Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7


Images for portal

Miss Understood by David Shankbone.jpg

Also on an image-related topic, I'm trying to build up a good selection of the best LGBT-related images on Wikipedia so the Portal can cycle through them (rather than needing to be manually updated). I've included those we've already used plus some others I've found at:


Could people please add another other good quality images to the gallery there, including a caption stating (doesn't matter if its lengthy) saying:

  1. Why the image is relevant to LGBT
  2. Which article (if any it is used in)

Thanks, WjBscribe 23:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest the photo of Miss Understood I took tonight? lol --David Shankbone 05:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Source material

Got a question about source materials - might have backed myself into this one a bit. Working on the Gay USA article and e-mailed Andy Humm (producer, co-anchor, activist, journalist) about sources for info on the show's history. He sent back, what I assume, is essentially the show's press release in an e-mail. How do I...? Can I...? What I...? Is it okay to add this info into the article without getting my butt chewed because it's not exactly publicly available? Is there a way to cite that? ZueJay (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That sure sounds like WP:OR to me. I know how you feel, but Wikipedia is fairly strict about that, even when your well founded research contradicts verifiable hogwash. I learned that from my own experience on an article that is featured, but I now know contains manifold inaccuracies. Jeffpw 00:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It really does have to be attributable to a reliable source... – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
can you scan the document, and upload the image? --emerson7 | Talk 16:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So, the information was provided by e-mail. I have copied the text to my sandbox so you all can at least puruse that and consider the material. I created a pdf of the e-mail, but really have no place to put it on the internet (and it contains my e-mail addy which I'm not sure I want to post anywhere). ZueJay (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it's possible to source the parts you want from other sources, and just use this press release as a guide. Alternatively, ask the Gay USA people to put their press release up on their website. coelacan — 20:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos, photos, photos

One Shequida Per Stall by David Shankbone.jpg

Yo homeys - I've been trying to get more LGBTz for photos. Recents have been Michael Musto, Shequida and Billy Name. If anybody has a gay article that needs an NYC shot of a building or person, let me know and I'll try to arrange it. Right now I'm focusing on drag queens just b/c they are fun to shoot. I have appointments with Lady Bunny, Lypsinka, Miss Understood and Miss Coco Peru. I ran into Amanda Lepore on the street the other day, but she brushed me off to her manager who hasn't returned my phone call, dah bastard! --David Shankbone 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Justin Bond, please!!! :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. --David Shankbone 18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been (slowly) trying to work on the Gay USA article. Perhaps a shot involving something of that - i.e. Manhattan Neighborhood Network building and/or studio(s), show hosts Andy Humm and/or Ann Northrop. Anybody who's got good sources on information for these articles would be helpful too! ZueJay (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I just e-mailed Ann and Andy to see if they'll agree to a shoot. --David Shankbone 02:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm doing Ann and Andy next Tuesday. --David Shankbone 20:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Holy cow - that's awesome! Guess I better get to fixing the article up even more! ZueJay (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you get one of Mistress Formika (Michael Formika-Jones)? I know ther'es no article on Mistress Formika yet, but I've been wanting to create one.LiPollis 04:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe Alan Cumming currently lives in New York (somewhere in Manhattan, last I heard). Could you get shots of him and his husband Grant Shaffer please? I've been having trouble contacting them to get a photo (ask if he'll send me a signed headshot as well next time he's in London!!!) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Alan lives in my neighborhood and we used to be good friends years ago, but had a falling out in 2004. I can't really get him. There's no tension, and I sometimes see him at the Tompkins Square Park dog run and we exchange pleasantries. If that happens again and I have my camera, I'll snap a shot of him. I'm more friendly with his husband Grant now. Grant has a Chihuahua like me, so we chat (when it's dog run weather) whereas Alan has a golden retriever, and stays in the "big dog" run. I did shoot John Lithgow today, though. I'll keep an eye out for Alan, though it seems he is spending his days in London now. Otherwise, he only lives three blocks away from me. --David Shankbone 21:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
...that is so cool! My six degrees just got a lot shorter. :D He's supposed to be filming for a US film now, so he should be around for a while. Musicmen just sent me a picture he took of him as well - why do so many people here know Alan Cumming?! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
...because he's slept with them (not me). I used to joke that his fragrance was an amalgamation of half the ball sweat in Manhattan. --David Shankbone 23:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Oooh, queen! :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I haven't read much on Alan (I am actually, shock horror, a fan of his acting more than anything), but it sounds like after his seven year marriage to Hilary Lyon ended he went to the other end of both spectrums. But that's just the impression I got, personally, I'm just grateful he has a fairly dull personal life, his article is an absolutely nightmare to write because everywhere I turn he's writing another book, or play, or has voiced something, or done some charity event, or is doing yet another bloody film which he planned, funded, directed and produced himself, playing all the parts and singing the soundtrack which he mixed and distributed personally while designing all the sets and lighting in colours he picked out himself to go with the wardrobe he's made. Drives me mad. He works far too hard. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

