Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31

2 items

  • There is a DRV item at List of terms for gay in different languages which may be something that would belong posted to the noticeboard, but I'm not sure about the "how to" specifics of it. I know the article in question is listed on the talk page as being a part of this project, so I'll leave it to you folks to figure out what to do and how. DRV is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 7
    • Unbelievable... Mish (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • This really needs looking into by somebody. An overwhelming consensus to delete a page that WP:NOTDICT says Wikipedia is not for "Wikipedia articles are not dictionary articles, are not whole dictionaries, and are not slang and usage guides.", and the admin refuses to delete it or listen to the near unanimous call to override - why? Because he doesn't agree? I don't get this. Can anybody explain? Mish (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Gone now.
  • Item 2, where is the link to the guidelines that were expanded last month - I'd like to make sure they are listed in WP:UPDATE, but don't remember the link. Thanks all. Cheers and happy editing. ;) — Ched :  ?  04:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:WikiProject LGBT studies#Guidelines Mish (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
      • FWIW: I don't have an opinion on the deleted article, but figured involved editors might be interested that Terminology of homosexuality (second half of the article) is basically serving the same purpose as the deleted article (though not in table form). Wikignome0529 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
        • This suffers from similar problems - heaps of assertions about what other people call gay people in non-English languages. It could say anything, even about living people, and without any means of verifying what it says, we would never know. That whole section could be removed and point to Wiktionary. Mish (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Double standard for homosexual illustrations?

Is a double standard at work in the deletion of a nude image of two males in the article? Haiduc (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Posting pictures with homoerotic content is now "a crusade." Haiduc (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried including it further down into the text? Displacing the navbox can upset a few people. Mish (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Not that I agree/disagree on inclusion of the picture, but pederasty != (does not equal) homosexuality... & age (not gender) is the issue. if it were an opposite-sex picture, I imagine there would be actually be greater (or quicker, at least) scrutiny over it. Wikignome0529 (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, although it is no more inherently problematic when involving an older man and a younger man over the age of consent than an older man with a younger woman over the age of consent. Pederasty was a historically significant type of same-sex sexual relationship. I was assuming this was the case in the image concerned - if the age of the younger party is doubtful, then it definitely should not be included, as that could be illegal. If the image is part of the commons, then that should be addressed there, and the picture would not be available for inclusion; because it is available, one would have to assume it is safe to use it. Mish (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Outright Libertarians

Posting this here in case anyone knows of better sources... a user has notability-tagged Outright Libertarians (the US Libertarian Party counterpart of Stonewall Democrats/Log Cabin Republicans) & plans to take it to AfD in 2 weeks if not fixed. Minus press releases, there are 15 gnews hits, but most of these are either letters to the editor/opinion, or tangential mentions.. there is some content regarding Bob Barr's nomination in '08 which might qualify for a sentence or 2, but not sure that would establish organization notability. On Google Books, there is 1 hit, but once I started to add this to the lede, I noticed that the book's content on it was almost a carbon copy of Outright's website. Wikignome0529 (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

  • The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
  • The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
  • I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
    • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
    • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
    • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
  • The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
  • The data is now retained indefinitely.
  • The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
  • Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [1]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WP LGBT studies project tag on article talk pages

Here's a new script that makes it quick and easy to add the project tag to article talk pages...

Just add the following to your monobook.js page:


..then Save it. Then purge your cache (by clicking the purge link to the left).

What should happen:

  1. At the very top of the page, before your username, you should now see a new link that says 'add wp lgbt tag'.
  2. Go to an article talk page you want to tag. Don't click 'edit' or anything.
  3. Once on the article talk page, just click the new 'add wp lgbt tag' link at the top.
  4. This will automatically open the article talk page, automatically paste in the project banner code at the very top (seen below) and automatically add an edit summary (seen below).
  5. You will change 2 things (see below) and click Save.
  6. Quicker, faster, enjoy.

WP LGBT studies tag that will automatically be added:

  • Change the Class question mark to Stub/Start/C/B/A/GA (you can see them all at Template:LGBTProject. If you don't need the explanation parameter, just remove the question mark. This parameter is for explaining why the article is within our scope.. useful on some articles when people are bitching about the gay tag and wondering why it's there. If you do need to use the explanation parameter, replace its question mark with your brief explanation.

Edit summary that will automatically be added:
Add WikiProject LGBT Studies tag

If you're not using the monobook skin for Wikipedia, I can't assure you this will work on other skins. Test it and see and let me and others know. (you can change skins via your preferences link at the top of the page) - ALLSTRecho wuz here 16:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Switching to new navbox format

Resolved: new navbox is live, see below

The sandbox's format seems to have reached a stable version... Propose adopting the sandbox version as the new live version of {{LGBT}} (and moving any future discussion of which links to include/exclude to Template talk:LGBT). Example below:

