Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27

Excuse my naiveté

What's the general likelihood that Terence Koh released some of his work into the public domain? Does Wikipedia have protocol for verifying the identity of contributors? Queerudite (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As they are pictures of himself, and it's pretty much his only contributions, it's plausible. I guess if someone wanted to push it, they could nom the images for deletion based on the rationale that we have no proof that Asianpunkboy (talk · contribs) is really Terence Koh and as such we require permission for use to be on file at WP:OTRS. Asianpunkboy uploaded File:TerenceKoh 2006 Saatch selfportrait.jpg first here on Wikipedia and File:Koh-Saatchi.jpg seven months later on Commons. I'll also note File:Terence koh artist china canadian photo by christopher peterson.jpg on Commons. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 21:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Does it require any special scrutiny because it's BLP? Queerudite (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't think so since the images aren't depicting anything bad or libelous. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 06:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

National Organization for Marriage

There's a lengthy and circular discussion going on at Talk:National Organization for Marriage regarding how the article should be categorized. It's currently under "Homophobia," but some are arguing that it doesn't belong there, that a new category is needed, that the category is inherently biased, etc, etc. Cue lots of debate about "rights," the definition of "homophobia," whether NOM is anti-gay and whether anti-gay=homophobia, and whether being opposed to same-sex marriage=homophobia.... Exploding Boy (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Violence against LGBT people

Despite being under discussion on Files_for_deletion/2009_May_7#LawrenceFobesKing.jpg and as yet unresolved, somebody decided to remove the photo. I have reverted the edit, and directed the editor to discuss in the appropriate place. There seems to be a concerted effort at the moment on the part of another editor to eliminate as much material from the article as he can at the moment. Mish (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to corroborate this. Too many things happened at once for it to be coincidence, I'm afraid: questioning the existence of the list part of the article, deletion of the article's lead image (repeatedly), IfD proceedings on said image (the second in six months), massive sudden overtagging of the article—and then the deletions began. Big time. If they had been consistent in deleting everything that was unsourced, I could accept that (grudgingly), but much of it seemed to be almost at random. My ongoing work on copyediting and checking cites has gotten a bit derailed, as I am restoring the deleted entries one at a time while digging up RSes (no easy task when it comes to murdered minorities, sad to say). Would much appreciate any help that could be given on finding citations, particularly periodical archives that aren't on the Web. Rivertorch (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I have done what I can for now, but I have other projects that need urgent attention too. Will do citations as I can. I only have reliable archival sources for UK trans killings pre-internet, but will go through my collection of books to see what is in there as well. This article should have been approached better originally to prevent this happening - building in a sandbox, ensuring the sourcing was in place at the beginning. It is a shame. It also needs some kind of inclusion about theoretical and research texts on the matter, to build it up more as a substantial article with the 'list' as illustrative examples of the types of violence experienced. As I have said elsewhere, maybe worth looking at merging TG killing, using that as a redirect, and then start re-inserting the TG material one-by-one with reliable source. Mish (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to alert people. The attack on this article has been escalated into an edit war, with the main protagonist getting quite sarcastic, verging on abuse, and has now slapped an NPOV tags etc. on the article. Given the track record on a similar article on transgender killings, he isn't going to stop until the page is either in tatters or removed. Mish (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC) And the individual concerned is now proposing an RfC for the page because it does not conform to his understanding. Mish (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the track record on a similar article on transgender killings, he isn't going to stop until the page is either in tatters or removed. or cleaned up to reflect core policies on NPOV and sourcing - which if you bothered to READ the talkpage of that article was done with the assistance of multiple editors - the ones who didn't just run away when asked to provide decent sources. So NOPE, I don't plan to give up on the core goal of this encyclopedia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

For image reviews and things that are funny in German, I trust User:Elcobbola above anyone else on Wikipedia. I approached him for clarification on this issue. The thread is here. --Moni3 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not about images. It is about what one individual doesn't like, such as killings reported in the national press as violent acts against LGBT people. Since the first spate of fact tagging and deletion, material has been restored with citations and expanded. Now the tack is to throw in different objections to try and eliminate the material. Despite the waste of time this incurs I would be willing to go through each item, starting at the top, but there appears to be an unwillingness to discuss, rather to just delete whatever one individual thinks should not be there. That is why I have announced this here, rather than in the section on the images, so that people are aware what is going on. Mish (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Category talk:Homophobia

There is currently an effort underway to rename or remove this category to one of a selection of euphemisms. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is this effort taking place? Debresser (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
All over the Category talk:Homophobia page. Most recently under the last 2 sections. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Debresser (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Work to do

There's a banner on this talk page and on the project page as well, listing "open tasks". There's a link there to Unsourced sexuality. That link essentially refers to a talk page. On that talk page were a few articles which I either found not wanting anything or took care of myself with relative ease. For reasons I don't understand, that talk page did not include a link to Category:LGBT articles with unsourced categories which was created specifically for this purpose. There you can find four articles that I have not been able to source (three of them since 16 February). Work to do... Debresser (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Allstarecho there's only one left. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


An interesting point has been made at Template talk:LGBT. I'm notifying the project here so anyone that wishes, can go there and discuss. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

