Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 11

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

Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12


Civil rights

Shouldn't this article be tagged WP LGBT? I think it should since it includes several LGBT aspects in the article but, you know, I didn't want to be "overzealous" and tag it myself... – ALLSTAR ECHO 22:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather stunned that there is no project tag for this article. I would have thought Wikiproject:Discrimination would have included it. But there is a template on the right side that includes a link to gay rights. Because the core article for civil rights is really broad in scope, and it mainly explains what rights are (and this is a subjective idea), and why they are considered basic, I don't think we should tag it. --Moni3 22:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
WikiProject Human rights has it tagged. – ALLSTAR ECHO 22:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Below the contents? No wonder I didn't see it. --Moni3 01:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Our approach has in the past not been to tag very broad umbrella topics. So Civil rights and Discrimination were left alone despite an obvious connection. I think the test article that was discussed was HIV - obviously a highly significant topic for the gay community. However it was felt that HIV and AIDS as medicial topics should be kept seperate from articles which particularly discuss the impact of the disease on the LGBT community. In the end the line has to be drawn somewhere. Like everything else, its something we can revisit, but I'm not sure if there's a real practical benefit in tagging such articles. WjBscribe 22:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but then I noticed that the broad umbrella article human sexuality does have a project tag. Should it be removed? Dybryd 22:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Ouch. Its all about the tough questions this evening. Well I'd have thought there was a much stronger connection to human sexuality - LGBT covers quite a spectrum of human sexuality, whereas LGBT rights/discrimination are just a facet of those articles. But it isn't a very clear dividing line. In the end it probably doesn't matter that much and people can excercise their own judgment on what should sensibly be included. Human would be going too far in my opinion however ;-) ... WjBscribe 22:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I recall a few days ago reading an article about some kind of sex fetish that was tagged LGBT. Tried finding it again but can't. I do recall thinking "umm, I'm gay and have never heard of this..". – ALLSTAR ECHO 23:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Clearly you've not read Wikipedia enough. ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki London meetup

Just a little note to say that there will be a meetup for LGBT Project participants in London on the weekend of March 1st. If you are interested in joining us, please put your name on the board. There are no actual events planned, as yet, so there's still plenty of time to make you wishes known. I certainly hope as many as possible will be able to attend, and that this is just the first of many LGBT meetups planned for around the world! Jeffpw 15:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to come, however as it's so far in the future i couldn't say for sure yet. I was planning to go to the wikipedia london meetup in December, is anyone else?3.14 etc 18:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


For every right-minded (but not right wing) LGB or T Wikipedian who is fed up to the eye teeth with the current regime in Washington, our dear SatyrTN has made a wonderful rainbow image to place on your user page. I display mine with pride, and can't thank Satyr enough for making it. Jeffpw 22:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism help

Three articles, Sister Roma, Hot House Entertainment (where she apparently works) and Sister Boom-Boom each are getting repeatedly empty of info and then tagged non-notable. The anon IP is floating so blocking one account didn't do the trick. I've put in a request for semi-protection but no one's picked up the phone yet. If others could could keep an eye and simply revert as needed I would appreciate it. Benjiboi 14:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've watchlisted them and will revert as necessary, but the admins at page protection have a point. Sourcing would certainly go a long way towards stopping the vandalism and getting the page protected if necessary. Jeffpw 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
True that but we don't source every bit of information from the word go. And now I'm supposed to vet three articles because some anon has targeted them? Each one would have dozens of references; Sister Roma has been doing events and campaign for like 20 years and Hot House Entertainment is a porn company with dozens of actors in several countries and over a hundred films. This vandal deleted everything but the name of the bio. Let's do the obvious first. Benjiboi 14:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, and I said as much at page protection. Still, they need refs badly. I'm off the coming 3 days, so will try to add some. Jeffpw 14:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate that. My goodness between this and Lara "Viney" Bran what a morning! Benjiboi 14:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
We're talking serious, ongoing vandalism here. It's a wonder Benjiboi hasn't had a breakdown from this. Somebody pass the Valium, please. Jeffpw 23:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No useful info from the IPs - Verizon Internet Services, New York. Could be anyone :( ... WjBscribe 23:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I threw a massive hissyfit on both page protection and ANI, and they are all protected now for a couple days. Jeffpw 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Good for you for getting that done! Aleta 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we saw that :) Next time, just drop me a line and I'll look into it :) - Alison 00:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Even my quick brush with this one left me queasy! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I was starting an ANI write up when the anon messaged that it's been fun but they have to leave and then "Do zobaczenia w przyszłym świecie!" Anyone speak Polish? Benjiboi 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Electronically translated to: For seeing in future world. Jeffpw 00:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Their last message to me included several "honey"s like they were trying to insult me (I don't think it worked) and, as you know, they revealed it was religiously motivated as they saw Roma as anti-Catholic. To me what was most troubling was having to ask multiple times for semi-protection and that the user was pretty advanced while floating amongst multiple IP's rendering warnings and blocks somewhat useless. Thanks to everyone who helped, what a colossal waste of energy. Benjiboi 00:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Saints Sergius and Bacchus

An editor is repeatedly removing any reference to Robert Lentz's portrayal of these men as gay, and then removing the image that illustrates this. (It's not fairuse without the commentary.) I've restored both for now. Aleta 01:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

She's removed the image and discussion again. This time I have not, at least so far, restored them. Her argument is that the artist is non-notable, and there is a free equivalent of the image available. This was discussed a number of months ago (when I raised the fair use question - I got convinced by some of our other members!), and fair use seemed to be established because it is the only image that shows them specifically as a gay couple. Does anyone want to take this on? Aleta 21:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A few recent Shankbone pics

--David Shankbone 21:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Unregistered cohabitation

I'm not sure if this is the best place to raise this, but I have an issue to clarify with this map, which shows worldwide recognition of same-sex unions. The map draws no distinction between civil unions/registered partnership and unregistered cohabitation. In itself, this is not a problem; however, some countries which only offer unregistered cohabitation are marked as offering "same-sex unions", while others, which offer the same rights, are marked as "No same-sex unions". More specifically, Colombia, Hungary and Croatia are placed in the same category as the UK, Sweden, etc. But, all the states of Australia, Brazil and Austria also recognise de-facto same-sex couples and offer them some rights. There are three possible solutions:

  1. We only mark states recognising registered partnership, with those that recognise only unregistered cohabitation placed in the same category as those who recognise "No same sex unions". That is, the colour of Hungary, Croatia and Colombia should be changed.
  2. We place both registered partnership and unregistered cohabitation in the same category of "Same-sex unions", thus adding Brazil, all of Australia and Austria.
  3. We make a new category for unregistered cohabitation, like on this map.

Personally, I believe that Option 3 would be the best, but it may also clutter the map up too much. Option 2 is the worst in my opinion, since we would placing countries with very limited recognition like Austria, alongside countries with marriage-equivalent rights and registration processes, like the UK. Ronline 05:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
(Copied from Template talk:Gay unions. ZueJay (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

November Newsletter

I will be putting together the next newsletter this weekend, so if anybody has anything they wish to have included, please mention it either here or on my talkpage. Thanks, Jeffpw 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We had a Main Page WP:DYK for Ann Northrop. ZueJay (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
And a new featured list: List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Sj-Sz. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Gender and Judaism

The Gender and Judaism article has been marked as within the scope of this project.

There is a related article Role of women in Judaism whose development should probably be coordinated/merged/sub-main'd with this article. A topic has been created to discuss this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Judaism#Gender and Judaism. Best to all, Egfrank 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jose Galisteo

My (now former) singing idol has written to me to complain about the article I wrote about him. He doesn't like it. He doesn't like that he is listed as gay (even though it's sourced). He doesn't like that we wrote he performs at gay venues (even though we have that sourced too). In fact, he doesn't like that we wrote he has gay fans (though...oh never mind, you get the point). Raystorm, can you read the Spanish refs again? And can others perhaps look for even more sources to support the already sourced content? I had the article vetted by several people before I even posted it, to ensure conformity with WP:BIO. And it was supposed to be an act of love to my (former) idol. I guess any thoughts of marriage will have to be abandoned....:-( Jeffpw 19:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • That's his problem. I dated this writer and I would have him listed as gay if I could find a source for him saying it himself. People who run away from themselves - too bad!— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Shankbone (talkcontribs)
He's reverted his article, and the Spanish one, too. Wah!!! Jeffpw 19:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I vetted that throughly when you first wrote it Jeff, and it is a great article given what little there is out there on this guy. If he doesn't appreciate that he just doesn't deserve you as a fan. :( Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

he's all over the Spanish internet and gay magazines as being gay, even quoted about his "first time". Another editor said he must be worried that his straight (and English speaking) fans wont like this information. I'm massively disappointed. This is the Spanish Google, which has tons of gay content about him, a lot of it reliable sources. Thanks for your kind comment, Dev. you of all people know how crazy about him I was. Jeffpw 21:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be an unfortunate truth that talented does not equal enlightened or sensitive. Aleta 21:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
After receiving a rather terse followup reiterating his demands, I thought it best to post this to ANI. Guy has removed any references to his sexuality, though sourced, saying he feels discussing a subject's sexuality in an article is "tacky". Guy does not speak Spanish and did not check the reference. I've asked him to update the ANI discussion to reflect how he handles it, but he indicated he was unwilling to do that. I have also written to Galisteo, saying he should write to OTRS with his concerns, and provided him with the address. I'm feeling rather enervated from this discussion, so shall leave it to others to decide what, if any, further action needs to be taken. Jeffpw 12:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm so sorry Jeffpw! I had no idea you requested my help here. Next time ping me in my talk please! Do you still need help? Want me to check his Spanish article, talk with him, anything? I'm so sorry I missed this! :( Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The impression I get is that he was "outed" (I do not know how, but here is says he was "forced" to come out, and also says he has resisted the moniker. Now he appears in bisexual scenes, and has "confessed" to being hetero. Go figure. Haiduc 13:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
If he's so confused, Haiduc, can anyone blame us for being confused, too? Ah, youth. It will be the death of us all, one day. Jeffpw 13:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that our irc channel is being really helpful with this topic: members from the spanish and english projects are joining forces to hunt down refs hehe. ;-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
That IRC channel is the Bee's knees! I humbly thank all on both the the Spanish and English language Wikipedias who have assisted me and supported me today. Jeffpw 15:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Anon IP now seems to be stalking

Both Jeffpw and I seemed to be getting a stalker of sorts. This edit is from the same user who's upset that Jewish wasn't more prominent on (yet another) gay porn bio. And this all started with Sister Roma which we later discovered was problematic for the editor based on anti-Catholicism grounds; Roma is also a co-host for gay porn co. Hot House's weekly gay porn show. The anon is a floating IP so blocks and warnings have been somewhat useless. Benjiboi 20:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's now posted on ANI. I'm too lazy to give the link. You all know the way :-D Jeffpw 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Further, will SOMBODY please provide a little support on the Sister Roma article? Even though I am reverting vandalism, I have done it 4 times, and don't want to risk a block. Jeffpw 21:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Watchlisted. This guy's edit sumamries are hilarious, btw... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Watchlisted. Btw, this may all be a little misunderstanding. It did take me a few secs to find where it said the 1991 hate crimes thingy, but using Ctrl-F, search 'hate crime' was very helpful. ;-) We might tip the IP on that. Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC) What a day!

