Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11


Gay visibility?

I was looking for some LGBT link from Visibility (disambiguation) but found none, is there anything appropriate? I've certainly heard of gay visibility but blanking on what else it might be called in wikiland. Benjiboi 07:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Johann Hari

The article on the (gay) British journalist Johann Hari is an article within our scope, and it's tagged LGBT studies. Much help is needed, because all progress is impeded by constant battles and smear campaigns. If there's anyone here who likes doing research, finding citations, and enforcing NPOV, please contribute! Thanks, — Emiellaiendiay 18:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Note. This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Benjiboi 23:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Justin Berry Rfc

An Rfc has been started regarding several issues relating to this article. Editors dispute both the notability of the subject as well as the reliability of sources and verifiability of facts. There are also concerns related to abuse of administrative/bureaucratic powers. Article has been reduced to a stub twice, and nominated for deletion. Relevant policies include WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR. As several of our project members are involved on both sides of the issues,I thought it appropriate to add a notice here. If anybody feels this is canvassing, please feel free to delete this. An additional, formal notice has been placed on the Biography project, since they have an Rfc template. Maybe we need one, too? Jeffpw 19:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The note on our project tag explaining why we have tagged the article is too vague. Right now, it reads: "The subject of this article was involved both before and after becoming adult". Involved in what? I can infer what that means, but I shouldn't have to. And it might be wise for the wikiproj to have an RfC like WPBIO. ZueJay (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Explanation fixed to read "involved in gay pornography both before and after reaching adulthood". Jeffpw 21:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Better, thanks. Is it necessary to say "before and after reaching adulthood" - seems like too much information (it is information that should be communicated in the article).ZueJay (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hehehehehe. Your comment certainly addresses the crux of the dispute. The article has been so sanitized now one could be forgiven for thinking Justin made Sesame Street videos instead of teen porn. Anyway, if you can think of some better wording, please feel free to change it. My involvement is only trying to mediate the dispute. Jeffpw 21:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Ha! Oh man. I do not want to get involved in the dispute I see there right now. It seems kinda like the Clay Aiken dispute in that we have reliable sources yet we can't include the information contained within them because it might be offensive to some folks. My very mature opinion right now is "Pllttt!" ZueJay (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

St Stephen's House, Oxford gay history

FYI, this article has been put on full protection because multiple anons have been removig info regarding GLBT historical refs, see[1]. Benjiboi 22:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Gender bias

Has the {{Gender bias}} template ever been used effectively for an article cleanup? Nothing is using it as this time. / edg 02:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm in a minor edit war and would like some outside opinion. Would someone(s) review James Anderton, Garry Bushell, and Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford with regards to whether they belong beside Fred Phelps and Anita Bryant in Category:Homophobia? Please comment on their talk pages. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Has this happened yet? If not which ones still need attention? Benjiboi 02:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Take a look through the category. The main ones I'm concerned about are Anderton, Bushell, and Pakenham that I mentioned above. The other two that I'm marginally concerned about are Tony Marco and Kevin Tebedo. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I've commented on the first three's talk pages. Tony Marco and Kevin Tebedo are short stubs and they do support inclusion for now as it's all they are known for. Benjiboi 15:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews Interview with Evan Wolfson, Executive Director of Freedom to Marry

Hi. There's a section here advertising this interview. Someone here who doesn't have the page watchlisted could be interested. A.Z. 03:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

MOS on homosexual vs. lesbian/gay

I could have sworn that WP:MOS#Identity recommended using gay men or lesbians over homosexual, but I guess I was wrong. I've proposed adding that recommendation. Fireplace 13:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

James I of England

A friendly editor is removing the project tag from this article, saying that restoring it would be vandalism by "homotrolls" (what a charming phrase). A few more eyes may be helpful. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Bollocks. You want to insert all the faggotry into every article at all possible. This is not a new thing. Ask User:Haiduc for tips on how to succeed, because he usually gets his way with gay POV shoved up all us arses. Lord Loxley 21:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This charming fellow above has now been indef blocked, the reason being Attempting to harass other users: Continued harassment, incivility, and personal attacks after numerous warnings and blocks. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 23:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Btw, what do you guys/gals make of this section? My first impulse was to remove it completely for non-NPOV and unsourced statements (which seem more like personal opinions), but I guess it can wait until I get a second opinion here. :-) Y'know, before they accuse us of being the gay cabal 'n' all... Raystorm (¿Sí?) 23:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't even follow the writing to tell you what it says. I'd say remove it completely (There IS no Gay Cabal) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
lol. My head's spinning to understand what is actually being stated. I would, however simply remove it to talk pages and state concerns and that summary might be helpful and that the entire essay should be re-written for a more average reader or something to that effect. Benjiboi 00:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Illiterate screed. Junk it. By the way, I thought Loxley self-description above ("all us arses") was very apt. Haiduc 01:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 Done Drop by and share your thoughts there too? :-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Defendant in trial for killing a gay man, Michael Sandy, claims he's also gay

On Tuesday, September 18, 2007, the lawyer for Anthony Fortunato, one of four men accused of causing the death of Michael Sandy in Brooklyn, NY last year, claimed that Fortunato is himself gay. I'm wondering if this might be used as a potential defense against the hate crime portion of the charges. Could this be the first "Gay Defense", right up there with the Twinkie Defense? Or more completely, according to the New York Press, "I-didn’t-do-it-because-I’m-just-a-thief-and-drug-user-and-I’m-gay” defense"? Who knows. P.S. - I added a section on the trial in Michael Sandy. — Becksguy 02:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI New York Times article[2] - "Rather than a robbery, Mr. Patten argued, the luring of Mr. Sandy was better described as the crime of larceny by trick. The defendants intended to invite Mr. Sandy to smoke marijuana, ask for money to buy the drugs, then leave. The violent attack by Mr. Shurov, he said, was not anticipated by the other defendants.

Unlike robbery, larceny by trick is not an element of felony murder. The notion of a robbery, Mr. Patten said, was concocted after the fact by the prosecutors and investigators. Mr. Fortunato’s lawyer made much the same argument, adding a twist by declaring his client’s homosexuality. Outside the courtroom, he sought to explain his theory, to a certain extent. Mr. Fortunato, he said, might have planned to smoke marijuana with Mr. Sandy as a means of testing his friends’ sentiments about homosexuality. Or, he said, perhaps Mr. Fortunato had wanted to swindle a gay man, to see how his friends reacted to a gay person. Or, he said, perhaps Mr. Fortunato had simply wanted to rob somebody. Beyond that, Mr. Di Chiara kept the defense strategy to himself." Benjiboi 23:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews interview with Augusten Burroughs

Burroughs wrote to me today and agreed to do an interview and photos. We still need to arrange a time, but it is likely to be in the next week (I have such a full plate this week). I'd appreciate any questions you would like posed to Augusten be left on my User talk:DavidShankBone page. --David Shankbone 18:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of "homosexual" and "lesbian" in 1940s and 1950s

I'm spending a day here at the University of Florida library, trying to reference my little articles. I thought it might do some good to put some of them in context by providing a definition of "homosexual" or "lesbian" from these decades, but UF's earliest dictionary from 1953 is in storage. Does anyone have a referenced definition of these terms available? Thanks. --Moni3 20:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Interesting. I have the old edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1933) and there's no "homosexual" in it at all. "Lesbian" is in there, as "of or pertaining to the isle of Lesbos," but no mention of the girl-on-girl meaning. I tried gay, which included the definition "immoral," but not specifically homosexual. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I was kind of curious, so I looked up in the 1933 OED some of the other terms on the Terminology of homosexuality list. Here's what I found:

  • Tribade: A woman who practices unnatural vice with other women.
  • Sodomy: An unnatural form of intercourse, esp. that of one male with another.
  • Molly: An effeminate man or boy
  • Pæderasty: Definition 1- Unnatural connexion with a boy, sodomy. So: pæderast, a sodomite.
  • Buggery: Unnatural intercourse of a human being with a beast, or of men with one another, sodomy. Now only as a technical term in criminal law.
  • Not listed with a gay definition: sapphic, invert, urning -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, and now I see that none of that is even remotely useful for what you were asking. What can I say... I'm easily distracted by large dictionaries. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
And while I was looking them up, I noticed that Terminology of homosexuality's list of perjorative terms for gay men is a little... long. And maybe a little unnecessarily so. Anyone have any suggestions for useful principals in trimming it down a bit? -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I agree with that assessment, my understanding is that gay men have always been more visible and therefore more referenced including self-referenced which, to me, is basic sexism, like lots more slang terms for male genitalia than female. But...if you were determined to eliminate some of this history you might start with expanding some of the basic names and see which ones have a mini-history/etymology that would make the less notable ones less deserving of inclusion. Benjiboi 23:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

SX News

Hey, we got published! SX News article about us Dunno where the name Gary came from, though. She didn't even have my real name. :) --AliceJMarkham 08:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Awesomeness!!!!!!!!! Is that you, Alice? Reg never wrote me back after I submitted my questionnaire, so I'd just about given up :) Pretty good article, wouldn't you say? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The photo is not me. I was thinking that it might be Dev920 but I'm only guessing. It might be Reg, the author of the article. I'm not sure that I like the first sentence or two because it seems clumsy to me. The rest seems pretty good, though. :) Oh, and this photo is me (if the link works, it was from the same set of photos as the top one in cleavage enhancement). :) --AliceJMarkham 14:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Must be Dev, then, cuz it's sure not the photo I sent in! Beautiful pic of you, Alice! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that would be me. You should be able to tell by the fact that there's a Bible, a Bhagavad Gita, and a English flag in the background. :P :) But this is definitely the best article on us so far. Everyoen work really hard so we have something to say in the next one. :DDev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi, since I've got no response on translation and WikiProject Sexology and sexuality I'm posting the following here as well.

On the German language wikipedia the article showed several connections into the field of LGBT, especially leathermen, Samois, sex-positive feminism and fetish.

I'm the main author of the featured :de article BDSM.

Following the discussion related to the structural problems in this field I continued the translation of the article under Talk:BDSM/Translation. The translation was discussed on the en talk page and started about a year ago. Later it stalled. Some parts are already included in the main en article (e.g. textfragments, movies, most of the images). I guess it was simply to much for 2 persons...

I'm sure that the translation will help to organize this field of topics and might help to evaluate the the importace of some "fan-topics" which are appearing more frequently during the last months. Being a member of :de Project Sexology and sexuality (Redaktion Sexualität) and :de admin I only know to well how difficult it can be to sort out the possible nonsense appearing on this topic.

The :de version of the article was designed in part closely following the :en articles discussion on relevance and structure and therefore has solved 90% of the topics on the article's talk page and archive. While its legal chapters are basically eurocentristic (UK, Austria, Switzerland and Germany) it would take only minor efforts to include US backgrounds once it is translated. The historical and most of the other chapters (about 90%) are "internationalized". Both articles' content is highly interchangeable. While the German one features scientific resources the English one has the Chance to structure a rich field of surrounding articles.

We started translating about a year ago and stopped because progress slowed down.

A request with translations was unsuccessful and I would like to ask you guys if any of you are interested in giving a hand. ;-) I can make my way in English, but as soon as the result needs to be raised to an quasi-scientific level I definitely need native speakers helping to proofread and raise the language level. Is anyone interested in cooperating in this project? I guess this could be good fun and there is a realistic chance to improve the entire field related to this article. Kind Regards. --Nemissimo 21:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished the translation. It would be great if someone could start proofreading it. After the proofreading I will integrate the minor aspects from the old article whitch are not already included and move it.--Nemissimo 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be great to get an answer even if no one can help.

Greetings from the alps!--Nemissimo 16:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to read and copyedit the article for you. Let me know on my talkpage what aspects you think need polishing. Jeffpw 05:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Interview with Dr. Joseph Merlino

Dr. Merlino is preeminent in the field of psychiatry and homosexuality, and I am going to be doing an interview with him. Please supply questions on my Talk page. --David Shankbone 20:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Transgender question

Singer/songwriter Heather Alexander is now Alexander James Adams. There are currently articles for both identities, but the latter was put up for prod due to non-notability, as there aren't a lot of good references to Alec available since his transition. Alec has resumed performing under his new identity. (It doesn't help that neither page explicitly mentions the gender transition, only that Alec is Heather's "heir"...)

