Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 14

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

Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15


Tom of Finland: linking to works

I'm posting this here, because I thought the members of this group might be the most sympathetic to the issue.

A person is furiously claiming that a website (a Yahoo! group for gay cartoons) to which there is a link to in the Tom of Finland article has the rights to distribute the works of Tom of Finland, and therefore I'm not allowed to remove the link. I know there was some talk of making some of Tom's works freely and legally available by the Tom of Finland Foundation, but I'm not quite certain this website has the rights. Besides, I haven't found any mention of licensing there. If some editors could please look into this issue as well? Also see Talk:Tom of Finland.--Wormsie (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering it's a link to an index of a site, I've removed it again. Not sure that will last of course. - ALLSTAR echo 19:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the Tom of Finland foundation would certainly disagree with their assessment. Benjiboi 21:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid we either have to get the editor banned, or mail Tom of Finland Foundation (and hope they answer), as the link has once again resurfaced. It's strange how the person seems to be doing nothing to defend his position.--Wormsie (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


Should we put the {{LGBT-footer}} template on every LGBT related page? It does allow for easy navigation. Ctjf83talk 04:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No? Overkill? I think only on the "core" articles, and probably not all of those. BTW, where's that core article list? And how many of them are FA? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I wouldn't put it on the pages about people (core or not). It's not really suitable for biography articles, IMNSHO. Aleta (Sing) 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


I've jumpstarted the new issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Newsletter. If anyone has any stories they'd like to see in the newsletter, feel free to let me know on my talk page. For those of you who haven't really seen the newsletter before, I recommend taking a look at the most recent ones: here's a directory of the archives. Whatever our goals, accomplishments, or shortcomings as a WikiProject, we have (IMO) the best newsletter of any group! =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Herbert

Benji recently added our project banner to Mr. Herbert (Family Guy). I strongly object, but wanted to see if others had opinions on the subject. IMO, he's a pedophile which is totally different from LGBT. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the banner is inappropriate. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Second that...very inappropriate. Homophobes will use that as an excuse to link pedophilia with homosexuality. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
From a quick glance at the article (I'm not familiar with the character, and have only watched a couple episodes of the show), it sounds to me like he is both gay and a pedophile. One need not imply the other. Yes, the ignorant will use the fact that he's both to make an incorrect association, but it is our job to educate. Also, don't we tag pederasty articles? (Not the same phenomenon, perhaps, but related.) Aleta (Sing) 02:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
He's more correctly a gay ephebophile whose pedophilic interest in Stewie may or may not be notable as Stewie was covering his older brother's paper route just the one time. This is a prime-time adult animated series which means teenagers worldwide (via original broadcasts and voluminous YouTube postings of clips and whole episodes) see the show and characters. Our tag doesn't say we endorse ephebophilia, pedophilia or any frm of child-abuse. Our tag also doesn't vote whether we think it's good that this TV show has flawed but still gay characters. It simply informs those who make it to the talk page that we have an interest in the article and can serve as a resource. Benjiboi 02:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have another category, for homophobic depictions of gay characters. Haiduc (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Is he really gay? Pedophile seems to be true. Ephebophile I doubt, since he seems to be attracted to Stewie, who is a year old. But I haven't seen anything saying he's gay. Mind you, I don't watch the show, so I'm only going on what I've read. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The description of him being gay is a fairly new an anonymous IP. The character is an ephebophile because his molestation attempts have been mostly directed to Chris Griffin. I've seen just about every episode (yes, make fun of me...i need a life) and I'm not sure saying he's gay is completely accurate. Herbert is a child molestor and cross dresser, not gay. One can argue that being either one of those is synonymous with being gay, but that's not always the case. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
An aging swish with a lisp, who wears fey clothes and tries to grope teenagers - looks like a caricature of a gay man if I ever saw one. The intent is what matters. And here the intent seems to be to parody homosexuality. Haiduc (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(*spluttering*) Wha? I say, for the love of cannibals, what a hideous conflation - pederasty is not tantamount to being gay. And just an FYI, Chris is prepubescent throughout a number of seasons (until he gets the killer zit). --Phyesalis (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree that pedophilia and ephebophilia do not equal gay. In this case Mr. Herbert is exclusively attracted to young men and boys with the main focus on Chris, his neighbor and paperboy and once to Stewie who was filling in on the route (unclear in episode if Mr. Herbert could clearly see him as an infant or just as another paperboy). In an extended sequence Mr Herbert fantasizes of marrying Chris and having children together so some form of transsexual issue may also be at play. Benjiboi 04:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
There's no explicit evidence that Mr. Herbert is trans, besides that one episode Benjoboi mentions above, where he appears (in a daydream) in a Marylin Monroe dress (which is not, in itself, an indication of transsexuality). Nor is there any evidence that he is now or ever has been interested or involved in an adult same-sex relationship. There really is no evidence that he is anything but a pedophile, albeit a male whose primary attraction is to males. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that the definition of gay, a male attracted to males? I think there is ample evidence to support the fact that Mr. Herbert is gay, and no evidence whatsoever to support the assumption that he is straight. It's unfortunate that some might use that to vilify the queer community, but that doesn't change the truth from being true. We could put a disclaimer in the explanation for inclusion on the project banner, the way we do for NAMBLA. Queerudite (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The question isn't whether he's gay or straight. The question is whether he's gay or a pedophile. It's not the gender, it's the age. Herbert's attractions have all been to teenagers or children. Pedophilia doesn't make a distinction (afaik) based on gender. Pedophilia is illegal, immoral, and based on power-over, not love-between. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
He can both be gay and a pedophile, the two aren't mutually exclusive and despite our culture taboos ... held in tension with over-sexualizing children ... kids at very young ages are sexual and can have quite developed sexualities. Again, Mr. Herbert by all accounts seems to be a gay ephebophile. This would also be somewhat in keeping with his generation of not generally being able to live a more openly non-heterosexual life when he was younger. Despite our desire to distance ourselves from this very real part of human sexuality, Mr. Herbert is seen by others as a gay character even if we wouldn't elect him to be our spokesmodel. I noticed SatyrTN has also removed the LGBT tag from that article so should we just bury our heads in the sand on this one? Benjiboi 16:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
"kids at very young ages are sexual and can have quite developed sexualities" Wow. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your "wow" is to convey but FYI kids have been coming out as gay and lesbian at pretty young ages (below 10) and kids are quite sexually active before adolescence with all indicators that the trend of children becoming sexually active with each other at younger ages will continue. Benjiboi 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
My "wow" was in reference to your assumption that someone below 10 years old can have developed sexualities. But I'm not going to argue with you's pointless in more ways than one. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
To be fair I stated "quite developed sexualities" not fully developed. Just as children's senses and language skills develop their understanding of relating and reading social cues also develops. I'd be surprised if there weren't some research showing that children's sense of themselves as sexual beings existed and also showed that kids are becoming more sexual at younger ages, due, in part, to adult content and situations being readily available and more predominant across all mass media including TV and pop music. Benjiboi 18:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
All of which is true, perhaps, but irrelevant. We use "gay" to mean someone whose attraction is primarily to adults of the same sex, for which there is zero evidence in the case of Mr. Herbert, whose primary attraction is to children. Over at the Chris Griffin article they're not sure how old he is, the claimed 13-15 having a fact tag. At the ephebophilia article, however, the definition provided is "the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to adolescents. In everyday English, the term pedophilia, strictly meaning sexual attraction to children, is also colloquially used to refer to attraction to adolescents." As has been pointed out above, however, Mr. Herbert is also attracted to, and actively flirts with, Stewie, who is a one year-old baby. In any case, I don't think we need to worry about the fine distinctions between ephebophiles and pedophiles, only about whether or not Mr. Herbert is gay. Since so far we've never seen him show any interest in adults of any gender, I don't think we should be using the LGBT tag on his article. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
We also use gay in numerous other ways but to remain reality-based Mr. Herbert is a cartoon character broadly drawn as a gay ephebophile attracted to Chris, who is at least as tall as Mr. Herbert and twice as wide. We cannot infer as of yet if Mr. Herbert sees him as an older teen or a young boy although he did take him out on an adult-like date. The one instance of Mr. Herbert being attracted to Stewie was when Stewie (filling in for Chris' paper route) threw the paper while riding by so it's unclear if Mr. Herbert was attracted to Stewie or whoever the paperboy happened to be - this parallels Mr. Herbert's mistaking a robot for a paperboy as well. I also see us as being a resource to investigate and answer questions just like this and obviously if we're unclear on the issue others will be as well. Certainly seems like we'd have an interest in the article but maybe they'll get it right in our absence like we've seen on so many other articles. Benjiboi 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Benji, you keep saying that Mr. Herbert is gay. Can you tell me why you believe that? Several times in this discussion people have stated that there doesn't seem to be any indication of that, so I'm wondering why you believe he is. Or do you believe he's LB or T? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
First can we stop calling him Mr. Herbert...the only person that says Mr. is Chris, as far as I know his first name is Herbert, not his last. But aside from that, being that he is only attracted to teenage boys does that make him a pedophile and gay? If he was also attracted to teenaged girls, then obviously he wouldn't be gay. I oppose adding that he is a gay pedophile, and have deleted it from the page a few times, as listing that he is gay will give people (mostly IPs) another reason to bash us. So basically does being a pedophile attracted to boys only qualify as being gay? BTW, he did refuse to sign a petition to legalize gay marriage, so in my view that alone would mean he isn't gay...that or he is trying to hide it by not showing support for the LGBT community Ctjf83talk 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think Haiduc nailed it best with "An aging swish with a lisp, who wears fey clothes and tries to grope teenagers - looks like a caricature of a gay man if I ever saw one. The intent is what matters. And here the intent seems to be to parody homosexuality." Haiduc
If we look at the creators and audience of this adult animation it's quite clear they play up on myriads of stereotypes with most of the characters, I see Mr. Herbert as no exception. We've failed to bring up the episode where Chris goes to an expensive private school and is harassed for being poor. Mom Lois gets her very wealthy father (Mr. Pewterschmidt) to get Chris inducted into the secret fraternity (a Skull and Crossbones of sorts), when Chris decides to walk away from the school altogether at the last minute of the secret initiation ceremony, Mr. Pewterschmidt has to do the final act of spending time in a closet (yes, no irony there) with the high holy mucky-muck who is ... Mr. Herbert, who says "I am so tired of you, get your ass in there". So tada, you have your gay encounter with an adult and it's likely an ongoing non-consensual gay one as well. Pile on the song and dance numbers of love songs to Chris and viola - unleash the queen. Benjiboi 22:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Ctjf83, I chalk that up to irony, closetedness due to generational mores or both. And Mr. Herbert seems to be his name although I don't check his mail. Benjiboi 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi, your post above is quite useful. I would suggest that a section is needed in the relevant article on his sexuality, since currently he's described as an ephebophile and categorized as gay. Since others are apt to have similar objections to the posters here, some explanation is needed. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, again Chris is the only one that calls him Mr. Herbert...but we're not here to discuss that. The above comment about Mr. Pewterschmidt could be, and most likely is, just a one time joke that Herbert would do anything sexual with an adult man. We'll have to see how the show plays out for that. Also, my above question, does attraction to young boys make him gay, or just a pedo? Ctjf83talk 22:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I need to take a break but if no one else adds the material in I'll look to doing it. And Chris is the conduit for Mr. Herbert's role in the entire show so seems significant that of those who refer to him by a name at all, Chris' take on what to call him would seem to have the most weight. And we're not here to infer whether a joke is a one-time thing or not. And to your question "does attraction to young boys make him gay, or just a pedo?" It makes him sexual and the rest we take the best evidence at hand until a more reliable source proves otherwise. For instance, if he used to be married would that mean he must be then bisexual? We just have to go with the best evidence at hand and build the best article possible. Benjiboi 22:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ctjf83, being attracted to young people (whatever the genders) is pedophilia. Attraction to adults of the same gender is homosexuality. Attraction to adults of the other gender is heterosexuality. Those are the three, mostly non-overlapping "ends" of the spectrum. I fully recognize (and celebrate) the overlap and all parts of the spectrum, but this project is focused on LGBT, which stays on the adult end of those groupings. Herbert doesn't fall in to those categories, IMO. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
So is that an agreement that he doesn't need to be added to our LGBT project? Ctjf83talk 02:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. With respect to Benjiboi's argument about children's early emerging sexual identities and the nebulous concept of when children can consent, the focus is Mr. Herbert as he is portrayed as a mature man. Just because he's had one heteronormative transvestite dream does not allow us to classify him as a trannie (original interpretation of primary source). Ephebophile is just too obscure/specialized a term (maybe I'm showing my ignorance) for us to make that distinction from the primary source materials. If we agree that pedophile does not equal gay for the purpose of WP articles (running under a common name/convention precedent that the predominant academic position is that they aren't equivocal) then he's out. Just my opinion. --Phyesalis (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's anyone here arguing that pedophilia and homosexuality are equivalent. The argument being advanced is that adults who are predominantly attracted to minors of the same-sex are gay. I thought this matter had been settled when we decided to tag NAMBLA and Pederasty. Queerudite (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I've never suggested that pedophilia can equal gay although can be swayed if reputable research can prove it beyond a doubt. Who would finance such research is another issue altogether. However as to the subject of Mr Herbert my point is that everything about this cartoon character suggests he is indeed gay including sexual contact with other men, lusting after teenage and adolescent boys and numerous fey references spanning well over a dozens episodes. If it swishes like a duck, quack quack. Benjiboi 09:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess I would tend to think of this as being on two axes: a same-sex/opposite-sex attraction axis (yielding a L/G, B, or heterosexual result) and an age-attraction axis (yielding a typical adult attraction or a pedophilia result). Thus any one person would have two coordinates on the hypothetical graph, and could thus be gay pedophiliac (like Mr. Herbert), "straight" pedophiliac, gay attracted to adults, straight attracted toadults, etc. Aleta (Sing) 16:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Freedom to Marry Day

