Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

LGBT parenting

The Divine Institution of Marriage

I removed the above from LGBT parenting, I feel it's waaay POV and not really helping anything - the source is alarming as well. I've recently tussled with the same editor about putting LGB=disease-type content on several LGBT articles so I may be over-reacting here. Any thoughts? -- Banjeboi 00:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Popenoe is a legitimate sociologist and his book on Fatherhood seems to be regarded as significant. What is insignificant is the fact that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints quote from it. Their opinion is not notworthy. His is. Also Popenoe is essentially discussing single-parent families with absent fathers. We'd need clear evidence that his assertions in that context are applicable to parenting by gay couples, since it is not simply the absence of a biological father that's the the issue but the presence of an example of a working long-term relationship into which the child is enfolded. Alsio there are two sentences trhat are being forced together there. We need to know the context, and the importance that is attached in context to very sweeping generalisations like "fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being" (is this really always true?). Paul B (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed thank you. Thank you! I believe they've struck the LDS aspect so this might be in a better spot. I'm going to also insist that the entire "criticism" section be merged more appropriately per the NPOV and MOS guidelines - this should help address some of the POV issues. -- Banjeboi 01:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


James Robert Baker is getting a lot of vandalism. Anybody home? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

i've been at school all day, but I'll be on the rest of the night. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Homophobe Single Purpose Account

Just a note that we have a new user whose single purpose seems to be to delete links to the article Gay Village, Montreal. See here. He's been doing at as an anon IP, and now, as a new account. I've been reverting but I myself am officially retired and will not be able to monitor this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

removal of image

Please visit Ramba (comics) and weigh in. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have done. HalJor (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Nicolosi

Would anyone mind checking out Joseph Nicolosi's article? The POV seems too positive. --Silvestris (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems fine to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Bleh - the tone seems highly complimentary. The books could probably be split into their own articles, which would help. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that would give him more space lol! To be honest, I've not read Joseph Nicolosi, but people like Irving Bieber, Edmund Bergler, Sandor Rado, etc, are just as appalling to read. Having said that, they informed our culture, mostly the US up to 1973 with the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder from DSM-III. So I find the page on Nicolosi interesting/enlightening for hermeneutics of earlier texts like novels.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Vecchiali

I came across his name as I was reading Tetu this afternoon...Anyway, I'm finding it hard to add references to improve the article. If anyone wants to help, that'd be cool. Also, is he gay?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The article from Tetu says his book is about a bisexual character, but it doesn't say whether the author is bisexual or not...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
My guess is he is gay or bi but someone else will have to dig - Google books pulls at least thirty ghits which should help. -- Banjeboi 20:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I share your guess. I did some googlebooks browsing and found a reference, but nothing about his sexuality per se.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Please don't guess - this is not some tittle-tattle talk forum. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not gonna put this up on his page, but I'm sharing what my little finger tells me with my sisters.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Speculating here (and making it clear that it what it is) is not the same as putting something of which we are not sure in the article. Aleta Sing 20:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't you know queens like to gossip? Doesn't make it to the article (usually), but collaboration is what this (and other projects) is all about :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's be clear about this BLP applies here like it does everywhere else. This isn't a talk forum, if people have sources that they want to discuss, discuss them. "do you think X is gay?" is just a fishing trip. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Who is she?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, whom do you mean? Aleta Sing 21:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm just being queeny. As in, who does 'she' think she is?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Cameron Scott, I agree with Zigzig20s here, this is an LGBT talk forum where we have to deal with these issues and source LGBT concerns to a profound degree and defend the content continuously. No one is engaging in a fishing trip as much as really trying to figure something out; we're dealing with language and cultural barriers, in this case and often these discussions end up with a well thought out consensus amongst editors who have been through these issues many times before. We're frightfully aware of BLP issues as they are routinely used to erase any aspect of non-heteronormative sexuality off articles. Witness the drama on any number of articles and you'll see that we follow the letter and spirit and do so because it help thwarts vandalism and improves articles. -- Banjeboi 23:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Right and that's why I'm being called a queen? right. So it's following to the letter of the law and then name-calling. Well Cameron Scott is my real name - so how are you sourcing the claim that I'm a queen? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we ever said that, dear. Calling someone a 'she' doesnt make the 'she' a queen; the person who says 'she' is using gay slang and is likely to be something of a queen, though. In fact, I often use 'she' to designate people who are clearly not family and find themselves in the village.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of cultural barriers :) Cameron Scott, consider it a compliment :) Your point is taken, but if you read the discussion, we've only asked the question. No one has stated "Ooh - he's gay - let's find a fringe source from a gossip rag to back it up!" Instead, we've asked the question and started searching for what the answer is. Kind of like asking "Was Vecchiali from Corsica?" and then doing the research. I suspect further conversation will go on that article's talk page - bringing the issue up here simply serves to alert anyone wishing to collaborate that it's happening. Thanks for reminding us :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sal Mineo

Was he the amongst the first well-known out Hollywood celebs? I don't have time to did this one up right now but if he was it should be sourced and contextualized a bit. I don't recall if it was a big deal or not. -- Banjeboi 23:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Could the scope of this project be more clearly defined?

