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

Link dispute (another anti-gay hate group one) on Template:LGBT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Per WP:EGG, keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Per the Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link.
• Per WP:LINKCLARITY, The article linked to should correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible given the context: [...] the link target and the link label do not have to correspond to each other, but the link must be as intuitive as possible.

On Template:LGBT, under the tab "Social attitudes Prejudice Violence" ... and in the subsection "Prejudice & Discrimination" there is a dispute on how to list List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups, an article I created and the other person has tried to delete (discussion closed as keep).

• List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups

I feel we should be brief but the opposer feels we must include a qualifier that it is a list that is produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). I feel adding the "SPLC" acronym is inappropriate on this full template (usually an acronym is explained, and SPLC is unlikely to be known by most to see the template).

Some options:

• SPLC-designated anti-gay hate groups
• Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-gay hate groups
• SPLC list
• List of anti-gay hate groups
• Anti-gay hate groups

Since this template belongs to this project could others please weigh in on what seems the most appropriate given that this is a high-profile template? After discussion has died down we can see if there is consensus and copy the dission to the template talk page so it is saved in both spaces. Insomesia (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I am the editor mentioned above. I want to clarify that I fully support the link being included in the template. The only issue is the piping (if any) by which it appears. I don't know why User:Insomesia mentions my nomination for the page's deletion - I cannot help but think that he or she is taking it rather personally. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups indicates, I nominated it as a content fork of List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups. In any case, it has absolutely no relevance for this discussion. StAnselm (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Another comment: The main reason I think reference should be made within the template to the SPLC is for neutrality. The link is to a list of organizations that the SPLC has designated as hate groups. There are some groups on the list whose inclusion may be controversial. There may be other groups not on the list that some feel should be included. It is not a definitive list of hate groups. There are other options other than the ones listed above, of course, such as "Anti-gay hate groups listed by the SPLC". StAnselm (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I posted a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates. StAnselm (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I am new to this template, I arrived here through StAnselm's invitation. I have read the earlier talk at the template's talk page. Primary issue seems to be whether to include a reference to SPLC in the visible text, secondary is how to spell and phrase it.

On the first issue: I defenitely agree with StAnselm that it should be mentioned, because it is their list, not a general or governmental or legal list. Omitting SPLC would promote SPLC's conclusions into some general fact. However good or bad they based their findings, it is theirs. Insomesia and MrX argue that it is some general knowledge, and the only such list available, and so has some authority (my wording here). But as I said, I do not want this editor's opinion (a POV) between my eyes and the link. The fact that I can see this background fact somewhere else (e.g. in the full link blurb in my browser) is opposing the navbox's aim (I found this well described in WP:EGG and WP:LINKCLARITY, already mentioned). Another, new, argument against generalising the list is that it lists U.S. groups only. Mentioning the list unspecified would also obscure that limitation. Reference to the U.S.is not needed, since we describe it as a list by an organisation, there is no suggestion of completeness.

Now on the second issue, phrasing and spelling. On abbreviating into "SPLC" or not. Interestingly, I have never before heard or read about that organisation (whichever way spelled). So to me both the short and long form were equal; my reaction was: what is that? (In this am I not an average reader?). Such a question mentally raising is bad. The fact that it is some sort of an institution should best be introduced by phrasing like using designated by .... That would answer my initial question automatically, even prevent it from popping up! For this reason, writing SPLC-designated list (long or short form) is less clear, because that way it could also mean a process, or some criteria set. Of course the navbox is not the place to otherwise describe of define the organisation. Just the fact that it is one, is enough. And with this, the short form is as usefull as the long form. In general, brevity is not a main argument. We do not leave out information for the sake of brevity. But now, all other things equal, we can choose the short form for overview reason (in a navbox, words are preferred over sentences). Concluding: SPLC should be mentioned, and can be abbreviated. Phrasing can & should clarify the source as an organisation. -DePiep (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• (also followed Anselm's link) I think that SPLC should be abbreviated. If people know who they are, the initialism is informative, if not, it's a link, and the article immediately starts with an explanation of the Southern Poverty Law Center. It definitely need to be labeled as the SPLC listing, because the list is POV and should be labeled as such, but the whole name is not likely to clarify anything for people who don't know about SPLC (as DePiep showed above), nor is it likely to diminish understanding for people in the know (I was a UIdaho student when SPLC got rid of the Aryan Nations). VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 12:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Heres how I feel about this. There are only a few organizations in the world that list hate groups. The only two I can think of are the SPLC and the ADL. On the other hand think of it this way, what sources would we use to say they are hate groups? I would say the SPLC and the ADL are the only groups which we can really use that have an authority on the subject. All in all I strongly think that just calling it a list of anti-LGBT hate groups would be enough unless you clearly have a better source that specializes in hate groups that would say otherwise.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a list from a UK group. StAnselm (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