Also watchlisted, and relevant quotes from the citations pasted onto IP's talk page. Aleta 22:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate all the help and no, I doubt this is a mistake or simple misunderstanding, it seems to be a sneakier version of deleting anything possible and spiraling users into circular debates (it isn't, it is (and now it's reffed), that ref is false, not really, yes it is, well it doesn't say exactly that OR!; actually it pretty much says that, etc). My retribution is to simply add more reffed content. Jeff and I might start a betting pool on who the anon is, my hunch is that they're a frustrated actor who (ahem) blew their chance at being in gay porn by either not being gay or nice (or both). Benjiboi 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I've put it back on my watchlist. I watched if for a while before when you mentioned problems with it before but unwatched it when things appeared to have settled down. I'll have a look at ANI but I would think that a longer period of semi-protection might be in order at this point. --AliceJMarkham 00:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Improving the quality of Lesbian article

I'm having a two-sided discussion about how to improve the quality of the Lesbian article, now that it's been partially protected. We need as much feedback as possible. From anyone. Although the article is long in scope, I think it should be longer and much more extensive. It's rated as a B class, but there are very few citations, and the sections seem to be abbreviated. I think we need help. See our discussion here. --Moni3 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Village pump discussion on identifying gay and hetero celebs

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Sexual orientation of non-heterosexual celebrities. 07:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

LGBT movements in the United States

After receiving a copyright complaint via meta:OTRS Ticket#: 2007110410002037 I begin investigating this page. It appears the entire article was lifted from It looks like this issue came up some time ago on the talk page and user:SusanLarson, the apparent proprietor of said that the article was released under a comparable license. However, according to's copyright notice they reserve all rights to the contents of their pages. In this instance I must error on the side of caution... however, since this is such an odd situation I would like to find out if anyone has any more information in this case... or if anyone can contact SusanLarson for more information.

If not, I really think we should have an article on the subject and I regret the extra work this will cause everyone involved. If I can be of any assistance, please let me know. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, J.smith, for pointing this out! I'm adding Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Collaboration/LGBT movements in the United States here for us to start collaborating on a new version of the article. Anyone/everyone is welcome to lend a hand :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious, though. The link you provided - - bears no resemblence to the article Google has cached. Could you clarify? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The very first version of the page was a direct unformatted copy/paste of that article. Every edit beyond that was a build-up of that content and about 80% of the article as it stood today was largely unmodified. Take a look at this page under sections 6, 10, and 12. I really do wish there was a better way to deal with this. :( ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I've recovered the structure, refrences and external links from the origional article. Hopefully this will help a little. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Images from original article

  • [[Image:LGBT_American_flag.png|thumb|250 px|right|An LGBT American flag in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.]]
  • [[Image:WeMustGrowAMustache.jpg|thumb|right|Sheet music poking fun at the feminine traits many men adopted during the 1920's.]]

Hope that helps. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I still don't see the direct copy. The cached version, section 6 for example, is about Queer Nation and is eight paragraphs long. The article (which is about Transgender Activism) only mentions QN on page 3, and then only briefly. What am I missing? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Do me a favor and do an Ctrl-F search for selected passages from the source article at and compare it to the cashed version. Yes, the first 4-5 sections are new, but I have no way to seperate the new and copyvio content in the history. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I respectfully request that the article be returned and the offending sections ("#8 Early activism" through "#14 GenderPAC") be removed? It seems the rest of the article *isn't* copyvio, and can be salvaged. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
See, thats the catch 22. Every version of the history contains this copyvio so I can't restore old versions of the page. But why not just copy-paste from the history to a new page? Well, that would be a violation of our own copyrights, GFDL. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Can't you WP:USERFY the last revision? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I looked at this after seeing the OTRS ticket myself but had to go to work and was unable to follow up. Our article was actually a direct copy from - (I don't have an admin bit, but an admin could get the URL off of the deleted version that has the copyvio template attached.. one of the first few revs.. ) Someone at copied the material from, incorporating it in an article there .. then that article was then copied here.. (in an obvious copy/paste job). --Versageek 05:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just copied/pasted from the cached version, minus the copyvio. Assuming the material was released under GDFL, and GDFL material is open for Wikipedia to use, there shouldn't be a problem.
The whole thing is unsourced (except for one), so it desperately needs some work! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
No. GFDL requires attribution and page history. If you copy/paste then you are in violation of our own copyrights.
I'm currently in contact with the person claiming ownership of those sections... they don't have a problem with the contents being here on wikipedia in theory, but I will need to get them to release it under GFDL. If they are willing to do that I will be able to undelete the article. Yay. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
So at this point I'm pretty fed up over the whole thing. The text (that wasn't copyvio) was written on our site. Attribution to our sited from our site seems totally silly. If I copy text from one article (say an author) to another article (say about a book written by said author), is that a copyvio? And if I copy text from a website that says it's GDFL, I don't copy the history with it, so is that copyvio? And is it copyvio to have the copy/pasted text within the LGBT project? Or only in article-space? And what are our options here? Rewrite the whole dang thing - all 36K of uncopyvio text that was already written on this site the first time? Help us to understand what's at stake and what we can do about it :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
GFDL requires an intact history and attribution to the authors. If you can those authors to release the text under Public Domain that requirement wouldn't be there any more. I know this really sucks. I'm trying to get permission to use the text so it's a non-issue... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why we don't just undelete the article, then delete all of the copyright violation material. Then we have the history. Aleta 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I know copyright law is complicated... but what we show on the main article isn't the only thing we publish. We publish every version of the page via the "history" feature. Anyway, it's all moot. I've gotten the approval we need. Yay... and sorry for all the worry. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks for all your work! I'm glad my frustration is at an end - and sorry if I snapped :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bob Smith?

Anyone recall seeing an article on this guy? He's the first openly gay comedian to appear on the Tonight Show. Benjiboi 10:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

FAC Ann Bannon

I've never done this before. I nominated Ann Bannon for Featured Article. Raystorm supported it (YAY! thanks), but I don't know if I should post its nomination here, or what. So, school me if I'm doing something wrong. See the nomination here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talkcontribs) 17:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I updated the relevant section at the open tasks template (the one at the top of this page). :-) Next time (and I know there'll be a next time), you can list your FAC's there. ;-) Cheers! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Alice and editors being harrassed.

Alice is leaving again due to the harrassment she has received. Are there steps we as a project can take to stop this kind of thing happening? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think there are two issues but potentially a similar solution for each. One issue is with personal attacks and phobic content attacks which all should be documented as you have the energy which makes blocking users easier if documentation is there. The second issue is the ongoing frustration of (every day) reverting vandalism which is simply tiring. Coupled with that is AfD et al battles which simply sap energy. Even if the perception to some that the vandalism isn't that great it can add to a depressive atmosphere on these talk pages in particular. "OK, what did someone do this time." One solution is to get a semi-protect on a page if it's ongoing and anon ID abuse, if not them call for help.
Some solutions, asap send a flare up for help on this talk page as it's pretty active, even one more person reverting vandalism on an article cuts the work in half. Besides that perhaps we could have a resource page with tips on documenting, asking for help and such. Benjiboi 13:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I also want to add that part of it is just managing the stress as it's not likely vandals will go away completely. Benjiboi 13:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's not anon vandals who bother me. They are easy to deal with because they don't actively fight and dispute the reversion of their vandalism.
I haven't left yet but I'm not spending as much time as I used to on wikipedia. I just don't have the patience to deal with stuff like this every few days. I actually consciously abandoned the article shemale and its talk page because of the same editor. Within a few days, their constant edit warring just plain stopped, including their attempts to distort the article. The behaviour is like someone with Borderline personality disorder, in that they disrupt for the sake of getting reaction and stop when the reaction stops. Now they just randomly show up doing strange stuff like that to other pages that I'm watching to try to get a response and frankly I'm sick of it.
At issue is the fact that, in spite of frequent disruptive behaviour, that editor has effectively been given permission to continue this type of behaviour. Allowing blatant disruptiveness like this to continue is why long term editors such as former admin JzG (I didn't link his user page because it has been deleted) have retired from wikipedia.
If you want to help, I'd suggest that you actively seek to tighten the guidelines for blocking and the guidelines for unblocking of indef blocked editors. The current preparedness to give troublemakers in infinite number of second chances just can't work.
Oh, and if someone feels like working through Lara bran's contributions to assemble a case for blocking for disruptive behaviour &/or wikistalking, that would help me greatly. I believe that there is well and truly enough evidence there in amongst the fairly obvious systematic sucking up to admins. --AliceJMarkham 13:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Funny you should mention LaraBran. Jeeny and I had a very trying morning with her on the Pederasty article today. She left a message on my talk page clearly implying that she will be edit warring on the article once again after 24 hours have passed. Jeffpw 15:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Make no mistake. He is a he. The username is a distortion of Brian Lara, and the user's history includes sock puppetry to evade blocking for disruption, although he has subsequently outright denied being blocked for disruption. Mind you, if you mention the name of his original account, which he re-labelled as a puppet of the current account when this puppet account was unblocked instead of the original account, he will threaten you, claiming that the legitimate uses of multiple accounts policy gives him the right to not have the name of his original account mentioned in connection with his current account. He has repeatedly abused me for mentioning the name of his original account on this basis. He seems to think that he can make everybody forget about his past indescretions. --AliceJMarkham 15:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm just going to slip a question in here. Does anyone else believe that there is anything in the rules that says that I'm not allowed to mention Lara's original account name? I still think of him by that name and constantly have to change it to Lara. --AliceJMarkham 21:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and further, as noted above about shemale, if you abandon the arguement entirely, he'll leave the article alone in a few days time, possibly without leaving his distorted version in place! If all else fails, simply completely stop editing the article and the talk page for a week. I think he feeds on the arguement that he causes, not the actual changes in the content of the articles. --AliceJMarkham 15:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I left a message on hir talk page re. the revert-warring and disruption on pederasty. If this persists, esp. without edit summaries or discussion, sie will just end up blocked from editing again - Alison 16:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
RE: Lara Bran, she/he is not a native speaker of English, nor is she/he at a high level. I think there may be a communication problem too, other than, or in addition to, her editing pattern/behavior. Jeeny (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we could find out hir first language and get a native speaker to warn them? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
his/her English is developed enough to understand and respond to my warning, and also to relentlessly wikilawyer when s/he feels like it. If s/he doesn't seem to get it, it is willful misunderstanding (like I used to not understand about putting fair use images in my userboxes on my page:-D). Jeffpw 18:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset)

By his own statements, he is in Bangalore[1] in India and speaks the Kannada language.[2] --AliceJMarkham 21:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

But he knows how to say How'bout this argument? the way we say "about" here in the Deep South? haha – ALLSTAR ECHO 21:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I had a conversation on yahoo chat a while back with another editor who was involved in a long running dispute with Lara. They were of the opinion that Lara's poor comprehension is faked, as is his poor grammar when editing articles. Their opinion was that it appears to be a deliberate part of trolling behaviour, which fits with Jeffpw's comments above. In contrast, his edits involving sucking up to various admins tend to be grammatically better, no comprehension problems and have proper edit summaries. --AliceJMarkham 21:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. Update? Since this was centered on one editor and possibly sock puppets of same is this being sorted out or ? Benjiboi 15:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I hate to see happen. A good contributor gets harassed, nothing is done about it, and the editor is forced into a corner. I have a similar problem going on right now. I think the main problem is that the admins aren't willing to take the time to read through the background and history of the culprit because it takes too much time for them. Hell, I try to solve things on my own with other editors whenever possible. Sadly, there are a lot of people out there who don't bother and go immediately to bother the higher-ups (but in cases like with you, you have no choice of course). And then there are admins who don't seem to understand what the policies here are about – they follow the letter of the law and don't understand the spirit of it at all. It's beyond their reasoning ability. For instance, I have gotten a warning in the past for speaking on my talk page about a certain user's actions, being totally civil, and was warned for "personal attacks." According to an admin, you can never ever speak about a user. Even if that user is a vandal or disruptive all the time or whatever. Only talk about subjects. It's ridiculous. But then again, that's life. There aren't many people out there who think logically and live accordingly. - Cyborg Ninja 01:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Ninja Cyborg, several editors and at least one admin have warned the user who has been bothering Alice, and that user is being watched carefully. I'll let Alice speak for herself, but I haven't noticed any harassing edits of late...annoying ones, but not personally harassing. Jeffpw 05:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I blame the big meanie admins. It's all their fault ;) - Alison 07:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lara Bran update from ANI board

It should be noted Lara bran is not a "she" - "she" is a sock of the indef banned User:Vinay412, himself a sock of indef banned user Kuntan - see [3] and [4].

