies: they are too much geared toward the 20th-century US, not much historical context is given, neither are other cultures (e.g. Ancient China) mentioned.

Perhaps this portal should be nominated for featured status? In fact it seems a bit silly it's not a FP already. --Morn (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Portal icon

Copied from Template talk:Portal/Images/Lgbt; who knows if anybody is watching that page

I think we should experiment with a different portal icon and see if that increases traffic. The current "jigsaw piece/keyhole/sideways rainbow" image is more picture riddle than icon and doesn't look very distinct or recognizable at small sizes. I propose replacing this with File:Nuvola LGBT flag borderless.svg. --Morn (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments on dos Manzanas

Greetings community.

Apologies if this is the incorrect forums. However, I've gotten into a conflict with another editor at the merits of dos Manzanas as a reliable site for citing the alleged homosexuality for Paul of Greece with a Denham Fouts. Your input on Paul of Yugoslavia (in which we appearently are discussing Paul of Greece and Denham Fouts) would be greatly appreciated. Even if not in my favor. Thank you!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

David Berger (theologian)·

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) 13:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For the second time User:Lectonar speeddeleted a good article with references over German catholic theologian and professor David Berger. Berger wrote as author several books and in his last book "Heiliger Schein" he wrote, that 20 to 40 percentage of catholic clergy is gay. So can someone stop here User:Lectonator and his vandalizm of this article ? Marco Frank (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

For the second time User:Lectonar speeddeleted a good article with references over German catholic theologian and professor David Berger. Berger wrote as author several books and in his last book "Heiliger Schein" he wrote, that 20 to 40 percentage of catholic clergy is gay. So can someone stop here User:Lectonator and his vandalizm of this article ? Marco Frank (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I can only get the Dec. 5th article version from Google's cache, so I don't know if your second submission was better, but to me it seems you need to have a better introduction. "David Berger (born March 8, 1968 in Würzburg) is a German theologian and author." isn't really enough, you need to tell the reader what's special about him and why he's important. Perhaps you should work on the article in your user sandbox a bit before you try to put it in the article namespace. Still, I don't think Lectonar was justified at all in speedy-deleting this. A regular nomination for deletion would have been more useful to get input from other users. IMHO some admins are a little overzealous when it comes to speedy deletion. --Morn (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

no. It was a more than a stub and good enough to keep. 92.252.82.80 (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Omarion

Singer Omarion has come out as Bisexual apparently. It's been added to his page. I believe this press release is the source they must have read Press release ... Is it reliable? It needs citing any how I guess until someone makes the decision, he is quoted as identifing with the label.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 23:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What happened to Intersex?

Hello. As an Intersex person I was under the impression that the acronym used to LGBTI. What happened to the I? over 2010 there seems to have been a massive effeort to remove any refrence of Intersex people from GLBTI. Anyone know why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.72.194 (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Here in the UK we very rarely use LGBTI. The first time I even heard of that acronym was when I logged into Wikipedia today. -- role^player 14:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been active in LGBT issues here in the States for the past decade, and in my experience the *I* has only been used sporadically. Most often, it's only the first four letters; if there's a fifth, it's usually Q. You're right, the *I* needs to be recognized. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So I read up on this, and apparently, some intersex people didn't identify as LGBT+ and didn't want to be included in the LGBT community; therefore, the I was removed so that intersex people weren't all clumped together against their will. Only intersex people who do identify as LGBT+ would say that they were LGBT. I guess that it all depends on the person. NeutralWikipedia 02:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

How to suggest an article about activist Rick Stokes

Hi; I wolud to suggest an article about the LGBT activist Rick Stokes (the mine was erased), who appeared in the documentary from 1977 "Word Is Out" and is a part of our history. In "feasoffun.com" there are an interview (podcast) about him and the electro shock ¿therapy? that he suffered in the 1950s. (sorry for my English)

Regards from Spain: --Guachinche (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your article was deleted as an attack page. I do not agree with that assessment, and have asked the deleting administrator to reconsider. LadyofShalott 18:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Trinity Christian Academy (Addison, Texas)

