Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 16

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

Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

New navigation box for LGBT/gay slang

heads up for other LGBT topics editors... there is a new navbox live at Template:LGBT slang for English LGBT slang terms (with links at the bottom to Japanese and Singapore terms). If you would like to check it out and make any corrections or additions, it is at Template:LGBT slang. The other day I added copy-to-wiktionary tags to a few slang entries (Acault, BGM (slang), Bean queen, Fag stag, Opera queen, Potato Queen) that had not advanced past the definition stage in a year or more. If anyone wants to try to salvage or merge them, the links are still in the navbox (just uncomment them out and remove the copy-to-wiktionary template from the article itself). peace.. --User0529 (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this! Banjeboi 09:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
no prob..... i didn't want to tell them it was your idea in the earlier post in case you didn't like it or the mob attacked me lol. someone removed the copy-to-wiktionary tag from bean queen. Do you guys think it would be a good idea to just merge all of the ____ queen articles into the main article for queen? (some of them haven't advanced past the stub definition phase in over a year) --User0529 (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I would support merging them to form a Queen (gay slang) article. It would seem to be a fun project. Here's potential candidates...
  • Queen, princess and variations
    • Bean queen (also Taco queen or Salsa queen), gay men attracted to Hispanic gay men
    • Chicken queen, older gay men interested in younger or younger appearing men.
    • Curry queen, gay men attracted to Asian gay men
    • Dinge queen, gay men attracted to black gay men. Offensive use of 'dinge' meaning black
    • Drag queen, gay men into fashion or cross-dressing
    • Drama queen, gay men given to melodramatics
    • Gym queen, gay men given to athletic development
    • Pissy queen, gay men perceived as fussy, not to be confused with piss queen which can be a gay man into urine-play
    • Rice queen, gay men into Asian gay men
    • Rim queen, gay men into anal-oral sex
    • Scat queen, gay men into coprophilia
Also would you be willing to add list of terms for gay in different languages and terminology of homosexuality as "see also" links on the template? I think they might help those looking for list of terms or for ones not listed in the template itself. Banjeboi 23:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replaced the Singapore and Japan links (which were only to sections within larger articles) with the List article you suggested.... wasn't sure if the other one fit into the slang template, but added reciprocal hat notes to both the List and Terminology articles pointing to each other. (feel free to add it to the template if you want tho) --User0529 (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Israeli LBGT organisation

Could people here have a look at Aguda and confirm whether I've got the "Israeli national LGBT organisation" bit correct? Thanks. Also, any Hebrew speakers could check whether I've got the "union" or "organisation" bit right for the Hebrew definition. Carcharoth (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Opera queen

Please see Opera queen. They have a point, though the Koestenbaum book theorises the construct.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Update, article merged to queen (gay slang). Banjeboi 10:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"As a project, we feel..."

Please never say this. About anything.

Dybryd (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. We are not exactly monolithic. :) Aleta Sing 18:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no cabal. Banjeboi 04:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments on David Shankbone

See this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removed stalkish attack post which relates to this WikiProject and a few of its members. — Becksguy (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I read this, along with David's article in The Brooklyn Rail. Though admittedly I don't know the entire story, it seems pretty messed up. --Moni3 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Great. The guy who is willing to be the bigger lunatic on the internet wins at Wikipedia again. David Shankbone is a real loss to the project. Dybryd (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
User:David Shankbone/72.76 has more of the story. Banjeboi 04:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Celebrities and gay rumours

Why are gay rumours more critically censored on WP:BLP pages than rumours which allege straight relationships? Controversy as a factor, is one I can only interpret as a cover for a heteronormative slant amongst Wiki editors and consequently, Wiki policy. Should this project actively work to include sections citing more reliable sources for relationships such as Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson, or work the other way and just as ruthlessly cull rumours of whichever ladyfriend Hayden Christensen is supposedly courting? I can't help but feel that the consensus interpretation of Wikipedia's stance on biographies equates mention of homosexuality with defamation of character, unless said party has already come out.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

we are not some shitrag gossip magazine - regardless of sex, cull that crap on sight. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, a less passionate response is that we have to adhere to WP:BLP, particularly about issues that are image-harming. Unfortunately, that includes sexual orientation. It may not ruin Hayden Christensen's career to know he has a new lady-friend. However, Tom Cruise has sued over accusations that he's gay. Wikipedia can be a target. --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I have found it's harder to successfully cull mentions of Christian Haydensen allegedly dating Rachel Bilson than it been for editors to say, completely eradicate all New York Times-level speculation about say, Anderson Cooper. That was the point I was making.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree but have a different take. We have to ref our articles to a higher standard but it does make them better in the long run. Personally I sometimes enjoy the researching challenge and after we've done our work sometimes someone notices that or little referenced section is the only references in the entire article! In any case I see it only adding stress to point out the double standards. If you see something about ___ dating ___ then throw a {{fact}} tag on it if it seems appropriate. In our own little way we're helping realign the heteronormative blinders but realistically change takes time. If you want the subject might be a good wikipedia essay. Banjeboi 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Rumors on WP:BLP regarding personal relationship should not be allowed whatsoever regardless of sexual orientation. Honestly, who gives a damn what celebrity is dating who? This is an encyclopedia - not a tabloid you pick up at the grocery store. Most "Personal Life" sections of BLP articles are nothing but a collection of tabloid rumors, or last person he/she was photographed holding hands with. If rumors regarding a person's sexual orientation or love life gain enough coverage to make the headlines of CNN, then maybe we should consider adding it to their biography- otherwise stick to what the person is best known for: their career. If there is a bias against homosexual relations, we should work to make sure heterosexual relations are equally disregarded and forcible removed, not the other way around. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

California Proposition 8 (2008) POV Tag

I POV tagged the page "California Proposition 8 (2008)" because of differences in opinion over a legal challenge detailing the technical difference between "amending" and "revising" the CA constitution. I'm hoping that members of the LGBT project will get involved and voice opinions on the issues. This is not a request for a specific view point, just a high level of involvement. Netbenefit (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT slang