Just FYI for those wondering the latest. Benjiboi 13:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Banned:-P Jeffpw 13:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Good. I wonder what his next puppet name will be. It'll be fairly easy to recognise his editing style... --AliceJMarkham 13:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

For future reference: User:AliceJMarkham/Vinay412 --AliceJMarkham 15:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Avram Finkelstein

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Avram Finkelstein is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate opinions by the members of this project. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 13:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert photos

Hey guys - I took some new Stephen Colbert photos and I'm holding a vote to see which should be used as the lead. Anyone want to go vote? You can also vote for the pre-existing one. Talk:Stephen Colbert is where you can go to cast the vote. --David Shankbone 14:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured photo?

Anyone have any experience getting a photo featured? I was finally able to add legitimate photos to the Barbara Gittings article. The New York Public Library, who now owns all of Kay Lahusen's photos allowed me only two. So I chose the one of her picketing, and instead of the one of Gittings making out with Alma Routsong (bummer), I chose this one instead: Image:Gittings_Kameny_Fryer.jpg because of the gut reaction I had when I saw it. Being from a much younger generation, Fryer's disguise reminds me of Leatherface, and the image is comically horrific to me. I'm so impressed by the photo that I think it might actually have a good shot at getting featured, but I don't know how to do that. Any ideas? --Moni3 02:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3

proposed changes to sock puppet rules

I went to Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry to try to get an extra sentence added to the policy to clarify a point relating to block evasion. What I found is a major proposal to fundamentally change the rules on sock puppetry.

I would urge all editors to have a look at what is being proposed and give an impartial assessment of the proposal. --AliceJMarkham 08:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Recently Wikistressed User:Benjiboi had posted a graphics help request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve#Asian Lesbian Film and Video Festival Poster, which they can't seem to do because of copyright. I suggested to try and plug the image in at but Benjiboi is not around, so being a good sport I thought I would try it myself. I lack skills. *aargh* Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Chris 08:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi. We're wondering (as part of the improvements to the William Gibson articles) if there is somewhere appropriate that the article Gender-bait could be best merged to? "...males who represent themselves as females online to elicit a positive response from other males". Is there a more official/standard term for this? Or is it already a recognized/notable term by itself, that warrants expansion instead of merging? Thanks for any suggestions :) --Quiddity (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The best I can suggest is to create an online section in the article Passing (gender). I'm not sure enough of the context to know whether that is the right place to put it. --AliceJMarkham 00:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Debatepedia as vent

Would Debatepedia's be a useful vent for those that seek to make arguments without NPOV on this topic? – 01:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Say what?

This doesn't really have to do with LGBT anything. I just can find how to do a pronunciation thingy at the beginning of the article, with the weird symbols. Anyone have experience with that? I need to make sure Bilitis in the Daughters of Bilitis article is known as Bil-EE-tis. If you can help me with that, can you post it here? I'm doing DOB in my sandbox...(that sentence is more like a fantasy...) --Moni3 16:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, if no one else helps you before I'll do it when I get home. I'm at work at the moment and have no idea how to type the phonetic alphabet on a PC but can do it on my Mac at home :) Intesvensk 16:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, ok I'm back home. Here is what I think you are looking for, though of course without actually hearing you say it I can't be 100% sure. Maybe someone can confirm or correct what I've done. I can translate the "Daugthers of" bit if you need that too.
Intesvensk 18:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Sweet! Thanks so much! I think the "Daughters of" is pretty self-explanatory, but I went for weeks reading about this group pronouncing it wrong in my head. One of the founders said the Bil-EYE-tis pronunciation sounds like a disease (which it does). Inflammation of the Bil... Thanks again, Intesvensk! --Moni3 20:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You are more than welcome :) Intesvensk —Preceding comment was added at 08:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Is "i:" the same as "ee"? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is. I have heard Queer Theorists pronounce it as you would meningitis though...Zigzig20s 07:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I defer to Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin for pronunciation. They should know - they were there when the name was chosen. That, and they borrowed it from the French songs. I updated the article yesterday with the new pronunciation and a few other things...Yay!--Moni3 15:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Gay Superheros

I'm assuming good faith here, so will someone who has some knowledge on the subject review the new Category:Gay superheroes, make sure the entries are right, and maybe rename to "LGBT superheroes"? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not T. Maybe "Gay, lesbian and bisexual superheroes" would be better, if this subcategory is to be kept. At the moment, it excludes supervillains and bisexuals (poor Poison Ivy!).~ZytheTalk to me! 16:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Should it be expanded? Aleta 16:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
IMNSHO, yes. A subcat of "Fictional LGBT characters" would be Fictional LGBT characters in comics (or graphic novels?) Hm. Wait a second. Category:LGBT characters in comics, which is up for rename discussion. Curiouser and curiouser... – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ludwig Wittgenstein FA review

Ludwig Wittgenstein has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. One Night In Hackney303 16:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! This is would be a nice one to get on the front page. Dybryd 23:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I commend your positive spirit, but, sadly, FA review is for removing FA status. :( I think the editor who initiated the review was right to do so, but I think we can safe Ludwig with a bit of effort. :] — xDanielx T/C\R 00:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


Very entertaining this month - thank you Jeffpw. One small thing, because it includes __NOTOC__ it has removed the table of contents from the talkpages its been posted to... Could we possibly fix that? WjBscribe 00:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing about nothing, but I thought the newsletter was hilarious...--Moni3 02:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yah, I read the whole thing (for the first time)! Haiduc 02:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry about the NOTOC. I don't know that we can do anything about it except manually removing them. My bad! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all for the compliments. I'll pass them on to Miss Julie when she gets out of the detox unit. Jeffpw 10:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

gender variant

Time magazine currently has an article on gender variant children. We'll be getting some hits at gender variant, which is a redirect to transgender. There appear to be some people, including pediatricians, using the terms differently. Any experts here? Are the terms different enough that we should have two articles? ··coelacan 10:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, might Gender identity be a better target for Gender variant and Gender variance? WjBscribe 10:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
After careful consideration, I'm of the opinion that transgender is the most directly relevant article. The two issues I'm aware of with transgender being considered equivalent to gender variant are:
  1. There are significant regional variations of the meaning of transgender.
  2. Like most related terms, transgender is socially stigmatised in the wider community, so a less stigmatised term is preferred. There is a tendency to pretend that it's not just a euphemism.
I wasn't even aware that the article Gender identity existed. I've just tagged the talk page with {{LGBTProject}} and added {{Transgender sidebar}} to the article. If it's going to be getting hits, it needs work! --AliceJMarkham 11:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Friend of Dorothy

This article has been changed lately, by an anon IP and an unregistered user, to state that Dorothy Parker and not Judy Garland as "Dorothy" is the inspiration for the term. I have searched many times, and have never been able to fins a definitive answer. The unregistered user supplied a ref (incorrectly formatted, but that's of little consequence at the moment): Coming Out Under Fire, by Allan Berube, The Free Press (MacMillan Inc.) Does anybody happen to own this and can check it for us? Living in a non-English speaking country, it will be abit difficult for me to get this information without ordering the book. Thanks. Jeffpw 19:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I can look this up in the library (it's sitting on the shelf *right now*) but it's aaaaaalllll the way across campus. And I'm really lazy. Whatcha gonna give me? --Moni3 19:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you a guy or a girl? :-P At the very least, Miss Julie will give you a mention in the Christmas Newsletter, and I see a shiny Barnstar in your stocking! Jeffpw 19:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Am I wha??? Can't you discern my Sapphist leanings from my witticisms and completely androgynous username? --Moni3 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, this is the internet. Like Reagan said: "Trust but verify". Hehehehhe. Jeffpw 19:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Androgynous username? Moni, your name never seemed androgynous to me... Google does *not* support the Dorothy Parker view - see [5] and [6] – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I googled the term, too, Satyr. Pretty sneaky of that editor to actually use a book, eh? She must be a fossil to have something like that around the house. :-D Jeffpw 20:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I got the book and the phrase is not in the index, under "friend," "Dorothy," "Wizard of Oz," "Parker, Dorothy," "Garland, Judy," or "Baum, L. Frank." Y'all are going to make me read this freakin' book, I can tell... I'll give it a quick scan tonight. If I can't find it, my favorite linguistics professor just used the term in her last email to me last night. I may ask her. (She wrote a pretty cool article on the use of "gay" for homos, btw.) --Moni3 23:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks bunches, honey! Happy reading! And from your post, I think it is safe to rv as "sourcing needs checking". It has impacted two different articles: this one and Gay icon. I don't like it when people make uncheckable changes, especially when the article made it clear the origin wasn't clear. Jeffpw 23:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "The concerts are just prior to Gay Pride Week in New York, which commemorates the Stonewall riots from 1969-when, after a history of harassment, a significant number of gay people resisted arrest during a police raid of a gay bar in Greenwich Village. Some believe that the gay population took action on that particular night due to their grief over the death of Garland earlier that week. Gay men would refer to themselves as "friends of Dorothy" and congregate at her concerts. "There's this famous picture of Judy Garland at Carnegie Hall," says Wainwright. "She's at the front accepting flowers from all these men-well, most of them are dead, prematurely. They're another ghost who inhabit the evening." (Judy, Judy, Judy. Shanda Deziel. Maclean's. Toronto: Jun 5, 2006. Vol. 119, Iss. 23; pg. 63)
  • Actor John Carlyle is known primarily as the sometime lover of Judy Garland, but his book Under the Rainbow: An Intimate Memoir of Judy Garland, Rock Hudson and My Life in Old Hollywood (Carroll and Graf) is more than a kiss and tell: It's a treasure trove of gay Tinseltown secrets. The original friend of Dorothy sleeps with Marion Brando and James Dean and gives a blow-by-blow of old Hollywood's decline.(HERE'S WHAT WE'LL SAY. Anonymous. The Advocate. Los Angeles: Dec 5, 2006. , Iss. 976; pg. 83,) --Moni3 23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

From "Wizard of Oz", the lion declared "We're friends of Dorothy", using what can only be described as a 'camp' or typically effeminate voice.[7] – ALLSTAR ECHO 23:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Re "At Giuliani Pad, Towels Say 'His,' 'His' and 'His,' " Sept. 2: The Times' delicious report of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and his gay roommates stumbles on an urban legend. The euphemism "a friend of Dorothy" is not "derived from the gay obsession with Judy Garland."
Its etymology traces back to Dorothy Parker, screenwriter and Vanity Fair critic. To keep the proceedings lively, Dorothy notoriously invited gays galore to Jazz Age social gatherings, and many of them told friends. During Prohibition, guys whose names weren't on the guest list crashed the gate as "friends of Dorothy," an idiom among Manhattan socialites referring to any unfamiliar character. To gays, a rendezvous with a "friend of Dorothy" meant a gay acquaintance in relative safety, in the era before Judy Garland's funeral sparked the Stonewall riots.(Either Way, Giuliani Is a 'Friend of Dorothy'; [Home Edition] Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Sep 8, 2001. pg. B.20) --Moni3 23:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I got anything out of this lesson, it is this most wonderful quote...