So we have a previous identity that is surely notable, transitioned to a new identity that will likely become notable, but isn't yet, really. As I am definitely not an expert on transgender issues in general or their application in Wikipedia in particular, what's the best way to handle this? --Finngall talk 20:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The real problem, from an encyclopedic standpoint, is that (to my knowledge) Alec is in an unprecedented position. I don't know of any other public person who has transitioned gender while remaining a public person with the same career and achievements.
I can understand Alec's reticence about publicity, and I can appreciate his wanting to avoid a label such as "the singer/songwriter formerly known as," but the lack of authoritative information does pose difficulties. I know that JenKilmer is closely associated with Alec's fan base; perhaps she could encourage Alec to give an interview and discuss the issues of being such a public person who transitions while remaining a public person. I can't see that such an interview would hurt his career, as most of his fanbase is already aware of this and have overwhelmingly been supportive. TechBear 21:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd support removing the prod, as Heather is clearly notable, and if Heather is notable, so is Alexander (after all, they are the same person!) There only needs to be one article; I'm not sure whether it would be more appropriate to use the current name, or the name under which he became notable. Whichever way it goes, the other name should redirect there. Imho. -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Terri O'Connell is in a similar position - still racing NASCAR, etc. This article is still a stub, but it would be treated the same way. Alexander's article should go under his new name, per WP:MOS#Identity. IMHO. :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The prod has expired and the article was deleted. There's certainly a DRV case in here, but I think it would be best to figure out the best resolution before taking it there. --Finngall talk 04:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I know there are other cases as I remember helping edit an article on a Canadian musician who had transitioned. In any case to me the solution is simple. The article is renamed and written for the new identity referencing the transition. The lede can spell out "as Heather" this occurred or whatever items need to be asserted there. Write the entire article about the person's work and accomplishment then fill in with transition info only as needed and appropriate. If the transition greatly impacted their work in some way then reference it. Benjiboi 06:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The big problem that I see in this case is that a google search only shows up the fact that they are the same person in blogs and forums. The official line is that one retired and the other took over. There appears to be a deliberate avoidance in all official web sites of the transgender issue. Given that the article has been deleted, I would suggest the following process:

  • Find a reliable source that connects the two as the same person before and after transition.
  • Using that reliable source as justification, move the existing article on the "before" identity to the "after" name, per WP:MOS#Identity as SatyrTN has suggested.
  • Re-write pre-transition content to reflect the transition.
  • Ask an admin to copy the deleted article to the article's talk page.
  • Merge in salvaged content from talk page.

I'd say that finding the reliable source really is the most important step. --AliceJMarkham 09:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Just like identifying info on another article we need to step back to a "do no harm stance" until the fact is widely known and in reliable sources. Be prepared to spell this out on the talk pages and you may even wish to get semi-protect status until their transition is public knowledge and well covered. Benjiboi 09:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
As noted by AliceJMarkham, the official line is Heather retired and Alec took over. One-on-one Alec is quite frank about the change, but he waits for others to bring it up. The last I spoke with Alec on this, he was not planning to change that official line. Without an official announcement that Heather became Alec, Alec's notability and verifiability aren't really affected by Heather's.
I also think Benjiboi has a good point with "do no harm"; if Alec isn't announcing this officially, we shouldn't either.JenKilmer 04:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Cazuza needs cite

The article on the Brazilian musician Cazuza nowhere mentions his sexual orientation, yet the article is included in WikiProject LGBT studies, as well as the categories Gay musicians and LGBT people from Brazil. Discussion at Talk:Cazuza. Can anybody provide the article with a cite or two on this? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 11:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

These should help.[3][4][5] Benjiboi 17:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comment regarding homosexual "bashing"

(I got this on my talkpage but have no idea what article or comment it refers, I feel like I want to report this, any ideas?) Benjiboi 18:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comment showed your ignorance regarding the moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Your response acted as if they are on the same plane morally, but the Judeo-Christian belief, upon which the United States was founded, states clearly that anyone who practices homosexuality is going against God's plan for humanity, just as someone who practices heterosexual adultery is also missing God's plan for their life. This "missing the mark" is called "sin" in the Bible, and continual unrepentant sin condemns a man to an eternity separated from God. Man's only hope is to trust Jesus Christ, who paid the penalty for man's sin. Therefore, to speak against the acts of homosexuality is merely an attempt to promote the morality that is taught throughout the Bible. It is an act of love, not hate, to point out a man's error and point him toward the way of life in Christ.
Any help appreciated. Benjiboi 18:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Is that a user or an IP address? I would respond asking wtf they're referring to. Diatribe aside, what brought that on? --Moni3 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Bizarre. I'd respond by asking wtf they're talking about. But, you know... politely, and with a polite reminder that we'd rather focus on things that help us write articles than general religious thought. This ain't a chat room. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Fuck 'em, Benjiboi, just try to get the damn IP addy blocked in perpetuity and be done with it. Jeffpw 20:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
i agree with jeffpw. nothing can be said to the kristo-fundies that will make them think any differently...just ignore it unless they persist. --emerson7 20:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, here is what I wrote in response on my talkpage, I'm not sure which comment you're referring to but save the preaching for someone else. If whatever god you're citing has a grand plan for humanity I rather doubt that you would be her spokesperson. We live on a big planet with many gods and belief systems and the traditional hypocritical stance of "hating the sin, love the sinner" has been used by your sacred Judeo-Christians to justify all forms of human rights abuses including war. And in war more people have been killed in the name of religion and god than for any other reason. It's hard for me to see your pointing out some mystery error as anything but you promoting your twisted mythological Biblical views. As far as I know Jesus was a butch homo who believed in New Testament healing and said something along the lines that love is the only drug. I'm not interested in your life in Christ if it involves demonizing and oppressing others while encouraging terrorism and violence against LGBT people and anyone with a belief system different from yours. Begone wicked hypocrite - you have no power here!
Not terribly subtle but turns out this was the only edit from that IP so I felt it's feeding the troll to do much more than that. Has anyone seen something like this before or am I just terribly lucky? Personally I feel it should violate some wp rules as it's preaching religious intolerance towards an editor who has an established track record of work on LGBT articles. I'm familiar with hate crimes and one of the statistical problems is that people don't report hate-related abuse which I feel this is. Seeing as this is their one and only edit it's obviously a puppet of a more experienced user, what process to look at blocking them would make any sense? Benjiboi 20:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Update. Apparently they can't be blocked for one edit, and even if they were it would only be temporary. Template {{uw-npa1}} was left for anonymous user. Benjiboi 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Benjiboi, don't let it upset you. Leaving the NPA warning was good as it's now documented. Although I don't know how much difference it will make to someone who leaves an unsigned anon attack comment. Your Begone... comment was the best, and pretty much summed it up. :-) — Becksguy 23:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

lol. Yes, always good to throw in an exorcism line when dealing with homophobia wrapped in religiosity. Benjiboi 23:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I've only ever gotten one weird comment like that and never followed up on it. They should know better than to antagonize a Sister with religious jargon! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
lol. Yes, I was a die-hard Bible-thumper at one point and even taught Sunday school so it shows there's indeed salvation for all. Benjiboi 00:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger of homosexual and BDSM Top and Bottom articles

Working on the translation mentioned above I had a closer look of all related :en articles. There is a major structural problem.

It appeared after User:Saizai has merged practically all articles on homosexual and BDSM Tops and Bottom into a single article (Top and bottom in sex and BDSM).

In detail these are:

This merger is highly contra productive. The Spanish, Italian, Dutch and German articles clearly show that at least Switch, Top (BDSM) and Bottom (BDSM) are relevant single lemmata with literature an very single one of them. I really would like to AGF but in this it is really hardto do so. A closer look at the user's edit-history clearly proofs, that he doesn't seem to have edited any BDSM or LGBT related articles before and probably lacks the qualification to judge the longterm impacts of this utter nonsense.

His argument (article's talk) about this being an "good compare-and-contrast article" is absolutely incomprehensible. I would like to see what would happen if I merged capitalism&communism into an "compare-and-contrast article" deleting the original ones only because nobody answered to my merger ideas. Its really strange that there was allegedly no response to the pre-merger suggestions, nevertheless even the smallest amount of thoughtfulness by him should have prevented this. The intention to merge homosexual and BDSM topics in order to "compare-and-contrast" them while deleting the source articles is at least original research if not POV. I have the very strong impression that this mess was created either with good intentions and a clear lack of background knowledge or in order to reduce the number of homosexual and BDSM articles whatever the cost. The merger has been crtized by other editors to on the article's talk but no one seems to be doing anything about it. I'm not sure what to do. What do you think? --Nemissimo 07:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

On the face of it, it seems they should be reverted to their original state. I don't have time to read each article one by one at the moment (lunch break from work), but will have at look later today. In the meantime, you can A) unmerge and delete the redirect; B) try to achieve consensus on the individual talk pages, or C) take this to WP:ANI. I find being bold is the best bet, and will happily help you later today. By the way, I will be continuing the rest of the copyediting of the BDSM article today-Friday. I had evening shift last night followed by day shift today, so had to take a sort of long break. Jeffpw 10:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats great. Your job work on the article is really improving it. Thanks for the advice.--Nemissimo 11:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor with no history of LGBT or BDSM articles does not necessary violate AGF. My recollection of the articles in question is that they were not well cited and not very clean, frequently referring to related terms ("top" referenced "bottom", "power top", "versatile", even "pitcher" and "catcher") without real discussion of the primary topic. At the time, it made sense to me that there were more articles than necessary -- top/bottom/switch (the general terms, and separately, the BDSM terms) are perfectly reasonable to combine because they are inherently connected stand a better chance of surviving WP:V than the individual articles do. If each article can be expanded to meet the quality of the non-English articles, I say "go for it" -- but as they were, I have no problem with the earlier merge. HalJor 16:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I would think that some merging would be appropriate Top, Power Top and Dominant would seem fine as would Bottom and Submissive. Switch, I would think would be it's own as it's used it both sexplay and role play (implications for BDSM as well as bisexuals). Benjiboi 18:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. Top (BDSM) (incl. Power Top and Dominant and Topping from the bottom), Bottom (BDSM) (incl. Submissive) and Switch sounds quite reasonable and should bring some system into the structural chaos. Btw. Bottom (BDSM) was already nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was Keep with an very clear vote, so Top should be clearly safe, I don't know about Switch, but its relevance is so obvious that I simply can't imagine somebody would really consider an deletion... Well I don't know, thing are some times very different over here on :en. ;-) --Nemissimo 22:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Evan Wolfson Wikinews interview

It took a day, but I transcribed my interview with Evan Wolfson. I've put it on quite a few articles, but if I am missing any where you think it might belong, it really adds quite a bit to an article to have it there. You can cut and paste the template (shown at the right) and place it in an article. I am going to try to get Jay Sekulow to do an interview for the other side of the debate. --David Shankbone 03:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

LGBT union vs same-sex union

I went to the article same-sex union and it redirected me to LGBT union. I never heard the term LGBT union before. It almost sounds to me like an organization of many like minded people then a bonding of two people. Has anyone heard the term LGBT union before? Should we redirect it back to same-sex union? --Pinkkeith 14:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of LGBT union before, and I've been involved in marriage activism for years. I don't know that I've ever seen an article named "same sex union," though. Same sex marriage, yes, that's on my watch list. TechBear 14:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree - this is an oddity, and I don't like it. We should merge. By the way, I did my interview with Evan Wolfson on this issue and should hopefully--hopefully--transcribe it this weekend. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidShankBone (talkcontribs) 14:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not against merging it with same-sex marriage, but I do think we have to mention that there is a difference between unions and legal marriages. --Pinkkeith 19:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be merged with civil union --David Shankbone 19:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
That would seem the logical place. TechBear 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It's an old article - I'm surprised how long it went under the radar. --David Shankbone 20:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I might go back on this - what about the argument that this is a disambiguation page that gives the topic an international treatment? --David Shankbone 12:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Would amerge then make more sense and have a US-centric section as well as other regions? Benjiboi 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007

