Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

Lesbian peer review sought

Lesbian has been completely rewritten and is now looking for peer review. All help appreciated. -- Banjeboi 10:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Where are we going?

Tangent introduced by Moni3: I appreciate the reminder, which is now the third placed in WP:LGBT about a peer review for the overhaul of a core article. I'm going to risk opening a can of worms here with the hope that it will move us in a different direction. I guess nothing has illustrated that we are a group of individuals working on our own things than this rewrite I did of Lesbian. I asked on the talk page of the article, here at WP:LGBT, on a lesbian chat board I was a member of, I asked a university women's studies professor, and various people what I should read, where I should look, and on what topics I should concentrate on. Most of them said something like "Dude, I have no idea, but good luck with that." The least encouraging comment I got was from WP:LGBT.

After the rewrite was posted, I got even less feedback.

I am one lesbo who has a specific set of experiences to color what it means to be called a lesbian, to claim the identity, and participate in the behavior. Although I read all the bidnezz associated with the article, I still decided what to include, what was important, and what was not. The structure of the article is my idea. Should I be the only one making these decisions? Good gracious: 5,000 people a day read this article: more than Gay and Homosexuality. This article is defining and explaining issues relating to lesbians for all of the English-speaking world.

It's not my intention to guilt members into giving a peer review. I figure if they wanted to do it, it would already have been done. God knows I can't be dragged to do the things I don't feel like doing. Two days after the rewrite was posted, comments were up at Talk:Gay about how that article needs to be rewritten like the Lesbian article.

I find group interactions and social patterns fascinating. I watch a lot more of what goes on at Wikipedia than I participate, and I realize that this group is no different than any other volunteer organization. But I guess we need to make a decision as a group if we're going to be working towards becoming a cohesive entity that works for the same goal, or if we're happy doing this, just working on our individual projects, and coming here to make random announcements. I don't know what needs to be done to gather folks together and have them move as one. I admit my own disconnect: it should be done if we're going to be more productive, but I don't know how to do it.

So how about using this as an opportunity to discuss where we're going and how we're getting there? And if anyone wants to participate in the peer review, by all means go nuts. --Moni3 (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Eek. I think I was the one who said "good luck with that" but I honestly had no intention of being discouraging or disparaging. Rather, it was an attempt to sympathize over what a difficult task the re-write would be. Otto4711 (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Fret not. "Good luck with that" was the encouraging commentary. Seriously, I'm not looking for guilt or praise or anything else. I'm just saying - we should discuss the direction of the project, and I was sharing my impetus for this discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It's one big experiment as far as I can tell. Really this is part of queer organizing 101 - the very things that drive you nuts is likely what makes the LGBT community rather invincible in its own dysfunctional way. That is, we don't all think and act as one, even if we should at times, and we certainly don't all agree. But at least we try to accept the various and unique flaws in ourselves and others as something that makes us unique and perhaps even special in our own ways. I can't remember what it was called, something like Project 1.7 but it was the CDRom put out last fall to have a standalone offline compendium of wikipedia, essentially several thousand core articles. And I realized that we really should aim to identify several hundred of ours as core LGBTI subjects and put them in a LGBT core article category and have a bot add an importance=high rank on those talkpages. Because that's the flag to the rest of the wiki world. Then we start paying more attention to those and direct new recruits in that general direction. It would be lovely to start that process now with a goal of getting all the clean-up tags cleared and all major deficiencies addressed by mid-October.
I'll also state I'm still not over Jeffpw being gone and I don't know when I might be so I just do what I can. Personally I'm also not great at long articles. My cheap-ass computer and various short attention span issues simply don't mesh well so I focus on stubs and mid-size material. I'd be willing to help coordinate at least part of this which would also entail whipping up a new newsletter. -- Banjeboi 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is true. Almost every gay organization sets precedents, including this one. I once compared our group to MilHist, saying if those folks have some kind of quasi-military focus on article improvement, our little group is more like a thumping disco. But we also have a huge set of unique problems other groups don't have. The ridiculous effort in just keeping the project templates on the talk page is an example.
I also miss Jeff, and he was quite the rabble-rouser. But we can't depend on one person to define us. As much as I love Jeff, this reminds me of the ambiguity I had to address in Harvey Milk's legacy, where the Castro just sat around feeling sorry for itself after Milk died, and got walloped again by AIDS. Some people are charismatic enough to lead movements by themselves (I ain't it), but the led movement should have some responsibility to pick itself up and carry on when the leader is no longer there.
I have a feeling we have the ideas of what should be done and the knowledge of how to do it, but the push just isn't there. I don't know why. --Moni3 (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It is because we all have different interests, and because there are very many different things to do. I took a look at your article on lesbians, by the way, and you had done such a thorough job that there was not that much more I could add. Except perhaps, "Congratulations!" Haiduc (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have no idea how to get involved in a peer review. or I would. But I agree about a wikiproject spark plug being needed. That is something any organization needs and without one, it doesn't tend to grow and thrive. — Becksguy (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is just the natural wzx and wane cycle of any group. However, I think you are correct, Moni, that we function more as a collective of individuals than a cohesive whole. Someone (I forget who) posted about choosing a CotM for March, because a new one had never been chosen for February. IIRC, the last one chosen was actually not for January 2009, but for January 2008! Of course, I have yet to head over to the chosen CotM for this month. I should do that, as I think we could do more if we pull together. Aleta Sing 17:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah geez, I just looked because I couldn't remember what our current CotM even was, and it's Lesbian. Shame, shame on me! Aleta Sing 17:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I know we are all special, but i don't think that has a big effect on the lack of cohesion of the project. My FT and 5 featured lists were essentially ignored even after multiple posts here and at members talk pages, but, they were equally ignored by the SF-project, and comics-project and members, even by editors who had been editing the pages in the past. These are all big projects, with lots of members, but little organisation.