He's pretty amazing, I agree. --David Shankbone 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Andy Humm and Ann Northrop

Andy Humm and Ann Northrop 2 by David Shankbone.jpg

I didn't get home until late last night, and I was so tired I did minimal work on the two photographs I uploaded last night for the Gay USA article. Could somebody create stubs for Andy Humm and Ann Northrop? Northrop used to have her own Wikipedia page, but she doesn't have one now. Last night she even said she had edited it (and she obviously didn't realize if that's the case, she was deleted). That said, I have an amusing aside that I don't know if anybody else has come across. When I go photograph people I almost universally am told "Yeah, there were mistakes/inaccuracies/incorrect information on my page." Michael Musto was an exception. I used to think, "Well, sure...goes with the territory of Wiki." But recently hearing this with Ann Northrop and Dorothy Fall, neither of whom have pages, I am starting to think people just assume their pages have inaccurate information. Even when no page exists. Food for thought. --David Shankbone 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

user categories, bear and cub

I noticed Category:Cub Wikipedians being nominated for speedy deletion, and I took the tag down (the CSD criteria didn't fit). I see that there was also a Category:Bear Wikipedians, which was deleted because it was empty. It shouldn't be recreated unless there are going to be at least two people in it, preferably more. There are userboxes at User:Pumapayam/Userboxes/User cub and User:Pumapayam/Userboxes/User bear; the latter has recently been altered for reasons that are unclear to me. I bring these here in case they are going to be used by more people, enough to justify the categories. Otherwise, WP:UCFD might be appropriate for the cub category. coelacan — 20:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've fought the corner a little more and denied the user, who is very keen on getting rid of these categories, a speedy delete. All the members of that category were removed by that user, he then tried to speedy it as an empty cat. Anyone who was forcibly removed, I suggest you re-add yourselves. There is going to be further deletion discussion so please air your views, even if you want to see it go. Better a group decision than a crusade. Mallanox 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


I am hereby announcing my resignation as the LGBT WikiProject's Coordinator, effective from the end of this month. My recent absence and this announcement has been provoked by my bitter disappointment at the lack of committment of most of the members of this project.

While I don't expect phenomenal amounts of activity from volunteers, at least bothering to respond to a drive to improve a badly needed list would have been nice. Peer reviews are left untouched, requests for help go unheeded, and guideline and category development don't even register on the radar. I see the same ten or so people who do everything here and we can't do it all, particularly those of us who are also active outside LGBT.

In short, I have invested literally hundreds of hours into this project and I feel I have done more than enough to further "the gay agenda" on Wikipedia, and I don't really want to do any more if the project's going to get the same level of response. I wish you all well, but I want to pursue my own interests (that damn HurricaneHink seems to be writing an FA a week...) without spending a good part of my days administrating a project no-one seems to use. I do, however, intend to remain a member of WP:LGBT; I feel we're still a community, regardless of our productivity.