New article needs major help

Homosexual Equality Rally in London 1974 is a new article that was PRODded for deletion. This is the UK version of our Stonewall riots so this article definitely needs some love and attention. Sources are out there as I searched before removing the PROD tag. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 00:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Assume you've looked for the Campaign for Homsexual Equality or Gay Liberation Front? Problem is, much of this is part of oral history - and that doesn't fit in with the Wkipedia ethos, unless it has been documented already. I have notes taken from interviews in the Hall-Carpenter Archives held in the British Library about this period, and there are references to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and Mary Whitehouse & Lord Longford's Festival of Light action, as well as the Coutes Bank Protest over aversion therapy at the Maudsley, but I don't recall this coming up in them. Not sure if those would be seen as sources but original research anyway. The books 'Walking After Midnight' and 'Inventing Ourselves' (details on the HCA page) based on the interviews might have something. I have a friend who was in CHE at the time, and have e-mailed to ask if they have anything. The other option would be to try the HCA media archive in North London - they will be bound to have press cuttings on it, as there material goes back to the second world war. Mish (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I've dug around and there are references, I'll put what I find on the talk page. Thing is, this was organised by CHE, and I am wondering whether it would be better on that page? Mish (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Since you're in the UK (I'm assuming), you'll have to be the designated one to get us info on this! :P - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 10:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I am happy to do some work on the GLF's Festival of Light action, start building it up as an article in its own right in a sandbox, because it is an interesting topic. I can simply reference the archives I got some of the material, I guess? It might take a couple of weeks to sort out though. I think the 1974 CHE rally page would be a good place to discuss this, because it might be possible to pull the limited material on that and the first 1970 rally either into CHE. The FoL action is mentioned in Gay_Liberation_Front#GLF_in_the_UK already, whereas Campaign for Homosexual Equality has no mention of either the 1970 or 1974 rallies. Mish (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd also suggest leaving a note for McKenzie Leo (talk · contribs), as the creator of Homosexual Equality Rally in London 1974. He may have gotten the content from a source we don't know about. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 12:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have tidied up the CHE article, inserted the 1971 and 1974 rallies with references, and put 'merge to' and 'merge from' discussion templates on both articles. CHE appears not to have had discussion yet. Problem with sources - some say the 1st rally & march was 1971, others 1970 - so have plumped for 1971 as that is in a national newspaper (although an LGBT history month publication has 1970). Other problem with online sourcing is that reports on GLF(UK) and CHE appear almost discrete, one set giving GLF history as if CHE didn't exist, the other giving CHE history as if GLF didn't exist. But I think there is enough reliable independent source to make sense of events. Mish (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned the item of rhetoric and inserted it into the CHE page. Will leave the old page a while, then make it redirect to the main CHE page. Mish (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Attempted change to NPR article


I attempted to add a section to the NPR article (national public radio) to mention their censorship on the review of the documentary movie Outrage. It was cited with two references.

Another user almost immediately deleted the change, saying that it it irrelevent to NPR.

I disagree with this, since there is already a section about their being too liberal and another on alleged anti sementicism.

I don't want to immediately revert the change since that might start a revert war.

I would like to know if you all agree that such an inclusion is appropriate for the article on NPR and whether or not I should revert the change.


Mark Allyn Allyn (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Diffs and proposed wording and refs? -- Banjeboi 03:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Since there is a Criticism section already, definitely is completely acceptable as a subsection in it. The question is of course what and how it was written. Debresser (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It appears that someone had reverted the section back and made some improvements to it. Allyn (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone once again removed the section, claiming, among other things that the word censored might be too imflamatory of encyclopedia standards. I added the section back, however I removed the word 'censored' from my own writing in the article. I hope the re-write is satisfactory. Please advise me if this is still inappropriate. Thanks - Allyn (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I added an additional major media reference (Village Voice) in hopes to assuage concern that there is lack of reputable references on the topic. Allyn (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

BBC: "Gay protest broken up in Moscow"

FYI: recent BBC article "Gay protest broken up in Moscow" - Don't know if we want to mention this somewhere or where: LGBT culture in Russia, LGBT rights in Russia -- (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, that is one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard of. Honestly, if somebody put a bullet though Moscow's mayor's head I would not feel at all sorry. Okay, maybe that's a bit extreme, but I still wouldn't be overly upset about it. Zazaban (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
LOL! No POV there then. I'd heard Tatchell was in Russia, but didn't realize why - the Embassy has got him released apparently. FYI, Today is International Day Agaist Homophobia — Preceding unsigned comment added by MishMich (talkcontribs)
How many reliable references are there to this? I am playing devil's advocate because I was chided in the past for adding stuff without reliable (major media) references? I don't want to add something somewhere without being immediately slapped with the 'Citations Needed' banner. Given some decent references, would appropriate articels be the article on the Moscow mayor (I am too lazy right now to find out who that is) or the Moscow Police, or the article on the city of Moscow? Allyn (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Strongly agree that we always need to have reliable sources for everything.
New York Times - generally considered a "reliable source" - "Moscow Police Crush Gay Rights Rally" - .
LA Times ditto - "Gay activists in Moscow thwarted" -,0,7467473.story?track=rss .
The Advocate - "Violence Stalls Moscow Gay Pride" - .
- Google News: . Various sources. I haven't looked at all of these and don't know how many are just quoting each other.
- (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Mish (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A bit about it has aleady been added at Eurovision Song Contest 2009#LGBT protests. Siawase (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

fyi: new 2009 ILGA report out

Hi - this is just a note to everyone who edits LGBT rights articles that the new ILGA "State-sponsored Homophobia" annual report is out, downloadable in PDF format at: [1]. It is generally a good source for LGBT rights info for various countries (including text of laws), though use caution if other sources or article info conflicts. :-) Wikignome0529 (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

LGBT Rights Opposition

I have done a search, and it looks like the only place terms like 'LGBT rights opposition' exist are in on-line encyclopedias and essay-generators. It is not Wikipedia policy to rely on other encyclopedias or itself as original sources, so I propose that we need to start working our way through all articles that use this novel terminology, as WP:Original research and begin removing it from Wikipedia. Mish (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have inserted this comment on the LGBT rights opposition article talk page:

The term used in this and other contexts as 'LGBT rights opposition' as in 'LGBT rights opposition movement' etc. is a construction that cannot be found in reliable sources. A google search reveals that it is mainly found in online encyclopedias, such as this one, and high school essay-generators. To suggest that all movements which involve heterosexist principles and practices, homophobia, hate crime, eugenic killing and/or opposition to LGBT rights in some fall under such a description is both WP:synthesis and WP:original research. On this basis I suggest that this article be either deleted or merged with homophobia. Mish (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with these remarks.
In related news, there is currently a push underway to rename the "homophobia" category to something like "LGBT rights opposition," or to create several new categories (with LBGT rights opposition as one of them) to replace "homophobia." Please join the discussion at Category talk:Homophobia. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to ask, Mish, what do you mean by "terms like LGBT rights opposition"? "Opposition to gay rights" seems like a similar term, and I'd be surprised to find that it wasn't widely used. Born Gay (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look here Everton F.C., and here Liverpool F.C., you'll notice they are not called 'Everton rivals' or 'Liverpool rivals'. How would you decide which sentence to construct out of all the possible sentences. Why is 'Opposition to gay rights' better than 'Opposition to LGBT human rights' or 'Denial of gay rights' or 'Denial of the human rights of LGBT people' or 'LGBT human rights opposition' or the 'anti-homosexual human rights'? If I do a search on the term "Opposition to gay rights", I do get more results that "Everton rivals", unlike "Opposition to LGBT rights" - but they are in a specific context - Christian opposition to gay rights.

If you look here, you will see this is already covered in some depth here Religion and homosexuality, here Christianity and homosexuality, here The Bible and homosexuality, here List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality, here Homosexuality and Anglicanism, and numerous other pages linked to from the 'Christianity and homosexuality' infobox on them all. The article Homosexuality and Islam does not go into quite as obsessive detail about homosexuality as the articles on Christianity and homosexuality, and nether does Homosexuality and Judaism. So, I am not sure what the need for yet another article on views very well documented elsewhere is. If you are saying that there is a different type of opposition to those listed under the Religions, then why would that warrant using a term that is normally used in describing views by people like the Pope, when his views are explained elsewhere? If people feel strongly enough that there is a case for some article and/or category that falls outside this, and falls outside "homophobia" - a term that features 100 times more frequently than "Opposition to gay rights" and about double the frequency of all the possible constructions appearing anywhere in any online text using 'rights' & 'opposition' & ('LGBT' v 'gay') together - then they need to specify what it is, why that is an accurate description, how it differs what already exists under the religious sections, and provide sources to substantiate that. Even that though, does not provide an argument for replacing 'homophobia', because that is the only category and descriptor available for things that are classed as 'homophobia' outside Wikipedia, all it will mean is there might be some justification for an article on one particular construction, and possibly a very narrow category that might hold a few fairly isolated articles. 'Homophobia' will still stand, and it will be clear that it has a specific meaning.

Some might argue that the Pope (say) be included within the category, not because he is homophobic, but because having been accused of being homophobic in asserting his 'opposition to gay rights', he clearly condemned homophobic acts against LGBT people. I would be very concerned to see his views in a category 'opposition to gay rights' alongside Louis Farrakhan and neo-Nazi groups, when they are not the same sorts of views, and the views he and the Roman Catholic church hold are pretty well covered here Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism and here Pope Benedict XVI#Homosexuality. I am not saying he should be, but I would not discriminate between a religious leader who speaks out against homophobia, a human rights activist who speaks out against it, and a religious leader who categorically supports homophobia; in all these cases the category is appropriate, but for different reasons.

If you want to argue that there is particular movement beyond this, then you will have a job substantiating that, because "opposition to LGBT rights movement", "opposition to gay rights movement", "LGBT rights opposition movement", and "gay rights opposition movement" do not exist on the internet, and substituting 'activism' for 'movement' in the above four constructions yields only two results, neither of which are verifiable sources. Move on. Mish (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy saying a certain combination of words be common before they are used, even in a title. LGBT rights opposition is simply a descriptive title for a sub-article of LGBT rights. It is no different than Timeline of LGBT history. Many of a "LGBT rights in country" will have titles that are rarely found on the net, because they are not written in English, but that doesn't mean there is no such thing as LGBT rights in those countries. The LGBT rights opposition page should gave an overview of all the different oppositions to LGBT rights, and is a potentially very useful page. I don't think anyone cares if it is given another name, so long as it covers the same topicYobMod 13:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reminder about article alerts

I'd like to remind everyone of the Article alerts exist for this project — click "show" to view box at the very top of this page. Please try and monitor these alerts, especially the Articles for Deletion alerts and the PROD deletion alerts. I just went through the PRODS and found some very old (what I call "legacy") articles that were PRODded. If you'd like to put the alerts box on your own userpage or user talkpage, do so by copying this code...

<center><table class="collapsible collapsed" style="width: 75%; background: #FFFFF3; font-size: 110%; border: 3px solid red"><th>[[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|45x45px|left]]Article alerts exist for [[WP:GAY|WikiProject LGBT studies]] — click "show" to view<br/><small>(Deletion discussions, peer reviews, featured article candidates, and other alerts)</small></th><tr><td><div style="font-size:90%">{{Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Article alerts}}</div></td></tr></table></center>


{{Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/LGBT article alerts}}

...and pasting it into your userpage or user talk page. It will give you this:

Ambox important.svg New articles with LGBT keywords (click "show" to view)
This list, produced by a bot, identified the following articles as possibly being within the scope of this project. Please add {{WikiProject LGBT studies}} to appropriate articles. The raw list is here and articles are removed after a week whether tagged or not.

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2017-06-24 19:56 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.

If you don't want it centered on your page, remove the <center> at the beginning of the code and the </center> at the end of the code. If you want it smaller or bigger, change the style="width: 50%; to a different numeric percentage such as 75% or 30%.