  • Example usage: {{LGBT|rights=expanded}} auto-opens the "Rights" section for readers. (different sections can be specified depending on which article it is appearing on)

thoughts/opinions/!votes? Wikignome0529 (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I'd support this (but have been involved). It will involved going through all the articles to ensure relevant groups are displayed for each article. Mish (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • note: Monosexism has been merged to Biphobia. -- Banjeboi 10:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I suggest just being bold and rolling it out - it's a footer template after all so people have to make it to the end of an article to see it. If you want help rolling it out I'll pitch in. -- Banjeboi 10:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - the sandbox version is now the live version (& removed monosexism also)... the new template should ignore the former options of "sectionname=yes" (which turned on the optional sections) , and the old "=yes" options can be replaced with the new "=expanded" options below as needed:
{{LGBT |academy=expanded}}
{{LGBT |culture=expanded}}
{{LGBT |main=expanded}} (Sexual/gender identities section)
{{LGBT |history=expanded}}
{{LGBT |rights=expanded}}
{{LGBT |orientation=expanded}}
{{LGBT |social=expanded}}
There is no cause for worry though if no options are set though (or an article's navbox isn't converted to the new settings right away), since all sections are included on all pages in the new version -- adding the =expanded option just auto-opens the section for the reader. Wikignome0529 (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Update: The new navbox actually apparently is taking the old "=yes" settings and auto-expanding those as if they were "=expand" settings. Some articles have 2 or 3 "=yes" settings though, which can probably be trimmed down to 1 auto-opened section. But the template apparently is treating =yes and =expand the same. Wikignome0529 (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Excellent work. It seems to be autocollapsed though. I suggest the new improved version should be in semi-expanded mode unless someone hides it or defaults to collapsed if bundled alongside other footer templates. -- Banjeboi 11:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Supposedly "autocollapse" is supposed to do the same thing you mention (only collapse if other navboxes are used), but for some reason it is collapsing even when alone. Will set it to always-expand for now.. Wikignome0529 (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Why was the wikipedia entry for neutrois deleted?

I'm interested to know why this happened -particularly since I am neutrois and I have been referred for treatment in England by the NHS for this.

It is my opinion that the deletion of the wikipedia entry on the basis it was a 'little used neologism' was offensive insofar as we were denied the opportunity of having our identity (which is a valid identity) listed on wikipedia. There are many online forums where people openly identify as neutrois. Denying people the opportunity to express the word on wikipedia that best describes their identity is wrong. Since we are also non-gender-binary identified transgendered people the neutrois community can consider the deletion of the neutrois page from wikipedia to be transphobic.

Many people identify as neutrois on various web forums and bulletin boards and many of us are annoyed with what has happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxsquiggle (talkcontribs) 11:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The article was but one or two sentences and without any reliable sources. If you can build a new article based on NHS publications, that would be fabulous. See also this AfD. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
It was a good bit more than two sentences, but it is true it had no reliable sources. Mxsquiggle, if you wish to work on the article, and think you have sources you could add, let me know, and I'll restore a copy to your userspace. Once it is improved, then it could be moved back into the mainspace (but not before). LadyofShalott 17:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
It's important to understand that no community has an automatic right to "have their identity listed on Wikipedia" unless valid and verifiable references can be added to the article to confirm that the identity is generally recognized in reliable sources. Deletion doesn't mean that the topic can never have an article, if a proper one can be written, but an identity community isn't automatically entitled to an article on Wikipedia until such time as it's recognized and acknowledged by sources outside of Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Lists of LGBT people

I wanted to bring to everybody's attention that I've just noticed an issue going on with the LGBT people lists which has apparently been flying under the radar.

Over the past day or so, I've had to remove at lest 15 entries from the lists of a couple of different types:

  • entries that once had an article but were subsequently deleted, and were consequently now just redlinks,
  • entries, either redlinks to non-notable people (same old "classmate vandalism") or blue links to improperly listed celebrities, which were sourced to fake references (usually a repeat of the real reference for the person immediately above or below them in the list, but in one case also a genuine link to one of those generic "famous gay people" lists elsewhere on the web but which didn't actually contain an entry for the non-notable person it was being cited for.)

In the process of catching one of the latter type, I also caught one not-gay-celebrity entry whose entire reference consisted of just "}", but I caught this only because it was immediately next to a redlink I was already removing. I'd have missed it otherwise. I can't guarantee that I've caught every bad entry, because I haven't gone through every list to confirm the validity of every single individual name — and due to the scale of such a project, I'm not going to do that all by myself. I've only removed the ones that I happened to catch as problematic in a quick once-over scan; anything more comprehensive will require a bunch of people sharing the work.

In truth, the requirement for proper referencing on the list hasn't really resolved the vandalism problem it was meant to solve. People don't seem to actually check every individual entry and reference in the list, but instead very often just let it through if it looks properly formatted and legitimately referenced. But I'm not sure what else we can do to solve the problem, apart from the permanent page protection that Wikipedia tries to avoid.

So, my questions:

  1. Are there any volunteers who'd be willing to, say, go through one letter in detail to ensure that every entry legitimately belongs?
  2. Does anybody have any other ideas for how we can minimize vandals adding bad entries, since even requiring references doesn't always seem to be enough? Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Mind providing links to these lists? Additionally, we need to know which articles are now red-links so we can vet them and see which notable ones were deleted that apparently we aren't aware of. They can be moved to userspace for additional work or even a sub-space of this project. - ALLSTRecho wuz here 23:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people
As for deleted entries, "used to have an article" obviously doesn't automatically equal "is notable" — there were no redlinks which it would be particularly to our advantage or benefit to do anything special with. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe ping Satryn? If nothing else to get advice, the clever vandalism you can only do so much on. Usually getting every item reffed slows down the non-sense and makes the vandalism jump out. I'm afriad those who choose to disrupt may ramp up their attacks to be faux sourced. -- Banjeboi 08:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Transgenderism moved to Transgenderism (social movement)