I have on several occasions added the project banner to articles about persons, LGBT or not, that were central in LGBT-related controversies and that also had LGBT-related categories attached to them, only to see project member(s) remove the LGBT studies project template from the articles' talk pages. I tag articles for a lot of WikiProjects, and I rarely experience a paradox of this kind, which I cannot easily decipher, where a project disowns articles that appear to fit the project's scope. Could perhaps the sections on scope, especially the description of what does not belong to the scope of the project, be made a little clearer/detailed? __meco (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The scope essentially covers any subject matter that relates to same-gender and transgender sex, relationships, or politics, including living people, history and fiction. The problem we've encountered as that any editor with an anti-gay bias will remove tags from article subject they personally fell do not fall within the scope. Are there any specific article you're having problems with that could help us better define the scope?The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The most recent example was this edit of the Stefan Petzner article talk page. __meco (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL! I've had a problem with that same editor! I think they may be a bit cautious and looking for our key buzzwords in the articles. that particular article is vague and unhelpful so I think it should be sourced better that someone was actually implying a romantic same sex relationship. If the sources aren't readily available then at least start a LGBT section on the talkpage indicating that the tag is added and the project is available to clarify policies on context and categories. -- Banjeboi 12:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should tag Paul's Case and untag Roderick Hudson. But I think Queen Satyrn won't let me.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
For the record, read WP:BLP. Also for the record, that article doesn't say that Petzner is gay, just that one person claims they were having an affair. Anyone can start rumors. If Peltzner comes out, or if his supposed gayness becomes an issue in his campaign, fine - but otherwise it's simply a rumor. But if you feel strongly that Peltzner belongs to the project, slap the tag back on it and use the "explanation=" parameter.
Even further for the record, I don't see why Paul's case isn't part of the project, now that it has some indication (sourced, even) in the article about why it should be. Roderick Hudson is already part of the project - you'll note that I tagged it back a year ago.
Is it too much to ask that an article say *something* substantial about LGBT issues in order to be part of the project? Wouldn't an article within WP:AUSTRALIA need to mention something about that country to be part of their project? Am I being to strict? Feel free to chastise me - I'm simply one editor, and just a WikiFairy at that. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I would think that biographies where a controversy is presented, or inuendo even, about the person not conforming in their sexual orientations, deserves to be adopted by this project. __meco (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the weight of the controversy. For instance, Rock Hudson endured speculation about his sexual orientation for most of his adult life, as did Marie Antoinette, yet there have been strong opposition to include these figure in LGBT studies. For a WP:BLP, fleeting or unfounded rumors are not enough to include them in the project. There has to be a significant controversy that is documented within the article, or at least verifiable by outside sources. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I think significant is subjective. Agreed that it needs to be sourced well. If it's not it will be a constant source of angst whether its speculation or ... ahem ... a blow-by-blow account. -- Banjeboi 10:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that by so defining a lowerhigher threshhold for acceptance much data pertinent to LGBT studies gets lost. Remember that these "border LGBT" persons can easily be defined as a subtopic proper within LGBT studies. __meco (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) My concern with "lowering the threshold" is that we get close to the very "speculative" issues mentioned above by User:Cameron Scott in the above discussion. We could get to the point where we include in the project anyone that we think *might* be gay, and that's a) not helpful and b) playing with gossip. Just my opinion. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Roderick Hudson is not a gay novel though. It can be queered, sure, and that's what I showed in the Criticism section, but that's only one school of hermeneutics. On the other hand, Paul's Case is so queer that I remember a debate in American high schools last year about whether it should be taught as a gay text or not. (I don't have the reference for that with me; it was a paper published by the Willa Cather Society I think).Zigzig20s (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Suspicion and rumors are taken care of by WP:RS and WP:V. However, surely we have been shown that speculation on a subject's sexual orientation by legitimate historians still warrants inclusion in the project (James I of England, Eleanor Roosevelt). Even if the subject is not gay (right) but has made his mark on LGBT studies in some way, it warrants inclusion in the project (Jesse Helms, Anita Bryant, Judy Garland). And figures about whom rumors have circulated and BLP violations may be made, I pitched a fit at Charlie Crist and another article I can't remember... on why our template does not equal indicating the subject is gay, but that this project has a vested interest in making sure the most accurate information is available. We (should) have just as high a priority in ensuring historical and current high-profile figures' sexual orientations are not used as political fodder as we do in educating readers about whose history has been covered by homophobia through the ages. --Moni3 (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I am referring to suspicion and rumors that is the subject of discussion in the article and which has passed the verifiability/reliable source test. Otherwise you elucidate my exct point with your given examples. Those are very high-profile cases. We shouldn't omit including similar articles only because the subject is of lesser fame. Perhaps we could have a special cautionary banner for such cases? Something similiar to {{BLP}} or {{activepol}}? __meco (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
We should include in the project anyone who "might be gay" if that is an issue which is discussed in the article. I do however acknowledge that adding the project template to such articles' talk pages should be accompanied by some sort of caveat lector so that endless controversies involving non-project editors who see the template as an acknowledgment that the person is an LGBT person can be avoided. __meco (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Rue des Francs-Bourgeois

This is a gay street, probably the gayest street in Paris. Could anyone find references pls? I am too busy with tedious Edmund Husserl as per coursework...Zigzig20s (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the rue Sainte-Croix de la Bretonnerie is even more gay - that I recall - but it doesn't exist on wikipedia...Zigzig20s (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding LGBT portal tag to a couple of psychologists' biographies?

I was considering adding it to Paul Cameron, and perhaps to George Alan Rekers. I'm unsure what the wiki-standard for this is, and I don't want to start an edit war, so I thought I'd ask here first. VG 12:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added Rekers to the Category:Conversion therapy and placed the project banner on the talk page. Cameron is different - his work is pretty much anti-gay. I'm thinking he might go in Category:Homophobia. I'm usually against putting people in that cat, but Cameron looks like he fits. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC), a free MediaWiki website about LGBT and heterosexual history

Hi, my name is Jonathan Ned Katz and I'm the Director of, a free, not-for-profit, educational, MediaWiki-based website in development about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and heterosexual history.