I'll have a martini

Two at the most
Three, I'm under the table
Four, I'm under the host

- Dorothy Parker

Indeed dear Ms. Parker, INDEED! lmao! – ALLSTAR ECHO 23:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The mad enthusiasm of Garland's audiences, in which gay men were heavily represented, approached what one reviewer called fanaticism. Friend of Dorothy was a code phrase for a gay man in the closeted period before the Stonewall Inn rebellion of 1969 (which popular lore claims was begun by drag queens who were in mourning over Garland's death and who were inspired to resist police harassment of gay bars). (Judy Garland As a Force Of Nature Camille Paglia. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jun 14, 1998. )--Moni3 23:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oz was a cornerstone in gay mythology for at least five decades, and characters and phrases from the movie became a coded legend for a subculture. Homosexuals in the United States military identified themselves as "friends of Dorothy," just as "I have the feeling we're not in Kansas anymore" was a traditional opening line for out-of-towners making their debuts in metropolitan gay bars. (CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK; Why Oz Is a State of Mind In Gay Life and Drag Shows

BRANTLEY, BEN. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jun 28, 1994. pg. C.15) --Moni3 23:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So it seems as though we're back where we started, only this time with references. That is some progress, anyway, if not a definitive answer. I'll rewrite the article section later today, if someone hasn't beaten me to the punch. And by the way, ShirleyPartridge is damn mad at us for reverting her edits, even temporarily, and called us "young queens who don't know anything" on the talk page. 06:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Jeffpw

Fruit (slang) up for AfD

I created the article months ago and never thought it was that big of deal but now someone's got a bug up their ___ to get rid of it so any help appreciated. I'm still on break but came back because List of animals displaying homosexual behavior is under attack if editor's could keep an eye on that would appreciate it. I have to work now but will probably rewrite Fruit (slang) tonight with whatever I can find. p.s. Thank you Cruise director Julie for answering the comment on my talk as well as the newsletter. Benjiboi 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have both watchlisted now, and will help to address the ridiculous POV issue in the homosexual animals article. Ditto Fruit, which I have voted on at Afd. Jeffpw 21:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not Wikionary, therefore I think it should be deleted.Zigzig20s 00:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Same was apparently said about dyke and queer. Benjiboi 02:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Gay icon has wrong refs

Trying to write in my best Wikipedian voice here; A doubtlessly well-meaning editor (or multiple editors) has apparently made a mistake and added several entries to the list with a ref which doesn't check out. I don't mean the article doesn't glowingly call them a gay icon. I mean their names aren't even included in the article. Perhaps they misread and thought Martina Navrilitova was Lucille Ball. I don't know. All I know is that Lucille Ball, Mariah Carey, Kate Bush; Amanda Lear; George Michael; Liza Minnelli and Jimmy Sommerville are now about to get cite tags from me. This is the article used to identify these people as icons. That's just one ref I checked. God only knows what we'll find if the others are checked one by one. <sigh> Why does life have to be so hard, sometimes? Jeffpw 19:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter formatting made huge TOC list on my talk page

But here's how I fixed it. You need to replace the usual wiki section headers (two equal signs on either side) with a single semicolon before the text you wish to have as a sub-heading. This way the contents will not suddenly expand people's table of contents. Thanks! - Kathryn NicDhàna 05:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

William S. Burroughs

Was he gay? The article mentions him going to gay bars and writing about homosexual characters, but I know very little about the man and I figured this is a better place to ask than the article's discussion page (because non-gay people are a little more afraid to label someone as "gay"). - Cyborg Ninja 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

He's on the list. But don't trust the list. Go find the reference and read it. --Moni3 05:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course he's gay. My God! <shakes head> Young people these days..... Jeffpw 06:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Give me a break. It has nothing to do with my age. I knew that he was married or it was common-law and obviously his shooting and killing his wife was more remarkable than being gay. - Cyborg Ninja 09:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Big Wednesday - dodgy phrasing imo

I think there is an issue with phrasing on the page for Big Wednesday : "The film also examines the extremes which some young men went to during the Vietnam years to avoid being drafted and shipped off to war, including: faking insanity, homosexuality and all manner of medical ailments.". Although I get what they mean, I think the juxtaposition of the three terms makes it sound like homosexuality is on the same level as "insanity" and "medical ailments". How could we rephrase that?Zigzig20s 06:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, that's exactly how the military considered it: Section 8 (military). One might add context, though. " avoid being drafted and shipped off to war, including: faking insanity, homosexuality (which the military then equated with insanity), and all manner of medical ailments." ··coelacan 09:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
That's what I meant by 'I get what they mean'. Anyway I have added the suggestion. I will watch the page for a bit.Zigzig20s 04:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I just edited the article for which previously had been a cut and paste job from the company's web site. This is my first attempt at editing anything on WP, essentially in this case starting from scratch.

Can I get some constructive criticism on the thing from some of you more seasoned vets? I'm not real sure of my WP skills so please feel free to point out any goofs and newbie mistakes. Drop me a line on my page or my email. Thanks, Jack Jacksinterweb 22:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jacksinterweb. You did fine. I just removed the "overview" heading so that the first paragraph becomes a lead, before the table of contents. Also, we need to establish that the website meets our notability guidelines, Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (web). Is there coverage of the website in independent sources? ··coelacan 01:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I included reference links to 5 unique, independent sources (CBS, USA Today, et al), each referencing a specific of what I wrote. Beyond that, there is quite a bit more out there, it seemed a bit of overkill to list more than I did for such a small piece. I am still unsure how much is enough to establish notability, and whether I am showing the independent sources in the right manner. As it is now the only links that aren't independent are to the subject of the article, and its parent company, both listed as external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksinterweb (talkcontribs) 02:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Doh. Failure of attention on my part. Alexa doesn't count toward notability and blogs usually don't. But the CBS and USA Today links are good. I'm satisfied with that and I'll take down the {{notability}} tag I put up. Any other coverage from independent sources on the site in general rather than the military recruiting incidence would also help, but the current sources are technically sufficient. ··coelacan 04:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks once again, I will polish that up tomorrow and work a couple more legit sources into so it can do more than squeak by. I appreciate your help and input. Jacksinterweb 04:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Glad to help. I hope you'll become a regular 'round these parts. =) ··coelacan 06:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry Stack Sullivan - was he gay?

The page has a bit about his homosexuality but it is not referenced. Further he is not categorised as gay and the project banner is missing from the talkpage. I have found this [8] but I'm not sure this site is absolutely reliable. What should be done?Zigzig20s 04:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


Another superhero/villain issue, but Julie, can I have this one with a Transgender Twist? :)

An editor has removed our project banner from Ultra-Humanite. I'm not sure s/he doesn't have a point, but I wanted to get some more input. The male villain in this case had to have their brain transplanted, and the only host available was a female body, thus making hir "the first transsexual comic book character" (according to UH's Gay League profile.

One could argue that UH didn't go through any of the toils and tribulations that transgender individuals have to go through, and that UH may not be transgender by current thought/standards. However, the fact remains that sie did transition from one gender to another, whatever the reasoning and however it happened.

So - is this one within our spectrum? And Julie, can I have another one? Thanks! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What is stigma for 200? Of course it's in our interest, we are broad-based and our banner like on so many avowed and self-admitted heterosexual bios hardly means that someone is LGBT but that we have interest in the subject of the article. If anyone trying to improve that article wanted to ask a wikiproject for assistance and clarification on the issues of gender we just might be a good place to start. Benjiboi 16:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The last time we discussed this article, in March, I said it was iffy. I don't think Plangent has noticed that Ultra-Humanite is in Category:Fictional transgendered people and Category:LGBT characters in comics, yet. Are those categories appropriate? The answer to that question determines whether the WikiProject tag is warranted. But if the article cannot be made to show how this temporary transgenderism was relevant to the life of the Ultra-Humanite, then the categories are just category cruft. In any case it is ill-advised for Plangent to unilaterally decide that a Project's template does not belong there. ··coelacan 01:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Plangent has noticed that Ultra-Humanite is in Category:Fictional transgendered people and Category:LGBT characters in comics, yet.
I had. It cheapens those categories.
In any case it is ill-advised for Plangent to unilaterally decide that a Project's template does not belong there.
Funny, I thought I'd restored the banner a few hours ago.
The simple fact is that this isn't a character which presents fruitful opportunities to write about the representation of transgender in fiction. He was a standard mad scientist who became a body-hopper, for want of a better term. Whether the banner stays or goes, it's unlikely the project will have much to do on the article. --Plangent 02:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You did restore the template. You also gave terms under which you "will not remove the banner if it is replaced again." I'm just saying that isn't a decision to take upon yourself; the template is for this project's tracking meta-info. Your input on the article's inclusion in Category:Fictional transgendered people and Category:LGBT characters in comics, though, is most welcome. And I think we agree that if something noteworthy from a transgender perspective about the Ultra-Humanite cannot be said, the categories are superfluous. I'm on the fence and I'd like to wait and hear what any other interested parties might bring to that discussion. ··coelacan 04:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You also gave terms under which you "will not remove the banner if it is replaced again."
Yes, that does rather sound like an ultimatum. But let me be clear: having replaced the banner, I do not intend to remove it again in the immediate future. --Plangent 04:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It took me a while to run this by Miss Julie (they're so strict about visiting hours at Betty Ford, even for those with a "season pass" as it were), but she gave me an answer to pass along here. She feels that this Ultra-Humanite person (?) is not really transgendered, in that he seems to promiscuously jump from body to body as an act of opportunism. He didn't really care that Dolores was a woman, nor did he care that he jumped into an ape or an insect. With his superpowers, he really didn't have to worry much about discrimination, either. It would seem almost an insult to transgendered people to include him in the categories. As to our project tag, Miss Julie says include him, because some gay people like to read comic books. She feels that soup should also be tagged, because some gay people eat soup. She might have been being sarcastic with that last part, though--she wasn't really feeling herself when I visited. Jeffpw 13:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Did he care that she was a woman? He had his pick of bodies. And she wasn't Judy Garland, but Delores Winters was his favorite actress. Irrelevant note: he doesn't have superpowers. ··coelacan 19:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, then strike the word powers. Obviously mere mortals such as Miss Julie and me are too easily impressed by somebody who has the power to transform himself into a glass dome or a Tyrannosaurus Rex:-s – Jeffpw (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

New Version of BDSM

Since the copy editing (Talk:BDSM/Translation) of the featured German article has reached its final stage (Thanks Jeff ;-) ) I would like to you to know that it includes major aspects on homosexual sadomasochism.
It would be great if WikiProject LGBT studies would include it into the spectrum of articles it watches as soon as the update has taken place. Experience on German language Wikipedia shows that the article was often the target of homophobic vandalism.