Earlier today, I was bold and moved Transgenderism to Transgenderism (social movement) to distuingish from Transgender (had placed a distinguish hatnote on the top of it a while back, and the move of the transgender/religion article to a "Transgenderism" title reminded me of it). Most ghits & gnews hits seem to use "Transgenderism" to refer to Transgender. Also, in reviewing the backlinks following the move, most of them were using it in the Transgender context as well (not counting links coming from the transhumanism template). Posting a note here for other users to review the move, as someone messaged me on my talk page about not proposing it first. Thx, Wikignome0529 (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole article needs to be redirected to transgender. There's no such thing as a "transgenderism movement". Rebecca (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You might want to propose it first... the series sidebar on the transhumanism articles links to it (though the link is called "postgenderism" and it links to the 2nd half of the article). The 2nd part might be worth saving or merging elsewhere. Wikignome0529 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't care if someone chooses to write a Postgender article, but it certainly doesn't belong there. Rebecca (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
According to Postgenderism's history page, one was created in Feb 2006 & redirected to George Dvorsky July '06, and then to the transgenderism article Feb '07. Wikignome0529 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the template and reverted the postgenderism redirect to the original article, which doesn't look half bad at a glance, at least as a place to start. I've also reverted the Transgenderism redirect; that material didn't belong there in the first place and the article was an OR mess. Rebecca (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche on Gays and AIDS

This page sure has a quick archive! Anyway, the LaRouche matter is now at the BLP noticeboard, and there's been a response from only one uninvolved editor. If anyone has an opinion it'd be helpful to get broader input. WP:BLPN#Views of Lyndon LaRouche#LaRouche on Gays and AIDS.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is still unresolved, and there is now an RfC. Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#RfC: Draft of Gays and AIDS section.   Will Beback  talk  06:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

renamed Religious views on transgender people

This article is hopeless, and I have tagged the entries in the section on mormonism as dubious (as they are either sources that have nothing to do with the topic, or don't exist, or link to a home-video on YouTube about what somebody things Mormon views are. I have also tagged a few other bits for various reasons (see the discussion page). The whole concept of having a title that is about 'views' by one group about some people seems contrary to both NPOV and article naming conventions, so I am in the process of renaming it. I started to move it to Transgenderism and Religion (as some of the material there is about the religious views OF transgender people), and in the same way that homosexuality and religion allows for a balance between conservative and liberal views in a way that included people who are the subject of that article (gay and lesbian people) this can allow for a more balanced treatment of the topic in a way that gives more room for those who are the subject of the article to edit in a way that reflects a variety of sources. Unfortunately, this was my first attempt at a move and I messed it up (I moved the talk page to the name space by mistake). So I have moved it to Transgender and religion (I moved talk page back to its original location first). When the blanked page for Transgenderism and religion has been freed up again, I will shift the article there properly. I think that there should be a blanket rule that so-and-so's views on anything should be clearly marked as disallowed on Wikipedia, as it seems anything with 'views' in the title is unlikely to even start looking like it is going to manage to be NPOV...Mish (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Try {{Db-move}} to delete the page that's in the way, in the edit summary explain you're trying to get Transgender and religion moved there. -- Banjeboi 08:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Somebody did it. All done now: Transgenderism and religion. Mish (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Is "Transgenderism and religion" the best title, or would "Transgender people and religion" be better? Also, the current article doesn't appear to have any material about trans people's religious views. --Alynna (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This follows the form for similar articles like Homosexuality and religion; we can set up a redirect for that of you wish. Whatever one puts, if the word 'trans' is in there somewhere, some people will have a problem with whatever it is called. On your second point, that is exactly the point. Now it can have both. Mish (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Transgender people and religion would be far better; "transgenderism" is not equivalent to "homosexuality". Rebecca (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Transgendrism is the same to transgender people as homosexuality is to homosexual people. Is is also a perfectly cromulant noun in this usage, appearing in respectful and respectable scholarly works. The "hate the sin, love the sinner" ethos of some religions show that there is a philosophical difference between the abstract noun and the grouping of people, and transgenderism is the more general term, so is better for a more general article.YobMod 17:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
In that case, use "and transgender" if you must. "Transgenderism" is seen by a good many people in the usage the article intends to use as a slur. Rebecca (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
[Citation needed] - It may be seen as you as a slur, but the numerous books by gender researchers shows it is clearly not, and Transgenderism (social movement) indicates the opposite too. The "and transgender" is also not grammatical. "Transgender people" would also not cover trangender dieties in Hinduism or Kami in Shinto, which are not people.YobMod 18:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite open to using other language, as long as "transgenderism" is not it. You're no expert on the subject; the fact you cite that weird unsourced "transgenderism movement" article (a claimed topic which I've never heard of despite the fact I majored in the field) rather supports that implication. On the other hand, you're being told that a lot of people do find this a slur, by someone who happens to both be trans and have a degree in this stuff. Knock it off. Rebecca (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I made no claims to being an expert, which is why i asked for proof that the term is widely considered pejorative. As the links Mish provided below who, this is a commonly used term in gender studies, indicating it is not a slur.YobMod 11:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that transgenderism is not a movement, transgender is to transgenderism what lesbian is to lesbianism, in a similar way as homosexual is to homosexuality. So, there is no homosexual movement per se, but there has been a gay movement, and while there has been a lesbian movement, it has never been a lesbianist movement (although there is still a lesbian feminist movement), just as there has been a gay and lesbian movement, and there is an LGBT movement. Someone is not a trangenderist, just as few people talk about homosexualists today (although this term was used by the far-right and conservative Christians at one time), and lesbians are called lesbians, not lesbianists. Where the term transgenderism is used, it tends to be in a medical context [2]. Where transgender is concerned, it is usually used in the context of transgender people. My choice of transgenderism is as shorthand for the phenomenon [3], as transgender is usually conjoined with some other term [[4]]. I have no problem with shifting the transgenderism and religion back to transgender and religion, but my sense is that the current article name is preferable. Mish (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no issues with 'transgenderism' as a term personally, it is recognised by WPATH, and TBH, I have never come across anybody having issues with it who didn't also have issues with 'transgender' (i.e., people who identify as transsexual and who do not wish to be associated with transgender). This naming simply follows the convention for homosexuality, although I have taken the liberty of placing the subject of the article first (which ought to be the case with homosexuality and religion too). A lot of lesbian and gay people do not like the term homosexuality, but we have not renamed that article 'lesbian and gay people and religion'. 'Lesbian and gay and religion' wouldn't work, and just as 'transgender people and religion' wouldn't work, I'm not sure 'transgender and religion' would work either. What is reflected in 'homosexuality and religion' (or vice versa) is the 'condition' of homosexuality - by which I do not mean a medical condition, but the human condition - in the same way, 'transgenderism' in 'transgenderism and religion' reflects the relationship between the condition of transgenderism - that is the human condition of being transgender. I know of no other word that is available to describe this apart from 'transgenderism' other than 'trans' - but somehow I doubt that would be acceptable in an encyclopedic sense. Mish (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S., do you have a WP:RS that states that transgenderism is not an acceptable term to people who identify as transgender per se? Mish (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S., these are a handful of sources from medical, social science and community-based sources, all of which use the term unproblematically.