I wonder if any of those interested in administering Wikipedia's GLBT History sections and biographies would be interested in helping administer OutHistory? Take a look at the site and see what you think, and let me know. I think there's a need for a separate website devoted exclusively to our history.

The site is being produced by the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies (CLAGS), an institute of the City University of New York, under a grant from the Arcus Foundation. All the content of the site is provided by volunteers. The only salaried position is the Project Coordinator for OutHistory.

Incidentally, I put a brief description of on Wikipedia and it was deleted. Should not have an entry on Wikipedia?

Jonathan Ned Katz

Fighting Against Forgetting!
My email address is:
Are you Jonathan Katz? (Are you shitting me?) Give me that job right now. Check my contribs. I have your 1974 book in my living room right now. --Moni3 (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Seriously Ned, you'd be lucky to get Moni3. As for, it was deleted as "blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something". See Google Watch as how a website can be more successfully written about. You'd need to demonstrate in some way that the website is notable. If you have media mentions in newspapers, magazines, etc that helps quite a bit. -- Banjeboi 10:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I have academic credentials in Queer Theory at MA level...So I suppose I could help, as I do here. However, I can see the danger of users moving to that website and not contributing to Wikipedia as much as they still do now... It seems to me that by creating/improving LGBT articles here, we are queering Wikipedia. (A politics of resistance through a will to knowledge...) The important thing is, Wikipedia is used by everyone, so that queering is more efficient than a website probably only visited by people who are family.
Having said that, I would be glad to take care of LGBT archival work and use my academic credentials to sift through that.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Louise Brooks

Wrong tag seems to have been added by User:SatyrBot as lesbian playing by Alice Roberts included in Pandora's Box film. Unless anyone can come up with third-party sources, delete this passage. Britneysaints (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Would someone from this project mind explaining to User:Britneysaints the reasoning behind why the LGBT Project claims the article on Louise Brooks as part of the project? This editor keeps removing the Project's banner from Talk:Louise Brooks, and I've been after him or her to discuss it with someone here before they do it. They went so far as to post, and amend, the comment above, but still went ahead and removed the banner, with the edit summary "as per project talk page", despite the fact that no one has responded to his or her inquiry.

So, why is Louise Brooks part of the project? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Update. I replied with a link to sourcing on the article talkpage and content about her affair with Greta Garbo has been clarified. I think this is resolved for now. -- Banjeboi 21:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge two Sexual Orientation cats

What do y'all think about merging Category:Sexual orientation and identity into Category:Sexual orientation? Is there a difference between them? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sexual identity is very anti-Kinsey. Sexual subjectivity is where it's at.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think merge sounds good! CTJF83Talk 16:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Sexual identity does not make much sense and it is patriarchal. Just keep sexual orientation and delete the other category I say.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sexual orientation is an ongoing - and culturally heated - debate, does orientation stem from biological, environmental or combo of the two and other factors. Sexual identity is political and has greatly changed over time - how people identify and express sexuality of themselves and others. If you're proposing to make identity a subsection of orientation that would make sense but co-mingling the two giving equal weight to reserch versus a neologism seems problematic. -- Banjeboi 17:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, fine, I agree. Merge everything (including description) into Category:Sexual orientation. Going the other way was just a thought, and apparently worth the 2 cents :-). What's important is that we don't need two cats that overlap. — Becksguy (talk) 10:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Political Impact and WP:LGBT

After learning that Proposition 8 may have failed yesterday, I kept dreaming last night over and over that its article was full of inaccuracies and blatantly false and POV information, and worse yet - that I hadn't read it to set it right. I checked this morning and it appears to be rather good, actually. Aside from the fact that this clearly indicates I have several neuroses and a buttload of misplaced guilt to overcome, it has some implications. I can't vote in California, but I did get married in August, so I had an interest in seeing this get shot down. Florida Amendment 2 (2008) was, I think, poorly managed in my part of the state and as a result, our constitution was amended to define marriage as ridiculous. The article for Amendment 2 is pretty stinky. I apologize for criticizing when I could do something about it. But that thought of taking on one more thing while I was undertaking Harvey Milk's FA is overwhelming. I'm writing the Save Our Children political campaign right now, which means I have to read three! books authored by Anita Bryant. I need an oxygen tank to survive this.

My feverish dreams indicate I should have been able to do more. But can we do more? Can we use our project to work on political issues like this? Should we or is that POV? Can someone absolve me of my guilt? --Moni3 (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Good grief Moni3! If you never do anything else here you've changed the world by drecking-out the suicide cult bits from Harvey Milk and turning that article into an FA gem. I recall once, in a land and time far far away ... reading about San Francisco and the only resources that library had about LGBTI people was that Harvey Milk was assassinated and the city was where AIDS began - it didn't but who quibbles over details. Really, every scrap we do to un-erase LGBTI people, culture and history is a step to improve the understanding of gender and sexual minorities and their contributions to the world. So much of what we do is completely thankless but I get quite a few anonymous thank-you emails from folks who - for whatever reasons - are unable or unwilling to out themselves on my talkpage as supporters. Recall that LGBTI people are still routinely attacked and killed in the United States - which should know better - and a fair majority of countries pretty much hold all gender and sexual minorities in the worst possible light regardless of who they actually are. We are beacons of enlightenment in a world that needs hope and good information. That we are dealing with hatred even from our fellow editors would seem to thwart our efforts but instead we persist to write more, better and well-sourced articles. We can't expect a thank you but just like Milk much of our work pays off exponentially for those that learn and see that an entire LGBTI world exists; even if it's been erased from their textbooks, even if laws have been passed to write hate into a constitution, even if it's a second- third- or no- class world.
LGBTI people exist and survive and thrive despite every effort to mitigate that existence and they have done so in every culture, everywhere and there is no indication that's about to change. We are likely saving lives so I can take a few jabs here and there. As for the orange juice queen? I side with the activists who encouraged "Suck a fruit for Anita". -- Banjeboi 21:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Old Joy