Regards. --Nemissimo 10:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


Just got redirected to Dick Cheney. I reverted. Might want to keep an eye on it.. the vandal then came to my talk page and asked if I was a homosexual. Gee, whatever gave him/her that idea?? – ALLSTAR ECHO 01:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Puni Puni Poemy

I just saw the project tag on the above page and was wondering whether it really counts as being LGBT as none of the characters are officially LGBT. It's mostly just a parody on the kind of Anime girl-bond cliche that's often portrayed as homosexuality by Western conservatives. The again, if you count parody of perception of LGBT as being LGBT.....?

Let's just say I think that the tag is best reserved for pages with more serious or direct LGBT content. Spreading it too far kinda cheapens it.

perfectblue (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading the article, I removed the bot placed tag. If anybody feels I made an error, feel free to revert me. From what I can see, the bot added the tag because the show had been categorized as LGBT related by an anon IP back in March. I removed the cat, too. Jeffpw (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
One of the characters Futaba I think her name is. Is definitely in love with the protagonist, she's usually considered a parody on the character of Tomoyo Daidouji ... and that was all in the article wasn't it? --Tyrfing (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury

Freddie Mercury's article has been hit a few times today by vandals, I've caught a few of the hits, but I am not sure if I got it all restored. Would someone take a looksee, I am new to WP so I may have missed something, or not got it all put back to right. Thanks Jacksinterweb (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I took a look back, and don't see you missed anything . You can always check by clicking the history tab and comparing versions. The "undo" button in history works wonders, too.:-P Jeffpw (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

New Version of BDSM online

Please put it on your watchlists. Since the article's content has already passed 2 peer reviews on :de and was awarded the equivalents to A-Class and FA-Class on :de I wonder which steps might be helpful to move it from b-class on :en. It would be great if the project could support me in doing so.--Nemissimo (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no time now to make links, but you can always submit for Peer review here on LGBT, or a broader peer review within the entire community. The League of copyeditors can also give it a looksee. If you feel connfident, submit it for a good article nomination. I have tomorrow free (thank the fucking lord! and will give further suggestions on your talk page. I have a lot invested in the article, too! :-D Jeffpw (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Music book needed

Anyone have this book [9] on their shelf? Or, next time you go to the library, can pick it up? Specifically Redl@nds597198 and I are checking in to the sexuality of Charles Wourinen. Any help is appreciated! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's in the library but I'm babysitting my nephew tonight. Will take a couple days. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
You're awesome! My tiny little library [10] doesn't have it :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeh. Mine [11] may have a few more books, and quite frankly, a ginormous gay section. (Thank you, Barbara Gittings.) I'm reading that book about gays in WWII. I haven't come across the origins of Friend of Dorothy yet, but it's a pretty good read. --Moni3 (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Gasp! Are you feeling alright, Moni!?!? Reading a book - for enjoyment's sake! And enjoying it, too!!! <insert dramatic, queenly gesture here> ;) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

On Charles Wuorinen (note spelling) b. Jun 9, 1938 in New York - no mention of his sexuality in the article on him. No mention on themes of sexuality in his works. No mention of sexuality in his writings. (Swift, Richard. "Charles Wuorinen." The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Stanley Sadie, ed. Volume 4: Macmillan Publishers; 1980, p. 548.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talkcontribs) 22:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Hm. Um. Moni, could you see if they have the "New Grove II", published in 2001? That one's supposed to have a whole section on LGBT musicians... Sorry - should have specified. My bad! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Dangit! Ok...if I get off work early today I may be able to stop by the library. If not, I'll probably, sadly, be in the library on Friday furiously trying to edit my TKaM article for FAC...--Moni3 (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Bad news. No 2001 edition. Only 1986 as the last updated one. And still no mention of his sexuality in that one. Bummer, dude. Sorry. --Moni3 (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality and psychology

I have an IP edit warring on this page to include the Catholic Church's moral objections to homosexuality. This article should focus on the psychological aspects of homosexuality, not on organizations who "think it's a disorder" unless they are, in fact, psychological organizations. We already have religious aspects of homosexuality articles, and moral articles, etc. Can I get another editor to join in here somehow? --David Shankbone 03:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

SatyrTN did and I added my agreement on the talk page. And now I have it watched. Any chance the two IP editors are the same person, since each only edited that one article and just reverted to their preferred version? I don't know the rationale or process for check user. — Becksguy (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The post-war section needs to be improved. Evelyn Hooker comes after the Kinsey Reports, and in between there should be some mention of Irving Bieber and Sandor Rado. Plus there seems to be no mention of Charles Socarides either. I shall try to improve the article when I have more time.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Dang - look at Zig throwing the history around! Nice :) Personally, my eyes glaze over at the mere thought of editing an article entitled Homosexuality and psychology. Or maybe that's the turkey... :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Also perhaps it would make more sense to broaden the article to psychiatry too. They are often intertwined in the history of homosexuality.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As I posted on the article's talkpage: This article lists several organizations which utilize reparative therapy. The WP article on reparative therapy, aka conversion therapy, says: "Conversion therapy is closely associated with the "ex-gay" movement, which is more explicitly religious." They may utilize psychological methods in the therapy, but they are motivated out of religious concerns. None of those orgs, or the DoD, is "medically or psychologically qualified," so based on Becksguy's argument, none of those orgs should be in the paragraph. The Catholic Church is also motivated out of religious concerns. The paragraph discusses orgs that don't accept the med opinion; it says nothing about those orgs being "medically or psychologically qualified." Either all should be listed, for balance, or all should go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Help! Input required (Re: James I of England)

I have provided a source on James Ist of England which states quite categorically that he had male lovers. I have added a subheading to this effect. Others, are trying to remove both the source and the heading. [[12]] Any input from people who are not anti-LGBT would be welcome as I suspect the motives of those concerned thus far. Thanks! Marcus22 11:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've piped in a bit, send up a flare if it gets out of hand again. Benjiboi 12:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The entire "Homosexuality" section was deleted today. I added my $0.02 to restore (with additional sourcing) per no consensus to delete. — Becksguy 13:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Never mind.... The section was just restored by Allstarecho. BTW, how do you put out those flares once lit? They burn for some time.... — Becksguy 14:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Some people are just intransigent in their insistence that homosexuality should be excluded from people's bios. It wouldn't surprise me if Quentin Crisp's bio was reworked to make him straight. That said, I had a look the other day at the King James article, and it seemed impeccably sourced on this topic. I'll watchlist it and revert as necessary. Jeffpw 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
And, The editors there are actually saying we should be satisfied that they gave us a footnote in the article. Seems typical of the marginalization of LGBTs throughout history, doesn't it? – Jeffpw (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually,between the "Favorites" and "Personal relationships" sections and the separate article on personal relationships, I think we have pretty good coverage. – Haiduc (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Due to the edit war, the article has now been fully protected until disputes have been resolved. Last time was in Sept 2007 for a couple of days. — Becksguy (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
HAD good coverage. Almost all of it has been expunged, though no-one has a valid reason for that. If this continues much longer, I'm taking this to RfC or something. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of RfC also. Just re-added additional sources, although I don't think they will be interested. — Becksguy (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • UPDATE: Now that the edit warring sockpuppets are no longer inflaming the situation by removing any mention of James's male sexual relations, we have come to consensus for a placeholder in the main article and have started work on the daughter article Personal relationships of James I of England and it's talk page. Mostly discussing on the talk page now. — Becksguy (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Queer theologians

There is a category Category:Queer theologians. It is the set of theologians who espouse queer theology. I had thought until today that people were accidentally misinterpreting it as "queer people who have studied theology", because one or two people repeatedly add Gene Robinson to it. On these grounds, I was thinking of requesting a name change to "Theologians who study queer theology" or something". (Today I saw that users who have done so have also been blocked for homophobic bullying ([13] [14] [15]...) and I suspect that they think "queer" in the category name is an insult; I think a rename might help with that, too.) The Wednesday Island (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The first two of those were blocked for WP:ATTACK, I suspect, and the third one for being a sock-puppet. I doubt changing the category name will help in either situation :) I, too, considered a name change when I saw the anon keep at Gene Robinson. But the repetitiveness of "Theologians who study queer theology" bothers me. And "People who study Queer Theology" is too general. I think I'd rather just leave it alone. Anyone else? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the intro text for the category can be rewritten to clarify what the category is supposed to list? I think just adding, "This category lists academics and religious scholars noted for their study of Queer Theology." TechBear (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that for other theologian categories, such as Category:Atheist theologians, the name denotes theologians who are atheists. Same thing with Category:Fictional theologians. There should be some kind of standardization, as "Queer theologians" does imply theologians who are queer, not people who study queer theology. I don't think merely adding text to the category page will help as you don't see it right away. - Koweja (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Hm. I didn't realize that about the other cats. So is there a similar cat? Maybe something about Feminist Theology? Liberation theologians doesn't have the problem. Grr - this ain't an easy one :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be brought up at WP:CFD as the scope of the issue extends beyond the scope of the LGBT project? - Koweja (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Jón Þór Birgisson

Two IP editors (the first with that as his/her only edit) have removed the statement that Jónsi is gay in Jón Þór Birgisson. The first claiming that it was irrelevant, the second with no edit comment. I restored it the first time, added a note to the talk page about it's relevancy, and requested discussion before deletion, but I don't want to run up against 3RR or get into an edit war. This article had been vandalized in the same way before, apparently multiple times. See comment on previous vandalisms here from this talk page's archive. They also misspelled he as hei. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Becksguy! First, have you considered joining the project? Not absolutely necessary, but we'd love to have you as part of the project :) Second, I find there's no need to waste time on anon IPs. They *regularly* remove LGBT material, etc, and leaving notes or warnings does absolutely no good unless they're repetitive harassers. Simply revert and spend your time on more productive pursuits :) That being said, I'll watchlist the article and keep an eye on it. Thanks for your help! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
there is no gay cabal.
I had the article on my watchlist since August. Agree about not wasting time, but I try to be a good faith editor regardless, although much of the time I feel like I'm fighting the barbarians at the gate, rather than writing, which is what I came here for. As to the LBGT Studies group membership: Since that was your second invite, I thought it would be rude to not join (although I'm also a world class procrastinator) and also since I have been working on a number of LGBT articles. So I'm official as of today. Plus I thought the first invite/response was quite funny. So when can I join the gay cabal, or do I have to be invited to that separately? :-) Seriously, thanks for the invite, it's an honor. — Becksguy (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Interest in a WikiProject Feminism?