... etc. Mish (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Capital punishment for homosexuality

This is a brand new article started just today. It's on an important subject, but the sourcing seems dubious; I left some comments about that on the talk page. I'd appreciate it if other editors more knowledgeable about the subject could take a look at this article and see if it can be improved. Born Gay (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be merged, to LGBT issues and Islam (as most of the info is about Muslim countries), with the redirect made to LGBT rights by country or territory, which already covers this issue.YobMod 09:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Merging is probably appropriate, given the exclusive focus on Islam in the article. It wasn't well sourced, either. Born Gay (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it came from Homophobia and was ulled out by ADM. An editor who seems to not approve of people who aren't heterosexual and Catholic. ADM may sincerely believe in what they write but I've seen umpteen pointy, vague, slurrish-against-Jews-and-or-Gays (and Michael Jackson) talkpage posts. Unless they produce a reliable source it may just be drama-stirring. Sorry, but that's my take. I've put the content back into homophobia but it could be reworked into other articles. -- Banjeboi 13:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

An article on this subject could be written, but this wasn't it. I redirected to the LGBT rights by country article, as the content is already elsewhere.YobMod 11:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a section here: Homophobia#Contemporary death penalty which an editor has tagged as off-topic and is now asking about deletion. Maybe want to review if anything there is of any use. There is a similar section in Violence against LGBT people as I recall. It might be worth pulling it all together as a single article, and providing a link to the article from those places that are relevant? Mish (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I have edited down this section, as much of it didn't relate to the death penalty, and reworded some of it along with sourcing the connection to homophobia. Mish (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Religion and homosexuality

I am having trouble with an entry on this page. An editor decided to list the references against homosexuality in the three Abrahamic religions. I inserted a comment that Jesus does not discuss homosexuality in the following paragraph (and that lesbianism is not addressed anywhere, which I have now revised). This has been persistently reverted, mainly by one quite hostile editor, and I accepted a source linked to Exodus International that explained that some interpret a passage in Matthew (also in Mark) in a way that covers homosexuality, but this was not enough, and ended up with some Mormon material that I consider undue (because of the length of the comment placed in a way that downplayed the fact that Jesus never mentions homosexuality) - which I deleted. This led to the source and comment about what Jesus never said (difficult to verify somebody didn't say something without a source) being deleted. I then realised that the Exodus-Int'l-citation does include a comment that Jesus never speaks about homosexuality, so I re-wrote the short text to reflect this, and used the same citation that is used to argue that although he never spoke about homosexuality, he spoke about marriage, divorce and adultery in a way that covered homosexuality. I also found a quote from an article by a female Anglican priest on Spong's PCN study centre site, and have now added that as a source - but have not yet re-inserted the original deleted source (which is from a book about homosexuality and Christianity). I am waiting to see what happens next really. I am on the point of doing an RfC, but the instructions are to request input from the project page. Which is here and the religion project. I will take it there tomorrow if the deletion of factual (accurate and verifiable) material persists. I have not done an RfC before, so would appreciate any advice on this.

The text in question is located here:

Religion and homosexuality#Abrahamic religions

The first recorded law against homosexual behaviour is found in the holiness code of Leviticus within which sodomy is a capital offense. There are no references to sexual acts between women in the Hebrew scriptures, and one reference by St. Paul to female sexuality that may imply lesbianism (Romans 1:26). While Jesus never mentions homosexual behaviour,[12][13] conservative Christians (and Mormons) argue that his teaching on marriage, divorce and adultery in Mark 10:6-12 (repeated in Matthew 19:4-9) applies to homosexual behaviour.[12]

The discussion is here:

Talk:Religion and homosexuality#Jesus makes no reference to homosexuality in the Gospels?