Has anyone else seen that film? It is on this list [1], yet as Todd Haynes says in a New York Times review [2], the characters can't be said to be gay stricto sensu. There is homoeroticism to be sure, and it would seem that the two men have sex twice, though those scenes are only suggested. What to do?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with the inclusion of this movie in the list, since it is lgbt-related. However, the lead on the list could probably be clearer on that some of the movies have more subtle homoeroticism or subtext. And the list could probably do with more sources and/or details, particularly on entries like this where the lgbt content is not overt and not covered in the wp article on the movie. Siawase (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be good to do some reading on it and eventually tag it. I imagine they have sex in the tent, then the beard man gives a hand job to the other man in the bath - but that's not shown on camera of course. Sorry to be so indelicate.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Input please

Requesting participation at Stonewall riots#LGBT vs gay, homosexual, etc. Maralia (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hothead Paisan

Hi. The Hothead Paisan article was recently tagged as a candidate for speedy deletion on notability grounds, and it could definitely use a few more references. Would anyone be interested in helping improve the article? I'd rather not see it wind up at AfD. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a source link on the talk - if it goes to AFD or other drama ensues then send up a flare for more support. There is plenty of sources for the subject. -- Banjeboi 17:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for the links. The problem seems to have been solved, although I still plan on adding to the article. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagging Don DeLillo's Players?

Should I tag Don DeLillo's Players? The wife spends her time with a homosexual couple; the husband wonders if the terrorist he communicates with is a homosexual or not. It's not a gay novel, though.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is no - it sounds like none of the major characters or themes are LGBT, just "background" stuff. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lambda Literary Award - add an 's'?

Shouldn't we add an 's' at the end of 'Award'?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Academy Award, Grammy Award, Emmy Award, and Nebula Award make me think not. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hector MacDonald

Hector MacDonald is mentioned as homosexual in Neil Bartlett's Who's That Man, page 65. The talk page appears to be controversial. Was he having sex with underage boys or simply with men?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we know whether he was having sex with anyone, but the source that has been deleted from this article states "The essence of the accusations that had led Macdonald to the brink of a court martial was that he was a pederast. His ruin had begun some months earlier when a British tea-planter had discovered him in some sort of sexual activity with four Sinhalese boys in a compartment of a railway carriage in Kandy....A number of damning charges were laid before the Governor, Sir Joseph West Ridgeway. Ridgeway became convinced that MacDonald had taken advantage of the relatively relaxed Sinhalese attitude towards homosexual activity to become systematically involved with, possibly, scores of local boys. Some of these, Ridgeway ruefully noted, are "the sons of the best known men in the colony, English and Native". Denis Judd, Empire: The British Imperial Experience, from 1765 to the Present, 2001, p.171. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Apparently he is listed as 'gay suicide' in Xavier Mayne's The Intersexes. (See Bartlett's Who's That Man?, p.245.)Zigzig20s (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Dublin Castle Affair

Does anyone have time to work on the Dublin Castle Affair of 1883-4? Please see [3]. It seems to foreshadow the Cleveland Street Scandal. No mention on the Dublin Castle page.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual GA reassessment

Homosexual transsexual has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malkinann (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual Transsexual Request for comments

In the process of refining the new edition of this article to affirm it's good article status a content dispute has arisen. One editor's stated opinion is that this article is simply about a term used by a minority of sexologist at a canadian gender clinic and nothing more. Another editor claims that this term is just the latest designation for a phenomena that has been observed for ages and given many names in many cultures throughout history. One other editor agree's with the second editor that this article is about a phenomena not a term. That is a majority but not real durable consensus. Please help us reach a real consensus one way or the other. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:BBL sidebar

Does any one else see this template as a bit POV-pushing? -- Banjeboi 18:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedily deleted article

I deleted Queers & Allies because it was completely a copy of the website: [4]. I'm posting this notification here in case anyone wants to create a non-copyright violating article. Aleta Sing 22:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Other opinions please

I moved a chunky quote from the lede on transsexualism (see it and comment here) - it followed what is presently there. Am I seeing this content correctly? To me it seems inappropriate for the lede but maybe somewhere else? Or is the lede the best spot for it. The reply I got was that I need to chill - all us Californians (apparently where I'm from) do while we fight the Proposition 8 - and not take this so literally. Any insight appreciated. -- Banjeboi 04:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Organization discussion

I just asked a bot to deliver the November newsletter, which will be done today I hope. In it are some questions about organization to maximize our efforts. Yes, I admit I'm kinda fired up.

Areas of concentration

We have an astounding number of articles in our scope. Should we break them into categories, and ask editors to oversee their categorization, and development over a period of months? Seriously - don't you want to be in charge of the Sex and sexuality articles? Should those editors switch off after 3 or 6 months to allow someone new to take over the task?

