Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41


Corrective Rape II

Looks like I'm following you around - I didn't know ya'll went to Rice too! We should all meet up to talk about our goals for the page so we can coordinate a bit and not step on eachother's toes.

I also would like to edit the current Wikipedia page on "Corrective Rape" because it is a world-wide phenomenon that affects many lesbian, transgender, bisexual, and gender-queer women. The current article is a stub and only addresses a very small portion of the issue, focusing almost entirely on its manifestation in South Africa and its effect on lesbians. This issue is prevalent in many parts of the world, including highly industrialized or developed nations. Indeed, the very existence of this phenomenon indirectly affects all women, especially those that do not conform (either by choice or not) to the normative gender role for women in their community, through the atmosphere of fear and intimidation that it creates. All of this begs further clarification and discussion. Please look at the current page's talk page to see a more detailed account of my proposed changes for the page. Lenasilva (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The "gay" city Idlib

Idlib is a city in Syria, one of the hot spots of the current military insurgency. It appears it has also gained a historical reputation for being a locus of homosexual culture, although contemporary (at least currently available) sources cannot provide any explanation for the origin of this reputation which has devolved to little more than a rumor in contemporary lore. For obvious reasons information about this aspect of Idlib culture has been contentious among some editors, and edit warring over its inclusion has been part of the aticle's history. In recent editing developments an editor of some weight has deemed the section inappropriate for the article. I would think that the present WikiProject might find this issue of interest. The discussion can be found at Talk:Idlib. The project might also want to include the article if seen adhering to the project scope. __meco (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that the project's banner is already on the article's talk page, added by myself earlier. Well, you can evaluate if you want it to be there. __meco (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Satinover

I am currently involved in a dispute over edits to the Wiki page on Jeffrey Satinover. Satinover is an academic whose work is widely-cited by anti-gay groups, has on a number of occasions testified against pro-LGBT civil rights legislation (e.g., same-sex marriage in Massachusetts), and basically argues that LGBT people don't really exist. Satinover is a proponent of sexual orientation change efforts. Before I began editing the Satinover page, it contained a variety of biased information, puffery about Satinover's background, and it completely whitewashed Satinover's role in providing intellectual cover for organizations and individuals working to dehumanize LGBT people in order to block advances in LGBT civil rights. I have tried editing the page to include quotes by Satinover, as well as a synopsis of his book, "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth," which cites old and widely discredited research and traffics in the worst of anti-gay stereotypes (e.g., promiscuous, pedophiles, incapable of love, etc.) My edits were noticed by User:Lionelt, who is affiliated with WikiProject_Conservatism and has more experience editing Wikipedia than me. S/he keeps reverting my edits, sometimes sensibly and with explanation, and but often not. Overall, User:Lionelt (who could, for all I know, be Satinover himself) seems keenly interested in presenting a whitewashed characterization of Satinover's work, and in preserving and normalizing the anti-gay sentiments Satinover has expressed. I could use some help. Please see User:Lionelt's talk page for the latest. --Miamibeachguy (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a potential original research issue in summarizing a primary source (like Satinover's own book or other writings), whether the summary is seen as creating a positive image of the subject or a negative one. It would, however, be helpful if the specific points of contention were raised. In general, more secondary sources should be found that discuss the use of Satinover's writings by these anti-gay groups, rather than the groups' own websites, but these sources are very easy to find. As for normalizing, WP:FRINGE clearly states that fringe views like Satinover's should be put in the context of accepted views, so if his views on same-sex parenting or the causes of homosexuality are detailed, we therefore need to explain that they are not supported by scientific research. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hurst Street

Started a requested move to change this to Birmingham Gay Village so that it can be expanded and cover the gay village rather than one streer with some of the clubs on. Let your opinions be known on the talk page. Thanks Jenova20 16:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not create the new entry using as much of the material now at Hurst Street as you want, expand it, and then propose a merge? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Because then i'll duplicate some of the material and have to waste time that could have been saved deleting it rather than starting from this.
Very little of the material in that article is currently referensed and usable. It's because of this that i support either a merge into Birmingham Gay Village or a delete.
Thanks Jenova20 20:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul Jaquays

Game designer Paul Jaquays recently came out as a transsexual lesbian female named Jennell Jaquays. I wasn't alone in wanting to edit the page, but I was just recently pointed in the direction of some personal notes on which I assume I can use as a reliable source for the gender change. I removed most of the gender pronouns (hopefully not too ham-fistedly) and replaced them with the surname as a more neutral term. I think most of the article does not need a rewrite, as the career and other sections speak for themselves. I did have a rewrite of the "personal life" section, of course. Mostly I need to know what categories need to be added to this BLP, and what other changes should be having, like do we add this wikiproject? Never gave a gender reassignment to an article before, but I guess it had to happen.  :) Just like a person would need to go through a gradual transition, I think we can do the same here as well. Discussion on the article's talk page about what changes are needed is encouraged! BOZ (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be moved? It seems disrespectful to have Jaquays' old name as the article title, even though it's still the most common name. Her personal website uses Jennell. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I have just moved the article, but it could probably use some eyes to make sure everything's within Wiki policy, as I haven't actively edited in quite some time. I've also left a couple notes on the talk page and would appreciate if someone looked at those. —Mira 03:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't trying to be disrespectful, just wasn't sure what steps needed to be taken and when. Thanks to Mira for doing the page move. Now, are there any categories which need to be added to the article, and does the LBGT studies wikiproject banner get added on the talk page? Other than that, I'm not sure what else might need to be done - probably not much, I'd imagine. BOZ (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