P.S. The article about us in The Advocate is finished, they're just waiting for a slow month to publish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talkcontribs) 21:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Dev! Are you sure?! You've done a great job and I'd hate to see you go! I mean, this project is more active than 95% of the wikiprojects out there - and getting better all the time! I'll understand if you decide you want to resign :( And I guess your 'term' ends somewhen around the end of the month anyway... – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
"this project is more active than 95% of the wikiprojects out there", I know, I know, and I am really proud of everyone who helped make it that way, especially including you, Satyr. MILHIST beware. :) But for all that I just feel a lot of what the project does tends to pass everyone else by - how many people actually vote on the XfDs we list? I'm planning on sticking around, I've got a lot of promotional stuff planned, but I want to scale down what I do here. I've got work at Wikiquote and Meta to get on with, as well as general Wikipedia things. Maybe it'll prompt some of the newer guys here to take a greater hand in the internal stuff (hint, hint)? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
As a "newbie" to Wikipedia, I have appreciated being welcomed and tutored by Dev and many others in the WP:LGBT community. Thank you for ALL you have done to make the world a better place, Dev. MusicMen 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The LGBT community is MUCH better than some at responding in a timely manner, but, as you say, it's the same ten individuals most of the time. Nonetheless, I have started articles relating to cities and arts organizations whose affiliated wikiprojects have literally hundreds of backlogged articles yet to be assessed. MusicMen 22:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I've always been astonished at the number of times I've posted to a wikiproject, come back about a month later and discovered my message is still both the newest and unanswered. Thank God we avoid that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions, every bit helps. I too feel the frustration you refer to, even after a number of years on this project. If you don't expect results you will always be pleasantly surprised. Best, Haiduc 23:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Dev, I'm sorry you feel this way. I'm glad you're staying on the project anyway, even if you don't want to coordinate. Thanks for all the hard work you have put into this project! <virtual hug> -Aleta 02:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dev, you've done an awesome work with this project. I can't say I'm terribly surprised by your decision (the hints were there, and those so-called core 'ten users' seemed to be breaking down lately -jeffpw almost leaving, wjb becoming an admin, etc-), but I respect it. I am glad you're not leaving the project at any rate. :-) I hope in the future you do reconsider becoming the coordinator again, you've made a great difference here. Besides, you make a great leader of the gay cabal! ;-)

So people, how do we make members more interested/involved in the project? We do need to address this issue. Raystorm 14:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

requests? (Maupin novels)

Is there a page where I can put up requests for LGBT topics? I was thinking of Armistead Maupin's novels, which, aside from The Night Listener, don't have one. (I am new to this Wikiproject, so I hope my posting this here is fine).Zigzig20s 17:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

See Tales of the City. But to your question, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences and philosophy#Lesbian.2C_Gay.2C Bisexual and Transgender is the place to go. That needs to be put on the open task list, doesn't it? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well...Perhaps it would be good to have a page for each book? I'm not sure I agree on having only one page for everything (six novels plus the TV adaptations). Anyway, apparently there are two other Maupin novels without a page , Maybe the Moon and Michael Tolliver Lives! - although has the latter been released yet? I have read them all except for this one - but I would need to read them again because that was a long time ago. I would imagine I am not the only one to think he is an important gay author and that there should be more about him. Zigzig20s 18:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure each book in the TotC series is notable enough to rate its own article, but that's just my opinion. The series definitely is, and I totally loved it! I'd love it even more if the original Mona were back in the series... BTW, if you're looking for something to do, there's stuff in the book article that needs to be merged into the tv series article :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Aren't they merged already? Tales of the City talks about the two things (books plus tv series). I would suggest moving the bit about the "adaptation" to this page [1], rather than merging it. I've not had a chance to watch the series though - shame. Zigzig20s 20:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant, though I guess I wasn't very clear :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Fixed I think. I hope I did all right.Zigzig20s 20:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to weigh in on the issue of all six TotC books each having their own page. At this point, I think that's overkill, as you'd basically have Tales and then six stubs. If someone attempts individual plot synopses within sections of the main article, they can be split out into individual articles at the point that the main article gets unwieldy/too large, but not before. TAnthony 22:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