I commented (minorly) on the Lesbian GA, talk page and peer review, but very few people seemed to have followed the collaboration of the month link - most were responding to the GA or had worked with Moni before. If we want the project to be more effective, like MilHist, then i think we would need to go the way of more organisation and giving people responsibilities :-O. I know Moni has done the newsletter in the past, and Outsider works on the portal, and i try to review all the requests for assessment - but these were all jobs taken up independantly, yes? Making a list of job areas and people who can be considered the first contacts on areas would help, imo. MilHist even has election for coordinators, which i think is too much for here, but a semi official list of responsibilities would be useful (as long as responsibilites move when editors become unactive). I see we already have a list of jobs, but the coordinaotrs are either inactive altogether, or not very active in the project space. Time to reassign things?YobMod 07:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If there're responsibilities to be had, I'll raise my hand. I'm pretty new to the project, and had been assuming this was all coordinated somewhere. If it's ad hoc, though, I'd be thrilled to throw my hat into the ring for whatever duties are going. I like writing content and wikifying, and have access to a deposit library if things need sourcing, but am willing to have a crack at anything. So I'll keep watching this space. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Right off the top of my head two positions that don't need voting right now are newsletter writer and a kind of talk page whipper. I have written a couple of newsletters in the past. I have the template in my sandbox, here, but I am inconsistent. A monthly thing would be best. One of the reasons Jeff is so sorely missed is because his newsletters were hilarious, clearly written by a screaming queen, and supportive of the multiple efforts of WP:LBGT members. I tried to capture Jeff's energy, but I fell short. Alas.
The other position, a talk page whipper, is someone who shoves members in the direction of articles and talk pages that need assistance, welcomes new members to the project, and is a queer Wal-Mart greeter, basically. If this has not been clarified before, I've seen SatyrTN and Dev920 do this. If MfDs need member input, they rustle folks over to the discussion. They keep a list of articles that need structural help, extra citations, wikifying, etc. If articles need peer review, or there is an FAC up with LGBT issues, I hope they would also point people in the right direction, giving some tips on peer review. Just some ideas. --Moni3 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally, my overall Wikipedia activity has dwindled, not solely on this project. I am far more busy this year, and I don't have enough time to focus on research - too much (heteronormative) coursework. (I did create François Wahl's page while working on Roland Barthes, though.) Besides, I don't have access to GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies or the Journal of Homosexuality any more. In other words, I am lagging behind in terms of Queer Theory. I do try to add references taken from The Advocate or Tetu whenever I can, though. I have contacted Satyrn about several pages we could perhaps create together, and he did not get back to me. I assume he must be busy. If anyone is interested in working on gay lobbying/life in the South (of the US), feel free to write on my talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd love to take up the Jimmy Olsen duties and take a crack at the newsletter. It's my great regret that I never crossed paths with Jeffpw; he's a hell of an act to follow (not to say that the edition in your sandbox sets a formidable standard, Moni!), so as a relative noob all I have to offer is blissful freedom from burnout, and the great literary tradition of British queers upon which to draw :). And I promise not to put smilies in any newsletter edition you let me write. Perhaps best of all would be a group of people wanting to work on this: Moni, would you be interested in doing any more, with a collaborator? Gonzonoir (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I can collaborate. I'm good with that. --Moni3 (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
(de-indent) Re: Above comments about jobs/posts -- While well-intentioned ideas, a more anarchist (in keeping w/ wiki ideals, heh) approach to think about might be adopting a workgroup system for certain topic areas. (i.e. Transgender workgroup, LGBT literature workgroup) The Africa WikiProject uses this approach for countries which do not have their own WikiProject -- Article talk pages are tagged as part of the Africa WikiProject, but the workgroup they are a part of is listed also, within the template. The fact that we all have individual interests and our participation waxes and wanes due to our own personal schedules and wikibonked-ness (WP:BONKED) is only natural, & isn't anything that will be going away. In fact, the fact that we are a diverse group with diverse interests, & require no central leader (like a regular IRL organization), is a strength--not a weakness. (and 1 more blab, before i step off the soap box) .. Banjeboi mentioned above about identifying core topics.. someone brought up using importance levels (on this page) a few weeks ago, but I don't think it went anywhere. The Wolterbot cleanup listing (listed in our open tasks box) actually marks higher-importance articles within the cleanup list (example), to assist in their maintenance. If we were to start using importance-levels, this would be a help. (especially considering that probably half of our 9500 articles are celesbians, Family Guy episodes, and the like) Outsider80 (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the anarchist method the one we have now, which isn't working? I'm only interested in what works, not making bureaucracy - eg, we have a list of core topics, which it almost entirely ignored, indicating that the group-think idea of core topics really doesn't match with what project contributors want to work on. If it doesnt work, why keep trying the same things? If we want them, someone has to be responsible for occasionally doing maintaince on the list. Also, i don't think we have enough people for "work-groups" which would put us where we are now, with our "departments". (Agree that importance field in the banner would be better method, although i don't mind if we use it or not).
But i do agree about not having a leader, so would sugest a larger number of coordinators. They have shared reponsibility for general things, and some of the more discreet jobs can be specifically assigned to one or two (or three) of them. The "talk page whipper" would be the major general responsibility - with 5 or 7 people keeping tabs on article alerts and request for input/imporvment we can keep up to date with the many areas these info need to be distributed, and point editors to articles that need them. Specific jobs are: newsletter, portal, assesments, peer review, collaboration of the month, core topics? others?
Would we get 5 or 7 volunteers? There are just about that many that comment regularly here, but some may prefer not to get tangled in project coordinating.YobMod 11:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I know three folks were trying to un- and de-tangle the cats; I'd like to see Satyrnbot or replacement restarted and maybe talkpage whip could dovetail with watching article alerts. -- Banjeboi 13:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that about whipping and watching going together :-D, i was thinking they would be something we all agree to do regularly. Outsider and I have been working on the open tasks tempate, to make thealert more visible and easier to access. Does anyone know enough to run a bot? I notified the current coordinators of this discussion, so maybe they will continue with that at least, or we can get the code passed on.