I would like to see material from this RS added to this bio. (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Andrea James

I would like to alert members of this project that there is a problem at the Andrea James article. An editor is insisting upon including undue details about controversies that the article's subject has been involved in. The article's subject, who edits Wikipedia as Jokestress, has expressed distress about this, and said that she may have to make an OTRS request. I have tried to discuss matters on that article's talk page, but the editor who wants to include the negative material has ignored the points I've made and responded with frivolous comments. It would help if editors not previously involved with that article could comment there. Luwat (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

TFA for International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (May 17th):

I have started a discussion on what article should run on that day. If you would like to make a suggestion, please go here. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A new barnstar

A new shiny barnstar you can use: give it to editors who have contributed to LGBT topics on Wikipedia.


Tom Morris (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks fab! Bit big tho isn't it? (Not that i'm complaining) Jenova20 15:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Colours seem a bit uneven though, especially since there's hardly any red or purple, but loads of green, blue, orange and yellow. Jenova20 15:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
There is actually a very similar barnstar already:
LGBT-Barnstar1.png The LGBT Barnstar
insert message here
which is produced by the code {{subst:The LGBT Barnstar|insert message here}}. - htonl (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This looks fantastic! Thank you! --Varnent (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I like the new one! It's great. Thanks! – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 07:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Courage International listed as an LGBT-related organizaiton — inappropriate?

While browsing the list of LGBT-related organizations, I found an entry — which I believe to be inappropriate — for Courage International. This is a Roman Catholic Church–sanctioned apostolate that advocates chastity among gay people in accordance with church doctrine concerning homosexuality. They are a co-founder of Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality (PATH).

My guess is this list was intended for organizations that affirm, rather than try to "repair", LGBT people, and "LGBT-related" may be a misnomer. Although Courage International may be an LGBT-related organization in the technical sense (in the same way PATH and other ex-gay organizations are), I think including such organizations on this list is inappropriate. I believe the entry should be removed, which I will do soon, unless anyone has major objections or someone else beats me to the punch. I also believe the misleading title should be changed. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 20:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess it could be consider a LGBT-related organization if rabidly anti-gay organizations count as LGBT-related organizations. However, I doubt that was the intention of the editors who started the list, and it would be rather misleading to the uninformed reader. I agree that it should be removed from the list. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Dominus Vobisdu. One could list anti-LGBT organizations like Courage International among "LGBT-related organizations," but at the least they shouldn't be mixed in with the others. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Brazil

A user and I are discussing if Brazil should be added to the list of countries where same-sex marriage is legal (or at least be mentioned in a note). I think other opinions would be great. You can see the discussion here. Thanks (: --DrkFrdric (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but were you talking to yourself there? lol – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 07:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, nevermind, he replied to yours on your page haha :) – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 07:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Want to add LGBT info to non-LGBT page

I am not highly involved in any one project on Wikipedia, but I do make edits to science based pages. I noticed the other day that the Chick-Fil-A Wiki page has a mention about anti-gay policies. I think that Dominoes Pizza should also have a section on this. My problem is that I don't know if it would be appropriate or not. Would someone like to add that in there if they think it's fitting? The wiki page on Tom Monaghan (who has a controlling share in Domino's) made me feel that it should be mentioned on the company page.

Also, should there be a Wiki page on companies with known anti-gay and pro-gay policies? Sdegan (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Go for it, be bold. If someone takes issue they can always remove it and discuss it on the talk page. Thanks Jenova20 09:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Coalition for Equal Marriage + Coalition for Marriage

Could do with some more eyes here to help update these. Anyone interested? Thanks Jenova20 09:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment for corrective rape

I already requested an assessment under the tab for it on the project page, but I see that none of those pages have been assessed in a year. I would like corrective rape to be reassessed because it is no longer a stub and should be a higher class than that. Please let me know if you have any questions or feedback. Thank you! Rachelpop- (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation for more eyes at Chad Griffin

I've been putting together an article on Chad Griffin, founder of AFER and who will be leading HRC beginning in June. Any comments/improvements/corrections/expansion welcome. --joe deckertalk to me 23:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

New page regarding local LGBT legislative proposition

Would it be noteworthy/appropriate or not to add a page regarding LGBT legislation in a certain area? Anchorage, Alaska had a ballot initiative to include the LGBT population in their municipal anti-discrimination clause, however the measure failed 40% to 60%. I am sure people would like to read more about it, but there isn't a wiki page on it yet. Would that be noteworthy? Sean Egan (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Easily, it reached the worldwide media. You may be best placing it another article though. LGBT rights opposition for example? Thanks Jenova20 09:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Great feedback guys. I'll start working on it this weekend! I've only made a hundred or so edits on Wikipedia so I thought I'd ask before I go creating pages Sean Egan (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation for more eyes at Jeffrey Satinover

For a couple of months, I've been trying my best to edit the biographical article on Jeffrey Satinover, an academic with impressive credentials (MIT, Harvard, Yale) who is author of the anti-gay book "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth." Satinover's book is a perennial favorite of anti-gay groups, who use it to argue that LGBT people are intrinsically inferior to heterosexuals, and therefore undeserving of equal rights. Satinover serves on the Scientific Advisory of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Satinover has also testifed against LGBT rights in the Massachusetts (same-sex marriage) and Florida (in support of the now-defunct ban on LGBT adoption). Satinover's views are well outside the mainstream, a fact that I keep trying to ensure is included in the bio about him.