Is there enough out there to do an article? --David Shankbone 20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

National Freedom to Marry Day. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you referring to an article for WNews or WP? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Danke - WP. --David Shankbone 20:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Bitte. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Lucas (porn star)

Oh, good God, I hate to see it in a title too, but with all the fun and games of this month aside, does anyone else find "porn star" to be unencyclopedic? Michael Lucas (adult film actor)? Simply raising it...don't plan to do anything with it. Porn star sounds a little glamorizing, like calling Drew Barrymore (movie star) or Jaleel White (TV star). --David Shankbone 03:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Actor" is a stretch for some porn stars - in some cases a very large stretch. Perhaps something with 'performer'? Jay*Jay (talk) 11:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree. But how do we address the fact that he is mostly behind camera now? I have to admit, I'm a bit lost on the pornography biz, but a friend of mine who is familiar with Lucas said he only makes "cameos" now. --David Shankbone 14:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
A suggestion would be Michael Lucas (APK's top) Michael Lucas (adult film director) since he is now, for the most part, behind the camera. The opening sentence and other areas of the article mention he was at one time known mostly for being a porn actor, but since he is now known for directing/producing, I think it would seem more appropriate to label him as that. Just my $0.02. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you should make the page move, APK. I think you should WP:BOLD it! --David Shankbone 18:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I would, but I don't know how to do that. :-/ AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It's the fifth tab of every page, right after history. --David Shankbone 18:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm skurred. It's giving me a warning. Do I link to this conversation as the reason? If I screw this up, I'm afraid 10 guys will jump me. (on second thought, that sounds delightful) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. If the 10 guys would please e-mail me for directions to my crib, I would appreciate it. Bring supplies. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Brandon Flowers

People keep adding unsourced comments speculating about his sexual orientation. I suppose that sources could theoretically be provided saying that he "acts like", "looks like", and "sings like" someone who's non-straight... or that his song lyrics give the apperance of that. But David Byrne is not a serial killer. Nor is David Bowie an astronaut. Nor is Mike Muir an escaped mental patient. With WP:BLP in mind, mere speculation isn't enough and I think that the article shouldn't mention any of that. Thoughts? The Squicks (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • (P.S.) If anyone considers my username to be offensive, let me know here and I will by all means change it.
I think you meant please stop adding? Anyway, from looking at the edit history it doesn't appear to be anyone here adding the information you're referring to and he's not even in the LGBT project. My suggestion would be to contact the editors that are adding it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think everyone here will agree that unsourced additions about a person's sexual orientation should not be added. I've replied to someone at Talk:Brandon Flowers. Aleta (Sing) 13:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone goes to Rio de Janeiro for Wikinews/Commons

Hi Mos. The Rio Convention and Visitors Bureau has invited me down to Rio to do some photos of Rio for Wikipedia articles, some Wikinews articles, and I have requested several interviews with some very well-known Rio-based Brazilians. If anyone has suggestions for what to photograph, or who to interview, I welcome them on my Talk page. I look forward to exploring Rio for Wikimedia. I willl be there March 5 through March 11. Dave--David Shankbone 02:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucky man. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There never has, and there never will, be one thing I have done for Wiki that any of you can't do, and that includes my trip to Rio, my interviews, my interview with the President of Israel in Jerusalem, and anything else I have done for this site. Everything I have done can be accomplished by anyone else, and I was only able to do it because of the help of thousands of volunteers who made this site (and Wikinews) what it is. --David Shankbone 03:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes! Some of us here believe in the project for what it is, others look to it for what it can do for them; some of us can give only of our free time because of lovers/partners, family, and jobs(!), others can give more of their time because they're single and idle; some of us seek to enrich Wiki with our work, others seek to enhance their own notoriety by splashing their names all over their work.-- (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
That's not nice. We all do what we can. As the communists say, from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Don't be greedy or envious. Haiduc (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote help requested

Leah posted this on my talk page, and I said I'd repost it over here to see if anyone could help, particularly with the quote-finding. Aleta (Sing) 22:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Oh, almost forgot! Both the Martie Maguire (which I'm working on), and the Emily Robison page (which is still a stub, in truth), and the Dixie Chicks Band page (that one needs streamlining, etc) CAN USE SOME HELP! And I know that all three women in the band have made public statements of solidarity with GLBT people and issues. As usual, though, Natalie Maines tends to "speak for the group". Thus, if anybody can find direct quotes from Maguire or Robison, I'd really be appreciative, since I KNOW I have seen them somewhere!!--leahtwosaints (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What quote are you looking for? Benjiboi 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Benji, I missed your question before. I believe she's wanting to have quotes where Maguire and Robison have publicly spoken in support of the LGBT community. Aleta (Sing) 23:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

London meeting

Jeff and I are meeting up tomorrow in London for lunch. WP:LGBT members are also welcome to come, email me for directions. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No fair...what about us! ;-) That reminds me...does anyone live close to D.C.? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
His page says he's left the building which seems final(?!), could you say hi and ask him what's up? Benjiboi 01:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool, Dev! Y'all have a great time!! Aleta (Sing) 01:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, a pleasant time was had by all, and this byke had a very fun weekend. :) Right, back to Bradford... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