Who is willing?

  • Gonzonoir
  • User:Moni3 is willing to do article assessment & importance, newsletter collaboration, & peer review
  • -- Banjeboi willing to try to organize core topics

Scope of new coordinators

Didn't see a better place to put this, so sorry if it is mis-placed.... if the new coordinators (or co-coordinators) idea moves forward, will they be limited to coordinating certain areas? (i.e. 1 coordinator for the Newsletter, 1 coordinator for community activities (welcoming new members, community dept, etc), etc.) Even the best of people can let positions get to their head sometimes, and this would be one way to help guard against that (by each co- having their own defined area). Also, how exactly would having a "whip" help things? I could go on a tagging-spree (i'm not) and within 2 weeks, WolterBot would be proclaiming my edicts to my fellow man, as tasks to be done... (making me the "whip"). Not sure unpaid workers will exactly line up to be whipped around ( insert visual puns in your own mind here :-D ) Outsider80 (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think coordinators should be free to work on any of the areas, no ownership implied. I suggested specific job areas (in addition to general responsibilities), because i think people are more likely to regularly contribute to neglected areas if it is written down somewhere. I know i am much more likely to comment at peer reviews since saying i would! This also makes it easier when people go on breaks.
Having one person for defined areas would be more likely to "go to people heads" imo - "I am the coordinator of assessments, therefore my assessment trumps other users" is less likely if co-coordinators don't feeling they are stepping on others toes by joining in, even if it is not the area they initially intended to work on (not that i expect this, but just in case).YobMod 09:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
We could always go the opposite way to milhist, and instead of requiring that coordinators be elected (which yeah, I can see how that could lead to some ownership issues) lay it open so that anyone who volunteers can become a co-coordinator, making the coordination more collaborative. It's not like we're so awash with willing participants that we're in much danger of a too-many-cooks scenario. That should help guard against anyone becoming too entrenched in their roles: I think the more informal these responsibilities are, the better that risk can be avoided.
Sure, there's a balance to be struck between the inspiring (guilt-tripping?) power of having your name down to do something that probably won't get done if you don't step up, and the risk that the phenomenal cosmic power entailed in that turns you into the Genghis Khan of WPLGBT, but I think we can negotiate it as long as we're all civil, open, and clueful. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Genghis Khan of LGBT? I am intrigued. It is my experience that unless someone steps up and does something, like the dishes in a dormitory, nothing will get done. Members seem to have no compunction with telling others to stop what they're doing because they're messing things up. I'm ok with that. Maybe we just need to have members take turns in the DJ booth in our WikiDisco. No elections, just "Ok I think I'm done now. Who's next?" in sessions that last weeks or months. --Moni3 (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
And like the dishes in the dorms, a list of who should do what is sometimes essential. A daily rota was essential in all the student houses i liked in just to keep the rats away!YobMod 16:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems in this discussion that we have a lot of new members joining in who are unaware that there is a Co-ordinator of this WikiProject, and that Co-ordinator is me (by default now, really, we were going to hold re-elections and then decided it was hassle). I got elected years back in recognition of service to WP:LGBT, and technically I am supposed to be keeping everything ticking over just as whoever above suggested we establish co-ordinators to do. However, because my time on Wikipedia dropped like a stone when I left Chelmsford, I stopped being the great co-ordinator that I was (no arrogance there, no, not at all :P) and at that point all the infrastructure I built, like CotM, Jumpaclass, Newsletters etc. just sort of got abandoned (I am delighted the newsletter is back).

And that, I think is the problem. Because while I was setting Collaborations every month, actual changes made to the pages after a month was minimal and mainly restricted to cosmetic editing. I constantly struggled to get anyone to peer review stuff, not just here but even at WP:PR - I ended up submitting articles straight to WP:FAC because they got a more thorough lookthrough. All the stuff we had was maintained by me, but virtually no-one used it. Whether you have co-ordinators or not you need a critical mass of users to actually use the infrastructures you build otherwise it's irrelevant. And if you have a critical mass of users to maintain it, then you don't need co-ordinators. Co-ordinators are there as an appointed person to make sure that the maintenence gets done, not to act as any kind of visionary or whatever. But if you don't have a system that's being used regularly to even need maintenence, suddenly it's just a nice title to carry around. We need people to *use* what we've got, or to work out what tools people want to edit and provide it, otherwise we're editing to look busy, which doesn't help our core aims.

Regarding why milhist gets tons of feedback and articles like Lesbian don't, I suspect is comes down to remit and style. Military history tend sto attract those kind of editors that do take a regimented, planned, structured approach to articles. We're, by contrast, are a bunch of gays - it doesn't quite work like that. :P Military history is clearly defined and many people specialise in specific periods, like WW1, Tanks, whatever. LGBT is made up of several disparate groups of L,G, B, and T, and many of the editors working in those four areas aren't interested in, or don't judge themselves capable of, providing support to editors in other areas. We also have the massive disadvantage that we cover all LGBT people, very few of whom have anything in common with each other than who they sleep with, which makes it more difficult for editors working on those articles to see themselves as working together towards a common aim of good LGBT coverage.