Current political events LGBT Media and Literature LGBT History Sex and sexuality
Articles about political issues in the US and around the world that have been especially relevant within the past 5 years Depictions of LGBT people and issues on television, film, newspapers, magazines Topics about gay rights activism and the opposition to it Articles relating to sex and sexuality
Florida Amendment 2 (2008), California Proposition 8 (2008), E.O. Green School shooting, etc. The Advocate, Curve (magazine), Washington Blade, Milk (film), Brokeback Mountain, etc. Moral Majority, ACT UP, Queer Nation, Mattachine Society, Jesse Helms, Jerry Falwell, Mathew Shepard, gay icon, etc. Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, sexual and gender expression, etc.
I could certainly "oversee" literature, though I tend to queer the canon more than anything else and I am very busy with grad school.I tend to think that it works better if a group of members decide to collaborate.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought you might be a good candidate to take over literature/media as well. If you worked with 3 or 4 other editors, do you think all of you could, for example, determine what needs to be done to improve some of the most highly viewed or important articles in media/literature? (Such as getting an image for Curve, which I just saw popped up on my watchlist). What about editors who would be interested in other areas? --Moni3 (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in overseeing articles about Current political events? Keeping the talk page updated on the frequent changes to California Proposition 8 (2008), helping with Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#LGBT_issues, building the sad article at Florida Amendment 2 (2008), and perhaps helping to develop an article on LGBT African Americans? How about something similar to what ZigZig20s and I were talking about up there: 3 or 4 editors to work on making sure the articles are cleaned up and current, relatively free of POV and stuff? --Moni3 (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

We may have to be comfortable with vacancies. Not that there is no interest. Also - just a thought here - does the above system correspond neatly with our ever-evolving (and often improving) categorizing? How would whoever we volunteer for such a position know if one of our 8000+ articles is something they should be focusing on? -- Banjeboi 01:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure, and that's ok. I just wanted to put it out so people would consider this is something you could do. I'd consider doing the LGBT history thing, and yes, with the help of a few editors going through and identifying as many LGBT history articles as possible, prioritizing them, and setting goals on what could be worked on in the near future. --Moni3 (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, I do use LGBT history sometimes as well - in a Foucauldian approach. I diversify.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
After thinking about this more, as you do, it would seem one option is to add a modifier to our LGBT project template as we launch each task force. So a bot would be recruited to add "|LGBT-LitMedia=yes" to each template corresponding to categories that each taskforce sees as appropriate. This would help create lists or new categories for members of each group to work in. -- Banjeboi 03:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Importance level of articles

Should we attach a level of importance to articles, similar to WP:Novels, to maximize our efforts on the most important articles that need the most work? We could start with the list of LGBT Core Topics.

I think focusing on our core topics and even expanding them may make sense. As a possible goal the latest Wikipedia DVD of thousands of articles went out for this holiday season so we have a year to suss out what are the more important articles for each of our LGBTI initialisms - I think we should bring I for intersex into consideration as well as there is profound overlap - and ensure that the more important articles are tagged as important and, if needed, created. We can request a bot then help us watch these articles and help move them up for any quality issues. -- Banjeboi 19:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome to work on "important" topic, but I tend to be interested in details and underrated historical figures/ literary books.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I tend to go with whatever interests me at the moment. I would work on mid- or low-level topics just for my own edification. But I was hoping similar to this table would help to organize topics into Top, High, Mid, Low, and undetermined, giving a little bit of direction to anyone who was looking for something to do. Yes, it's not directly solving a problem, but it may help in some way... --Moni3 (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I also tend to go with wherever the winds blow my interests at any given moment. There probably are those, however, who would respond to priority rankings. "Priority" is the term used (rather than "importance") by the Biography Wikiproject, and I like it a little better. Does anyone remember if there is a specific reason we've opted not to do this before? Aleta Sing 21:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I think at least targeting "top" level would help. The .7 DVD list is here and assessed all our project's articles based on a few criteria but simply didn't use the importance scale because we don't. Seeing as we have an immense project it might actually be more of a hassle to implement and upkeep but worth considering. I wonder too if starting a category for our core topics might help and further refining it to help ensure we are broad in our coverage. -- Banjeboi 21:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Importance, priority, or fabulousness. Whatever. Doesn't bother me. --Moni3 (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, the reason we never introduced the importance rating was because they're a lot of work (especially with the number of articles we have now) to put in and no-one really utilises them, just does their own thing in whatever area most interests them. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 01:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
It's an ongoing thing for some Wikiprojects. User:Horologium worked on a lot of WP:FLA articles, adjusting the importance of them for months. It was quite helpful while the project was active on a daily basis. Now that it's slowed down it doesn't really seem that important, though. We have a huge number of articles tagged. Who knows if all of them should be tagged? I dunno. I can't even conceive of 8,500 articles. And just by looking at the cleanup list in that template up there it's pretty scary to think of all the ones that need help. These ideas are just what kinda makes sense to me right now to start on how to get some of these in some kind of order. Y'all know, I hope, that you can come up with better ideas, right? Help out or suggest to do something different? --Moni3 (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. It seems to me that the LGBT articles are in much better shape than when we started two years ago, and that we have quite a few dedicated editors that are working in their own areas. We do already have a lot of processes that were supposed to encourage particpation that quietly died that might be worth revisiting (the obvious ones being jumpaclass and peer review). Satyr has also done lots of stuff with his bot to help identify articles that could especially do with help - maybe we should think of some way to encourage people to work on them.