I am not happy with using behaviour here, but because the issue is that accurate, relevant, verifiable information should not be excluded, I am ignoring that right now. Mish (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As i have said on the talk page, and templated on the article, this is the wrong article to even be having this discussion. Summary style of the subarticle would generally mean very few if any specific examples are given, just general trends. Sandboxing a summary of the appropriate subarticle would seem the only way forward.YobMod 09:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't there but from what I've read Jesus told all those men he hung around with to love one another, seems clear to me. -- Banjeboi 11:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
He hung around with sailors, you know. Seriously, thanks for your input YobMod, you make some important important points, and I value that. I got sucked in by the edits that expanded the section in a certain way, and then tried to balance them - which was clearly a red-rag to one person. The list of condemnatory passages was unwarranted in an introduction to these three religions, as this is dealt with in tedious detail elsewhere in the article as well as in as many other articles people can push it in. It would be interesting to see which is the most often cited passage from the Bible - is it Jesus' most important statement in Mark 12:30-31, or is it Leviticus 18:22 or Leviticus 20:13? Mish (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK help

I recently created the page Erotes (mythology), and wanted to try to get it listed at DYK. As this is the first one i've done, i wanted to solicit suggestion for the hook to increase chances of being selected (and any improvments made would be great!).

The deadline is friday, and i was hoping to get a hook that mention homoeroticism in some way. Suggestion on the talk page, please!

Also. if someone with experience in nominating wanted to do that, i am fine with sharing credit, as i wont be able to edit on firday.(Note, the word limit is already passed, and essentially everything is cited.)YobMod 12:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a look and made a suggestion on the talk page. Nominating is really easy - you'd just need to paste {{subst:NewDYKnom | article= | hook=... that ? | status=new | author=}} (with the relevant fields filled in) at the top of here - but I'd be very happy to keep an eye on the nomination after you've made it in case there are any queries. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. I've written a longer lead, and will submit it now (with the homoeroticism between women hook). It would be great if you can keep an eye on it. and respond to any comments.

Link: Template talk:Did you know#Erotes (mythology)YobMod 10:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Could we get a note in the article on the singular form? I think it's just "eros" which is confusing, as proper-name Eros is also listed as being one of the erotes. This could use an explanation rather than, as the article presently does, just carefully avoiding any use of the singular.
Dybryd (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ordination of gays and lesbians in Christian churches

A few days Wikignome changed Ordination of homosexuals to the above, noting it implied an anti-homosexual bias. Now somebody has moved it back again. I have tried to revert it, but the move seem irrevertable, so have suggested on the talk page that this is an unwise move, as comtemporary use of homosexual as a noun is viewed pejoratively by lesbian and gay people, and as they are the subject of the article this ought to be respected. It is a bit of a faff removing the link-pages and then doing the move again - and don't want to engage in a 'move-war'. I'm putting this here to inform the editor who made the original move, and to seek any suggestions. My own view is that the original move was imperfect anyway - 'lesbians and gays' is not much better than 'homosexuals', as 'lesbian and gay people' or 'lesbian and gay clergy' would be better - and one way of defusing this might be to rename it 'Ordination of homosexual people' or 'clergy' (the issue is with homosexual as a noun rather than as an adjective, as far as I am aware). Mish (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The new title (LGBT clergy) seems the best to me. Again, most religions have rules for this that would effect Bi and Trans people too. (Eg, AFAIK, the Catholic Church would allow a Bi man who has not had sex with another man for 3 years. The rule does not distinguish between homosexual or bi orentiations, just sexual activity. I'm pretty sure they would have problems with transmen or transwomen also, no matter their sexual orientation.)YobMod 10:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

10 Best Lesbian Novels of the 20th Century per Bywater Books

--FYI: -- November 03, 2008 blog post from Melissa Scott (writer):
This summer, Bywater Books in Ann Arbor, MI, ran a web poll asking readers to nominate and then vote for the Best Lesbian Novels of the 20th Century. This is their final list:

  1. Curious Wine, by Katherine V. Forrest -- (aka A Curious Wine)
  2. Oranges are not the Only Fruit, by Jeanette Winterson -- (At Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit)
  3. The Price of Salt, by Patricia Highsmith
  4. Zami: A New Spelling of My Name, by Audre Lorde
  5. Desert of the Heart, by Jane Rule
  6. Rubyfruit Jungle, by Rita Mae Brown
  7. Patience and Sarah, by Isabel Miller
  8. The Sea of Light, by Jenifer Levin
  9. Beyond the Pale, by Elana Dykewomon
  10. Trouble and Her Friends, by Melissa Scott

-- I don't know whether we'd consider that we need to have an article on each of these works and authors, but "presented for your consideration" ...
-- (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We certainly should have one for each of the authors - does anyone know anything about Levin, at least for a stub?
Otherwise, it looks like a very cliquey list (like most LGBT awards: only lesbians can write good books with lesbians?), but i am suprised to see i have even read two of these, yay.YobMod 13:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Just put up a stub bio of Levin - now it needs someone with some actual knowledge to flesh out! Gonzonoir (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

FAR notice for Kylie Minogue

I have nominated Kylie Minogue for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is Homosexual transsexual still listed as a candidate for GA status?

Resolved: Nom closed. -- Banjeboi 17:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

On the list of LGBT alerts, it shows this:

  • 17 Jul 2009 – Homosexual transsexual (talk) is nominated as GA candidate by Shii; see discussion.

However, the 'discussion' links to GA2 for this article. Looking at the talk page, it is not clear that there is an open discussion on this.