A handful of editors, including Bravejoints2, who appears to have personal ties to Satinover, keep deleting my edits in an effort to whitewash what Satinover has actually written and said. Recently, he deleted my reference to a book, "The Moral Minority: Identifying, Analyzing, and Exposing Homophobes," that critiques Satinover's anti-gay book, explaining the reasons for such deletion on the bio's TALK page. I find the reasons suspect. Most recently, this editor also said on the TALK page that he has, in an e-mail to Satinover, "alerted him to what was happening on Wikipedia." I encourage you to read the TALK section on Jeffrey Satinover for details. It would help to have some other editorial voices weigh in. --Branmuffin22 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I read the talk page. Some (very few) of his deletions make sense. I don't understand why he is deleting anything to begin with. I think that the page should have input from the both of you so that it satisfies NPOV, which if both of you contributed 50% would definitely be satisfied lol. Isn't there a way to start a dispute regarding this page? What could I do to help? Sean Egan (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Please see the new section I added to the end of the Jeffrey Satinover page. I hope you aren't offended by my comments, but they are honest and took time for me to put into words. Sean Egan (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Mormonism and violence

A recent malware attack caused me some concern from the article when checking references after a recent revert of a claim I thought was stitched together with primary sources. There is a discussion now ongoing and the Project LDS has also been notified.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

New color scheme & cats in map

There is a discussion at Template talk:World homosexuality laws map about a new map from Commons. The differences are:

  1. A new color scheme, evidently addressing some concerns with color blindness
  2. A distinction between in-all-but-name civil unions and civil unions with markedly inferior rights, as identified in a report from the ILGA.

Comments welcome. — kwami (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheers task force

I have created a task force proposal for Cheers. Come to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Cheers for discussion. --George Ho (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Pages under construction

If you have anything to contribute: images, wording, suggestions, no matter how insignificant then post it here, on those pages or just do it. Thanks kindly Jenova20 08:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation for more eyes at Mormonism and violence

The article seems to be getting whittled down slowly by opponents believing it to be a coatrack article. I believe the talkpage comments also show a somewhat anti-gay tone, however I am not at all surprised just that they seem to lack any real policy or guideline to back themselves up. There is a section of great relevence to the LGBT community and to the project [1]. Could we get some eyes on this to see how it can be improved, where it need trimming or expanding and help? Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Breanna Manning


I've moved the article Bradley Manning to Breanna Manning due to major BLP concerns about how we identify Manning; from a reading of the sources in question, and of MOS:IDENTITY, I believe there are major BLP issues with how we refer to Manning as "he", despite sources also saying that her identity is female.

Please direct the discussion to the thread on BLP/N; this is a cross-posted notification. :) Sceptre (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And please note that Manning has made no public statements whatsoever regarding this issue - the whole attempt to shove Manning into a stereotypical 'trans' category is based on nothing more than cherry-picking of sources by those who wish to impose arbitrary categories on others. Wikipedia is not a court of law, and we have no right whatsoever to assert 'gender identity' on the basis of a questionable interpretation of the private conversations of a clearly troubled individual. Human sexuality, and more general issues of identity, deserve better from us than such ridiculous 'tagging' for the purposes of pushing some agenda or another... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, please note a discussion on the policy Village Pump, where some editors appear to be using Manning as a wedge issue to invalidate the gender identity of trans people. Sceptre (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
More bullshit. The only people 'using Manning' are the POV-pushers using his private conversations to impose an 'identity' on him that he has never laid claim to. That such a vulnerable individual should be treated with this sort of contempt on Wikipedia is a gross abuse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Article in the Washington Blade on the subject: [2] "If these materials are to be believed, then it appears that Manning was questioning his gender identity. Manning’s lawyers have noted that he had sought counseling, but we don’t know if any final decision was ever made. We don’t know whether Manning wanted “Breanna” to be a primary identity, or if this was an alter ego that was never meant to be indicative of primary gender identification. We do know — from our own private conversations with friends and family members — that prior to his incarceration, Manning had not asked people to refer to him with a female pronoun". AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
No, not bullshit. While I agree with you about what we should do re: Manning, Scepter has a fair complaint about a few arguments in that thread. Manning, which is very much an exception, is being used in that thread at least a couple places as grounds for suggesting larger-scale retractions of MOS:IDENTITY. To point at a single example, an unambiguous suggestion of reverting our policy regarding the use of pronouns when describing events prior to transition. I understand that these "retroactive pronouns" are uncomfortable for many people, but it's also in no way the core issue with respect to Manning and MOS:IDENTITY--the problem in the Manning article is that the sourcing we have is tertiary, poor, and embedded in a the Wikileaks situation, with unethical behavior, coercion and bullshit running around like crazy. We should demand exceptional sourcing for everything in Wikileaks-related articles, and even more so for claims which affect a living person. But this has nothing to do with retroactive pronoun use in well-sourced cases, e.g., Lynn Conway, Chaz Bono, Dee Palmer, etc,, and yeah, I feel that the inclusion of some of the larger questions that have been raised about MOS:IDENTITY are a bit of a wedgie. --joe deckertalk to me 18:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Giordano Bruno

A little research project for anyone who wants it:

I've just added a one-sentence subsection to the article on Giordano Bruno (as well as the LGBT project banner on the talk page), who was burned at the stake in Rome in 1600 for various offenses, including asserting that the earth moved around the sun, questioning the teachings of the Catholic Church, and some unspecified "immorality." The ex-monk, never-married Bruno was a buddy of some gay figures like Christopher Marlowe, and in the 19th century, gay critics Symonds and Pater were sure he was family, and they ought to know.