So, I would say that trying to compare ourselves to other projects that are fundamentally different can be a useful spur, but it's not something to beat ourselves up about. And that our major problem right now, which has been our major problem for years but seems to be getting slightly worse, is encouraging interest in all aspects of the project, rather than leadership. Get more people in, and others will naturally take control (which, you may have noticed, is exactly what has happened in terms of the main contributors to this wikiproject - it used to be me, SatyrTN and Jeff, and now the torch has passed on to other worthy souls. :D). Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 15:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So we seem to have 5+ positions:
  1. having one coordinator who does everything, chosen by election
  2. having one coordinator who does everything, rotating amoungst volunteers.
  3. a group of coordinators to share responsibilities
  4. a group of coordinators with area-based responsibilites
  5. or no coordinator and find more people, who will take on responsibilites automatically, but with no recognition.
Can we at least decide on which approach we want to try? There is no point saying who would do what until we know what there is to do.
I think the 1 and 2 put too much responsibility on one person, risking burnout, and 5 simply wont work, becasue it never did before. So i would go for 3 as first choice.YobMod 16:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
In all honesty, I don't think people care, Yobmod. That's why I'm still Co-ordinator despite semi-retiring in 2007. I think people just step up to the plate really. Moni3 has no official title or gew-gaws and is still running half the project by herself. Enthusiastic active editors are everywhere, we just need to find more of them. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 01:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree about enthusiastic editors, certainly there are not enough that are interested in the project and the articles under it'S perview rather than happening to be LGBT. Has anyone done any assesment in the unassessed LGBT articles list since this discusion began (apart from me)? Which is why i think coordinators are essential. Is there any strong feeling against my changing the coordinator page to list the 4 volunteers so far, so we can at least get the newsletter organised (and that way solicit more active editors and opinions).YobMod 07:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I just saw Dev920's response, and I laughed out loud to see that I'm running anything. If I'm giving that impression, then bully for me. I wonder if I'm also giving the impression that I'm competent and have some kind of master plan. If that's the case, then yes, I totally have an oversized cranium that I use to move things, like those dudes in the pilot of Star Trek. --Moni3 (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to adding the four sub-area coordinators - with a footnote saying these were added in March 2009 - but would not like seeing Dev920 or Satyrn removed unless we had a more formal process which I'm not sure is needed. Personally I'm still in shock and I'm not sure when I won't be. We do keep plugging away and do an incredible amount of work, that has continued despite each of us spiraling on our own paths. I think we should aim for sustainable support and growth with lots of breaks for drama, dancing and cocktails - just like real life. -- Banjeboi 09:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Oki doke, i'll leave it as is then.YobMod 10:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd say add them as sub coordinators with a note, it will give us something to write about in the newsletter if nothing else! -- Banjeboi 14:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger, maybe?

I think these two articles should be merged and moved to Recognition of same-sex unions in Oregon. They cover very similar and closely related topics, and I've noticed that this is the convention for articles like these for other states, like Vermont. This WikiProject has rated these two Oregon articles Stub and Start class, respectively, and I think merging them would mutually improve their quality. Thoughts? — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 23:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A a first step it may make sense to have a larger discussion on standardizing all 50 states first. Template:Same-sex unions might be a good place to take this up. -- Banjeboi 03:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
While we're at it, I would suggest creating an 'LGBT rights in...' for each state.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't this page be a good centralized place for the discussions? Aleta Sing 06:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
It could be but that template is always hopping so I'll put a note on it. -- Banjeboi 07:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that we do have a LGBT right in ____ for all US states and redirect shorter articles regarding marriage, adoption, etc there unless/until they are large enough to split on their own. If they are large enough a summary is fine. As part of this redirects would also be created to help keep content centralized for future editors' efforts until those section, in turn, became large enough. -- Banjeboi 07:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I definitely agree with moving to "Recognition of same-sex unions" in those states where there is no same-sex marriage. Hekerui (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
But that's with the presumption there is enough material to sustain an article? Otherwise the relevant content can grow in a parent LGBT rights in ____ article? Also to the original post at top, those articles both seem accurate and distinct, there was same-sex marriage and there now exists domestic partnerships and both garnered plenty of media coverage. -- Banjeboi 14:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Banjeboi's idea of having LGBT rights in xxxx sound like an improvment to me, with the marriage/domestic partnerships etc redirecting to them. Anyone wanting to read about Gay marriage in California will certinaly want to know about the state of domestic partnerships and probably adoption and other rights that are often bundled into gay marriage bills. Making it easier for readers to find this information is the highest priority, imo, and having it all on one page is the best way at the moment (as long as redirects are in place). Spinning of sub-articles for the instances it is really necessary per WP:size and WP:undue should be a later consideration.YobMod 08:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear i think the current articles are likely fine but future state articles on these subjects can grow in their centralized articles until they are sustainable on their own. -- Banjeboi 08:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I think if Same-sex marriage in Wyoming is considered substantial enough to stand alone, then all such articles would be, no? All states would have that many sources. If we are going for a standard approach, i don't see why future articles should be treated differently from current articles.YobMod 09:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
In that example I think a merge would make sense. clicking the article link would still lead to the same content but in the larger article regarding LGBT rights in that state. -- Banjeboi 09:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
That's what i thought. And with a section redirect, the reader even goes directly to the appropriate section, while able to simply scroll to find related info. Should we start moving/merging the samller ones, and wait to see reactions?YobMod 09:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I have a cunning plan to create all the articles but they should be fluffed one by one with specific state info as well. I'd like to hold off another day or two to see if there is any major objections or plot flaws. Once I get the template sorted a bit would you be interested in this or at least working a few of the state articles? -- Banjeboi 10:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I can do basic things (formatting etc), but i'm not American, so know very little about the states (or how the legal system works there). In the UK and Germanywe just have countrywide civil unions, much less confusing! On a related issue, i have been merging the "Year in LGBT rights" stubs into decade or longer articles, per the AfD, but they still need a lot of cleanup, and a better naviagation template made.YobMod 10:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. If you could start a new thread regarding the timeline articles and cite which template I'd be happy to look at it. -- Banjeboi 11:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Overview of current status

{{Same-sex unions in the United States}} gives a reasonable overview:

  • Update. Just a note that I'm looking at doing a 50-state project and will likely want to tie this in to a dissolving sub page and mention in the next LGBT newsletter. -- Banjeboi 09:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I mean I think articles about marriages are interesting, but there should be a page on 'gay rights' in each state as well. As a European, I'm not even sure who I'd be allowed to kiss - do they have to be over 21, or simply over 18? Does that depend on the state legislation? Also, anti-discrimination laws regarding jobs, school, etc, may be contingent on state laws. Then there could be a section about 'gay life' for each state - a history timeline of political and academic activities, 'gay heritage' (gay writers from the given state, etc). It's a big project, but ultimately it would make sense I think...or should we stick to the legislation?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
We are basically in agreement. These would be the main LGBT rights articles for each state with room to grow, of course, and any articles will be either merged, if rather small or summarized with a link to them from the main. I'm still drafting the template but part of the goal is to create them all with universal information and links to existing articles, like LGBT adoption, and have a coordinated effort to add state-specific content for each major section - ideally with sourcing. In this way anyone could look at their state article and either find or figure out the info they seek. -- Banjeboi 15:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Gay rodeo

Appears to be a new article, but my eyebrows are lifted right off the top of my face when reading it. I think it needs some help. The connections to gay cowboys of the Old West are dubious and appear to be WP:SYNTH unless he has a source (and I wanna read it if he does) to say that one begets the other. I know guys danced with each other and no doubt in an all male environment some Brokeback action happened, but I do not get the impression that there was a subculture of openly gay cowboys and they created the need for a gay rodeo. 100+ years between the Old West and the inception of the idea of a gay rodeo causes more skepticism.

This may be a candidate for deletion unless it can be cleaned up. --Moni3 (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe synthesis, but not a deletion candidate, imo. The concept of Gay Rodeos seems notable enough in itself, just whether it has any links to homosexuality in the real old West that is dubious. Even if not, i'm sure some people probable claim it does, so the link should be attributed to someone. (I have a (scholarly) book called "Sodamy and the Pirate Tradition" that claims most pirates were loving a bit of gay sex, so it seems likely that an acedemic claims similar things about Cowboys.)YobMod 07:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The entire leather subculture comes from cowboys via biker gangs. Can't wait til that starts to hit the fan. And yes, despite my personal disdain for anything that fosters animal abuse of any kind, gay rodeos are certainly notable and the major event rivaled only by pride events. And yes, mountains of porn regarding gay cowboys with every imaginable innuendo certainly also exist. -- Banjeboi 09:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added Brokeback Mountain so that should at least give a stay of execution for those who haven't encountered gay cowboys before. -- Banjeboi 00:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed

If an admin is watching this page, could you please urgently protect the page Peter Wherrett and delete all revisions newer than [1]. This is a very sensitive WP:BLP issue. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, one of his ex-wives went against his wishes and announced the death to the media before the funeral, so it's now verifiable. :( --AliceJMarkham (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh Alice, since you've brought this article to my attention.. why is it even tagged LGBT Project? He was a straight cross-dresser. I'm assuming it was because he cross dresses but is that really within our scope? It's certainly not a gay only thing and it says in the article he's heterosexual. - ALLST☆R echo 04:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Crossdressers are definitely within the LGBT community. Trans covers a lot of ground and, somewhat logically, similar issues that allow people to dress as the see fit affect many communities and many of the issues, like hate crime legislation really should cover people regardless of who they sleep with. -- Banjeboi 08:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
As a heterosexual cross-dresser and a long term member of this wikiproject, I'm disappointed to read your comments, Allstar. Oh, and is seems that my above comment was in error and I owe an apology to his ex-wife. It was the girlfriend that he never married who was adding the information on his death to his wiki article, then when the article was protected, added enough information to the talk page to ensure that the Australian media would be able to confirm his passing by contacting the hospital. Unfortunately, this callous act caused the family great distress and forced them to release the official announcement that was intended to be withheld until after a private funeral. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Did the media in Australia say they got the info from Wikipedia first? Did they at least report that we were protecting the article, trying to wait for published verification before making repeated mistakes, such as with Sinbad and Chris Benoit? Course not... --Moni3 (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Fortunately, because his 2nd wife, Lesley Brydon, was "former Executive Director of the Advertising Federation of Australia" and a journalist, when a newspaper got hold of the story they rang her and told her that they were going to publish it. She gave them the official release that was already written, and they used that. It's unclear whether the newspaper was tipped off directly by Lee Keith (the anon IP that was adding the death info to the article and put lots of info in the talk page) or whether they got it from Talk:Peter Wherrett. So in this case, nobody in the media has actually pointed fingers at wikipedia at all that I know of. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
How do you know who the anon is, and do we need to be naming that person if she has chosen not to create an account? Did she identify herself in an edit? Or is this off-wiki info? Aleta Sing 14:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
She identified herself, including giving her email address, on Talk:Peter Wherrett and I've confirmed it off-wiki as well as tracing the IP to her office. I also know who the IP who was reverting the additions was, having confirmed that off-wiki with someone who was alongside them when they were doing it. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, ok I see that. The strange placing of it in the middle of the post confused me. (It doesn't look like a signature coming where it does. Aleta Sing 15:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as an aside, if you need fast admin action, you'd be far better starting at WP:ANI as loads of admins watch that page, rather than the few that may watch this one. --GedUK  15:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