So there you go. Use this valuable tool either here where it's at, or on your own pages. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 08:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 06:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion notice of same-sex marriage article

Resolved: Kept. -- Banjeboi 11:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in New England has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the article's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (Full disclosure: I am the article's inital author) - Epson291 (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

GLF 1971 Festival of Light zap

FYI, UK Gay Liberation Front 1971 Festival of Light action has been created Mish (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, at DYK. -- Banjeboi 11:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

I noticed John's posting this on some of the other projects I watch. Since I doubt he'd be posting it here (I could be wrong about that), I am just swiping his post and pasting it here. LadyofShalott 19:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Mr.Z-man has a new service available to various requesting WikiProjects which gives the project a monthly update of the number of hits on the 1,000 most frequently accessed articles for that project. An example of such a listing can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Popular pages. Would the members of this project be interested in getting such a list for their use? John Carter (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the sample at Christianity, I think this looks like a really neat service. I think we should get it. Anybody else interested? LadyofShalott 19:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks really cool. My "vote" would be for yes. Who would have thought Henry VIII of England would be more popular than Jesus? ɪntəsvɛnsk 23:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
In that list, even Michael Jackson is more popular than Jesus. Which also leads me to wonder how Michael Jackson is in the scope of WikiProject Christianity. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 00:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The Jacksons were raised as devout Jehovah's Witnesses by their mother Katherine Jackson. While some either converted to Islam (Jermaine Jackson), or stopped practicing religion altogether (Janet Jackson), Micheal remained committed to being a JW until he was excommunicated. The entire family is within the scope of Christianity. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
He barely makes the top ten! And if I remember correctly, Christianity barely makes the top 30. Anyone fancy taking a guess as what our Top 10 will be? I imagine if you'd asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity before this list came out they would have put Jesus higher. Who will our number one be? ɪntəsvɛnsk 18:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I had to see if I could figure it out - from the talk page template, it looks like it must be because the article mentions his having been raised Jehovah's Witness. LadyofShalott 03:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Go for it. I just requested it for WikiProject Mississippi too. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 23:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like enough interest - I've asked Mr. Z-man about it. LadyofShalott 00:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Incredibly useful. Go for it. Zazaban (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The cat's miaow. How do we get started? Haiduc (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I see Z-man has been active in replying to other people since our requests, but hasn't responded to our requests. I can only guess maybe he's working on them... - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 04:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, are you referring to me? Zazaban (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
No, User:Mr.Z-man who is the one that sets up these "Popular pages" pages. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 08:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Update on this.. From his talk page:

  • Added Mississippi, LGBT, and opera to the list, the results for May will be posted around the beginning of June. Mr.Z-man 4:45 pm, Today (UTC−5)

So feel free to go on and watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Popular pages and when it goes live, you'll see it. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 00:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mildred and Richard Loving and Loving v. Virginia

Two important articles to watchlist and to work towards FA. I've tagged both with our project. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been interested in getting Loving v. Virginia to FA as well. I have no idea how to write a Supreme Court article, however. --Moni3 (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Władysław III of Poland

Władysław III of Poland was supposedly gay. Should we tag and categorise him? It'd be great to add more references from scholarship. It is particularly relevant as LGBT activists in Poland are concerned with it too: [2].Zigzig20s (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

GayLib, Homosexualités et Socialisme, Inter-LGBT

I've just created these pages. Please expand them if you can - I already tried google to find more references.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Human rights and sexual orientation

Open query at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Sexual_orientation_section needs a scholarly response. Basic question is why is sexual orientation discussed in an article about human rights? I would answer it but I'm too busy right now and I'm sure someone here knows more than I do. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a link to UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity on the talk page. U.S. Joins Call to End Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation may also help. -- Banjeboi 04:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The best thing we can hope for at this point is for this project to put together a new sub-article about LGBT and human rights and then provide a summary style paragraph in the U.S. article. That would be ideal. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

cfd notification


The result of the discussion was: withdrawn with no objections. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 19:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In case you don't already know, Category:LGBT issues and religion is being discussed here. APK straight up now tell me 11:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"New articles with LGBT keywords" queeries

I suggest adding, when you click to show, a link with some "how to" instructions. For instance chilled margin doesn't apply to us but if I remove it will the bot simply re-add? and how do I remove it anyway? Should we use {{done}} to each entry, etc. -- Banjeboi 04:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It has the disclaimer, These are new Wikipedia articles which a bot has identified as possibly being within the scope of this project. in it to cover this, possibly being the keyword there. If you manually edit the page, the bot will just overwrite it on the next run. It's not a perfect bot and for some reason it has false positives. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 04:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The user box itself though is not terribly user-friendly. Will the list itself simply be replaced every day or something? -- Banjeboi 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the bot that updates the list, removes older entries and adds newer ones. Nothing we can do about that. Any changes to that process would have to be done via the bot's owner. See User:AlexNewArtBot. I only transcluded the page the bot updates, into a user box. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 00:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe update the box itself this list updated daily - if that's true. -- Banjeboi 10:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Better? It is true.. unless the bot is malfunctioning or there is no new articles to add. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 10:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

LGBT literature to be linked in DYK, needs work

The above article is due to be linked in WP:DYK? as part of the hook for Kyell Gold's article. It could do with some work, but I'm not a topic expert. Could someone here have a look? GreenReaper (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've fluffed it a bit but more help is appreciated. -- Banjeboi 23:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Gotta say, it's looking a lot better now. I'm sure readers would be able to find an interesting topic to move onto, at least. GreenReaper (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yea, it's hardly my forte but at least offers a jumping point. -- Banjeboi 10:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
LGBT literature is one of my fields of research, but it is so disparate...It's really hard to pinpoint 'what it is'.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Got any Gay male pulp fiction titles you wanna get rid of Z? - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 19:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation section in Human rights in the United States

Human rights in the United States#Sexual orientation is back on the menu again. Mish (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Queer heterosexual

Queer heterosexual is an interesting little project I stumbled across. Somebody set it up as a one-line neologism, and somebody else wanted to delete it almost immediately. I have padded it out a bit, and it seems to me to potentially be a valid article. It is not an area I am that knowledgeable in, but I am sure that anybody with an interest in polyamory, BDSM, transgender, male femininity, female masculinity, (even about guys who dress up as little girls or wear nappies - that might be OR though) etc. would have something they could contribute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MishMich (talkcontribs)