I noticed this article was changed to gay slang, but I moved it to LGBT slang. I know there was a project to change many articles into LGBT. I figured this one was too with {{LGBT slang}} template headed as LGBT slang. I believe there are some lesbian, bisexual, transgender slang out there that isn't part of gay slang. Until this article is larger I don't see a reason to narrow it to just gay slang. --Pinkkeith (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So if you are just posting here to announce that you moved it, why is your edit summary for the move "Per consensus at WP:LGBT"? Kolindigo (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Because I second guessed myself. I was positive at the time of moving the article, but now I want to check if I was correct. Also, I added an index for the WP:LGBT talk page in order to easily find such discussion. --Pinkkeith (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


Please see Template:Baldwin. Little Man Little Man: A Story of Childhood is a collaboration; it is a children's book and Cazac did the drawings while Baldwin did the writing...It is not a novel...I have reverted the template about two or three times. (The book is not necessarily LGBT, though Nicholas Boggs has sounded out some in-depth queer seeds. The author was a major gay author anyway.)Zigzig20s (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the article of Little Man Little Man: A Story of Childhood as that might be where the problem is. If that article calls it a novel you may have to add sourcing to show it's actually something else. Banjeboi 22:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, as Benjiboi says, the article calls it a novel, and it is part of the Novels Wikiproject. You said it is a children's book, but not a novel. How do you think it should be classified? (I see you have it in the template as a collaboration, but of course, that and novel are not mutually exclusive categories.) Aleta Sing 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I read the book and created the article. It is a children's book, with drawings and text, thus a collaboration. I have changed 'children's novel' for 'children's book' as it is not a novel.. I must've made an error on creating the article. It is within the realm of the WP Novels because we include things like short stories and so forth. We include fiction that's not drama and poetry, basically. (I'm a member.) Thanks for pointing out the 'children's novel' misnomer.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there is a category for children's books as well?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure there is, and I'll try to find it. I'm confused though; nothing you have said indicates that it is not a novel. Why exactly is it not one? Aleta Sing 20:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The text is written in big letters, surrounded by drawings.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, ok. Maybe the template should have a line for children's books? BTW, I added the American children's books category to the article. Aleta Sing 21:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
He only wrote one, and it comes with the drawings, so it is a collaboration. I don't know if adding another line to the template would be necessary... Nothing Personal is a book of pictures for instance.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Perhaps an "other" section instead of collaboration? with "(children's book)" to explain it. Banjeboi 22:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet it is a collaboration...Zigzig20s (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Well if you're feeling that is the way to go, ensure the article supports it more than or instead of being a novel. Hopefully that will resolve it being an issue as it will then be readily apparent to all. Banjeboi 23:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Should Arthur C. Clarke be included in the project?

or not??— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

On what basis? --Allemandtando (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

See the end of the Biography section. Journalists who inquired of Clarke whether he was gay were told, "No, merely mildly cheerful."[1] However, Michael Moorcock has written, "Everyone knew he was gay. In the 1950s I'd go out drinking with his boyfriend."[2]. Ged UK (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I would yes, as well as the paedophile project as a bit of digging turns up that he shared in an interview about his sexual activities in Sri Lanka.Child Sex Shame of Arthur C. Clarke; Sunday Mirror, Feb 1, 1998. That he was gay was an apparent open secret as well so this is another case where both tags would seem appropriate. Banjeboi 14:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This article, Gay Sci Fi writer, Sir Arthur C. Clarke is dead, Queerlife South Africa, explains that we might have to wait the 50 years until the "Clarkives", his extensive writings and manuscripts, are opened to get the full story. Banjeboi 15:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
FYI, socking user may be doing some outing work on this so be aware of that if anyone else gets involved. Also I'm told that the paedophile interview was refuted in some manner so that also may be more research to suss out reality. Banjeboi 12:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate response to request at 'Wikiquette alerts', by User:Jaysweet

I went to Wikiquette alerts to report that User:Skoojal had continued to use gendered pronouns to describe me, after I had already asked Skoojal to stop. User:Jaysweet responded to the Wikiquette alert in an inappropriate manner. In my request, all I requested was for Skoojal user to stop using gendered pronouns. Jaysweet's response was to misrepresent the issue, by claiming that I had demanded to be referred to with "ze". Nowhere did I do that. Jaysweet then closed the Wikiquette alert with the following phrase: "This is English Wikipedia, and there is no word "ze" in the English language". Jaysweet also made the uncivil comment: "Uh, so, apparently Whistling42 objects to the use of the English language...".

If anyone would like to weigh in on this, the three places that you might wish to read in order to catch up are the Wikiquette alert section, Skoojal's talk page, and Jaysweet's talk page. However, please do not continue the discussions there; any future discussion should take place on my Talk page. Your attention is appreciated; thank you. Whistling42 (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, OK, I'll step up here. First off, if the discussion is still going on please direct help to only one place the discussion is happenning as we want one conversation not three. Was the issue someone was calling you a he vs she or the the other way around? If so a polite but firm reminder to either use gender-neutral language (they or their) or your username instead should do the trick. IMHO, I don't think it's realistic to expect that most other users are going to arise to learning a different gender pronoun and then remember that you prefer that one. It took years before k.d. lang to get her name always spelled with lowercase letters so change often comes at a much slower speed than what we might expect. Banjeboi 22:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I request that any further discussion on this matter should take place at my Talk page. I say this only because it is the one place I know where no one can easily come along and insist it be removed. Whistling42 (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

One more comment here from me, although most of my comments are at Whistling's talk page... I refactored my closing of the Wikiquette Alert after a clarification from Whistling. I made it clear that Whistling prefers that people do not use gendered pronouns, and no longer made the comment about "ze" which so upset Whistling. I still do not feel we can force people to abide by this request, and I stand by my closure of the Wikiquette Alert. For what it's worth, I have said that I personally will avoid using pronouns when referring to Whistling. And I think many other editors would agree to abide by Whistling's wishes if asked nicely. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC for Charlie Crist