Hi. I have requested a move for the article Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. A.Z. 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Proposed renaming to Matthew Shepard Act, It's how people call it. Benjiboi 19:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
It would better to discuss the issue here so discussion stays in one place. A.Z. 20:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This was giving the basic info so those interested would know what you were requesting that article to be moved to. Benjiboi 22:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I got it. Thank you. A.Z. 23:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dykes on Bikes article started

I only posted the first half as the rest needs a lot of editing but it's a decent start. Benjiboi 02:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter Zuckerman

I have a feeling some of y'all might want to keep an eye on this article. Thanks! Katr67 20:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? The article is tagged LGBT but I'm not seeing why it is. Benjiboi 21:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This article gives a hint about who he is, and there does seem to be some activity on the page today. I'll add it to my watchlist. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Before some slightly POV edits were made, the article said he is gay. I didn't check closely but apparently the controversy over the scouting article led to a firestorm of criticism including "death threats and attack ads taken out highlighting his sexual orientation". Here's the diff. I suspect the controversy will be dragged into his Wikipedia article. Katr67 21:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and the page was blanked for being "non-notable" by a user who has only edited that article. I'm suspicious. Katr67 21:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've just watched the PBS video linked from the article. Zuckerman is a gay journalist who, when he reported on a scouting sex abuse case that had been covered up by the Mormon church, was the subject of a smear campaign on the basis of his homosexuality.
Or so I gather! So far, only the first half of the video is online, and the attacks on Zuckerman are mainly hinted at in the "tune in next week..." bit about the second half.
Dybryd 21:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I've put a bunch of potential sources for the article on the talk pages. Benjiboi 21:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Transsexuality in Iran and TransGeneration article fluffers needed

Hey all, both Transsexuality in Iran and TransGeneration articles have be given a semi-protect breather to alleviate an ongoing gender-pronoun edit-war. Any help in improving these articles would be greatly appreciated and whoever makes the most blatantly wonderful edits to each gets their choice of a 1. virtual fruit basket from the non-existent gay cabal or 2. Their username letters turned into a list of fun words. Benjiboi 01:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


Does anybody know what's going on with User:AliceJMarkham? I thought she was high up in your project but she looks like shes left. Emile Carter 14:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. Just sent an email. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
After wasting far too much time trying to deal with a highly disruptive editor (Lara bran (talk · contribs)) who was finally blocked after being revealed as a sockpuppet of an indefinately banned troublemaker (Vinay412 (talk · contribs)), I thought that I could finally get back to productive editing.
After having 2 appeals of that block turned down, that user then blatantly lied by claiming not to have been disruptive (in spite of the edit histories of shemale and Talk:Shemale comprehensively showing otherwise), sent an email to an admin and was unblocked by that admin.
The disruptive behaviour started again immediately, although not yet to the same extent as before.
Aside from the question of whether that admin should have recused himself of making the unblock decision, this whole situation says to me that attempting to productively edit wikipedia is now a waste of time because disruptive behaviour now has administrative approval. --AliceJMarkham 06:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Alice, I wish you would reconsider. And make use of the resources of this group. For instance, several of us can watchlist Shemale to keep track of that editor and possible vandalism. And we do have several admins in the group to help address persistent problems. Come back? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. Share the load, that's what this project is all about. :-) I'm sure there's something we can do... Raystorm (¿Sí?) 20:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess I over-reacted. I've worked over 70 hours this week, my 4yo son won't stop bothering me (and waking me up at 7am when I've worked until 3am) and I'm just generally exhausted. I would ask people to keep an eye on Shemale and Talk:Shemale. In particular, Vinay, aka Lara bran (talk · contribs) (the sockpuppet account name was actually a distortion of the name Brian Lara) thinks that archiving makes stuff disappear and has previously manually archived the talk page to hide discussion that he doesn't like. He is now removing the miszabot automatic archiving without explanation. I'd like to acknowledge and thank Emile Carter (talk · contribs) for putting the archiving back in in my absence, and for his kind words on yahoo chat. How he found me in yahoo, I don't know. :) --AliceJMarkham 08:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Watched. Good to have you back. :-) And what's that about yahoo chat? We have an irc channel you know! X-D Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but chanserv isn't very talkative and there's rarely anybody else in there even though I try at all times of day and night. :) I've also realised how easy it is to find my web profiles. My full name, taken from my user page and stuck into google... :) --AliceJMarkham 00:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to leave everyone all alone, but I'm not allowed IRC on the uni network. Any way around this? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears that Lara bran (talk · contribs) has decided to directly harass me and bog me down so that I can't get anything done. For example, a constant stream of arguments in my talk page and attacking articles that I have made significant contributions to. Would someone else like to look at Cleavage enhancement and this and give an independant opinion of his comments? --AliceJMarkham 07:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


I've reached the point where I either have to walk away from the article Shemale and its talk page and completely ignore the activities of Lara bran (talk · contribs) or walk away from wikipedia entirely.

He has, amongst other things, accused a new editor, Emile Carter (talk · contribs), of being "a single purpose account, now discarded" and claimed that my request for an independant opinion of his comments (above) was canvassing. I'm simply no longer able to assume good faith on the part of this editor. I have reached the point where I believe that if I respond to anything in the shemale talk page, I'll be feeding a troll.

For these reasons, I would beg that at least one person watch the article shemale and its corresponding talk page long term and provide an impartial watch of the goings on there. You don't need to know anything about the subject matter, just assist in making sure that the article is NPOV and reflects the content of verifiable and reliable references. --AliceJMarkham 02:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm watching it and am happy to help keep things in check and if anything isn't addressed soon please just post a note here again. Benjiboi 01:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of all photos on Lists of LGBT people

Earlier today all or most of the photos on these lists were deleted by a user claiming his browser didn't read them. I rolled them back, claiming the first was vandalism, since the lists are vandalized frequently in similar ways. He has since rolled them back again. Does anyone know what he's referring to? I see these lists on at least 3 different browsers and they all look fine to me. --Moni3 00:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

It looks like List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people et al are being targeted by removing images and AfDing. Could some admins check out the situation? Benjiboi 01:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Any update? Apparently all images have been deleted without any prior discussion. Is there merit to their removal and reason not to re-add them in any form? Benjiboi 01:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Oddly, the discussion is on my usertalk page. I don't know if it's legitimate or not. I don't profess to know what I'm doing, like, ever. Perhaps someone can either splain it for the feeble-minded, or get someone to step in and put the pics back up. --Moni3 02:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Someone more tech savvy should probably look at what options are available, a gallery might work but readability issue s are certainly valid. Benjiboi 01:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I have this problem with those lists - I ignore it; I tried once to change it to the gallery format - Dev didn't like that ;)
What I'll guess is happening is that the user's (viewer's) computer screen size setting is probably somewhere around 800x600 pixels. The majority of users have a slightly higher screen resolution (but when you're on an IBM ThinkPad T60 like I am, the choice is either 800x600 or 1024x780 - you have to decide if you want to squint or have slight quirks for pages not intended to be viewed utilizing the lower, less common resolution setting). The lower screen resolution results in, essentially, a more narrow browser. This narrowing is handled in different ways by different webmasters/webpages: for instance, will let me scroll sideways on the page to view the remainer of the webpage that can't bee seen in the narrowed browser, Wikipedia does not utilize the same solution. Some parameter that Wikipedia must have set into their pages forces the Wikipedia webpages to "fit" in the narrowed browser and thus the images, if too large, will end-up stacked above the actual list of people names. Note that right now I can view the list "properly" with the 800x600 screen resolution. ZueJay (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem might be that each column in the table has a specified %-width -- the "A" and "B" tables total 105%. It doesn't look like the columns can be condensed any more unless we move the Reference to the Name column, or maybe two rows per entry? (While I'm looking at it, why does List of bisexual people have its own page, while there are "Bisexual" people noted in the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people pages?) HalJor 05:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
To the second question first i think it's so folks looking specifically for bisexual folks can find them readily rather than searching them out as we don't have the ability to sort out gay vs. bi vs. gay male vs. etc. I think it's a compromise to have a few lists that are maintainable rather than many subdivided ones. I bet there's a trans list somewhere as well. As for the photo formatting I wonder if the whole formatting scheme needs to be re-examined, maybe there's a better way to handle the list? An idea that I'd like to inflict on those addressing the issue, why not list the entire alphabet A-Z at the top of the list (like the "bi" one seems to) and simply send the click to whichever list that redirects to, so if you click on "Q" it goes to that list whether that list happens to be L-Z or N-R or whatever. It that way I think we could have more (smaller) lists and photos could spread out so we could have a gallery of 4-5 photos on each addressing the initial formatting concern. When a list gets to be too long it can then be re-divided with new re-directs updated. The exception would be "S" which seems to need 2 pages on it's own. Benjiboi 13:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the alphabet idea - I'm going to try to implement that. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction

The List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction has survived afd, and could do with some serious improvement including addition of sources, and working out criteria for inclusion on the list. Any coments would be appreciated on the article talkpage. --BelovedFreak 17:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Interview with Augusten Burroughs tonight

If you have questions, ship them over to me. --David Shankbone 18:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

David Shankbone LGBT projects




Interview with RuPaul tomorrow

If you have questions, ship them over to me. --David Shankbone 20:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's probably on the list already but current projects as well as future acting and music plans would be nice. Benjiboi 01:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
lol - that's actually the one question I don't like to ask. --David Shankbone 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

New FAC listing

After 572 of my own edits to the article, I've listed the conversion therapy article at FAC. Fireplace 17:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Take that! Benjiboi 05:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

David Le Brocq AfD

Article on gay teacher who had a relationship with a gay student who was of legal age and who gave interviews to the media and had his picture published in the British papers is being attacked for "revealing the name of the boy" and for being trivial even though it has received coverage around the world. Haiduc 21:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

He's actually not gay but bisexual,at least going by the fact that he was busily fathering two illegitimate children with his secret girlfriend while also banging his secret teenage boyfriend - neither of whom knew about the other, even though the boyfriend was a student in the girlfriend's drama class!!!
Plainly, they should all be giving classes in drama.
Plus, also? Oh, hey there. Dybryd 06:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


I just wanted to let everyone in this project know that the category has been re-nominated for deletion. Follow the category link to get to the CfD discussion, or just click here. I'm not sure if there's a better way for me to notify the project that one of its articles (or categories) is up for deletion, so sorry if this isn't the place to be. --Cheeser1 14:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes on article Homosexuality

I am proposing some minor but - in my opinion - significant contributions in this extremely important article. Being new in the project and ignorant of details on the way it works, I couldn't get them saved unless they are reviewed by more experienced members. Please visit the talk paige of the article and say what you thinkDesiderius82 15:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Paedophilia and pederasty

