Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43

Category:Lesbian Wikipedians

The Gay subcategory has been broken out but the LBTQ ones have not. As there are 1400+ in the LBTQ lists there is no reason to not also break those subgroups that have a reasonable number into their own subgroups. Go for it! Insomesia (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#RFC:Position_on_homosexuality

There is an ongoing RFC at Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#RFC:Position_on_homosexuality about "Position on homosexuality" section. All editors are welcomed to share their opinion on the subject.

Note: per Wikipedia:CANVASS#Appropriate notification, the following WikiProjects are informed about this RFC because they have project banners on that talk page: WikiProject Scouting, WikiProject Atheism, WikiProject LGBT studies. --В и к и T 19:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality

This article has more than a few issues. See the talkpage for all of them, but the article could use some some project input. The lede as written right now says this: "Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender." I dispute the term "romantic" as being based on the terms use in two clinical references, the American Psychological Association's website and the American Psychiatric Association. The first one is just not as strong a reference as a book source and is the basis for the use of the term in the lede. However, there are many sources that use romance, puppy love and idol worship as being average and routine to development of even heterosexual development. I fear these sources will be pushed out if I even bother to research them out again and add them as there seems to be a number of edit wars ongoing there. Another debate is whether or not the term itself can be described as a word with strictly Greek/Latin roots. The reference originaly used was not RS and I removed the desription. It was certainly a part of its origins but even the source now being offered by one editor, who calims there is no controversy over this and is not contentious basicly says: "Notorious" because it is a Greek/Latin modern hybrid with no actual Greek or Latin equivalent. I would go for that sort of prose with the reference being offered but I get the feeling the other editor may not be so willing to go for that as they seem to feel that even the original German use need not be mentioned and that Wikipedia can just claim that the word "Homosexual" is of Greek and Latin origin...period, with no further explanation. Other debates could use more eyes as well please!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, this is not to get anyone to agree with me or my opinion on the subject. Just to get more input to make a formed consensus one way or another with a larger group of editors involved. I can live with a consensus in either direction if it is formed by the community and not just a handful of editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The first source, which is an authoritative source, just like the second one is, certainly is as strong as a book source. I told Amadscientist that what comes with "a wider variety of sources" is a wide variety of personal opinions about sexual orientation from whatever author. Editors would cherry-pick their favorite authors, or favorite lines from whatever book, to support any stance they have on sexual orientation. This is why we are supposed to defer to authoritative bodies for defining sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
And I have told the above editor (I won't discuss the contributor, but the contribution) that they are pushing a single point of view by defaulting to a single academic opinion, which is simply not done on Wikipedia. Per WP:VALID: "...even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." The counter argument to biology over environment has gained a great deal of traction over the last ten or 15 years, but not everyone agrees and the scientific community has not thrown out all evidence to the contrary. (and I am not one of those people by the way, this is not what I personaly believe. I myself know I have been attracted to the same sex since I can remember being able to remember) I am not looking to "balance" the article. Clearly the current major opinion is biology over environment, and we need not balance this. WP:BALANCE:(added emphasis by me) "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. We would only need to balance this IF both view points were of equal validity, which they are undoubtedly not. But there is still other opinion and we should not be taking a stand on the issue but striving for due weight. Per WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to the Flat Earth belief." As yet this is not a minority view in the same vein as "The earth is flat". There are still many academics that disagree with this as a cut and dry - blk & wht conclusion. But I will accept the community consensus formed on the page.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
TOO LONG DIDN"T READ, just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluetrainwoowoo (talkcontribs) 09:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deferring to authoritative sources is not pushing anything. We go by authoritative sources when it comes to initially defining a topic that has varying views. Other views can be included, as long as they are given due weight. WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE make this clear.
Oh, and the talk page shows that I never made any argument for biology over environment. I have stated more than once, including in the current discussion on the talk page about this, that the scientific community has stated that they don't definitively know what causes sexual orientation. My argument has been that we should not relay that sexual orientation is only genetic/hormonal when no authoritative source states that, and that we should instead relay their statements that sexual orientation is likely due to a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal and environmental (as in social) factors. That has been my argument, without any regard to my personal beliefs. Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The sourcing given to establish this pretty uncontentious fact is more than good enough. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Tim Morris. The way that you indented your reply, it seems that you were replying to Amadscientist. So by "uncontentious fact," were you referring to the inclusion of the term romantic? Flyer22 (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Wait, you just said: "My argument has been that we should not relay that sexual orientation is only genetic/hormonal when no authoritative source states that, and that we should instead relay their statements that sexual orientation is likely due to a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal and environmental (as in social) factors." (this is but one debate) then we agree on that much.
I do not believe we should default to the opinion of two sources in regards to Romance in the lede as that is undue weight. There is more but it doesn't seem to matter. One editor is not willing to form a consensus or discuss and has just edit warred content back into the Etymology section without discussing.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we know that you don't believe that we should default to these two sources. We have also been over why we don't agree, including the argument that it is not WP:UNDUE. But we've discussed it enough and should let others weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Others should weigh in. I agree.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Application of Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights to religious groups