I'm trying to gauge whether there is interest in forming a WikiProject Feminism. My initial proposal states: "A WikiProject for creating, maintaining and improving articles related to feminism and biographies of important feminists." If you're interested, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Feminism and sign up. Even if there aren't enough people to sustain a WikiProject, we'll at least get to know other editors with interests in this area. Cheers, Pigman 18:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to start as a sub-project (or task force) of WP:SEX and/or us? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

LGBT at Portal:Portals

I've expanded LGBT to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) on the portal list. If other folks would also watchlist I would appreciate it. Benjiboi 20:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Core Contest

For anyone interested in The Core Contest, here are the articles they're judging that are part of our project:

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I note Eleanor Roosevelt is not on the list. If Moni3 has time, I would happily collaborate with her on that article. After we are through, she would then be eligible for our project tag. :-P Jeffpw (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
From the talk page, see if VanTucky wants to help. And Mrs. R. needs our banner, for sure. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want it added, just drop a note to Danny and he may oblige. He's already added articles on request. BTW, I'm going to steer clear of editing contest articles (esp. LGBT ones) as I'll be judging :) - Alison 18:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Mrs. R. is already on Danny's list. She's just not on *ours* (yet). I didn't realize the Alison judging was *our* Alison! Neat! Feel like rigging the votes? JK! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I would love to collaborate with anyone on Eleanor Roosevelt, however I am currently rasslin' with TKaM, that I foolishly nominated for a featured article, that won't make it, and that I don't have the heart to de-nominate - or re-nominate in the future. Once I get the WWF smackdown on that one, I'll be free to read up on Eleanor. So, give me a couple weeks for that... --Moni3 (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 :-) - Alison 00:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

New criteria???

So I'm working on THE LIST. And I run across Man Parrish. After spending an hour searching the web, Google books, etc for a source that actually says he's gay, I've decided we need a new criteria. After all, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the man that created this wasn't gay. Can't I add him to the P-Q list with the reference "Duh!"? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There might be something in the two interviews here, personally I think anyone who was the tour manager for the Village People would be gay by osmosis. Benjiboi 08:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Ugh. Listen to 43 minute and 60 minute interviews? There are three written interviews there as well, but there's no reference to where the originals were printed. Osmosis - if only! :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lesbian wine

Not really LGBT related but I nominated this new article for DYK and if it gets on the main page I anticipate some juvenile vandalism. I'd appreciate any help I could get in keeping an eye on it. Thanks! :) AgneCheese/Wine 18:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Southern Voice

An anonymous IP user has prodded Southern Voice for no assertion of notability. I'll see if I can find something to add to this stub article. Any help is appreciated. Aleta (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI - an editor prodded and deleted Houston Voice. We should probably keep an eye on Dallas Voice and other LGBT newspaper stubs. Queerudite (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Just as a further FYI, The Houston Voice ceased publication almost a year ago, and exists only as a web mirror of other Window Media publications like Southern Voice. Jacksinterweb (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I currently have NY Blade, HX, and Next (magazine) in my userspace because they were prodded and deleted. Did Houston Voice have the project banner on it? I guess you can't tell now, but I'm just curious, cuz the Bot should have seen the prod :( – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I seem to recall that it did, along with a Houston banner. I looked at the article within the past month or so, at the time it was maybe two or three sentences. Jacksinterweb (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It did. They changed the system so Prodded articles have a different category than they used to. I've updated the bot - thus the 4 new prods at the top of this page :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Felix Alvarez

LGBT studies project members might like to cast an eye on the article about this LGBT activist from Gibraltar. I found it in the articles in need of wikifying. It is not very encyclopedic as it stands and I found it difficult to see if the subject is notable enough for an entry. Thanks in advance. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a link on his talk page with possible references, I thinks he's plenty notable. Benjiboi 18:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

R Family Vacations drama

Regarding drama from a couple days ago (I had no idea that it was going on until 10 minutes ago!) Here's my comment on the COI/N discussion which is closed (I believe without merit).

  • Comment. Wow. Well I'm hardly perfect and certainly make mistakes but this is special indeed. I'm happy to make any corrections or recheck references but let's put it on the talk page of the article please and assume good faith. For the record I have no interest in the financial success of R Family Vacations, Hot House Entertainment or pretty much any of the hundreds of articles I've edited in whole or part. I do make mistakes and I do try to correct them. I'm sensitive to mischaracterizing sources and statements and I'm happy to correct those as well, especially if civilly pointed out. As been pointed out I've had a few attackers (or at least one incredibly chameleon-like one) so have chosen to avoid situations that are more stressful but will happily dig through any constructive comments that will improve articles. I've read through this once and care not to relive it but if anyone, anyone, sees something in the article that hasn't been addressed please feel free to message the article talk page. Even though I've found several pointed barbs at me a bit bruising the end result has almost universally been that articles have greatly improved with the Sister Roma article being a decent example of this. Thanks to all who've helped sort through this and here's to better articles for all! Benjiboi 04:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
We were pretty sure that was your stalker :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Benjiboi, you don't have to do anything at all. We looked through the article purely to fix refs (which are a pain in the ass, on the best of days) and trust you completely. This guy is just out to get you. But at least now many admins are completely aware of the situation. Jeffpw (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
OMG! This is just like that Will & Grace episode where Kevin Bacon confesses that once you no longer have a stalker your relevancy is gone! Ahhhhh! I'm melting!!!!!! Benjiboi 12:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Good articles

Hello all, just popped an article on your "new article" list and spotted the above list also. Should Mr. Lady Records be in that list? I'm not sure what the requirements are. Neil  13:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

New articles & Articles recently tagged

It looks like these have been merged. Does anyone know what happened here? Aleta (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

pink vote

I was looking for the "pink vote" on wikipedia today, but was surprised that there isn't an article on it. I could find soccer mom and NASCAR dad, so it appears that election target groups are given articles. There is an article on the pink dollar. Should we start on on the pink vote? --Pinkkeith (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

New Article: A Boy Named Sue (film)

I'm a bit busy at the mo', but noticed that there isn't an article on A Boy Named Sue (film). The imdb page is It's a documentary about a woman transitioning into a man. If somone could get a page started, with the film box, etc., I'll take care of the summary, etc. samwaltz (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


I guess more of us need to put Portal:LGBT/Intro on our watchlists. An anonymous IP editor blanked it back in September, and nobody reverted it. I caught it today when someone else put linkspam there, and reverted it back to the pre-blanked state. Aleta (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Chicken (young gay) AfD

If you want to dive into another stub that was instantly sent to Afd Chicken (young gay) is on the block. Benjiboi 02:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion at trans-bashing


- AfD closed as No Consensus. – ALLSTARecho 05:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans-bashing could use some more input. There were a lot of votes to merge/redirect, then the article was expanded to address some of the concerns, then input stopped. Fireplace (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


How come all tagged articles don't show up on the watchlist? Given that our articles are disproportionately targeted, it would make sense to have every LGBT tagged article on the watchlist. Is it just a question of entering the names on the page? if so, I will do that. Jeffpw 22:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

We have a watchlist of high vandalism articles, and a watchall list with all of our articles on it. The two userboxes for both should be on the main page. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, hon. I overlooked the watchall one. I'll plaster that on my page, too. One more question: is there any way to automatically make our articles appear on my watchlist? Jeffpw 22:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
...I don't know. Is there a script for that anywhere? Satyr? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Project page

I've noticed that with Dev's unreliable internet connection some things in the project are getting backed up. I notice that the Portal is not getting regularly updated, and the Project page itself is a bit out of date in some aspects. I wonder if it might be a good idea to have another coordinator election. Any thoughts? Jeffpw 22:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could make the coordinator thing a little less formal and a bit more "wiki". Seeing as this approach is working quite well with clerking on various administrative boards, I would propose the following:
  1. Anyone wishing to help with project maintenance and coordination may add their name to the coordinator list
  2. They may remove their name whenever they have had enough or don't have enough time
  3. Those who haven't been involved in any coordination/maintenance tasks for some time would be removed (but would be free to readd themselves at any time if they planned to help again)
Hopefully supply and demand would lead to having enough coordinators that stuff gets done, without having so many that they trip over each other. Thoughts? WjBscribe 22:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That works for me. I just felt somebody needed to point out that the paint was peeling on the house,and the floorboards were starting to creak. No broken windows, though, and the roof is in no danger of caving in. :-P I would happily take on some additional work here, as I have decided to change my focus on Wikipedia to reflect what is most important to me here: this project and its members. Jeffpw 22:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh, typical this comes up as soon as I decide I'm not doing my job and need to be more hands on. :) But yeah, stuff isn't being done - I left the portal in Fireplace's hands, but when I stopped updating the collaboration it's been taken off the main page as inactive. But one thought that did occur to me though is that, if I'm not there to update stuff, and no-one really notices, as with the collaboration, and Jumpaclass, etc. do we actually really need it? Maybe as the project has grown it has different needs than it did six months ago? Any thoughts? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You're back!!!!!!! Wheeeeeeeee! Ok, now that my glee is out of the way: I like Jump-a-class and collaboration. I just think we need to promote them here and in the January newsletter. Let's face it: the next 4 weeks are going to see a slowdown everywhere, while we \all deal with holiday hysteria. I suggest not making any radical changes to the project til the New Year, when we all have time to plan our coming Wiki year. Jeffpw 22:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, as far as the Portal is concerned, I know Benjiboi and I put a lot of work into the new "Random LGBT Image" and made it to where people could place it on their actual user and talk pages. We also remodeled the "Random LGBT Quote" as well and filled it with quotes. Wonder why the Portal would be showing up inactive because it hasn't been THAT long since we did this. – ALLSTARecho 22:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Biography had only been revolved once since May (and that thanks to you), and featured article hasn't been touched in months. Nobody's criticizing, Allstar, I'm just trying to figure out houw we can get this flowing even better than it was. There had been plans to try for Featured Portal status, but part of the difficulty was the lack of updates. Jeffpw 23:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. The portal hasn't been marked as inactive, the collaboration has. Shall we pick a new one? Any good ideas? A good collaboration is one that predominantly needs restructuring copyeditin getc. People are always reluctant to add references. There's still no reason why we can't get the portal up to FP status, particularly as we seem to be having a thrilling number of FAs being promoted. Would anyone like to oversee dusting off the portal and running it through Portal peer review?
I agree Jeff, no radical changes are needed. Maybe just a bit more promotion - Jumpaclass works quite well when people use it, and someone's doing the upgrading. Mention it in the newsletter and I'll be sure to keep on top of it from now on. I said my connection would take a while but it's been far too long... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, I wasn't upset or anything so I didn't think anyone was criticizing me. I was just pointing out that I didn't understand how it could go inactive when a few things have been done fairly recently. Now I understand it's the collaboration that's inactive. Thanks to you both. – ALLSTARecho 23:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, can I suggest Sexuality on Star Trek for the Collab? It's seems liek it had good potential (assuming it doesn't get deleted). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