Could someone please point me to the discussion(s), if any, where it was decided that articles concerning pederasty and paedophilia fall within the scope of the WikiProject? I would like to review them. Thank you. 1of3 05:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a recurring and bitter dispute. However, you're mistaken in your facts. Pederasty is listed as part of the project, pedophilia isn't.
Dybryd 05:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. For what it's worth I think the WikiProject and the reputation of the project as a whole would be strengthened by placing pederasty out of scope. 1of3 05:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You don't think that pederasty has to do with homosexuality? a.z. 06:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It does, as much as grass has to do with the color green. Should grass therefore be within the scope of WikiProject Colors? Of course not. The homosexuality of pederasty pales in comparison to the pedophilia. Having pederasty here in the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies makes as much sense as if Sex were: it's overgeneralizing. Pederasty is more properly within the domain of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. 1of3 07:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I don't really know much about the subject, so I have no opinion. There's a project for pedophilia-related articles, though: the WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch. a.z. 07:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Apparently they specifically exclude pederasty for some reason that I am completely unable to fathom (see WP:PEDO#Pedophile/paedophile and related terms.)
The practical matter is that several purposes would be served if anti-LGBT people within the project and without could not truthfully say that the LGBT studies WikiProject is supporting pederast-related articles. When society reaches the point where there aren't enough anti-LGBT people to bother trying to sully reputations in such a manner, then I won't care whether pederasty is in scope or not. 1of3 07:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the Pedophile article watch group excludes Pederasty from inclusion because Pederasty involves relationships between adult males and adolescent boys. As such, it is neither scholarly nor correct to call it pedophilia. Ephebophilia would be more correct. Jeffpw 11:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Not only is it a recurring and bitter dispute, but it is also a tiresome one. While not wishing to impugn the motives of the various people who bring this matter up for discussion, I do wonder if they even read the article about pederasty before reacting. From the article's lead: Rendered as 'age-structured homosexuality', it is, along with gender-structured relations and egalitarian relations, regarded as one of the three main subdivisions of homosexuality proposed by anthropologists. That sentence also comes with a reputable source, and is amplified on in the course of the article. To say that we shouldn't tag this as part of the LGBT studies project is not only wrong, but politically correct. We have no obligation to be politically correct here, only accurate. In any event, you can find previous discussions on this subject by trolling the archives. They're not so large that you'd have trouble finding the relevant discussions. Lastly, WikiProject Sexology and sexuality is certainly welcome to tag the article, too. I'm surprised they haven't. There's nothing to say that only one project may tag an article, and subjects often overlap. Jeffpw 07:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, no one has any obligation to use common sense. I propose an experiment. Let's each of us reading this ask four people whether they associate pederasty more closely with homosexuality or pedophilia (alternating the first and last choices for fairness, of course.) What do you suppose the percentage of people who feel it is more closely associated with homosexuality will be? 1of3 07:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that an appeal to common sense is terribly useful in this case, for a couple of reasons: 1) most people don't understand the distinction between pederasty and pedophilia which is used by the reliable sources on the subject, and 2) the mere mention of the subject creates such a visceral and often hysterical response in many people that reason flies out the window. You're correct when you suggest that the general public equates pederasty with pedophilia; however, I don't believe that the experts on the subject do, and I'd hope that this Wikiproject would follow the scholarship on the subject rather than the views of the general public.
It's also worth noting that a scholarly treatment of the subject of pederasty should not be confused with advocacy of pederasty. If articles veer in that direction, that's an NPOV problem — and surely that's all the more reason why the articles should be kept under the watchful eyes of an active Wikiproject. Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 08:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a very good point. I hope the eyes are more watchful in the future than they have been in the past. 1of3 08:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Since your eyes are so watchful, 1 of 3, perhaps you should consider joining our project and helping out. We can always use another active participant, particularly in guarding against well meaning Wikipedians, not involved with our project, who remove project tags from articles where they rightly belong. Jeffpw 09:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Guh. Dybryd 08:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the work of everyone (and you know who you are) who has kept an eye on the various articles and categories dealing with pederasty. This cultural aspect of homosexuality is obviously a key element of the LGBT heritage and of the LGBT wisdom tradition, as can be seen in the writings of the Greeks, the Moslems, and the little that has come out of Japan so far. Perhaps less obviously, it is an "orphan" aspect of gay culture: it has become he target of much of the homophobia no longer proper to direct elsewhere, is repudiated by many gays, and is not popular with pedophiles since it undercuts their claim to historicity. But important it is, and the more people pay attention to these articles, the better. Haiduc 02:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Merv Griffin

Is this obituary in the New York Times "enough" to call Merv Griffin bi? I note that in his article it also references another article about a tell-all that was pulled. Comments? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of comments of bisexual, should it say "quatresexual"? --Moni3 14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
He's gay as a goose, and (I thought) totally out of the closet. If you need other sources, they should be easy to find. (edited to add: I didn't know he hid it. Guess it's jst one of those open secrets).Jeffpw 15:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't think he was that out. After he died a couple of op-eds and eulogies were written declaring him gay, and they were pulled by their publishers. I added Griffin's name to the list the day after he died and SatyrTN took it down. A newspaper article discusses Griffin's sexuality and Hollywood's squeamishness with it: ("Playing it straight" Sunday Age (Melbourne, Australia), August 26, 2007 Sunday, EXTRA; Pg. 15, 2237 words, Gerard Wright.) and the story from The Hollywood Reporter that was pulled and reinstated: ("Griffin's closeted life shows little changes in Hollywood: The Gazette (Montreal), August 19, 2007 Sunday, ARTS & LIFE; Pg. A20, 483 words, RAY RICHMOND, Reuters; Hollywood Reporter) --Moni3 15:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
I don't think he has to have been out, as long as reliable sources can confirm that he was... er... in. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
He wasn't that out and it's likely due to the stigmas of his generation. In gay circles it was well known and he always seemed to have young male assistants flitting about. Having stated that he was very very rich and had strong financial motivations for not risking his many ventures and likely didn't see the need. This is one of those cases where I think we should reference the many allegations and caution although he never discussed... Sooner or later someone will write a tell-all book and then we can quote that. Benjiboi 17:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
it's clear that his being gay is tacit but well known, yet there's no lgbt cat. i really don't see why there shouldn't be? does anyone have any objections to putting one there?
To be placed on the list, it has to be uberclear. If it's admitted by the person himself, that's the best. In historical cases when "I'm gay!" didn't suffice, multiple objective resources affirming homosexuality should do. If it's denied by the person, despite longstanding rumor, it probably will be deleted. Like Little Richard, who was gay and considers Jesus his reason for not being so anymore. --Moni3 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
OMG! I hadn't heard that Little Richard wasn't gay anymore, did he a do a de-flaming ritual as well? Benjiboi 19:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
To answer the original question though...the NYT article only talks about failed lawsuits and dogged questions so that doesn't cover it but the other article is fantastic so could be referenced news article by _____, a former employee and confidant(?), lamented that Griffin could have both benefited from and been embraced by the LGBT community had he come out, the article was retitled and later retracted. Benjiboi 20:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Things that are cool

So Barbara Gittings' partner Kay Tobin Lahusen called me tonight, spoke with me for over an hour and told me what to edit in the article, gave me a few directions and leads to follow. I thought that was very cool. She wants me to start an article on her, too. Something to look into doing. She thinks we're doing a bangup job here at WP:LGBT Studies, so rock on, y'all. --Moni3 05:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

LGB people list on AfD again.

List of LGB people has been put up for deletion AGAIN (though worryingly it looks like it might be deleted), but an interesting question that is being continually raised is whether the word "notable" should be in the title. Personally, I always felt it blindingly obvious that a list of people with articles on Wikipedia would only include the notable, but enough people bring this up that I'm starting to wonder. Should we rename it, or are people on AfDs dumber than the average Wikipedia reader? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the deletionists are dumber, or at least they'll obsess about any little thing to justify the deletion. Adding "notable" seems unnecessary, but if it'll shut them up then by all means add it. TAnthony 02:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Glad I'm not the only one who notices the lack of intelligence among some of these homophobic deletionists. I added links to the AfD discussions to two of the deletionists' talk pages, but they subsequently deleted them (which is not allowed). Am I perfectly within reason to add it again? At least the current deletionist David Fuchs isn't quite as dim as Melsaran, but it is still quite painful to see the lack of rationality among these people and to see the same arguments used over and over again. - Cyborg Ninja 03:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's play nice even if we believe others are not. To stay focussed on the queery, is there any big downside to adding "Notable" to the title besides wonkiness? Benjiboi 03:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I'd like to see some kind of action taken against the deletionists who repeatedly ignore previous consensuses on AfD. David Fuchs even went as far as notifying the administration and complaining because I added a section about his AfD on his Talk page, which he subsequently deleted (and I let go). Then he went and made comments on my RfC for Mattisse right after. I had never encountered him before this. He also apparently deleted some of the comments from the AfD according to another user. I haven't brought this up with administration and don't really plan to. I'm just ranting here. Tired of the homophobes and the "Me! Me!" mentality of heterosexuals who feel left out because they don't have their own Straight Pride Parade. - Cyborg Ninja 01:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I am a deletionist, and I don't think this list should be deleted. Also, I would totally attend a Straight Pride parade. Just picture it... little nuclear families, walking sedately in their church clothes, with signs that say "Legally married" and "We made these kids ourselves" and "Don't h8 the str8..." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
LOL. --David Shankbone 01:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The nomination is all crossed out now, does that mean that it's over? --Tyrfing 19:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, finally the campaign (?) is over. --BelovedFreak 22:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT and religion article naming scheme

I've started a discussion here about the current naming pattern for articles that deal with LGBT issues in a single religion. That is, should it be "Homosexuality and", or "LGBT issues and"? Please lend your opinion. --Alynna 00:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Have we done enough this month to justify a newsletter? What's everyone been up to? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, it just ocurred to me that even though I can't use IRC here, I can use the Freenode java script to hang around. Let me know what would be a good time to be in there! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's the SXNews article that we were in, and one new Featured List. Don't know if that's enough for a full newsletter, though. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
A good idea (to me, anyway) would be to summarize this talk page for the benefit of those who don't regular monitor the page. The continuing attacks on the list of gay people might interest people, as well as the ...aherm...challenges to the articles on Pederasty. The news letter doesn't simply have to be a list of our accomplishments. It could instead be an actual recitation of noteworthy events, good and bad, that have affected this project in the last month. Jeffpw 09:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's generally what I do when I write the newsletter, I go through this talkpage and pull out anything the project should know about. Maybe my take on what's noteworthy is different from yours - how about you create this month's newsletter Jeff? :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy to write the text, using the talk page and the project page as a guide, but somebody else (you or SatyrTN) would have to format it, as I have no technical skills (for the computer, anyway--if any of you need to be cathed or have an IV started, I'm definitely the man for the job!). When does it need to be completed? I am off today and tomorrow. Jeffpw 10:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT union vs same-sex union

I went to the article same-sex union and it redirected me to LGBT union. I never heard the term LGBT union before. It almost sounds to me like an organization of many like minded people then a bonding of two people. Has anyone heard the term LGBT union before? Should we redirect it back to same-sex union? --Pinkkeith 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of article names have been switched to LGBT for the sake of standardization, but this one doesn't make any sense. The subject is same-sex marriage, not the marriages of LGBT people (which often are not same-sex). I say change the name back. Dybryd 17:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Huh. Having read over the article, it's really a sort of elaborate disambig page, directing you to a list of other articles like Same-sex marriage, Civil union, domestic partnership, and so on. Most of the information beyond that is duplicated in the target articles. Would this article be more useful as a category, or possibly as a sidebar template? Dybryd 17:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual significance of Oz?

(Cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oz)

I've just read Gregory Maguire's introduction to A Wonderful Welcome to Oz, a compendium of three of Baum's Oz novels. In it, he says in passing (while talking about the gender change of the boy Tip to the girl Ozma), "...nor do I interest myself, here, in the reasons why Oz has become a metaphor for the safe and welcoming home for which gay men have long longed." This made me wonder whether there are sources which have discussed the significance of Oz for gay men in the 20th century. It's certainly entered the language — we all know what a "friend of Dorothy" signifies — but I've never seen an explanation of why Oz is so commonly connected with gay culture. (It probably has something to do with Judy Garland.) Now, obviously we can't engage in original research on this subject; so I was wondering whether there are reliable sources which have addressed this connection, and if so, what articles could or should incorporate mention of this appropriation. If Batman can sustain an entire section on Batman#Homosexual interpretations, surely there's some Oz article which has room for "the gay". —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 00:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A slight tangent, but I think the article friend of Dorothy is wrong. My impression was that the source of the phrase was a hostess who used to throw gay-welcoming parties in the early part of the 20th century, before the movie became popular with gay men. Then, after this woman and her parties had faded from memory, the still-current slang became associated with the movie via Judy Garland. But I can't remember this other Dorothy's last name, and I can't seem to google up evidence. Anyone? Is what I'm dimly remembering simply one theory among many?
(I'm pretty sure the hostess wasn't Dorothy Parker, since the article or whatever it was I read was about someone I'd never heard of before. Of course, it's entirely possible that I'm making this whole thing up.)
Dybryd 01:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't even realize we had an article for friend of Dorothy. Sadly, it's completely uncited, so it's not very helpful for investigating the queerness of Oz. I wonder whether Oz had any particular cachet among homosexuals before the '39 movie? The books were very popular, as was the 1902 stage play, so Dorothy Gale would have been a known character (like Harry Potter today) long before Judy Garland put on those ruby slippers. (They were silver in the book, you know.) —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 04:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It's probably insignificant, but I just discovered that in the 1902 stage version of The Wizard of Oz Dorothy has a love interest, Sir Dashemoff Daily, who was played by a woman (a trouser role)! It's probably insignificant, as by 1902 the trouser role was a stock element in musical theatre and operetta, but it could certainly be taken as another element of the queer history of Oz. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Consider adding that to the article or at least the talk page. Benjiboi 00:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Random picture

I created this LGBT Random Picture script and would like it to be part of Portal:LGBT since the one there is antiquated and doesn't provide a way to place it on user pages like LGBT Quotes does. I'd like to see it moved out my userspace and into Portal:LGBT space and useable by everyone, if not a replacement for the one there now. See it in action below: Currently, <center>{{User:Allstarecho/pic}}</center> placed on a page gives you:


Right now, it's placed using {{User:Allstarecho/pic}} (hopefully to be {{Portal:LGBT/Randompic}}). It has 13 entries (pics and ledes) but can accomodate up to 60. It's actually the same script that Portal:LGBT's LGBT Quote is using except I modified it to handle images and produce its as seen output. It's templates for output is at User:Allstarecho/pic which calls up User:Allstarecho/LGBTPicstemp and its entries template is at User:Allstarecho/LGBTPics.

