Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 12

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

Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13


Double Dog Dare for the Dudes

Much of what I've been working on in this project has to do with pre-Stonewall lesbians, and I'm finding much of the resources for the articles I'm working on are related to men's issues. Barbara Gittings (I'm working on) and Frank Kameny (I haven't) worked together, but their articles are quite different, despite the fact that Kameny is alive and well and has his own website (hint, fellows - write to him). The Daughters of Bilitis (working on) and the Mattachine Society (haven't worked on), and The Ladder (working on) and ONE, Inc. (not working on) are also quite different also despite the fact that there seems to be a lot more information on the Mattachine Society than the DOB. Articles are only as good as people who care about them, so if any guys out there who are history buffs want to take me on in a specialized jumpaclass article competition to improve these articles, let me know. I'm working on GA or FA class for mine. I'll point you toward the references I used, assist and whatnot. It's not that I'm a sexist pig or anything - I seriously don't have the time for all the information available on the early homophile movement. My stupid job gets in the way.

So - any takers? Must I resort to insulting your mothers, dance skills, or taste in disco? Must I??? --Moni3 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute RfC on Chris Crocker

Talk:Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) Content dispute if source of content is considered reliable to subject, need outside opinions. Posting to both wikiprojects associated with article. Benjiboi 20:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Putting out another call for help as article has been locked for nearly a month. Please consider offering a comment it should only take a few minutes. Benjiboi 05:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm reposting as this has gone on six weeks and there doesn't seem to be any movement from either side to change position. Could some other editors please weigh in your wisdom is appreciated! Benjiboi 04:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed guidelines regarding sexuality

Following Wikipedia's policy for biographies of living people, an article may categorize and/or describe a person as lesbian, gay, and/or bisexual and/or transgender if reliably sourced material indicates one of the following criteria is met:

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

An article may categorize and/or describe a person as transgender if reliably sourced material indicates either a self-identification as transgender/transsexual or that the person meets the description of transgender.

Open for comments
Obviously, having written the original draft oh so long ago, I am all in favour. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It looks good now, but when applied practically, as in the case of Foster, who is in a relationship of 15 years with a woman, who she's raising children with, who she addressed publicly, we're still confused as to what to do. Is this relationship notable? Is it not romantic or sexual enough? --Moni3 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This standard would require us to remove the numerous cross-dressers, drag queens, and other gender noncomformists who are currently listed in "transgender and transsexual" categories and on the List of transgender people. Then there are the more difficult issues: what about people who qualify as transgender or transsexual by Wikipedia's definition, but who adamantly deny this label? I was able to find two clear examples of this in List of transgender people without scrolling past the C's"

  • Wendy Carlos - Carlos has an entire page apparently dedicated to her intense dislike of being labeled "transgender" - "If you had recovered from cancer thirty years ago, would you enjoy being defined as "that person who was dying of cancer"? Could "cancer-victim" ever be your essential identity? Okay, then how about: "former cancer-victim?"" [1]
  • Sara Davis Buechner - From the article: "She underwent gender reassignment surgery in 1998.[2] She dislikes the term "transsexual", and is said to be "mildly peeved" about being referred to as such, stating that living as a woman was the only honest way to live her life.[3]" The second article referenced contains this gem: "In fact, she's mildly peeved that her Wikipedia entry begins "Sara Davis Buechner is a transsexual American concert pianist and educator." Becoming a woman was simply the only way she could continue to live her life in an honest way–which is not, she admits, how others around her saw it."

This issue is going to come up time and time again, since many "FTMs" and "MTFs" self-identify as "male" and "female" respectively, and not as trans. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 17:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah. We should probably just knock the transgender bit and devlop different guidelines for them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Good point. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
As much as I can't stand the critical theory crowd, I have the standard Foucault-style objections to (2) and (3). It seems problematic, e.g., to identify ancient Greeks or anyone pre-18th or 19th century as "gay". Fireplace (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
A second concern -- suppose a gay man is married to a woman, then divorces and marries a man (but without ever making a public statement to the effect of "I'm gay, not bi"). Would this guideline require us to incorrectly classify him as bi? Fireplace (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Depends - living or dead? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Either? Maybe I'm confused about the scope of this proposal -- is it limited to BLP? Fireplace (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
No, not limited to BLP, but BLP trumps this - it's a policy, what we're crafting is a guideline. So if the hypothetical person you mentioned didn't say anything (in words) all we can report is what they did - married so-and-so, then married so-and-so. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
If one takes the word "gay", not to mean a specific label but to mean the sexual identity which has come to be known as gay, then it's easy to label, say, Louisa May Alcott, who stated "...I have fallen in love with so many pretty girls and never once the least bit with any man" as a lesbian, even if she wouldn't have understood the concept. Regarding the hypothetical gay/bi man, these proposals ARE only guidelines - they can't cover every case ever. Oscar Wilde breaks virtually every mould people have tried to place him in, for example. Ant (comedian) has also proved something of a headache given he has stated himself as being gay, bi, AND straight at various times. Sexuality being the messy, fluidy, slippy (that didn't come out right) thing that it is, we can't hope to nail everyone down with one definitive guideline - but we can get as close as we can, and WT:LGBT is here for the rest. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Both the issues I raised reflect my underlying hesitancy about identifying someone's sexuality on the basis of their relationships. I suspect that this might create more distress than it resolves: as far as I can tell, #2 and #3 would only apply to dead people (otherwise BLP would trump?), and #2 and #3 would only be used when there isn't a reliable source that calls that person gay/lesbian/bi. But those are probably exactly the cases where there would be dispute over whether the label "gay/lesbian/bi" is appropriate (otherwise the reliable source probably would have used that label). Fireplace (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
No-one's addressed your comment, so I thought I'd give it a stab. Identifying someone based on their relationships is secondary to their self-identification. And it's the way we (Wikipedia) are most likely to succeed - relationships are documented far more often than inner thoughts and feelings :)
These guidelines are mostly for dead people, you're right. BLP definitely trumps. You're right about #2 & #3 - they're the reason the guideline comes in to play, for the most part. The examples given are exactly the kinds the guideline was created. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Related issue for lists

Related to the question of these guidelines is how we label people in our LGB lists. I think an anonymous IP user recently labeled everyone in the A list, which was then reverted. I confess to sympathising with said IP. It strikes me as non-NPOV to label specifically only known bisexuals, and not known gays and lesbians. Aleta (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the revert, Aleta. My reasoning was that if they were on the list, it was obvious if they were gay or lesbian. It was only the bisexuals who needed clarification. I don't see that as POV, just sort of Duh. Jeffpw (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That issue came up on one of the FLC's, too. It assumes that one can tell who on the list is male (and therefore gay by default) or female (and therefore lesbian). I'm torn on the issue, but don't really see the need for the "gay" or "lesbian" on the lists. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think by their being on the list, it's obvious they are one of the three (the "duh" aspect), but it seems like by singling out bisexuality for specification, it appears to make it the "odd one". Aleta (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it sort of is. There's only a few per list, after all, it doesn't seem extraordinary to point them out. Personally, I like to see my own. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree, there are quite a few folks whose self-labeling changes and others who simply reject any labels. Perhaps the lede should be adjusted accordingly to reflect that individuals may alter from being considered exclusively gay or lesbian to bisexual and vice versa? Benjiboi 06:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
That's really not helpful to people looking at the list though. If their self-labelling changes, then we can change it, and if they refuse to label themselves, we do it for them (admittedly this is a rather harsh view, but you've probably gathered by now that I think insisting you have no defined sexual orientation is daft). We already do for the purposes of categorisation anyway. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the more I'm changing my mind. I wouldn't mind combining the "Notes" column (which is really just for indicating bisexuals) and the "Refs" column. That way each person listed could have: L37, which would serve the triple purpose of a) removing white-space, b) indicating which of "LGB" each person is, and c) not singling out the Bi-s. Insert Bingo™ joke here. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I like this suggestion. I have no objection to there being labels, just to singling out bisexuals. Aleta (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. Could be difficult for those we have noted as being problematic - but then we could just stick that in a secondary footnote to draw people's attention. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Gay Lib v. University of Missouri

This Gay Lib v. University of Missouri should be added to that section [4]. In 1977 William Rehnquist condoned the University of Missouri's refusal to recognise a gay students' organisation. See the Harvard Law Review, volume 98. I don't have time to expand - maybe someone else does? It seems like an interesting case.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


Has this group considered going with gender-neutral language for actors on the lists of LGBT people? You don't say poetess, sculptress, etc., and actor is just as correct for women as it is for men. Most occupations on your list don't indicate gender -- why not do the same for actors? --Melty girl (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Support; we don't say "Professoress" or "Surgeoness" either; female actors should have their profession described with the original word, "actor". Photouploaded (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I always write actor for both genders, unless I am writing about someone from the Golden Age of film, where it seems forced. Jeffpw (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you still call Emily Dickinson a poetess? :) --Melty girl (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Objection. Poetess is a word. I think you are alluding to the issue of catachresis that comes with queerness in language, but in the patriarchal, heteronormative world that we live in, language has still not been deconstructed and I don't believe you can just throw it out of the window and ignore it, it's still there. There is a binary opposition between inside and outside (see Diana Fuss), in this particular instance male/female, and to say male for everyone would be slightly simplistic.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
So Zig - women aren't actors? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The two words, "actor" and "actress" are not the male and female version of the words. They are, respectively, the word for the profession, and, a feminized version of the word. The word "actor" simply means "one who acts", just as a professor is one who professes, and a surgeon is one who performs surgery. "Actor", for everyone, is not "male for everyone", it's "the word for the profession, used for everyone". Photouploaded (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Poetess is a word, but it's a discarded word. Just because Emily Dickinson was called a poetess in her time doesn't mean that we should still call her that here on WP. And yes, "actress" is still used, but "actor" is also currently used to refer to female actors. Men have one option, women have two. Shouldn't we go with the gender-neutral option? --Melty girl (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't be neutral to use a masculine word for a woman. The idea that 'actress' is an offshoot of 'actor' sounds like an updated version of Eve being an offshoot of Adam. It is actually quite misogynistic - and whilst it might be a socially widely-upheld idea, we can subvert, shift and 'queer' it through usage. I am probably quite hopeful in that I believe an actress to be just as talented as an actor. People are welcome to use 'actor' for an actress if they think that sounds better, but I am not of that opinion, and I believe that would lead to being blinkered in light of the patriarchal, heteronormative order. The main issue with gender within language though would be transgenders.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