I'm sure most of you have read the story about the recent shooting of a 15yo gay student. Ellen had this to say about it today. Very touching. Please watch over that article as it seems to have attracted some attention from vandals. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted it. Aleta (Sing) 01:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Me too. Thanks, APK. — Becksguy (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested addition to the articles on Homosexuality, Gay and Sexual Orientation

Moved to Talk:Homosexuality#Same-sex relations in non-western cultures Haiduc (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Be Like Others

I've just nominated Be Like Others for a did you know... I have no idea whether or not it will be selected but if it is, (hopefully) a lot more people will be reading it. In light of this, I was hoping people could give it a quick once-over to check for neutrality & for want of a better word, correctness, particularly with regard to the use of pronouns. I've not written much related to transsexual issues before, and because there is some debate as to whether the subjects are genuinely transsexual or actually homosexual, I found it quite difficult. I would be grateful if someone could check that the various "he"s and "she"s seem appropriate. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 19:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Heather MacAllister aka Reva Lucian

Does anyone have an opinion on this requested move? I'm not that familiar with Heather MacAllister, but I've been arguing for a page move from Reva Lucian due to the fact that most external sources seem to refer to her by her real name as opposed to her stage name. If anyone here is familiar with the subject, some opinions would be welcome. Thanks! PC78 (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

March Newsletter

If anyone has anything to add to the March newsletter, please let me know? If I don't hear anything, I'd like to send it out noon-ish, Eastern time. Thanks! :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Does Avruch deserve a mention for his actions in helping out on the LGBT Wikipedians category after the ructions over Queer Wikipedians? Jay*Jay (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. Could you write up something? Aleta (Sing) 04:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I throughly enjoyed the previous rainbow turkey and Santa's rainbow flag...can we get that leprechaun to wear rainbow clothes, well green is better i guess, a rainbow flag perhaps? I like to post those on my user page for holiday spirit Ctjf83Talk 04:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the idea! Check out Image:Rainbow Leprechaun.png :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
GAY!!! and I love it!!! It's going on my user page right now! Ctjf83Talk 06:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cross-posting of Non-western concepts of male sexuality

User:Masculinity has been cross-posting essentially identical text to the lead of a number of high-profile LGBT-related articles, including Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, Bisexuality, Gay, and Sexual orientation. The added paragraph is not referenced at all, and appears primarily designed to attract attention to the newly-created article Non-western concepts of male sexuality. At Talk:Heterosexuality, I stated that this sort of material (e.g., that concepts of "sexual identity" have no validity outside the West) needs rather strong references to back it up, or at the very least needs to be properly attributed to the people that have made such arguments. Can someone please look into this? Silly rabbit (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-western concepts of male sexuality is full of WP:OR and I'm wondering if it should be nominated for deletion. Anyway, the sections Masculinity added to those articles is unnecessary since the article in question needs a complete overhaul, at minimum. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the additions to Bisexuality and Sexual orientation until the Non-western article is corrected. Other people have removed the additions to the remaining articles already. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

German anyone?

An anonymous IP editor made this addition to the news portal. The edit summary was rather odd, stating simply "typo". Could someone who reads German take a look at the linked article, and see if it looks appropriate? Aleta (Sing) 00:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • looks to me as though the editor made two changes: 1) adding info for 7 March and 2) correcting a typo in an earlier post (an html bracket had strayed outside its proper place) -- does that seem correct to you? Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the article says something about a Federal Ministry for Justice study showing no difference in children being raised by same-sex parents and that they hope the Ministry makes changes to law regarding adoption. I'm not sure about all of it though. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

History of AIDS project?

Someone posted a question on the discussion page of the AIDS article (link) about the absence of history information about HIV disease and the social and political (non) response. I think that is an excellent question that would make for a good article. Does such an article already exist? If not, is anyone here knoweldgeable enough on the topic to make a running start on one? TechBear (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Boys in the Sand

Boys in the Sand is under reassessment for Good article status. Discussion of the recent nominations are on the article's talk page and the reassessment discussion may be found here. Otto4711 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Collaboration

Is Collabortion of the Month still active? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Plague

We have been so quiet in this project that MiszBot is about to archive the navigation templates!

Anyway, just a note. Joshua Plague is an article that came to my attention recently. The article reads very nicely, mostly because of some good work done by Yilloslime. But I wonder about his notability. Would some other eyes look him over, see if any more refs can be found, and basically see if he passes WP:N? There is some discussion Yilloslime and I had on both of our talk pages.

Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Jill Esmond

Article on actress Jill Esmond is tagged as "This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies", however as far as I can see there's nothing in the article relevant to this. (Perhaps material has been removed?) Can anybody produce any cites on this? -- (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The version that was bannered has a cryptic last paragraph. I'll check in to this a bit and see what I can find. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage and procreation

Should this article be merged? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I had agreed elsewhere with APK that I thought it should be merged, mostly to Same-sex marriage, with perhaps some information going in other relevant articles. I suggested posting the question here for more feedback. Anybody have an opinion? Aleta Sing 01:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone has already tagged Same-sex marriage with the merge tag to merge it to Same-sex marriage and procreation but didn't tag Same-sex marriage and procreation. IMHO, unless there's only a mi-nute bit to be extracted from the procreation article, it should stay as is, simply because both articles are sooooo long and merging them into one article seems like it make one article extremely huge. - ALLSTAR echo 01:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
And FYI, I fixed the merge tags. - ALLSTAR echo 01:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Gracias. You're a good homo. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
A "minute but"? LOL Aleta Sing 01:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Walt Whitman

I was wondering if anyone would like to drop by the Walt Whitman article, currently at GA. I'm thinking I want to run it up for Featured, but thought maybe an A-class review from this project might help. My concern is that the information regarding his sexuality is probably the weakest aspect of the article (well, that and a relatively weak section on his Legacy/influence). Any help is appreciated. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ex-Gay" issues in the Sydney Morning Herald

I have just read this article in the Sydney Morning Herald, one of Australia's best daily newspapers. In a story on the Hillsong Church and its views on homosexuality, which mention on-going use of videos from "ex-gay" Sy Rogers. My first reaction is that the piece is incredinly unbalanced, as it does not really cover the fact that reparative therapy is thoroughly discredited - it is ineffective and harmful. Quotes in the article such as "Hillsong believes that homosexuality is not normal and not a part of God's design for mankind - their belief is that it should be fixed and it's something that can be removed from someone's life" pass unchallenged. My reason for posting is two-fold: firstly, I'd appreciate a second opinion - I am over-reacting in being disgusted that the SMH would post a news article such us this under a headline of "God's cure for gays lost in sin"? Secondly, I thought some others might be interested in sending (emailing) a letter to the editor expressing views on the article. Sorry that this really isn't directly on 'pedia development (unless a ref is needed for Hillsong's intolerance), but I'm irked and seeking some feedback. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a huge long article on Conversion therapy that backs you up on that. Write a letter to the editor so awesome they want you to be a regular columnist. --Moni3 (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion alert

Different Strokes is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Different Strokes. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

Masculinity is at it again with this edit. IMO, I don't think he's going to be satisfied until he inserts his personal opinion that there are no such things as gay and lesbian identities in "non-westernized" countries. He will find any way possible to plug his OR article. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I just dropped him a note on his talk page. Aleta Sing 03:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm getting tired of his agenda and I plan on removing alot of his edits. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

About Allstarecho

See User talk:Allstarecho#house gone. Aleta Sing 05:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned to Aleta we should do something to help him out. Anyone have an idea? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What the Buck?

I don't know how many of you people are youtube'aholics like me, but if you are then you know who Michael Buckley is. He's a gay guy, creator of the "What the Buck?" show on YT and is the 7th most subscribed person on YT (even more than Chris Crocker). My question is would he be considered notable? There are a ton of YT "celebrity" articles, but he doesn't have one. There's an article for a Michael Buckley, but it's not the same guy. Here are some potential sources: 1, 2 (he says he's been quoted in The Advocate althought I can't find it) and I know he's been on Fox News a few times as some kind of online entertainment correspondent, but I can't find that either. What do you guys and gals think? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The Advocate
AndPOP, which seems a RS
With those two and US Magazine, he's just about notable (IMO). Maybe Benjiboi can find another? He's really good at that! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Edward Irenaeus Prime-Stevenson

Just created an article on Edward Irenaeus Prime-Stevenson. Can anyone please create a redirect for his pseudonym, Xavier Mayne? (I still haven't mastered the redirect procedure). (While you're at it, perhaps it would be good to use a redirect for 'Edward Prime-Stevenson' as well.) Also, can this page, Imre, please be redirected to the full title, Imre: A Memorandum?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

YesY Done, done, and done. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

LGBTProject: Articles of unclear notability


there are currently 69 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

69! Way to go, y'all! =)
On a more "serious" note, that's less than 1%, so as a project we're doing pretty well! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I've started looking through the list and I see several that do not meet different criteria and google searches up with no RS. Satyr, am I going to get yelled at if I start to nom these things? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably, but if people think they need saving, they can work on them and vote against deletion. Aleta Sing 18:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yelled at? Since it's over the internet, you can't hear anyone scream.. at you. Regardless, what Aleta said. And if you're very lucky, you might get a spanking, but I won't yell at you. =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Just don't leave marks. I'll have to explain to my husband where they came from. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Hey everybody - Happy Easter. Since I'm 33 and in my Jesus Year (Jesus Year = if you were to die now, have you changed the world? D'oh!), it's a special day for a risin' from the tomb! --David Shankbone 18:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy Easter, everyone! (Aside to David, I tend to think of 33 as your hobbit-coming-of-age year.) Aleta Sing 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