Trouble is, I've just spent 2 hours trying to find more scholarly sources adding to this opinion - I don't think there's any direct evidence to be had - and found very little on Google Books, or little that's easily summarized. The glbtq article I referenced in my addition says that Arcigay, the Italian gay-rights organization, regularly holds their rallies near his statue in the square where he was executed. Again, they ought to know, but I don't read Italian, so their website is no use to me.

Anyone with an interest in the man or the period, or who can read Italian, and wants to flesh out the subsection with more quotes and refs about Bruno's sexuality, please do so. I don't have time to dig further. Textorus (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You are indeed correct that Arcigay venerate Bruno as a free thinker comparable to Luther and Galilei (Le argomentazioni di Ratzinger richiamano pericolosamente quelle utilizzate già 500 anni fa contro pensatori liberi come Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei e Martin Lutero here). This article makes a direct reference to Bruno's sexual orientation:

Oppure che “la spinta centrale di tutta la ricerca di Newton era tutt’altro che scientifica“ e che “ dedito, come Giordano Bruno, alla stregoneria si occupava di esoterismo, alchimia, demonologia, alla ricerca del fantomatico "elisir dell’eterna giovinezza". Gli intrugli che preparava gli servivano appunto per tentare di mantenersi "giovane" in una relazione omosessuale con un matematico svizzero“.

This is an article attacking one Professor Biagini for racism and homophobia and translates (roughly) as

Or that "the central thrust of the entire research of Newton was anything but scientific" and "addicted, like Giordano Bruno, to the witchcraft charge of esotericism, Alchemy, Demonology, in search of the elusive" elixir of eternal youth ". He who prepared the concoctions served precisely to try to keep "young" in a homosexual relationship with a Swiss mathematician.

That's all there is on the Arcigay website however. -- roleplayer 00:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Tantalizing idea of the Swiss mathematician. Obviously there are sources somewhere that go into more depth on all that, I hope someone will do more digging than I can do and expand the article. Thanks for your help. Textorus (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Tom Gabel

A cissexual editor seems to be enforcing a strange and POV idea of how to present pronouns of Tom Gabel, a rock star who has very recently and publicly come out as trans [3]. Just a heads up really, in case any other people concerned with this want to contribute to the discussion/help educate. -Kez (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Coupled with the stuff about Br(enna|adley) Manning two sections up, there really needs to be some sort of education to editors on how trans people should be referred to, drawing from the opinions of the medical/psych community instead of from the press. The past few days have been awful in this regard... Sceptre (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Can I draw the attention of WikiProject LGBT studies to this article [4] on the Bradley Manning Support Network website (originally published in the Washington Blade), which makes perfectly clear that Manning wishes at present to be identified as male, and named 'Bradley', and states that, in regard to the question "Notably, he didn’t ask us to start referring to him as Breanna. Advocates for Manning have an obligation to respect his agency and use the pronoun he had preferred prior to his arrest. None of us has the right to switch pronouns for Manning unless he tells us otherwise". Sceptre's refusal to respect Manning's right to make his own decision on the issue appears to me to amount to gross exploitation of a vulnerable person, and should obviously be dealt with accordingly. Those wishing to support LBGT issues should be supporting Manning's right to chose his own identity, and actively opposing those who take a few cherry-picked quotes from private conversations to arbitrarily 'reassign' Manning as a woman named 'Breanna', against his express wishes, in order to further some 'cause' or other. Not that it is clear what the cause is anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Uncited info in article that disagrees with other WP info.

In: , specifically in the 'Effects on Children' section, there exists uncited information that contradicts what I've read elsewhere on WP. (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted several sections that were poorly written and, most importantly, completely unsourced. AV3000 (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Dan Savage bibliography for Deletion?

Dan Savage bibliography has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Savage bibliography. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Drake Jensen

Hi everyone, just an FYI that the article about gay country singer Drake Jensen is up for deletion. Sarah (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:The Boys in the Band#Requested move

Move on both The Boys in the Band and The Boys in the Band (disambiguation) is requested. You can join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

gay bar

i was wondering if i could get some assistance with the article on gay bar. user Patagonian (talk · contribs) who has been acting in an rather disruptive manner on the page, and ignoring all evidence contrary to his position, he has rather obviously reverted again using using an ip sockpuppet, and i am right up against the 3rr myself. any assistance would be appreciated --emerson7 16:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Lookovers welcome on a variety of changes to past HRC president/EDs

I've made a serious of changes today adding succession boxes to the former presidents/executive directors of HRC/HRCF which effects Joe Solmonese, Cheryl Jacques, Elizabeth Birch, Tim McFeeley, and the newly created article Vic Basile, as well as some expansion on Jacques, some cleanup at Solmonese, and of course the creation at Basile. You'll find some sources that another person prior to Vic was the first executive director of HRC, it appears that gets into definitional territory as organizations were merging in the 1980s, but I think the way I have things is the rough consensus of reliable sources. You'll notice that the terms of office get progressively less detailed as you go back in time, reflecting increasingly unspecific sources.