Okay, ladies, gentlemen and undecided, I have been bold and changed our collaboration from LGBT literature (which should be FA standard given how long we should have been working on it. :) to Sexuality in Star Trek. As an added incentive, the article is also currently on AfD. Go, my copyeditors, go! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember watching the ST:TNG DVD's and in the extras, Gate McFadden admitted that The Host had (very light) LGBT undertones, and that they got some backleash for that. They also got some positive feedback. And she talks a bit about LGBT issues in the ST world. I wonder in which DVD she said it? *Starts digging in her ST DVD collection* We can use DVD commentaries as sources, can't we? And I definitely remember the Voyager issue; again, I need to remember where I saw it. XD The actress playing Seven of Nine definitely didn't want to play a LGBT character, and said so in an interview. But Kate Mulgrew was always supportive of the idea. But the info is definitely out there, we just need to boldly acquire it people. XD Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have read the article, think it's great, and have made a very minor (but important to me) copyedit to it already. I will gladly work on this one, but can't really begin until Thursday, as work is interfering with my editing time (boo, hiss!). Jeffpw 12:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
What was the episode of TNG where that alien race wasn't allowed to express gender? That was the closest theme to gay there was back in the day. I remember my college gay group got together and watched it, like 15 of us in someone's apartment. The irony of that episode I guess is that everyone playing the alien race were all lesbians. And there has to be some print source that says the hottest lesbian fantasy was for Captain Janeway and Seven of Nine to hook up... --Moni3 13:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Definitely Moni3! There has to be at least ONE! XD J/7 forever! XDDD Raystorm (¿Sí?) 13:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC) I can give you an addy of a _great_ Voyager fanfic, if you're interested XD</spam>

FA buddying

As we head into the winter slump (personally, I'm almost off my chair), an idea that has been rattling around in my head for a while seems worth possibly considering now. One of the main problem people have faced in getting an article up to FA standard is the prospect of a daunting FAC. Admittedly these do happen, I'm sure many of the people here who have written an FA have suffered at least one harsh reviewer, but generally passing an FAC is an achievable goal. So what I was thinking was that anyone here who has got an FA through and is interested in helping others do the same "buddy up" with someone who's just starting out on that fun journey, offering them moral support, tips etc. If successful, we get FAs, more experienced and happy editors, oh, and a snowball effect which means we can kick MILHIST's butt (we only need 199 more FAs - we can do thaaaat...). What do you reckon? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. Fact is, I'm mentally gearing myself up to get Number 2. :-P So yeah, why not? Let's duel together at the FAC arena. XD Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea, but I don't know if I would solicit the help or give it... --Moni3 12:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you clarify that, Moni3? It sounds like you're saying you think it's a great idea but won't support it. This proposal is sort of the essence of Wikis. I'll happily give moral support to someone going through the process (reading the article, fixing what I can, offering tips, etc), though I don't feel like nominating and defending an article in FAC, myself. My stress levels are just too high to participate in that area right now. Jeffpw 13:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would totally support it. But the combination of having gone through only one and a half FAC processes, and the haphazard way FAC's are supported or opposed - I don't really know what good I could do. And some of the articles I'm building to go through GA review I'm kinda stuck like I need help myself. I'm baffled by the FAC process. Does that explain my apparent ambivalence? I'm not really ambivalent, just a bit overwhelmed. --Moni3 14:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Completely. Sounds like we're thinking along similar lines. Jeffpw 14:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely understand where you're both coming from. What I was thinking was that it's a buddying system, not a mentoring one. It wouldn't be like adoption, where you're overseeing someone, telling them what to do, more like being assigned someone to encourage when they're disheartened, support them when they're doing the FAC, NOT write the article for them, but possibly say "Hey, your lead is one sentence long". Be a wingman, kinda. I'm sure we all do it for our friends, this would make it a bit easier for people without those connections to know that they're not one man against an army of faceless meanies. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that sounds like a *fabulous* idea! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Assistance on intersexuality

I don't know what to do with this; I watch Jim Sinclair as part of the autism-related articles. I had never encountered the term intersexuality before today, so I really don't know how this is handled. Someone added Jim Sinclair to the Category:Intersexuality and added text; I reverted per WP:BLP and requested a source. Now I find that Google coughs up this, but I have no idea how to handle the (apparent?) difference in Sinclair's (apparent?) definition of intersexuality and the article's definition. He seems to indicate an exclusively female anatomy, while the article indicates the definition is biological characteristics of both. How does that relate to transgender and what do I do here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My (crude and very quick) understanding of it is that intersex is the more common term for hermaphrodite - someone who has partially or wholly sex organs of a male and female. Transgender is someone who has the sex organs of one, but feels s/he should be the other. We have a discussion in archives asking if intersex should be part of our scope. I don't know if that ever got resolved. --Moni3 20:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
hi Sandy. While s/he does not wish to be classified as either male or female, s/he self-identifies as intersexual. I would include him/her in the category, with this as a ref. Jeffpw 20:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, having read the link you posted, Sandy, I agree with Jeff. Since Sinclair self-identifies as intersexual, that should be stated in the article with the reference cited and the article should be in the Intersexuality category. Aleta 20:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
So it would be OK because he self-identifies that way, even though his definition apparently (?) doesn't jibe? Just checking, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Also, Jeff raises the pronoun issue; how is that dealt with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That seems an issue WP:MOS didn't think to address. Though it is akward, if I were editing thearticle, with this as a ref, I would write s/he and him/her. It looks bad, but it is neutral, and s/he says s/he is a neuter. Jeffpw 20:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Tony1 tried his hardest to get gender neutrality addressed at MOS and I supported, but he encountered resistance (he's not fond of s/he). Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language I think I fixed it by work-arounds; would you mind having a look at the article now? Jim Sinclair Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You have a gift, Sandy! It doesn't sound awkward at all. Much better than s/he. I'll go poke my nose into the gender-neutral language page now. Jeffpw 20:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Nicely done. I would not use the term hermaphrodite though, especially, as Sinclair does *not* use it in the essay. I think that really does mean having genitalia of both sexes, and Sinclair has neither. Aleta 21:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Not my gift; I'm still struggling to learn from Tony1 ! I'll go remove the hermaphrodite; that was the text originally added by the IP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Good call! Please do remove the 'hermaphrodite' term as it's deprecated these days and can be considered quite pejorative to many intersex people, esp in a BLP-related article - Alison 20:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Intersexuality is the state of a person whose sex chromosomes, genitalia and/or secondary sex characteristics are determined to be neither exclusively male nor female. A person with intersex may have biological characteristics of both the male and female sexes. A medical definition of intersexuality is "conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female"."

This info from the lead section of the Intersexuality article doesn't actually say the person must have characteristics of both, only that s/he might, and doesn't fit the phenotype for male or female. I think what Sinclair says actually does fit this definition. As for pronoun, I'd go with male, since he (?) seemed to feel "more" male than female, at least previously. JMHO, Aleta 20:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

New year, new challenges

Due to overwhelming demand, Miss Julie has finally agreed to start a little advice column for the newsletter, helping troubled Wikipedians through their sticky wickets. Unfortunately, since she is once again in rehab, questions should be submitted to me via email. I have already received one from "Wikiworried in Waikiki", and there may just be room for one or two others! Jeffpw (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


I found this lonely and unloved article in WP:CLEANUP. Seems worthy but the article is in need of some care. I linked it to this WP and hopefully it will find someone to show it some loving. Manning (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmph. I'll look for a ref later, but unless we can cite something, it looks like a WP:NEO to me. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's still a neologism as it's been around a while. Google books and scholar each have a handful of sources. Benjiboi 12:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, Benjiboi. Google books has eight hits, one of which is referring to a Gendér player and the other seven referring to groups of multiple genders, not a person who spans gender. This may be a tough one to pull off :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Keeley Hawes

If anyone feels like taking a look at Keeley Hawes, her sexuality is in a bit of dispute. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy smokes! Keeley Hawes! Kitty Butler is a tramp! (Let me peek at some sources today.) --Moni3 (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow - now *that* was a different reaction than I thought I'd get! :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Jay Brannan

Terribly cute actor Jay Brannan keeps having his sexuality removed by an IP. I've finally gotten the IP to talk about it on the article's talk page, but would appreciate a second (third) pair of eyes and some people's thoughts there. Thanks! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I reinstated the "openly gay" phrase, and Dev920 and I both added comments supporting it's inclusion. — Becksguy (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

William Donohue

The article on William A. Donohue, of the Catholic League, seems to have been sanitized of most references to his anti-gay views and public comments, except for one comment where he blames homosexuals for the Catholic priest sex abuse scandals in that subsection. The anti-Semitic remarks have more prominence in the article, within one large subsection. However, there is zero mention of his comments about Asians or Blacks. Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of the target, and I think this article needs some major work to restore WP:NPOV and balance, as well as to make it read better. Benjiboi was concerned about mass deletions several days ago. Additional comments to follow on the talk page. — Becksguy (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The original material was deleted as it came through Media Matters which the editor, a Catholic lawyer I believe, readily deleted as POV, however all the media matters material has the corresponding original material. I simply haven't had time to re-ref and reinstate. Benjiboi 07:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Don't stress out over it. I tagged the article {{Unbalanced}} & {{POV}} in the meantime, same as the article on the Catholic League. — Becksguy (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lesbian Association of India

Soon up for deletion, they seem plenty notable but article does little to demonstrate it. Benjiboi 07:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Bringing Up Baby

Shouldn't this be tagged? Boswell and Vitto were prominent thinkers, so I don't think this should be trivialised.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen this movie (sorry), but in my research for pulp goddess I found that she wrote an article for Lambda Book Report on the etymology of "gay" using this movie as an introduction. And it goes:
"A man is visiting as an overnight guest in the country home of a lady with whom he is only slightly acquainted. He is a handsome, charming fellow. Morning dawns. Upon arising, he takes a shower, and after toweling off, is looking for his clothes. But the lady, unbeknownst to him, has helpfully shipped them off to the cleaners to keep him around as her guest. (He really is good-looking.)
Suddenly, the doorbell rings. Casting about desperately for something to wear, he seizes on the lady's peignoir, a gossamer number trimmed in marabou feathers, and answers the door. There stands a doughty person of the female persuasion, the lady's elderly aunt as it happens, who demands an explanation of his mode of dress: "Young man, why are you wearing those clothes?" Exasperated, he simply throws up his hands and exclaims, "Because I just decided to go GAY all of a sudden!"
Now then: What year was it, what was the occasion, and who was the man? What!? You all know the answer? It's A-plusses all around! :Yes, indeed, it's 1938, the film is Bringing Up Baby, and the man is Cary Grant. But now for the really interesting question: How did it come to be that the word "gay" was even used in this famous screwball comedy? Did they assume that the straight members of the audience would get it? The word had exactly the same connotations in the 1930s as it has today, and was in at least limited use in the rarified social circles of worldly urbanites of the era. But how much could be assumed about the linguistic sophistication of a mainstream audience? Perhaps the filmmakers believed that the sight of Cary Grant en négligée was sufficient to tickle their funny bones, while gay people themselves would take the joke to the next level. (Why are we "gay"? Ann Bannon. Lambda Book Report. Washington: Sep 2002. Vol. 11, Iss. 2; pg. 26) --Moni3 (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone object to my tagging it?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
My only concern - and it's not an objection - is that the movie isn't in any LGBT-related categories. But no, I don't object :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there not a category for LGBT etymology? With all the slang, Friends of Dorothy and new fangled words there are for inverts, Boston marriages, and pederasts, it might be a category worth developing. --Moni3 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Try Category:LGBT argot and Category:LGBT terms. Etymology might be an article, though, wouldn't you think? Polari is ripe for inclusion in that. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm...Shall we tag it then?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Go for it - there's rather a good section in the article that deserves watching. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You requested a reference, I'm guessing you'd like the page number for the quote from this book [16]? Unfortunately google books won't let me do a search inside the book...Try to contact the person who added the quote perhaps - if you go through the page history?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have this book at home. I checked it out, thinking I was going to read it but I haven't gotten to it yet. What do you need to find? --Moni3 (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The page number for this quote,"an advertisement for a roommate can actually ask for a gay youth, but could not possibly call for a homosexual.", I think. BTW the whole gay section was removed and I have just put it back. It is referenced with page numbers from two prominent gay and lesbian studies scholars, it should NOT be removed...Can more people watch the page perhaps? They did have time to edit it a couple of times, so I'm guessing it's not on many people's watchlist...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Had to delete an entire article as a copyvio!