*cough* Was the admin action taken tardy or insufficient? --Moni3 (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Not at all! But that's down to a quirk of timing ie, you being on. If you'd not been around, then it could have been here for a while! --GedUK  15:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Good save! --Moni3 (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Alice, I apologize for disappointing you or hurting your feelings. But you must realize that not all gay people agree with the notion that every letter of the alphabet somehow belongs in the gay community. The fact that he was heterosexual, to me anyway, totally makes his gay card null and void and his membership dues returned. Cross dressing isn't a sexual orientation nor is it anything like transgender - unless I'm missing something.. did he really want to be a woman, as in genitalia and all? Then yes, he'd be transgender and should be included. I mean, my god, the man was straight.. but because he liked to wear a dress, he's automatically "one of ours"? I just don't agree with that. - ALLST☆R echo 04:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I hear what you're stating and I know others share similar views but the T in GLBT is pretty broad and inclusive. When one is being victimized, beaten or even murdered, it matters only so much if your attackers are doing so because your are in fact gay or simply dressing non-traditionally for your gender. The issues we face individually affect us all as a group as well. When we have legislation that allows two adults to marry regardless of their gender then it matters less that someone come out of the closet as intersex, bisexual or gay, or anything else; only that they - in theory - love each other and want to marry. Similar with hate crimes legislation, adoption and hospitalization rights, etc. Someone who is crossdressing but identifies as heterosexual or a person who is bisexual but in a heteronormative relationship perhaps will have less challenges of things but they remain a part of the LGBT communities and like all members face discrimination and have been a part of the various movements to attain equal rights for all. Similarly this project has room for anyone, including allies, who want to help. -- Banjeboi 06:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hear, hear! Aleta Sing 18:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Benji, I most certainly was not saying the project was closed to everyone, including allies, and implying that I said such irks me. I was saying that the article in question shouldn't be included in the project because the subject of the article is (was before his death) a straight man who likes wearing dresses and that has nothing to do with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender sexual orientations or struggles. I welcome any and all people to participate in this project, regardless of sexual orientation or clothing choice. But that has nothing to do with articles within the project's scope. Based on the argument that "if X has had to fight for inclusion and equality, then X is welcomed with open arms", then we might as well start tagging animal rights pages, all mormon pages (polygamists want their rights too!) and anything and everything having to do with African-American civil rights. There just has to be a line drawn somewhere. It's time we got back to the basics. - ALLST☆R echo 18:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Allstar, with respect, I think you might be confusing transsexual with transgender. Transgender refers to people who significantly "deviate" from traditionally prescribed gender, not people who want to live out a particular gender full time. In fact, according to the APA: "Cross-dressers or transvestites comprise the most numerous transgender group." Queerudite (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Allstarecho, my apologies, I didn't mean to put words or ideas into your mouth or even suggest you were being unwelcoming. I'm sorry. I too am concerned that we stick to the basics and at the end of the day I think we are. In this particular case the subject actually lived as a woman but even if they were only crossdressing this and the sexuality wikiprojects are the main ones that cover this content as "go-to experts", much like the porn project helps on all articles concerning porn, we help on all articles regarding transgender issues. -- Banjeboi 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

White Knot

I am not a member of this WikiProject, but I wanted to call your attention to a page I have created that might belong in this WP: the White Knot campaign. Right now, the page is a stub, and I don't intend to put much more work into it, so I thought someone from this WP might like to take on the task of expanding it. Thank you. Jrsightes (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; if you see any sources or content but short on energy you can always post them to the article's talkpage for others to use. -- Banjeboi 00:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thomas More Law Center

I just added our project tag to this article because I just learned that they wrote the charter amendment to overturn the sexual orientation protection passed by the Gainesville, Florida city council, which incidentally, was voted down last night, so yay. However, I have a feeling this one is going to be a battle to keep on the page.

They ran this awesome commercial for about a year because Florida did not get enough moral panic in 1977. They even used "Protect our Children" because they are so innovative. --Moni3 (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

LGBT themes in comics

Anyone with some time to copyedit check out this article, i'm putting it up for GAN today, so any errors fixed while it is waiting for a reviwer would be of great help. ThanksYobMod 09:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

:I fixed a little spelling mistake I found. I dunno what to do beyond that.  :x Lychosis T/C 09:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I did a little more, though I'm not really confident at all that I'm actually helping. Could someone take a look at my edits to that page when they get the chance? Lychosis T/C 10:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Kay, I went through it all and picked at some stuff. Don't know if a made a whole lot of difference, but I caught some spelling mistakes and tried to clean up the sentences in one or two places. Lychosis T/C 10:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Even typo fixes are very welcome :-).YobMod 10:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
If you need any more articles looked over just give me a holler. I like to have things to do on here, but have a hard time finding them myself.  :3 Lychosis T/C 10:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, if anyone prefers to do the review rather than editing, it would be great to not have to wait a month :-).YobMod 10:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Scott Lively

Should we tag this horrible man?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Without further hesitation. --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Aleta Sing 16:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Annoying formatting issue with certain templates

Does anyone know how to prevent the formatting problems certain templates create as in LGBT rights in the Dominican Republic? See the big white space where everything is pushed down below the level of the template? Is there anyway we can force it not to do that? Aleta Sing 00:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's due to the info boxes on the top right and that template boxes at the bottom don't shrink in width. The solution is to add more content or shorten the infoboxes. Unless there is something else I don't know about (which is possible). --TreyGeek (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
If nothing else you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Requested templates, thye handle tech issues on current templates as well as new requests. -- Banjeboi 12:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, good suggestion, thanks! Aleta Sing 03:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

SS Lesbian DYK

OK, bit of a tricky one this. There were three ships which bore the name SS Lesbian (named after the inhabitants of Lesbos, Greece). Over at WP:SHIPS we've created articles on two of them. The two created articles SS Lesbian (1915) and SS Lesbian (1923) have been nominated for an April Fools Day DYK, with the third under construction (it may not be long enough for DYK). It has been mentioned that this WP might not approve of any of the suggested hooks. If any members of this WP wish to suggest alternate hooks we would be happy for them to do so. Alternatively, support from this WP for any of the suggested hooks would be welcome. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Have any of them sunk? know...the SS Lesbian went awful, but I just couldn't help myself. --Moni3 (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That is the exact gist of the DYK's ;-)---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Edit: here is the link for the discussion at DYK.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Moni3, this hook only made it as far as my talk page - "…that you can pay to go down on a Lesbian in Beirut? <g> Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
FOR THE WIN!!! The Lebanese may have something to say about that. I wonder if April Fools' translates to the Middle East. --Moni3 (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
LMFAO! -- Banjeboi 01:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Voting is currently taking place on which hook to use. Mjroots (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