I'm starting to think about the next newsletter. I think we should include something about Allstarecho's situation. What other ideas do y'all have? Aleta Sing 04:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oh, the notability project needs a mention. Aleta Sing 04:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely mention the notability stuff, ASE and maybe suggest that people should be involved in the deletion discussions related to the notability list. Um, lemme think about what else to add. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone's New York Meet-up Presentation on his Wikinews and Wikipedia work

If any of you are interested in me explaining my work, here's a video presentation. --David Shankbone 05:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to add tags

I ought to know but have forgotten, and got muddled between templates and tags. Material has been added to Noel Pemberton Billing (and I mentioned this on Margot Asquith) that suggests he, and probably she, should fall within your remit, to be watched over. What should be added and where -- article page or only talk page? Thanks BrainyBabe (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added LGBTProject to Billing's talk page. I don't think Asquith should get a tag. Aleta Sing 12:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently discussing Billing with another user re: the Category:Homophobia and whether or not Billing falls within the project's scope. I'm kinda against it, though I'd love to have other input on the article's talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Homophobic people category

I'm going to reply to this here, since my comments are more general than just Billing. I read the discussion y'all are having there, and similar questions occur with some other people. I'm wondering if we need a subcategory of Homophobia, something like Category:Homophobic people, or Category:Anti-gay people, or something else... Homophobia is so broad in and of itself that putting people in the category (as opposed to ideas, events, etc.) seems odd to me. If we had a person category related to homophobia, it might help. (Or it might just start a whole new problem. I don't know.) What do you all think? Aleta Sing 14:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Can Sally Kern be the first person added to the list? ;-) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we've had a similar category before (a couple times?) and it gets deleted due to POV concerns. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't surprise me. Can we think of an NPOV way to express it? "People who have expressed anti-gay sentiments"? Blech. As true as it may be about someone, "homophobic" just is not a neutral term. We need a way to state the fact without the judgement. Ideas anyone? Aleta Sing 14:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Category:People that suckCategory:People that oppose LGBT views? Ehh, that sounds broad as well. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
"LGBT views" implies all LGBT people share common beliefs values, or that the views themselves are particularly gay. The only working category for this would be an antithesis of Category:LGBT rights activists from the United States etc., but it's hard to neutrally operationalise the terms, especially considering as an LGB person myself I feel offended that I should have to pander to homophobes.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know if there will be a category we can come up with that won't somehow be seen as POV. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that's why the Category:Homophobia has (had?) language on it saying that people shouldn't be added to the cat unless they strongly epitomize the label. Basically, don't brand them with the scarlet "H" unless they deserve it :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Category:LGBT rights opposers? Category:Anti-LGBT rights activists? Aleta Sing 15:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Or how about "People Opposed To Homosexuality"? Some people are so opposed that I'm sure they wouldn't mind at all being on such a list, and in fact, they might even be "proud" of it. I'm not gay, but I'm homophobicphobic (meaning I dislike homophobes) and I'd love it if we could have a list of such people, and it would be a shame if the only reason we don't have one is we can't find a title that's neutral enough. Aleta's 2 title ideas might also work. Big Apple 21 (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the intention to catalog every public figure who's ever made a homophobic remark? If so, I'm not sure this is worth the time; controversies can be covered in the prose, but a category seems like overkill. I do think that a category of Anti-LGBT Rights Activists would be very useful, and far clearer. --Melty girl (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. After all, are we to create a category for "people sympathetic to the gays" in addition to LGBT rights supporters?~ZytheTalk to me! 17:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: how weird, we had this same discussion at the Spanish project two days ago... If anyone can come up with a NPOV of saying it, let us know. XD Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 19:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So can I take it y'all didn't come up with any good ideas in Spanish either, Raystorm? Cripes, we need a good neutral way to say this. Aleta Sing 04:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Nothing that wouldn't be contested as POV the instant it was created. And there was some concern about BLP issues too. Other alternatives were either too long or ambiguous to be of much help. So no, no ideas from our side... Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter Stickles

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Homosexuality. Echoes of Jay Brannan? Aleta Sing 20:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Someone please take a look at the recent additions (like this one) by Masculinity and tell me what you think. With comments like this on the talk page, I'm doubting some of what he's adding should be included in the main article but I am looking for another opinion. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Masculinity's one-man (I'm assuming) campaign to redefine male sexual behavior to exclude terms like "gay" and "homosexual" in the Eastern Hemisphere - I've seen this before, with lesbians who don't like the word "lesbian". They say when questioned it's because they don't like the sound of the word. After some discussion, it comes about that they don't like the sound of the word because they associate the sound of the playground bully spitting it at some other poor girl and don't want to be anywhere near it. So they'll use "gay woman", or that really weird recent attempt in Australia to replace "lesbian" with "gayelle", of all the gay things. Something's up here, and my personal observation is that Masculinity is using these articles to work something out. I don't think this is the appropriate place to do it. --Moni3 (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Me either. The looooooooong talk page replies are tiresome to read and (attempt to) interpret. I'm going to revert his additions for now unless someone has an objection. There has been no consensus on the talk page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
APK, you can always cite WP:BRD if challenged. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Moni, I missed the "gayelle" idea, where was that being suggested? Jay*Jay (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw it as an edit to the "Etymology" section of Lesbian. It has since been moved off the article, but you can read the links on the talk page.--Moni3 (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Moni. I note that the talk page reference is to the Murdoch Daily Telegraph. FYI, this newspaper is pretty right wing, and will likely present any issue in an area such as this with a sensationalist slant. If something like this was really a substantial movement in the Australian LGBT community, I'd expect it to show up in something like Sydney Star Observer. Jay*Jay (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OMG. I'm losing my patience. Someone please explain to him that the article he's linking does not to be linked to the Gay article until improvments have been made. It especially doesn't belong in the opening paragraphs. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll stick it in the see also section. Even with improvement needed, it is relevant, but I agree it doesn't need to be in the lead. Aleta Sing 15:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
These project articles are stressful. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If only he'd focus on adding a well-sourced statement on how the term gay could mean something else in different cultures, I'd be happy. --NeilN talkcontribs 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Right now, I'm being accused of "blocking" because I added the suggestion Aleta made to put the link in the See Also section, which she did already. He's not going to be happy unless it's in the intro. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I added to the discussion but this dude is so verbose it got lost. --Moni3 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
He replied to you, but it was in the previous section. He's now removed it, so I don't know if he's going to add it somewhere else or what. Right now, I'm relying on the edit history to keep up with the conversation because that section is so damn long right now. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
As if I could find a reply. Incompetence can only get him so far. Dude has written an article - it's about time he figured out how to respond to people on the talk page. I don't think he really cares that others understand him. This is similar to talking louder than someone else or so fast no one can get a word in edgewise. --Moni3 (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still stuck on this comment he made. This is why I'm highly skeptical about his additions and his article. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
He's adding it in the lead again. Please someone take it out. I need to avoid this article for a few hours before I say something "uncivilized." AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I placed it in a new section and toned down the language to make it more speculative. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Nicely done! Aleta Sing 17:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merci beaucoup! All those years of editing my students' papers has finally paid off! I've wondered if I should get a job copy-editing books, etc. =) Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

user:Masculinity is becoming increasingly difficult. He still has not learned how to write in an NPOV style, to footnote without adding masses and masses of unreadable text and to discuss issues without assuming that everyone who disagrees with him is part of the International Gay Conspiracy. See what he has put on his user page. Paul B (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have opened a RFC on the current content dispute at Talk:Gay#Request for Comment. Aleta Sing 19:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has stalled. More comments would be appreciated, especially from those who haven't already been involved in the dispute. Aleta Sing 17:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I just found this RSN thread that Paul opened: Wikipedia:RSN#Masculinity_for_Boys. Aleta Sing 19:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Good, maybe Masculinity will take it to heart. It's sad that we're having to debate this so much with someone that is a LGBT project member. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Masculinity is gathering his followers: User talk:Taeda AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


I think we need a stub type specifically for biographies. We have a lot of bios in this project, and our only stub template says "LGBT issues" which doesn't seem quite appropriate for biography articles. What do y'all think? Aleta Sing 15:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just created {{LGBT-bio-stub}}. Please take a look. This is for discussion only right now. Please don't use it unless and until we get consensus. I have not created any subcategories, so any articles would just continue to go into Category:LGBT stubs. Aleta Sing 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, this has already been nominated for deletion. You can comment at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/March/26. Aleta Sing 02:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Why did he say there would be a problem if the stub was added to people that were LGBT, but not somehow notable for it? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely certain about that. Of course, part of the problem is that I didn't go through the proper procedures for proposing a new stub type. (I've learned something!) Even so, I think it's a useful template. Aleta Sing 15:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Beleg Strongbow

note his user page User:Beleg Strongbow. Paul B (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Heterosexuals need to reach out in charity, embracing in godliness and with kindness those involved in homosexuality, offering whatever help may be given in an effort to set them free from the chains of this addictive and destructive lifestyle." Help me, help me! AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Freedom of Speech rules. Rock on, Beleg Strongbow. Love the username, whatever it means. I'm gonna go make out with my wife now. --Moni3 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hotness. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Gay Jewish 72.76 Vandal