While a great list that is not helping your point. The point is you are supposed to deligitimize at least most of the hate groups on the SPLC list by finding sources that clearly state they are not hate groups and therefore SPLC is not a proper authority on the topic of hate groups.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You are discussing the article page, but this thread is about how to put it in the template. And eh, who is supposed to deligitimize? -DePiep (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that SPLC is a source. Its main source of scholarship is hate groups. It contains many of the greatest experts in the field. They are the ones along with a few others who have the authority to say whether something is or isn't a hate group. The SPLC is a reliable source therefore the template should say Anti-LGBT hate groups.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your argument and choice of wording Rainbow ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you both be OK with List of anti-gay hate groups? I ask as this is technically a list and it's not unlikely that an article just about anti-gay hate groups could be created. Insomesia (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. If SPLC is irrelevant, then it should be not in the page title at all. Why not propose a name change there? -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean that SPLC is irrelevant? I do think possibly renaming the article might be a solution but i have no doubt the same group of editors will fight against it. Or maybe you have an idea for a NPOV name that is shorter? Insomesia (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not me arguing it is irrelevant, hence I wrote "if ...". If we link to a page, we should first consider using that page name, unchanged. Reasons to leave out the SPLC reference from the name (by using a pipe+label in the template) should apply equally to the page itself. If the page name is changed, there is not reason to follow the page name here. But indeed, when such a move is proposed at that page, the same people could show up -- because the arguments are the same: it is an organisation's list, not a general list. -DePiep (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'd support an SPLC-inclusive wording. I've consistently made the argument that the SPLC is authoritative for hate groups, but there are surely going to be differences between lists put together by different groups (e.g., SPLC vs ADL), and SPLC is only a few characters, seems simple enough to include for clarity. "SPLC list" is far from sufficiently descriptive, however. "SPLC-designated anti-gay hate groups", "Anti-gay hate groups (SPLC)", or the like, something like that seems optimal. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This template is a guide for what we have on Wikipedia, not what hypothetically may exist somewhere. On Wikipedia we only have one list, of anti-gay hate groups. Adding qualifiers is unneeded and in this case unhelpful as the vast majority will not know what SPLC means. Insomesia (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, what we have on Wikipedia is List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups. -j⚛e decker^talk 20:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Exactly, a list of anti-gay hate groups, as designated by the leading authority on hate groups. Search for anti-gay hate groups on Wikipedia and those groups themselves, and the list, are the results. No need to add the qualifier to the link which will lead to the lengthy article title. Insomesia (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• List of anti-gay hate groups, per WP:EGG, and WP:LINKCLARITY. This is clear, unsurprising, and leads the reader to pretty much exactly what one would expect. If we find ourselves with more than one list of anti-gay hate groups then we can revisit how to represent them. Insomesia (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed: List of anti-gay hate groups does the job. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support an SPLC-inclusive wording. That list is a disputed opinion, not an undisputed fact. Art LaPella (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not very persuasive that the groups being designated as hate groups don't like the label. Meanwhile, on Wikipedia, these are the only groups the pop up on searches for anti-gay hate groups. And reliable sources still uphold the SPLC as an authority in this area. Insomesia (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • But it doesn't say the groups being designated; it says "a slew of Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota". As for who is reliable, well, maybe it doesn't include Wikipedia. Oh well. Art LaPella (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
      • That source has been a bit discredited for what those people were actually signing onto, in any case that doesn't change that the vast majority still see the SPLC as the leading authority in this area. And the Wikipedia material in this area is often better sourced as there has been, and continues to be such heated discussion. Insomesia (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
        • That's an interesting assertion; it makes me sort of wonder: have there been any polls that indicate what the vast majority of Americans in general – specifically including those in the flyover states – really think about the SPLC listings? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
          • It really dosn't matter what people think. When we are on wikipedia we are looking for scholars of the topic to state whether or not a topic is what we claim it is. There are very few institutions that study hate groups the SPLC is one of the highest up and the ONLY one with a list on wikipedia. Since they are the scholars they are the ones who decide.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
            • They might need a glossary to understand the terms. I think it goes like this: Hate: to oppose certain actions is called hate; to oppose others, however violently, is not. Reliable: sources who think the previous Newspeak definition makes sense. Scholars: likewise. Vast majority: those who didn't elect the politicians I cited. Art LaPella (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
              • If you think those politicians serve as experts in hate groups then by all means step over to the SPLC article and make your case, so far credible criticism has been hotly debated and that particular source has been all but dismissed as useful. So far the only credible criticism has been well sourced about SPLC fundraising practices. Insomesia (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
                • No, the expert on hate groups is Wiktionary:hate. The politicians prove only that it isn't just me. Art LaPella (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
                • If experts, Wikipedia, and academia agree that groups on the list, like the Family Research Council, are more filled with hate than groups off the list, like al Qaeda, then I discount their expertise accordingly. Who is an expert on simple honesty? Diogenes? Art LaPella (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
                  • That's nice. Wikipedia and the work we do here are enriched by your personal feelings. SPLC only lists American groups, smart one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
                    • Then it should say "American hate groups", and several more qualifiers would be needed to get Alice out of Wonderland. Art LaPella (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Anti-gay hate groups or List of anti-gay hate groups as supported by the principle-based reasoning provided at the top of this section (WP:EGG, Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment, and WP:LINKCLARITY). The world will not end when a reader discovers that the hate group designation was made by one of the preeminent civil rights organizations in the United States. I think in our tireless effort toward some elusive goal of editorial perfection, we lose sight of the more humble goal of making information freely available. – MrX 17:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. StAnselm is at it again now deleting the entire link from Template:Discrimination sidebar and again from Template:Discrimination rather than allow the version he doesn't agree with. More input would be welcome. I'm still not hearing any good arguement to include with "Southern Poverty Law Center" or its almost unknown-to-most-readers acronym SPLC as helping educate our readers about this template link. Per WP:EGG, and WP:LINKCLARITY I still think Anti-gay hate groups or List of anti-gay hate groups gets the point across and leads one to pretty much what you would expect. Insomesia (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Actually, WP:EGG, and WP:LINKCLARITY would both suggest mentioning the SPLC. The proposed link indicates some general, worldwide, definitive list, whereas the list it goes to is (only) the SPLC list. StAnselm (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Disagree completely. We trust that readers have WP:Brains and will use them, the only article Wikipedia has on anti-gay hate groups is that one list article, which is more than a simple list. Insomesia (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Anti-gay hate groups or List of anti-gay hate groups per Mr.X, especially since there is only one article on the subject. I think few people would know who the SPLC is outside of someone already familiar with the group. The subject is the anti-gay groups themselves and their hatred. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Closure: This discussion has run for about three weeks, and there have been no comments in the past week. It seems like it might be time to close the discussion, and the result seems close. If no-one objects, I will post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. StAnselm (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• I came here from the AN thread, but I'd rather make my own comment. I'm for U.S. anti-gay hate groups. Few readers will be familiar with the organization, so giving its name will impart little information to them, and omitting it makes no difference as the reader sees who compiled the list once they click the link. More importantly, this is a list of US groups only, and contrary to the apparent expectations of some, the US is not the world. Without this qualifier, non-US readers looking for information about such groups in their own country will be disappointed after clicking on a link that is useless to them.  Sandstein  08:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've edited the template as suggested. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality

This article has more than a few issues. See the talkpage for all of them, but the article could use some some project input. The lede as written right now says this: "Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender." I dispute the term "romantic" as being based on the terms use in two clinical references, the American Psychological Association's website and the American Psychiatric Association. The first one is just not as strong a reference as a book source and is the basis for the use of the term in the lede. However, there are many sources that use romance, puppy love and idol worship as being average and routine to development of even heterosexual development. I fear these sources will be pushed out if I even bother to research them out again and add them as there seems to be a number of edit wars ongoing there. Another debate is whether or not the term itself can be described as a word with strictly Greek/Latin roots. The reference originaly used was not RS and I removed the desription. It was certainly a part of its origins but even the source now being offered by one editor, who calims there is no controversy over this and is not contentious basicly says: "Notorious" because it is a Greek/Latin modern hybrid with no actual Greek or Latin equivalent. I would go for that sort of prose with the reference being offered but I get the feeling the other editor may not be so willing to go for that as they seem to feel that even the original German use need not be mentioned and that Wikipedia can just claim that the word "Homosexual" is of Greek and Latin origin...period, with no further explanation. Other debates could use more eyes as well please!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, this is not to get anyone to agree with me or my opinion on the subject. Just to get more input to make a formed consensus one way or another with a larger group of editors involved. I can live with a consensus in either direction if it is formed by the community and not just a handful of editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The first source, which is an authoritative source, just like the second one is, certainly is as strong as a book source. I told Amadscientist that what comes with "a wider variety of sources" is a wide variety of personal opinions about sexual orientation from whatever author. Editors would cherry-pick their favorite authors, or favorite lines from whatever book, to support any stance they have on sexual orientation. This is why we are supposed to defer to authoritative bodies for defining sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And I have told the above editor (I won't discuss the contributor, but the contribution) that they are pushing a single point of view by defaulting to a single academic opinion, which is simply not done on Wikipedia. Per WP:VALID: "...even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." The counter argument to biology over environment has gained a great deal of traction over the last ten or 15 years, but not everyone agrees and the scientific community has not thrown out all evidence to the contrary. (and I am not one of those people by the way, this is not what I personaly believe. I myself know I have been attracted to the same sex since I can remember being able to remember) I am not looking to "balance" the article. Clearly the current major opinion is biology over environment, and we need not balance this. WP:BALANCE:(added emphasis by me) "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. We would only need to balance this IF both view points were of equal validity, which they are undoubtedly not. But there is still other opinion and we should not be taking a stand on the issue but striving for due weight. Per WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to the Flat Earth belief." As yet this is not a minority view in the same vein as "The earth is flat". There are still many academics that disagree with this as a cut and dry - blk & wht conclusion. But I will accept the community consensus formed on the page.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

TOO LONG DIDN"T READ, just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluetrainwoowoo (talk • contribs) 09:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Deferring to authoritative sources is not pushing anything. We go by authoritative sources when it comes to initially defining a topic that has varying views. Other views can be included, as long as they are given due weight. WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE make this clear.

Oh, and the talk page shows that I never made any argument for biology over environment. I have stated more than once, including in the current discussion on the talk page about this, that the scientific community has stated that they don't definitively know what causes sexual orientation. My argument has been that we should not relay that sexual orientation is only genetic/hormonal when no authoritative source states that, and that we should instead relay their statements that sexual orientation is likely due to a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal and environmental (as in social) factors. That has been my argument, without any regard to my personal beliefs. Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The sourcing given to establish this pretty uncontentious fact is more than good enough. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Tim Morris. The way that you indented your reply, it seems that you were replying to Amadscientist. So by "uncontentious fact," were you referring to the inclusion of the term romantic? Flyer22 (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you just said: "My argument has been that we should not relay that sexual orientation is only genetic/hormonal when no authoritative source states that, and that we should instead relay their statements that sexual orientation is likely due to a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal and environmental (as in social) factors." (this is but one debate) then we agree on that much.

I do not believe we should default to the opinion of two sources in regards to Romance in the lede as that is undue weight. There is more but it doesn't seem to matter. One editor is not willing to form a consensus or discuss and has just edit warred content back into the Etymology section without discussing.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we know that you don't believe that we should default to these two sources. We have also been over why we don't agree, including the argument that it is not WP:UNDUE. But we've discussed it enough and should let others weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Others should weigh in. I agree.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

LGBThistorymonth.com

31 LGBT heroes, one each day for those who may be interested. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added references to all five of the articles of people so far announced. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Roberta Achtenberg
2. Gloria Anzaldua
3. Ann Bannon
4. Katharine Lee Bates
5. Mary Bonauto
6. Glenn Burke
7. Paul Cadmus
8. Truman Capote
9. Chris Colfer
10. Kate Clinton
11. Ramon Cortines
12. Marlene Dietrich
13. Jodie Foster
14. Jean Paul Gaultier
15. Henry Gerber
16. Billy Haines
17. Mary Kay Henry
18. Chris Hughes
19. Christine Jorgensen
20. Arthur Laurents
21. Don Lemon
22. Federico Garcia Lorca
23. Irshad Manji
24. Katherine Miller, Katherine Miller, Former West Point Student, Rejected Upon Request For Readmission
25. Holly Near
26. RuPaul
27. Pierre Seel
28. Billy Strayhorn
29. Jon Stryker
30. Tom Waddell
31. Rev. Robert Wood, Gay rights pioneer, groundbreaking author Rev. Robert Wood, turns 89
Here is the full list. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW these are just the 2012 icons, they also have a database of 186 that is searchable. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Prurient link

Hi, I've just removed [[coming out|openly]] from "He is openly gay" in the article on Geoff Ryman. Does this wikiproject support the use of what I consider to be highly personalised, prurient information and links in BLPs? Is it relevant to the topic? And why is "openly" linked to "coming out"? I'd have thought they were two quite different things, not to mention stages in one's life (and do all "openly gay" people have to "come out", in this day and age? Coming out implies a certain social/psychological resistance, and I don't believe this is always the case). Tony (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

There are two parts to your question here. You seem to be suggesting that the inclusion of someone's sexual orientation is prurient, but this is of course incorrect. However, you are right that it is not necessary to include "openly," and in my view it could imply that there's something wrong with it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Coming out is pretty close to value neutral. For some people it is especially difficult, for some people it isn't. But an LGBT person who is out but didn't have to "come out" in at least some way is very rare indeed. I haven't got any citations to back this up, so you'll have to trust me on this. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP and particularly WP:BLPCAT it is necessary to show where assertions about someone's sexual orientation originates. To just state in wikipedia voice that such and such "is gay" does not make it clear if they have self-identified as being gay, or if it's an assertion made by other people about them. How exactly things are worded is going to vary between subjects, but in this case the word "openly" conveys that the subject has indeed self-identified, something that makes a crucial difference under current wikipedia policy. Siawase (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Application of Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights to religious groups