It's an oxymoron. 'Heterosexual' denotes a sexual norm - heteronormativity - and 'queer' runs counter to norms.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
And yet most cross-dressers are queer heterosexuals. :) --AliceJMarkham (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Heterosexuality is a sexual orientation, heteronormativity is when heterosexuality is normative. So no, heterosexuality does not denote a norm: heteronormativity denotes a norm, namely, heterosexuality. Queer is transgressive, subversive, or non-normative, sexuality, so queer heterosexuality is non-normative heterosexuality. Example: straight BDSM. Very queer, yet heterosexual. Cross dressing - a little bit queer in most (heteronormative) people's book - but hey, most male transvestites are straight. Mish (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My first DYK entry

Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article I did UK Gay Liberation Front 1971 Festival of Light action today - how cool! Mish (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Be sure to see the hit count for today. Congratulations. --Moni3 (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent job! Start to Finish = 8 days. Go you! :] - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 19:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't we have a LGBT DYK bit on our portal page as well this should be added to? -- Banjeboi 22:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and thanks for reminding. I've put it in the que at Portal:LGBT/Did_you_know. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 23:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga‎

Lady Gaga‎'s being bisexual keeps getting readded and removed from her article. More eyes and some more stringent copy edit would probably be helpful here. For a month or so the only source was this [3], but just recently someone tried to add a reference from Rolling Stone.[4][5] Right now there is no mention of her bisexuality in the article at all. I don't know how much this helps, but I also dug up an old interview from HX magazine (Issue number 883, Aug 8, 2008, Going Gaga by Brandon Voss, page 30-31) The original article is offline, but it was reported here[6] and I found a mirror here.[7] Siawase (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does it keep getting removed? Is the reason given on the talk page or in edit summaries? --Moni3 (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Gawd, you're making me go sleuthing through the edit history here. :P
The first white party reference ([8]) was removed with "removing unnecessary info, which are for the single not for Bio"[9]. But the cats remained for weeks more. The RS reference was reverted with "Please discuss such controversial inclusion at the talk page before"[10] The category removals finally followed today via WP:BLP. Siawase (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Was it discussed on the talk page? Did the person who removed it bring it up? Did anyone else? For BLPs, cited information (to super reliable sources) should stay in the article, regardless if someone may find it offensive. The Rolling Stone article looks like your best bet there. Any references to her sexual history with women should be supported by her own words in sources. So, I suggest following the suggestion of the person who removed the info, justifying on the article talk page why you think it should be added, add it with primo sources, and if it is removed further action can be taken. --Moni3 (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
In reply to your questions, from what I've seen, no, no, no, and yeah, I know, that all makes sense. I haven't edited the Lady Gaga article, and I'm just not up for any BLP battles right now. But I noticed this has been ongoing with her article for a while now, and brought it here in case someone else is interested in helping out. Siawase (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I added to the talk page discussion. I think it is currently 4 editors for including the sexuality information to one against. But as this is the one piece of info that editors claim is non-notable or defaming, i think more comments to consolidate consensus would be useful.YobMod 11:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Related to my comment above, how can she defame herself by admitting she sleeps with women? It should be in her own words, ideally. Second best is someone who has clearly been intimate with her who confirms it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 02:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Joan Vaccaro

I think this person might a transgendered physicist, but I am unsure. There are very good things that this is the case, but I cannot a reliable source establish Joan Vaccaro as being John Vaccaro. If someone could confirm (and add the appropriate categories, and expand the article accordingly). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at her homepage she has quite a lot of information on beings trans and how to transition - I find it pretty likely. The easiest thing to do would be to match up a paper or academic role listed on that site with a John Vaccaro and that'll prove it. I'll have a look now. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 14:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, here you go. John Vaccaro, Reader in Physics at Hertfordshire, recepient of Levershulme Trust Research Fellowship 2004, both things mentioned on Joan's website. Now try to package that as a neat ref. :P Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 14:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I'll let you do the heavy lifting, (I'm really busy and really don't care about this article, but I was pointing it out to you guys out of courtesy, since it might be of interest to you).Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

I have recently expanded this article, to try to meet the broad coverage of the subject requirement of the Good Article criteria. I think, though, that the article may now be so long that it might perhaps be a good idea to divide it into smaller and more specific articles. I'd appreciate it if people could take a look at it and comment (and if possible correct any errors I may have made). I think that this article should be part of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality as well as WikiProject LGBT studies, since it clearly falls within their area as well, but I don't know how to arrange this. Help with arranging this would also be welcome. Born Gay (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It should likely be sent to peer review first. I would ask Moni3 if she'd take a look and offer some tips on what may make sense as well. I've also added the tag for the sexuality wikiproject. You can post a note to them to ask for assistance as well. -- Banjeboi 00:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is ready for peer review at this time. The edits I made were meant to be a step in the direction of meeting the Good Article criteria requirements, not to fix everything entirely. Born Gay (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Mr. Lady Records

The article, Mr. Lady Records, has been reassessed as part of the GA Sweeps project. The article has been found to not be meeting the GA Criteria. As such it has been put on hold and may be delisted if work is not done to bring it up to the GA Criteria. My assessment can be found here. I am notifying the interested projects and editors of this eventuality. If you have any questions please discuss them on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Bert and Ernie Married.jpg

Can I get you guys to comment on concerns raised that the photo is a copyright violation. Thanks, CTJF83Talk 16:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mixed-orientation marriage

Can someone please take a look at this article and see if you agree that it should be deleted? Besides the aberrant POV issues; from a self-declared "ex-gay" himself; the term is nothing more than neologism; containing only 2,800 google search results when searched in quotes.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixed-orientation marriage Thank you. Camillex555 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to tread the OR path IMHO but others may be more able to expound on that. Unfortunately User:Joshuajohanson does seem to be making a point of some sort but I have no idea what, that marriage is still imperfect? Didn't we know that? -- Banjeboi 03:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