See Actor#Terminology for a discussion of the terms. It gives some history of the usages. Aleta (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then if it is historically an Adam-and-Eve-offshoot kind of thing, we can still queer it anyway. I do believe saying 'actor' for an actress would sound a lot more catachretic. Also bear in mind that most signifiers of professions were historically masculine because women didn't work, or their jobs were socially ignored or strongly downplayed.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Another way to look at it is that by using the same word for profession for a female as for a male, we indicate that females are equally able to perform that task. A female's performance of the task does not require a special word to distinguish it from the "real" task, the one performed by males. Photouploaded (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Are you in favor of every occupation being split into gendered words even though the job is the exactly same? Should we bring back poetess, sculptress, stewardess, and aviatrix? Should we start referring to women directors as directresses? I think you are mistaken that this would be subversive. The reason why so many of these words have been discarded is because the job is exactly the same, so to distinguish when women do the job serves to make us second-class. The whole point is that women can do the same work than men can do and do not need a separate category. --Melty girl (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a signifier of a person performing a profession, not of a profession or task in itself. It is thus coloured by the person his/her/hir/themself. I really don't think that sounds second-class...I'm trying to steer away from catachresis.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not catachresis. The definition of the word "actor" is "one who acts." The HISTORY of "poetess", etc., is that women were considered second-class and that the dominant culture held that they did the same work in an inferior manner. Obviously, that was not the case, and the work is the same, so feminists worked long and hard for gender-neutral titles for jobs that were gender-neutral. I believe you are ignoring both the dictionary and the history. By your logic, we should go back to poetess and should move toward directress. --Melty girl (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Your mentioning feminism is interesting. In other languages like French, feminists have striven to have words like 'actress' used instead of the male equivalent. Language is always catachretic, that harks back to the Saussurian distinction between signified and signifier I believe. Anyway, I still believe to call someone of female gender with a feminine noun is less catachretic than to call them with a masculine noun. We can queer history and meaning. This whole debate is highly political. By using a masculine noun for a woman, I think you, or your strand of feminism apparently, are attempting to disregard the patriarchal order. That is jejune. Surely the idea would be to expose it and threaten it by wearing it down.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Zigzig20s, we've only got three choices here: use a feminine word, use a word that can be masculine, feminine, or gender neutral, or use an awkward phrase like "Person who acts". We can argue this all the way around the block, but I say we go with the one that's a) gender neutral, b) ambiguous (you choose the gender), and c) less prone to error. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
'Person who acts' might be the best option, actually. That would be long in a sentence but on a list perhaps that would work?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty neutral about the actor/actress question, but I'd have to object to "person who acts" as awkward and just plain silly. Sorry Aleta (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I really don't care what term we use, as long as it doesn't require us to have separate "male" and "female" lists. This is for practical rather than ideological reasons. Separate lists make it more difficult to find things, since you have to keep going back and forth from one to the other, and they require more maintenance. People have to do twice as much work to find information about a topic just because of a quirk in the English language. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 02:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I would second that, because ultimately what matters is the profession - that's what those people would be on that list for. We can ignore the patriarchal order by using the masculine noun as generic but that makes it harder to expose it and threaten it and wear it down. I am not a fan of assimilation, I believe that ultimately it gives more sway to the dominating element. What's wrong with 'person who acts'?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to work out why I was happy to use doctor instead of doctress but not actor instead of actress, and I think I've got it - the acting profession, by it's nature, makes big distinctions between men and women. Whether a doctor is a man or a woman doesn't matter, you're going to see them because you're ill, but you go to the theatre to see people performing for you and in that case gender does makes a difference. You can't ignore that an actress is a woman, or an actor a man. I suspect that's also why doctress have fallen into disuse and we're still using actress. My thoughts have run out now, and I think I'm going to go back to bed... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Responses and then a new proposal... The idea of using "person who acts" is absurd. We're an encyclopedia -- we're not supposed to invent terminology. Gender and lack of gender is inherent in current professional terms, and we must use them as given by the current form of the English language. In this version of WP, we're writing in English. The history, baggage and current usage of the words "actor" and "actress" in English are what matter here. Sorry, but the French language context is besides the point for our purposes in making a decision about English terminology, and one person's feelings and academic musings are not more relevant than the broad history and current societal usages of the English terms in question.
The point is that "actor" was originally gender-neutral; "actress" as a feminized variant came later and renders masculine qualities on "actor" in some contexts, but "actor" is currently used in a gender-neutral way in English. Many film and theatre people do refer to female "people who act" as "actors." Therefore, given the current state of the English language, using "actor" for a woman is a valid, correct option on WP; "actress" is also a valid, correct option. Dev makes a good point about gender in drama, and the industry certainly does still use "actor" and "actress" in gendered ways, particularly at awards time, but all this is actually starting to become more blurry (the most recent example being Cate Blanchett in I'm Not There).
In summary, I think there is no doubt that either term can be correctly used for women on WP, given the current state of English. That is not something that can be decided here -- it's already been decided by the English-speaking culture at large. The question for this project is this: do you (and I say you because while I'm queer, I'm not an official member), in your wonderful LGBT people lists, want to use separate professional categories for men and women who act, in stark contrast to most other professions listed, even though in the list context, "actor" and "actress" are used simply to state someone's job and the job is fundamentally the same? This split categorization of the same work is something that has long been considered to be sexist, so much so that it's been eliminated in many, many other fields over the last 40 years, in a change to the language that reflects massive social change. The option to be gender-neutral on the lists is unquestionably available, because people do use the term "actor" for women, and therefore it's fine for WP -- the real question is whether you want to take this on as a project style guideline for your lists. --Melty girl (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome to use the term 'actors' if you want, but I object to it. It still is more catachretic than actress for a woman, you are ignoring binary oppositions and thereby making it harder to expose them and break them down. Just my opinion, in view of poststructuralist queer theory. Oh, and I mentioned French feminism to show that my argument was just as feminist as yours. But this is a democracy.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
To put a little context around the question of "actor/actress" on the LGB lists, there are 197 people listed with an occupation of "actor" and 73 people listed with an occupation of "actress". Each of those includes "porn actor" or "porn actress", as I saw no reason to distinguish. Even given the gender bias of the lists, that's still almost three to one, which would argue that we're already leaning towards using "actor" for either gender.
And to address Melty's question, I see no need to put it in a guideline. The "actresses" that have appeared on the list are fairly random. The project already refers to Category:Lesbian actors, Category:Bisexual actors and Category:Gay actors. Unless there's a pressing need or someone feels specifically called to make the change on the 18 lists? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
What percentage of the people listed as "actors" are women? Is that something that's easy to figure out? Thanks for the category info. Gotcha on your feeling that a guideline isn't needed. But would you object to my changing those "random" occurences of "actress" to "actor"? --Melty girl (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to assume it's OK. --Melty girl (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No clue about the percentage. Go for the changes :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