activity at Talk:Ex-gay

See Talk:Ex-gay#article title where there is a proposal to rename the page, and Talk:Ex-gay#Restoring Original Article, which regards unmerging a previous merge. coelacan — 09:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Our collaboration this month is Lesbian. I was wondering whether we should appeal to the average Wikipedian (White American college student)'s, uh, instincts and advertise this fact on the community portal. What do you reckon? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, think the potential good edits will outweight the potential vandalism? :-) Worth a try I guess. Raystorm 14:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure why they might be interested, unless you're thinking of a straight man's lesbian fantasy, which is often tinged with latent lesbophobia. I think your idea could work for pop culture perhaps - not quite certain an "average" college student would care to work on higher-brow topics concerning lesbianism. I would love for someone to write more about Charlotte Perkins Gilman's lesbian relationships for instance - from her autobiography. However, are we talking about the Lesbian page only, or about the whole topic?Zigzig20s 17:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The Lesbian page I gather. :-) Raystorm 21:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I don't know how many would respond, but it has the potential to bring in interested folks, so why not? -Aleta 21:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I put it up and got immediately reverted, and I can't be bothered to argue about it today. But if anyone wants to put it back and argue with Joe, feel free. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... well I just looked at Wikipedia:Community Portal, and it is there now. I didn't see the reversion in the page history - so were you talking about someplace else, Dev? -Aleta 23:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about the list of collaborations? That's updated automatically whenever I change the COTM. I put a message up top. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the list is what I meant. I still don't see what you're saying, but I think when I found the page for this discussion was the first time I'd look at it. (So I may just not be looking in the right place.) Aleta 00:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

List class

You're not the only Project doing this, but since I just noticed your template I thought I'd comment anyway.

What's the rationale behind list-class? Lists are articles too, and lists can be featured. Surely grading them like other articles encourages the development of quality lists rather than the usual low grade listcruft? --kingboyk 12:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think some lists are likely to never be more than lists, at least for a while. I do a lot of work with WP:NRHP, and all the lists of the registered historic places in each state are pretty much that way. Also it can be used to group the lists together, so it may be easier to find them, at least for future editing.
But the beauty of the rating system is that if an article's quality changes, it can be reassessed. If a list is improved enough to become a featured list, that would be a loverly thing. It seems to happen all too rarely, unfortunately. :( --Ebyabe 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
List articles are extremely vulnerable, so tagging them is good if only on a practical level. They need to be kept on a tight leash. Compare List of LGBT couples and List of bisexual people for a "before" and "after" snapshot. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 16:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Transgender and transsexual fiction

Due to a lack of information about trans-centric literature on LGBT literature, I did some independent research and created Transgender and transsexual fiction. Now, the sources available to me are rather limited, so if anyone has access to better information, please edit and improve the article. Trans fiction is a sorely neglected topic, and I think it's time and past to mend that. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 14:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe Ann Madrigal, in Tales of the City, is a transexual for instance. But she appears in a mostly gay novel...hence the LGBT umbrella term? Anyway, Kate Bornstein could be added to your page perhaps...Zigzig20s 18:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

To tag or not to tag...

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil - I think so; what do y'all think? -Aleta 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - done! Aleta 16:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah. Given the entire book is about a guy on trial for the murder of his male lover, one would think that counts. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

List of bisexual people

More BLP fun after I removed the disputed section, on the grounds if someone is bisexual, they should be in the main list and if they are merely alleged to be bisexual without proof, this shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. Some users disagree, one on the grounds that I'm an immature loser engaging in sophistry. Your input would be welcome. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Lesbian / Bisexual / Transgender stereotypes

The article LGBT stereotypes has been reffed to the nines and is looking really good. The only thing it needs is for the LB & T sections to be fleshed out a bit - they're waay too short compared to the G. Any helpers? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested Articles

I have gone through our list of requested articles and removed already created, unnotable and mispelled articles, as well as proving sources for the rest. If anyone find themselves at a loose end, please consider creating one of these article. (and submit it to WP:DYK!) Please feel free to add as many requests as you want, I intend to keep on top of this list now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

External promotion!

As some of you may remember, the GLBT Round Table of the American Library Association agreed to put an article about us in their Spring newsletter. Well, it's out, and you can read it all here (pdf). Yay us. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a great article, and maybe will attract some new contributors to the project, too. Yay, Dev920! -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice article.Zigzig20s 17:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Good article, and good exposure. Thank you, Dev. Haiduc 18:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Great job *hands you a cookie* :-) Mentality 20:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Top and bottom in sex and BDSM

... needs work. See the talk page for a TODO list.

It's a merger of 9 earlier pages; I've done a fair amount to make it work well, but the BDSM part will need significant editing to be smooth. It also needs expansion; see the TODO list again for that.