Now that that category discussion has closed as a keep, we can start discussing application. There's been some disagreement over how the category can cover the Roman Catholic Church and the LDS Church's opposition to LGBT rights and/or same-sex marriage specifically: should it be applied to the main article, to a more specific page, or not at all? I argue that we should be applying it to Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism etc. When a user looks at the pages in that category, s/he wants to know about the organizations' opposition to LGBT rights and probably would not be satisfied simply by knowing that the church campaigns against LGBT rights; the sub-article contains information on their political activism. What do you think? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that approach. I do not think the category should be applied to most church/religion/denomination articles, except when opposition to LGBT rights is a notable characteristic of those "churches", such as in the cases of Faithful Word Baptist Church, Sons of Thundr (Faith Baptist Church) or Westboro Baptist Church, or when the topic clearly involves homosexuality, as in the example that you highlighted. – MrX 17:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, a number of churches or denominations oppose homosexuality but most don't actively campaign against it; I think the category was intended for the ones that are active in this area. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Organizations that engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric‎

Category:Organizations that engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric‎ up for deletion, after - of course - it was depopulated. Insomesia (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Link dispute (another anti-gay hate group one) on Template:LGBT

I do not believe that WP:EGG so clearly tells us to pipe this one way or another. The discussion is more or less split down the middle--seven to five. The argument for including it (expanded or contracted), as laid out below by five different editors, is that this list is but one possible list; that we have only one such list is, in that respect, irrelevant: what matters is that the list itself is not inherently neutral. The arguments against, and they are subscribed to (in varying degrees) by seven other editors, is that the SPLC isn't so well-known as to be immediately clear anyway to the average reader, and that the list is authoritative one way or another. Sandstein brings up one further argument: that "US" be included, and I can see no reason to disagree. Now, the authority of the list is an important matter, and while few would deny that the SPLC's opinion carries great weight, it is a matter of fact that this is their listing. I considered that "list" can mean "a list", which would already suggest the possibility of more lists (made by different organizations, for different countries, etc.)--but "list" might as well mean "the list". Having weighed the number of arguments and their strength, I have to conclude that the inherent non-objectivity of the SPLC's list (and one would be hard-pressed to imagine such a list that is perfectly objective and "correct") suggests that we include the organization whose list it is. DePiep puts it succinctly, and I further accept their argument for abbreviation: "SPLC should be mentioned, and can be abbreviated" (re:abbreviation, if one doesn't know the organization and/or the abbreviation, further clicking will clarify). What's more, Sandstein's point is well-taken: "U.S." ought to be included--certainly it won't lengthen the link beyond recognition. SPLC-designated list of anti-gay U.S. hate groups seems to me to be in accordance with guidelines, and if you like you can removed the "list of". With thanks to all who participated in a useful and well-waged discussion, I will leave it to one of you to edit the template accordingly. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Per WP:EGG, keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Per the Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link.
  • Per WP:LINKCLARITY, The article linked to should correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible given the context: [...] the link target and the link label do not have to correspond to each other, but the link must be as intuitive as possible.

On Template:LGBT, under the tab "Social attitudes Prejudice Violence" ... and in the subsection "Prejudice & Discrimination" there is a dispute on how to list List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups, an article I created and the other person has tried to delete (discussion closed as keep).

I feel we should be brief but the opposer feels we must include a qualifier that it is a list that is produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). I feel adding the "SPLC" acronym is inappropriate on this full template (usually an acronym is explained, and SPLC is unlikely to be known by most to see the template).

Some options:

  • SPLC-designated anti-gay hate groups
  • Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-gay hate groups
  • SPLC list
  • List of anti-gay hate groups
  • Anti-gay hate groups