Charlie Crist is the current governor of Florida, and rumors about his sexuality have been circulating. He announced earlier this week that he is engaged (to a woman). The RfC is something we deal with every day: when to report on a BLP's sexual orientation. --Moni3 (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sexual orientation

Please see and comment at Template talk:Sexual orientation#template POV problems. This topic deserves wider attention from project members. Aleta Sing 19:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I should have thought to post a notice here. Dybryd (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson as gay icon - GA - gay icon

Janet Jackson as gay icon just passed GA. I've also spent a great deal of time expanding the gay icon article, which I think can get to GA quicker if the entire project works on it. There are two heavy discussions on the article's talk page that everyone should comment on. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion: Pride family flag

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pride family flag This article was apparently started and/or majorly contributed by one or both of the persons in the couple which designed (and sell licenses to) the Pride family flag. Changed merge proposal to nomination for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pride family flag if you would like to weigh in. Thanks, User0529 (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

List of living bisexual-identified and dead bisexual people

i'm just wondering whether this is the best name someone could come up with for the article? ....particularly the 'dead or alive' part. --emerson7 22:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. It used to be List of bisexual people until a few days ago, now it's a big mess. If no one else cleans it up I can help sort it out in a bit. Unsure why the new title is considered better, seems like a terrible idea to me. Banjeboi 23:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Zoiks! And it's been sliced into parts, and not in a neat and tidy way, I wonder if there was some discussion on this rename? Banjeboi 23:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved the articles back to the naming format "List of bisexual people" they were at after the 5 July article split. The "dead" article name was the second in a series of good-faith renames by another editor, but probably was not the best choice of words.

The article was first renamed (not by me) to List of bisexual-identified people (to specify only people who have identified as bisexual (which makes sense since most people are bisexual anyway, supposedly), and then someone renamed it to include deceased persons that did not identify as bisexual but were known to be bisexual. (Not saying I agree with the "dead" name, but I realize it was a good-faith edit). User0529 (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just created Jacopo Bonfadio

Hi, I just created Jacopo Bonfadio because he was a red link at List of people executed for homosexuality. If anyone can expand on my initial creation, give it a rating, or help to create links to the article, I would very much appreciate it. Cheers! -- roleplayer 23:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded it a bit and gave it two references (inline). It's a toughie, as so much is in Italian. I'll keep searching, though, and thanks for creating such a valuable article. Jeffpw (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical Pederasty article summarily deleted in spite of keep decision on AFD.

Please see the ANI discussion for more, or my talk page. I am too enervated to participate more this evening. Jeffpw (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the WP:ANI section link for anyone interested. Dybryd (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical pederastic couples

Article AfD at Deletion review. Banjeboi 15:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fucking amazing. This is a war of attrition. Jeffpw (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for more opinions

Intersex activist, Cheryl Chase, has written under several different names including Bo Laurent. She has somewhat recently stated she prefers to be called Bo Laurent. Should the article title and subsequent uses of her name refer to Bo Laurent (her preferred name choice) or Cheryl Chase (her more popular pseudonym)? Your opinions would be greatly appreciated. Here is the relevant talk section. Queerudite (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hmmm. There was a similar issue with Marijane Meaker, who is apparently in love with multiple pseudonyms for multiple genres. Thankfully, she didn't prefer to be called one more than the other. Look at the lead for that article though, and create redirects as necessary if you move the article. --Moni3 (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Siegfried & Roy: WikiProject LGBT studies

Talk:Siegfried & Roy has the WikiProject LGBT studies template, but the text of that article has no info which would justify this. IMHO either such info should be added to the article (with good cites, please) or the template removed. Thanks. -- (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The LGBT template doesn't mean the subjects are gay just that the article is within interest of LGBT studies. I agree the article should reference that they are more camp than Christmas but it seems like there's a concerted effort to not mention their relationship beyond a business one.The truth about Siegfried & Roy: the duo have never denied their past romantic relationship. So why is the media ignoring it? Advocate, The, Nov 11, 2003 by Steve Friess. Banjeboi 17:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wider variation

  • NOTE: To reply you must do so here, this talk is mirrored onto many talkpages and is designed to be concurrent with all.

Is there an article that has a wider variation that is not exclusively for Lesbians, Gays, Bi(s), and Transgenders. I am looking for a word or article that is on the lines of "everything not heterosexual" and would include Asexuality, Autosexuality, Pansexuality, Paraphilia, Pomosexual, Zoophilia and, like i said, anything not "straight". I ask because i feel that people who aren't "straight" are usually grouped into that one social group and stereotype, one common stereotype (for men) that is prevalent is femininity (Effeminacy) if they are not "straight". --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Queer/Queer Studies would probably be what you're looking for. though I doubt there is a single catch all phrase that means everything not heterosexual.The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Queer means non-heteronormative political striving. It does not necessarily refer to what you are looking for. I don't think there would be such a thing within the realm of language, to be honest. Diachresis.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur. I do not believe there will be a phrase meaning everything not heterosexual except - non-heterosexual. For the sake of usage, LGBT is much better than queer in reflecting the homo/bi/trans/inter community. goodone (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
We could take a page from Orwell and let 'everything not straight' be known henceforth as "unstraight". Who's with me? Obietom (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
There is non-heterosexuals. Also, I must admit I'm curious to see where this goes. Banjeboi 02:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Can I say that if you're aiming for a word defining a group by who they're not, non-heterosexuals would be a fair choice -- it communicates exactly what you intend: a catch-all "non-typical sexuality" type. (My intuition says most people, straight or otherwise, won't bat an eyelash at the word's "... perceived heteronormativity.") hithereimdan (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan.