I propose that we bring asexuality under our umbrella. Unlike intersexuality, which we recently decided not to add, asexuality is a sexual orientation. What do you all think? Aleta (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine to bring asexuality under. It is a non-standard sexual orientation. I also disagree with the decision to exclude intersex people. Intersex is absolutely intertwined with GLBT issues; anyone who reads the works written by intersex people can see that they are part of the community. Photouploaded (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI, We didn't decide not to include intersex we simply didn't have consensus to include it thus it wasn't. I am firmly in the camp of inclusion for both asexual and intersex and will simply wish upon a lavender Santa for it to happen. Benjiboi 06:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you just go join WP:SEX please? We're not about non-standard sexual orientations, we're about LGBT. Maybe I'm some kind of dinosaur, but to me there is a big difference. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Dev, although I would have been nicer about it... I don't feel that someone who's "not attracted to sex" is anywhere near being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. But I'm also one of the few who believe transgender shouldn't be included either, so what do I know? ;) -- ALLSTARecho 10:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the bluntness but I am a) hungover and b) starting to get irritated with these constant attempts to add unrelated people to our project because they are a persecuted minority. I'd have agreed with you in principle on transgender a while back, but especially since I heard a Muslim cleric on Monday ranting about how decadent and sinful trans people were and found myself getting so angry I could have decked him, I rather think that I've taken transgender on board in my subconscious. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Dev, I raised the issue nicely, asking for people's opinions. I did not act unilaterally to change the scope of the project, or force anything down anyone's throats. Please don't bite my head off. Aleta (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Well luckily for all of us, queer people have fought with their lives so that we could today freely discuss these subjects without being thrown into psychiatric facilities for "treatment" including lobotomies and castration for our deviant thoughts and behaviors. Luckily we can postulate on who is currently allowed in our rainbow tent meanwhile people worldwide are still routinely tortured and killed regardless if they are any or all of the above but someone simply accuses them of same. Luckily we have some choice in our destiny unlike the thousands of babies who are the whim of a doctor's knife and societal dictum as to what gender they will live with. We have much more in common with gender minorities and would do well to find ways to work together on these issues. Benjiboi 11:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You are now officially completely missing the point of what we are doing here. If you want to go campaigning for alternative sexualities and gender identities and whatever, go do it elsewhere, I am certainly not going to stop anyone fighting for the right of people to be who they are and live as they are without fear. But here, on this site, we are about documenting neutral, factual information for an encycylopedia, and simply from a logistical point of view, it simply makes no sense whatsoever to go lumping LGBT, asexuality, or the intersex together. Different people write those articles, they require different guidelines, structures and approaches - it's hard enough reconciling LGB and T in the same project (as in the conversation above), let alone LGB, T, A, and I. We write - if you want to go POV campaigning, you need to go find somewhere else to do it.
As I said before, there are only so many hours in the day and I for one cannot spend it all being guilted by you into perpetual campaigning for every sexual and gender minority I can think of - I have my community and I want to work with them. I'm sure the castrated and lobotomised queer people who have fought for my right to be me will be happy that I'm contributing at all. Excuse me for choosing to direct my energies to somewhere I can make a difference. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Dev on this issue. LGBT is a common acronym that has been used for years. A google search for "LGBT community" gives 500,000 results. "LGBTIA community" gives 6. While I am all for inclusionism, I do think Intersexuality and Asexuality are properly covered by other projects. Jeffpw (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
True but "LGBT" + intersex does produce almost 64,000 g-hits. That is not too shabby. AgneCheese/Wine 13:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Dev, I've noticed that you are staunchly opposed to the suggestion that intersex should be a part of this project. I'm really surprised by that, and I want respectfully ask you: Have you taken the time to sit down and read about intersex issues? Have you talked to any intersex people? The reason intersex people aren't included in the acronym is probably due to the fact that intersex carries an even larger stigma than any of the others. At least most LGBT people are physically "normal" people, whereas intersex people are seen as ghouls, walking birth defects, freaks. It's not surprising that the LGBT movement (going for normalcy and acceptance) would want to shrug off the "freaks of nature" contingent and suppose that they are "properly covered" elsewhere. But is that really the best choice? We are talking about people whose genitals are cut off in infancy, not for medical reasons, but to make their parents and doctors and society at large more comfortable. Most LGBT people don't have to endure anything close to that. The vast majority of LGBT people will, at the most, be directed to a therapist by any anti-queer people in their family. They aren't sent for shock treatment, institutionalization, or surgery. Society is still far behind when it comes to basic human rights for intersex people. As people who transgress often not just gender boundaries but the boundaries of those holy, "immutable" boundaries of biological sex, itself, they are intimately, intimately entwined with the plight of people who seek acceptance for their sexual orientation. I am surprised and dismayed that you would put your foot down to keep intersex out of this project. If you haven't read the Chrysalis magazine special issue on intersex issues, please consider reading it. If you don't understand how a person who is neither male nor female might very often become part of the queer community, I challenge you to figure out why that might be. Photouploaded (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to speak to me specifically, we should take this to my talkpage. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This is directed towards any person who feels that intersex issues are not to be included in this project. Since you have spoken so openly with your opinion that they should not be included, and since you are the project's Coordinator, I would like to hear your answer where we can all discuss it. Photouploaded (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not so sure about asexuality, I was also surprise to see that intersex issues didn't fall under the project's scope. I would also respectfully ask the project members to reconsider the issue. Members of the intersex community certainly fall under the "Q" in the often/cited LGBTQ acronym and they also play a sizable role in the "T" transgender community. Often intersex individuals are seemingly forced into a "gay category" by family and society who have deemed them of one gender and in a relationship with some of the same gender. Other times they may identify as gay but others, who again have their own perception of gender, have categorized them as straight. While I'm not as up to date on the "politics of the movement", I really can't see how the LGBT community can not find common ground with the intersex community? It really is the essence of being queer in every sense of the word. AgneCheese/Wine 13:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, I am asking this sincerely, so don't jump on me if I appear ignorant: Since LGBT covers men and women who are sexually attracted or form deep meaningful relationships with others of the same gender (or with partners of their original gender), why do we need to include people who have a physical condition which gives them qualities of both genders. This is a medical condition; homosexuality is not now nor has it ever been classified as a medical condition (distinct from a psychiatric one). That link to Chrysalis is fascinating and I plan to continue reading it. I truly have no objections if we include Intersexuality under our LGBT umbrella. I would just like a clear explanation as to why others feel it is appropriate. If it is just because they are oppressed, then we should include all oppressed groups. Where does inclusionism end? Jeffpw (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
From my view, it has a large sense to do with mainstream society view of intersex people. They are almost always "lumped in" with us whether they like to or not. As I referenced above, both examples of individuals that I met in the LGBT community, what gender a person feels that they are and what gender was "assigned" to them don't always match and while an innersex male may feel that he is in a heterosexual relationship with a woman the fact that the doctor thought it was easier to "dig a hole" means that family and society will perceive his relationship as gay. My friend, who has the misfortune of being born in the wonderful state of Texas, can't get married because of this without going through a whole lot of legal headache. A lot of our issues overlap with intersex issues which is why I think they should be included. As with most things there is always a slippery slope but this one I think is pretty valid. AgneCheese/Wine 13:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I must confess I had never given the matter much thought until now. The last time this came up I just read the Intersexuality article and decided it wasn't a good fit for our project. The more I think about it, though, the more I can see that intersexed people face a number of similar challenges and share a number of issues with LGBT. I have no objection if we want to include them. Jeffpw (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah it's not the "run of the mill" stuff we encounter. I confess that over 5 years I'd probably be in the same boat thinking that it has nothing to do with us but once but oh the things that a farm girl from Missouri learns when she get to the big city. ;) Though I'm still trying to figure out the handkerchief thing.... AgneCheese/Wine 13:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you mean. I live in a lazy, provincial backwater, where things like this just don't come up for discussion. This article might help you with your other area of concern :-) Jeffpw (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what i get for missing an evening here in WP:LGBT talk. I'm not even sure where to post this, but I don't think asexuality is a topic that should be under the scope of this project. The first thing that comes to my mind when asexual and LGBT are related is the self-imposed punishment LGBT people endure because they can't accept their desires - like the helpful suggestions by the Christian organizations to people struggling with sexuality and faith. Otherwise, I'm not sure how it can be related to LGBT issues at all. --Moni3 (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a non-heterosexual orientation in a world where, to a large albeit declining extent, one is "supposed" to be heterosexual. To me this makes it possibly closer to L, G, and B than T is. Aleta (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Are there psychological or medical studies of people claiming to be asexual that state the cause of it? Incredibly aware of how bad I sound in reference to gayness...I admit my ignorance here. Are there asexual people who are organized into groups? Political action groups? On the face of it, it just doesn't seem like a related topic - people who have no sex at all. Clearly there doesn't have to be two ideas for sexuality: gay or straight. But what falls outside of straight - does that qualify it as gay or related? I need more information, clearly. Help me out. --Moni3 (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Moni, these are good questions. I'll state for the record that I am just starting to look more closely at this. I encourage everyone to read the article on asexuality before deciding if you agree or disagree that it fits with our project. According to that, research into asexuality is a relatively new phenomenon in sexology, but is growing rapidly. Note that a distinction is drawn between celibacy - a choice not to have sex regardless of orientation - and asexuality - an orientation of no sexual attraction. An asexual may have sex for various reasons, and an asexual may have affectational attractions of any orientation and identify as gay/lesbian, bi or straight. As for organizations, "The Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) was founded in 2001 with two primary goals: to create public acceptance and discussion of asexuality and to facilitate the growth of an asexual community." I hope this helps.  :) Aleta (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Jeff said up above that intersexed people face a number of similar challenges and share a number of issues with LGBT. Here's my reply: yes, but they aren't gay, lesbian or bisexual. Afro-Americans face a number of similar challenges and share a number of issues with LGBT but we aren't the LGBT-AA wikiproject. They have their own. Down to the foundation of what LGB is, is the sexual orientation for people of the same-sex, and this includes the actual act of sex. Even bisexuality has a penchant for the same sex organ at least 50% of the time. Intersex, asexual, transgender... these people aren't exactly oriented to the attraction or lust for someone of the same sex.. hell, asexual people don't even want sex so how can they be gay or lesbian? Transgender folk most often end up oriented to someone of the opposite sex of what they surgically become (ie: a woman becomes a man and is oriented to women once becoming man makes that person heterosexual, not gay). LGB is all it should be but since it was LGBT before I got here, I'll have to live with the T part. But I'm totally against adding any other minority that isn't gay, lesbian or bisexual in attraction and act. -- ALLSTARecho 20:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This is really beside the point, but I can't leave it alone. Your definition of bisexual is not accurate; it does not require a minimum of 50% same-sex attraction to be bisexual. There's a whole range between comepletely homosexual and completely heterosexual which may be described as bisexual. (80/20 one way or 20/80 the other both are bisexual as is 50/50.) Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.  ;-) Aleta (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to define bisexuality dear Aleta, and I know it doesn't require a minimum 50%. I was just pointing out that even Bisexual people like "the other white meat" at least significantly enough to be grouped with Gay and Lesbian. :) -- ALLSTARecho 17:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Lol, that's certainly the most interesting way I've ever been described! :) When you look at it like that, it does seem fairly pointless to group in vegetarians (A) with all us meat eaters (!). :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly!! lol :) -- ALLSTARecho 17:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough! (I missed your reply until now, ASE, sorry.) Aleta (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Outdent. I would also respectfully ask everyone o remember that it took many battles to get the current acronym to be LGBT and include bisexual and trans people, Before that lesbians were invisible. We all were just the "gays" the "homosexuals" the "freaks", the "fruits", the "queers", etc. The same battles that have been and are currently waged by the AIDS community will, in part, greatly help all the rest of us. Did you know that before AIDS activists demanded and fought for reform at the FDA (United States Food and Drug Administration) that medicines weren't tested on women before approvals because their bodies were different and too variable. Did anyone expect that as an outcome, probably not but it's an example of how our umbrella communities are continually battling for human rights that not only benefit them but so many others as well. The issues that transgender people face have enormous implications for the L, the G and the B and yet no one here is required to do a thing on those articles although when asked for support or advice it would be nice. And I'll also apologize as I'm really not trying to guilt-trip as I think that backfires so I'm sorry if I did do that and will try to stop it. What I meant to do is share a bit of my perspective in hopes that others could also get more of a historical perspective because our two-dimensional world on wikipedia impacts many many real-world lives. We are Oprah, saving lives with good information, IMHO. Benjiboi 04:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

So does that mean you think asexuality should be included in the scope of the project? --Moni3 (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I would definitely include it as the study of and implications of research on asexuality issues has, if nothing else, cultural significance toward other non-heteronormative sexualities. Benjiboi 16:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Having established the fact that I know less than nothing about people who are asexual aside from its being a choice for celibates, an effect of childhood or sexual trauma (rape), or a physiological or psychological condition that makes a libido markedly low, I am not convinced that all sexual issues that are not heteronormative should fall under the scope of this project. If it has not already started, we shall be seeing another branch of sociology soon that deals with non-heteronormative sexual issues that aren't under the LGBT (and maybe T) range. What unites the issues for the articles in this project is the shared experience of belonging to a group of people who are singled out for their desires - for who they are - and the expression of those desires, particularly in the face of oppression and fear. Although asexuality is not the norm for most adults, it doesn't qualify people who practice it to be persecuted, and the practice of it isn't necessarily a political act of defiance. For these reasons, I don't feel like the topic should be under the scope of this project, however, should other information arise that qualifies asexuality as related to LGBT issues, I reserve the right to change my mind.--Moni3 (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Asexualtiy is only an LGBT issue in the very limited sense of a closet homosexual who hides under the illusion of asexuality. Asexuality as a genuine orientation is disputable anyway - it can be symptomatic of ISD or some other erotophobic childhood experience. Basically, to add the concept to the LGBT banner would be to invite any paraphilia or "alternate sexuality" into the banner, so that it would instead say "the gays, the lesbians, the trannies, paedophiles and zoophiles" which I'd rather not be associated with. In fact, compare asexuality with zoophilia in their relation to LGBT issues, they're just irrelevant to the entire issue of LGBT people and culture.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I Oppose this. The project should stay focused. Asexuality is not an LGBT issue as defined by our purpose. It belongs in the Sexuality project, not here. - Davodd (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion wasn't about creating an article. It was about whether or not to include Asexuality under the WikiProject LGBT studies umbrella. Asexuality already has an article. -- ALLSTARecho 17:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
And my suggestion is about creating a splinter article that would undoubtedly fall under the umbrella of the LGBT studies project and deal directly with the "gay issues" that are part of the asexual (I suppose) and intersex (I know) community. AgneCheese/Wine 17:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
There's certainly no reason an editor can't create those articles. Be bold. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Tereska Torres

This article was created today. She wrote the first book to be considered a lesbian pulp fiction novel. She was not gay, and even though her book sold an astounding 4.5 million copies between 1950 and 1952 and launched the genre of fiction that is so near and dear to my heart, she was quite astonished that her book got so much attention. She thought the salacious attention it got was unwarranted, and I read an interview with her a while back that implied she wasn't too happy to be the ringer-in of the new genre either. The book is not a first person account of a lesbian experience, but the narrator's description of all of the women who were in her barracks in WWII. Two just happened to be lesbian. Should it be tagged? --Moni3 (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Women's Barracks, right? I'd say tag the book, but I'm not too sure about the author herself. My first instinct was to say no. What do others think? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Tereska Torres in more than one interview stated that she was surprised at the reception the book got in the US, as she considered it not that raunchy compared to other French books at the time. Furthermore I'm against tagging the author as this is the only lesbian themed book she wrote and she did not write it purposely as a lesbian novel, but as a fictionalized account of her experiences while serving in the Free French Forces. --noclador (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
My thought is no, definitely do not tag the author, as it just isn't warranted by what I've read here and in the article on her. If there was an article specifically on Women's Barracks, I would lean toward tagging the book. Not because it was intended to be a lesbian novel—since apparently it wasn't—but because it was adopted as the first of a genre. — Becksguy (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree: tag any future article about the book (which it sounds like we should have!), but not her bio. Aleta (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. Her book was published by The Feminist Press, there's a significant section of her article on its reception, and she's the first author of Lesbian pulp fiction. Seems significant to our community to me. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles needing verification