  • One of the things I noticed about the collaboration is that all article we put on it largely only get cosmetic alteration, I assume because people don't want to put time and energy into researching already content rich articles. What might be an idea is to identify vital articles that are currently stubby or thereabouts and encouraging participation on them (perhaps a better way of establishing importance).
  • I have a friend at Oxford who has agreed to translate any LGBT articles we want into German. If anyone can think of appropriate FAs that have very poor German equivalents, let me know and I will message her.
  • We had some success in 2007 of promoting the project outside the confines of Wikipedia - I can't say it had any effect whatsoever on the general public, but it certainly made the people featured in the press feel good. I'm vaguely part of Wikimedia UK and they were batting around the idea of promoting themselves through educational projects in schools (before they descended into relentless bitching about the previous board, which was deeply unedifying). Perhaps instead of promoting the projects we could promote our articles a bit more? Create our own cd on LGBT history and persaude gay orgs to distribute it or something. I don't know. But it's a grand project that could well unify editors in a way that would be good for WP:LGBT. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 02:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I like the first idea. We do need to be more content-heavy, particularly on poorly constructed and uncited articles (Lesbian comes to mind first). I was thinking also of a part to the newsletter called I Have A Book, where editors announce they have a certain book, what it includes, and see if anyone might need citations from it. I often have piles of books from the library in my house and larger piles of good intentions. Sometimes I feel like I'm hoarding the words...
  • Has your German friend seen Paragraph 175 that was delisted as FA?
  • I don't even know if I should say this, but oh well... I wrote to The Advocate, saying something similar to what was in the newsletter, and we need help from smart people who are interested in adding content. I'm going to write another column / letter to Curve and direct it to women. If I overstepped my boundaries, I apologize. I have no idea if anything will get published. I just thought it should be out there. I also like the CD idea, but wonder if we should set December 2009 as a goal for, maybe...100 GAs? More? Less? --Moni3 (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • As of a week ago, there were 66 GAs (and 35 FAs). I'll update the list on the project page shortly. Maralia (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I think targeting the most important articles has it's merits. Just thinking about what thy could/should be is likely to help the focusing of energies. No one would be required to do anything, as usual. I share the concerns of tagging/assessing every article although our numbers may grow so exponentially as to offer up the possibility. -- Banjeboi 03:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Moni3's grand vision: in 30 minutes, first thing in the morning. Taking the first 27 articles in the Main category on the LGBT Core Topics list.

LGBT Core Topics under "Main" category with priority levels
Top High Mid
Top priority Main LGBT Core Topics with rating, tasks, and estimated completion to GA
Article Rating Tasks Time frame
Homosexuality B class, former GA Get participants to agree on consensus to improve writing, clean up citations, images, verify sources unknown
Lesbian B class, closer to C Expand article, include citations, add details, improve writing 2 - 3 months
Bisexuality B class Improve writing, clean up citations, images, verify sources 1 month
Transgender B class Improve writing, clean up citations, images, verify sources 1 month
Biology and sexual orientation B class Improve writing, clean up citations, images, verify sources 2 months (sciencey stuff makes me think things take longer)
Sexual orientation B class Improve writing, clean up citations, images, verify sources 1 - 2 months

--Moni3 (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the way we start using the importance function on the banner is to .. start using it. :) The assessment bot doesn't seem to be running with full reliability, but it's working. And I fully support Moni3's suggestions above - very nice! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Would a guide to How Not to Get Burned Out on WP:LGBT articles be helpful?

Well? What do you think? --Moni3 (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think so, but if someone felt like putting together such a list, I'd have no objections. I can only speak for myself anyway, and someone else might find it tremendously useful. Aleta Sing 21:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps folding this into a how to respond to anti-LGBT activities on Wikipedia might make sense. -- Banjeboi 21:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Multipurpose how to keep a cool head, take a break when things get too intense guide? Maybe just by acknowledging the kind of crap we have to deal with might help a bit. --Moni3 (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
What about with how to deal with being called -phobic when working on LGBT issues? --Malkinann (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
These all sound like good idea. You should put something together, Moni3! CTJF83Talk 00:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm pro-Moni3 as well - as long as we include something about suicide cults! -- Banjeboi 01:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

All right, then. What tends to burn you out? All answers are sought. For me, it's (ironically enough since I tend to work alone primarily) feeling like I have to do everything and seeing no progress. --Moni3 (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Real-time organizing

I've done 2 podcasts for copy editing and writing Featured Articles, recorded while working on Skype. Is anyone interested in discussing these issues in real time? Not necessarily for recording purposes, but for discussing? --Moni3 (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Moni...

For the kick in the bohonkus (how do you spell that anyway?)! :) Aleta Sing 21:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC) spell it how you want it since you made it up. I've never seen that word, although it reminds me of Sixteen Candles' use of "oily bohunk". --Moni3 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean badunkadunk? -- Banjeboi 21:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
It means pretty much the same thing, apparently, but it's not that word. Neither did I make it up. My mom used to say it, as in "Move your bohonkus". <grins> Aleta Sing 22:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hah! It's in the urban dictionary. Aleta Sing 22:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Used in the South? What part? I use "ayiss" when I have to address an issue of the rear with a twang. --Moni3 (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, my mama was reared in Georgia, and I was reared in Alabama. Aleta Sing 22:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter - support for Obama