  • There is one discussion that ran 23-24 April
  • Another discussion from 27 May - 11 June, followed by and editor's RfC comment 11-15th June.
  • Sub-page GA1 runs from 3rd Nov - 8th dec 2008 (delisted)
  • Sub-page GA2 runs from 5th - 12th March (no conclusion - told article not in position to be neominated because of content disputes)
  • Sub-page GA3 runs from 12th March - 12th April (no conclusion - noted that the GA nomination on hold
  • Sub-page GA4 nominated 13th April (supposedly third nomination) - 27 May was failed procedurally
  • Sub-page GA5 17:33, 17 July 2009 Shii (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA5" ‎ (Another reviewer is already handling this)

Does this page have to keep appearing on this list, simply because it is serially nominated despite not being a candidate? Mish (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The list itself is auto-generated so you may have to ignore some bits. More info at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 12#Homosexual transsexual. -- Banjeboi 13:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
<head banging against wall> The situation there is ridiculous. LadyofShalott 14:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The article history and GAN page seemed inconsistant, and USER:Shii says the current GAN (from July 17, the one in the LGBT alerts) was a mistake, and was revoked. As the AH said the article had failed the last proper GAN (May 27), i rmved that submission from GAN and the talk page banner. There are major problems with the writing, if nothing else (as noted by Moni3 on the talk page and clear just from the lead), and no way this would pass as it is, so there is no point in leaving a 2 month old submission open.YobMod 16:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I will speedy decline it in a few days if no one else does. -- Banjeboi 19:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

List of LGBT medical organizations

There seems to be a serious problem developing on this article. User Joshuajohanson is insisting that NARTH and several other anti-gay groups are somehow not anti-gay, that they are affirming of the LGBT community and that they deserve to be listed as "LGBT medical organizations", something which they obviously are not. His position seems to be at best a failure to understand the purpose of a list of gay medical organizations and at worst blatant POV pushing. I'd like to ask other editors to please take a look and comment. Born Gay (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Change the name to LGBT health organisations. Make clear that this covers general health. FYI JJ is LDS, and has been proselytising on a number of LGBT articles. Mish (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting. Other editors may also want to keep an eye on this article, because there is still a dispute there. Born Gay (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge 2 redundant templates?

I've proposed merging Template:LGBT and Christianity and Template:Homosexuality and Christianity. Anyone object? You can see how redundant the two templates are on this page.

Dybryd (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

How would it be done, and what would be the name of the final template? I like the look of Template:Homosexuality and Christianity more than Template:LGBT and Christianity. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said on the page, the only way you could do this would be to merge homosexuality with LGBT, not the other way around, because homosexuality deals with homosexual topics, whereas LGBT was designed to accommodate all aspects of LGBT issues and Christianity, including lesbian and gay topics. For example, transgenderism and other LGBT issues. Mish (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the title would be Template:LGBT and Christianity, but I chose Template:Homosexuality and Christianity as the "merge to" because it's more developed.
Dybryd (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Tell you what we could do, rename/move Template:Homosexuality and Christianity to a new template LGBT issues and Christianity, incorporate relevant material from Template:LGBT and Christianity, and ensure references to Template:Homosexuality and Christianity and Template:LGBT and Christianity redirect to the new template. Mish (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I did it. Mish (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Looks good. Dybryd (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Chapstick lesbian and User:Deepmath

You may wish to take a look at Chapstick lesbian (listed under this project), which Deepmath (talk · contribs) changed from a redirect to an article of its own a few days ago. It was brought to my attention because this editor was spreading insulting remarks and obscenities, partially dressed up as questions, on Swedish Wikipedia. This editor is already on his/her third block on Swedish Wikipedia, by the way. This project's members are probably more suited than me to judge if anything in that article is worth saving, or if anything under references or external links is up to standard. The userpage User:Deepmath (sections of which he deliberately seems to use to send insulting messages to speakers of various other languages) and the edit history of this user, including the choice of edit summaries, is interesting reading. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I went through all the sources, all but one was acceptable - either nothing to do with topic (making most of text and synthetically used for article WP:OR - all the ELs were to blogs, dating sites, online groups, other Wikis or ''. All these were removed and marked as lacking sources, and the text marked as needing citations. This was then deleted, which effectively left one sentence of sourced text, which points to a source of questionable reliability. Rather than mark as dubious, I placed a delete tag on the basis of WP:NOTDIC - the remaining material would be better in Wictionary. There was a delete decision in 2006 when the result was to merge with Lipstick lesbian. Mish (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll redirect it again; if they revert we can look to formal deletion/protected redirect as I don't see anything terribly useful there. The one sourced sentence can be added to lipstick lesbian. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. At AfD. There really was no sources on the article that were usable, several exist but nothing that would elevate the article enough beyond a redirect IMHO. -- Banjeboi 01:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The creatr already has a warning about using offensive edit summaries onhis talk. If he crops up again making such obvious attack/joke pages, it should go to WP:ANI.YobMod 09:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The page was moved to the editor's userspace. I replaced the redirect left to the userspace to Lipstick lesbian. Mish (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"LGBT" vs. "LGBT issues"?

Sorry if I'm raising a question that's been talked to death -- I haven't been active much recently -- but was the addition of the word "issues" to standard article titles in the project discussed? I don't love it -- I just find the word unnecessary and awkward. And it might create the impression that being LGBT is always an "issue" when for some it may simply be life.

Purely a subjective call, but I'm seeing the change in quite a few articles and I wondered if it had been gone over.