LGBT Pride Month

It seems that Barak Obama has declared June 2009 LGBT Pirde Month. I didn't see a mention of this here or on the Gay Pride page. ...Should there be one there? --Tyrfing (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. Since he referenced the Stonewall riots I added it to that article after checking no less than 4 times to make sure I was on the right website and it wasn't a joke or hoax. I'm still a little skeptical. --Moni3 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination

As one more example why people should make use of the Article Alerts box found on this page, Homosexual transsexual has been nominated a fourth time for Good Article status. See Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA4 (Old noms: Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA1 - Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA2 - Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA3). Feel free to weigh in. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 00:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that above. I have removed the GA nomination template from the article and noted why on the bottom of the article's talk page. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 01:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You may need to also follow up on Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations and formally fail it. -- Banjeboi 10:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment It's baaack. Seriously doesn't GAN have any guidelines that repeat ominations are more likely a sign tha the article is whack and needs some time before immediately renomming? -- Banjeboi 00:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the last time(?) was just a day after the previous fail. LadyofShalott 00:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I asked for input at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Homosexual transsexual. I think there is a good article in there somewhere but there does seem to be a lot of Ray Blanchard POV pushing that this may be a part of. -- Banjeboi 17:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject LGBT studies to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also get provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a couple weeks after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That's really great! Thanks so much! ɪntəsvɛnsk 08:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yay, seven of my articles are in the top 1,000! Otto4711 (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Booo, only one of mine - i think i have to start working on more populist areas! :-). But seeing this list emphasises how many of the project articles are about straight people that have some gay following. Could we not create a task force for gay icons? It would not only help the constant arguments about using the LGBT banner for them, but could be done in such a way that separate lists are generated, so those of us interested in improving articles on actual gay people could have more direction. Madonna and Cher and Kylie etc are great, but they outnumber actual LGBT famous people by so much! Just a thought.YobMod 12:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


Looks like a fun but wonky newly minted neologism. it will be gone in days unless contested. I was unable to quickly find refs. Anyone want to fix/defend it? -- Banjeboi 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the Prod on this one. A neologism with almost no traction behind it, and unlikely imo to gain any. Seems to be of no use cf. civil/domestic partnership, and i doubt any companies will be using the term soon, even if the article suggests otherwise.YobMod 12:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

National Socialist League (United States)

You are warned, bumpy ride ahead - and not the good kind. -- Banjeboi 08:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Tucker

new and poorly written article at AfD, any thoughts? -- Banjeboi 09:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked for sources, and found a few, but none i think give enough notability for this article to be kept. I could be convinced by more sources, though all i found were the comprehensive type of source that covers every non-notable LGBT person (Eg Lists of LGBT comics)YobMod 12:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

History of LGBT people in Hollywood films?

I know Vito Russo wrote a book and Celluloid Closet was based on that, do we have a hidtory article though? -- Banjeboi 10:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we even have a general LGBT film article, let alone a history or hollywood subarticle. When i created the LGBT fiction template i only found lists of LGBT characters in films, trans characters in films, and LGBT films sorted by year and storyline, and articles on Thai and Singaporean LGBT films.
If anyone finds or creates a general article on LGBT films, it should be added to the template and that probably reorganised.YobMod 12:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This has been a major gap in the project's coverage, and it could do with both a list and what could be a very interesting general article. I know I went looking for one a few months ago, and was pretty surprised when it didn't exist. Rebecca (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

F*ck me, I'm famous

I was interviewed for the Wikipedia Signpost, Wikipedia's weekly in-house newsletter for the WikiProject report. It has nearly 1000 Wikipedian subscribers and arguably many of those folks actually read it. It came about rather quickly and my worst fears, that it was an elaborate hoax by a troll, were apparently unfounded. I hope y'all feel I did fine by the project, I did my best to avoid the phrase "man-humping, cock-sucking, doggy-style loving queer" but otherwise did ok. -- Banjeboi 11:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Benji. I've been reading the Signposts since they started doing this Interview with the WikiProject and considered requesting that someone do something on our little hole in the wall here. Looks like you beat me to it. I don't know whether to thank you or be jealous, so I'll say thank you. You come off as quite well-read and dedicated to Wikipedia.
Do I get your castoffs, O famous homo, because I was mentioned? Yay! (Although Lesbian is still at GA, but I shan't make any other critiques since I have none.) It probably shows my tendency to formulate crackpot ideas, but WP:LGBT is one of those nutty WikiProjects that eerily reflects the community it represents: one straddled between a scruffy little office staffed by righteously indignant activists and a thumping disco where folks show up whenever the hell they feel like. We don't want an elected leader or much structure. We just wanna do it the way we feel like it. Make sure Gloria Gaynor or ABBA are playing loud, though. Seems to work most of the time.
With an eye for 50 years down the road, it is quite extraordinary that we're stewarding information that has previously been inaccessible to those who were unable or unwilling to go to a gay bookstore, or out yourself to the town librarian (when there was anything in the library, or indeed anything published) to read about this stuff we write about. Because I concentrated on a lot of stuff in the 1950s when it really sucked, what is available now is quite amazing. At any rate, well done. --Moni3 (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
And I'll just take the Other editors specialize on reverting vandalism line to be in reference to me, cause I wanna get some "Fuck me, I'm famous" leftovers too! :P Great job Benji, as if you could do a bad one anyway. If you're ever in Mississippi, I'll take you for an ice cold Southern Pecan beer - made in Mississippi - and some corn-fed country boy cruising. lol :] - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Moni3 I tend to agree with most of your crackpot ideas although would hope to update the music big-time or at least have a backroom lounge where the decorations become implements of terrible disasters and transformative revelations - just saying. Anyhoo I did add a correction[11] which I hope adds a smidge of credibility that we try to get it right even if it's not always pretty! Lol! And ASE, yes I was certainly thinking of you there but the farthest South I usually go is Washington D.C. which is pretty damn Southern in the big scheme of things. I do hope to conqueer Hotlanta at some point but will gladly accept a virtual drinkee ticket until then and of course think of you everytime I'm sipping alceeholic bevs in a hottub. -- Banjeboi 22:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I just read the article - you did a very nice job, Benjiboi, thanks! LadyofShalott 20:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Banjeboi 17:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Sounds like a good read. How did you avoid those terms? (Joking!)--Amadscientist (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Some of the worst vandalism is when subtle slander is woven in and not caught or is otherwise masked as credible content" - Benjiboi.