If it is not already known far and wide, I am alerting the project that for about a year we have had an IP range based in Newark/North New Jersey (figures) who has been vandalizing LGBT articles. He's really obsessed with gays. He's vandalized a gay Jewish rapper since November 2007 and is now trying to vandalize a Jewish article with a Gay Jew's photo. He's been obsessing over a gay porn star since April 2007. He hangs out on the Wikipedia LGBT project. He's gone after gay Wikipedians like WJBscribe, AgnosticPreachersKid and, of course, me. Whatever his personal issues and internal conflicts might be, he clearly wants attention ("Look at me! Look at me!") and thinks about gay people a lot by expressing his sexuality conflict on Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wikimedia Commons. We'll need the project keeping an eye on his behavior - expect a section with this title to be around for awhile. --David Shankbone 13:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching this unfurl somewhat. I thought lesbians were a drama-laden folk. --Moni3 (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I go down to Pueblo, Colorado yesterday, come back, and our APK has been attacked (and I gave a good Reverend Wright-esque cursin' sermon about it, too). Then today I fly home from Colorado and I find that our poor sexually-frustrated Newark gay Jewish IP has once again attacked. I can assure everyone that this person is just another random, never-do-anything troll who attacks people who actually do things. People like all of us. I've never been to Fire Island - indeed, people who know I am more of an adventure traveler who has no use for gay resorts. In fact, my last boyfriend got a time share in Fire Island and I told him I had no interest in going (we broke up before I had to make a firm decision). All the innuendo, references to knowing me, "sweet, sweet revenge" for some unnamed crime against them--note they never say what that is, I'm sure to spare me embarrassment, haha--are all just typical troll ploys. What's so sad is this person has been doing it for at least a year. Every piece of "revealed" information about me is something I myself revealed on Wikipedia or on my MySpac; or--in the case of the Fire Island reference--are wild card attempts to make it seem like they know me. After all, all gays in New York City go to Fire Island, right? Nope - some of us sky dive over Italy, camp in the Amazon, or post our photographs of Vinales, Cuba or La Bodeguita del Medio. This is just a person with major sexuality issues who spends their free time thinking about gay porn stars, gay rappers, and gay Wikipedians. --David Shankbone 02:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Still needs to be reported and dealt with. Even a fake threat is a threat. HalfShadow (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Definitely. Aside from the fact that he employs terrorism, his threats are federal crimes. --David Shankbone 02:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


Would Pullen Memorial Baptist Church be considered notable for an article? There is a NYT article about the church being kicked out of the Southern Baptists Convention in 1992 for blessing a same-sex union. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it to me. I'm finding plenty of refs, some better than others:

Our Heritage and Our Hope, a History of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church (1884-1984) by Roger H Crook Publisher: Raleigh, NC The History Committee Pullen Memorial Baptist Church 1985 ISBN 0961448504 / 9780961448509

Aleta Sing 00:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


  • If ANYONE has any sources that mention neutrois or null-gendered persons, your assistance is needed. I feel that the neutrois/null-gendered gender identity is unique among all gender identities because of the dysphoria with ANY gendered expression and is thus notable for its own article. That said, it is being considered for deletion and we're having difficulty coming up with sources. As you may know, non-binary gender identities are rarely studied and are often seen as political stances. I know for certain that there ARE neutrois in England being treated AS NEUTROIS by the medical profession. The issue is sourcing this fact. Taineyah (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

LGBT - where's the T?

I rarely edit anymore because the health problems that took me away simply got worse, and I can't cope with the arguments I inevitably seem to stumble on. I would however like to make note of the fact (as I did long ago on the talk page), that the article on LGBT rights in the United Kingdom mentions nothing whatsoever about T rights. There's the gender recognition act which has plenty top be written about it at least. There's the increasing role of trans campaigning organisations in compainging for the rights of all manner of T people too. If it's a case of LGBT, where's the T? Crimsone (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The great thing about Wikipedia is that if you notice something is missing, you can add the information. Thanks for pointing out a hole, but I don't know if many of us have the time for assigned work. Everyone does what they can, and the time and keystrokes it took you to write this paragraph you could probably have just added the information yourself. Come back to us, but please refrain from giving us tasks since we are all volunteers. Cheers! --David Shankbone 01:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I was stunned to find that the articles I most wanted to learn about either didn't exist or sucked most awfully. Improving articles that lack is something I find most rewarding. --Moni3 (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
actually, no - look at what I wrote again. I don't edit. Full stop. I'm ill and cannot handle it... and after seeing this, I'm disinclined to post on talk pages and even ever come back to the project... yes... indeed, I was here once - a couple of thousand edits including a FA - I'm what's known as an experienced contributor, so before talking down to me, actually note something about who I am. Another thing - I'm not giving tasks - and yes, pointing out a whole in part, but actually, I'm more letting people know that the article isn't what it says it is. as for "and the time and keystrokes it took you to write this paragraph you could probably have just added the information yourself", no... I couldn't. And even if I could, the same is true of you, and you aren't marked as being less able to contribute due to illness. Patronising pointless rubbish like this is one of the reasons I stopped editing in the first place. Crimsone (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
That's unfortunate. --Moni3 (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way, Crimsone! David's response lacked tact, to be sure. But as an experienced editor, you may be able to sympathize with a certain frustration to what seemed like a random criticism coming from left field. If you are able to help, we'd love to have you aboard! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

David Leavitt

Doesn't the expand tag look ugly? Most articles would do with some expansion...This one is not even a stub.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Woo hoo! Take it off! (heh heh) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Jennifer Finney Boylan

So, flipping through the news cycles, came across this lady on ( Wikipedia'd her (everything's a verb now) and found her wiki-article lacking. Just thought I'd bring it to a larger group's attention. ZueJay (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Queer Nation needs references

Could someone please try to add references (ideally, for each assertion) to this page? It's an important article.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added several, but would love another set of eyes (or three) to review? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have issues with references 2, 3 and 6, though not sure if you added them all. Books and articles from the NYTimes are good though. The Wall Street Journal article would be good if it could be retrieved from the official website - otherwise, simply quoting the date and title would be fine - there is no proof that the webpage is accurate; the issue can be found in libraries. I dont think is creditable. The Seidman reference is very good.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Those QRD links are to articles that I couldn't find from their original sources, at least not online. I *think* they're RS, but that's somewhat just a feeling. Especially since the articles in question are press releases that QRD distributed, not writings of QRD itself. #6 is a copy of the article from the WSJ but on the author's website. You're right that we could remove the link, but since anyone can verify the contents by going to the library, I don't really see the need. It is looking better, though :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fabio Casadei Turroni

Can folks look at this? Not sure if everything is real: no cites. I tagged it to hell and back. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't really tried to verify it, but Italian Wikipedia also has an article on him. I added the interwiki link. Aleta Sing 03:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
He has a remarkable website about how wonderful he is and there's a video on Youtube consisting entirely of sequences of photos of him. Paul B (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity

i am unclear what reason this article on a fictional item has as a part of the scope of this project. after revewing this projects history i found no mention of it in the newly tagged article since its talk page first included the template for this project on December 7, 2006. it would seem to me there is no real serious reason that the fictional girdle should be included as a part of this project since no one wanted to bring it to the attention of this project. well since the tagger felt no need to do so i will bring it to the attention of this project as i have asked for reasons for its inclusion as part of this project on the girdle's talk page. anyone wishing to discuss would be welcome to visit that talk page and discuss the relationship this item has to this project. i ask because in clearing/cleaning up some D&D articles the girdle really has no notability established in the article and i was about to address it with the D&D project. while it is of note to the gamers i see no reason that it is noteworthy outside of the game of D&D itself, and can only conclude that this project may have some knowledge that i do not about some controversy or something with the article that give it real world notability. again any discussion on this is welcomed at the articles talk page in case this article does have some important relationship to this project at least know people know of its existance and can participate in any possible merge or deletion requests for the article, or any cleanup of it as well. thanks for helping with this. shadzar-talk 09:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL - I just tagged that yesterday. The (lack of?) notability of it bothered me a tad as well, but the article has been around for a couple of years and, at least on the talk page, seems to have a life outside D&D. I tagged it because someone added the Category:Transgender, which you've removed. I'll breeze around a bit and see if I can find any sources or anything. Thanks for mentioning it! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
actually you tagged it once before on December 7, 2006 SatyrTN (LGBT Project: Class = Stub) as per the talk pages history. i removed it because i saw no common ground between this project and the ficitonal item. i removed the transgendered because i didn't really think it fit since the item itself has no gender...? i may be wrong on both accounts, but as i watch that page and am working with the D&D project i urge anyone wishing to discuss either there as i don't have time to watch all those articles against vandals and fix them as well as adding a new project to my watchlist. since it is tagged part of this project before sending it up the river for deletion or merging it into a list of icon D&D items or somesuch i wanted to make sure that having its own article or not did not interfere with this project. i probably wont see another post made here about it but will be watching the articles talk page itself for any further development on this matter. shadzar-talk 15:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • D&D geek here. It refers to a fictional cursed magical item that I BELIEVE was first noted in pop culture in The Order of the Stick, where it was called the girdle of gender change. Once the wearer puts it on, it causes them to be the opposite sex and it is "impossible" to remove except under very specific circumstances, the nature of which elude me at this time. It has become a rather notable part of the D&D culture and was first written in the first edition source rule books. It also makes appearance in the original Baldur's Gate, an older computer game. I believe it has notability for transgendered persons largely because of its appearance in Order of the Stick, where the wearer Roy Greenhilt seemed to experience dysphoria during his prolonged transformation to a female form. I've found the girdle useful as a "bridge of communication" with non-transpersons.Taineyah (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I copied Taineyah's comment to the article talk page. Aleta Sing 13:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion, please

Category:Bisexuality-related television series was created recently and has six entries. I'm not entirely convinced that splitting it off from Category:LGBT-related television programs is a good idea, since the latter only has ~100 entries and there is no "Lesbian-related" or "Gay-related".