New LGBT nightlife photos coming

Barzilay Venue in Tel Aviv Israel.jpg

Hey guys - the Israeli government arranged with some of the big nightclubs to give me some excellent access to photograph Tel Aviv gay nightlife - I really bar hopped! Thankfully I had some good guides. I leave back to New York tonight and the hotel Internet is super slow. This one photo example took an hour to upload! But to give an example of some the types of gay nightclub shots I'll have. --David Shankbone 13:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's so good to see this commitment to research, hope to see you soon! -- Banjeboi 19:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Gay Marriage Thing film in Wiki LGBT

Greetings - going through the rollercoaster of adding a wiki entry for The Gay Marriage Thing. A note is coming up that says it is a candidate for the LGBT Wiki project, and I'm just trying to find out what I need to do to have it linked or listed as a resource etc. Specifically, the film covers the same sex marriage debate in 2004 at the height of the heated debates and protests in Massachusetts. It is being used as an educational tool in schools and churches throughout the U.S.. I am definitely new to tricky Wiki so, please feel free to link to this entry or list it wherever appropriate. I have tried multiple times to list it as a Documentary resource in the Documentary and Literature section of the Same Sex Marriage wiki entry but someone keeps removing it and I cannot figure out why, as it is a legitimate resource absolutely and directly related to that topic.

Millies (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to the project. If you mean the banner on the article's talk page, its presence there means it's already been added to the list of article's under this project's scope. I see it's also already listed in Category:LGBT-related documentary films. If you want to get more attention for the article, you could try expanding it for the Did You Know? section, and working toward good article status. In either case the first and most important thing you should do is add inline references for all the material in the article. I expect that's why it's being removed from Same-Sex Marriage: Wikipedia's cardinal rule is notability, or the use of third-party sources to establish that something merits an encyclopedia article here. You should also consider adding an edit summary every time you edit a page, to explain your rationale; vandals relatively seldom use them, meaning regular users sometimes revert unsummarized changes on sight in case they're vandalism.
I hope this helps, and once again welcome to WP:LGBT! Gonzonoir (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Obvious agenda driven editor

I don't know the process for going about requesting a topic ban for a user but this user has a definite agenda against gay rights content on Wikipedia. Feel free to add many of the articles to your watchlist. This edit has to be the most obvious, making sure there's a new "health" section in Homosexuality that points out all the bad nasties you can get from having gay sex. - ALLST☆R echo 03:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

My purpose is to make these article NPOV, most of which have so far showed an obvious bias in favor of LGBT groups. If I do get content-blocked, it will only prove that Wikipedia has become dominated by editors who won't allow neutrality. Most of my edits are removing content from obviously biased sources or which incorrectly cite their sources. Ejnogarb (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd point out information from the Catholic Education Resource center is inherently bias. And over emphasizing a recent rise in Syphilis among Gay and bisexual men is about at bias blaming native Africans for spreading AIDS because they are Black. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
That Homosexuality article is a frightening disaster of a mess. Yes, that "health and promiscuity" section is clearly POV the way it is designed. I think there is value in discussing the issues of promiscuity in the gay community within the proper context, namely as an expression of freedom that has multiple implications and meanings for many people. But as long as that Homosexuality article remains incoherent, poorly sourced, and an insult to the English language, it will remain a playground for the folks who cherry pick sources and have an axe to grind. I don't doubt that Ejnogarb will be given a topic ban in good time if he keeps it up, and he will bring it on himself and blame the left-leaning gay-friendly values of Wikipedia instead of looking inward to ask himself why he is here. Unless, of course, that is the reason he is here. --Moni3 (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that an ANI incident report was made on this user: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Agenda/POV pushing re: User:Ejnogarb. — Becksguy (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I replied on the ANI thread but feel it's scope is more a POV editing issue than just LGBT although everything could be tied to LGBT if you try. They have less than 500 edits so working through to find supporting diffs, IMHO, is needed. The irony is that articles end up improving when targeted in this way so in a backward sense this helps them. -- Banjeboi 07:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Benji. Special:Contributions/Ejnogarb has made 217 mainspace edits, and not all of them relate to gay issues. Based on a rather rough count, about 46% of those article edits are related in some way to LGBT issues. And I agreed with him on one such edit [2] and said so on the talk page. — Becksguy (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Israeli DJ Offer Nissim photos

I want to say Offer Nissim is trans - I just don't know how yet until I research. And I have a lot of photo work to do. Great DJ - this was one of those huge 1,000 person clubs. Photos of the men and women that night over at my Flickr. I have to figure out which articles these would be cool for, such as Nightclub or Gay life or whatever. --David Shankbone 22:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Maps over same-sex unions in North America and South America

Could you make maps over recognition of same-sex unions in North America and South America similar this map? Ron 1987 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I would ask over at {{Same-sex unions in the United States}} and similarly if there is an active template covering South America. They would be the most current, and possibly, invested, in creating and updating this. Alternatively, or in conjunction, you could ask for help at the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab to see if they can help. -- Banjeboi 00:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a North America map on commons that potentially could be updated. I imagine that would change every few months. -- Banjeboi 12:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I could work up an Americas map in Inkscape... assuming Template:LGBT rights table Americas is up-to-date, it would just be a matter of converting columns 3 & 4 (plus the various US states) to a SVG map. I thought the north america marriage map was up-to-date (generally SVG maps in use on English Wikipedia get more lovin), do some of the states need updating? (nevermind, was thinking of the USA map) Outsider80 (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
update: South America & North America (north from Mexico only) are up (see Status of same-sex marriage)..... will upload a Central/Caribbean map once I figure out where Jimbo stuck those missing islands from the blank Americas map I was using :-D Outsider80 (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:BillRivers