All of the listed articles could use portraits, pretty much all of them would have to be licensed CC-BY-SA or equivalent.

I do expect to make an improvement to the underlying to move the "Human Rights Campaign" up into the title of the succession box, but that will have to wait for another day.

I'm confident I've sourced Basile to evidence WP:GNG, but additional reliable, significant coverage of him, particularly if you have discussions of him in off-line sources (I've worked entirely on-line so far), would be greatly welcomed.

As always, copyedits, improvements, corrections, and telling me I'm full of it where I am, all appreciated. I'm a terrible writer, but I do hope that for the most part I've done more good than harm to the articles. Best, --joe deckertalk to me 21:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the images, I've just emailed the HRC asking them to release some images. If they are interested, I'll step them through the OTRS process. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh brilliant, thanks! --joe deckertalk to me 23:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Tracy Thorne-Begland

I've started an article on the Tracy Thorne-Begland dust-up if anybody's interested in contributing. It's far from complete, but I'm well past my bedtime. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is a bio, not just devoted to the latest flap. I'll try to pitch in. It's unlikely he criticized President Clinton and DADT in 1992! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the expansions, and good catch. Slate must have gotten a bit garbled on that one:[5]. Khazar2 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul Carrigan AFD

Actor/director page up for AFD, deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Carrigan (3rd nomination). — Cirt (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Material from BoyWiki

Another editor tagged the article International Journal of Greek Love for speedy deletion as a copyvio. The article is copied from an article in BoyWiki at licensed under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2, which appears not to be a licence that the English Wikipedia regards as free according to WP:Compatibly licensed

If the journal in question is notable by English Wikipedia standards, perhaps an editor could create a new article about it that would not be a copyvio. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 05:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as copyvio. A while back I deleted Gaston Goor from English Wikipedia as a copyright violation because of the license migration issue. I opened a discussion a while back on French Wikipedia, see fr:Discussion:Gaston Goor/Droit d'auteur, which outlines (in English) what the issues with Boywiki articles are. (Sadly, admins at French Wikipedia seem not to give a shit about copyvios by paedophilia activists.)
I'm tempted to create an edit filter for any new articles containing the string "boywiki" with a big fat warning that it's not kosher under the GFDL 1.2/1.3 license migration terms. Plus also, you know, eww, paedophiles. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Does MOS:IDENTITY apply to credit for works?

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Does MOS:IDENTITY apply to credit for works?. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting Amber Heard in the bisexual category

Hi, all. I'm just letting you know that whether or not Heard should be placed in Category:Bisexual actors is being revisited. Whether she should be placed in any LGBT category is also being tackled. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Listing Amber Heard in Category:Bisexual actors and Talk:Amber Heard#Taken to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT Outreach Project & Wikimania LGBT Meetup - WikiProject LGBT Studies as a partner

I wanted to share two developments with folks and see if there are any objections to including enWP's WikiProject LGBT studies as a partner to both efforts.

  1. Wikimedia LGBT Outreach is an effort to unify and bolster LGBT outreach efforts across Wikimedia projects. It was founded by folks involved in this projects and other Wikimedia efforts around the globe.
  2. The 2nd Annual LGBT Meetup @ Wikimania will continue a tradition started in Haifa of bringing together members and supporters of the Wikimedia LGBT community. It will likely take place Saturday evening with an after party to follow at a DC LGBT venue.

Feedback, as always, is welcome on these efforts. I hope to see people at the Wikimania Meetup and meeting more folks through the LGBT Outreach project. Based on what I've heard from enWP LGBT folks on IRC - I anticipate WikiProject LGBT studies joining the Wikinews LGBT Portal and WikiQueer as partners of these efforts - but wanted to seek more input from folks here (for obvious reasons) first. --Varnent (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the link in the first numbered item goes to a blank page. --joe deckertalk to me 03:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Whoops - sorry about that - works now. --Varnent (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Two Lists Nominated for Deletion

List of LGBT community centres in Canada, deletion discussion is here:[6]. List of LGBT community and student centres in the United Kingdom, deletion discussion is here: [7]. Some of the centres listed are already standalone articles, so I don't see how notability could be an issue.OttawaAC (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you can make a case for the Canada list, but the UK list may be premature. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Seimone Augustus

Seimone's engagement to LaTaya was added in May. Sounds as if a wedding won't happen this summer though. Gobōnobo + c 19:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY reminder templates for talk pages

In the wake of a discussion at the Misc. Village Pump, I've created a pair of templates which can be used on Talk pages to remind editors of the existence and meaning of MOS:IDENTITY with respect to trans individuals, Template:MOS-TW and Template:MOS-TM. Take a look, I'm sure they're far from perfect, and it'd be better to sand off the rough edges before any wide application. Thanks. --joe deckertalk to me 22:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

LGBT parenting study

More eyes might be helpful here. Rivertorch (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sexual identity