Since this template belongs to this project could others please weigh in on what seems the most appropriate given that this is a high-profile template? After discussion has died down we can see if there is consensus and copy the dission to the template talk page so it is saved in both spaces. Insomesia (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: I am the editor mentioned above. I want to clarify that I fully support the link being included in the template. The only issue is the piping (if any) by which it appears. I don't know why User:Insomesia mentions my nomination for the page's deletion - I cannot help but think that he or she is taking it rather personally. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups indicates, I nominated it as a content fork of List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups. In any case, it has absolutely no relevance for this discussion. StAnselm (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Another comment: The main reason I think reference should be made within the template to the SPLC is for neutrality. The link is to a list of organizations that the SPLC has designated as hate groups. There are some groups on the list whose inclusion may be controversial. There may be other groups not on the list that some feel should be included. It is not a definitive list of hate groups. There are other options other than the ones listed above, of course, such as "Anti-gay hate groups listed by the SPLC". StAnselm (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I posted a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates. StAnselm (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am new to this template, I arrived here through StAnselm's invitation. I have read the earlier talk at the template's talk page. Primary issue seems to be whether to include a reference to SPLC in the visible text, secondary is how to spell and phrase it.
On the first issue: I defenitely agree with StAnselm that it should be mentioned, because it is their list, not a general or governmental or legal list. Omitting SPLC would promote SPLC's conclusions into some general fact. However good or bad they based their findings, it is theirs. Insomesia and MrX argue that it is some general knowledge, and the only such list available, and so has some authority (my wording here). But as I said, I do not want this editor's opinion (a POV) between my eyes and the link. The fact that I can see this background fact somewhere else (e.g. in the full link blurb in my browser) is opposing the navbox's aim (I found this well described in WP:EGG and WP:LINKCLARITY, already mentioned). Another, new, argument against generalising the list is that it lists U.S. groups only. Mentioning the list unspecified would also obscure that limitation. Reference to the U.S.is not needed, since we describe it as a list by an organisation, there is no suggestion of completeness.
Now on the second issue, phrasing and spelling. On abbreviating into "SPLC" or not. Interestingly, I have never before heard or read about that organisation (whichever way spelled). So to me both the short and long form were equal; my reaction was: what is that? (In this am I not an average reader?). Such a question mentally raising is bad. The fact that it is some sort of an institution should best be introduced by phrasing like using designated by .... That would answer my initial question automatically, even prevent it from popping up! For this reason, writing SPLC-designated list (long or short form) is less clear, because that way it could also mean a process, or some criteria set. Of course the navbox is not the place to otherwise describe of define the organisation. Just the fact that it is one, is enough. And with this, the short form is as usefull as the long form. In general, brevity is not a main argument. We do not leave out information for the sake of brevity. But now, all other things equal, we can choose the short form for overview reason (in a navbox, words are preferred over sentences). Concluding: SPLC should be mentioned, and can be abbreviated. Phrasing can & should clarify the source as an organisation. -DePiep (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • (also followed Anselm's link) I think that SPLC should be abbreviated. If people know who they are, the initialism is informative, if not, it's a link, and the article immediately starts with an explanation of the Southern Poverty Law Center. It definitely need to be labeled as the SPLC listing, because the list is POV and should be labeled as such, but the whole name is not likely to clarify anything for people who don't know about SPLC (as DePiep showed above), nor is it likely to diminish understanding for people in the know (I was a UIdaho student when SPLC got rid of the Aryan Nations). VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 12:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Heres how I feel about this. There are only a few organizations in the world that list hate groups. The only two I can think of are the SPLC and the ADL. On the other hand think of it this way, what sources would we use to say they are hate groups? I would say the SPLC and the ADL are the only groups which we can really use that have an authority on the subject. All in all I strongly think that just calling it a list of anti-LGBT hate groups would be enough unless you clearly have a better source that specializes in hate groups that would say otherwise.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a list from a UK group. StAnselm (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
While a great list that is not helping your point. The point is you are supposed to deligitimize at least most of the hate groups on the SPLC list by finding sources that clearly state they are not hate groups and therefore SPLC is not a proper authority on the topic of hate groups.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
You are discussing the article page, but this thread is about how to put it in the template. And eh, who is supposed to deligitimize? -DePiep (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that SPLC is a source. Its main source of scholarship is hate groups. It contains many of the greatest experts in the field. They are the ones along with a few others who have the authority to say whether something is or isn't a hate group. The SPLC is a reliable source therefore the template should say Anti-LGBT hate groups.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your argument and choice of wording Rainbow Jenova20 (email) 13:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Would you both be OK with List of anti-gay hate groups? I ask as this is technically a list and it's not unlikely that an article just about anti-gay hate groups could be created. Insomesia (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree. If SPLC is irrelevant, then it should be not in the page title at all. Why not propose a name change there? -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean that SPLC is irrelevant? I do think possibly renaming the article might be a solution but i have no doubt the same group of editors will fight against it. Or maybe you have an idea for a NPOV name that is shorter? Insomesia (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not me arguing it is irrelevant, hence I wrote "if ...". If we link to a page, we should first consider using that page name, unchanged. Reasons to leave out the SPLC reference from the name (by using a pipe+label in the template) should apply equally to the page itself. If the page name is changed, there is not reason to follow the page name here. But indeed, when such a move is proposed at that page, the same people could show up -- because the arguments are the same: it is an organisation's list, not a general list. -DePiep (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd support an SPLC-inclusive wording. I've consistently made the argument that the SPLC is authoritative for hate groups, but there are surely going to be differences between lists put together by different groups (e.g., SPLC vs ADL), and SPLC is only a few characters, seems simple enough to include for clarity. "SPLC list" is far from sufficiently descriptive, however. "SPLC-designated anti-gay hate groups", "Anti-gay hate groups (SPLC)", or the like, something like that seems optimal. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • This template is a guide for what we have on Wikipedia, not what hypothetically may exist somewhere. On Wikipedia we only have one list, of anti-gay hate groups. Adding qualifiers is unneeded and in this case unhelpful as the vast majority will not know what SPLC means. Insomesia (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • List of anti-gay hate groups, per WP:EGG, and WP:LINKCLARITY. This is clear, unsurprising, and leads the reader to pretty much exactly what one would expect. If we find ourselves with more than one list of anti-gay hate groups then we can revisit how to represent them. Insomesia (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Agreed: List of anti-gay hate groups does the job. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support an SPLC-inclusive wording. That list is a disputed opinion, not an undisputed fact. Art LaPella (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • It's not very persuasive that the groups being designated as hate groups don't like the label. Meanwhile, on Wikipedia, these are the only groups the pop up on searches for anti-gay hate groups. And reliable sources still uphold the SPLC as an authority in this area. Insomesia (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
      • But it doesn't say the groups being designated; it says "a slew of Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota". As for who is reliable, well, maybe it doesn't include Wikipedia. Oh well. Art LaPella (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
        • That source has been a bit discredited for what those people were actually signing onto, in any case that doesn't change that the vast majority still see the SPLC as the leading authority in this area. And the Wikipedia material in this area is often better sourced as there has been, and continues to be such heated discussion. Insomesia (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
          • That's an interesting assertion; it makes me sort of wonder: have there been any polls that indicate what the vast majority of Americans in general – specifically including those in the flyover states – really think about the SPLC listings? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
            • It really dosn't matter what people think. When we are on wikipedia we are looking for scholars of the topic to state whether or not a topic is what we claim it is. There are very few institutions that study hate groups the SPLC is one of the highest up and the ONLY one with a list on wikipedia. Since they are the scholars they are the ones who decide.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
              • They might need a glossary to understand the terms. I think it goes like this: Hate: to oppose certain actions is called hate; to oppose others, however violently, is not. Reliable: sources who think the previous Newspeak definition makes sense. Scholars: likewise. Vast majority: those who didn't elect the politicians I cited. Art LaPella (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
                • If you think those politicians serve as experts in hate groups then by all means step over to the SPLC article and make your case, so far credible criticism has been hotly debated and that particular source has been all but dismissed as useful. So far the only credible criticism has been well sourced about SPLC fundraising practices. Insomesia (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
                  • No, the expert on hate groups is Wiktionary:hate. The politicians prove only that it isn't just me. Art LaPella (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
                  • If experts, Wikipedia, and academia agree that groups on the list, like the Family Research Council, are more filled with hate than groups off the list, like al Qaeda, then I discount their expertise accordingly. Who is an expert on simple honesty? Diogenes? Art LaPella (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
                    • That's nice. Wikipedia and the work we do here are enriched by your personal feelings. SPLC only lists American groups, smart one.Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
                      • Then it should say "American hate groups", and several more qualifiers would be needed to get Alice out of Wonderland. Art LaPella (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Anti-gay hate groups or List of anti-gay hate groups as supported by the principle-based reasoning provided at the top of this section (WP:EGG, Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment, and WP:LINKCLARITY). The world will not end when a reader discovers that the hate group designation was made by one of the preeminent civil rights organizations in the United States. I think in our tireless effort toward some elusive goal of editorial perfection, we lose sight of the more humble goal of making information freely available. – MrX 17:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. StAnselm is at it again now deleting the entire link from Template:Discrimination sidebar and again from Template:Discrimination rather than allow the version he doesn't agree with. More input would be welcome. I'm still not hearing any good arguement to include with "Southern Poverty Law Center" or its almost unknown-to-most-readers acronym SPLC as helping educate our readers about this template link. Per WP:EGG, and WP:LINKCLARITY I still think Anti-gay hate groups or List of anti-gay hate groups gets the point across and leads one to pretty much what you would expect. Insomesia (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually, WP:EGG, and WP:LINKCLARITY would both suggest mentioning the SPLC. The proposed link indicates some general, worldwide, definitive list, whereas the list it goes to is (only) the SPLC list. StAnselm (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Disagree completely. We trust that readers have WP:Brains and will use them, the only article Wikipedia has on anti-gay hate groups is that one list article, which is more than a simple list. Insomesia (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Anti-gay hate groups or List of anti-gay hate groups per Mr.X, especially since there is only one article on the subject. I think few people would know who the SPLC is outside of someone already familiar with the group. The subject is the anti-gay groups themselves and their hatred. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Closure: This discussion has run for about three weeks, and there have been no comments in the past week. It seems like it might be time to close the discussion, and the result seems close. If no-one objects, I will post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. StAnselm (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I came here from the AN thread, but I'd rather make my own comment. I'm for U.S. anti-gay hate groups. Few readers will be familiar with the organization, so giving its name will impart little information to them, and omitting it makes no difference as the reader sees who compiled the list once they click the link. More importantly, this is a list of US groups only, and contrary to the apparent expectations of some, the US is not the world. Without this qualifier, non-US readers looking for information about such groups in their own country will be disappointed after clicking on a link that is useless to them.  Sandstein  08:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've edited the template as suggested. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