I just deleted Badpuppy since it was a promotional piece written by the guy who owns, but I told him I would look around and see if I could find any articles that might want to either describe online gay porn sites in general or list some; internet pornography doesn't seem to go that route. Anyone, um, receptive? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Badpuppy actually might meet notability on it's own. Adult Video News has several dozen hits and Alexa rank seems reasonably high. There are numerous publications that cover them that simply need to be dug up and out from the XXX material. My hunch would be to encourage them to build a corp article in userspace with a section for each notable-ish property (like If any subsection expands enough then they can be birthed out. -- Banjeboi 22:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Good work, and thanks. I'll keep an eye on his talk page. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about inclusion

An anonymous user recently added the template for your WikiProject to Talk:James Buchanan. See James Buchanan#Personal relationships and previous discussions on the talk page for information on the "questions" about his sexuality. As William R. King's talk page lacks the template, I decided to get a second opinion: Do unconfirmed rumors that someone might have been gay fall into the category of "all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia"? Thanks. Recognizance (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the information that Buchanan lived with Alabama Senator Rufus Devane King and that they were so close and so much together that Washington gossips called King the First Lady. I read it in Lies Across America several years ago.
That doesn't answer your question, though. The template on the talk page should go wherever our members think we should be watching to make sure the article is as accurate as possible. This includes folks who have been rumored to be gay. We have as much at stake in ensuring that history accurately represents figures' sexualities as any other group. I personally would not like to see contemporary or historic figures lives being twisted to fit anyone's agenda. --Moni3 (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Promiscuity article

See Talk:Promiscuity#Gay Promiscuity. 2 of our more conservative editors (CENSEI and Ejnogarb) are hell-bent on removing the following content:

A 2007 study reported that two large population surveys found "the majority of gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners annually as straight men and women."[1][2]

It originally was:

Modern western homosexual culture has been linked with higher levels of promiscuity.[3] A 1978 study revealed that 75% of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15% claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17% claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.[4] The San Francisco Chronicle reported in 2001, that "experts believe syphilis is on the rise among gay and bisexual men because they are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, many of whom they met in anonymous situations such as sex clubs, adult bookstores, meetings through the Internet and in bathhouses. The new data will show that in the 93 cases involving gay and bisexual men this year, the group reported having 1,225 sexual partners."[5] In 2007, the FDA renewed its blood-donor eligibility limitations which restricts men who have had sexual contact with men in the last 5 years from donating tissue and since 1977 from donating blood because such groups have a higher risk factor for HIV and Hepatitis B.[6][7] However, a 2007 study reported that two large population surveys found "the majority of gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners annually as straight men and women."[8][9]

I removed the content dealing with the 1978 study (a 31 year old study is hardly relevant to today) as well as the content about the diseases and blood bans because they are irrelevant to the topic of the article. This left only the content about the 2007 study showing similar numbers of promiscuity between gay and straight people. So now these 2 editors want it gone altogether. I've reverted their deletion, as has other editors. I think it's time to weigh in on a consensus discussion so we can put this issue to rest. - ALLST☆R echo 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, why can't they just go to conservepedia and do their thing? Revert them. Zazaban (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Although I will say that the 2001 stuff about the bathhouses and the number of sexual partners should stay. Zazaban (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The bathhouses content could stay if it wasn't included by 1 of the conservative editors simply as WP:POINT and most certainly failed WP:NPOV. I imagine straight people visiting whorehouses are just as prone to getting syphilis and who said unprotected sex was only a gay sex perk? Their agenda is obvious. - ALLST☆R echo 20:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
LOL, the "bathhouses content" can stay so long as neither one of the "conservative editors" are responsible for its inclusion? You really need to read up on what editing collaboration is all about. CENSEI (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
LOL You really need to read up on what being neutral is about. - ALLST☆R echo 20:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Promiscuity is a much more ingrained part of LGBT culture than straight culture. I'm not saying that as a negative thing by the way, I'm just saying it is true. I rather think it's probably a good thing. Zazaban (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
That sort of overgeneralization is fraught with all sorts of potential error. Which LGBT culture? The Americans', the Latin Americans', the Australians', the Uzbekis'? What way do you mean "ingrained"? What is "straight culture"? Which "straight culture", the one in North America 2009 or the one in India 909? I guess it's tough to make sense of those kinds of overgeneralizations, but if you were more specific i might be able to see your point? BTW, thanks for indicating promiscuity is probably a good thing; if you could be more specific, again, i might hypothetically find some way to agree with you. Otherwise i fail to see your meaning. (Admittedly i am dense at some online expressions.) ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 01:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Modern LGBT culture has an element of promiscuity to it. As far as I know, it's fairly widespread geographically. Straight culture was a shorthand for non-LGBT circles. Essentially, there are a high number of LGBT people who have less sexual inhibitions than non-LGBT people. By promiscuity being a good thing, I mean I share many views with the sex-positive movement. I am also pro-pornography and pro-'inset other generally taboo thing here'. Zazaban (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, i see better now about what you meant. I share sex-positive views also, and i eschew negativity toward other peoples' sex views. I think the best articles about sexology are the ones which are totally neutral, allowing readers across the sex positive/negative spectrum (spectra?) to absorb information and factual resources without being propagandized by my love of sex-positive literature or by some editors' loathing of sex-positive attitudes. As one absorbs more information, as one opens up to the possibility of being presented with thoughtfully evolved articles, it almost automatically causes a little growth of appreciation of Liberty. If we value the sharing of information collaboratively, cooperatively, neutrally... then we value a fundamental freedom. I bet i share that value (of freedom) with most editors, even if they are totally religiously opposed to my sex-positive viewpoints. It is in that spirit of freedom i hope to find common ground for the sake of making these LGBT articles a more educational and reliable source of (free) information. Happy April, and many more. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 05:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)