Now that that category discussion has closed as a keep, we can start discussing application. There's been some disagreement over how the category can cover the Roman Catholic Church and the LDS Church's opposition to LGBT rights and/or same-sex marriage specifically: should it be applied to the main article, to a more specific page, or not at all? I argue that we should be applying it to Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism etc. When a user looks at the pages in that category, s/he wants to know about the organizations' opposition to LGBT rights and probably would not be satisfied simply by knowing that the church campaigns against LGBT rights; the sub-article contains information on their political activism. What do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that approach. I do not think the category should be applied to most church/religion/denomination articles, except when opposition to LGBT rights is a notable characteristic of those "churches", such as in the cases of Faithful Word Baptist Church, Sons of Thundr (Faith Baptist Church) or Westboro Baptist Church, or when the topic clearly involves homosexuality, as in the example that you highlighted. – MrX 17:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a number of churches or denominations oppose homosexuality but most don't actively campaign against it; I think the category was intended for the ones that are active in this area. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Organizations that engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric‎

Category:Organizations that engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric‎ up for deletion, after - of course - it was depopulated. Insomesia (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Homosexual agenda

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Editor blocked

---

The lead of this article is not a summary of the main article, as several claims of what the alleged homosexual agenda refers to isn't actually in the main body. Some are also un-sourced. I'm bringing this here because I think that the article can be significantly expanded to have information on more, if not all of those mentioned. This is what is in the lead but needs to be sourced and have some mention in the main body:

same-sex marriage and civil unions, LGBT adoption, recognizing sexual orientation as a protected civil rights minority classification, LGBT military participation, inclusion of LGBT history and themes in public education, introduction of anti-bullying legislation to protect LGBT minors - as well as non-governmental campaigns and individual actions that increase visibility and cultural acceptance of LGBT people, relationships, and identities. Short life (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rockstar_(drink) : reference removal

I'm not sure what action is appropriate at this point, re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rockstar_(drink)#Malicious_reference_removal.3F_-_Examiner.com so anyone wanna comment or participate?--Psrq (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I've responded. There's no action required as far as I can see. Criticism of Michael Savage can be found in the article on Michael Savage, but I don't really see why it should be in the article about Savage's son's company. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

LGBT categories at CFD

Just a notification: there are numerous LGBT-related categories at WP:CFD that have been nominated today. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 15. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

drag race

Would the annual High Heel Drag Race in DC be notable enough for an article? It has been going on since 1986 and there are numerous articles about the event.

Here is some more information about this event: http://www.meetup.com/ESL-WDC/events/84375112/ Dragdrag (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't currently have time to look into it, but i'm sure it has infuenced tonnes of similar events across the world and i'm pretty sure there's one in the UK too.

Create the article, i have every confidence in it passing notability. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend the name High Heel Drag Queen Race though since that's the name on the site. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I had a little nosy around on Google and there's more than enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Go for it. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

thank you both for your valuable comments, I will use the title High Heel Drag Queen Race and create it now. 15:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragdrag (talk • contribs)

Nick Griffin

Should i place a project tag on this talk page? He's widely considered racist and homophobic and he leads the BNP (British National Party), which is also considered racist and homophobic. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Society at peer review

Portal:Society is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Society/archive1. I've put a bit of effort into this as part of a featured portal drive related to portals linked from the top-right corner of the Main Page, and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Texas

Additional opinions would be helpful at Talk:LGBT rights in Texas#POV tag regarding recent re-adding of a POV tag and related edits to the article. Rivertorch (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Eyes needed

Could use some eyes on Australian Christian Lobby, where schills have been trying to portray the movement as they describe themselves. The movement is an over-the-top extreme-right "Christian" organization that is rabidly anti-gay to the point where even other conservative Christian groups in Australia have distanced themselves from it. Would appreciate it if you could add it to your watchlist. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

YWatching! - I'm a bit astounded that 2 thirds is criticism though...ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Watching that now. Also, perhaps some people can keep an eye on List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_anti-gay_hate_groups which seems to have people with a POV agenda wanting to diminish the list's info. It had been voted keep after nomination for deletion, but now there have been arguments about wording, alleged copypaste, etc. that appear to be motivated by ideology. Just today, there was an unexplained edit removing the linking to the article anti-gay which appears only to reduce the information and helpfulness of the list. -- Ryvr (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You do realise, don't you, that anti-gay is not an article, but a redirect to a disambiguation page? StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Which is why an experienced editor would have replaced the wikilink in the lead sentence rather than removed it altogether. I share Ryvr's concern with your editing. Insomesia (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

But why would you intentionally link to a disambiguation page in the first place, Insomesia? StAnselm (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm a human being and didn't know it was a disambiguation page simply by putting brackets on it. Your diligence in defending anti-gay hate groups is duly noted. Insomesia (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Most editors are working to stick with policy and defending their case. StAnselm has described what is going on with this list as an "edit war" on User_talk:72Dino's page. If we stick with reasonable discussion and policy, I don't think you need to go that route. -- Ryvr (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

On my talk page? 72Dino (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It was actually at User talk:Nathan Johnson, and it was about a copyright template, which User:Insomesia removed without realising he had committed a copyright violation. It seems that when he realised this he added the correct attribution here. StAnselm (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for that mistake. -- Ryvr (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

Hi there, I'm notifying this WikiProject due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Pink Paper website now dead

pinkpaper.com, an LGBT news website, is now offline. The website is used as a source/link 88 times on Wikipedia. If you have a few minutes, it'd be helpful to link to Internet Archive versions of the same pages and/or find equivalent sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

New article in drafting: Wikipedia Talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Beatie (famous pregnant male)

There is an article up for AFC review on Thomas Beatie (born female), who achieved media recognition in the late 2000s for conceiving a child while legally male and married. There is a redirect Thomas Beatie, but surprisingly no current article on this person. The article is by a new editor and needs some POV/Tone improvements and better sourcing, but should pass easily with those. Bringing to the attention of folks here interested in the topic who may be able to provide guidance to the originator to help reach publication. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion sorting question