People at this very conservative school in Texas keep removing an embarrassing section about a student outed and expelled for being being gay and starting a gay website, this made international media attention and is well written and cited, it has nearly a hundred citations on its talk page. Can you guys keep an eye on this? I added the school to the portal and going to add it to the LGBT wikiproject as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.74.66 (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Just checked. It's still there. Sdegan (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Checked again tonight. It's still in the introduction of the page. Sean Egan (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Case against inclusion of Heterosexualization as "part of the series that affects LGBT people"

Heterosexulization is a process that primarily affects the non-LGBT, The proposition that LGBT individuals maybe heterosexualized is preposterous, since, had they been heterosexualized, they would not be LGBT anymore. LGBT are the people who have escaped heterosexualization, and so its a misrepresentation of the issue to include 'heterosexualization' as a part of the LGBT issue, or to make the entire article revolve around making it an issue that affects the LGBT.

The danger of making heterosexualization into a 'gay' issue, is that then the people that it affects the most -- that is those who don't relate with the sexual identities (as in the case of the non-west) or those who take the heterosexual identity under pressure or conditioning (through heterosexualization) in order to escape the gay identity, then are excluded from its readership and even if they read it would not relate with it as something that affects them -- as this creates a big psychological barrier. It amounts to hijacking the issue by the LGBT community.

It is this reason for which I feel the inclusion of this article as "part of a series on issues that affect LGBT people is wrong." It is as much an issue that affects LGBT people, as 'heterosexuality' Is heterosexuality a part of this series? Homosexualization of this issue stigmatizes it for the people to which it affects the most, and serves no purpose. The LGBT people have several terms to discuss the issue of 'homophobia' and other LGBT issues, and its unreasonable for them to appropriate everything that challenges heterosexuality in its own fold. This is a politics that distorts the facts, especially of those that are affected negatively by the western concept of sexual orientation, especially, the non-westerners. (Masculinity (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC))

For those interested, the discussion is at Talk:Heterosexualization#Not only an LGBT issue. And as I stated to Masculinity there, The content is not entirely on homophobia. And how do you know none of the references you removed talk about heterosexualization, considering that some of those references are not available online? I highly doubt you have those books and volumes. And this source and others do talk about heterosexualization. Just because it doesn't use the specific word "heterosexualization"...does not make it any less clear that it is talking about "heterosexualization." You often do this, remove reliable sources, asserting that they are only about one thing and with no valid reason at all. You then add your own text, usually original research (meaning, as you know, that it is attributed to no sources, reliable or otherwise). One example is your removal of these references from the Heterosexuality article. That definition is not defining "sexual orientation" in regards to homosexuality. It is defining "sexual orientation" period, which is why it is also used in the Sexual orientation article and others, and is why I reverted you (and tweaked the lead further). You need to learn how to really look at sources, and stop adding your own definitions to things. If heterosexualization is the process through which individuals are conditioned to adopt heterosexual practices, by ignoring and suppressing their sexual feelings toward the same sex and then using these suppressed emotions towards the opposite gender, I'm not seeing how you think this article is not going to be largely or mostly about LGBT issues. The "proposition" that LGBT individuals may be heterosexualized is NOT preposterous. Plenty of gay/lesbian/bisexual people initially take on a heterosexual identity, because they feel that being heterosexual is the right sexual orientation and or want to be heterosexual. There are even accounts of people not realizing they are gay/lesbian/otherwise until much later in life (their 30s or 40s). One of the things with you is that you don't believe in the "concept" of LGBT. To you, it is just a Western application. That's your belief, whatever. But I say whether you call it "gay" or "just a man engaging in sexual acts with another man (men who have sex with men)," the article is still discussing the conditioning of people automatically taking on the heterosexual label, making depictions of human sexuality largely or only about being heterosexual, and suppressing any sexual/romantic feelings they may have for the same sex, which is what heterosexualization is. And let me make clear again: That "only part of the topic being covered" does not give you the right to remove the material. You want the article to cover all these angles you state the term encompasses, then you expand the article in that way...with WP:Reliable sources. I am not going to sit here and have these long-winded debates with you about this. We both know you can write large texts to try and support your stance. I can as well. But this is not a debate I feel compelled to have. It's very simple, really: You don't go removing heaps of relevant, reliable text like that. You have a problem with the article mostly leaning in one direction, then you add the relevant tags (POV tags or whatever), and then expand the article in the way that you want...if compelled to do so...but with relevant text and reliable sources backing up that text (then remove the POV tags or whatever). Flyer22 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Romani people