BEN YOU ARE MY NEW HEROE!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Project tag

Before I add the project tag to such an obvious article, I want to make sure there wasn't some discussion before my wiki-birth or since regarding the project's tag at Talk:Anal sex. This is certainly within our scope. If there's no valid reason as to why the tag isn't there, I'll add it. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 17:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

With that reasoning, why not add the tag to all sex acts? I'm not trying to be a smartass, but... why not? --Moni3 (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I imagine that could be the case but as anal sex is pretty much the sexual foundation for gay men where as penile intercourse isn't for lesbians.. I don't know, maybe I just can't figure out how to explain my reasoning as to why.. it wouldn't hurt that the tag be on Anal sex and Cunnilingus. No, not all gay men have anal sex and no, not all lesbians lick 'gina but I'd imagine the majority do. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 17:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I wondered the same thing when I looked at Fisting. Granted you don't have to be LGBT to fist, and being LGBT you may well not fist, it does have certain associations. Mish (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Just to chime in - tag it. There is an association between anal sex and (male) homosexuality that is unique among the various sexual acts in which gay people can take part. It's almost always brought up in those "gay sex is inherently more likely to give you AIDS" that we all love, despite the vast overestimation people make as to its prevalence as a sexual practice. Tagging it makes it more likely that someone from the project will notice when someone writes a load of ignorant crap in the article. Just my 2p ɪntəsvɛnsk 20:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
At first I was gonna say why isn't it already tagged? But Moni3 does bring up some good points. Do we stop at just tagging anal sex, or do we also tag rimming? I just noticed we already have fisting tagged. But what other sex acts do you think we should tag? CTJF83Talk 20:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to say. Personally I don't think that rimming and fisting have quite the same level of association with gay sex per se as anal sex does. If we're going to take as our criteria for tagging "gay people do this" then we're going to be tagging half the encyclopedia. It's just my opinion of course, but I think anal sex has a special place in the list of things that gays do due to the perceptions people have around it and the associations they make. I can see the arguments on the other side though so if people think we shouldn't tag any of it or we should tag more stuff then that's fine. I hope this makes sense. I'm so tired. ɪntəsvɛnsk 21:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Fisting is tagged because I just tagged it.Mish (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
LOL, Mish, good enough reason for me. I agree Intesvensk that anal sex is probably at the top of the list of perceptions of gay people. As far as fisting goes, I would assume there aren't many straight people that do that, but I could be wrong. I think we should atleast tag anal sex. CTJF83Talk 21:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

! Fisting is tagged? I understand that strong elements of gay subculture revolve around anal sex, but I do not see fisting as having that same kind of element. Due to my own experience in various lesbian communities and the pile of reading I did/ am still doing for the Lesbian article, I would not say that cunnilingus, vibrators, or strap on sex toys should be tagged. Yes, they are all a part of lesbian sex, but I have serious doubts that parts of lesbian subculture revolve around these things. In the same vein, I'm skeptical that fisting is so integral to gay or lesbian subculture. --Moni3 (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The project page is ambiguous. It says it is about LGBT & Queer. Queer includes a lot of stuff that is not necessarily LGBT. Such as polyamory and BDSM. If any type of sexual practice is included that is not exclusively LGBT, then why should anything be excluded? The lede includes queer, but the text seems to limit coverage to LGBT identity & community issues - which would be a shame, as that would limit LGBT practice to sexology/sexuality - which has not always served LGBT people well. If you limit to practices that are predominantly LGBT, then yes you would exclude vibrators, and be in the odd position of including transsexual vaginal dilation, but not dildo's. If you don't want fisting in, take it out. I'm not that bothered - but if you are going to exclude queer stuff like polyamory & BDSM, then you really ought to make it clear that the LGBT studies project does not include queer - then maybe somebody can look at setting up a proper queer project and get on with the task of queering Wikipedia. Mish (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, no. I'm not convinced. Either every sex practice that can be done by two men or two women should be tagged (I don't think they should), or we should limit the tags to sexual behaviors that are widely recognized as being significant to a large cross-section of gay men, lesbians, trans people, etc. As in, could you go to a different city and strike up a conversation about (sex act) with a stranger in a gay bar and have an instant understanding? Ha ha...just thinking about approaching someone like this about fisting is a very funny scenario, because I get my ass kicked in the end. Ha...end. --Moni3 (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, in my (not so humble) experience, I have hung around in straight bars, gay bars, dyke bars, and I have had relationships with gay men, as well as straight and lesbian women - and maybe even a bisexual in there somewhere - and whilst I cannot verify this with sources, I would feel more confident about being understood discussing fisting in a gay or dyke bar than in a straight bar - and in conversation with a gay man or lesbian than a straight man or woman, regardless of whether people had actually engaged in the act. On the other hand, most straight men and women know about anal, and many will (in one way or another) have experienced it. As I say, I'm not that fussed really, I mean, if we can queer heterosexuals, we can do just about anything we want really - should anything need to be off the agenda? Mish (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Fisting is rather well associated with gay men subcultures and indeed quite a few sex clubs were devoted to the practice almost exclusively for gay men. Women and non-gays certainly fist as well but the gay boys made it into a paaaartay! Lol! In any case we're here to offer support on articles that arguably do concern LGBT cultures and anal, oral, fisting and rimming all meet that with flying colors. I agree with Moni3 that not all sex acts do but many certainly are within our realm of possibilities. -- Banjeboi 03:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
After a few days, I finally was able to put into words the "wtf?!" response I had to fisting being tagged. I've read in quite a few sources that the basis of homophobia for many men is that men receive anal sex: they are penetrated, which is the traditional position for women. The sex act itself is not necessarily the reason for many people's revulsion to homosexuality, but that men are voluntarily giving up their dominant position. Homophobia, and in this instance it is quite literally a fear of being penetrated, is a reaction to the ambiguous masculinity presented by sex acts involving men. Fisting is just kinky, and I don't mean that in a judgmental way. The only mention I have ever seen of fisting and gay sex was in And the Band Played On, and it was not the basis of any cultural views either within the gay community or outside of it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • GLQ - 15 results for fisting (5 seem a bit repetitious but in different articles), all relating to L/G sex.
  • Sexualities returns 5 results, all related to L or G sex. Mentioned in articles about L/G sex, no articles about fisting per se.
  • Steven Epstein, Targeting the State: Risks, Benefits, and Strategic Dilemmas of Recent LGBT Health Advocacy, Chapter in The Health of Sexual Minorities: Public Health Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Populations, ed. Ilan H. Meyer and Mary E. Northridge (2007)
  • Sexual behavior patterns of methamphetamine-using gay and bisexual men, PN Halkitis, MT Shrem, FW Martin (2005)
  • Frequent and systematic unprotected anal intercourse among men using the Internet to meet other men, A Léobon, LR Frigault (2008)
(BDSM websites reported significantly more fisting and ‘‘watersports’’ compared to respondents recruited via the general interest gay websites and)
(Findings from the UK Gay Men’s Sex Survey 2002 showed that overall, 12.8% of respondents had engaged in fisting within the preceding 12 months)
(LGBT college students reported engaging in a variety of sexual behaviors during ... or vibrator on their sex partner and engaging in vaginal fisting, bondage)
  • Gay Men, Lesbians, and Sex: Doing It Together, P Califia - The Columbia Reader on Lesbians and Gay Men in Media, Columbia University Press (1999)
  • Unpacking Queer Politics: a lesbian feminist perspective, S. Jeffreys (2003)