The little blue "edit" link doesn't appear when placed on actual user pages (see mine for example). And removing the center tags would position it on the user page to the left.

So does anyone object to this, and would someone that has more experience with Portal:LGBT's design like to implement it into Portal:LGBT as a replacement of the current pics or as a complimentary to it or at least host it under Portal:LGBT to get it out of my user space and into the hands of a broader audience? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold that thought. Working on another design because of some issues raised. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, new design and ready for whomever wants to take on the tasks I mentioned above...
<center>{{User:Allstarecho/LGBTrandompic}}</center> gives you:


User:Allstarecho/LGBTrandompic holds the actual images/ledes/descriptions and the 2 related templates are User:Allstarecho/LGBTrandomtemp and User:Allstarecho/LGBTrandomtemp2. It'd be nice to get this in place before any more images are added because it's easier to edit template locations for the current 16 images than it is for the max 60 images that will be in the output. So again, anyone that's familiar with Portal:LGBT and it's template design and layout, feel free to go on and make this a replacement for the current Picture output template that is currently being used there.. or direct me to whomever is in charge of the Portal so I can get up with him or her. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


I never get the orange 'You have a new message' bar when I receive the LGBT newsletter. I only know it is out when I check my watchlist and see other people have received it. Then I check my talk. Is it just me, or does this happen to someone else? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 09:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Happened to me too.. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 09:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
That's because a bot delivers it. Bot changes to your talk page don't trigger the message bar. Jeffpw 09:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Is there anything we could do about it? It's just not helpful to get the newsletter and not know about it... Raystorm (¿Sí?) 10:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I just watchlisted my talk page. Works fine for me... :) Kelsied 14:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The newsletter is also breaking the little blue edit links for sections and subsections that may be around the newsletter section on a talk page. I noticed it happening to mine and another's talk page. I moved the newsletter to an archive and all my edit links work now. ---- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Huh. Interesting. As a counterpoint, I'm not having any problems with it at all. Doesn't break links; shows up, drops & hides appropriately; and my watchlist popped it up when it was propagated... Could it be a browser-specific issue? I'm switching between Opera and IE, and still don't show any errors... Kelsied 06:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence v. Texas BADLY needs attention

The former featured article Lawrence v. Texas has, over the past couple of years, been gradually taken over by a persistent subtle anti-gay POV, lost almost all its references, and slid down to B-class. Weasels running wild in a big big way. It's really a disgrace.

And for some inexplicable reason, it wasn't even flagged as being part of the project until I slapped up the template on the talk page!

And by the way, why doesn't the LGBT project template allow you to rate article importance, the way most other project templates do? Or am I just doing it wrong?

Dybryd 02:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the importance of an article is very subjective and ultimately doesn't really matter, so we never added the parameter to our banner. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


Augusten Burroughs on addiction, writing, his family and his new book, which is strangely on the front page now with right-wing Christian Presidential candidate Senator Sam Brownback (Sam Brownback on running for President, gay rights, the Middle East and religion) --David Shankbone 04:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Edmund White --David Shankbone 03:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To-do list: empty, or not working?

I just clicked on the "to-do" list on the project page, and it was empty. How is it maintained? Certainly, there are plenty of things to do! Dybryd 03:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Dybryd, I noticed that the other day but forgot to mention it. It is, indeed, broken, but I don't know how to fix it. I know SatyrTN is very technically inclined, though.....:-D Jeffpw 04:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I asked Satyr about the list, his bot is not updating the list at the moment, so until it is, we can just add things manually if we see articles that need work. --BelovedFreak 18:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I have a couple articles that aren't created that probably should be - by someone who knows what they're talking about. I don't know where to put them where they will be seen by an industrious editor or two. Someone point me. --Moni3 18:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Articles not yet created can go to User:Skysmith/Missing topics about LGBT. Also could be in the "requested articles" but of the Full-to-do list if you feel up to editing that! --BelovedFreak 19:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Sweet, ok. Btw, I noticed there's a link to "Gay teacher's group" in red on that page, but there is an entry for GLSEN that may cover that. It's the most well-known organization for educators. Should it stay or be taken off? And how would one take it off? --Moni3 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
I have no idea if it's the same. If you are confident that it is, create a redirect from the "Gay teacher's group" page (do you know how to do that?) and then you just edit the missing topics page and remove it from the list. --BelovedFreak 20:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
They should probably be placed at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences#Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender. The bot used to pick those up - and will again when I get my major re-write done (someday). -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) God bless BelovedFreak!I just clicked on the "To do" list, and got a full page of results. Enough to keep any editor happy for months (well, OK, Dev would probably whiz through it in a few hours, but I meant mere mortals!). Jeffpw 22:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Terminology of Homosexuality: slang/slur list

Will Beback has pointed out that the list of slang and slurs at Terminology of homosexuality is pretty much completely unsourced and contains a lot of nonsense ("anal mechanic" etc.) Fixing the whole thing would be a bit of a project, but sourcing a few terms each would be easy. Anybody want to dive in? I'll claim the term I added myself as a new user, "femme damnée."

Dybryd 22:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've sourced the majority but other's eyes and help is appreciated. Benjiboi 21:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane E. Burkett

Another one for your attention. Bearian 23:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done some wikifying a researching but after the GL retirement article just got wiped away I'm hesitant to bother with doing more. Benjiboi 03:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queer magazine

I nominated this one for obvious reasons as stated in the AfD. It had a prod tag on it but I wanted to give people time to figure out how to preserve any history if need be. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I brought over info from Queer magazine to Ally Magazine, although some of the details between the 2 contradict each other. I sense someone related to the magazine is doing the editing since User:Hemstrong created both articles, Queer magazine in December 2006 and Ally magazine October 9, 2007 and many of the details look like cut and paste the way they are worded such as "our magazine". -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gay and lesbian retirement

This article (really an essay) has been nominated for deletion and tagged for rescue. I have also userfied it in case it is deleted. Bearian 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Ha! I was just thinking about doing an interview about this last week! The New York Times just had an article about LGBT retirement homes and special problems LGBT retirees face. --David Shankbone 17:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Article was deleted. I just put it up for review. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 16. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review is still taking place but we got the latest draft at User:Allstarecho/gay and lesbian retirement for anyone who would like to work or feel to free to comment on talk page. Benjiboi 22:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

biographical articles & LGBT template

Hi -- Someone just put the {{LGBT sidebar}} template on the Annie Leibovitz article. I'm not questioning the label -- AL was definitely involved with Susan Sontag -- but rather the appropriateness of using a big project series box on a biographical infobox. It rather overwhelms the article. Moreover, while AL might be a subject of queer/LGBT studies, she's not actually a theorist or scholar in the field. She's, you know, primarily notable for being a photographer. Are there guidelines for the use of this kind of series infobox on a biographical article? --lquilter 22:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoever put that there doesn't appear to be a member of this project. It's my limited understanding that the LGBT tag goes on articles that are core articles in LGBT issues: gay, homosexuality, lesbian, bisexual, queer theory, etc. --Moni3 22:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Groovy, I'll take it off. (I am a member of this project, but just realized that while I had never thought to put that template on non-core articles, I wasn't sure if there had been discussion about it or not.) ... They actually put it at the top of the article so it appeared above the infobox! --lquilter 22:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Francis Bacon‎

Bacon, the founder of modern science, thought by many to have been the most important mind of the second millenium, is widely reported in queer studies works as being well known even in his time as a "sodomite." However, coverage in his article emphasizes pre-queer studies biographies which ignore his sexuality, and heterosexist apologia which present a one-sided view, giving less than short shrift to the important material illustrating his love affairs with his Welsh attendants. The editors "owning" the page revert attempts to correct matters and refuse to discuss. Haiduc 22:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Any solid sources for his sodomitism? Good refs are, to me, the best defense. Benjiboi 22:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Plenty. If the solidity of sources were properly respected I would not be discussing the matter here. Haiduc 12:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, those aren't solid sources. Your references are to books that no one can actually read to verify source. Then you have 2 links to which isn't hardly considered a reliable source such as, for example, a source from a university or news media or official institution such as a museum, etc. Unless you can provide accessible sources, as in substantiative sources people can actually read online, the argument against you is a fair one and as you are aware, sources/references/proof are part of the foundation of Wikipedia. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 15:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Err..."no one can actually read"? The books can be verified as to what they contain simply by buying them or going to the library. Alternately, you can (as I did) look up reviews of the books to see what reviewers said about them. If the New York Times gives the book a solid review, and mentions the subject that is sourced (in this case Bacon's homosexuality), then I see it as verified, in my eyes. Please remember that WP:RS specifically says In general, the most reliable publications are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. They go on to provide a page to access in order to fact check book sources. My personal feeling is that it is even more reliable, but that's just me. Jeffpw 15:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
What I meant there was not being able to actually access the book online, to read it in realtime online, not going out and actually having to buy the book. Sorry for the confusion. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 19:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC) is actually a reliable source. They always provide references and fact-check all their material. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess so. Although it seems to me that sources of that site is left to the interpretation of its editors.. it's not an open edit site like Wikipedia. But if they provide verifiable sourced for their content, then I reckon that's ok. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 19:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Should we tag Francis Bacon as part of the LGBT project? Aleta 16:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. That might be seen as provocative at this point. My feeling is we should wait until the consensus is reached about the disputed material. For the record, after checking the refs myself, I reinserted the material. Jeffpw 16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources (if I'm reading it right) books are perfectly acceptable even if they don't have online versions. Of course the book itself may not be considered reliable, ones from university presses are good. An online link is very useful, but not essential. --BelovedFreak 10:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate category being added to transgender articles

NewLabourNewLies (talk · contribs) appears to be on a one-person mission to add Category:Abnormal psychology to every article relating to transgender.

A number of editors have tried to tell them to stop it on their talk page, but they appear determined to add this inappropriate category to the articles.

As explained on their talk page, Gender identity disorder is already in Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders, which is a sub-category of Category:Abnormal psychology. That is the only article related to transgender that should be in these categories.