Are all editors allowed to add items to the "Open Tasks" list? Or is it decided by the community which are considered "tasks"? Hormone replacement therapy (female-to-male) and Hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female) are in serious need of verification. The former only has ONE reference! Photouploaded (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

New York Native

Apparently, the New York Native was 'a paper produced by and for the gay community' (Lee Edelman, Homographesis, Preface page xvii) in the 1990...or maybe it's still around? Anyway I cannot find much about it on google, can anyone remember it at all, and where can some basic info about it be found?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Some articles I found that might interest you:
Patrick Merla, Tim Dlugos (which needs some serious help and probably needs the project banner), Timeline of AIDS#1981, 1,112 and Counting, Joseph F. Beam (another one that needs work and probably our banner), Automatic Pilot, Michael Callen, Ken Mandelbaum (which might need our banner?), AIDS reappraisal, Douglas Sadownick
-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh my. Are you trying to keep me from reading post-Lacanian theory?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was a gay newspaper in New York City from December 1980 to January 1997 (16 years), especially during the beginning of the AIDS crisis, when it was the only gay paper in town. No, it's not around anymore. See here. Part of the problem was that the paper was later going against the tide on the cause of AIDS by claiming that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. Conspiracy theory, anyone? Part seems to be that gay newspapers don't tend to survive in NYC. Here's a minor reference. Another interesting take on NYC gay newspapers is here. See also Larry Kramer, who wrote a notable 1983 front page piece in the New York Native that focused attention on AIDS. And here is a interesting NY Times piece on gay papers in NYC. There should be an article on the New York Native. In fact this got me to start a draft version here. I want to get enough together before creating the article to avoid a speedy for non-notability. It would seem to have enough reliable sources and it's notable enough. — Becksguy (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh that is great, please do create it! Surely if 2CUZ FM can have its own page - which I think it should - then this media can too. Also the New York Times references seem good...Can we try to find the real article from The Advocate? It would be great to have a picture as well. It's not on Ebay...Surely it is stored in a library somewhere?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Created. However, I had to move the page as, of course, it created New york native. Now there is a redirect. Drat. Also, now I can't watchlist it. Anyone know why? I think it's a nice stub at this point. At least it's cited, which is more than many stubs start out with. Pictures? The NYPL has a collection, as does NYU, I think. It may be harder to find a leftright licensed image. I wanted to get the article up ASAP, now it can be improved with more information and sources (including The Advocate). So dive in. It was a rather important gay newspaper for quite a while, even outside of NYC to some extent, until it went cockamamie with the conspiracy theories. — Becksguy (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, now it shows up on my watchlist. — Becksguy (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It was on 'Did You Know?' yesterday. We rock.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoopi Goldberg

Why is Whoopi under this project's scope? there's no explanation for it in the article. -Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 16:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot did it on January 28, 2007. Not sure why. I'll leave that for User:SatyrTN since it's his bot to figure out. -- ALLSTARecho 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The article does say she is a strong supporter of the LGBT community, and that she has received a GLAAD award for her efforts. Isn't that enough for the article to fall under our interest? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. They don't have to be gay to be tagged. Look at Fred Phelps. Jeffpw (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The other GLAAD Vanguard award winners are not under the scope (except for Cher and Charlize Theron). The LGTB has a bizillion of supporters, should they all indiscriminately be under the project's scope? And is Whoopi really that strong a supporter? i saw "the view" the other day, and when the other black girl said that she didn't want her son's to be gay Whoopi wasn't THAT outraged, she just wanted to change the topic. I'm just saying, that tag can be misleading. -Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 18:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
She was considered a gay icon and likely still is and actually has been pro-LGBT issues on the view although certainly as not as much as Rosie O'Donnell was. Benjiboi 21:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure she belongs in the Category:LGBT rights activists from the United States, but she definitely is within our scope. The article could use some work to expand that, though. And why do you think the tag is misleading? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Because as there's no info on her being an active activist or gay in the article, by being within the project's scope soemthing is being implied, but like, what? If she really is a gay icon that should really be expanded, i'll do a google search now, see what i can find. Cheeriooo- Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 23:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Big Wednesday

Sometime ago we contextualised the sentence that equals homosexuality to an ailment, and that was recently removed. I have put it back. Just thought I'd bring this to everyone's attention.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate what you did there, I wonder if that section in parenthesis is necessary. Even today, declaring yourself homosexual would keep you out of the military. I'm inferring from the edit that you feel including the term "homosexual" alongside "insanity and other illnesses" gives the reader the impression that homosexuality is an illness. I don't think it does, myself. Jeffpw (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
We discussed that before, the thing in parenthesis was someone's suggestion. I really do think that it needs contextualisation, otherwise it sounds like it equals homosexuality to an illness - which it did at the time, but pyschiatry has come a long way.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories - again...

So I've run in to our categorization scheme again...

I have a suggestion for at least part of the cat hierarchy. When it comes to "LGBT people", our nationality section is pretty well set up and clean. The occupation section, though, is a little messy.

My suggestion is to try to clean these up to have:

  • LGBT widget makers
    • Lesbian widget makers
    • Gay widget makers
    • Bisexual widget makers
      • Bisexual widget makers from Peru
    • Transgender widget makers

I think having that setup will limit the number of articles that are in cats and subcats and will make things pretty clean. Most people articles will then (most likely) have two categories - "LGBT widget makers" and "LGBT people from Peru". Often the second category will be more specific with regard to sexual orientation.

Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good except for the last example (Bisexual widget makers from Peru): I think by adding too many variables to the categories (gay/lesbian/bi + writer/singer/plumber/etc + peru/australia/jamaica/etc) the number of necessary categories will multiply beyond manageability (number of cats necessary = 4 (lgbt) * # of occupations * # of countries = tens of thousands of cats). To avoid this, maybe we should cut off the LGBT occupation categories at occupation, so Oscar Wilde would have Category:Gay people from Ireland, Category:Gay dramatists and playwrights, and Category:Irish dramatists and playwrights. Fireplace (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hm - sorta kinda? That last set of categories wouldn't be created until absolutely necessary. A person might be in "Bisexual widget makers" and "LGBT people from Peru". Then, if the intersection becomes large enough, the "Bisexual widget makers from Peru" would be created. A good example of this is our Category:LGBT musicians. It's almost empty because everyone's in "Lesbian musicians", "Bisexual musicians", etc. And the sub-sub cat "Lesbian musicians from the United States" could probably be created and populated.
What I might not have stated explicitly is that most people would have two categories of "ours" - a place and an occupation. Only when we have enough of the intersection would we create the cat for it - then that person would only have one of "our" cats. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Addendum re: the math - at the moment, the location cats are staying general - "LGBT people from..." - it's the occupation ones that would be split out 4* -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a clarification since it's not listed: the intent is to have "Transgendered widget makers", as one of the subcats of LGBT w.m. correct? Aleta (Sing) 02:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Template question

  • I've noticed a discontinuity between the LGBT Project's template banner and others: e.g. - {{Template:LGBTProject}} vs. {{Template:WikiProject New York City}}. Also, the Importance parameter isn't supported in this one. I looked at the code for the two examples and can probably fix the LGBT template, but I have no idea what to do after that. Is there a specific process or place? Also, shouldn't the {{LGBTProject}} name be changed to {{WikiProject LGBT sidebar}} or {{WikiProject LGBT Studies}} to use the same canonical format as the other projects I've seen? Or at least support both template invocations (using the same template code)? If anyone is sufficiently experienced in Wiki template design and usage to answer, I would appreciate it. Even if just to know why it is, or is not, a good idea and where to find extensive information on template design. It's something that's looks interesting, and potentially useful, based on my programing background. Thanks — Becksguy (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure {{WikiProject LGBT sidebar}} already points to the current template, so feel free to use that one if you'd like. At one point we discussed adding importance and decided against it, though I'm pretty sure that discussion was a while ago. If you have any questions about templates or design, I've done a few :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it better to avoid redirects when we can? Also, I know that we aren't the only project to deviate from the "Wikiproject X" style - for instance, {{PrimateTalk}}. Eh, I just don't see it as that important, frankly. Aleta (Sing) 02:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it isn't that important. It's my anal retentative tendencies speaking and a strong curiosity about how templates (as well as other things) work. And since the Importance issue was already decided, I'm dropping the whole subject (except to learn more about templates). There is enough here to keep all of us busy without that. Thanks for responding, both of you. — Becksguy (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
And seriously - if you have any questions, lemme know. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

gay radio stations?

Is there no page with a list of gay radio stations as there is for Radio stations in Omaha, Nebraska for instance?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There are gay radio stations in Omaha?!?!? :)
I don't believe there's a list, but there is Category:LGBT radio stations. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Well there must be at least one! Anyway this category is a crying shame! I am positive there must be lots more gay radio stations in this whole wide world! Where are they?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest renaming to gay radio programs as I think there is a shortage of stations but a long history of programs. Benjiboi 13:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

James I

I know it seems repetitive, but James I of England could use some input from others - I'm getting frustrated. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I just read the talk page...I also recently read the talk page of Muhammed, where there is a hot argument over providing images of the prophet. In both, it's just clear that nothing will get resolved on a talk page. I'm trying to determine if 1. my involvement would help., 2. if I would spend the energy you, Jeffpw, and Allstarecho have in arguing with critics of the category LGBT royals. Way back in my former life as a teacher, arguing with students about *why* they couldn't throw pencils at each other just got shortened to me blurting "Rules," and the argument was over. Can you devise a formally worded statement that expresses what it needs to express and just use that (historians have written about James I's relationships with men. That qualifies him, in modern terms, as bisexual. He is thus included within the category of LGBT royalty.)? Then post it every time someone decides to argue, yet again, with the existence of the category, because quite honestly, that's as far as I would go in time and energy in an endeavor that seems so fruitless in this context. Maybe you could even keep count, as in: This point has been brought up xx times. Post the rules, then the consequences. Sorry if I'm not more helpful here, but I think more people arguing with the critics of the category aren't going to persuade them to leave it alone. --Moni3 (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving sections from Homosexuality to Gay

Five sections were just moved from Homosexuality to Gay. Please look at the changes and at the start of a discussion here and comment as appropriate. — Becksguy (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: The moves were reverted by Fireplace. Lets see what happens now. — Becksguy (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy new year and Collaboration

Happy New Year to you all. I recently went through all our Jumpaclasses and tallied them up, and 2007's winner is Fluffball70 (talk · contribs) with 12 points! As her prize, she has chosen LGBT symbols as this month's Collaboration. Can we make an extra special effort on this as a thankyou? ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats Fluffball70! and excellent choice, I've fluffed the lede a bit and will be happy to take a try at reffing some items after others have had a go at it. Benjiboi 14:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you everyone and I am honoured at having the choice! I felt that this article needed help and was something that all LGBT people across the world and from all walks of life could work on. Fluffball70 (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Mary Stachowicz

What happened to her was horrible, but does anyone else think this POV article needs to be cleaned up?