I've listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, but I'm not too sure if there are other topical related deletion sorting type places to list this sort of deletion discussion? If so, feel free to do so, or let me know so I can be aware of that in the future going forwards. Thanks and have a great day! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I see Gene93k has added Organizations and you've added Washington, D.C., United States and Law. That should be enough. I'm not sure if people are actually keeping an eye on the sexuality and gender deletion sorting page. Having in the past been quite a fervent deletion sorter, I'm not totally sure about the value of it. It'd be nice to know if anyone actually does participate in AfDs as a result of deletion sorting. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I follow the LGBT sorting but nothing else. Insomesia (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Style guideline of gay vs homosexual

This in reference to me changing the offensive term "homosexual" to "gay". Are there similar WP:MOS guidelines on referring to classes of people? Common sense tells me and probably most people not to refer to black people as nigger or Jewish people as kike, but it's a little different in reference to gay vs homosexual. Is this better discussed at WT:MOS? CTF83! 08:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If a quote uses "homosexual" then go with that, otherwise use the more preferred term(s). I don't at all like the connotations of "homosexual" and it's mainly used by homophobes and religious speakers who are again quite often homophobes. Probably better to try WT:MOS. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope British and Australian users can also comment on that. For me (a non-native speaker), it's puzzling that bisexual and omnisexual aren't considered offensive by the Americans. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As Jenova said on my talk, and is said in the GLAAD term reference guide "homosexual" is a term from the 1970s and before when being gay was considered a disesase. As GLAAD says, "the word 'homosexual,' it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered". I'm unaware of the term "bisexual" being labled as a disease even back in the 1970s...well maybe the gay half of them.

Also, FYI, Jenova is British.CTF83! 10:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe people will leap to assumptions about me on the grounds of this, but I certainly do not recognise the term homosexual as outdated, aggresive or biased. I would consider it as simply the opposite of heterosexual, and compared to gay, more formal and technical, and therefore more suited to a project that is meant to have a formal tone. Kevin McE (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that there are people that want to avoid use of the term does not mean that Wikipedia ignores reliable sources out of sympathy for a particular point of view. When one term has several meanings, some of them pejorative, and the other is a formal term with a precise and unambiguous meaning, I don't think it makes sense to avoid the formal wording for the sole purpose of avoiding offense to a minority of individuals. - SudoGhost 11:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll draw criticism from this but of course you don't think the word homosexual is outdated being a Catholic Ministry of 21 years, those are exactly the kind of people who promote that word as all link to the past clinical connotations of the word. like I've said before we don't use nigger anymore because it offends black people, it doesn't offend me but the fact that offends a group of people we shouldn't use it. CTF83! 11:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Too damn true you will draw criticism for personalised prejudice. You know nothing of the position I took in disputes when I was a member of the church, of my reasons for leaving ministry, or of my current beliefs. Blatant prejudice of exactly the type that I'm sure you think you are railing against. Kevin McE (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, CTF83 has been asked to consider either justifying or retracting this highly prejudiced comment, but deleted the request, made an unfounded accusation on my talk page, and then threatened to report me at admins' noticeboard, without specifying what offence I am meant to have committed. Kevin McE (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You've already been told that using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views is rather inappropriate, and has no bearing on how Wikipedia articles are presented. You've ignored this request on my talk page, but please show any evidence that "homosexual" is anywhere near the same as "nigger". This argument of yours has absolutely no weight, as reliable sources do not use that racial term to describe people, where as reliable sources do use homosexual. - SudoGhost 12:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"However, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is more offensive". To me that says if there is the less offensive word that means the same that should be used instead CTF83! 12:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"simply because it is more offensive" is kind of the key part there. It being "more offensive" is rather disputed, and a less precise term being percieved as "less offensive" does not take priority over everything else. - SudoGhost 12:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Even though I agree with you for the most part, you have offended me for addressing me a "minority". Intended or not, I sincerely ask you to strike your last sentence. SudoGhost. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not addressed you at any point; that you share this viewpoint is not intended to be an insult and no insult is intended, but I don't see how it being a minority viewpoint is offensive. If you can show any reliable sources that contradict what I said then I'll gladly strike it, but since it's relevant to discussing the implementation of Wikipedia policy, it's kind of relevant. - SudoGhost 12:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) Context, context. When used as a noun, "homosexual" is widely considered offensive (see Usage Note here); such usage should be eschewed in favor of "gay" if possible, but it isn't always possible (e.g., in certain instances dealing with historical figures or events, "gay" would be an anachronism). When it isn't possible, an alternative is to use a phrase such as "homosexual persons" or "homosexual men". That approach can lead to tedious prose if it has to be repeated over and over in an article, but there certainly are fewer objections to the adjectival usage of the word. It's probably worth noting that many people who self-identify as LGBT do not consider the word offensive, even when used as a noun, and that's true among Wikipedians as well as in RL. There may be generational, geographical, and various other cultural differences in play here, and I'd suggest that a one-size-fits-all solution may be a tall order to fill. Rivertorch (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Grossly biased selectiveness in quote of thefreedictionary.com there: it says of homosexual, " It is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally". Kevin McE (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what I implied above, I think. Btw, thefreedictionary.com is the aggregator; the source is The American Heritage Dictionary, a major dictionary that has contained this usage note for at least the past three editions (i.e., for over 20 years). Rivertorch (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

One thing we should note here is that there is some slightly subtle usage differences, and context will determine which ones to use. 'Gay' can be used to refer both to people who are attracted to people of the same sex, and it can also be used to to refer to a gay identity. David Halperin has written a book on the topic that I'm planning to write an article on shortly. Chris Morris says he doesn't identify as gay in this article. There's different uses: Halperin uses it to refer to a shared culture of camp and so on, while Chris Morris is referring to it pejoratively as being like a "mask" that some people hide behind. All of this differs from Men who have sex with men, the clinical category which is used in things like HIV/AIDS prevention. I guess what I'm saying is that we shouldn't have a hard-and-fast rule about whether to use "gay" or "homosexual" or even "men who have sex with men". It depends on context and sources (go back far enough and we'll start talking "homophiles"). That said, I will be rather disappointed if the next time a celebrity comes out, their article gets updated to talk about how they are gender "inverts" or some such nonsense. There shouldn't really be politics here: most of the time and in most contexts, if you are referring to a man who is sexually and romantically attracted to other men, you probably want the term "gay". Probably. Not always. There will be exceptions. But that's the term that is in wide use in academic and media sources.