LGBThistorymonth.com

31 LGBT heroes, one each day for those who may be interested. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added references to all five of the articles of people so far announced. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Roberta Achtenberg
2. Gloria Anzaldua
3. Ann Bannon
4. Katharine Lee Bates
5. Mary Bonauto
6. Glenn Burke
7. Paul Cadmus
8. Truman Capote
9. Chris Colfer
10. Kate Clinton
11. Ramon Cortines
12. Marlene Dietrich
13. Jodie Foster
14. Jean Paul Gaultier
15. Henry Gerber
16. Billy Haines
17. Mary Kay Henry
18. Chris Hughes
19. Christine Jorgensen
20. Arthur Laurents
21. Don Lemon
22. Federico Garcia Lorca
23. Irshad Manji
24. Katherine Miller, Katherine Miller, Former West Point Student, Rejected Upon Request For Readmission
25. Holly Near
26. RuPaul
27. Pierre Seel
28. Billy Strayhorn
29. Jon Stryker
30. Tom Waddell
31. Rev. Robert Wood, Gay rights pioneer, groundbreaking author Rev. Robert Wood, turns 89
Here is the full list. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW these are just the 2012 icons, they also have a database of 186 that is searchable. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Homosexual agenda

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Editor blocked

The lead of this article is not a summary of the main article, as several claims of what the alleged homosexual agenda refers to isn't actually in the main body. Some are also un-sourced. I'm bringing this here because I think that the article can be significantly expanded to have information on more, if not all of those mentioned. This is what is in the lead but needs to be sourced and have some mention in the main body:

same-sex marriage and civil unions, LGBT adoption, recognizing sexual orientation as a protected civil rights minority classification, LGBT military participation, inclusion of LGBT history and themes in public education, introduction of anti-bullying legislation to protect LGBT minors - as well as non-governmental campaigns and individual actions that increase visibility and cultural acceptance of LGBT people, relationships, and identities. Short life (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Rockstar_(drink) : reference removal

I'm not sure what action is appropriate at this point, re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rockstar_(drink)#Malicious_reference_removal.3F_-_Examiner.com so anyone wanna comment or participate?--Psrq (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I've responded. There's no action required as far as I can see. Criticism of Michael Savage can be found in the article on Michael Savage, but I don't really see why it should be in the article about Savage's son's company. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

LGBT categories at CFD

Just a notification: there are numerous LGBT-related categories at WP:CFD that have been nominated today. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 15. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

drag race

Would the annual High Heel Drag Race in DC be notable enough for an article? It has been going on since 1986 and there are numerous articles about the event.

Here is some more information about this event: http://www.meetup.com/ESL-WDC/events/84375112/ Dragdrag (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't currently have time to look into it, but i'm sure it has infuenced tonnes of similar events across the world and i'm pretty sure there's one in the UK too.
Create the article, i have every confidence in it passing notability. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 14:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I would recommend the name High Heel Drag Queen Race though since that's the name on the site. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 14:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I had a little nosy around on Google and there's more than enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Go for it. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thank you both for your valuable comments, I will use the title High Heel Drag Queen Race and create it now. 15:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragdrag (talkcontribs)

Nick Griffin

Should i place a project tag on this talk page? He's widely considered racist and homophobic and he leads the BNP (British National Party), which is also considered racist and homophobic. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 11:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Prurient link

Hi, I've just removed [[coming out|openly]] from "He is openly gay" in the article on Geoff Ryman. Does this wikiproject support the use of what I consider to be highly personalised, prurient information and links in BLPs? Is it relevant to the topic? And why is "openly" linked to "coming out"? I'd have thought they were two quite different things, not to mention stages in one's life (and do all "openly gay" people have to "come out", in this day and age? Coming out implies a certain social/psychological resistance, and I don't believe this is always the case). Tony (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

There are two parts to your question here. You seem to be suggesting that the inclusion of someone's sexual orientation is prurient, but this is of course incorrect. However, you are right that it is not necessary to include "openly," and in my view it could imply that there's something wrong with it. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Coming out is pretty close to value neutral. For some people it is especially difficult, for some people it isn't. But an LGBT person who is out but didn't have to "come out" in at least some way is very rare indeed. I haven't got any citations to back this up, so you'll have to trust me on this. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP and particularly WP:BLPCAT it is necessary to show where assertions about someone's sexual orientation originates. To just state in wikipedia voice that such and such "is gay" does not make it clear if they have self-identified as being gay, or if it's an assertion made by other people about them. How exactly things are worded is going to vary between subjects, but in this case the word "openly" conveys that the subject has indeed self-identified, something that makes a crucial difference under current wikipedia policy. Siawase (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Society at peer review

Portal:Society is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Society/archive1. I've put a bit of effort into this as part of a featured portal drive related to portals linked from the top-right corner of the Main Page, and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Texas

Additional opinions would be helpful at Talk:LGBT rights in Texas#POV tag regarding recent re-adding of a POV tag and related edits to the article. Rivertorch (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

Hi there, I'm notifying this WikiProject due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

  1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
  2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
  3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
  4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
  5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Eyes needed

Could use some eyes on Australian Christian Lobby, where schills have been trying to portray the movement as they describe themselves. The movement is an over-the-top extreme-right "Christian" organization that is rabidly anti-gay to the point where even other conservative Christian groups in Australia have distanced themselves from it. Would appreciate it if you could add it to your watchlist. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