The opening paragraph includes "Nicholas Gutierrez had resented her questioning his gay lifestyle choices." Most of the sources are from Conservative Christian websites, with the titles of the articles being stuff like "Man Raped and Murdered Woman because she Vocally Opposed Gay Lifestyle says Defense Lawyer" and "'Gay' Reaction to Mrs. Stachowicz’s Murder: Silence to Applause." --Silvestris (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely needs cleanup. Could do with some more mainstream sources. (edit: which I'm struggling to find...) --BelovedFreak 21:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if they qualify as mainstream, but here are some articles. [5][6]--Silvestris (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least they come from a different angle, but it's a pity there doesn't seem to be any coverage from major news sources.--BelovedFreak 22:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I added some sources from the Chicago Sun-Times, at least the factual information about the murder, arrest, and trial. If I need to find anything else to remove the neutrality tag, let me know and I can look for it. --Moni3 (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done, Moni, that helps a lot. I've removed the neutrality tag as I think it's much better now. One thing I'm not sure of is the sentence in the lead that says "what has been labeled a hate crime". It's hard for me to tell from the article & the sources I've found online, but was it widely labelled as a hate-crime? Or just by some conservative/Catholic groups. If it was widely called a hate-crime by all kinds of people, then fair enough, but if it was just those groups, or just a few people calling it that, then maybe it's best to make that a bit more clear. But, as I say, it's not really clear to me, maybe you could help having seen the Sun-Times articles.--BelovedFreak 00:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't even read the Catholic sources, but The Washington Times labeled it a hate crime. So, widely? I don't know. I suppose it would be accurate to say it was labeled a hate crime by conservative groups. --Moni3 (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeshayahu Leibowitz

Someone has deleted my bit on his take on homosexuality [7]. It was referenced from the Journal of Homosexuality. The person who deleted it explained why on the talkpage [8]. I think it should be reverted it back again (it had already been deleted and I'd put it back) because it's not like I had written an overkill long passage on it, and it feels like that person is simply deleting valid info. For the record, they also added another bit [9] which is not referenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Referenced information, in my view, trumps reverts from anonymous editors who can't say why they're reverting other than not important enough. Single editors don't make that determination. It was important enough for the guy to talk about it. --Moni3 (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted, replied and added note to anon's page. Benjiboi 00:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you - glad we agree.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Judy Garland as gay icon on DYK

If all goes well Judy Garland as gay icon should be the lead (with photo) at DYK, which runs on the mainpage. I got the nom in pretty much at the last minute so it's not terribly zingy but congrats to Otto for a stellar article and keep an eye out for those who may want to give ol' Judy some special attention. Benjiboi 00:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bisexual Awareness Month

FYI... January is Bisexual Awareness Month in Utah. See Utah Pride Center. Aleta (Sing) 03:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

...Why is *Utah*, of all places, holding a big bi party and didn't bother to inform any of the rest of us? I want to play. :( Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure they'd be happy to have you join them!  :) Aleta (Sing) 20:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It's Bisexual Awareness Month? I had no idea! ;-) --Tyrfing (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yayy!!! Wheeeee .... I'd no idea. How on earth does one celebrate? - Alison 04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (at least, I guess we could try bringing bisexuality to a GA status article :) )

possible addition -- James Brooke

I know nothing about this colonial adventurer, but came across the article at James Brooke and discovered that although he won a kingdom, he had no legitimate issue to pass it on to, his closest relationships being with adolescent boys. Is it worth adding him to a LGBT category? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would do it. Thanks for the heads up. I tagged him. --Moni3 (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!BrainyBabe (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: There is already opposition to his addition to this category. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

another DWM

Okay, here's another query. Richard Halliburton is already tagged. On the talk page I found the following:

Here's the most relevant passage from André Soares, Beyond Paradise: The Life of Ramon Novarro, St. Martin's Press, 2002. ISBN 0-312-28231-1.
p.163: …Novarro spent much of… late 1930 in the company of… Richard Halliburton, whom he probably men through Pancho Barnes [(Florence Barnes)]. … [In] The Royal Road of Romance (sic)… he narrates some of his notorious capers—though carefully omitting any mention of his sexual orientation and frequent libidinous escapades. Some reports have contended that Novarro and Halliburton were more than just pals, but there is no indication of an affair in Halliburton's lettters to their common gay friend Noël Sullivan, even though the adventurer was generally quite open about his romantic and sexual romps in his correspondence. …"
At p.302, Soares asserts that Paul Mooney, who disappeared with Halliburton on his fatal sea voyage, was his lover.
Also, a note on p.343 (endnote related to p.163) refers to Michael Blankenship, "A Fellow Traveller", The Advocate, July 18, 1989 for discussion of Halliburton's sexuality. He says that Ellenberger's Ramon Novarro and "the gay press" have asserted a sexual relationship between Halliburton and Novarro, which he sees as possible but unproven.

So, my question is, does anyone here have access to The Advocate archives to find out more from Blankenship's article? Thanks. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This might help:
And this says "it's abundantly clear from his correspondence" - though not where to find any of his correspondence :)
The footnote in Soares' book, though, mentions that "letters can be found in Sullivan" - though, again, no indication about where/what that is - "Noel Sullivan" is mentioned in the text many times, though I can't find any books by him that are about halliburton. The footnote also mentions:
  • Ellenberger, Allan R. (1999). Ramon Novarro: A Biography of the Silent Film Idol, 1899-1968. McFarland & Company. p. 162. ISBN 0786400994. 
Don't know if that helps... :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The glbtq writer admits to getting most of his material from Wikipedia (circular spam!) but also mentions a 1982 book -- does anyone here have a copy? My rough paraphrase: The Gay Book of Days by Martin Greif, which references Playing The Game by Roger Austen, mentioning 'affairs' with Rod La Roque and Ramon Navarro. Halliburton "settled down with another bachelor in Laguna Beach". Greif quotes John Paul Hudson as follows: "Halliburton certainly did a lot of straight-approved things, though his exploits were self-stretching and not competitive - which is the gay way". BrainyBabe (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Shout out to the Homeys

Yo what up homos--er--homeys? Happy New Year. --David Shankbone 05:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, David! Thank you! I love me some Ms Peru! And I'd been wondering where you were... Hippo Gnu Deer! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
How odd is it that my eyes went to Ms. Peru's bosom? Then to the rings, thinking, "How can she get anything done with all that?" --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I was in Israel, hanging with Shi-Pe, better known as President Shimon Peres. I had been meaning to upload Coco Peru photos since November. I also have an interview still to publish with Peru - and it's an interesting one about Ugly Betty stealing a storyline. --David Shankbone 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

Are former actors who appeared in gay pornography really considered in the scope of the LGBT Wikiproject? Avruchtalk 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes.  :) Aleta (Sing) 20:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

redlinks on template

A bit drained from a few of my special admirers; could someone else check on some of the redlinks on {{LGBT sidebar}}? 11:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot depends on whether we want to create the new articles to match the links or delete the links. I deleted the LGBT Studies link because it was only a redirect page to Queer Studies. Pi 12:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone more versed in the WP LGBT Studies project needs to look over the 6 edits made by User:Fokion today. From what I can tell, they all appear to be valid but the template sure did go through an overhaul. -- ALLSTARecho 15:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Pierre André de Suffren

He was gay apparently [10]. It would be good to find more references perhaps - this is bound to create some controversy.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we need more references? The book itself seems to cite three references - my only fear is that it is a bit succinct.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
While the article has been around since 2003, it has almost no sources on it. It's woefully POV-written. So *anything* you add in the way of referenced material will be an improvement in my book :) Go back to the three sources if you get the chance, just to see if there's more material for a "Private life" section in the article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, I have heard of this man since I was a little boy, and I have never - ever - heard that he was gay before. Then again this could be a perfect example of the 'shaming of gender' (Judith Butler) or homophobia-driven ignorance/silence (Eve Sedgwick).Zigzig20s (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
After a bunch of Google searching, I'd have to agree that this is probably a red herring. The "Who's Who" book is the only source I've found, though it's repeated on a couple sites (, If you want to be sure, I'd find those original three sources and see what they say. The French probably won't be an issue for you, so go for it! :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
They're not on google books...What do you reckon?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
There's this place called a "library".... :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Haha - unfortunately I am not in the country of wine and cheese at the moment. The local library - here in the adopted homeland of Henry James and Madonna - doesn't seem to have ever heard of the regional hero of my youth.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:LGBT rights activists the United States

It's red. See Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. Is there a similar, more widely-used category?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Try Category:LGBT rights activists from the United States =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy discussion

There's an important policy discussion relevant to this project at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Religous Beliefs and Sexual Orientation. It has to do with when sexual orientation (and religious beliefs) used for category tags or mentioned at all in articles about living people. Aleta (Sing) 20:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ken Hutcherson needs some lovin'

I mean the article on Ken Hutcherson, not the man himself (although you know what they say about vociferous homophobes....)

I rolled back some POV edits made yesterday. While trying to work out how to put his notability as an internationally known bigot back into the lede, I realized that the reference citations are total mess. I won't be able to tackle him until late tonight, so if anyone else wants to take a stab at him -- I mean at fixing the article -- feel free. TechBear (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to Aleta for her efforts. I see that the article was much more of a mess than I had thought, and she is doing a bang-up job cleaning it up. TechBear (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, it's a mess.  :) I'm taking a break on it for now, so it won't hurt my feelings if you want to jump back in (or anyone). :D Aleta (Sing) 20:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
At best it will be latter tonight, after I get home from work. TechBear (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've done more, but there's still fun for everyone! <grin> Aleta (Sing) 04:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing at Alfred Kinsey

I'm having trouble with an editor on a smear campaign against Alfred Kinsey. Many of his edits and suggestions are not in line with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:BIO and other policies. I've been trying to reign him in, but he is very persistent and confrontational. If other editors could weigh in on the discussions, it would be most appreciated. Kaldari (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I added some info for you..don't know if that makes it better or worse... --Moni3 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Flavio Alves

Could anyone else please check up on this bio of gay Brazilian asylum actvist Flavio Alves? The article seems to be under a bit of an unwelcome overhaul and this may have to do with his work for Hillary Clinton. Primary author accused of autobiography, which may be true but they also seem to just be a very new editor. Benjiboi 23:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to exist. That's the first probelm I guess... --Tyrfing (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It was deleted, wrongly, in my opinion, by an admin who was able and felt justified in doing so. I hope it is restored but I don't have the energy myself to deal with it. Benjiboi 03:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Maiden of Amherst needs your love

Emily Dickinson is up for peer review in the big peer review, but you guys are a talented crew. Can some of you take a look at it? The primary author is working on FA, already having passed GA. Here's LGBT peer review. --Moni3 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any mention of her sexuality (beyond the fact that she was married) why is it LGBT related? --Tyrfing (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I wrote something on the main peer review page, not realizing there was also an LGBT page. William P. Coleman (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Dickinson had a tumultuous relationship with her sister-in-law with whom she wrote over 300 letters and several poems to/about. That information is included in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ctrl + F, not always your friend. --Tyrfing (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ask a Dumb Question..