On a personal note, I'm not offended when someone refers to me as a "homosexual"; I just ask them whether they are going to ride in their horseless carriage to visit a phrenologist. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

All we have here is two people who don't give a shit that the term is offensive, and advocate that because it's in some publications it's okay to use. The original link I provided shows 3 major sources, too hard to look on my phone advocate using gay over homosexual, in their major newspaper publications. SudoGhost is just saying because some publications use it it's okay and doesn't give a shit what is offensive when a perfectly non offensive term can easily be inserted with updated 21st century terminology CTF83! 12:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There you go again, casting aspersions against people about whom you know nothing. How about you address the direct act of prejudice that you made against me? Kevin McE (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that "homosexual" isn't used in the 21st century and that "don't give a shit that the term is offensive" is what you took from everything that was discussed here and on my talk page, you need to go back and read a few things, because that's an incredibly over-simplified red herring. "Gay" also has pejorative uses, and there shouldn't be a blanket rule saying gay is what Wikipedia uses, even when reliable sources use something different, because context is key in understanding what words are used at any given time. . - SudoGhost 13:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to point back to my earlier post on this as i believe we should leave it to the editors to decide. If a quote uses "homosexual" then so should we, otherwise leave it to the editor to decide. As a personal preference and being British i certainly wouldn't use homosexual and would avoid sources using that word since they do tend to be more of the religious variety then if i search for "gay" or "lesbian" etc. Homosexual is still offensive to some and there's not going to be a policy decided on using that word in a million years because it will immediately become a thorn people will ignore or use to push POV.

Do a couple google searches for both words and see what you get. It ain't pretty for "homosexual" and the amount of biased crap it brings up wouldn't be usable as reliable in any sense. And i also take offense to use of the word where it isn't necessary. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, the point is that offensiveness isn't the issue. The fact is "gay" and "LGBT" (of which "gay" is a component part) are in wide use in academic and other reliable sources. If we are to have a general rule, it should be based on the fact that "gay" is now the widely used academic term. Whether you or I find it offensive isn't a particularly strong argument. Universities teach courses on lesbian and gay studies and so on. The argument for using the term "gay" on Wikipedia begins and ends with the fact that it is the current widely used terminology. Offensiveness doesn't need to come into it at all. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Google search is a horrible metric to use. For a general Google search, reliable sources are mixed in with blogspot blogs and unreliable crap on both search terms. Using Google Scholar, "gay" returns a great many more hits than "homosexual", but looking through the first few pages, it turns out that "Gay" is somewhat common last name, and the results were about documents published by indivuduals with that name, as opposed to being the subject matter. Looking deeper, it appears that in a formal context, homosexual isn't as uncommon as is being suggested. This is especially true when being used as a verb, gay is very uncommon as a verb in a formal context. I agree that there shouldn't be a blanket "use homosexual" or "use gay" guideline, because I think that context is critically more important and should be assessed at the article level. - SudoGhost 13:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking for published style guides, I note that the Guardian simply states that gay is an adjective, not a noun; the Times notes gay as a "fully acceptable as a synonym for homosexual or lesbian"; the Economist points out that homosexual refers equally to men and to women, and the Guardian and the BBC are silent on the matter. None of the online journalistic style guides linked at style guide indicate any preference between the two terms, and none deprecate homosexual. Are there major established style guides that take the opposite view? Kevin McE (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes.1 2 Rivertorch (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Those are both pressure groups for change, not established style guides of major outlets: the fact that there are such active campaigns for change demonstrates the fact that vocabulary has not changed as many here would prefer. While I can appreciate that it may be frustrating, the role of an encyclopaedia written in formal tone is to follow the practice of other publications, not to be in the vanguard of change. Kevin McE (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That's ignorant, should we not have changed slavery laws, voting discrimination, or interracial marriage? If you actually look at the GLAAD page, you'll see they have the guidelines of the Associated Press, New York Times, and Washington Post CTF83! 10:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The GLAAD page is not written by GLAAD; it simply reports the style guides of the AP, the NY Times and the Washington Post. And I don't think that using "gay" over "homosexual" is anything close to putting us in the "vanguard of change". - htonl (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Kudos to those who actually followed the link, which leads to a page that resoundingly answers Kevin McE's question in the affirmative. Rivertorch (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I just Googled for use of the word "homosexuals" and the word "gay" in the New York Times. On the first page of results, all of the results for "gay" are from 2012. The results for "homosexuals" aren't: they are mostly from the 1980s and early 1990s. A search for "gay" and "homosexuals" in The Guardian leaves the latter outnumbered "about 9,100" to "about 150,000". (One of the top results is a piece advocating that the Guardian stop using the word 'homosexual'.) BBC has the same: about 113,000 for 'gay' and "about 4,410" for 'homosexuals'. Not a scientific study, but if we're going to follow reliable sources... —Tom Morris (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I also prefer the usage of gay over homosexual especially in a non-medical article. The tem homosexual tries to emphasize the sexual nature of gays and ignores any romantic scope. Pass a Method talk 14:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that is another problem with the terminology. Asexuals have started using the terminology of "heteroromantic", "homoromantic" and "biromantic" to deal with the fact that you may be romantically attracted to people of one gender, the other or both, but not sexually attracted. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I prefer to use "gay" and "lesbian" as well. But in the context of sexual orientation topics, such as homosexuality, use of "homosexual" is often fine because it's often what the scientific sources use (although they also often use "gay"/"lesbian") and consistently covers more than just exclusively gay men; as we know, it covers lesbians and can cover any same-sex sexual contact. "Homosexuality" as a term covers gay/lesbian/bisexual and any same-sex sexual contact. Also, linking to the Homosexuality article with regard to such topics is usually more beneficial than linking to the Gay article, such as in the case of the Homophobia article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention, too many people think of "gay man" when they see or hear the word "gay," as even the Homosexuality and Gay articles note that "gay" is more commonly associated with men who are exclusively romantically/sexually attracted to men. Flyer22 (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Historical articles should use the word gay with care. For example, discussions of service by gay men and women in the US military circa 1945. The word gay is jarring in that context. Many (I think just about all) of the first set of edits made last night to DADT were well considered, I thought, but ham-fisted when dealing with background decades. I figured I'd wait until the undo-ing festival ended and then do a few modest repairs, with quotes if need be, but one really shouldn't be required to re-write with quotes to make simple points. Words like homosexual and queer are occasionally appropriate. Categorical rules never work. ;) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Even more so for women. There are women who had they been born today would probably self-identify as lesbians, but who, living 150+ years ago, wouldn't and didn't. It's something that curators who have put together LGBT history exhibits at museums have had to think hard about. The fact that 'lesbian' became an explicitly political label during second-wave feminism doesn't help with that. So, yeah, common sense plus following reliable sources (and by that I mean actual reliable sources, not tabloid newspapers). —Tom Morris (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What we got here is 2 people advocating for homosexual, and several for gay when content approriate. If you look at my original edit/summary I didn't change homosexual when in quotes or in reference to pre-1970ish references. I don't have a problem with the word homosexuality, there is no equivelant word excpet gayness maybe, my problem is calling gay people homosexuals. CTF83! 23:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Homosexual is an outdated term that presently is employed by the religious right to further the campaign to denigrate LGBT people. Except in medical usage we should avoid the term, and even medically, non-heterosexual and MSM is used. Sources that prefer the term are generally homophobic or demonstrating how homophobic someone is for using it. The famous example of this is the religios-based hate group American Family Association's news website, OneNewsNow. In 2008 they replaced all instances of "gay" with "homosexual" in re-posted Associated Press articles – changed an AP profile of Olympic sprinter Tyson Gay, rendering his name as "Tyson Homosexual". OneNewsNow similarly altered the name of basketball player Rudy Gay, naming him "Rudy Homosexual". Insomesia (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The only problem is that reliable sources don't agree with that assessment. We don't pick and choose only sources that agree with our viewpoints, and dismiss any that say something we don't like. - SudoGhost 00:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of use in a medical article, "gay" and "lesbian" should be used instead of "homosexual", given the context and history of the word. Referring to gay people as "homosexuals" isn't proper. As many others have pointed out, using it does generally portray a prejudiced attitude towards gay people, and that's not neutrality. It's different if you are directly quoting a source. Teammm ^talk
_email 00:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