Obama Nation not Abomination.jpg

I don't necessarily agree with the support for Obama. Anyway, if you watched the VP debate, they both said that prospective candidates supported same-sex rights but rejected gay marriage. I don't see why we should support Obama in our newsletter. (You might say that you use the term 'extraordinary' as in unusual, but it still has a good connotation to it I think.) Please let us not alienate gay Republicans; I think that is important.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I used extraordinary transparently. Actually, the entire election process and reaction to it was extraordinary. I agree we need the help of gay Republicans. Anyone who has knowledge or experience in conservative issues is someone we need. --Moni3 (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I do a little bit. (I created the page for Andrew Sullivan's Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality.) I may focus on this at a later juncture for a paper on the Neo-Conservatives and Queer Theorists.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I haven't even seen the article on Log Cabin Republicans. What's it like? (Off to check...)--Moni3 (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering his official stance on LGBT-related issues and as President with executive authority, Obama is currently our strongest political advocate in the United States. While I agree we can't forget about Gay Republicans, we do have to keep in mind how little influence they have not only within their own camp, but on the country as a whole. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Where in the newsletter is there support for Obama? CTJF83Talk 07:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
What website is that from? That's not what they said in the Biden-Palin debate. I gently resent your comment on Gay Republicans's lack of political sway - I hate to see my sisters divided by politics. Of course, my own experience comes from the way this is mirrored in the academia, among Queer Theorists, where we should perhaps focus more on Theory and less on Politics...Though both are interconnected.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama's official website. We also have Obama's support, His HRC Questionnaire, His open letter to the LGBT Community, and his letter to the Family Equality Council. I apologize if I offended you with my comment, but in my own experience, it seems the log cabin republicans are the forgotten children of their party. And thats an observation about real world politics, not theory. And I also have to admit my own personal bias- I firmly hate the republican party and everything it stands for. Thats my own personal opinion, of course. I'm not a democrat, but the republican party scares the living hell out of me. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Also would like to point out that supporting same sex marriage in America is politically suicide when running for President and I don't hold any grudge against Obama for keeping that one down low. I don't think there's any doubt that he fully supports LGBT equality. I'm sure we can change his mind in office if he has genuine religious objections to it - I used to as well... Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 20:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
After midnight the night of the election, I was all teary-eyed and elated, and my wife asked me when was the last time I felt that good about a politician. I said, the first 6 months of the Clinton administration. Seriously, I hate to be the guy who brings buckets of icewater to the hot tub party, but Clinton had Melissa Etheridge up on stage at his inaugural party, lovin' up the gays and then passed the Defense of Marriage Act. I really hope to God Obama can stand up to the pressure of Washington. I do. I voted for the guy and cried when he won. But the DOMA article should be tended to. As a warning. --Moni3 (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I would most definitely be at loggerheads with anybody who repudiates gay marriage, as it is a core value of gay conservatives - committed, long-term, economically viable relationships. But Hillary Clinton did not support it either - she said society at large needed more time to accept it before it was passed into law. I'm not very hopeful about Obama, partly because of his views on terror and Israel, and his not supporting gay marriage is not helping. But as you said, that is my personal opinion.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Scott Lively

A new article on this charming individual who authored The Pink Swastika has been created recently, and I had the joyous task of cleaning it up. Still, some more fleshing out definitely needs to be done and I think I've had my fill for awhile. Considering his strident and now international homophobic message, I thought this would be the best place to ask for some help. AniMate 09:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta Gay Men's Chorus

I could use another set of eyes on Atlanta Gay Men's Chorus. I ran across it yesterday, and all I see is an advertisement that needs to be deleted. Could someone else look at it and see if it can be salvaged? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, yeah. Someone reprinted the entire AGMC program. Love all the chorus pics. --Moni3 (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Misnamed article?

According to the stub LGBT rights in the Solomon Islands, there does not appear to be any such thing as LGBT rights. Are people fighting there for them? If not, is there a more appropriate name we can use, like "LGBT legislation in..." or something? Aleta Sing 22:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest keeping the title, just so we keep consistent. See Category:LGBT_rights_by_country. And I'm sure there's *someone* fighting for them there :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Damage to pederasty articles caused largely by socks of banned user with fascist proclivities

Those in the project who have taken an interest in this aspect of gay history will be pleased to know that the "individuals" who caused a great deal of the problems (Soulfare, Costagne, etc.) were nothing other than socks of DavidYork71, a user with fascist affinities. Until now I refrained from pointing out the similarity between what was happening to the pederasty articles and what happened to the Hirschfeld archives, though it more than crossed my mind. But now that the link between his suppression of homosexual topics and his Nazi sympathies has been made clear, I thought it worth a mention. Haiduc (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


I'd like to encourage everyone to send him a private e-mail via his "Email this User" link on his User page and simply let him know how much we miss him. Something tells me he could probably stand to read that. --David Shankbone 23:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Warner - edit conflict

An unregistered user keeps deleting SatyrN's reference for Michael Warner being gay. They give reasons but I'm not sure they have a point - it is referenced after all... I'm thinking of coming out issues.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Christian Vanneste

Please see Talk:Christian Vanneste, about challenging the referenced part about homophobic contentions. The user is not providing a reference for his claim, though.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

New York City Proposition 8 Protest Photos

It took me from 9:30 p.m. until 4 a.m. to photoshop and upload photos from last night's protest. The only one I uploaded to WP so far is on Whoopi Goldberg (she is super nice, so cool. Just out with everybody else protesting for civil rights). If you see a photo in particular that you want me to upload for any article, let me know. Here is the Flickr link. I will probably start uploading more over the next few days, but let me know if there's a favorite you have and I'll focus on it.--David Shankbone 15:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please upload the pic of the kid with the sign that says "My 2 moms can beat up your 14 wives". That's a lol. --Moni3 (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
That's the stuff. I liked the guys with the blown up marriage certificate. Jeffrey and Jordan, Sonoma County. It looks like mine. Sacramento County. I still have to frame mine. --Moni3 (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Went to my local Prop 8 protest yesterday in Jacksonville *cough* You can see part of my arm in the video. When compared to protests in NYC, Chicago, and California, Jax is pretty chuckilicious, but it bears reminding that the Save Our Children campaign brought on the first Pride demonstration in Kansas City in 1977 - consisting of 30 very brave gay folks. --Moni3 (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Transgender/transsexual pronouns