I'm fairly new to wikipedia. Can someone refresh my memory as to the tag to place on the pages of supporters of GLBT issues? In particular, I'm speaking of Martie Maguire and Emily Robison, and yes, I have documentation to use to back it up. Anybody? Thanks. --leahtwosaints (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Leahtwosaints! There isn't so much a "tag" to use for supporters of LGBT issues. If it's a large part of the person's life or notability, the appropriate category can be used - see Category:LGBT rights activists or one of it's subcats.
In addition, consider putting {{LGBTProject}} on the article's talk page.
Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior AfD

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior is up for AfD. Benjiboi 17:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 8#Category:Queer Wikipedians

See the discussion regarding LGBTQ user categories at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 8#Category:Queer Wikipedians. See also: Wikipedia:Categorization. Hyacinth (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That was deleted rather quickly wasn't it? I wonder why that was. I thought they usually gave it a few days, and ascertained a consensus first? --Tyrfing (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm new here, so don't really understand the political ins and outs. Is it still possible to get this reversed? I was thinking of writing a complaint at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 8#Category:Queer Wikipedians if there's any chance it would do any good. I mean, what makes them possibly imagine that the majority has a right to decide whether we, the minority, can define ourselves the way we want. -- (signed) Just another queer William P. Coleman (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think that a category is antonymous with queer? Queer is supposed to mean antinormative; surely a category is something of a norm, isn't it?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
In other words, the term 'queer' is performatively categorical/normative, and thereby anti-queer, surely?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why was this deleted? Look at Category:Wikipedians; if Wikipedians can be categorized by religion, ethniticy and nationality, cancer survival, even motorcycle ownership, then why can't we be categorized by LGBT affiliation? This is discrimination! Photouploaded (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed this thread... this (closing deletion review) seems to be rule by fiat, rather than a gauge of consensus (much like the closing of the AfD). Fireplace (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Per several suggestions at the deletion review(s), I have now created Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues. Feel free to add yourself to this category by adding the above text to your user page.
If you would like to discuss the creation of this category, please do so here. Photouploaded (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon

Don't you think this should be split into two pages, with another page for the Alice B Toklas Democratic Club?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on expanding this page quite a bit right now, in my sandbox. Not sure that it should be split, but I think the Alice B Toklas Democratic Club should get its own page. --Moni3 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Alice B Toklas Democratic Club definitely should get its own page, (two SF-based LGBT website/papers are at and Under normal circumstatnces i would agree that maybe Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon should be split but they do seem to operate and function as a couple in everything they do and are always spoken of together. Benjiboi 23:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mabel Dodge Luhan

SatyrTN has decided she was not a bisexual, and I'm not sure why. I added a reference from an academic history book, and there is no reference to prove that she was not a bisexual. The reference seems serious enough to me - again, it is a published and fairly popular academic history book. What is more, Lillian Faderman says that Luhan acknowledges her bisexuality in her very memoirs - how can this be disproved? Maybe SatyrTN wants the reference from the memoirs - I have not read them, nor do I have the time atm. I am confused with regards to this politics of silence concerning this bisexual. Not to be too queeny about it - and after all why not? - but I am disappointed in SatyrTN.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Brad Renfro was found dead today. One of my homo crushes is now gone. :[ ALLSTARecho 07:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Roe

Need some help researching Norma McCorvey, the original "Roe" in "Roe v. Wade". Evidently she was involved in a lesbian relationship at the time of the lawsuit, but I have no clue what she's doing now. Anyone feel like researching her? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

After reading the talk page, she may or may not have been in said relationship... -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
In her biography I am Roe (1994), she admits to being in a lesbian relationship, she worked in gay bars in the late 1960s, and her homosexuality is the reason she lost custody of one child to her mother. This I got from a review of the book, not by reading the book itself. But that gives a starting point. Let me see what else I can find. --Moni3 (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
By the time she had another affair and was pregnant with her third child, which became the Roe baby, she was 21. "I never considered myself a lesbian then," she recalls. "I only ever slept with four or five men, but I got pregnant with three of them." It was then that she met Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, the lawyers who would take the Roe case all the way to the US Supreme Court. Connie Gonzalez, who has been McCorvey's partner for the last 21 years, is 63. Her hands look strong and though she says little, there is a keenness in her eyes that misses nothing. Whereas McCorvey is skittish, talking like a teenager and trying very hard to be liked; her attention span about 30 seconds a topic. She looks nothing like a grandmother as she proudly displays a picture of her baby granddaughter, Jordan, whose mother is Melissa. (McCorvey and her daughter have had intermittent contact through the years.) The Guardian (London) August 4, 1994 A CHOICE VOICED; Norma McCorvey had to change her name after her landmark court case which established the right to abortion. Here she tells her story to Alex Witchel BYLINE: Alex Witchel SECTION: THE GUARDIAN FOREIGN PAGE; Pg. 14
When pro-choice icon Norma McCorvey announced her conversion to Christianity in August, someone rented a billboard in north Dallas proclaiming, "Welcome to the Lord Jesus Christ, Norma!" But she sent conflicting signals, saying she still favored first-trimester abortions and was maintaining her lesbian relationship with her housemate, Connie Gonzales, 64. That's all changed now, Miss McCorvey says in her first interview since the media storm after her Aug. 8 baptism in a Dallas swimming pool. "I am not a lesbian. I'm just a child in Christ now," she says, adding that her relationship with Miss Gonzales has been platonic the past three years. The Washington Times January 21, 1996, Sunday, Final Edition Jane Roe's 'turn to God' complete ; She's on crusade for unborn babies BYLINE: Julia Duin; THE WASHINGTON TIMES SECTION: Part A; Pg. A1
This sounds more like a case similar to Little Richard. Was gay, swears she's not now. Umkay. --Moni3 (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Ex-gay. That totally clears things up. NOT! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


List of LGBT couples at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_16#16_January_2008 cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unity II

Please see Talk:Unity II. Whenever I see a project tag on the talk of a speedy candidate, I remove the tag to at least give the interested project members a shot at the article before deletion. This article is neglected (no edits since July 07). Happy editing, Keeper | 76 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleanor Roosevelt

See [11]. Where in the article should I add a reference as to her bisexuality and her lesbian relationship with Lorena Hickok? I'm tempted to put it in 'marriage and family life', but maybe I'm being too antinormative - then again...Zigzig20s (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I would go with someplace in #Personal life - maybe in "Franklin's affair"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
See new edit by skeptical user [12]. He also removed them here [13]. I yet have to add something about it on her page - the user used the fact that there is nothing there to buttress his politics of silence - but this is bound to create many infelicitous edits by "skeptical" users I think. It would be nice if more people could give me a hand.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to use my reference more in line with what Lillian Faderman says [14], but I think the other user's quote is too long by comparison, and I probably sound too lenient. Humph.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added a nuanced and reference part on Eleanor Roosevelt's page. I'm quite busy though, I hope other people can help if need be.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Skeptics on talkpage, despite the nuance and the references...Sigh.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Posted at Talk:Non-heterosexuals

"I would consider this for deletion
"It's gender-studies cruft. How can an article about this term be much more than a bare-bones stub? Feel free to prove me wrong...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)"

I'm copying it here in case anyone wants to expand this stub before HSR nominates it for deletion. Aleta (Sing) 15:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's just about a neologism wouldn't it be better in Wiktionary? --Tyrfing (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Big Project Collaboration

I'm checking to see if anyone here is interested in bringing a core article to GA status or more. I was thinking the Stonewall Riots, just to think big. I have access to a lot of information and research. I'm thinking of a 2-month long collaboration. Anyone willing to help out with research, copy editing, MOS crap precision? Or does anyone else have a core article in mind? --Moni3 (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I could certainly help with copyediting, grammar, etc. Otherwise, I'm not all that good with history research. (People go into mathematics because they hate library research and all that stuff.) OTOH, I have a carton or two of old gay liberation material from when I was active in the movement back in the 70's, so I might have some by-now rare books with descriptions. I'd have to look.
If you want to initiate doing something "big," this seems like a good suggestion.
If we get anywhere I have other projects that might be good later on. I'm extremely concerned about gay youth -- teen suicide, homelessness, obstacles to building stable personality, youth that's wasted-if-not-formally-abused and ensuing wasted lives. You might want to look, for example, at a recent entry in my blog, and also many links in my sidebar. We can't write here in the grossly over-opinionated way I do there -- but on the other hand a lot of young people must look in WP for info, and what we have now is far too little and far too cold, even for an encyclopedia. We could do a lot more for them, while still staying within officially imposed guidelines, policies, commands, and commandments. William P. Coleman (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Queer Japan articles?

FYI- It has been suggested for several months that Sexual Minorities in Japan be merged into LGBT rights in Japan. Seems like a good idea to me. Other opinions? Queerudite (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

LGB people monitoring

I recently enlisted Bradford LGBT to help out with our LGB people lists - they mean well, bless them , but they're not Wikipedians, so if you see any IP addresses contributing but making a bit of a mess, do clean up after the dears if you spot it. Ta, Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

New LGBT-related Wikipedia user category

Per several suggestions at the deletion review for Category:Queer Wikipedians, I have now created Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues. Feel free to add yourself to this category by adding this text to your user page: [[Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues]] — Photouploaded (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I added it. Personally, I think we should have a category named "Gayass Wikipedians". Just so there's no kind of misunderstanding about if the user is phenomenally flaming gay or not. --Moni3 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Avowed homosexual would also work. Benjiboi 23:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This one? Category:Gayass Wikipedians ALLSTARecho 02:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! I just added that. That is classic. How likely will this category get deleted? --Moni3 (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I imagine it will be soon enough., and ironically, by one of our own I'd guess. *cuts eyes at Satyr* lol ALLSTARecho 03:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
LOL - I was the third one to add it :) I don't see why the original got deleted in the first place! =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone for a userbox?
{{User:Allstarecho/gayass}} 010.jpg
Gay flag.svg
This user's flame burns phenomenally bright, as this user is an avowed homosexual and official Gayass Wikipedian! 010.jpg
A male Buttock.JPG

haha ALLSTARecho 05:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Very cool, indeed!! I installed the gayass userbox in my babel. . . . Technical problem, though -- how come I'm listed correctly alphabetically in the W's for gayass, but me and a few others are for some reason in the U's for Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues. Did I mess something up? William P. Coleman (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I fixed it for you. Check the history of your userpage as to how. ;] ALLSTARecho 06:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Aha! . . . Thanks! William P. Coleman (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And while I'm at my shameless promotion point, here's another people might enjoy..

Jeff Palmer.jpg  This user enjoys gay  porn..
              .. a lot!
Two of them - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto18-08-2002.jpg

Don't be shy. ;] lol ALLSTARecho 06:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I really have to thank you again. Gives new and wonderful meaning to "ROTFLMAO!" . . . Er, uh, could you make an improved, POTD version where the picture changes every day? William P. Coleman (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Ha! I probably could but the rest of the images would be 12th century paintings. lol
I come up with some of the coolest ideas. Make us a userbox with a sad face complaining about the quality and availability of lesbian porn. Or, "This user knows there's no such thing as lesbian porn outside of Sarah Waters and Ann Bannon." Also, I'm under "U" for "user" in the gayass Wikipedian alphabet. What gives? --Moni3 (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Being under "U".. I fixed it for you. Check the history of your userpage as to how. ;] ALLSTARecho 16:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sweet! Thank you, Allstarecho, my love. --Moni3 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And just for you Moni... {{User:Allstarecho/lp}}

Cream (Lesbian show V).jpg This user knows there's no such thing as lesbian porn outside of Sarah Waters and Ann Bannon.