So, what's your argument, Sudo? That because right wing and religious sources use the word homosexual, which as Teammm and others pointed out doesn't follow WP:NPOV, we should use the term? CTF83! 00:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Sudo is clearly biased when I call him/her out on their shitty sources. CTF83! 00:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If that's still the tired old story you're sticking to, you need to read what's already been said. The term "homosexual" is used in a formal medical context among other things. Wikipedia does not value sources based on how "left wing" or "right wing" they are; we don't use only sources we agree with, and that precludes the fact that your assessment of the type of sources that use the term is inaccurate. Newspapers, sure. Medical journals et al use the term, it's inappropriate to claim that a given term is "inappropriate" at any given time without actually looking at the source and the situation it's used in; that is a context-blind analysis and I seriously doubt you'll get any consensus to implement any such "blanket" prescribed rule. I'll forgive your ignorance, but your analysis of "stay off my talk page" leaves much to be desired, especially because your "calling out" wasn't very well done, you pointed out things that I had already said and blissfully ignored half the sources, but that's fine since you have made your point clear. Calling me "clearly biased" is rather hypocritical of an editor that only wants others that agree with his points of view to discuss the topic, using personal attacks to discredit those that disagree with them. - SudoGhost 01:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Like removing only some of what is said on a talk page that someone doesn't agree with, oh, I see. CTF83! 01:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If that's what you took from that, you have an amazing way of coming so close to what actually happened, and then steering very, very far away from it. However, that has nothing to do with this discussion, and shows the merit of your argument. - SudoGhost 01:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Mind you CTF83! Alt, I consider "shit" swear and unconstructive in any discussion. If you would, please stop using such word and labeling people biased who doesn't pro your view. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI sudo users have agreed to using homosexual in a medical context what you and sameboat reverted was not in a medical context. CTF83! 02:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That kind of goes back to the blanket generalizations thing. I don't see how you came to the leap of logic that "I believe users agreed to one thing therefore everything else must be the opposite." On that, you're not going to find a consensus to agree to any context-blind generalization. - SudoGhost 11:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we try to establish what we agree on here? How does everyone feel about the following points?

1. When referring to a particular source (e.g. a quote, an opinion poll, etc.) we should use the same wording used in the source.
2. When dealing with people and events before about the 1960s we should be careful about the use of "gay".
3. We should avoid using "homosexual(s)" as a noun. (I think it's clear that this is widely considered offensive?)
4. When talking about specific modern people (BLPs in particular) we should refer to them according to the way they have identified themselves - which usually, these days, means "gay" or "lesbian" rather than "homosexual".

I'd also say that I agree with everything Tom Morris has posted here. - htonl (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support 100% ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think those are excellent guidelines. The only addition I would suggest is to the second point, to note that homosexual is also a relatively modern word and its use can be anachronistic as well. From Epistemology of the Closet by Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick:

"There is, I believe, no satisfactory rule for choosing between the usages 'homosexual' and 'gay,' outside of a post-Stonewall context where 'gay' must be preferable since it is the explicit choice of a large number of the people to whom it refers. Until recently it seemed that 'homosexual,' though it severely risked anachronism in any application before the late nineteenth century, was still somehow less temporally circumscribed than 'gay,' perhaps because it sounded more official, not to say diagnostic. That aura of timelessness about the word has, however, faded rapidly — less because of the word's manifest inadequacy to the cognitive and behavioral maps of the centuries before its coining, than because the sources of its authority for the century after have seemed increasingly tendentious and dated. Thus 'homosexual' and 'gay' seem more and more to be terms applicable to distinct, nonoverlapping periods in the history of a phenomenon for which there then remains no overarching label."--Trystan (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes. A good summary, and a useful addendum from Trystan. There may be valid exceptions to all of the above, but it gets the gist of it right. Rivertorch (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• These are good points, I would amend the first one, as to use of sources, to utilizing the best sources possible and attempt to match the wording within reason. Sometimes we need to quote directly, other times we need to use Wikipedia's voice. I think we also need to underscore the legacy of homosexual which is lost on many editors but has seeped into sources for decades.