When I went to break out the Hormone replacement therapy (trans) article into Hormone replacement therapy (female-to-male) and Hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female); both were almost immediately tagged as copyright violations of T-Vox's HRT article! I had to delete everything. These articles need to be rebuilt! Photouploaded (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm - that's because the T-Vox one is almost entirely based on ours. I just checked. Look at the edit histories and revisions on both articles and you'll see. It's quite okay for them to copy ours as it's GFDL licensed, they just need to mention that - Alison 15:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Good catch. My userpage popped up with two giant red YOU MADE A COPYVIO!!! templates, and I didn't want to get slapped with a lawsuit. Looks like someone else has restored them now. Photouploaded (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Lesbian bukkake

Do we want this tagged for LGBT and/or do we care if it's merged into Bukkake? Benjiboi 21:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it. Unfortunately, I also read it. Do what you want with it, so long as I don't have to read it again. Jeffpw (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Ha! It frightened me, too. Technically, it should be tagged, but practically, we all know anything having to do with "lesbian" and "porn" isn't really under the scope of this project, except for a stub someone should create called The Extensive and Hopeful Search for Quality Pornography Made By and For Lesbians Instead of This Hideous Nonsense We Have Now. --Moni3 (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
There is plenty of good lesbian produced porn out there and if Santa hasn't stuffed your stockings yet you could try Good Vibrations - a "clean and well lit place to buy dildos." Of special interest might be the Antique Vibrator Museum, perhaps Miss Julie has a few friends there! Benjiboi 22:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I ordered a couple of videos from there a few years ago. I still stand by my article idea. They sucked. Antique vibrator museum? That is a good alternative to lesbian porn?? *sob* --Moni3 (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Try CyberDyke or Pink and White. Photouploaded (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Good vibrations carries Pink and White as well as SIR Productions. A moist world awaits! Benjiboi 23:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Larry Craig

I'm about to add some controversial info to Larry Craig and would appreciate many eyes being kept on the article. News has broke of more men describing sexual encounters with Craig. See [17]. – ALLSTARecho 16:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

All four of my eyes are on it, and I already piped in on "describing" vs "alleging". BTW, I just promoted myself to an "established editor". Or do I need consensus on that? — Becksguy 19:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Also the related Mike Jones (personal trainer) as he's one of the 5 that have come forward. I guess he's popular, having bedded Craig and Rev. Ted Haggard now. I've been listening to the recordings of the interviews with these 5 guys and it's riveting to say the least. I don't see how Larry Craig will still be a Senator after tomorrow. Amazing stuff. – ALLSTARecho 23:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Man, this thread just reeks of Schadenfreude....I love it! Jeffpw 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it was Avenue Q but someone did a song called something like "It's Schadenfreude". Benjiboi 17:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting that this item in The Washington Post be included in the Larry Craig article, but it is becoming a cultural meme. Plus all the late night jokes. Also check this one out for Christmas cards this year. Actually Craig is doing a public service by staying in the Senate and continuing to keep Pottygate in the news. I'm waiting for another [tapping] shoe to drop in this breaking story. — Becksguy (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article noms for 3 lists help needed


Have been vastly improved and the reference overhaul (every item referenced and all refs converted to one format) has been completed. Although there is more work to be done this seems a good point to go for GA status. If you have not contributed significantly to the articles and are a "more experienced" editor please consider doing the GA review for one or all. FYI these articles share lede and footer info but each article should be judged on it's own merit so the lede has to be judged as part of each article. I'm posting here as this project was the mother hen for the articles before all the other projects were notified of their existence. Benjiboi 19:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ack, apparently lists aren't allowed at the GA booth, does anyone know if there is a GA for lists? Benjiboi (talkcontribs) 19:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
No, there's no equivalent of GA for lists, you'll have to do FL. Put one through and then adjust the other two according to that feedback and they should sail through. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I have another editor interested in birds so maybe we'll target that first. Benjiboi 04:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


I just came across this article. I tagged it for the project, given its subject matter. It is written in a very un-encyclopedic manner. Is there anything there worth saving? Is it a legitimate term for gays in Japan? Anyone have a clue??? Aleta (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Addendum: I've added a prod template to the article. Aleta (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd speedy it on the grounds of that last paragraph being pure nonsense. And there are zero Google hits besides Wikipedia. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It was nominated for CSD A1 on 7 Dec and contested, so speedy is no longer an option. Prod is prolly the best way unless that is contested, then we go to AfD. I'm gonna watch it, and maybe do my first AfD nomination. It seems to be a made up article as a joke, and pure nonsense, although I'm mostly clueless on current Japanese gay culture, so I (we) could be wrong. It also has zero refs. I added a prod2 tag. — Becksguy (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The author of the article has deleted the prod and prod2 templates. Time for AfD? I've never created an AfD. Aleta (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
We're on the same wavelength! Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hobiyashi and add your opinions as appropriate. Benjiboi 05:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: "The result was speedy deleted as blatant nonsense." Aleta (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I fell asleep and missed it. But I agree that it was blatant nonsense and deletion was appropriate. — Becksguy (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I just came across the Template:hoax and it would have been useful in this article. – ALLSTARecho 07:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Roderick Hudson by Henry James

I have added a paragraph on the homosexual subtext of that novel, with lots of references from academic books of literary criticism. Shouldn't the book be tagged? True, the main plot is not homosexual per se, but it probably isn't because of the era he was writing, and all these references seem to spell out the homosexual subplot.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, you are welcome to tag articles if you feel that they are within the scope of your project. We even tag articles about people who are not themselves LGBT, but whose actions have had an impact on LGBT history (Anita Bryant, Fred Phelps, etc). Just put the article on the project page under "Newly tagged articles". Jeffpw (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
In that case why not tag Joris-Karl Huysmans? It remains blurry whether he was gay or whether some people are trying to downplay it...Zigzig20s (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Jodie Foster

She's OUT. YAY! *ahem* Anyway, I suspect major vandalism will be going down, so we should probably watchlist her article for a while. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

An article for her partner, Cydney Bernard, has already been created and tagged for notability. Fireplace (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
HOT DAMN! I just tagged Jodie. Hawt freakin'! --Moni3 (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Good for you, Jodie. Come on, Queen Latifah, it's your turn next. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
OMG! What a wonderful Christmas present for the LGBT community!!!!!!!!! And she is also both a terrific actor and role model. Jeffpw (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I predict a skyrocket in sales of batteries and inventory at goodvibes. --Moni3 (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention Chianti and fava beans! Benjiboi 17:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Please - I've been battling on this article for three days now. She's not "out". She thanked Cydney, yes. But that's it - she didn't say "My lesbian partner Cydney". She didn't say anything more than "Thank you". There was only one reporter actually at the event, Greg Hernandez of Los Angeles Daily News (see [18]). Several other papers have taken it and run with it. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a set of parameters in place to determine what makes someone notable (or gay) enough to be placed under the scope of our project? It seems we do quite a bit of arguing over semantics that borders on the ridiculous, not just about Jodie Foster who everyone knows is gay. She thanked her partner publicly, named her children the same name as her partner, and declared she had a partner in public newspapers, but hasn't ever called herself one of the labels we would use: gay, lesbian, homosexual, or bisexual. Was it the Angelina Jolie article talk page where SatyrTN was having an argument with another editor over whether if someone admits to sleeping with men and women, but never uses the term "bisexual" can be declared bisexual? So I disagree that Foster's not out. I think she is out, she's just not Ellen out. Some people dislike the terminology we use as inclusive indicators. If they refuse to use these labels but still live the life, how to we approach their inclusion in this project? --Moni3 (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
If they do not label themselves, we have to label them according to their behaviour. As Jodie has had a lesbian partner for the past fifteen years and no known relationships with men, then we should classify her as lesbian. Semantics about defining others as they would not wish is pretty pointless on an encyclopedia - classification, order, and categorisation is what we do.
On the subject of people everyone knows is gay but haven't officially come out yet, Queen Latifah's apparently [engaged and coming out sometime in 2008. Sounds quite plausible. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a stealth orgasm buddy squad? Benjiboi 14:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, Dev. Per WP:BLP, we can't use "controversial" terms about people that they don't use for themselves. If she said she was sleeping with Bernard, I would call her a lesbian. But she's thanked "her partner", which still falls under ambiguous. Has Bernard ever come out? I haven't looked. But Foster still has one foot on the sill of the closet door.
We did have some guidelines about bisexuality, and have mentioned expanding them to include all sexualities. I'll see where they are and repost. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You need to be sleeping with someone in order to prove your sexuality? Bret Easton Ellis never said he was sleeping with his partner - do we need consummation before we tag? I agree that Jodie is still half-in, I mean, she has only referred to her partner, once, in an acceptance speech. But let's face it, we have buckets of reliable sources outing her anyway breaking open the floodgates. My original link was to The Times! This isn't mere tabloid fodder. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
No - per Wikipedia's policy, if a person doesn't identify themselves, we can't do it for them. The word you missed in my point above was said - if she said she was sleeping with Bernard, we could call her a lesbian. Ellis called his partner his lover.
Why are y'all arguing on the side of outing Foster? We've had this discussion a million times before. She thanked her partner - so? producers and directors do that every Grammy and Tony - do we out all of them? Yes - a bunch of reliable sources have called her a lesbian, but policy still defers to what the person says about themselves - remember Little Richard? And what about Larry Craig? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm just as confused as why you're insisting she's not out. Communication is wonderful! Yay! I don't use the term "lover" to identify my partner. I say partner - thank Rachel Dratch and Will Ferrell for that. Actually, I would love to use "wife", but people's brains stop working after they hear that, and unless I want to be heard, I say partner. And when UnGay people thank their partners in acceptance speeches, these aren't partners who they're raising children with, is it? Little Richard said he used to be gay and Jesus cured him of it. *cough* Larry Craig is tagged as part of our project because even though he doesn't call himself gay, he's got guys saying he's had sexual relationships with them. Does going for bathroom sex qualify one as gay or just adventurous? --Moni3 (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Foster's tagged as part of our project, too - so why are we arguing? =D – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Because intelligent discussions with hot lesbians make your day brighter. --Moni3 (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Damn - you figured it out! :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Outdent. More hot lesbian talk! Benjiboi 16:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)