It was either that image or this one:

Scuola di fontainebleau, presunti ritratti di gabrielle d'estrées sua sorella la duchessa di villars, 1594 ca. 04.jpg

lol ALLSTARecho 16:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note, Category:Gayass Wikipedians is now listed at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Gayass Wikipedians. ALLSTARecho 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoilsports ;-)--Tyrfing (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to try on this for size: 010.jpg
Gay flag.svg
This user's flame burns phenomenally bright, as this user is decidedly queer and is an official Gayass Wikipedian! 010.jpg
A male Buttock.JPG

:) Photouploaded (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

List of LGBT couples AfD, and ref help needed

List of LGBT couples is up for deletion and a few of us are trying to reference the outstanding list or removed unverifiable ones to the talk page. We only have 88 couples left to confirm, if each of you would do fifty or so that would be so super! Thanks! Benjiboi 01:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Update. All the living folks have been reffed just the historical ones remain. Benjiboi 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Níð has been on our peer review page since August with no comments. (I'm as guilty as anyone!) The main author very much would like some feedback. I've just made a few comments. If anyone else would care to look at it, and comment, I think TlatoSMD would greatly appreciate it. Aleta (Sing) 03:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit. If others could look at it to help ensure the lede makes sense if nothing else would be helpful. The article seems quite amazing. Benjiboi 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Some comments I made at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Gayass Wikipedians and that could get moved/deleted after I sign off

(First, though, my thanks to the LGBT group, especially AllstarEcho, for being the only ones at Wikipedia to make my brief, unhappy stay here brighter, nicer, more literate, and more humane.)

  • Another phenomenally flaming keep . . . although you should ignore anything I write because this is my last WP edit before I sign off on my user page and delete all but one of the messages on my talk page, asking that no further messages be left there. So don't bother reading this. And don't bother replying because I won't be here.
    • Why am I leaving WP? . . . A major reason is the fact that you're even having this discussion at all -- about a category for we LGBT people to define ourselves as such. Some of you speak here in a rational tone of voice and even feel aggrieved and saddened that LGBT's are getting emotional and accusing others of bias. But -- if you possibly can -- try to step back and get some perspective. Do you really imagine that it's okay for the majority to vote on -- or attempt to reach consensus on -- whether a minority that's persecuted in society should be allowed to identify themselves as such? Where exactly do you get your nerve?
    • Why is it relevant to WP collaboration to have a category for LGBT Wikipedians? . . . Because it's inherent in the nature of LGBT oppression in society that we're asked to hide. It's fundamental to the mechanism: the majority in society thinks it's okay to persecute, discriminate against, or even jail LGBTs because they're comfortable with the idea that we're a small advocacy fringe with an antisocial agenda. Meanwhile, the truth is that we're a relatively large minority (probably between 6 and 10%) that routinely goes about our business participating in and making contributions to society, just like everyone else. Except we're pressured to be invisible -- so our daily lives don't count like everyone else's -- and therefore it's okay to dismiss us. . . . And now, you at Wikipedia, by denying us a category, are explicitly requiring us to do the same -- and to cooperate in the very mechanism that oppresses us. You're perfectly happy to accept the contributions our expertise and work can make to ten thousand topics on WP, but you won't let us identify ourselves (even within the basic anonymity and collaborativeness of WP editing) as LGBT and so create even very limited recognition noticing that we're citizens here too. And how, exactly is that supposed to affect our morale? Are we supposed to feel happy in our work? Is it supposed to be "collaborative" when we LGBTs know that we're second-class, only here on condition that we don't break our pretense of "normality."
    • Why are we insisting now on the insulting, derogatory term, "gayass?" . . . The simple answer is that we tried nicely to get several polite synonyms recognized -- and you turned us down on all of them. Society already makes us feel like a bunch of "faggots," "dykes," and "gayasses," so our best hope in the face of the politely phrased, legalistic insult that WP has offered us is to turn around a less polite term for the same attitude and wear it as a badge of pride. Any questions?
    • Am I leaving WP solely because it won't recognize the contributions of LBGTs as such? . . . Well, I do think that would be a good reason by itself. Why should I work as a volunteer in a place where I'm unmentionable? . . . But, actually, I think that this "debate" is symptomatic of my larger disappointment with WP. The process and rules and policies have run away with it -- the vast majority of topics here are nearly unpopulated with editors, while most of the discussions I've happened on (including this one) are obsessively legalistic and lacking in perspective and common sense. This system allows editors with agendas to act arbitrarily while seeming to quote the rules. A good example is the very editor Avruchtalk who is responsible for nominating Category:Gayass Wikipedians for deletion. Coincidentally, he happens, as the result of a different discussion, to also be immediately responsible for my decision to leave.
    • Aren't I supposed to assume good faith? . . . Yes. That's precisely the problem. If I were to stay here, then assuming good faith would have to be a cornerstone. But, I just can't do that. A lot of you do have good faith. But too many of you, like Avruchtalk, have faith only in their own wishes, opinions, and dogma -- and are perfectly willing to game the system to get their way. I have too much evidence to the contrary to be able to make other people's good faith an automatic assumption -- and I refuse to work in that atmosphere. I have too many other non-WP projects where I can be constructive and effective.
    • Am I being insulting? . . . Perhaps. . . . But I don't think I created this situation. I came to WP with the best hope in the world of being a civic-minded member of the community and making a constructive contribution.
    • Will Avruchtalk -- or someone else -- unilaterally decide (as he did last night in a different discussion) that my comments here are too long and (according to his private interpretation) too off-topic, and therefore need to be deleted, archived, or moved to someplace safely irrelevant? . . . Very possibly.
    • William P. Coleman (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you have noticed, but for some time, I have had on my page "Category:People who remain Wikipedians despite frequently getting really annoyed by the whole thing". It's red, but if you click on it you can actually see that the category has been formed with my name in it even if it does not, technically, exist. If Gayass is deleted, all it means if they're going to delete the blurb - they can't do anything about throwing out the people in it. Keep the userbox on your pages and they can't touch you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Important point - removing the category does not, and is of course not intended to, remove the editors. I resent strongly the implication of anti-gay bias on my part that Coleman has left in a number of places today. Additionally, I am disappointed that no one has troubled to refute the clearly unfounded and out of line accusation. Its facile reasoning, in my mind: I nominated a single category for deletion (and have taken essentially no other action related to LGBT articles) and because Coleman is insulted I must be part of a Wiki-conspiracy to discriminate against gay people. Simply not the case. I tried to be conciliatory and explain my actions to Coleman on his talk page, but to no avail apparently. The messages are in his history - I notice he doesn't leave them up for others to judge. Avruchtalk 23:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't followed all of the conversation, but I don't think everyone thinks you are part of some anti-LGBT conspiracy, or even just yourself are anti-LGBT just because you nominated that category for deletion. I certainly don't. Moni says below that she never intended it as a serious suggestion. I use user categories, but can't get too worked up about whether a given one exists or not, or if one should exist or not. I think folks on both sides (of any user category dispute, not only this one) can worry a little too much about it. There are other things to do on WP. Aleta (Sing) 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
We do sometime get LGBT editors who can't see the woods for all the flaming gayass trees, and this is pretty much what has happened here. Just write it off. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I love the image of "flaming gayass trees"! :D Aleta (Sing) 01:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
No, do not write it off. Aside from the points he made about Avruch, the rest of his concerns are quite valid. ALLSTAR echo 03:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I certainly never intended for my category idea to be serious or longstanding. I thought it a lark that it was actually turned into a category. Fun for a very few people. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I left Wikipedia, Avruchtalk has made obviously sincere attempts to explain that he did not intend prejudice, and he's made several gestures of reconciliation, of which withdrawing the deletion nomination was only one. There may have been mutual misunderstanding, but it's more important that there clearly was no malice, as there was none on my part either. I accept his explanations, I thank him for his gestures, I bear him no ill will, and I apologize for whatever degree I was the cause of our misunderstanding.

My frustration with Wikipedia has therefore cooled down to just below the boiling point and I am returning.

I would like to very sincerely thank several kind people who spoke decently about gays and/or kindly about me during the discussion.William P. Coleman (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

/me creates Category:Gayass Wikipedians In North America in America in Alabama who watch NFL and who smoke pipes and who love math and who know Docking Sleeves is what it's all about more so than the Hokey Pokey -- ALLSTAR echo 05:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I can do gayass -- and I can do math -- but the rest, I don't even know what you're talking about. (signed) a northern boy from a previous generation William P. Coleman (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Charles Anglin

Members of this project might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Anglin. PKT (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Work on the LGB list

As you know, it is coming up to LGBT History month here in sunny England, and in recognition of that I have been working extra hard on our LGB people list (although admittedly I've mostly been removing straight people - still knocked 50 people off though). Today, my friend Josh and I are even having a special trip to the library to work on it. Come join us! We're down to just 800 people (from 2000) now - we might well get it done in time if we just keep at it. Please... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusion about scope of List of LGBT couples

The scope of List of LGBT couples is not entirely clear to me. I would appreciate your help with this question. Thanks! Photouploaded (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? No, wait. What is this?

English is fun and to hell with the MOS! If you don't like the word, change it! Or is this some kind of joke? --Moni3 (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

... Taz hate PC. I mean what is the point? Does anyone find the word Lesbian to be derogatory. Also what on earth is "positive language"? --Tyrfing (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
And "MOS"...? :? --Tyrfing (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
MOS is the Manual of Style WP:MOS, the infinite list of rules for punctuation and grammar for articles here - ones you never learned in school, for some reason. It's the primary cause of my shouting "Christ almighty!" when folks oppose my FACs. --Moni3 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Another hot lesbo up for peer review

Is this page a bit sleepy lately?

I placed Barbara Gittings up for peer review here at LGBT and at WP:Biography just to see what kind of feedback I can get before putting it up for GA. I recently read a compelling FAC request claiming anyone who didn't read his article and comment was a lazy fart. He even put it in bold, too. I'm not sure how when he did it it was funny, and when I try it just seems annoying. --Moni3 (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes: on the Lists of "History of same-sex unions"

In the page of "History of same-sex unions", I've found the name "Diocletianus", but it must be a mistake. Therefore, I've changed his name to "Elagabalus". And also "Poppea" into "Poppaea".

I am Japanese and have many data on historical pederastic couples in Japanese history. And I've found so many famous couples were lacking in the "Historical pederastic couples". (e.g.) Oda Nobunaga and Maeda Toshiie. Maeda Toshiie was one of the most renowned beloved boy of Oda Nobunaga. Of course there were so many other beloved pageboys of Oda Nobunaga. And Tokugawa Ieyasu's most beloved boy Ii Manchiyo was Ii Naomasa(his adult name). (talk:Hadrianvs et antinovs|talk]])a.k.a."sebastianvs").