YesYWatching! - I'm a bit astounded that 2 thirds is criticism though...Jenova20 (email) 08:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Watching that now. Also, perhaps some people can keep an eye on List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_anti-gay_hate_groups which seems to have people with a POV agenda wanting to diminish the list's info. It had been voted keep after nomination for deletion, but now there have been arguments about wording, alleged copypaste, etc. that appear to be motivated by ideology. Just today, there was an unexplained edit removing the linking to the article anti-gay which appears only to reduce the information and helpfulness of the list. -- Ryvr (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
You do realise, don't you, that anti-gay is not an article, but a redirect to a disambiguation page? StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Which is why an experienced editor would have replaced the wikilink in the lead sentence rather than removed it altogether. I share Ryvr's concern with your editing. Insomesia (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
But why would you intentionally link to a disambiguation page in the first place, Insomesia? StAnselm (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Because I'm a human being and didn't know it was a disambiguation page simply by putting brackets on it. Your diligence in defending anti-gay hate groups is duly noted. Insomesia (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Most editors are working to stick with policy and defending their case. StAnselm has described what is going on with this list as an "edit war" on User_talk:72Dino's page. If we stick with reasonable discussion and policy, I don't think you need to go that route. -- Ryvr (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
On my talk page? 72Dino (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
It was actually at User talk:Nathan Johnson, and it was about a copyright template, which User:Insomesia removed without realising he had committed a copyright violation. It seems that when he realised this he added the correct attribution here. StAnselm (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for that mistake. -- Ryvr (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Pink Paper website now dead

pinkpaper.com, an LGBT news website, is now offline. The website is used as a source/link 88 times on Wikipedia. If you have a few minutes, it'd be helpful to link to Internet Archive versions of the same pages and/or find equivalent sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

New article in drafting: Wikipedia Talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Beatie (famous pregnant male)

There is an article up for AFC review on Thomas Beatie (born female), who achieved media recognition in the late 2000s for conceiving a child while legally male and married. There is a redirect Thomas Beatie, but surprisingly no current article on this person. The article is by a new editor and needs some POV/Tone improvements and better sourcing, but should pass easily with those. Bringing to the attention of folks here interested in the topic who may be able to provide guidance to the originator to help reach publication. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion sorting question

I've listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, but I'm not too sure if there are other topical related deletion sorting type places to list this sort of deletion discussion? If so, feel free to do so, or let me know so I can be aware of that in the future going forwards. Thanks and have a great day! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I see Gene93k has added Organizations and you've added Washington, D.C., United States and Law. That should be enough. I'm not sure if people are actually keeping an eye on the sexuality and gender deletion sorting page. Having in the past been quite a fervent deletion sorter, I'm not totally sure about the value of it. It'd be nice to know if anyone actually does participate in AfDs as a result of deletion sorting. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I follow the LGBT sorting but nothing else. Insomesia (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I've proposed an article merge at Talk:Sutherland v United Kingdom and would like to seek views from members of the project. SP-KP (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

(1) Category:Gay men and Category:Lesbians (2) other LGBT categories under discussion at CFD

Hello all.

  1. Earlier today, I closed the discussion of "Category:Gay men by nationality" as "upmerge to the respective LGBT by nationality categories". There was no call in the discussion for upmerger to Category:Gay men - indeed, the CfD nominator said that that category (and Category:Lesbians) should simply be {{container}} categories for occupational subcategories, for instance. Based on that, and the general emptiness of individual names from the category, I have added {{container}} and undone one editor's addition of some individual names to the category. Was I right to do so?
  2. There are a number of LGBT-related categories under discussion at WP:CFDALL at the moment, and input on the degree of appropriate categorization from members of this project will be especially welcome. BencherliteTalk 23:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I feel that it should be used to contain gay males not covered by an occupation category.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euan_Sutherland for example His being a gay male and his related actions are significant but he was removed from the gay men category and is not actually in any categories specific to him being a gay male. MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

In the News nomination

For those of you who may be interested in an ITN nomination related to this project: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#LGBT-related_politics_from_US_elections. --Grotekennis (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:LGBT musicians by nationality

Category:LGBT musicians by nationality, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert Kosilek

Shouldn't Robert Kosilek be Michelle Kosilek ? 68.162.221.100 (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Thanks for pointing that out mate! Have a nice day/evening! Jenova20 (email) 18:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Category proposal

I suggest we create Category:LGBT people from the United States by state, and then create at least a few for the individual states, such as Category:LGBT people from California, Category:LGBT people from New York, and Category:LGBT people from Illinois (the more populous states). Its interesting that there is a deletion discussion for LGBT musicians by nationality. the numbers in these categories are going to keep on getting bigger, and we need more diffusion here. I would go ahead and do this myself, but i think having at least a few people willing to try to populate the categories would help. I am focussed on California/San Fran bay area generally in my work, and i am also not a particular expert on the LGBT community in Cali, so i might not be able to recognize names from the larger list to recategorize.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Society for featured portal consideration

I've nominated Portal:Society for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Society. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Maps

Changes to geographical mapping of laws that are in effect is being discussed at Talk:Same-sex_marriage#Map_colour_changes. Student7 (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Brandon Teena#Definitively settling the issue of pronoun