As I'm sure many of you are well aware, rumours have been circulating about Lindsay Lohan and Sam Ronson for some time. However, these rumours have now been substantiated by no less reputable papers than The Times, The LA Times, and The Guardian. I added this to the Lohan article today, but there is an editor who refuses to accept any evidence of a relationship until Lohan herself explicitly says something and just reverted me. I am aware my wording could do with a little editing but there seems little point in trying to deny the incredibly obvious, particularly when I have hardcore references from broadsheets to back me up. I don't want to get into an extended but solitary argument about this, particularly as Ward3001 is being weirdly aggressive (informing I will be blocked if I "choose to edit war" etc. After one post!), and I doubt we'd get anywhere. So I'd appreciate it if other people could input and help with sourcing/editing. The opportunity for claptrap from goosip sites to be tacked on is, I suspect, rather high. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with both other editors. I loath seeing "Personal Life" section in wikipedia articles. Even if Lohan were reported saying she was dating Ronson in her own words, who cares? The latest person she's in a relationship with is not the most notable thing about her biography and wouldn't need much more than a few sentences anyway, which, by the looks of it is already mentioned. The only thing I would do is reword the current sentence to state they have been rumored to be in a romantic relationship for x amount of time. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course its not the most important thing in her biography. The paragraph I added was approximately, what, one thirtieth of the size of the article? It's nothing compared to the lovingly detailed essay on her car crashes that someone else has written. But last I checked, we were an encyclopedia (though the amount of warnings I have had in twenty minutes of collaborative editing does make me wonder whether there's been some kind of revolution and the stasi are waiting to pounce...) and we do include facts about people, whether we think they're (the facts or the people) especially important or not. Significant others and relationships are part of that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
That's just it, rumors aren't fact. They're rumors. Obvious or not, BLPs have a responsibility to be as conservative as possible. Lindsay Lohan isn't Cary Grant. She hasn't endured sepculation about her sexual orientation or relationship with women for the majority of her life. If she isnt willing to discuss a personal relationship with the media, why should an encyclopedia make a stronger effort to document her personal life than a tabloid press? Your own source from the LA Times quotes : STILL, THE facts can't be pushed aside: There has been no official acknowledgment from Team Lohan -- or Team Ronson, for that matter -- that the relationship is Sapphic. So to discuss it looks a lot like outing, which is, to paraphrase Wikipedia, "publicizing homosexual behavior without the person's (or people's) consent." If you're going to include the rumored relationship, you have to specify it as a rumored relationship- not as a fact. The paragraph you came up with stated she was involved in a relationship, as if it were a fact- its not, until at least one of them says it is. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
But they're not rumours. If they were, I wouldn't be bothering with this, American media has a tendency to link everyone ever seen together. What I'm working with is that The Times and The Guardian, both relible, independant news sources with fact-checking policies (and I know The Times at least does check its facts because they did it to me when I was interviewed last year) has stated, categorically and unambiguously, that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are in a relationship. This is no insinuation of what people want to hear in order to sell magazines - both articles focus on the lack of reaction and lesbian celebrity couples. The relationship itself is not being sensationally revealed in either - it's simply presented as a given in both.

The source you've quoted above is actually a discussion of whether it's ethical to out Lindsay without her permission, not a disclaimer. The article thoughout makes it obviously that they are in a relationship, publicly, and what it discusses are the implications of that. The fact that neither's PR crews have officially acknowledged the relationship is used to consider whether the relationship may be discussed in the media or not - but the existence of the romantic relationship itself is not in doubt anywhere throughout the article. And I really don't see what's wrong with carrying that confidence into the Wikipedia article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Because neither person has verified it. That's whats important. Until one of them states she dating the other, its still classified as a rumor, not a fact, no matter what the sources say. Wikipedia only reports undeniable facts as fact. Anything that is disputable has to documented as such. Reporting their relationship as a fact violates policy. If it has to be mentioned then it has to be mentioned as a rumor. The same standard applies (or damn well should apply) to heterosexual relationships as well. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
No, whether either person has acknowledged it or not is not the only standard by which a fact can be established. The standard is whether the claim can be verified/substantiated with reference to independant reliable media sources. Which, in this case, it can. Stating that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are in a relationship without a source in a Wikipedia article violates policy - stating that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are in a relationship and then citing a national broadsheet newspaper with fact-checking policies as the source for that information is responsible editing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Right on, Dev. --Melty girl 00:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm just happy that Lindsay has found somebody after all of her travails. Having lived for a time in the UK, I know both the Guardian and Times have excellent reputations. They're good enough sources for me, and anyone reading the articles about them here can see that for themselves. Jeffpw (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
(sigh) Dev920, if the nonsense continues you might have to start a RfC ala, "Is this content sourced reliably and within wikipedia's policies". Banjeboi 08:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The RfC has already been brought by Ward3001, though bizarrely he has focused it on my choice of words. Apparently my writing "involved", "partners" and "in a relationship" are an obvious attempt to weasel in my insidious claims that Samantha and Lindsay are in a romantic relationship, because none of those phrases actually means "in a romantic relationship", according to Ward. Is my command of Englsh slipping, or is this a very odd allegation? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's official, ladies and gentlemen, the gay agenda has landed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hahaha point of order. Reminds me of the Mystery Science Theater version of The Brain that Wouldn't Die, where this lady's head is in a pan and the monster thing is in a closet (overtones?) and it's banging on the door BANG! BANG! BANG! and Tom Servo shouts POINT! OF! LAW! Was freakin' hilarious. Leave me alone, I have insomnia. --Moni3 (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Template:Sexual orientation

I've got an RFC going on the sexual orientations template which is going over like a lead balloon. At the moment we've got POV neologisms galore in there. Have a look and add your input.

Dybryd (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


So I'm looking at the NAMBLA page and on the talkpage is this project's header - and it states that:

Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBT studies: The WikiProject banner on this article does not imply acceptance or endorsement of NAMBLA as an organization or the beliefs and practices of NAMBLA members by the LGBT WikiProject.