I could use some help with the sexual identity article. It's woefully incomplete and the concepts it mentions aren't properly discussed or referenced in articles on similar topics, eg. gender identity. 0x2020 (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing why there is a Sexual identity article when we have a Gender identity article. "Sex" and "gender," though they can be distinct, mean the same thing in this case. And despite what that article says, "sexual identity" is usually used in reference to sexual orientation and sexuality, not whether someone sees themselves as male or female. Flyer22 (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Also take note that the first reference for the Sexual identity article says "Sex identity," not "Sexual identity." Yes, there is a difference. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Looking back at an earlier version of this article, it has been gutted over and over, which is why the "sexual identity" definition for it now is so limited and so WP:OR. It needs to be restored to how the term is usually used by scholars, which, as I've stated, is to refer to sexual orientation and sexuality. It's usually discussed in terms of meaning sexual orientation or a person who has a sexual identity that does not correlate with their sexual orientation...such as a gay man identifying as heterosexual.
I will see if I can get more editors to weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah fuck. Being immersed in transgender topics and terminology the only meaning of sexual identity I knew was the sex that one identifies with. The article before my edits was absolutely horrific so I (rather rashly) deleted most of it without checking for any alternate meanings. I'm far too used to any article on transgender topics having a huge number of problems so I jumped to conclusions rather quickly. I have now included definitions for both meanings. Sorry! 0x2020 (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You're still a fairly new editor here, so it's understandable that you will make certain editing mistakes. Some of the sources you are using for articles, for example, don't qualify as WP:Reliable sources because they are self-published. I suggest you click on the links listed under "Welcome!" on your talk page to learn more about the Wikipedia process. Besides sourcing, although, yes, some of your sources are fine, you should study the WP:Manual of Style. The way that you currently have the See also sections formatted in the Sexual identity article, for example, is improper.
I reiterate that "sexual identity" is usually used by scholars with regard to sexual orientation and sexuality, which is why it is included in the Sexual orientation, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles. I see that Sexual orientation identity also exists, when it should be covered by the Sexual identity article. That said, maybe it doesn't need to be merged, since the Sexual identity article currently serves as a general article referring to all the definitions of "sexual identity." But I do see that you have continued to distinguish "sexual identity" from "gender identity" by making it seem that "gender identity" does not also refer to "the sex that a person sees themselves as." When it comes to the sex/gender a person sees themselves as, "gender identity" is usually the term used by the transgender community. I talked with an editor who usually edits transgender topics here at Wikipedia, and, like me, that editor hadn't even heard of "sexual identity" being defined the way you have described it until I mentioned it to him/her when asking for their opinion on this matter. The term "gender identity" is also usually used by scholars when referring to the sex that a person sees themselves as. Not "sexual identity." For example, the American Psychological Association states "Gender identity refers to a person’s internal sense of being male, female, or something else." And above, I pointed out that you confused one of the sources you are using; it says "sex identity," not "sexual identity." Maybe your other sources mean to state "sex identity" as well, seeing as it means the same thing as gender identity. "Gender identity" does not only mean that a person sees themselves as a man or woman, but also as male or female. This is one of those times where "sex" and "gender" are used interchangeably. And, as the Gender article notes (though the lead has been extensively debated on the talk page), these two words meaning the same thing is a valid definition of the term gender. Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
My recommendation would be to WP:AfD Sexual orientation identity, which is a novel term without documentation, and merge sexual identity into gender identity to cover the usage of the term sexual identity (and any specialized meaning) within any specific communities. Thanks for notifying Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sociology of the discussion. Meclee (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Meclee. I support your recommendation. However, why not simply redirect Sexual orientation identity to a sexual identity section of the Gender identity article? Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
On second thought, I feel that the Sexual identity article should stand on its own; it's well-documented by scholars (in terms of relating to sexual orientation identity and sexuality), and it's best not to have anyone confuse it with gender identity. Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Aha! I've found a synonym for the (transgender) definition of "sexual identity", "subconscious sex". See,, This seems to be in much more common use and doesn't present a confusing alternative definition to a word used in a similar area. So should a new section in gender identity be created or a new article made altogether? Should the article on sexual identity be reverted to the state before my edits? The tone/style wasn't, uhh... wikipedia-ish, and it contradicted itself a number of times, as well as duplicating information in articles on only slightly similar topics.0x2020 (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Those don't qualify as reliable sources on Wikipedia, 0x2020. Refer to the links about reliable sources that I provided above. But if you find reliable sources for that alternative term, yes, it's fine to add a section about it to the Gender identity article. But either way, any alternate terms for gender identity, such as "sex identity," should be placed in the Gender identity article, not the Sexual identity article. I see that you removed all transgender definitions from the Sexual identity article, which is good (although mentioning how sexual identity is distinguished from gender identity in the article is fine). But the way that the article is now a stub is not. So, yes, I would revert to an earlier version and remove any contradictions and/or off-topic stuff (like you did before). I wouldn't say that the article should be reverted prior to your edits, however. Neither this 2009 version that I linked to above nor this 2012 version prior to your edits are good. So it might be best to choose a version following your initial edit to the article, but of course without confusing sexual identity with gender identity -- the sex/gender a person sees themselves as. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I know they don't count as reliable sources, I just linked to them so as to save people reading this discussion the effort of googling for a definition. 0x2020 (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, in the middle of a new film just out from IntegrityUSA there's a definition of these very terms, with trans people discussing their own experiences, which I found quite helpful on this whole topic and perhaps others would, too. WP won't let me post the link here, but go to YouTube and search for Out of the Box. Textorus (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't mention subconscious sex/sexual identity and the theistic waffling promotes a number of problematic terms and ideas. 0x2020 (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Ignore it then, since it does not meet your high and mighty standards, O wise one. I was just trying to be helpful - always a mistake on Wikipedia, where subconsciousness abounds. Textorus (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