Since this topic keeps coming up on that talk page, I figured that it might be a good idea to get more comments from this project weighing in about it on that talk page. Like I stated there, I don't feel that MOS:IDENTITY should be violated (in this case or in any other case). But others here may feel differently. And if there is anything that can be done to take away readers' confusion without violating MOS:IDENTITY, I'm open to it. At Chaz Bono, all pronouns were once excluded in a way that they weren't needed, and, when they were needed, "Bono" was used instead. That's no longer the case for that article, however. And, from what I see, given the type of text involved, it would be more difficult not to refer to Brandon Teena by male pronouns. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a FAQ may help there, then every soapboxer or questioner can be referred there, even though there is a nice bold statement at the top of that page. Insomesia (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
LOL. You may be right, Insomesia. I'd seen that the same was done at Talk:Homophobia. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Teena Brandon, again

We could use more eyes on the article on Teena Brandon again. See talk page for details. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Homophobia article talk page

It looks like you guys are unpopular at ANI. My advice is for you basically ignore talk page rants. Keeping some proportions, they remind me of someone posting various nonsense at Talk:P versus NP problem; that 'someone' has been doing it for years, but it's hardly worth the trouble replying. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we're dealing with an extreme case and after a year holding the talkpage hostage the editors there are seeking relief. Surely every article deserves to have a talkpage that actually functions to improve the article? At least in theory? Insomesia (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
A lot of it is a perfect example of homophobia. Case and point - we're being accused of being LGBT activists for upholding policy or disagreeing with one editor wanting to redefine the word without a single source. The editor has a lot of support from people no matter what he does quite clearly. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 13:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

More eyes re Matthew Shepard

Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act and related articles have undergone some recent changes that I think are troubling in terms of undue weight. If anyone else would care to take a look, I'm stepping back and returning to RL for a bit. Rivertorch (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

LGBT in the USVI

Hi everyone, I've been working on Caribbean articles about the United States Virgin Islands and noticed there isn't an article for LGBT rights in the United States Virgin Islands. I'm really curious about what is legal there as its a US territory and noticed that Puerto Rico got its own article so why not one for the USVI? I would start it but have no info about the subject. I figured you guys would be the ones to turn to for help. Thanks so much. --Turn685 (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Richard Howard

After this intermittently boring and fascinating poet gave a lecture at my school, I bought one of his collections, which was largely about both his homosexuality and other notable historical gays (plus this one poem where he theorizes that Castor and Pollux were into some serious twincest). Anyways, went to his article, saw that while it was in several gay/LGBT categories, there was no mention, so I added a "Personal life" section on his sexuality and a few other things. But I was surprised that I was only able to find brief mentions of his sexual orientation in a few sources, considering he's been out in some circles since the 60s, and there's no shortage of reliable coverage of him. So I was wondering if anyone could track down anything more in-depth. (I also recommend his work to anyone who likes reading poets who see the world through a very rainbow-tinted lens. Face-wink.svg) — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 04:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagreement

There has been a disagreement here about the usage of gay vs homosexual. We have differing interpretations of Trystan's proposal at the top of this page. Any thoughts? Pass a Method talk 13:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Immigration

Does anyone know of an entry along the lines of Same-sex immigration policy in the United States? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

LGBT rights in the United States is the closest i can find. Hope that helps Jenova20 (email) 17:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I found this too: Immigration equality#United States But I may start a new entry. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You've found what I know about; I'd support a new article. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

An editor is removing lesbian content on Wikipedia based on his personal opinions -- WP:IDONTLIKEIT

User:MikeFromCanmore is a newly registered account and he is removing lesbian content on lesbian or lesbian-related articles in a fashion that can only be described as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. See this edit to the Lesbianism in erotica article,[1] this edit to the Cunnilingus article,[2] where he removed the lesbian image and then asserted on the talk page that cunnilingus is more commonly performed by males,[3] and these edits to the Lesbian sexual practices article.[4][5][6][7] He contradicted himself on his "[cunnilingus] is usually an act performed by a male" assertion anyhow, shown with the first edit he made to the Lesbian sexual practices article.[8]