Only problem is - the first bit doesn't go with the second part - the first part promises an explanation, the second part is actually a disclaimer - those are not the same thing. --Allemandtando (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why that article is tagged for this project, other than the fact that the organization has been ostracized from LGBT coalitions farther than any other group of people. I don't have a problem with that. You are correct that that is disclaimer and not an explanation. I don't know what the explanation would be, and I would be up for de-tagging it. Others whose memories are longer than mine will probably remember why it was tagged. It may have caused a big discussion here. I don't know. --Moni3 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Any homophobe with an axe to grind will be certain to namedrop NAMBLA at some point. Simply for that reason, I think this project has an interest in keeping an eye on the article to make sure it remains factually based. However, the shiny rainbow sticker at the top of the page does look, at first glance, a little like a Big Gay Seal of Approval -- perhaps the article could be monitored in partnership with WP:PAW rather than as part of the main project. Dybryd (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
OK - but what's it to be - is the project going to provide a disclaimer or an explanation or both? --Allemandtando (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The disclaimer was a compromise made after many well meaning but not too critically thinking people kept removing the LGBT tag. It was decidedd that the tag should remain, but that something weasily should be added so everybody would know that the LGBT Project was shocked and horrified that we are forced to include this obviously related article in our scope of coverage. Any reader of the article can see the obvious reasons why the tag needs to be on the article (though not the explanation). In various archives here and on that talk page you can see the debate and the consensus to have the tag remain. I'll try to reword it today.....<sigh> must we get into another discussion about NAMBLA and how it actually is part of LGBT history? It was tiresome the firs time, and I am certain that particular horse is now decomposed. No need to beat the poor thing any more. Jeffpw (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have missed my point - I'm not bothered about the tag, I'm bothered about accuracy - that tag is incorrect. So does someone want to change the tag so it reads disclaimer? --Allemandtando (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
And you seem to have missed the part of my post where I said I would reword it. I hope it now meets with your approval. Jeffpw (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone's dealt with it. Banjeboi 09:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The changes take care of the problem so I think the problem is solved? --Allemandtando (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the current disclaimer violate WP:NPOV? Stating the project does not condone or support the organization (in bold red print no less) gives the impression the project has taken a moral/political stance on the issue. Shouldn't the disclaimer simply read "This article has been tagged as an aspect of LGBT history." I think the article itself presents enough prof most LGBT organization did not support the organization. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I read the archive btw, but I'm bringing this up again simply because wikipedia is not censored. I don't believe we can prevent any individual from assuming all LGBT people are child molestors and/or pedo-whatever- thats just the way of ignorance. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been called worse! Explanation trimmed. Banjeboi 10:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC) resolved yet as the tag has been removed because it "attacks LGBT". sigh ZueJay (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Gave it a go with different text...? ZueJay (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
See? This is what I said would happen. the tag had been removed several times by editors who were confused and thought it implied LGBTs supported NAMBLA. The version I had drafted, while verbose, made it clear we took no position on the org, but they were part of our history. This version will be attacked because it says "Male/male" sexual relationships". The anti-pedo groups will argue that it is not a relationship because the child cannot give consent. I think we should consider going back to the version which stood over a year, unattacked, before this mess came up again. Jeffpw (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Question: Articles don't have to be tagged with the Project tag to be on the Project watchlist, right? So why not just leave the PAW (Pedo Article Watch) template on the NAMBLA talk page, leave the LGBT tag off, and just leave (or add, if it isn't already there) the NAMBLA article to the LGBT watchlist. That would keep it on the LGBT project's radar but avoid appearances of endorsement. --User0529 (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, gee. Just off the top of my head I'd say because that would be hypocritical and caving into political hysteria. Jeffpw (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, kinda agree on that. It's within our history and something we should just treat encyclopedicly like all the rest. And even if it's on a separate project watchlist - project tags serve a number of purposes so I see little reason to not simply find a way to make it work and encourage editors to focus on more article-related issues. Banjeboi 05:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, El C has seen fit to remove the tag himself, in spite of our consensus that the tag does belong there. I'm out of this discussion now, after being warned by El C not to revert the page again. Personally, I thought Benji's neutral version was great:
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This page is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBT studies: NAMBLA is a part of LGBT history and as the Wikiproject LGBT Studies it's within our scope of scholarship. The project tag on any article does not imply support for this or any organization or its members or activities.
B-Class article B  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Jeffpw (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want the above [default] tag, that's fine. But, if you continue to revert war as you did, replacing the default with the customized "it would be hypocritical of us [etc.]" disclaimer (as you tweak it, on-the-fly, while invoking "ownership"), then, yes, I would actually rather have it removed from the NAMBLA talk page until a formula is arrived at here — rather than having a spectacle at the article's talk page. El_C 14:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT tag (redux)

Moved from Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association. (diff) El_C 14:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Squeakbox and other interested editors, editors have discussed inclusion of the LGBT tag before on this page; I would speculate that the reason there is even an "Explanation" line available as part of the WikiProject tag is due to this article (I couldn't find the discussion on it - tough to search the archives).
Prior and active discussions of the LGBT tag can be found at:

Related discussions are found in

The reason it clearly falls under Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) studies is due to the male/male sexual relationships inherent in NAMBLA. ZueJay (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the tag Whether anyone likes it or not NAMBLA has been a part of LGBT history if for no other reason the constant rejecting of their inclusion in pride parades, events, etc as well as those who oppose LGBT rights using NAMBLA as a wedge issue. The LGBT project tag simply states this article is within our scope. Banjeboi 22:57, 7 July 2008
Male/male relations is simply an inadequate explanation of NAMBLA, its like calling pedophiles who abuse young girls heterosexuals, I'll refactor. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the original tag. While imperfect, at least it stopped this silly fight from cropping up on a weekly basis. Jeffpw (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Folks, do not revert war on the talk page. Jeffpw, you need to demonstrate far better that there's consensus for this rather polemical disclaimer (I looked at the link you provided, and a few people objected to it). I want to see that "it would be hypocritical" supported by many members —and nonmembers (they, too, can voice their opinion)— of the wikiproject, on the wikiproject's discussion, not here (I moved the section right after). El_C 13:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the current version of the tag, El C. It has been generally decided on the LGBT talk page that the tag sgiould stay. Squeak has taken it upon himself to remove it without discussion.
We need more people participating (not just from the Wikiproject, it does not own tags when they invoke disclaimers of that nature), agreeing on a specific formula. Then, take it there. El_C 13:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
What I find odd is Squeakbox saying he has the right to remove the tag thought he is not a member of this project. Could somebody clarify this for me? I'm understandably confused. (edited to add) Ah, I see Squeak placed the LGBT tag on his page a few minutes ago, so as to claim membership and right to decide about thew tagging of this article. Jeffpw (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikiprojects are organisational tools, they have no power at all. Now generally, it's accepted that a wikiproject has the right to tag articles and that the idea that the project has about the structure and direction of articles is the best way to proceed - that is not generally argued about. however if an editor sees a project tag (or an edit based on a wikiprojects idea of how things should be written about) and he feels that it breaches our policies and guidelines in some fashion then he is perfectly entitled to remove it as such - obviously if he does not explain why, then it is likely that editwars will follow. However having said that - if he notes it on the article talkpage or sufficiently in his edit summary, he is under no obligation to inform the wikiproject. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how you enjoy consensus from this wikiproject to make those various custom changes. Something of that gravity, if customized, you ought to arrive at a polished formula/statement via a clear consensus here first. Not do it all on-the-fly, then invoke the authority of the wikiproject for something which they have yet to see, nor approve of, in sizable enough numbers. El_C 14:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The "custom changes" to the tag were made in response to well meaning but uninformed people constantly removing the tag, causing edit wars. The tag as it stood was stable for well over a year. Personally, I'm in favor of using the normal tag and leaving it at that, as it's obviously a part of LGBT history, as the article itself makes abundantly clear. To not tag it because of its subject matter is both puritanical and hypocritical, in my opinion. Jeffpw (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Again: we're not tagging until you decide how you would like to proceed: a default tag (feel free to add it right now, then); or, a custom one (gain the consensus for a specific formula here). El_C 14:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
El C, I in no way implied that the decision was solely mine. You seem to be unusually aggressive towards me about this, for reasons I don't understand. I am but one member of this project, and by no means one of the most active members. I stated my opinion, nothing more. Jeffpw (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Twice you make the unqualified claim that I removed the tag — without noting the default versus disclaimer issue. A bit more introspection and a bit less ("unusually aggressive" etc.) deflection, please. El_C 15:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I never claimed you removed it twice--I posted in two areas that you had removed it. If I did post that by mistake, I apologize, though I am virtually certain I did not. Please review the diffs. And my opinion regarding your aggression stands. Jeffpw (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I find your claims of aggression on my part to be without basis. El_C 15:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
So be it. I find you aggressive (as you have been before on my talk page), you find yourself above reproach, as many admins are want to do. So we are in a stalemate as to your aggression. I'll let it go. But please do stay accurate as to your claims against me, as I only said once (accurately) that you removed the tag. Yours, Jeffpw (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You say you've let it go, but then go on to make aggressive comments, such as "the assholes are truly something", "when do we let the bastards get us down", and so on. I feel you have been acting unfairly toward me, with these unsubstantiated accusations (claiming aggression on my part, or that I see myself as being above reproach), while not bothering to back that up with anything; whereas I have treated you with nothing but courtesy. But why would you think I wouldn't defend myself? El_C 10:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth would you think those messages on other's user pages were directed at you, personally? Lighten up, El C. We've never gotten along, but you seem to think I am persecuting you rather than venting general frustration at the situation in general--which, by the way,seems to have resolved itself quite nicely. Let it go. Jeffpw (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Roger that. El_C 10:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if the tag is there or not. I very strongly object to text in the tag which expresses some sort of collective value judgment on "hypocrisy" supposedly attributed to the LGBT project as a body.

I was also a little embarrassed by the tone of some of the edit comments directed at Squeakbox along the lines of "back off, the LGBT project has spoken!" For one thing, the LGBT project has spoken very inconsistently. And more importantly, adding your name to the membership list of a Wikiproject doesn't give you any particular position in relation to the topic of that project -- other than being interested in it.

Dybryd (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so - what do we need to do? Achieve some sort of consensus that the LGBT tag belongs on the NAMBLA article, then achieve so some sort of consensus about the wording if a tag should be placed there? Do we do the Support Oppose thing? --Moni3 (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure... why not? I'll start a section below for coming to consensus on whether or not to tag it. Assuming we approve that (which I do think we will), we can then discuss wording for the tag. Aleta Sing 19:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Change the default tag, and use it

It's not the first time someone's complained of an LGBT tag on an article - either for feeling that it's not an LGBT issue (most often observed as "Mr. X isn't gay - the tag must go!!!"), or because LGBT editors find it distasteful to support inclusion of a particular article under the LGBT banner (without first realising that it's a wikiproject banner, not the LGBT banner itself).

I'd suggest a once and for all change to the default template... it doesn't need to be called an explanation or a disclaimer. It just needs to be a text at the bottom of the tag that says something along the lines of "Inclusion of the LGBT wikiproject tag does not imply LGBT support or objection to the subject of an article (per WP:NPOV). The tag is intended to designate that the subject of an article has a connection in some way, positive or negative, to LGBT issues"

...or something along those lines Crimsone (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. It ought to go without saying, but it doesn't. However, I would drop your second sentence as unnecessary. Dybryd (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
agreed to your suggestion as to text. Jeffpw (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This is fine. The tag should be included for the historical reasons discussed. forestPIG 23:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Article tagging being reverted against logic, NPOV, and concensus

FYI: For this neverending discussion, the following comment(s) were left on my user talkpage:

Just wanted to let you know I just undid the LGBT category on NAMBLA. Yes, I read the categories talk page as you directed me to do, I see a vote for including Nambla with the category of LGBT. However, WP:BLP supercedes consensus in this case. First, Nambla is a pedo group, not a gay, les, bi or tranny group. Second, it's pretty well known that Nambla is not affiliated to LGBT IRL by membership, association, etc...