For the geeks among us - feedback requests

Just a thought I'm throwing out here, not knowing if it's doable or advisable: I just happened to find the page about the feedback request service. I wonder if it would be possible to set up a similar function strictly for LGBT articles. They are not one of the topics you can sign up under on that page. Any thoughts, guys? Textorus (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've put Chad Griffin up at Peer Review

It should be listed on the main page there in the next hour or so. FYI, --j⚛e deckertalk 20:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

LGBT instead of homosexuality

Recently i made some page moves changing "homosexuality" to "LGBT" on various religion pages. Many have been reverted (i.e. Homosexuality and Anglicanism) but some still stand (.i.e. LGBT and the United Church of Canada). I think the LGBT title is better because "homosexuality" tends to focus on a sexual aspect, even though most religious articles focus on various other issues which would fit LGBT more. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Pass a Method talk 12:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

LGBT and gay are preferrable over the slave-name "homosexuality" to people, but with Wikipedia religious themed articles will use homosexual instead 99% of the time in their quotes, sources, rants etc.
It's a difficult question as homosexuality is the scientific word and so for directly non-LGBT articles (like religious ones) "homosexual" would be preferrable. LGBT would only be preferrable in other articles and religious articles where it meant all (LGBT) rather than just the L,G and B.
Thanks Jenova20 13:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule, it's best to initiate a discussion before making changes to entry names. The decision needs to be made on a case by case basis by those concerned who are familiar with the content of the entry. Engage your fellow editors. This isn't just about the name of the page: it's about educating your peers and maybe even learning something about how they understand the question you're raising with the proposed name change. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's best to discuss the move at the page you want to move. Otherwise you will get reverted for moving without discussion or consensus. One option would be to propose a move on the pages, then initiate a central discussion somewhere (here perhaps). ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The form used is just bad anyway. Please do not use it as a noun. Talk about LGBT people/issues/subjects/topics/etc., not about LGBT. LadyofShalott 23:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As Jenova20 says: there are times when it is appropriate to talk about "LGBT" and there are times when it's appropriate to talk specifically about the individual elements thereof, namely lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people. We should use the terms that are both the most appropriate and the most used by the sources, rather than pick terms based on whether they are preferential for us as individuals, partly because that's rather subjective. Some people strongly object to -sexual terms, some people object to the reclaimed 'queer'—identities are complicated. In addition, there's a lot of articles where you cannot actually substitute LGBT for homosexuality: Homosexuality in ancient Greece ain't really about anything but the 'G' in LGBT. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Glad you noticed that Tom. To clarify, my main point was to use the L, G, B and T when appropriate, religious articles rarely mention Transgenders and so the T in this case is inappropriate. Nothing to do with leaving them out, it's purely that they may not factor into any part of the article and so lumping them in is pointless and adding garbage with nothing to do with the article in question.
It has to be on a case by case basis. Thanks Jenova20 23:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Homosexuality in the New Testament is primarily about the G as well, and I'm pretty sure that the T isn't ever mentioned in the bible. :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Slave-name"? You should know that Black people do not take slavery comparisons lightly. And living a normal life with the exception of keeping your orientation in a closet does not compare to being kidnapped, chained up on a plantation and forced to pick cotton every making moment. As a Black person myself I am offended. – Lionel (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well you need to get over it. Black people don't have a monopoly on the term "slave name". I'm black AND gay. You can't tell me what it's like to be both but I can certainly tell you. You live in the closet, grow up knowing your gay afraid to say something and see what that's like before you try to deny gay people's plight compared to something you personally probably didn't even experience. Okay? Thank you. – Teammm (talk · email) 00:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't give a shit if you're red, blue or purple Lionelt, i already responded to this when you bought it up on my talk page and gay people themselves were enslaved by the Germans in the 1940s. Is trying to stir up trouble a good idea when there's already a discussion about your inappropriate conduct and manipulating references taking place?
Not to mention that gay people still get forced labour and the death penalty in some places and there are constant cases of kidnap and rape on lesbians in Africa alone. I don't believe you are offended Lionelt and it doesn't concern me if you are Jenova20 14:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
What gays are going through now is nothing compared to what blacks went through, which is something that even many gay people acknowledge. Gay people actually get to have a life, even if not getting to marry in every part of the world. I reiterate: They are not going through anything close to the horrors that black people had to endure. And marriage isn't even important to all gay people. Freedom, on the other hand, which black people didn't have, is important to everyone. A person doesn't need to have experiencied what black people or gay people have been through to understand that the plight of either group mostly is not comparable. (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
IP above is an open proxy by Lionelt.
I'm not Lionelt. (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Can we call this discussion to a halt per WP:NOTFORUM? Plus, you know, playing oppression Olympics is dull and unproductive. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
While there are times when LGBT is the appropriate term, in a lot of the recent moves it does not look appropriate. It is not the common term used in contextual discussion, individual letters of it (as people note) are not actually relevant, the term is used ungrammatically, and often it seems like POV-pushing, putting these forth as a unified set of groups and concerns, which is not always a view shared by all. I would recommend that editors be a bit more cautious about making such changes, raising them in discussion, if only because undoing them is more of a pain-in-the-painparts than undoing most bold moves. (And Adjwilley, I think you'll find that Deuteronomy 22:5 can certainly be read as pertaining to T.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Pass a Method, looks like this will work about as well as your attempt to chance all instances of "heterosexual" to simply "hetero". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Societal attitudes toward homosexuality