Thanks. --Sai Emrys ¿? 19:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Gender bias template???

I really don't know whether this particular template is relevant to this WikiProject, but I created {{Gender bias}} for the purposes of creating gender-biased articles. I already informed WP:GS about this.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 19:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ad message

Ok, ok, I think I've got it:

First slide - Image:Wikipedia-logo-crnagora-lgbt.png on the left and a large notice saying "Calling all Wikipedians: Do you edit LGBT topics? Do you just want to join a (fnord) secret cabal (fnord)"?

Second slide - Something about joining us.

Final slide - our flag with pen image on the right, our project name with "Absolutely no agenda. Except that gay one." written underneath it. I'm thinking light pink or purple background.

What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not fond of the idea of these "ads" in general... That one made me laugh :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Pink?! Barf. Other than that, I think we should stick to editing and leave recruiting alone. The danger there is that it will be emulated by one or another authoritarian group, and they are much better at that game than we are and the whole thing will result in a loss of freedom and an increase in aggression, instead of a gain in clarity. Haiduc 00:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Please, dear, I am those authoritarian groups, and no anti-gay bigots are going to take us down. Ask Nkras, Eedo Bee and all those IPs. We're a cabal for a reason :)
On a more serious note, I find the idea of ads somewhat alarming, but I don't believe in letting an opportunity to raise awareness of our project go by. Editing is all very well, but there's far more to do than there are members, which is why we need to recruit. The more people we have, the more stuff gets done. In the time we've run this project, the improvement of all LGBT articles has been on a steep curve from what I've seen. Certainly I have noticed some amazing work being done in all aspects of our purview, and I know we can attribute at least some of it to the encouragement and input editors get here. And the more members we have, the more vandalism gets reverted and destructive editors get caught. Which I consider to also be an integral part of our job - there's no point writing a good article if you'll then be embroiled in a row with an anti-gay idiot determined to wreck it with no way out. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You can start by just targeting those in the Gay Wikipedians category, should be an easy sell! TAnthony 13:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Already been done :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT literature taskforce?

Would anyone be interested in setting up an LGBT literature taskforce? I think that should include critical theory as well - queer theory.Zigzig20s 05:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, and you might want to contact Welland R, who studying queer theory at Yale. We can send out a note of your proposal in the next newsletter, if no-one steps forward to join. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Another external plug

Our requested articles just got us a quick plug at Queerty. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

James I of England FAR

James I of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And hands up who knew that James I was an LGBT topic? :-) Carcharoth 04:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Personal relationships of James I of England is more relevant (and even more fascinating). Medieval courtly homosexual love. I wonder if we have an article on homosexuality in various historical periods? History of homosexuality? (well, that has something at History_of_homosexuality#The_Middle_Ages - but James I is after the Middle Ages). I think Category:Pederasty in the Renaissance is the closest we have. Anyone want to use that category to expand the rather pathetic History_of_homosexuality#Renaissance? Carcharoth 04:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I knew James was a woopsie, though I must say because my History teacher told me so. Renaissance homosexual courtly love did happen, but it died out within a generation after it started, so I guess it isn't that well known. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

List of gay villages nominated for deletion

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay villages. Editors interested in keeping the list should go through and cite every village, which is easy for the ones that already have references in their own articles. I think the list can be kept if there are editors active in maintaing and reverting any vandalism to it. –Pomte 13:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Together film and NPOV status

This film was marked as having NPOV issues, which seem to relate to the fact that the article read like an advert. I've rewritten it and tried to include some of the stuff from the Swedish article (not that there was much). Would someone please just check it over so we can remove the tag if you think it's ok? Cheers Intesvensk

Well done, I've removed the tag and put an appropriate message on the talk page. Mentality 23:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

YAY US!!!!

Ladies, gentlemen and otherwise, MILHIST have nicked our Jumpaclass contest. Be proud. So very, very proud... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh.Zigzig20s 02:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Awesome! We're in the big league now, (boys,girls,other)! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yup, and we're the 14th largest WikiProject. YAY! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not at all surprised. It's a great idea, and it's been very motivating for me in expanding articles. I'm only suprised that more projects haven't borrowed it... -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I fully intend to rob export it to the Spanish project as soon as we get a few more members. ;-) Raystorm 17:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Rosie O'Donnell?