Dybryd (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 29#Homosexuality or LGBT issues?
I wasn't sure we came to a clear conclusion. If we did, can it be summarised on the guidelines, please? I'm not 100% on issues, but I thought we felt that just 'X and LGBT' or 'LGBT and X' wasn't OK because LGBT wasn't a noun, and while 'X and LGBT issues' or 'LGBT issues and X' wan't ideal, there was nothing better. Mish (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
If you were bold and moved them off the "issues" I doubt anyone would object. -- Banjeboi 02:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
As long as they are consistant and the templates are all updated too, i think it doesn't matter. I doubt any will ever get to FA, so an ungrammatical title doesn't effect much else.YobMod 09:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
So, is this the consensus? All articles, templates, categories, etc. that refer to "LGBT issues" be changed to "LGBT". Mish (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I have issues with issues. -- Banjeboi 10:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't have issues with 'issues' as much as I do something like 'confusion' - but, I may have issues with people taking issue with my issues. Mish (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, I may have issues with that. -- Banjeboi 22:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Template discussion

Obscure talk page, see Template talk:LGBT for a discussion started today. - ALLSTRecho wuz here 18:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have created Template:Pederasty {{Pederasty}} following this discussion.
I have amended the Template:Religion and LGBT issues, because its title pointed to Religion and homosexuality, but said Religion and LGBT issues. I have created a section at the top that links to Religion and homosexuality and to Religion and transgenderism#Christianity, and reformated the religions that run beneath it.
I have also created Template:LGBT and Christianity {{LGBT and Christianity}}, because the Template:Homosexuality_and_Christianity is primarily geared to articles that present Christian views on homosexuality, rather than LGBT and Christianity issues.

Mish (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And i have made a new article at LGBT issues and Christianity to put the template on :-). I also updated the template (and the LGBT issues in religion one). I created this article almost entirely from other wiki pages, so it needs a lots of work. I'll add more on lesbianism and bisexuality, but my sources are limited to online, not being a Christian and all. So any more knowledgable ppl, please contribute.YobMod 12:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Mormonism seems to be an issue on the LGBT/homosexuality/transgender and... pages. Not sure how to manage this. What happens is there is a section about Christianity, and it gets stuff on Mormonism stuck in here there and everywhere, as if it is part of mainstream Christian thought. It is not. Most established churches do not consider Mormonism to be a form of Christianity, because it departs from historic denominations on some key issues - like the Creed and the Trinity. It has additional scriptures, which it uses to argue points not made in scripture (and in so doing contradicts what is said at the close of Revelation). The articles that deal with LGBT issues and Christianity are infused with Mormon citations, and while conservative evangelicals (or fundamentalists) might agree with some of this, it does not represent mainstream Christianity. I have tried removing LDS from the 'Homosexuality and Christianity' template, which was immediately replaced arguing it conforms to the Christianity page - which is itself misleading as it made no mention that most Christian denominations (and the majority of Christians) consider the Creed, Baptism, the Trinity, not adding to scripture as the baseline of their faith (after belief in Jesus). I have now amended that. Thing is, it seems that most of the iffy stuff being written around this area comes from the LDS POV. I don't want to get too embroiled in Christian issues per se (especially as I have little experience of LDS, as they are not even on the radar here), but with this inherent undue weight given to LDS in the encyclopedia, I am not sure what to do. Mish (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
There are many sorts of Christians to whom, at various times, various other sorts of Christians have wanted to deny the shared label. The most neutral way for Wikipedia to categorize these groups is to accept their self-designations, and the LDS does self-identify as a Christian church.
Dybryd (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It is the antithesis of neutrality to acquiesce to self-designations, especially for New Religious Movements, pseudoscience, etc, because they are always grasping for historical legitimacy. What's important is what scholars and reliable sources say. I think it is a question of undue weight. Is the Unification Church given important chunks of text in articles and templates relating to mainstream Christianity? If it does, it shouldn't.
More scrutiny should be given to these cohesive and sheltered groups, because this is Wikipedia, and it is completely editor-based. A group with so much controversy and interest in proselytism and public relations is likely to skew the article-building process. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
One article I do recall included reference to Moon's church on homosexuality as part of the Christian section. I think you hit the nail-on-the-head, because my concern is not confined to LGBT articles, but where WP:FRINGE groups insert themselves as if part of the mainstream in a number of articles, then this does start to skew Wikipedia as a tool for providing some kind of legitimacy as part of a process of proselytizing. I certainly get the impression that some of the insertions on LGBT issues are less about being encyclopedic as proselytizing. Mish (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I think there are 2 different issues here.
  1. Should large religious groups that identify as Christian, but that some Christians don't like, be included in articles and sections on Christianity?
  2. Should small, "fringe" religious groups that identify as Christian, but that some Christians don't like, be included in articles and sections on Christianity?
Any group that identifies itself as Christian should be treated as Christian by Wikipedia. But if a group is small and fringey, it doesn't need to be included in summary sections and the like. Not because it "isn't Christian", but because it would be undue weight. If a section is short enough, it's not necessary to cover individual groups within Christianity at all -- but this line shouldn't be drawn based on whether some group is considered Christian by some other Christians. --Alynna (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, so if there is a short summary of Christian views on something, say three short sentences, covering Catholic and Protestant for and against - if one sentence focused on Moon's church, that would be fringe - but one sentence for Mormons would be undue weight - yes? Mish (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Now we also have an issues with LGBT & religion with Rosicrucians being inserted within mainstream Christian views, as a form of Christian Freemasonry - and there has been discussion that Freemasonry ought to be included as a religion in its own right. My understanding of Rosicrucianism is that it is a fringe esoteric sect - and that Freemasonry is not a religion per se, but a secret society with some spiritual teachings, that is open to people from a range of religions. While these issues would not normally be pertinent to this project, these discussions are taking place on LGBT project pages. Mish (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Richard Francis Burton