I have to go to bed now, but I'd request that someone else keep an eye on this. They have already broken 3RR in transgender and I've warned them with {{uw-3rr1}} but I can't revert them without breaking it myself... --AliceJMarkham 12:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reported this at ANI, and am keeping an eye on this editor's contributions. Thanks, Alice, for bringing this to out attention. Jeffpw 12:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking at their other contributions, I noticed lots of edits to Mumia Abu-Jamal. The history of that article reveals the following other very recently created accounts, some of which may well be sockpuppets or meatpuppets of the same editor:
While working my way through this, I happened upon Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mumia Abu-Jamal, which points to User:BiasThug, a suspected sockpuppet of User:DavidYork71... The claims of bullying in User talk:BiasThug and User talk:FisherQueen make me suspect that it may be the same editor. I think that this will need further investigation by someone more familiar with the editing style of DavidYork71. Not sure where to report this but I'm sure it needs reporting to somewhere... This time I'm going to bed and not getting up again until the morning. I trust someone else will sort this out while I'm asleep. :) --AliceJMarkham 13:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I updated the ANI discussion and tagged the accounts as suspected socks. Jeffpw 14:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT rights in (U.S. State)

Currently we have articles on LGBT rights in nearly 200 countries (e.g., LGBT rights in Fiji). Given the disparity among U.S. state laws and the rapid changes occurring at the state level, I think it makes sense to add another 50 (e.g., LGBT rights in Oregon). Because this would involve creating 50 new articles, I wanted to float the idea here first. Fireplace 15:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about keeping them reasonably updated and accurate. Although one article about US would also seem unwieldy perhaps a parent article with transcluded content into the 50 siblings would make sense and then each sibling has specific sections of significant events/milestones, see also's (for notable players, events with articles) and state-specific links. Benjiboi 16:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Two of these seem to exist already: Gay rights in Utah and LGBT rights in New Hampshire. I created the New Hampshire version; my largest problem was that I had to go to the HRC for a lot of the information, so it hinges heavily on one source. It appears the Utah article has some content issues (see tags at top of article and notes on talk page). If this idea is carried through for all states, we'll also want a List of LGBT rights by state, so 49 more articles to go... ZueJay (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, HRC's state-by-state guide is a great resource. To their very great credit, they include citations to statutes and cases, which we can also cite. Keeping the articles updated will be a problem, but one that's endemic to wikipedia. I think the idea would be to put a lot of effort in at the start, and then update them periodically as news stories come out (most of us are probably on this-or-that gay rights email list). Fireplace 01:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest looking into already present articles of state LGBT rights organizations so as not to run into an issue with someone coming along and wanting to merge everthing. For instance ('cause I'm from here) there's an article for Equality Mississippi and should an article Gay rights in Mississippi get made, there's the issue of merging and redundant info. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 01:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a mongo template for the all then? Benjiboi 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Watchmen on the Walls

Has anyone ever heard of this group before? There is no Wiki entry for Watchmen on the Walls so I am thinking of putting one together, mainly to create a resource for landlords who might be asked to rent to them in the future. If anyone has cites I could use, please let me know. Also, would it be acceptable to flag the article as part of this project? TechBear 23:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely start article, definitely flag and this article and this search should help. Benjiboi 00:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The article has been tagged with a class of Start. I will be busy at work for the next two weeks but I'll do what I can to flesh it out. I've never worked with a project before, does anything else need to be done to solicit help on the article? And thanks for the links, Benjiboi. TechBear 01:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Not to step on anybody's toes, but I have reclassed it as "Stub". As it currently stands, it is only 4 sentences, 3 of which are a quote, and 1 ref. I see from the talk page that you have made a large "to do" list, so I'm sure it won't remain a stub for long. Jeffpw 07:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


As I'm sure all know, certain articles are more prone to vandalism than others, and an unfortunate amount of vandalism is sexist, homophobic, and racist. I've lately taken to labeling vandalism reverted if it's homophobic, misogynistic, or racist, à la "reverting racist vandalism by to last version by 0.0.861.291". I have an unconfirmed belief that adding the extra 7 to 13 characters is worth it to admins and others scanning down to see problems. And, in the spirit of sharing, thought I'd explain what I'm doing to others who monitor highly-vandalized articles. --lquilter 15:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What a great idea, Lquilter! I do a lot of vandalism reversions, too, and you're right--it will really stand out more than a generic "rv vand" edit summary. Thanks for sharing the idea. Jeffpw 21:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hein Kleinbooi

I'm back :) Anyway, I think we need a page on Hein Kleinbooi, he seems to be a fairly prominent writer of the postcolonial queer movement, especially in South Africa. He comes up in several books of literary criticism (e.g. [6]) and societal studies on postcolonial queer (e.g. [7]). Anyway, I was hoping to add him to the list of requested articles for this project, but I can't find where that is?Zigzig20s 18:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social Sciences and Philosophy#Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Aleta 02:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you.Zigzig20s 02:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome! :) Aleta 02:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore

In a wtf moment I had reading the news, we mught have to tag the character and the books now. Read the news story here. And see if that makes sense to you... --Moni3 08:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Wow, that was unexpected. Yeah, we'd better tag him. Gosh, Dumbledore... Godammit, when is she going to tell us the truth about Remus and Sirius?! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Already done. ;) Not so sure about tagging the books themselves though.-- ALLSTAR ECHO 09:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Y'all are so fast! I just saw this on the BBC news site, and came here to check! hehehhehehe! Jeffpw 10:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow! I found out at the Spanish LGBT project. I was rooting for Sirius and Remus too! (Even though I love Tonks...) No one saw THAT coming, did they? Good for Rowling! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I though Minerva McGonagall made much more sense. I can see picking her up in a bar somewhere. I bet she's a cat in bed...--Moni3 19:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
XDDDDDD Raystorm (¿Sí?) 01:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I heard about Albus (I'll call him Albie now) here first, and promptly blogged it. I would have gone for Minerva too. Ahem. I think it made sense - it was clear that Albus had a very intense relationship with whatsisface in the last book. --lquilter 22:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism has begun. So far, it's being reverted quickly, but y'all might want to put it on your watchlists, just in case. Aleta 22:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


It's been brought to my attention recently that Socrates has a project banner, but no longer mentions anything about sexuality and isn't in any of the cats associated with the project. If anyone cares to take a crack at it? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's terribly highbrow for my trailer trash leanings but for what it's worth; try this, this and at least the information here. Benjiboi 18:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Known Pederast - Haiduc, over to you. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


There have been a few changes to {{LGBT sidebar}} recently. I undid some by Lara_Bran, but then today there was another change. Lesbian was added (don't know how that got removed). But the three things I have questions on are: Should Gender be on the template? What about Intersexuality? And why do we have both Homosexuality and Gay? Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think either gender nor Intersexuality need to be in our project template. Intersexuality is a medical condition, and gender is too broad and not really related directly to either LGBT. A good test is to see if the project template or tag is on the article, and it is not on either.
Unrelated, who the fuck does Lara_Bran think s/he is, editing our project template without discussing it with anybody?!? I personally think of that as vandalism, since in another discussion I made it clear that it was our project template, developed by this Project. That was just two days ago. I hope somebody has warned /himher not to do that again without discussing it. Jeffpw 19:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the gender should be left off since there's already Transgender. Not sure about the Homosexuality and the Gay.. they are 2 separate articles and both fall well under the project. I do feel however that Two-spirit and Banjee should be added on there somewhere as they are in {{LGBT}} -- ALLSTAR ECHO 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
And Lara Bran is still making changes to the template. I'm trying to keep up with him and reverting his vandalism and additions. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 19:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Please contact Alison or another admin. Alison warned Lara that if she continued making changes without discussing s/he would be blocked. Jeffpw 19:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
They've not edited in days but I just left a message re. hir unilateral editing of templates - Alison 19:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, I don't think it's been days at all. Just today it was edited by said user. diff. and diff.Jeeny (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
He let me know on my talk page that he has all right to edit, that no one owns an article or template.. I think it might be time to protect the template since he's made sure to edit it again. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 14:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Did we decide on the Intersexuality issue? Got another admin WJBScribe removing it saying it doesn't belong. I've told him there was a discussion going on, which there was here but it seems maybe we forgot about it or the few opinions above was the consensus? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
As WJB (an upstanding, long-term member of this project) reminded me, the project discussed "Intersexuality" here and here. Which doesn't mean it isn't time to bring up the subject again, just that our previous discussion settled on not including Intersexuality in the project. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

{{LGBT sidebar}}

Lara bran is back to messing with Template:LGBT. Please make sure you've got the template on your watchlist. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Allstarecho seems to have decided to edit war with me over this template [8] which comes as something of a surprise. I don't know what issues he has with Lara Bran but part of their edit seemed totally correct (it certainly isn't vandalism) - my recollections is that we had a large discussion about 6 months ago and agreed that intersexuality fell outside the scope of this project. Its is a clinical condition affecting the development of genitals etc. and has nothing to do with sexual orientation or gender idenitity. As a result of those discussions, Dev and I took intersexuality and other related articles out of the scope of the project (see [9]). It seems that these have crept back - Satyr retagged Intersexuality this month [10] and it was added back to Template:LGBT sidebar by Photouploaded a few days ago [11]. It seems to me that nothing has changed and there is no consensus for this dramatic re-expansion of our scope. I realise that I'm far less active around here these days than I used to be but I do read this page and haven't seen any discussion about this. Anyone know what's going on? WjBscribe 17:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Alison has caught me up on some issues with Lara bran so I now see why Allstarecho may have been overzealous. Still the project scope questions may need to be addressed again... WjBscribe 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't overzealous. There's a discussion going on above about the contents of the template, specifically Intersexuality and I just think it inappropriate to make changes to the template during a consensus discussion about the content of the very same template. Lara bran has been a consistent changer of the template, even after being asked to stop by several people including an admin, Alison. I simply once again reverted his edits he made today - because he's been asked, begged and warned to leave it alone while discussion was taking place. Then you came along and decided to further remove content - which I agree it should be removed, but not until consensus discussion has been closed. I apologize if it seems I was warring with you (1 revert is hardly war). Many of us are just right out annoyed that people want to make changes to a project's templates without even discussing them. Thanks for bringing it here so we can all work this issue out. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 19:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
And the consensus discussion going on that I keep referring to is right here on this very page above but here's a link to it: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Template:LGBT sidebar -- ALLSTAR ECHO 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, (1) "Then you came along and decided to further remove content - which I agree it should be removed, but not until consensus discussion has been closed" - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. if you don't disagree with an edit, don't revert it. (2) "Many of us are just right out annoyed that people want to make changes to a project's templates without even discussing them. Thanks for bringing it here so we can all work this issue out." - last time I checked, Wikiprojects did not own any templates and I was still a member of this project (hence my recollection of previous discussions on this matter), as far as I know neither of those things have changed. Satyr has clarified that he readded the project template to Talk:Intersexuality in error [12], so as far as I know no one is arguing that Intersexuality belongs in the scope of this Wikiproject or in {{LGBT sidebar}}. WjBscribe 19:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yikes (enter stage left with soapbox). Well, IMHO, we certainly need to revisit these issues. Just as the LGBT tag doesn't mean someone IS LGBT it means that the article is of interest to this project. In the same manner that many of our predecessors were demonized and cast into societies corners which started us collaborating as freaks in the first place, intersex and bisexual people have always been sometimes visible, sometimes absent members of our varied and marginalized communities. GLBTI is becoming more widely used as Intersex people have helped educate LGBT and mainstream communities on their issues. And just as StaceyAnn Chin noted that many people in her native country mistakenly assume gay equals child-molesting we need to acknowledge and embrace that we face an educational challenge to help explain gender and sexuality differences whenever appropriate and that the same issues that affect gays and lesbians can also impact bisexuals and the same issues that impact transgender people can also impact intersex people. It wasn't too long ago that our national LGBT groups had to be taught to embrace not just gay but also "lesbian", then "bisexual" and still "transgender". Once we can help mainstream society get over either bisexual or transgender issues of not mattering what gender you love but that you do love will also impact all of us. We are in the same boat here and every gain we make for one group helps dismantle the walls of ignorance that keeps all groups from equality in matters of human rights. Benjiboi 21:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Seen this?