Also, pedo does not equal gay, les, bi or tranny, as most pedo's are straight. LGBT is for groups like Act UP!, Radical Faries (yes, that's a real group), known artists, like Yves St. Laurent, Freddy Mercury, Seigfried and Roy (yea, I know they won't admitt it, but it's pretty **** obvious)..etc...

It's not for Nambla, Renee Guyuon society (sp?) ..etc..

Placing LGBT category on Nambla is an untrue statemnent, not referenced by anything, therefore it violates WP:V, as LGBT community as a whole denies any involvement, nor has as a member any such groups as NAMBLA, therefore placing NAMBLA in the same catageory with LGBT could be construed as a violation of WP:BLP (since we're talking about living people most of the time). Policy trumps consesus here. Please don't place that up again. Thanks (BTW: I'm not really as much of a male member as I might sound here! ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the applicability of WP:BLP. I still support inclusion of this in LGBT scope. ZueJay (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh gawd! this is rediclulous... Talk:North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association#The_LGBT_Wikiproject_tagCrimsone (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Has someone reverted the reversion of the revert? Do you admit confirming denying you ever said such a thing? --Moni3 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the tag, yes... and he has replied that he's not going to remove it again "yet".
Not quite sure I understand what you mean about admiting to confirming or denying ever saying such a thing though... actually, I'm quite sure I don't understand. Crimsone (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I've weighed in over there. Like all the current pedophilia drama I feel the subject is just really sensitive beyond sexuality issues which are already pretty sensitive. Banjeboi 20:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed... it's starting to really get on my nerves to be honest. How someone can argue from any manner of emotional standpoint claiming POVs are being pushed while pushing POV's based primarily on emotive responses I don't know. The only way to rationally ane neutrally discuss sensitive issues is from a dispassionate angle... but it doesn't happen. :( Crimsone (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tagging of Charlie Crist

There appears to be a dispute of whether Charlie Crist should be tagged by the wikiproject. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Charlie Crist. While not being a member of the wikiproject, I personally don't see any reason for the tag. There were some rumours of him being gay, but not with sufficient sourcing for the article. He's also evidentally opposed adoption by same-sex couples (the article says homosexuals, but isn't same sex couples the better wording?). Neither of these seem much of a reason for him to be of interest, but perhaps I'm wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't popped in the article to participate, but the rumors, and the anti-gay opinions would warrant the tag. Tagging doesn't mean we think he's gay. It just means we should pay attention to accuracy in gay-related issues in his article. --Moni3 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand that, but I'm pretty sure the project doesn't tag every single person or politician who has ever expressed anti-gay opinions or opposed gay rights in some form? I mean GWB isn't currently tagged, nor are I suspect tons of other people who have expressed anti-gay or homophobic sentiment (what about someone like Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly (commentator)?). The tagging of Talk:Fred Phelps I can understand or others who are highly noteable for it or where it's a significant part of who they are like Brian Tamaki or Åke Green (who aren't currently tagged but I guess will be at some stage) but does the wikiproject really plan to tag every single article about a person who has ever expressed such a sentiment? It just seems a little excessive to me, although it is your wikiproject, I don't really care either way. The rumours are IMHO a better reason but since they are apparently insufficiently sourced for mention in the article, it doesn't really seem necessary to me, until and unless better sourcing arises. Anyway it's up to members of the project, if you feel you want to, then go ahead but it sounds like you're going to have to discuss the matter with editors of the article who are opposed to the tagging. Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The tag was added for the same reason sourced content was added - this potential US Vice-president has been dogged by gay rumors. That's what the sources state. I;ve excused myself from that article because I was being personally attacked and didn't appreciate it and no one else was helping to stop it. Banjeboi 14:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