Hi all, I could really use some input: I'm doing a copyedit over at Karl M. Baer, and am not sure what the most suitable pronouns to use in the first section, on his early life as Martha Baer, would be. The article's fairly new, and the original contributor has used "(s)he", but always "his" as the possessive. I want to make sure whatever I do is respectful and appropriate, and thought maybe someone here could give me some tips. Many thanks, Gonzonoir (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Per MOS:IDENTITY: "A transgender, transsexual or genderqueer person's latest preference of name and pronoun should be adopted when referring to any phase of that person's life, unless this usage is overridden by that person's own expressed preference. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (e.g., she fathered her first child)." Otto4711 (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, cheers. I don't know whether Baer expressed preferences one way or the other for discussion of his life as Martha... hmmm... Gonzonoir (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian kiss episodes

For some unfathomable reason I've become enamored of lesbian kiss episodes of late. I've written a couple of articles and created a chart. First, are there any that I'm missing and b) do y'all think the concept has legs enough to make it as a standalone article or list? Otto4711 (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there have been plenty more, here's one of the more complete lists I know of: [5] (it also includes movies though.) Spontaneously, I think that while the "kiss episode" phenomenon deserves a mention, it's a bit of an odd critera for creating an encyclopedic list. There have been plenty of lesbian-themed episodes that didn't feature a kiss specifically. And on that note, I think it should be mentioned that the network tv attitude to lesbian kisses is ambivalent. It's not all "yay cheap ratings grab!!" but they have deliberately omitted showing lesbian kisses (and indeed relationships and characters). (and yeah, I could probably dredge up some sources on that) Siawase (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Generally the sources I've been reading indicate that the networks use the kiss between a lesbian guest star and a non-lesbian series regular for a ratings pop but don't include same-sex affection for recurring or regular characters (e.g. the same-sex wedding on Friends that didn't show the couple kiss at the ceremony). I'm approaching this from the standpoint of documenting the former on the list and not the latter, although if this does end up spun off into its own article I will certainly discuss the double standard. Otto4711 (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Your link is coming back as gibberish for me. Are you sure that's the correct URL? Otto4711 (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The site has some intermittent issues, if you reload a few times it should work. I definitely see the value of the documentation of kissing episodes as you say, but I think it would be more neutral to cover the way network tv handles the physical expressions of lesbian affection more broadly. ie, include both the upside and the downsides to including it, as the networks see it. (and I think your work is kind of alluding to that is it not? The fact that the majority of kissing they'll allow to be shown is in a titillating context.) I found one source regarding this, but I know the writers of Buffy have discussed it also. Anyway, from an interview with Bryan Fuller about Wonderfalls: "There was a lesbian scene with peanut butter that was hot but tasteful. They told us, “Take that shit out!” It was odd because they are fine with chicks kissing on reality shows or Fastlane but when it came to having a respectable lesbian mature relationship that wasn’t being played for jokes or exploitation they had a problem with it. We would get all these letters from the studio that said, under no circumstances could these women’s lips touch." [6] Siawase (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Otto, if your list will point out the double standard that same sex kissing between characters who are straight, "just curious", guest starring, or most lovely, about to die, then good on you. But for the most part the chicks kissing on television makes me roll my eyes right out of my head; there's always a handsome man waiting to take one of them back in the end. Or it was a moment of drunknenness used for nothing but titillation. I think I saw one of these last night flipping through channels, stopping momentarily on Two and a Half Men. (Neil Patrick Harris desperate to get to two women discussing a three-way if they find the right guy - and maybe something more if they don't is perplexing on many levels.) Mind you, I don't mind the handsome men, as long as they do some kissin' on their own. I bet there are some statements made from gay folks watching the media about this double standard. --Moni3 (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Moni3, that was How I Met Your Mother ;) (and I found the scene pretty amusing ^^;)
I found a bunch more sources on this, where everyone and their grandma (or at least Josh Schwartz and Joss Whedon) denies that their lesbian kiss episode is anything like those other rating grabbing ones. Which also handily provides reference for episodes often mentioned in this context. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Siawase (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeh, I was flipping on the way to another documentary. That was all the part of that show I needed to see. Harris' reaction was amusing, but fer God's sake... I heart how the existence of lesbians is cherished first and foremost as the subject of male fantasy—until it gets serious. Then it's verboten. --Moni3 (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, there have been quite a few portrayals of lesbians that have been more nuanced and realistic. Though usually on drama shows. Off the top of my head Eli Stone ep 105, Without a Trace ep 417 and Ghost Whisperer ep 311 comes to mind. But then this never tends to be mentioned anywhere, except possibly afterellen. Siawase (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget about the grandmama of them all, Heartbeat with Gail Strickland as a lesbian nurse. Otto4711 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, those were just the most recent episodes I could recall with one-off lesbian contents that wasnt all gratuitous or exploitative. There have of course been many others, as well as longer storylines. Though right now there are no lesbians on network TV. Siawase (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
From the UK point of view, the most famous lesbian kiss on TV was between Anna Friel and AN Other (sorry, can't remember her name!) in the soap Brookside. There's plenty of contemporary press around at the time so it should help demonstrate notability (you can imagine the tabloids getting enraged and horny and confused all at the same time), as well as being the first pre-watershed lesbian (and I think same-sex) kiss in the UK. --Ged UK (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking about the international perspective also. I've seen that Brookside kiss mentioned in a few documentaries. Also, I just remembered that recently there was the first lesbian kiss on Italian TV [12], with apparently the show being cancelled the day after the kiss aired. Siawase (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I ran across the Brookside kiss looking for something else. I'm not at all familiar with how ratings work in other countries so I have no idea if there's the same sort of stunt aspect as there is in the US. Otto4711 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Furthering the international aspect, Neighbours even managed to have a lesbian kiss, between Sky Mangel and some temporary lesbian character they brought in. Considering Neighbours' continual lack of gay (especially gay men) characters, this was something of a high-point. --Ged UK (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Grey's Anatomy has a whole torid lesbian subplot. -- Banjeboi 02:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)