Retrieved from "" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadrianvs et antinovs (talkcontribs) 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(posted on main page, moved by --Moni3 (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Category:Queer Wikipedians

There is a deletion review which can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_21#Category:Queer_Wikipedians. DuncanHill (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion of the recent uproar here. I'm inviting all the other gayasses to join in and see if we can't work toward some unified position to present at the discussion - maybe a move to "Queer" or "LGBT"? Hope you'll look it over. Thanks! --Phyesalis (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I was incredibly offended however months ago to find my "Bisexual Wikipedians" category removed by some bot due to an out-of-process and blatantly heterosexist ("what does gay have to do with Wikipedia?") argument which got it deleted. While I don't feel I am necessarily equipped to argue this in the DRV, I really hope there is a complete overturn.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Several heavyweight admins have joined the deletion review and spoken in well-reasoned terms. There have also been calls there lately to just go ahead and relist Queer Wikipedians thereby invoking an RfC that could potentially produce genuine consensus. (BTW: My humble opinion is that bisexuals could count as "queers," like the rest of us -- and that we ought to be inclusive and welcoming. Anyway, I think that the RFC has to be cast not as comment on Queers, but comment on self-identification categories as such. So, if the RfC is successful, then bisexuals and others could chose to have their own categories too.)

The deletion discussion has suggested that the relisting should be done by somebody experienced who understands the technicalities. However, no one has stepped up to do it. I think I've reasoned out ways to frame the summary of previous discussion in a perceptibly fair, comprehensive way. But, as a newbie, I still find the technical issues (how to "tag" the catergory, how to get the RfC listed, etc.) daunting. Depending on how much time I have for research tomorrow morning, I may take a crack at it. Good idea? Or no? William P. Coleman (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite the arguments advanced, the category:Queer Wikipedians deletion review has been closed as deletion endorsed. No attempt was made by the closing admin to acknowledge or address the policy issues raised. Even the comments of DGG were ignored. However, there is some good news. Avruch has created a category:LGBT Wikipedians and include a well considered and appropriate explanatory note, which you may want to read. DuncanHill and I have both commented on Avruch's talk page, expressing appreciation for his action. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't notice the discussion further down - will scroll down next time! Jay*Jay (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedian Demographics on Wikiversity: Sexuality and Relationships survey added

Hello all. After seeing a conversation on the Administrators's Noticeboard, I had replied that whether or not categories for "Wikipedians by sexual preference" were a good idea on Wikipedia, these sorts of categories would be more than appropriate on Wikiversity (both as part of the demographics resource and as a way of organizing "learning groups"). I finally had time today to add a survey about sexual preferences and opinions, if anyone would like to give it a spin.

The survey is very general (and incomplete), but I would be more than happy to help make surveys that are specifically aimed at the GLBT community (I'm honestly not quite sure what should be asked). The basic questions I included are the obvious one (are you hetero-/bi-/homo- sexual), and the others ones stem from topics I hear about on the radio: "is homosexual sex immoral?" and "is sexual preference genetically determined?" I didn't add one on "Gay marriage" yet because I'm not sure how "global" the issue is (is this just an American provincial thing, or is it discussed in other places as well?), and likewise "Gays in the military" (same reason).

As far as Category:Queer Wikipedians is concerned, I wasn't entirely sure whether the controversey was in the term "queer" or about the category in general (apparently Category:Christian Wikipedians is acceptable?), but it did strike me that a question about how one refers to their sexual preference (for example: "straight" vs. "heterosexual" vs. "...", etc.) could certainly have some merit.

I'm guessing this is the first most of you have heard of Wikimedian Demographics, but it's a learning resource aimed at learning how demographics works, but also about the dempgraphics of "we, the Wikimedians". The surveys are in the form of templates you fill out, and instructions are provided at every step (follow the wikilink and hopefully it will all make sense. Templates are editable, but the #if+#switch stuff can be a bit daunting for those without a good bit of experience, so don't be afraid to just point out problems for someone else to do the fixing. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A good idea - but a couple of gripes. 1) Requires an account at Wikiversity. 2) Instructions on the first page could be clearer. 3) Lack of anonymity - will deter some LGBT Wikipedians completing relevant fields (also likely to deter others from other fields). DuncanHill (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks DuncanHill... I'm glad you like the idea :). Responding to your gripes:
  1. It only takes a few seconds to make an account
  2. Sorry about that... things often seem much clearer to me than they are for Wikipedians (Wikibookians and Wikiversitans tend to be much more comfortable with templates)
  3. You can always use a different username than the one you "usually" use. When you create an account, you're more or less anonymous except for the CheckUsers, and the only "active" CU on Wikiversity is, well, me :), and I can only offer you my word that I would never use it for evil (or even personal) reasons.
Very cool to see a bunch of new survey takers today! Thanks guys, gals, and, um, gals :). --SB_Johnny | talk 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the survey, and for letting us know about it! (And well, at least for me, about Wikiversity in general!) Aleta (Sing) 23:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Queer Wikipedians (DRV results)

The DRV has now been closed. You can read the result at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_21. DuncanHill (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm baffled. Didn't exactly the same thing just happen there again?
Namely, that there was no consensus in that discussion and the closer simply substituted his own views for those expressed in the thread despite many voices to the contrary.
It seemed clear to me that if there were any consensus it was that the category should be reopened and immediately tagged for an RfC, asking whether non-collaborative, self-identification categories (in general, not just for sexuality) should or should not be allowed.
I don't even know where to go to register a complaint.
I can only repeat: Wikipedia baffles me. I understand science. I understand a lot of intricate things. But Wikipedia is way too much. William P. Coleman (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have asked the closing admin to explain his decision at his talk page, I will update when he responds. DuncanHill (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have had a discussion with the closing admin on his talk page, he makes some interesting points about how Wikipedia apparently works. DuncanHill (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I cannot believe how some editors - who I will assume good faith of - can see the need to ignore valid points in favour of a majority of misinformed (heterosexual) editors. Is there a DRVRV? Time to get pointy and kill off the religious categories. How does one define Christian anyway - is it self-identification, or must you adhere to strict doctrines? How does one objectively define what a Christian must and must not do? But god knows those categories would never, ever be deleted. What's the point of the User Categories system then? ~ZytheTalk to me! 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to say my manners don't agree with this page coming under the 'gayass' category, can it be removed please? I would try to get the LGBT categories back on track but frankly I'm too busy with research atm. And anyway I don't believe in categories, being a champion of antinormativity...Zigzig20s (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Duncan, I really do want to repeat my personal thanks to you for your consistent efforts to maintain fairness and access.
Update on one thing incorrect about the closer's summary: Nobody contended (as he reports) that deleting the category was unfair on the grounds that other sexualities had categories. The grounds were -- and are -- that other, non-sexuality, self-identification categories are allowed to exist and any motion towards deleting them is slow. It's not scientifically possible that the repeated, comprehensive moves to delete sexuality categories are due to random chance. There's a systematic, targeted effort.
There is evidently no consensus in Wikipedia at large that all such categories should be deleted. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many of them, with so many members.
If "Queer Wikipedians" were relisted, and then subsequently deleted after a sincere, Wiki-wide effort had been made to delete all self-identification categories, then the LGBT community would just have to realize that categories are not the correct way to identify themselves and we should use other means. Otherwise, any attempts at deletion are inevitably perceived as homophobic and unfair. William P. Coleman (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Category:LGBT Wikipedians. Avruchtalk 21:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're the one who did that. Thank you! (One small complaint, though: could you please just delete the actually unnecessary sentence about us not being pedophiles, rapists, etc? The text will still make the same point without it.)
In the course of our previous disagreement, we said a number of angry things. I've tried to apologize wherever I did so, and I sincerely mean it. If there's any further way I could repair the unnecessary damage I did, please let me know. I obviously completely misjudged you and I shouldn't have written what I did. William P. Coleman (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sure about that part, but I wanted to make the statement as strongly worded as I could. In the absence of a policy consensus, only clearly trolling/disruptive categories should be deleted outright (IMHO). The examples I left are some of the ones I think ought to be simply deleted, and I chose the ones I did because they are so diametrically opposed to the LGBT Wikipedians category. And there's no hard feelings - the most recent category might still be around if I hadn't nominated it for deletion while unaware of the background of this type of categories, so in some respects I felt like it was my responsibility to re-create a similar category. Avruchtalk 21:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So Wikipedia is a consensus, and some might even call it an anarchy. One trait of anarchic systems (and this is strictly from experience outside Wikipedia, not from any book study of the subject) is that, if you don't like the outcome, you're free to repeat the exercise. Given enough time, the outcome will change - perhaps not to what you were expecting, but at least closer.
As such, I'm excited at Avruch's boldness - and applaud it! I was unaware that there were so many members of a (non-) category. Sheer numbers should also count for something in the (possible) CfD (re-)debates.
I urge others to add the category to your watchlist, and then we can post here and participate in any ensuing discussions. The recent keep-ing of Category:American Wikipedians, as well as the continued existence of
means that Wikipedians by interest and/or lifestyle and/or whatever-you-want-to-call-it should continue to exist. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have awarded the Special Barnstar to Avruch for his actions in creating and defending category:LGBT Wikipedians. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow!!! . . . In about 24 hours category:LGBT Wikipedians has grown from the 7 or so members it had when Avruchtalk recreated it to nearly 1000 members just now. !!!! There must have been a lot of pent-up frustration out there. I'm inundated way back in the W's and perfectly happy about it.
I would like to suggest another minor change to the category description. In addition to the existing warnings against homophobic vandalism, there should also be some words that welcome potential users. Further, recognizing the diverse POVs expressed by many LGBT users during the discussion(s) and recognizing that many didn't participate, we whould also have wording recognizing that coming out is a personal decision each LGBT has to make for her/himself: some LGBT users will wish to join the category -- and that's fine -- and some won't wish to -- and that's fine too.
I would also like to suggest that the category have a userbox that people can use to enroll and to celebrate. We should design one. Below is my personal suggestion -- a simple, quietly flaming pink-and-blue userbox for users who are pink, blue, both, neither, or other. Perhaps others can come up with more suggestions. Eventually, we should move some userbox to the category and list it on the Userbox directory.
  This Wikipedian is LGBT. Q
William P. Coleman (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that some userboxes have already been used to add people to the cat. I, for instance, did not add myself directly, but have had a bisexual userbox on my page for ages (back when it put me into that category before the big lgbt-cat deletion). Aleta (Sing) 23:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, most of the sexuality userboxes are located at User:Xaosflux/UBX/Sexuality. I have already changed all I could find there and in other places so that use of any of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender boxes puts the using user into LGBT Wikipedians, hence why it filled up so fast from like 5 users to almost 1000. - ALLSTAR echo 00:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
How do I get into the category? I have the categories on my user page, but don't seem to be on the list. Confused. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You're in the "U" section. You can change that by adding a {{DEFAULTSORT:Jay*Jay}} anywhere on your page. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, SatyrTN, that fixed it. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Rosie rewrite revert-watch

Per the recent drama on the Rosie O'Donnell article, folks deleting first then discussing when compelled, I have rewritten, resourced and refocused Rosie O'Donnell#Accusations of anti-Catholicism and would appreciate others keeping an eye on it since the article just came off protection. Benjiboi 17:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Harlequin (color)

Why on earth is that in this project? I see that Satyr added it, which is only reason I didn't delete our tag immediately. Is there something I'm missing? Aleta (Sing) 22:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I imagine it was because of this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes, that would explain it. I guess I should have looked in the history. Thanks, Dev. Well, if it survives the AfD (and maybe while it's still an open question), either that tidbit needs replacing or it should go out of the project - right now there is nothing in the article to indicate that association. Aleta (Sing) 00:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)