You might want to keep an eye on the Romani people article for the time being. I'm watching it but I'm not on all the time, there's someone who has a real issue with one of the people mentioned being a drag artist (see talk Talk:Romani_people#Azis_is_not_representative_of_romani_culture) Akerbeltz (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

LGBT Case law (international)

Is there a comprehensive list of LGBT-related cases somewhere? All of the LGBT lists are country specific and do not contain decisions made by other courts of final appeal (like Mexico, or Portugal or Nepal).--Enos733 (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

random?

People in this project should consider this [random picture]. It is under your banner and I assume you are not interested in it as silver ware. Gay rights? McCronion (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what the portal is about. This is the LGBT portal, not the gay rights portal, although gay rights are covered to some degree. And the Warren Cup is an example of LGBT-related art from Roman times. Not everything on this portal is about gay activism, if that is what your question is about. --Morn (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No that's pretty much the response I was expecting. McCronion (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you knew the answer beforehand, what was the point of asking? Normally people tend to ask about stuff they don't know. --Morn (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Elio di Rupo in Belgium

After Iceland with first open lesbian prime minister Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir now politican Elio di Rupo become first open gay prime minister of Belgium. 82.149.172.116 (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Countee Cullen

I am editing the Countee Cullen article. There was a rumor that he was homosexual that was written by an author of a book (it was uncited so I cited the author). But an author of an encyclopedia basically stated that there was no proof. Since, my limited understanding is articles in encyclopedias can not be used as sources on Wikipedia, therefore I can not remove the citation or the statement by the author. Largely I see his sexual orientation, at this beginning stage of editing, having no impact on his life or his writings. Furthermore, I do not think rumors should be included in the (any) article unless it impacts him (the subject), or society's view of him(the subject). Someone put a link on the talk page to this portal, so I thought I'd run it by this page and see if there was any guidelines I should follow.

Thanks in advance. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

[Category:LGBT people] in Commons

Hi at all. In Commons a user has delete this category from a lot of pages of famous LGBT people in the world. There is currently a discussion about this. I would be very grateful to all who want to participate in the debate, so that there will be a joint decision and shared. Thank you very much! Cheers, DenghiùComm (20.01.2012, 10:55 PM) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.65.218.51 (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

On adding LGBT content to non-LGBT pages

I am not highly involved in any one project on Wikipedia, but I do make edits to science based pages. I noticed the other day that the Chick-Fil-A Wiki page has a mention about anti-gay policies. I think that Dominoes Pizza should also have a section on this. My problem is that I don't know if it would be appropriate or not. Would someone like to add that in there if they think it's fitting? The wiki page on Tom Monaghan (who has a controlling share in Domino's) made me feel that it should be mentioned on the company page.

Also, should there be a Wiki page on companies with known anti-gay and pro-gay policies? Sdegan (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I posted this to the WikiProject Talk Page for LGBT stuff. Sdegan (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

Hi, folks. I happened by this article and I think there's some discrimination going on with attacks on it. There are unreasonable challenges to properly cited information and some discussion that belittles the subject and calls for deletion. I'm attempting to add to the article but I'm encountering quite a bit of resistance. Could I get some folks to review the history and provide opinions on the talk page? Thanks. Pkeets (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Jodie Foster....again

there's current discussion going on over on the Jodie Foster talk page that might be of interest to some. the usual thinly veiled denialism and homophobia there is palpable. --emerson7 02:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup, this is fairly desperate straightwashing going on in the article. According to her glbtq.com article, Jodie first came out in 2007.[1] So WP is already six years behind the verifiable facts at this point. But the force of denial is strong with some WP editors. --Morn (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

File:HRC marriage equality sign.svg

Could anybody integrate this popular sign into some gay marriage-articles? Thanks — Allrounder (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I sort of feel like doing so makes it seem more like a marriage equality symbol than a clever variation of Human Rights Campaign's logo done for promotional purposes - unless that is the context in which is was mentioned. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 22:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

_{Image call updated from JPG to SVG. Tuvalkin (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)}

LGBT Categories up for deletion

Please feel free to weigh in, pro or con, about whether these LGBT categories should continue to exist on Wikipedia:
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_17#LGBT_people_from_the_United_States_by_state
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_17#LGBT_scientists_by_nationality
Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Homophobia in the Ukrainian Wikipedia!!!