A user (Pass a Method) made an attempt to change the title to LGBT. In this case renaming it to LGBT would not be appropriate because the article only covers attitudes towards homosexuality (gays and lesbians) and some discussion on bisexuality but does not cover attitudes towards transgenders. Cadiomals (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

3rd opinion

An IP has been making what i think are POV edits, (see [8]). I want some third opinions on this. Pass a Method talk 15:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I see a mixed bag of edits at LGBT rights in Kenya, some just good copy editing, not very POV as I read them, some questionable. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Birmingham Gay Village

Can someone help me reword the lede here...i'm really struggling with it and can't get it to read very well. Thanks Jenova20 15:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jenova, I gave it a try, take a look. – Teammm (talk · email) 15:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Love it! 2 barnstars from me recently...maybe i should just ask you first in future =P
Thank you very much Teammm and have a nice day/night Jenova20 15:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Haha great. Thank you! Have a nice evening. – Teammm (talk · email) 15:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Nominated for Deletion

A user has nominated the Born This Way Foundation article for deletion regarding its notability as an organization. The discussion can be found here for all interested editors.
Thank you. – Teammm (talk · email) 11:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

YesY voted =] Jenova20 14:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Exodus International

Hi all, can i get some more eyes on this article as i have a problem keeping watch of the edits and there are those out there who would like to remove mention of "conversion therapy" and other things this organization has done and is doing currently. Thanks all Jenova20 (email) 17:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Episcopalian Church and SSM

Episcopalian Church approves of SSM - I know the Christianity and sexual orientation (and Anglicanism, and same-sex marriage, and USA...) stuff is spread out across a really large number of articles so can we make the effort together to keep WP current? Or at least let's try to list here all the articles that talk about the Church's position, and I can go around and try to fix them up when I have time... –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note, the church did NOT approve rites for same-sex marriage - only for a "Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant," which can be used in any state for a same-sex couple to affirm their commitment in church, whether domestic partnership, civil union, marriage, or no recognition by the state at all. Textorus (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuals Anonymous

I have 3 people connected to Wikiproject Catholocism trying to censor information and remove verifiable information they don't approve of from a conversion therapy organization. Can i get some more eyes here? Thanks Jenova20 (email) 08:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Queering Wikipedia edit-a-thon

If you live in LA, we are looking for people to help out at the above event (which is mostly being organized on FB). If you live online (and who of us doesn't?), please feel free to edit the articles we have listed as part of "queering Wikipedia" day! Wadewitz (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Christian Action Research and Education

This lobby group article needs an entire rewirte from a factual and neutral point of view. I'm struggling to reword it myself so if someone else has the time, it won't take long. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 08:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


Kind of a shocker here that the YMCA, which has huge gay culture significance isn't even watched by this Wikiproject and only includes a single line about this (which happens to include mention of the Village People song). Can someone fix this please. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 16:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

UK Black Pride

This is an article submission that we have missing and i will eventually create myself if no one else does it. I won't do it for a long time tho as i have a big workload. Starting reference is just a bit of info and a link to Stonewall (charity) here. And there is a barnstar to whoever creates this article with a lede. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 21:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sacred Band of Thebes

Article is currently undergoing a major expansion. Please join the discussion at Talk:Sacred Band of Thebes#NPOV and David Leitao. Thank you. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 15:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


There is a question raised as to whether MOS:IDENTITY applies to credits for films, etc. Discussion here. --j⚛e deckertalk 13:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


Hey all. It's no secret we've not had a newsletter since i've been here. If you want to change that then start posting stuff here to work on and discuss to make it easier to change that. We've had our recent Pride events, England, Scotland and Wales are getting gay marriage, there's tonnes of big name actors coming out, Lady Gaga has a new album coming out, as do the Scissor Sisters, and then there's the anti-gay Chick-fil-A empire crumbling around us. Chuck in what you can and let's see what we can do together. Thanks all and i expect a message from as many of you as possible Jenova20 (email) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not that heavily involved in this topic, because I tend to like dealing with stuff that is fairly consistent in the long-term, like history, religion, countries (well, some countries, anyway), and the like. But I am one of the more heavily involved editors in religion, and am pretty much the sole editor of the project newsletter. I also note that MILHIST has their Bugle, which is probably much better, basically because it's being done by someone other than me. Either could maybe give some pointers. The things that seem to make sense to me to try would be to ensure that the newsletter has sections welcoming new members, indicating what content has recently been promoted to GA, FA, maybe DYK, and such, and definitely including some sort of indicator of coming events. Including at least one good Featured Picture always struck me as a good idea too, because it gives something to look at. If you could think of some sort of content of the month focus to add, like maybe a given group of articles, or an assessment drive, or something like that to lend it life, that would maybe help keep some attention to it. Anyway, if you were to want any help, let me know and I can try to do what I can. John Carter (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

LGBT newsletter archives

In case anyone is interested in old newsletters from this project, I went through the history of my talk page to compile this list. I may have missed some, I'm not sure. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] first one by "Miss Julie"? [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] LadyofShalott 04:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)