NAMBLA - to tag or not to tag, that is the question

  • Support tagging - NAMBLA is an organization dealing with same-sex sexuality, and therefore it belongs within the purview of this project, regardless of whether anyone within the project approves of the organization. Tagging does not imply approval/approbation, or lack thereof, by the project as a whole or any individual members. Aleta Sing 19:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support tagging - For all practical purposes, NAMBLA is on par with Fred Phelps which is tagged by the project. I would wager that quite a few project members and the larger LGBT community have very little approval for anything that Phelps does yet his bigotry clearly falls within the project's purview. Why should NAMBLA be viewed differently? AgneCheese/Wine 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support tagging, for reasons discussed above Jeffpw (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Just as a random outside opinion, I'd be very wary of tagging it without explaining the rejection of the organization by the LGBT community in the lead of the article. I agree with the Phelps argument for why it is "of interest" but is there a subcategory that might be more appropriate than the broad LGBT tag? SDY (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    I think you're confusing categorizing (on the main article page) with tagging for this project (on the talk page). Your point remains useful for the categorizing, and I don't have a ready answer. Aleta Sing 20:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. (piles of sarcasm suppressed here - you can all thank me later) As stated elsewhere NAMBLA was thrown as a slur against the US LGBT community repeatedly and has been part of the codified "Christian" response to LGBT people and now can be seen in For the children (politics) rationales du jour against all aspects of LGBT and BDSM culture. In some conservative minds LGBT will equal pedophilia and child abuse without question until they die. I agree it would be helpful to have content showing the connections to LGBT history in the article. Banjeboi 23:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support for obvious reasons. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support We tag all sorts of revolting things, not because we like them, so how can we exclude NAMBLA? Haiduc (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support It would appear that to tag or not to tag is not the question after all (actually, it never entered my mind). Crimsone (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
An oppose is worth precisely nothing without a reason for it, and not worth much more unless the reason's a good one, Crimsone (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that 'LGBT' as we construe it today has anything to do with intercourse with an underage person. I didn't type in a reason because I am moving into a new place and won't have access to the internet and be able to reply to a whole argument.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Possibly not - but there is notable animosity from LGBT people against the organisation, and the organisation is cited in opposition to LGBT people, claiming it as an example of their immorality. It's also part of LGBT history, like it or not... and males that have sex with males are quite automatically associated with LGBT... LGBT is two things - a community (and that's the part that I'm not part of), and a grouping of all things Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Trans. men sleeping with men is gay by default, regardless of age... that doesn't mean that it's part of the LGBT community, but it does mean that an organisation talking of homosexual behaviour of any sort is gay, and thus LGBT in scope. The criteria for tagging is not whether something is LGBT anyway - it's whether it's an issue of particular relevance to LGBT. It qualifies on all counts (encyclopedically for sure - moral or value judgements don't enter into encyclopedias except in articles on the respective subjects of "morals" and "value judgements") Crimsone (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
To be blunt, I think you are trying to turn around the project, and I don't like it. (I hope you won't take this as a personal attack; I am talking about your work here, and I think it's important for project members to be very honest with each other.) I disagree with your statement, 'men sleeping with men is gay by default, regardless of age'. I don't think that pedophilia is an LGBT topic even when it is a same-sex occurence. It does not fit into the current construal of LGBT, except to homophobes. As to tagging everything that is relevant to LGBT history, it seems excessive to me. And dangerously misguided - see our conversation on AIDS - I think it was with you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
To be equally blunt, I don't care whether you personally happen to like what you percieve me to be doing or not.Unless you can actually put into words what it is I'm "trying to" do without assigning some manner of agenda, which is impossible, it cannot be anything other than a personal attack. Further, you are "talking about my work"... what work? where? In what way?
I am also going to politely tell you that if you are going to quote me, it's best that you do so exatly - not offer some manner of re-interpretation of what I said in your own words. And the fact's are facts - homosexual is a same sex attraction... it's in it's etymology; it's what the word means. It makes no difference what the age of that attraction is, just as there is no argument that most cases of child sexual abuse are heterosexual in nature. It, however, is not the only reason for tagging... you yourself said "except for homophobes", which in an LGBT studies context is reason for tagging enough. There are a great many reasons for tagging - only one of them is the history. LGBT studies looks not only on what the LGBT community relates to or finds favourable, but what confronts and stands against it also.
Now, with respect, get the hell of my back, stop making accusations and presenting slurs as well intended discourse, and mind your own damned business about my work, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
And no, we didn't have a conversation on Aids... we were both part of a discussion in which a number of people were involved, and you were largely disagreed with... and another thing... when citing example of things "dangerous and misguided", I'd suggest you explain why those instances are relevant, make an actual case, and be darned sure that you do indeed recall correctly with regards to the person you are trying to slur with it.
I argue from an entirely logical and disempassioned intellectual perpective thankyou very much - as such, I can have no agenda, cannot be trying to turn anything around, nor can I be even arguing from a POV.Crimsone (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The LGBT tag also doesn't define what is or isn't LGBT just what is considered within LGBT and Queer studies; is this a topic that comes up in a scholarly discussion of LGBT history? You bet. Banjeboi 22:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Queer Studies also looks at everything, actually. I queer non-LGBT novels or films all the time. Queer Studies could also queer the building I can see outside my window - built by a heterosexual man, with phallic shapes, and so forth...Should we tag it?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Hmph. Though I think NAMBLA is poop on toast and I wish we had an NPOV image of someone running to a wastebasket with dirty diapers in a pair of tongs to illustrate just how far away the LGBT community wishes to be from this organization, no doubt if we don't tag and watch it some dorkus is going to try to alter the info to say that we can't get enough of this group. I've been waiting this long to try to come up with a reason not to support tagging it and I can't. --Moni3 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
note:I'd just like to point out again that anyone's personal opinion of this group is completely irrelevant for the purpose of tagging it under the project. Lets remember to look at this article with our LGBT Pride banners put away and view it strictly in an academic sense. There is no reason not to tag this article, purely on the basis that it deals with same-sex intercourse/relationships between males. As an earlier editor in the archives pointed out, Hitler isn't exactly a shining example of German pride, but he is none the less as aspect of the country's history. Slavery isn't America's proudest subject but that doesn't mean we would omit it from our history books. I would suggest, regardless of whether or not the tag ends up having a disclaimer, that we all keep the page on our watch list to prevent overzealous LGBT activists from removing it and prevent anti-LGBT vandals from turning it into a page one would find on conservipedia. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Was that for me? Was I not clear enough how much I dislike NAMBLA? Should I go into further detail? --Moni3 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Moni, dear, "poop on toast" makes your position very clear indeed. I dont think that was directed at you. :-) Glad we are (have?) achieved consensus on this issue. On a somewhat related note, I have seen that I, Haiduc and a few other editors have been labeled as pedophiles on other sites for our positions on this and the Pederasty issue. I wish to make perfectly clear here that I have virtually no interest in men under 40, so that pretty much disqualifies me as a pedophile. Anyone thinking such things about me or other editors based on the articles we edit must have foul minds, indeed. Jeffpw (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - relevant to LGBT, regardless of whether that's a good thing. --Alynna (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. "Male/male relationships" may have been too vague (think Dad-Son, Brothers), but it was neutral, and the intimate male/male relationship, consensual or not, was the intitial reason the subject was tied to the LGBT community as implied in the history of NAMBLA presented in the article. I like the generic tags that say something to the effect of "neither supports nor opposes" (goodness knows that some LGBTers and friends don't support ALL the LGBT "positive" organizations out there; think Human Rights Campaign). ZueJay (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: while pedophiles are not part of our community, for a long time they were allowed to act as they were, and we cannot attempt to deny that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: Same-sex sexuality is what the projct covers and this article is not only about a same-sex sexuality group but it is also significant in the history of LGBT issues, links between homosexuality and paedophillia are the root of a lot of prejudice against LGBT people and the importance of this factor should be noted. Nobody has to support the views and actions of NAMBLA and tagging it doesn't imply support. Opposition to articles' subjects shouldn't inhibit wikipedia, it doesn't stop WikiProject Germany tagging Adolf Hitler for instance. PiTalk - Contribs 18:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • support:Unfortunately, as much as it hurts members of our community, it is male on male. LessThanClippers 21:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference obitnyt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    • ^ Review section (page 3), Saturday Guardian, 2008-03-22