Hello. I'm open gay Wikipedian from Ukraine. I want to report a homophobic activities of some administrators and patrol Ukrainian Wikipedia. Present direct and indirect discrimination. Related articles LGBT renamed, removed or changed beyond recognition and biased their content. LGBT friendly accused of "advocating LGBT"! There is even an article on a similar topic that is unique only in the Russian Wikipedia and is unrelated to common sense and the rules of Wikipedia[2]. Wikipedia Wikipedia, homophobes administrators and patrol called a "collection of information" and promote "non-traditional values." Homosexuality Article in Ukrainian Wikipedia entitled "homosexualist[3]." And Article hey do not have any relation to the topic of the article. There napsyano of MSM and that gays - spread the AIDS disease. User A1 promotes orthodox attitudes to homosexuality and phaye information on how it relates to LGBT church in the paper, which is irrelevant[4]. The new administrator Green Zero[5] has deleted many categories and articles on LGBT issues. particular category of gay writers. Me and other LGBT participants repeatedly verbally humiliated publicly. Addiction is especially thorough and biased. Although we attempt to write quality articles as possible and have contributed enough respect. That our existence they and other homophobes recognized as "LGBT propaganda." I and other LGBT Wikipedian very simple somehow affect this entire situation because this is unacceptable - it bullinh and in direct violation of not only LGBT rights in Ukraine but also the rules of Wikipedia! Thank you! Please help! --Rayan Riener (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the LGBT portal; very few Wikipedians will see your message here, and even fewer administrators. The place for conduct issues involving administrators would be the "Incidents" noticeboard, but I suspect the response would be that the administrators of the English Wikipedia have no control over what happens at any other project. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted files

Dears, please be informed that 2 files have been deleted from The Imitation Game article, because the user who uploaded those file was a sockpopet. Those two files also were used in Alan Turing article (right side of the Education section). Who will help to reapload those files again ? Some examples - [6] (first and last pics of the top row). Thanks in advance. M.Karelin (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Bmclaughlin9, Prcc27, Dralwik, Teammm, and Brainboy109: Please someone pay attention to this topic. M.Karelin (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Image in portal bars

For your information: Template talk:Portal#Image edit request on 28 June 2015 (2).
83.228.174.148 (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC).

Need for comment on "List of popes who engaged in sex with men" (deleted)

A page I created on "List of popes said to have sex with men", using material from List of sexually active popes. This was summarily deleted as an Attack page. Apparently saying a pope had sex with a man was taken as a hateful attack. I have contested this deletion and would appreciate support.

[[7]]

I'm sorry if this isn't the ideal place to post this. Please movenit if there's a better place. deisenbe (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Gary Cooper RfC

There's an RfC happening here on Talk:Gary_Cooper#Anderson_Lawler whether to include mention of the very gay Anderson Lawler -- Gary Cooper's best friend in his article. Engleham (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Engleham: In theory, this page is only for discussions about improving the portal. You'd do better to post at the WikiProject, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ta! Engleham (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Picture of Straight Couple

Is there a particular reason that the first picture on the LGBT portal is of a straight couple? I was trying to think of reasons such as showing allies or even promoting the sexuality that is being straight. I'm not sure but I think we should consider changing it to an LGBT couple or something not so related to heterosexuality. Just a thought. Thanks! --Sddone01 (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Which picture do you mean? This one? (It's the first one, but it doesn't show a straight couple). ---Sluzzelin talk 17:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is the picture I was referring to. I see that it's not a straight couple now! My mistake! From far away it did appear to be a straight couple so my apologies. However I was thinking that if I thought that it was a straight couple maybe other people are getting that same message which may still call for a change in imagery. Even if not, though, it may still be an idea worth considering due to the way the lesbian couple is being represented. That picture denotes a very sexual connotation, a way lesbian couples are often seen in society, while the gay couples are shown in a more romantic relationship type of way. If we're trying to avoid bias it may be better to represent both the gay and lesbian couple the same way on the portal. -Sddone01 (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)