Can look these up in the journals I have access to & Jeffries if required, but not for another week (busy), also seem to recall a section in the Lesbian Sex Guide (forget who wrote it that is on a shelf somewhere too) Mish (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, here. What is the point of this list? --Moni3 (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I was about to post something similar. Like glory holes are more readily associated with gay men so is fisting and research - not "research" - focussed on the activity is lights of the AIDS pandemic. Fisting is not solely teh domain of gay men but they sure do seem to be teh main practitioners by any measurable standard. I hear the homophobia and cultural bias issues but we can't cater to those despite evidence that this indeed is a gay male activity. If we had a preponderance this was mainly done by fans of Star Trek I would support their involvement as well. -- Banjeboi 01:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
@Moni. The point of the list was that you said you were only aware of one reference to fisting and gay sex. Not sure how the homophobia stuff related to the thread, so I ignored that. I gave you a list of papers that discuss fisting in the context of gay and lesbian sex - even Jeffries discusses the practice in that context (negatively). Your not being aware of something is not a reason for challenging it. There is much I am unaware of in this project - that is why we refer to sources - I was giving you some sources. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So we are leaving the project tag on Talk:Anal sex? seriously? Just because guys don't have vaginas, so they must do it up the butt, we tag anal sex? sheesh :-D guess I should notify the WikiProject Council in case any other cultures, countries, or ethnicities are renowned for their liking of anal sex, so they can project-tag it as well :-D Wikignome0529 (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

More concerning is that you felt it would be appropriate to come to WP:LGBT and make that comment. You do know why this project exists, do you not? It defies logic and good taste, and no, it is not defensible. The only thing you can say in reply is that you were mistaken, it was a momentary lapse of judgment and you won't do it again. --Moni3 (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
??? What brought that on? I didn't start this thread. I was asking for clarification that we were in fact leaving this project-tagged, for future reference. Anal sex is already tagged for WP:SEX. Are we going to tag all sex acts LGBT people do?
Talk:Fellatio is not tagged (I imagine this happens more often than anal sex among gay men...)
Talk:Cunnilingus is not tagged
Talk:Anal–oral sex is not tagged
etc. etc. Wikignome0529 (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you honestly not see your comment as being the very reason why anal sex is tagged? Besides the point that I have seen less offensive vandalism removed from mainspace articles, you come here, to this thread where a connection between homophobia and anal sex is being discussed and make that comment? Smiley face emoticons don't undo the words. You're even a member of this project! What? I can't even begin to wrap my mind around the reason someone would feel justified in saying what you said. You did not ask why anal sex was tagged, nor for clarification. You came to make your point: Just because guys don't have vaginas, so they must do it up the butt, we tag anal sex? If you were asking for clarification, you would have asked for it. I read stupid phobic comments from editors who do their best to be tolerant, and I let it go because, poor Neanderthals...they try and it's in their talk space somewhere. But this is here, in this thread, on the talk page of WP:LGBT. --Moni3 (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
My comment is the reason it is tagged? My comment wasn't homophobic. I am gay, the sentence you quoted was only pointing out how rediculous it was. If anal sex is staying tagged because of homophobia, are we also going to tag cunnilingus (derogatory names used for lesbians/bi women, that iI won't mention here) or fellatio (derogatory names used for gay/bi men)? Or is anal sex some special case? This was not some disruptive message, it is asking clarification of what the consensus is, for future reference (i.e. in case of tag removals or edit wars) Thanks, Wikignome0529 (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to butt back in here when you two are having such a party. I think I misjudged on Fisting, and would like to reverse on Anal sex as well. The Project page discusses culture and identity, not sexual practice and activity. Given the discussions on the template page, I think that there is wisdom in separating issues of identity and culture from practice, leaving practice to WP:SEX. This seems to be the consensus with BDSM, and I see no reason why any practice should be treated differently. I will attend to Fisting in due course. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)