Sexual Orientation Is Genetic in Worms -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Jack Kerouac

This was removed from our project page by admin Irishguy:Jack Kerouac Author is bisexual (as this is a well known biographical fact, see here: and American but is not listed as being bisexual or a bisexual writer from America. People in discussion are being biphobic and homophobic. Irish also removed Kerouac from all bisexual categories. A quick look at the article would indicate that it has been sanitized to remove any references to bisexuality or homosexuality. Jeffpw 08:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for his being bisexual? I don't think counts by itself given that it is a tertiary source and I seem to remember its reliability has been found to be dubious in the past. WjBscribe 11:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WjB, is considered a pretty reliable source. All their information is well researched and referenced. They can be considered a secondary or tertiary source, but WP policy says there's nothing wrong with that. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WJB, there are several reliable sources for this, including the NYTimes, which hosts a chapter from a Kerouac biography. The crux of the arguments on the Kerouac talk page seem to be that since he was closeted (and venomously homophobic) in his lifetime, we may not classify him as bisexual posthumously, regardless of later scholarship on the subject. It seems illogical to me, but apparently Wikipedia has a long history of these Alice In Wonderland shenanigans, if the article about Eleanor Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and James Buchanan are any indication. Jeffpw 11:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Jeffpw 11:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me just get this straight - is there a WP policy stating that information obtained from posthumous scolarship may not be included in a biographical article? If this is true, that policy has to be changed. Let's clear this up right away. Alfons Åberg 12:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Why would that be a problem? Are you saying information about figures such as Cleopatra or Henry VIII must be contemporary? That scholarly research from after their death should not be cited in articles about these people? WjBscribe 12:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
No Alfons, there exists no policy like that, though the heterosexual majority seemingly would like to institute one, judging from the articles I linked to. Jeffpw 12:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry to be contributing only hearsay, but I remember distinctly Allen Ginsberg writing about his trysts with Kerouac. I just cannot recall where. Haiduc 12:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Gore Vidal did a Kerouac pole dance, too, Haiduc, and there are sources online that show that. Both Ginsberg and Vidal have written about it. But the Well Meaning Wikipedians who edit that article don't feel feel that is enough. Apparently the disappointing quality of Kerouac's erection renders the tryst meaningless for Wikipedia purposes. go figure. Jeffpw 13:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I am sure we can take an inclusive approach to all that. I have already started the ball rolling. Haiduc 13:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a book called Subterranean Kerouac (Ellis Amburn, 1998) that claims JK had a relationship with Sammy Sampas that influenced him to be a writer. Sampas was killed in WWII and Kerouac was buried beside him. The book says Kerouac had intense internal homophobia and went on a drunken binge in college with some football players and beat a gay man in Greenwich Village that haunted him for the rest of his life. He had another relationship with Neal Cassady to whom the book says he was "emotionally enslaved" and sent him letters professing his feelings, but apologizing for "his queerness" and sounding "like a sissy". This book is referenced in the article - is there no content included from this book about his personal life? Why in a biography is that the case? --Moni3 13:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

I included a link to some of that info above, Moni. Try to include some of that info in the article and see if it sticks. Jeffpw 14:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I haven't read the book. Like you, I read this from a book review (Lambda Book Report). Was hoping someone here really likes Kerouac and wanted to go check that out and read it for the fun of it. Reading beat poetry and about beat poets would not be fun for me. Don't make me do it! I beg of you! --Moni3 14:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Actually, the link is to the first chapter (in full) which talks about the Gore Vidal Kerouac pole dance and other homo fun stuff. I'm too lazy to go edit the article, and I have had run ins with Irishguy before, so am not keen on doing battle again. Jeffpw 14:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
San Francisco Chronicle
Subterranean Kerouac; The Hidden Life of Jack Kerouac Chapter One via New York Times
IMDB Biography for Allen Ginsberg
San Francisco Bay Times -- ALLSTAR ECHO 14:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
History is fun! When a facet of an historical figure's life is disputed, like Kerouac, Eleanor Roosevelt, James Buchanan, and Lincoln, hard core references are what's necessary (biographies, letters, etc. - articles that guess, assume, surmise, and summarize aren't sufficient), and in the article one can't claim the figure was gay, but that a biographer named This Guy found This Evidence to claim that These People had This Sort of Relationship. It's a rather Zen approach to history, that readers may make their own decisions. Should someone find this info about any of these figures, there's no reason, when written this way, that these references should be excluded from the article. One of these days I'm gonna get around to Eleanor Roosevelt... --Moni3 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Well we're all apparently in agreement that Jack was at least mildly infected with the love that dare not speak its name. The only question is what we intend to do about it. It really should be included in his bio--I had no idea anyone even disputed this basic, fundamental aspect of who he was. on a related note, when researching this before I brought it to our talkpage, I became disheartened at the sanitized versions of our Great President's articles (well ok, Lincoln was great, Buchanan was a nebbish bore). Seems odd that their sexuality articles are tagged on the talk page as LGBT Project related, but not their actual bios. No links to guide the reader to that aspect of history, either. I haven't a doubt that there are many more such articles to be found. This is an issue that really should be addressed at project level. To correct these omissions on so many articles would overwhelm any one editor. Jeffpw 15:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think what's going to have to happen is that a few of our LGBT editors here should ha ha bone up on a lot of biographic information on one particular subject, for a specific amount of time, like November is beat poet month!! and we may have to focus multiple editors' efforts on a single biography: keeping it vandalism free, reporting mass deletions of information, and helping each other with references and the way the issue is presented, requesting admin help when needed. I think the four biographies mentioned here are a good start. (I can tell...y'all are going to make me read these books...) --Moni3 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
As noted on the Jack Kerouac talk page, Kerouac himself denied being bisexual. One biographer made claims that he even prefaced with rigid divisions such as hetero-, bi-, and homosexuality do not fit reality, certainly not Kerouac's, and should not be used to label him. IrishGuy talk 18:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes we have difficulty finding sources to verify an historical figure's personal life. We are unable to include Merv Griffin under our scope because even though he never denied having affairs with men, they were never confirmed and there are no known references we have found to confirm his sexuality. However, with Kerouac, there are reliable sources that claim he had romantic relationships with men, and that he acknowledged his feelings for Neal Cassady even though he did not label himself as gay or bisexual. Unlike Little Richard, who we are also unable to tag because not only does Little Richard claim God has "cured" him, we haven't found references since his religious experience that confirm he has had any relationships with men. Liberace denied being gay until and even after his death (through attorneys), but references exist to say otherwise. We're not saying Kerouac was gay or even bisexual. We're saying that references exist that refer to his personal life, and aspects of his personal life fall under the scope of our project. --Moni3 18:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Also, note that including a page within the scope of our project is not the same thing as putting it in any particular LGBT category. The fact that there is even argument about Kerouac's sexual orientation is enough to include his article in the purview of the project, even were we ultimately to decide not to put LGBT categories on the page. Aleta 19:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying Kerouac was or wasn't bisexual. I couldn't care less when I read his work. The point I am trying to make is that he himself never identified as bisexual and with age he became vitriolic towards gays. Was he conflicted and in the closet? Possibly. But I don't think it is the place of Wikipedia to decide on his behalf what he "truly" was or wasn't. IrishGuy talk 19:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe so, maybe not. But you removed his details from Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies and, like it or not, the guy's article is germane to this project - Alison 19:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to decide anything. All editors can do is present information. The information in question for Kerouac is entirely appropriate for the subject. All historians can do is compile information and say This Guy said This, but This Other Guy said This Other Thing, and it's not the same as This Guy. History is just a set of perspectives. Someone wrote about the personal life of Jack Kerouac, who was living in a time that was notoriously homophobic. It's no wonder that he was experiencing these inner conflicts. But that information should be presented in the article about him. By NOT presenting it, or refusing to present it - *that* makes decisions for readers that editors shouldn't make. --Moni3 19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
I haven't removed any information in the Kerouac article regarding his possible sexual orientation. I did remove the categories because the talk page consensus is against adding them. Only one editor continues to readd them logging in and out of his account to appear to be more than one person. IrishGuy talk 20:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, Moni. By sanitizing the article (or never including the information at all) we do our readers a disservice by not letting them know about Kerouac's sexual conflicts and actual experiences. Whether he himself, in the homophobic time in which he lived, didn't acknowledge his sexual activities, the fact is there are reliable sources today which claim he did have sex with other men as well as women. In any other subject and for almost any other person this would be a no brainer. It seems as though people don't want this information in the article simply because it is Kerouac, and him being bi, or a deeply closeted homosexual, would somehow take away from his image of coolness. Jeffpw 20:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere we have a guideline that states when we (the WikiProject) are comfortable labeling a person as LGBT. As I recall, options include a RS that the person stated such, RSs from other people that state they've had relations with the person, and/or (if they're dead) RSs that state the person was LGBT. Does anyone know where that guideline discussion is? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The guidelines I developed are tucked away all over the backwater project pages, but the main convo that started it, is here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject discussion of a guideline on "bisexuality"/"sexuality"

For the record, a potential guideline on "bisexuality" has been proposed by Dev:

  1. That person identifies as bisexual, regardless of relationships, ie Billie Joe Armstrong.
  2. A person has had documented, notable relationships with both sexes, such as Marlon Brando.
  3. A person has been alleged, with evidence, by reliable sources to be, or have been, in a relationship with both sexes, ie Lord Byron and Alfred Kinsey.

This might be expanded into a guideline on sexuality:

  1. A person identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, regardless of relationships or apparent gender, ie Billie Joe Armstrong.
  2. A person has had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes, such as Marlon Brando.
  3. Reliable sources allege the person to be, or have been, in relationships with their same sex or with both sexes, ie Lord Byron and Alfred Kinsey.

Comments? As an aside, transgender is only in the first option, which might be alright. Or the other two might need to be expanded. And "intersexuality" isn't addressed at all :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As it shouldn't be. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm X, Yasser Arafat, and outing truth

Certain parties have been removing the LGBT category and project tags from the articles on these two seasonal friends of Dorothy, despite reliable sourced evidence acknowledging the participative bisexuality (at various times) of both. Is there anything that can done about this? Action and more eyes needed.Mymymymymy 02:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There have already been discussions on the appropriate talk pages: Talk:Malcolm X#Sexuality and several places on Talk:Yasser Arafat. On both pages consensus is that neither of them are gay or bisexual. If reliable sources can be found stating their orientations, we'll consider the project tag. Otherwise, leave it off. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Waylon Smithers

I recently had a question posted to my talk page, and responded with some (IMHO) good answers. The response I got back was:

Fair enough I guess. Smithers is my random character clean up project of the month so I'm going to be cleaning up the article and possibly taking a stab at GA status, so I don't suppose you or anyone in the LGBT project would be willing to help? -- Scorpion0422

Anyone interested in working on Waylon Smithers? Just to keep the good name of the project alive - no pressure or anything! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Smithers! Bring me the bear! I might see if there's anything I can do. --Moni3 02:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Ummm... I'll try. I can't really do much, 'cause I ain't real good at this, but I can poke away at spelling and stuff... Lychosis T/C 02:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll do some but it'll have to wait a day or so. Benjiboi 02:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, help me out here. Who saw the Merchant/Ivory film version of EM Forster's Maurice? There's an instance where Smithers tells Burns he loves him, and when Burns walks away, Smithers says something like, "Oh, who am I kidding? The boathouse was the place to say it!" Is that not a reference to a sex scene in Maurice? I saw it once a kajillion years ago and can barely remember. --Moni3 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

The Simpsons episode is Bart's Inner Child. Benjiboi 20:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was making sure the movie reference was right. Maurice is a very gay film, and would illustrate Smithers' familiarity with it. --Moni3 11:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Categorization Help

I moved this here from Portal talk:LGBT for User:Dia^ for more attention and response -- ALLSTAR ECHO 13:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Categorization has been always my problem on wiki, but for gay people I'm even more confused... and now that I've been out of wiki for a while I don't know what to do... For example Maile Flanagan is not categorized as lesbian or bisexual, nor is written anything on the subject on the page, but she is in the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: F-J. Ulrike Folkerts is openly lesbian, she participates in the Gaygames but has no categorization for that. There are new guideline I'm not aware of? How should I best categorize the two articles? are le lists still updated? Thanks --Dia^ 10:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on the user's talk page. Thanks for finding that, AllStarEcho! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Randall Kenan - anyone from North Carolina?

I was wondering if anyone was from North Carolina, in which case you could perhaps e-mail Randall Kenan and ask if you can take a picture of him. That reminds me of our attempt to take a picture of David Leavitt - when did he say he would be back in Florida for a picture?Zigzig20s 02:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

David Leavitt was taking a fall semester sabbatical. I assume he'll be back in January. Wanna remind me then and I can ask again? --Moni3 04:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
I'll try to.Zigzig20s 04:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you think he's still at UNC/Chapel Hill? I'll be in NC from late Jan thru late Apr. Remind me when you remind Moni3 =) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Intersexuality as part of project scope?