The editor clearly doesn't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and needs a warning about what is wrong with his removals. It doesn't appear that he's going to stop reverting, and so may eventually get blocked for WP:Edit warring. 220.255.2.167 (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that in the first instance you cite—Lesbianism in erotica—the user in question wasn't so much removing lesbian-related material as editing it rather badly. If anything MikeFromCanmore's edits on that article were making it more lesbian-oriented by changing it to say that women enjoy women-on-women pornography/erotica just like men do. Of course, I'd have to dig in to the sources some more to see which is preferable, but I'd certainly say that the argument that the editor is "removing lesbian content" doesn't necessarily stack up in the case of Lesbianism in erotica. The edits made on Lesbian sexual practices seem very problematic though. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Mike is inches away from a block on various fronts. I'm much more concerned with the WP:canvassing here, as I explained at Drmies's talk page. The OP appears to be on a dynamic IP, so I can't quite tell to what extent this has occurred, but this thread strikes me as crossing the line between bringing up information relative to those interested in LGBT studies, and seeking out those with a pro-LGBT point of view. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 11:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Tom Morris, I'd considered that it may be pointed out that the Lesbianism in erotica edits were not removing anything. But I stuck with the wording of my complaint because his changes were still removing the previous wording, and to an unsourced, personal-POV version, and I felt that it was needless to state something like "An editor is changing sourced content to an unsourced, POV version and removing lesbian content on Wikipedia based on his personal opinions." Not to mention, that would have been a long title. From what I have seen of this user's edits, his changing that text was not about him "[making it] more lesbian-oriented by changing it to say that women enjoy women-on-women pornography/erotica just like men do. It's not like it says or implies that women don't. It says "for a predominantly male audience." He changed "heterosexual men were more" to "some heterosexual men are," as though the sources use that wording, and as though sources are talking about all heterosexual men. The text says "Studies indicate that heterosexual men were." That is in past tense and attributed to specific studies. Of course it's not about all heterosexual men, since they haven't all been studied. What I gather from this user's edits at the Lesbianism in erotica article is that he doesn't like the text stating that "heterosexual men were more aroused by depictions involving lesbian sex than they are by depictions of heterosexual activity" and that "erotica and pornography involving sex between women has been produced by men for a predominantly male audience."
As for canvassing, Francophonie&Androphilie, I've used appropriate means of WP:CANVASS. I have only come here (to this WikiProject) and to Drmies's talk page about this. I went to Drmies's talk page's because, as I said, I was looking for administrative assistance without possibly being told at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page that this is mostly a content dispute that shouldn't be discussed there. I had no idea that Drmies is pro-gay marriage. I usually don't check user pages, but rather user talk pages. And I don't understand how a person can be more concerned by my edits here and at Drmies's talk page's simply because they believe I may have inappropriately canvassed, instead of being more concerned about User:MikeFromCanmore's editing. Way to assume good faith. Clearly, no good deed goes unpunished. 220.255.2.149 (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I don't consider notifying WP:LGBT about problematic editing in LGBT-related topics to be problematic canvassing. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Tom Morris. I didn't think that you did. And regarding problematic editing once more, User:MikeFromCanmore struck again, calling me a vandal at one point.[9][10][11] He was soon after blocked for 72 hours.[12] He was then reverted again, by a different user[13] and again by me.[14] But I don't think that this is the type of editor who's just going to stop engaging in the problematic editing that he's been engaging in, not without administrators forcing him to stop. So he may edit as an IP before his block expires, or go right back to WP:Edit warring after his block expires and then come back as a different registered user once he's indefinitely blocked for continuing his problematic editing. Suffice it to say, help from this project to watch these articles, especially the Lesbian sexual practices article, is still very much needed. Thank you for your time. 220.255.2.148 (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
For those who haven't been following this matter: Also on Drmies's talk page, where this topic has been discussed extensively, Francophonie&Androphilie apologized to me for the WP:CANVASS violation accusation above and clearly sees User:MikeFromCanmore's edits to lesbian and lesbian-related articles as problematic. User:MikeFromCanmore has even verbally attacked Francophonie&Androphilie. Some time before that, as predicted, User:MikeFromCanmore was indefinitely blocked. But he has come back time and time again, either as an IP or as a registered user (but usually as an IP), and has been blocked time and time again. He's still trying to change the Lesbianism in erotica article to his suiting, and has vowed to change the Lesbian sexual practices article to his suiting no matter what, but there are currently groups of administrators watching both articles. With how persistent User:MikeFromCanmore is, they will be watching these articles for maybe weeks or months, or, for some of them, permanently. But just in case more help is ever needed, it would be good for this project to keep their eyes on these articles. Once again, thank you for your time. And thank you to the WP:LGBT members who have helped with this matter thus far, either by replying here or at Drmies's talk page, deciding to watch the articles...and/or by reverting or blocking User:MikeFromCanmore. 220.255.2.150 (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Article expansion with sources to hand

For what it's worth, there is a whole bunch of academic sources now cited on Drmies' user talk page, of all places. See User talk:Drmies#Sources for starters (but read further along as well for other citations). Project members are invited to join in the expansion. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking this time to personally thank you, Uncle G. Drmies and others who have decided to help since User:MikeFromCanmore's block(s) have been doing a great job on that article. 220.255.2.167 (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What's everyone currently working on?

I thought it would be good for collaboration if some people, or everyone posted up here what LGBT projects/articles they're currently working on in the hope of attracting others to help and give their opinions. If the article posting could violate WP:Canvass then please do not post it up underneath here:

Thanks Jenova20 (email) 09:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm in the middle of fixing up all the links to the Pink Paper, a now discontinued UK LGBT newspaper. I'm replacing links to archive versions on archive.org and archive.is. I've done most of them. Just a few more to go. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I liked working on the pink media articles. I did quite a bit on Pink News and i started Midlands Zone too but haven't added much yet. Cool Tom Jenova20 (email) 14:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm looking for my next big project, just having gotten GA status for Chad Griffin. (Head of HRC and the founder of the folks doing the federal case challenging California's Prop 8.) My first GA, go me! I've been making some improvements to LGBT case law and related articles, but I am looking for a new project to really sink my teeth into. Jenova20, I just did a little research & expand on "Midlands Zone", reorganize my additions however you see fit. :) --j⚛e deckertalk 14:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I noticed! I appreciate it very much too! Feel free to do what you like with the article as i'm doing other things currently. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 15:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
        • You could always just look up ⇑. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)