Richard Francis Burton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Unlabeled sexual orientation

Most of the material in the article is a list of people who do not label their sexual orientation, and any connection of content to the title is still synthetic. I have taken the liberty of renaming the article to reflect its content more accurately as List of people who do not label their sexual orientation. Mish (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone's interested, it is currently nominated at AfD. LadyofShalott 03:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sergius and Bacchus

There's a very interesting discussion going on at Talk:Saints Sergius and Bacchus#Patronage. Anyone have any insight, or preferably, any reliable sources to contribute? LadyofShalott 17:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I gave a source there: It backs up the assocation with same-sex couples, but not patronage as such (and the source i used would have certainly said it if it was notable).YobMod 15:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Identity Therapy

This seems like another soapboxy article but I'm not in the mood to survey through the sourcing. Anyone interested? -- Banjeboi 01:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone interested in writing a Wikipedia article about my activism?

I was scared sh*tless when I looked at the Wikipedia "language" last year when researching submitting an article about my activism. Learning a foreign language was easier for me.

Anyhow, not sure if this is "off topic" for this area, but just how does one find someone to write an article?

Here's a link to my bio on my home page:


My blog (Crusader's Corner):


Crusader (formerly Andrew Exler)

--Crusader (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We should have one IMHO but my plate is a bit full. -- Banjeboi 03:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Homsexuality lead

There is a discussion now underway regarding the lead paragraphs of Homosexuality at the article's talk page. Please drop by, take a look, and help build consensus for how to improve this article. 16:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out, all the proposals seem to be very short. An article of this length could easily have a lead 3 ot 4 times the size of the current one (the once for LGBT in comics is much longer for example!), which makes it much easier to include all the important points.YobMod 07:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
One of the major goals for that article has been to make it shorter. (A lot of fat was trimmed earlier this year, with some info being spun off into new articles.) But please come and comment there. We're making good headway, but extra eyes may well catch things we've missed. Rivertorch (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: use 'matters' and 'topics' instead of 'issues'

I have been through the discussion, and I am unclear that we have a definite consensus on this. There are a number of articles entitled 'LGBT issues', and from the discussion there are a number of articles about 'homosexuality and...' or '... and homosexuality' that have text that covers 'LGBT and...' or '... and LGBT', or ought to be renamed because there would be insufficient detail to generate separate articles on other aspects of LGBT. Before we start going through and changing these to follow a consistent construction, we need to establish that there is a consensus on how we do this, and the order ('LGBT and ...' or '... and LGBT'). Looking at some of these articles, I do not think it will be unproblematic, because the choice of terminology is determined by ideology - some groups use 'homosexuality' (for example) for ideological reasons, and I doubt they will accede to renaming to LGBT quietly. In this respect, because 'LGBT issues and ...' follows an already established pattern, we need to be sure that we have arrived at the definitive method of naming such articles before embarking on ad-hoc changes. So, we need to establish this as a guideline - that way, if established, the guideline shows that there was consensus to do this within this project, and future creators of articles will have a clear naming convention they can follow. So, it needs to be formally proposed for insertion as a guideline for articles covered by this project before I would feel comfortable working through these articles.

My preference would be to replace:

  • 'LGBT and ...' for 'LGBT matters and ...'
  • 'LGBT issues and/in ...' for 'LGBT matters and/in ...'
  • '... and LGBT issues' for 'LGBT matters and ...'

etc. But for categories and templates:

  • 'LGBT and ...' for 'LGBT topics and ...'
  • 'LGBT issues and/in ...' for 'LGBT topics and/in ...'
  • '... and LGBT issues' for 'LGBT topics and ...'

The articles (etc.) I have found so far include:

on the other hand, while there are a number of articles about aspects of LGBT that do not use 'issues', as they use words relevant to the article like 'rights', there are only few that just use LGBT:

Categories is a bit easier:

  • (this could be adjusted to )
  • (this could be changed to topics as well)

There is no category for or , only

There are two such templates:

I am sure this is not exhaustive, and does not address articles with 'homososexuality' in the title that are not specific to lesbian and gay matters.

Does anybody have issues with replacing 'issues' with 'matters' in articles, and adding 'matters' where appropriate, and 'topics' in categories and templates? Mish (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please ask Bearian and Otto4771 regarding categories and see if that resolves article naming...issues. -- Banjeboi 22:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I have placed notices on their talk pages, and placed notices on the two template talk pages. I will check the main LGBT template. Mish (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


Cunado moved the article back to Homosexuality and the Bahá'í Faith without any discussion that I've seen. I have raised the issue on his talk page. LadyofShalott 16:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, somebody from here moved it without any discussion on that page at all. Poor form.
"LBGT and such and such" as a typical format for ariticle names seems counter to both WP:ABREV and WP:MOSABBR.
I'm also pretty sure that unilateral page moves don't fit the accepted criteria for doing so. If talk pages are the venue for discussing edits, its certainly the venue to discuss moves. I do hope that y'all are not doing that elsewhere. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
We had extensive discussion, and then grdually started WP:Bold moves. I started discussions on some pages (eg. Islam), but got only support, and there was no objection on any of the other articles since. A clear reason for the move was given in the edit summary (unlike the reverts). As there is no edit warring, and moving thepage back required one edit, i really don't see any way this is a problem compared to typical edits. If consensus is to keep it at the current title, we will just have to make a separate page to cover LGBT people. YobMod 14:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)