I'd like to see us include intersexuality in our scope. I think it is inextricably tied to the concept of gender identity, and I agree with what Benjiboi says above about its having issues in common with (while not being the same thing as, of course) transgender. Aleta 21:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Was there an agreement not to include gender in the template? I can understand why transgender is included, but if gender is not, why a biological condition of intersexuality? Let me add that I am not intersexed, and have no idea what folks who are think of being included under LGBT issues. I don't know enough about this to make any suggestions. --Moni3 22:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Male and female are not within the scope of this project but are clearly at the centre of "gender identity". In my opinion "intersex" like those two genders lie outside the scope of project. Similarly I don't think that scope extends to all hormonal and genetic medical conditions that can lead to people having intersex characteristics. Those who are intersexed may of course identify as LGBT but I don't see any inherent link. WjBscribe 22:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised that it isn't already part of the project. Obviously, a transgender identity and intersex biology are very closely linked for many transgendered people. Dybryd 22:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Considering that intersexuality is a medical condition, I don't really know what to think of this issue. I'm inclined to believe it shouldn't be a part of the project but then again Transgender is a medical condition as well, at least in some sense that it takes an operation to change, just as it would take an operation to "fix" intersexuality. Confusing. Is there any valid sources/references showing precedent that Intersexuals have been shoulder to shoulder with LGBT activists/ism? Does Lambda Legal/National Gay & Lesbian Task Force/HRC/National Center for Lesbian Rights recognize it as part of the "fight"? If I could see those sources/references, my mind would be at ease to include it in the scope. Otherwise, at this point, I don't see the relation. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I ... er ... what? I'm not really up on transgender issues, but I'm pretty certain it's not the case that all transgendered people want or need "an operation" or that transgendered people who do get an operation have had their transgender identity changed.
I also don't think I can go along with the idea that having historically been a part of the gay rights movement ought to be a prerequisite for being part of this project. Whither Gerard Manley Hopkins then? Dybryd 22:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This could of course become Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTI studies (or just Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTI). I gather the 5 letter acronym is becoming more common. WjBscribe 22:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not in flavor of expanding the scope of our project at this time to include intersesuality. I have said this before, and am repeating it now, for clarity. Jeffpw 22:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, what "flavor" do you like?? ;P -- ALLSTAR ECHO 23:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Intersex and Transgender folks have commonly and culturally been clumped together and only recently have strides in some arenas to educate on the differences really taken hold. I personally would like to see this project expand and actually rename to LGBTI as the realities of people's real lives is that intersex people find support and acceptance within existing LGBT structures, which, again, used to be just gay structures. Please note I don't see this progression leading to also adding Q for queer and/or questioning which are also common acronyms but that's a discussion that can wait for now. To the vast majority of our readers (customers and potential future project members) intersex and transgender are the same just as transgender women are slurred as drag queens even if they have nothing to do with drag performing and many intersex and transgender people take a remarkably similar self-actualizing path as LGB people I think our commonalities are much stronger than our differences ever could be. Someday in the future the need for this project will perhaps disappear altogether but until then I feel we should stand united. Whenever rights for any of our communities are strengthened it benefits us all and the implications is that we have little to lose and much to gain. Benjiboi 23:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not in favour of adding the Intersex label onto the whole LGBT umbrella for a whole myriad of reasons. Things like 5-Alpha Reductase insensitivity, Turner's Syndrome and Homosexuality and Christianity just don't fit. Often, intersex people may indeed be unaware of their condition or can become aware later in life due to, say, karyotyping. It's a whole set of different issues and, if anything, comes under auspices of WP:MED. IS people sometimes have a whole range of different issues to deal with, including a lifetime of physical ailments due to endocrine issues. There's not a massive amount of intersection, IMO. Then there's the whole contentious issue of TS people and IS, where certain groups would like to categorize TSism as having a neurological intersex etiology despite the lack of conclusive evidence - Alison 23:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I just noticed that we do have intersexuality on the Transgender infobox. (Not to say it should be or should not be there - just wondering if it's a sign of our split mind about whether to include it?) Aleta 00:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It was added by Photouploaded a few days ago at the same time he added it to {{LGBT sidebar}} [13] so I'm not sure that its a sign of anything much.... WjBscribe 00:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, perhaps it's not then. Aleta 01:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Per AllStarEcho's question above:
  • HRC: [14] 8 instances of "intersex" on their website
  • Lambda Legal: [15] 5 instances of "intersex" on their website
  • NGLTF: [16] 25 instances of "intersex" on their website (see specifically: [17]
  • NCLR: [18] 6 instances of "intersex" on their website
  • Intersex Society of North America - interesting link: [19] (see the last note)
-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) I've been thinking about this for a while. I'm really in two minds about the inclusion of intersex (lucky I have 2 personalities :) ). Yes, if we are to include it, we should rename the project LGBTI. Intersex is quite distinct from transgender in that it has a physical origin rather than a psychological origin. Of course, there are people who claim that there are also physical origins for transgender, particularly in relation to in-utero hormone levels affecting brain gender development. There is a lot of overlap, but some intersex people vehemently seek to distance themselves from transgender people. On the other hand, some transsexuals claim not to be transgendered and vehemently seek to separate themselves from other transgender people. The more I think about it, the more I think that it probably should be included but I'm not absolutely committed in either direction. --AliceJMarkham 03:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's sort of laughable that people claim intersexuality is outside of the scope of our project, and yet Christina Aguilera is so important to our project, she's even on our Watchlist. The words gay/lesbian/transgender don't even appear once on her wiki article. Intersexuality on the other hand is in the Sexual identities template and is mentioned in the header of LGBT!
But before getting entangled in a back and forth about whether or not intersexuality is LGBT, I think it's important to remember that this is the LGBT Studies Project, not the LGBT Project, and many topics are of academic concern in the field of LGBT Studies precisely because of the question of whether or not they are in fact LGBT (ie. third gender categories in other cultures, ritualized same-sex sexual practices, etc.). In other words, I think the very fact that there is argument over whether intersexuality is LGBT, only verifies that it is definitely LGBT Studies. Queerudite 04:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to Satyr's research (gee, why didn't I just use google and look myself, huh? haha), I wouldn't have a problem going along with including "I".. though an HRC statement did show an interesting point: The term transgender may include, but is not limited to: Transsexuals, intersex people, cross-dressers, mannish women and feminine men.[20] -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I hear you but the term gay may include bisexuals, transgenders and lesbian but that hasn't sat well with all those folks either. Benjiboi 20:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
A random thought: If we were called "Wikipedia:WikiProject Queer studies", would Intersexuality be included? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
In Australia, the term queer is not only extremely perjorative and insulting to LGB people but it isn't generally seen to cover transgender or intersex at all. If it was "Wikipedia:WikiProject Queer studies", I would never have joined and if it changed name to that, I would consider it to no longer cover transgender and leave. --AliceJMarkham 00:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You know, it's funny you should say that because I was at an LGBT society meeting on Thursday and a woman there said she didn't consider herself lesbian or bisexual, but as queer precisely because she had dated transgender people. She considered queer encompassed the entire LGBT spectrum. I don't think we should be renaming our project to Queer Studies simply because the word itself is controversial (I personally hate using it and there are a lot of people within our community with horrific memories of its use), vague (you don't consider transgender is included in queer, this woman did, there's the issue of whether we'd be focusing too much on Queer theory) and a lot of straight people are going to wonder why the hell we've effectively named ourself "Fags' corner". Maybe we should wait a bit for those issues to sort themselves out. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly against the inclusion of intersex within our project's remit. LGBT are self-defining identities, intersexuality is a medical condition. The two are simply not related. The intersex are welcome at WP:SEX, as far as I am aware. LGBTI is not what I signed up for. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? OK, firstly very similar things have and continue to be stated about transgender people (medical condition, not related to gay issues, etc.) and I disagree that LGBT are self-defining identities although they can be. Also, we chooses to focus or not to focus on any subset of the project so just because we officially add intersex doesn't mean you or anyone is required to do anything, we're all volunteers. My hope is that the excellent care and compassion we bring to so many other articles will also extend to those that specifically address intersex issues that have yet to be tagged. Secretly I also hope that those who are active in intersex issues (which tend to be medical, child rights, privacy) will greatly inform so many articles that could use a bit of TLC. Benjiboi 07:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
So basically you're saying you want to include intersex because we're a good project? Well, I think that Wikipedia's coverage of Raelianism is woefully inadequate, can we take them under our wing as well? Of course you won't be obligated to participate in their improvement if you don't want to, we are all volunteers... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Gee, hard to argue with that logic. Benjiboi 11:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Good to know we're on the same wavelength then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
We are hardly on the same wavelength here. And to be more clear without sarcasm ... No, I'm not saying I want to include intersex because we're a good project I'm stating we should include them because they already are a part of our communities and it's the right thing to do. I was trying to convey that I don't think including Intersex will necessarily impact your efforts and that there is also some technical expertise that might benefit the current work of the project. I'll leave the Raelianism, it's a religious sect?, up for grabs as to whether their inclusion in this wikiproject is warranted. Benjiboi 19:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
If intersex people are part of our community it is because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, not because they are intersex. Intersexuality is not a concern of the LGBT community, however much we may sympathise with their standing among wider society. Including Intersex will impact upon my work in that as a participant in the wider issues that this project discusses and engages in, rather than just a lone worker on a specific subset of our articles, I will be unable to avoid it, and neither will anybody else who similarly wishes to participate thus. Intersex people may face discrimination in the same as we do, but the reason for their suffering (physical complexity) is a world apart from us (sexual and gender identity) and I am as uninterested in working for them on Wikipedia as I am working for the elderly. I only have a certain amount of time to spend battling discrimination, and frankly, my community comes first. There is no national LGBT organisation which currently considers the I a necessary addition to our remit - when they do perhaps a better argument may be forward for their inclusion here, but until then, just tacking on the intersex to a project that has no relevance to them is a pitying gesture to little effect. They should fight their own corner instead of trying to hitch onto our bandwagon. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree then as I hardly agree that intersex people are a part of our communities because they are LGBT (although they certainly can be); nor do I accept that Intersex issues are of no concern to LGBT communities. I do however sympathize with your having to witness project work which you don't feel belongs, I actually simply move onto another topic if one doesn't interest me so still see this as a minor hassle compared to the work we do; as stated previously we each choose what work is to be done and are self-directed for the most part. Also suggest that looking to our national groups for leadership on any issues seems faulty at best - seems to me ENDA would have had no issue with transgender inclusion if our national groups were actually leading rather than following and collecting donations along the way. LGBT history is a story of oppressed and marginalized groups fighting for their needs, and to me, this seems like the next phase in that evolution rather than a pitying gesture from a project that has no relevance to them. Here's hoping that we can all look in the mirror a bit and see that we once were and in many cultures still are seen as lispy fags and manish bull dykes who should fight their own corner instead of trying to hitch onto our bandwagon. Luckily for us many non-LGBTI's felt there was reason to enact laws and protections even though we were and are seen as clearly in the minority and shouldn't have to exist solely in the corners of society. Benjiboi 23:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I am all in favour of laws against the discrimination of intersex people - but I personally will not be campaigning for them. I have the LGBT community, disabled rights, and Tibet to fight for, and that is more than enough to be going on with. Go start WP:INTERSEX if you are so determined to speak. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still in favor of making the project into LGBTI studies, but another thing to consider that I don't think has been directly stated by anyone is whether any intersex folks would want to join us in such a project, or if they would be prefer not to be associated with our project. That's a question to which I have no idea the answer, nor am I sure how we would go about finding out. (??) Aleta 19:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Go to Intersex, check the people in the edit history's userpages, and you'll find someone intersex. And with birds of a feather and all that they'll probably know other people you can also ask. Though this seems to imply that even if they did want to come under our scope, we would let them, which is not a resolved issue. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Dev, sorry my wording was unclear: I didn't mean to imply it was a done deal. I'm certainly aware the question is not closed; that there are people, such as yourself, not in favor of expanding the scope of the project. I only meant that having interested/willing intersex editors would be a necessary factor for expansion, not sufficient in and of itself.  :) Aleta 20:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree that having people self-identify as intersex and committing in some way to the project is a necessary factor for expansion. The articles, generally, have already been created and being worked on and intersex status is still widely a source of stigmatization and phobic activities affect members of this project regularly (daily?). I assert that no strings should be attached but mutually beneficial outcomes will ensue. Benjiboi 20:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)