  The study of mental health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations has been complicated by the debate on the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder during the 1960s and early 1970s. That debate posited a gay-affirmative perspective, which sought to declassify homosexuality, against a conservative perspective, which sought to retain the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder (Bayer, 1981). Although the debate on classification ended in 1973 with the removal of homosexuality from the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; American Psychiatric Association, 1973), its heritage has lasted. This heritage has tainted discussion on mental health of lesbians and gay men by associating—even equating—claims that LGB people have higher prevalences of mental disorders than heterosexual people with the historical antigay stance and the stigmatization of LGB persons (Bailey, 1999).

  The religious right still promotes the persistent use of homosexual to spread Anti-Gay Myths. Insomesia (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm not seeing the connection you're making here. What you quoted is saying that homosexuality was once classified as a mental disorder, and that it is no longer. It says nothing about usage of the term in particular. The link you provided also says nothing about the term itself, but rather itself uses the term, not only when quoting "the religious right", but in their own words as well (but only as a verb, unless I'm mistaken). - SudoGhost 01:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    • If you're not seeing the connection after it's been explained elsewhere I'm not sure how it could be more clear. LGBT people were demonized as being diseased solely on the basis of who they were attracted to and loved. This was institutionalized homophobia endemic in scientific literature. Since the mid-1970s LGBT people have fought for less demonizing self-descriptors for themselves and mainstream society has accepted gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, as well as queer and other terms replacing any usage homosexual just as negro has been replaced with more modern terms: During the American Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, some black American leaders in the United States, notably Malcolm X, objected to the word, preferring Black,[4] because they associated the word Negro with the long history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination that treated African Americans as second class citizens, or worse. Since the late 1960s, various other terms have been more widespread in popular usage. These include "black", "Black African", "Afro-American" (in use from the late 1960s to 1990) and "African American" (used in the United States to refer to black Americans, peoples often referred to in the past as American Negroes).[5] Arguing that negro is more offensive to some people is ridiculous. That the term is offensive to anyone, specifically those to who the term would apply, is the point. Insomesia (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
      • You're still making a leap of logic there. Yes, "LGBT people were demonized as being diseased solely on the basis of who they were attracted to and loved." That isn't being disputed here, so I don't know why you're saying it, what I'm missing is where this turns into "the word homosexual is specifically where the problem is". Also I think that comparing negro to homosexual is where you're shooting yourself in the foot. Sources, including ones you're providing, use the term homosexual, in a way that you're suggesting is offensive, yet they're using the term. This seems to contradict what you're saying about the term. In contrast, I think if you're to find a modern source that uses the term negro to describe someone, it's going to be in the context of appropriateness. - SudoGhost 02:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A lot of people have used the comparison between race and sexuality as both are inbedded traits. That's how hate crime laws work - you can't treat people differently for something they can't help.

I've used the same comparison before on this very page and i believe it was Teammm then who defended it against Lionelt taking offense to the use of the term "slave name".

The discussion was very similar to this one. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That's quite a red herring you've made there. Nobody is saying the comparison between race and sexuality isn't valid. However, that doesn't mean that any given word is as offensive as another just because of that, and reliable sources contradict that comparison. - SudoGhost 13:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No, multiple reliable sources used in this discussion have shown the opposite of your claim - the word is offensive to a large group of readers and so we should seek to minimise that where possible. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggested guidelines for gay and homosexual

Adding a break for accessibility, and hopefully to help coalesce agreement around htonl's suggested guidelines from above (modified):

1. When referring to a particular source (e.g. a quote, an opinion poll, etc.) we should use the same wording used in the source.
2. When using a term to refer to a period before it was widely adopted (1960s for "gay", late 19th century for "homosexual"), be careful to avoid anachronism.
3. We should avoid using "homosexual(s)" as a noun in Wikipedia's voice.
4. When talking about specific modern people (BLPs in particular) we should refer to them according to the way they have identified themselves - which usually, these days, means "gay" or "lesbian" rather than "homosexual".

Regarding the SPLC article there was some disagreement as to how to characterize its use of homosexual, which it might be helpful to clarify. It uses the noun homosexuality 28 times, including in the SPLC's voice; I don't think there is any question about this usage. Outside of quotes, it uses homosexual as an adjective 4 times (all of which occur when attributing positions to others), vastly preferring gay. It uses homosexual or homosexuals as nouns only in quotes from anti-gay organizations ("the homosexual must be completely eliminated," "the Nazi party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals"). In other words, it agrees strongly with the points suggested above. As an adjective, homosexual is occasionally appropriate, especially when paraphrasing. It should not be used as a noun in Wikipedia's voice. This is in strong agreement with the AP and WP style guides. So can we agree that the above points (with suggested modifications) are a good guideline, and that further discussion on specific uses can occur in articles?--Trystan (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but conforming to point 3 will require changes in a lot of articles, and some of those changes will inevitably be contentious. I've stumbled across unnecessary usage of the noun form in innumerable articles over the years. I used to change it, when it seemed appropriate, but I sort of gave up at some point. Rivertorch (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Support 100% - as stated above. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Support. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Support CTF83! 00:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I've proposed an article merge at Talk:Sutherland v United Kingdom and would like to seek views from members of the project. SP-KP (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

(1) Category:Gay men and Category:Lesbians (2) other LGBT categories under discussion at CFD

Hello all.

1. Earlier today, I closed the discussion of "Category:Gay men by nationality" as "upmerge to the respective LGBT by nationality categories". There was no call in the discussion for upmerger to Category:Gay men - indeed, the CfD nominator said that that category (and Category:Lesbians) should simply be {{container}} categories for occupational subcategories, for instance. Based on that, and the general emptiness of individual names from the category, I have added {{container}} and undone one editor's addition of some individual names to the category. Was I right to do so?
2. There are a number of LGBT-related categories under discussion at WP:CFDALL at the moment, and input on the degree of appropriate categorization from members of this project will be especially welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 23:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel that it should be used to contain gay males not covered by an occupation category.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euan_Sutherland for example His being a gay male and his related actions are significant but he was removed from the gay men category and is not actually in any categories specific to him being a gay male. MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

In the News nomination

For those of you who may be interested in an ITN nomination related to this project: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#LGBT-related_politics_from_US_elections. --Grotekennis (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:LGBT musicians by nationality

Category:LGBT musicians by nationality, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert Kosilek

Shouldn't Robert Kosilek be Michelle Kosilek ? 68.162.221.100 (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for pointing that out mate! Have a nice day/evening! ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)