Furthermore, I've had some discussion on my talk page whether Torchwood and The L Word really belong in that category. I'm moving those specific discussions to those talk pages, but would like some input on the existence of the category. I guess we can do it here, since the cat doesn't even have a talk page yet =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Precise demarcations between "L/G", "B", and "T" are often problematic and can create controversy with no offsetting advantage. Fireplace (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree there may not be enough articles under the category. I couldn't find anything about the number of articles necessary in the wiki category guidelines though. And I don't think Torchwood's lack of social problems revolving around the high quantity of sexuality and bisexuality mean it's not bisexuality related. Andral (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about deletion board notice

Is there a template way to use Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Deletion board notice? I just copied the code out of one AfD where Satyr had used it to paste into another. Is there a better way to do that? Aleta Sing 19:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes - {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Deletion board notice}} -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I thought there must be. Thanks! Aleta Sing 21:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Brooklyn Rail interviews DS

Hey guys - the Brooklyn Rail, a local literary print magazine, recently published an interview about my work on Wikipedia and Wikinews, if anyone is interested. Dave. --David Shankbone 04:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, *nobody* has yet congratulated me on my refreshingly NPOV and informative captions on all the photos I have on Focus on the Family. Can I hear some NPOV kudos? --David Shankbone 07:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC) (well, I thought they were NPOV :-) --David Shankbone 16:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I just looked, and they look good and neutral to me. Thanks for adding them, David! Aleta Sing 17:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Cho, reliable source?

Someone used this blog post today to say that Margaret Cho identifies as queer. It certainly looks like an interview with her. Is anyone familiar with this site? Can we use it as a WP:RS? It doesn't meet our usual guidelines for it. Aleta Sing 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick

The infobox has gone bananas...Zigzig20s (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. It was missing the closing braces. Aleta Sing 02:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


Pullen Memorial Baptist Church is currently on the DYK board. There must be lots of other articles in the project that have been on DYK. Should we start a list of them? It might help encourage people to nominate their new or expanded articles for DYK. Aleta Sing 03:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely Fab... er.. yes. It's a good idea, so lets be WP:BOLD and do it. (I even have one to contribute). — Becksguy (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think thats a good idea too. I posted at the Portal talkpage a while ago - I think that we should definitely have a section on the portal page. And maybe a list on the Project page - as you say it would encourage others to nominate their articles for DYK. --BelovedFreak 11:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've created a section for DYK articles. It needs populating, so if you know of an LGBTProject article that appeared in DYK, whether or not you had anything to do with it, please add it! Aleta Sing 20:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I've started adding a section to the portal.--BelovedFreak 21:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Great! Aleta Sing 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Doing a chrono sort of the entries is great. But should it be latest on top, or oldest on top? I've seen both. Thoughts? — Becksguy (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I have no idea. I would be happy with either.--BelovedFreak 21:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I had one (my one and only - curse those evil minions of Satan on DYK) about Patience and Sarah on August 22, 2007, but I can't remember the fact...--Moni3 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah... not to worry, it has been added already! --BelovedFreak 21:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tim Joyce

Hi folks, we over at WP:ORE had some question about the notability of Mr. Joyce. I did a little googling and wasn't overwhelmed by the number of sources on him, but I think he's somewhat notable. I have added him to your project, hoping anyone interested can find some more third-party sources on him to firmly establish notability. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hot lesbian love on Mulholland Dr.

Ok. I admit this. I just 2 weeks or so ago saw this film, because, clearly - I'm an idiot. I can't for the life of me figure out how the lines "Have you ever done this before" "I don't know, have you?" "I want to, with you" translated into one of the most riveting erotic scenes I have ever seen in my life. But nonetheless, the movie has completely consumed me and I got carried away with it a bit. In one week I added more than 35k of information to the article, from 9 refs to more than 70, and now it's up for peer review, you can find here. There's a section on the hot lesbian love in the film - I made a point to include it. I'd appreciate any feedback any of you want to give. Thanks for reading it, in advance. --Moni3 (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

George Weinberg

This would do with some referencing. Unfortunately I have only been able to find this [3], which was written by him apparently. If he really coined the word homophobia, there must be many references out there.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I put in a cite. The Herek article cited in Homophobia lays out pretty clearly that Weinberg was the originator, unless someone else can find an earlier example of the word being used than 1969 (the guys who wrote for Screw told Herek that they got it from Weinberg). Confusionball (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Before I start editing these articles on the jaw-dropping travesty that is the state of Jamaica's human rights, especially as it relates to LGBT, does anyone have experience or readily know of anything that I should be aware of before making edits and fleshing out the topic? To give one example, a break out hit dancehall song called Chi-Chi Man (a Jamaican epithet for gay men) was adopted as a an electoral campaign theme song by the Labor Party of Jamaica. It sings of killing gay men by burning them with fire. This was a campaign theme song. Neither the Jamaica article nor the Politics of Jamaica article mention human rights or LGBT. --David Shankbone 14:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about these articles. Do you know that LGBT rights in Jamaica exists? Aleta Sing 21:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The situation is beyond reproach in Jamaica, and I am really bothered that the main articles don't mention this at all. --David Shankbone 23:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't appear to have a Homosexuality and Rastafarianism article. Should we? Is there anything published? (I know next to nothing about Rastafarianism and do not propose to start any such article myself, but wonder if we should have one, even just a stub, in line with our other "Homosexuality and XXX" articles - a naming convention that irritates me, BTW.) Aleta Sing 23:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That might be good. What I most want to work on right now is getting a human rights section on the Jamaica article; expand the Politics of Jamaica article; flesh out the Murder music and Dancehall articles; and make sure the artist articles reflect that it is murder music. --David Shankbone 23:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Possible source for you David, as well as for the hypothetical article on H&R: Rastafari homophobia is biblical GODLESS WORLD / Role of religion lost in furor over homophobic music Krishna Rau / / Thursday, November 29, 2007 Aleta Sing 00:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What are thoughts about bringing the Jamaica article into the LGBT project? --David Shankbone 00:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we should stick with the more focussed LGBT rights in Jamaica and the Homosexuality and Rastafarianism (or Rastafari movement, or whatever the best terminology is) that needs creating (plus those others you mentioned: Murder music and Dancehall). I don't think we should start tagging main country articles. Other opinions? Aleta Sing 00:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You have a point. The counter argument, I guess, is that if certain countries stand out for egregious violation of LGBT rights, then they merit attention. Or maybe WikiProjectHumanRights? Does that exist? It *would* be weird, like tagging Iran. But still, even in Iran it makes the news when they kill gay people. According to the LGBT rights in Jamaica article sources, the government and people collude and celebrate the murders. That doesn't happen in Iran - it's not open season and celebration on gays anywhere in the Middle East. Michael Luongo can attest to that. I don't know the answer - thoughts about tagging countries for LGBT project scope? --David Shankbone 00:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It exists: Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights. I'm going to think about the rest before commenting more. Is anybody else here? Surely somebody besides us two has an opinion on this stuff. Aleta Sing 01:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Emma Goldman will be on main page April 19

Just a heads up if y'all are going to be on the Wiki Saturday, April 19, Emma Goldman will be the featured article on the main page. As every pervert in the northern and southern hemisphere shows up for main page articles, hers will need to be watched for unnecessary changes and vandalism. --Moni3 (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church Portrait

This was my attempt to do a portrait that summed them up. I wanted only one person, not a group. I dunno if I succeeded completely, (I wish the flag was up a little higher) but I was happy with the end result. I put this my Activists Gallery Subpage. --David Shankbone 04:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That takes some kind of nutty, freakish dedication. --Moni3 (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Eleanor Roosevelt

Someone has removed the tag, I have put it back.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Below moved from User talk:Allstarecho#Eleanor Roosevelt to here:

Hi, if you review the talk page of this article you will see that the inclusion of references to Roosevelt's possible lesbian relationship has been the subject of extensive debate, and the consensus view has been that as there's no strong evidence which supports the claims that she had lesbian relationships the article shouldn't portray her as a lesbian. I suggest that you engage the editors with an interest in Eleanor Roosevelt in discussion before riding roughshod over this consensus. Cheers, --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I did read the talk page before restoring the LGBT Project banner. However, WikiProject banners are not subject to content and/or consensus. If a WikiProject feels an article falls under its scope, it may tag the article with the project banner. Whether or not Roosevelt was/was not a lesbian is irrelevant in this particular case. What is relevant is that she is a gay icon, just as Judy Garland and Madonna. Therefore, Roosevelt does fall under the scope of the Wikipedia LGBT WikiProject. I will give you opportunity to restore the banner before seeking discussion elsewhere in a more formal process. Thanks. - ALLSTAR echo 14:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you please clarify what "I will give you opportunity to restore the banner before seeking discussion elsewhere in a more formal process" means? Every time someone has added Roosevelt to a LGBT category in the past it's been rapidy revoked, so you do need to discuss this if you want the tagging to stick. How about we take this discussion to the Eleanor Roosevelt article's talk page? --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A "more formal process" as in WP:RFC to begin with. Discussing it on the article's talk page is pointless for 2 reasons.. firstly, as you said in your initial post here, there's already been a consensus reached. Secondly, a wikiproject's banner is not something to reach a consensus on. If an article falls within the scope of a project, it can be tagged as such without approval of others who disagree, except for the project itself. The respectful thing to do would have been to come to the project in the first place and discuss this issue. Again, this is not about her being/not being gay but about her status as a gay icon, which in no unequivocal terms does indeed make her within the scope of WikiProject LGBT. - ALLSTAR echo 15:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Jumping into a RfC without trying to resolve the matter first on the article's talk page when there were already multiple threads on this topic there seems rather inappropriate and not in the spirit of consensus editing, and comes dangerously close to an attempt to use the rules to bully other editors. This is especially the case as there's a consensus on the Eleanor Roosevelt article that claims about her having lesbian relationships need to be carefully handled. As some history, the article has been subject to serious POV pushing and outright vandalism in the past (at one stage the article was claiming that during FDR's presidency Roosevelt seduced muliple women while having affairs with her male bodyguards - all without any citations), so this is a more sensitive matter than you may have been aware of. The current wording has been successful in reducing vandalism from a regular problem to a rare one and care needs to be taken so that this remains the case.
I'm not familar with this project, but I am one of the assistant coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject (and, I hasten to add, am a leftie/liberal) so I like to think that I know a bit about how Wikiprojects work. From my experiance, I don't think that your argument that projects can tag whatever they like, no-one is allowed to remove these tags and that tagging doesn't need to be done in accordance with consensus on the articles is correct or a good way to promote your project. I appreciate your rationale that as Roosevelt is a gay icon the article potentially comes within the scope of this project, but that needs to be balanced against the amount of work which has been put into the article to avoid it edorsing the somewhat questionable, and vandal-attracting, claims that she was a lesbian herself. As I see it, the project tag is confusing for editors who are not familiar with Wikiprojects and the scope of this project (which, I note, doesn't specifically say that it extends to gay icons) and will lead to readers assuming that the article supports the claims about Roosevelt's lesbian relationships. Again, I think that the article's talk page is the correct place for this discussion. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
As you are an admin, I will direct you to Template talk:LGBTProject so that you can handle the editprotected request that alleviates the issue you raise of someone being assumed to be gay just because the LGBT Project banner is present.
Additionally, I agree with you that there should be no blatant outright statements within the actual article itself stating that Roosevelt is a lesbian - since there is no proof/source. However, she does, again as a gay icon, fall within the scope of this project and therefore the banner should be restored. - ALLSTAR echo 22:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That wording looks good to me, and should avoid this kind of issue in the future. However, it would probably be appropriate to leave that proposal open for a couple of days to see what other interested editors think and I'll leave it to a admin with greater knowledge of this project than me to make that change. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Eleanor's article is something I wish I was working on, but like many topics, I hope to get around to doing it one of these days. Blanche Wiesen-Cook wrote the lesbian info on Eleanor, and at one recent point, it was in the article, well-written. It stated something like Wiesen-Cook deduced from letters shared between Roosevelt and her secretary Lorena Hickok quote, quote, quote, that they may have shared a romantic relationship. I've read those letters and damn. If they weren't lovers they were up to something. The portion of the article didn't state outright Eleanor was lesbian or bisexual, just that the author had suggested based on letters that Sapphism may have been shared. It is entirely appropriate for this project to tag Eleanor. --Moni3 (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a source - Lillian Faderman's book. A lot of similar academic research also vindicate her. As ever on Wikipedia, I believe more references should be added - but this is a start.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, but right now the issue is not whether or not she was actually a lesbian but whether or not the LGBT Project's banner should be on the article's talk page. Aside from her sexual orientation, she is a gay icon, which would make her within the scope of the LGBT Project and therefore the banner should be replaced to the talk page. - ALLSTAR echo 23:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I must confess that I'm far from clear about what qualifies a person as a "gay icon". Is Eleanor R really in the same cultural world as Judy Garland? She's not exactly a victim/survivor incarnation of gender irony is she? Paul B (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Just search google with "Eleanor Roosevelt, gay icon". - ALLSTAR echo 15:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "Eleanor Roosevelt, gay icon" produces zero results. However google helpfully removes the quotes for you in such cases, so you get a large number of pages that arbitrarily contain the four words 'Eleanor', 'Roosevelt', 'gay' and 'icon'. If you combine "Eleanor Roosevelt" and "gay icon" you get a significant number of results, but the majority of those alsdo apopear to be an arbitrary conjunction of the phrases plus Wikpedia articles, talk pages and their mirrors. Paul B (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong, and am missing some policy here) the placing of project banners on article talkpages is done at the discretion of the Wikiproject. There is no need to prove that the article subject is gay, bisexual, or a gay icon. The fact that members of this project consider Eleanor Roosevelt to be within the scope of this project is enough to justify having the banner on the talkpage. Including articles in Wikiprojects is done to improve content. I can't see any reason why having the LGBT project tage on the talkpage would somehow be detrimental to the development of the article.--BelovedFreak 21:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

AND I reiterate that a lot of academic research goes to prove that she was probably a bisexual.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
AND I see no 'proof' at all. It's very difficult to assume tat we can interpret behaviour and language used in the past. But I'd suggest that in each case consensus should be reached on specific articles within the talk page of the article in question. Paul B (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, jiminy. What do you consider proof that someone is gay or bisexual? Even though I say I'm a huge flaming queermo, is that proof enough for you or anyone else? What about historical figures, whose documents may have been altered by embarrassed family members or jittery historians. Proof is not proof enough to justify inclusion in this project, but neither is rumor. Eleanor's letters to both men and women are stunningly intimate. --Moni3 (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
What are you trying to say and what does jiminy have to do with anything? There is no comparison between your own self-definition and the interpreting of language in letters, especially in cultural contexts when expressions of intimacy were different. Intimacy is not the same as sexuality. Are you a historian? Paul B (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
"Jiminy" is a harmless (I thought) expression of wonder, as in "gosh", "golly", or "goodness". What if editors demanded a standard of proof to be included under this project? I don't think self-definition and the interpretation of language in letters are terribly different. Both can be misunderstood and mis-implied. Intimacy is not sexuality, true, but the lack of proof of sexual contact doesn't preclude a person from being under our project, for even when clear proof exists of same-sex contact that is still not justification enough for some. Conversely, the definition of "lesbian" was broadened by some feminists to include any intimacy between women. Proof may be a Pandora's box. Am I an historian? Like proof, that depends on how you define it. --Moni3 (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know what jiminy means. I was making a very clumsy joke. I just think project tags should be used too aggressively, that's all. If lesbian means 'any intimacy between women' it becomes completely meaningless and the project tag may as well be added to every article on anyone. Paul B (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


The notice board for this project didn't seem to have the right category for this so I'm posting it here. Please move this announcement to the appropriate place if this isn't it. Basically, I'm looking for someone who is knowledgeable about U.S. LGBT history, particularly from the late 1950s to the early 1970s. There's a discussion on Talk:Hippie about adding LGBT information and we need someone who is familiar with the topic. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bringing Up Baby

Someone wants to cut it down [4]. I don't necessarily agree...Zigzig20s (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So you think that the "u" should be Uppercased? Mr. Greenchat 17:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

David Starkey

As a heads up, references to David Starkey's homosexuality have mysteriously vanished from his article. Interesting info on the topic and him generally here - actually well worth a good read. Love you all, Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Xena episode)

I've been working on Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Xena episode) a bit lately and wonder if anyone would like to help? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Censorship, Concerned Women for America and Fluffing

I'd like to point out that the decidedly anti-gay Concerned Women for America have come out against Wikipedia, and specifically my photo of a Fluffer in this article on WorldNetDaily. Already there is one editor trying to remove a tasteful photo that perfectly illustrates the concept. This is an article that falls under our Project, and specifically deals with LGBT issues, and I have already found some of the arguments to have an anti-LGBT flare. --David Shankbone 01:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't know what the WP policies on photos is, but are we allowed to show penises like in that picture??? Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, by definition, Wikipedia isn't censored. HalfShadow 01:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not ?

Im not sure if im in the right place, im sure you can re direct me if im not. I was studying the warning templates on wikipedia and noticed there is one for "racially motivated edits" seen here.

Stop hand nuvola.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, racially motivated edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others.

Shouldnt there also be a template warning for homophobic edits? I couldnt see one on the list, thoughts? Cheers. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, as we certainly have a fair number of those sorts of edits. Maybe the wording should be slightly more generic, saying something about sexual orientation rather than specifically homophobic? Aleta Sing 16:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed it about a month ago, but let it drop, as homophobia is just as terrible as racism, it seems odd to have one but not the other. I agree, sexual orientation would be better. I also think in terms of pure policy that admins should take homophobic edits as seriously as racist edits. Ive noticed something recently, when admins see racism they call it racism, when they see homophobic edits they call it vandalism. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Homophobic edits would also be considered a breach of NPOV in some cases. Vandalism is vandalism, so if an article gets an addition by a bored high school student stuck in the computer lab declaring his friend likes to suck dick, it can be handled per a normal vandalism template. But slanting an article toward or away from homophobia is something else. I'm not sure if you're suggested removing the lesbian content information from Eleanor Roosevelt should warrant a homophobia warning, or basically any edit to Matthew Shepard. Can you clarify? --Moni3 (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
In my experience if someone rights the N word randomly in an article, i slap them with a racism template, not only is it vandalism but its also racist, thus the racism template is taken more seriously by an admin when they see it on a users talk page. If someone uses Queer or Faggot or whatever in an article in an offensive manner, i woud like to slap them with a homophobia template. Its something more than just vandalism and thus the person should be given less warnings before blocking. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, why do we need to clarify? The racism template says it should be used for "racially motivated edits", thats it, its not specific or clear either. If we have a template it should mimik the racism template as much as possible. If the racism template is going to be vague then so should the homophobia template. Unless of course you suggest we alter the racism template? , which is another thread for another day, lol. ;-) Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just jaded (or extraordinarily well-adjusted), but vandalism to me is, as I said, just vandalism. Some of it makes me laugh harder than others (someone replaced Harper Lee's name with "Señor Ballsack" in the Atticus Finch article, and I couldn't stop laughing at that), but predominantly the racial or homophobic epithets are kids who are enjoying their anonymity. Real dust-ups are the conversations on talk pages where users don't care if they're anonymous or not, like the ArbCom case of Matt Sanchez. I don't see a disadvantage to creating a homophobia template, but neither do I see an advantage. --Moni3 (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it reflects poorly on the community if we have one and not the other, do you suggest we remove the racism template then? I dont really buy the childish thing, if someone says the N it usually means it comes out of their mouth often. Same for any homophobic word. If we intend to treat both as seriously as eachother we could at least start off with a damn template lol. No bad will come of it, but a little good just might. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Having the experience of being called these names, to sum it up - I don't care. Not about the problems of people who are directing them, or usually their own fears and pasts. If you send these folks 20 templates that shame them, I doubt they will they care either. They don't call me a faggot or a dyke for the reward of not receiving a template, and I doubt getting a template would discourage anyone. People know words like "nigger", "faggot", etc. are socially unacceptable. They know this. Yet we still see it here, I think because 1. It's naughty and they can't get caught, and 2. They're 14 years old and they're trying out this new freedom they think they have to say things, and 3. They're really, really gay and can't handle it. But - template or no, it's up to you if you want to make it. I'm a single philosophical member who just has the time right now to discuss it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that templates rarely discourage ANY vandal- regardless of what their offense was- templates serve a greater purpose for Admin. and other editors to gage how to handle repeated offenders. If you or an admin. see a basic vandal template, chances are the user has done mostly NPOV edits or "unoffensive" edits. However, if an Admin. or editor sees several racial or lgbt-phobic templates, chances are the user will be watched with much more scrutiny- not only for the sake of defending wikipedians, but to ensure racial/religious/lgbt article don't have offensive material left on their pages- and as a result, having everyday people reading it. As we all know, some articles have far less traffic than others and sometimes vandalism can remain on a page for months on end because no responsible editor visits the page. using Make-up Art Cosmetics as an example- I've seen vandals use this page for asking people out on date (leaving personal phone numbers on the page) and I've also seen a few offensive edits too. The article itself has very little traffic and sometimes can go unedited for weeks on end. If a vandal chooses to target low-traffic articles, incredible offensive material can go unchecked for quite sometime. Templates with different levels of discrimination can help admin and other editor watch for vandalism with a bit more focus. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, thats part of my point racism/a homophopia template highten admins scrutiny more than the average vandal warning. Additionally admins are quicker to block for discrimination than for vandalism. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if a lot of them are little kids, a lot of them arent, the fact it there are people on wikipedia who hate gay people, black people etc. The template isnt just there for the user its also there for people like admins to see. Even if it helps perminantely block one hater, its done a good job. I think we still need to consider the wording but i think its a must. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Putting this page on my watchlist. Hopefully we can take this somewhere good. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

LGBT Vandalism template

An example of a possible template:

Stop hand nuvola.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, discriminatory edits based on bias against LGBT persons are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I do too. Should this be discussed more somewhere else? Where are other warning templates proposed? Maybe Village Pump Proposals? Aleta Sing 22:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
We should probably keep it here for a while longer, ive invited more people into the topic, give others a chance first, but yes push it forward soon. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Question: would this be a single-level warning, or would there be graded levels like with many of the templates? (I don't know about the racism one(s) - single or multiple levels?) Aleta Sing 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Admins have a low tolerance for racism. The racism template (seen further up) indicates they dont get many chances. The racism template doesnt have levels, its just a standard template. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 23:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
"Admins have a low tolerance for racism," as well we should! Same with LGBT-hatred. Aleta Sing 23:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha sorry, i never knew your were an admin, yes i double checked the racism template is definately a single tag. I suggest the same system for this potential template, i support Bookkeepers example. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 23:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries! I appreciate the info. Aleta Sing 23:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I think it looks good. I don't think I'll use it for simple pubescent vandalism like "John Doe is teh gay!", but for more extreme vandalism like the one at the top of my talk page. APK yada yada 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You would be free to use it in either case but you can just use it for the latter if you wise. ;-)Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 23:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be take it over for preposal then, providing this link? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 23:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. Aleta Sing 23:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure will do tomorrow, does someone else want to present it or shall i? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

An second example of a possible template

Stop hand nuvola.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, disruptive edits on articles relating to sexual orientation or gender identity are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others.

these templates can be proposed here i believe: Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It misses out personal attacks on editers. Its only specific to articles. The first one was better because it can be used for anything much like the racism template. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 23:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thats the point. Not all anti-LGBT vandals are directed a specific person. Vandals may deleted sources on scientific study or replace credible sources with biased ones. I'm suggesting both be used, not choose one over the other. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
But i would suggest that your first template already covers both options. I wouldnt want to over complicate it. I think its best to try and mimik the race tag, there is only 1 version of that. Thoughts? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 00:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This would be an example of a level 1 or minor vandal I suppose. Instead of the basic "don't vandalize" template, it specifies when an editor makes a disruptive edit based on the topic. I agree the first template I suggested is better when it comes to blatant discrimination, but this one is designed to cover basic subject matter. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I think less people would be willing to support it over at the village pump. I think seperately it sends out a bad message (admittedly i might be too obsessed with this). Why have a levelled system for this yet a zero tolerance template for racism. Currently there is just the one racism template, you get 1 chance. It might give off the appearance that you can get away with homophobia a few more times than racism before blocking? Like i said though, i might be looking too deeply into that theory lol. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 00:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I like the second one best, but I imagine we can use both of them, it's not an either/or question, is it? ;) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved

This discussion has been moved here for wider community notice. Cheers. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"First" GLBT professional organization?

American Library Association says: "In 1970, the ALA founded the first lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender professional organization, called the "Task Force on Gay Liberation"." -- Does anyone know whether this was the first such professional organization in the world, or would this be more accurately phrased as "the first lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender professional organization in the USA"?
(I took a look at the online source given for this in the article, and it confirms the latter but doesn't clarify the former either way.) Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that can only be the US. If one considers the ancient Greek military a professional organization, they had a gay caucus a long time ago. Btw, the article on Barbara Gittings also has references to the ALA. --Moni3 (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Other possible early candidates would be the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists. They existed within the APA as early as 1970. Since this is the group responsible for removing homosexuality from the DSM, I think its worth considering them. Bryan Hopping T 18:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists also doesn't seem to make very clear what country(s) the AGLP is active in. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Shouldn't this be tagged?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it. Going by what's in the article, the film's about an intersex person, not someone LGBT. The consensus of the project has been not to include intersexuality in our scope. You can find the prior discussions somewhere in the archives of this talk page. Of course, you can always raise the question again and see if consensus has changed. Aleta Sing 02:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Pup-play proposed for deletion

The article on Pup-Play has been proposed for deletion on the grounds that it does not have reliable sources. Would anyone be willing to help improve the article? Or at least give some opinions in the discussion? Voyager640 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Also, would anyone be interested in starting a WikiProject BDSM? Voyager640 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Queer studies category proposed for deletion or renaming

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_19#Category:Queer_studies Fireplace (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Irving Bieber

Someone has been deleting referenced information, as per [5]. I put it back and explained on their talkpage [6], and they disagree.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Irc channel

Quick reminder that we have an irc channel for the project, #LGBTproject at freenode. ;) For those of you who are unaware, the channel was vandalised recently. It's fixed now, but it'd be good to have an OP from the English project (aside from Dev920 and the Spanish project OP's). Volunteers? ;) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What's an OP? Aleta Sing 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Channel operator. Basically, someone who can ban and throw out unwanted visitors. :P Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I drop in there from time to time and the only one there is the channel server... --AliceJMarkham (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I still have no clue how to chat on IRC. I downloaded mIRC, but it wouldn't let me connect to some server. I don't understand it. APK yada yada 12:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that the instructions can be found at Wikipedia:IRC. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I read it. It's still over my head for some reason. :/ APK yada yada 11:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

issue over reqphoto

As per [7]. If you want to see for yourself, here are some instances: [8], [9], [10]. I do think that person is right to sort the reqphoto's into more precise categories, but I don't agree with adding a category that doesn't exist. With the foregoing examples, I would perhaps suggest finetuning towards New York City, magazines, and London...What do you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

He added the category to Halo (bar), but I removed it. Like you said, the category doesn't exist and a bar has nothing to do with sexuality. Yes, it's a gay bar, but would we add a sexuality-related category to a heterosexual bar article? APK yada yada 22:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
They created it. [11] I think that's dumb.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we try to delete it? Where is everyone?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm only trying to answer "where is everyone?" and I don't know. It seems the wikiprojects I'm involved in are all slow and silent. What cycle is going on right now? --Moni3 (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing essay deadlines and exam revisions. But still. Where is Satyrn?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Satyr's taking a wikibreak while he builds his new house. It's on his talk page. Otherwise, things ebb and flow. I'm sure the pace will pick back up here before long. Aleta Sing 02:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I know what it is. Someone here isn't gay enough. Who is it? --Moni3 (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It's me. I've been keeping a secret that I can no longer hide from everyone. I'm a...<gulp>...a heterosexual. I hope you all can still accept me for who I am. I don't care what Allstarecho says, I was born this way. This whole penis infatuation thing was a phase, I promise! APK yada yada 02:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Say it ain't so, APK; say it ain't so! Aleta Sing 02:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
"It ain't so." APK yada yada 02:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well. It's my hot lesbo vibe. Maybe you just like gay chicks. Quite understandable. --Moni3 (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Possibly. I did eat salmon tonight. (drumroll) APK yada yada 02:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)