WJBscribe or any other admin here: Can we please semi-protect Rosie O'Donnell? It is a frequent target of anonymous ip vandals. (Also is there a better place to ask this? I was going to do so on WJB's usertalk directly, but saw that he's on wikibreak, so I thought here it could get more general attention.) -Aleta 12:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – Steel 12:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. WP:RFPP is the specially made page for this.
Thanks, Steel, for doing that, and for letting me know the proper place to make such requests in the future!  :) -Aleta 13:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


Lord knows I hate to mention this, 'cause I think that Dev920 is amazingly awesome, and I am in awe at the way she has brought this WikiProject from obscurity to useful activity. But... if she really is resigning at the end of this month, do we need to... you know... get someone else in position to take over? It's important that the project stay active and useful. Unless Dev920 wants to change her mind, which would be lovely. But... if Dev really is resigning (which I can't quite bring myself to believe), then her successor might appreciate having a week or two to learn the job before taking over. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Elections were going to be needed at the end of this month anyway, because we really need at least two deputy coordinators - there's simply too much to do for one person. I equally want this project to stay active and useful, especially with our external promotion, with more planned. I am really pleased with the fact that our stubs as a percentage fell by 2% and our proportion of starts went up by a similar amount this month. I think we're starting to have an impact (thankyou Satyr for recording that). I cannot think of anyone who wishes to take over at the moment and I don't want to leave the project in the lurch, so what I propose is this: I will stay on as Coordinator for another three months as long as the project doesn't object, and we will hold elections for some deputies. These are also kinda necessary because I have exams in May and June, and am going on holiday for July to a place with a spotty Internet connection and so cannot gurantee I will be around every day. Then we can reevaluate the siuation in the middle of July. The deputies will have had some good experience to show themselves and us what they can do, as well as take the pressure off me to be online every single day. What do you reckon? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
That's an awesomely, wonderfullly, super idea! (Do you think using hyperbole all the time is a bad thing?) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a wonderful idea! I don't use hyperbole, so I'll simply say that a global disaster has been narrowly averted. And if we have a few deputies, there'll be more hands to do the work. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
That ought to work just fine. :-) Raystorm 17:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me ask a naive question - what does the job entail exactly?Zigzig20s 18:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Coordinator#Responsibilities. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Alex Kapranos

List of bisexual people had him listed, but editors who frequent the article aren't happy with the information being included, even cited. While the source doesn't explicitly say "bisexual", it does say he says either when asked boys or girls. Do we add him to the various LGBT cats or not?~ZytheTalk to me! 18:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the discovery that he is both the lead singer of Ferdinand and food critic for the Guardian, evidence is fairly inconclusive with the exception of that article. However, that article read as serious as a seizure, so I don't think he is joking. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

'Rabbit Redux' by John Updike - Jack Eccles

Should I tag Rabbit Redux, in which character Jack Eccles is portrayed as a gay man? He is a fairly minor character in this novel though. In the previous novel, Rabbit, Run, he was close to being a co-protagonist, and he was not out yet - though, in later editions, John Updike added hints, such as the ice-cream moment...There is, imo, some underlying homophobia there because in Rabbit Run he comes across as a weak man - though perhaps his meekness comes down to being in the closet? Anyway, what do you guys think?Zigzig20s 20:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Though it's been years since I read the Rabbit novels, I don't remember them as being gay-themed, which (in my view) is the criterion for being tagged LGBT. Lots of William Goldman's books have gay characters, too, and none of them are tagged (at one time, he was considered a good novelist, by the way). Jeffpw 20:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the trouble is, this would be studied in queer theory, you see? But maybe this is why I prefer 'queer' over LGBT though...Zigzig20s 20:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a Rabbit series article? Because Queer Theory might study the character in the context of the series, but not the individual books. At best, IMO, there should be some mention of that in the Redux article, but I don't believe either individual article would qualify for the project. Just my opinion, though. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, Queer Theory would look at Jack Eccles and the way he is portrayed in Rabbit Redux as well as Rabbit, Run, with close attention to the words used, etc. Basically the ice cream moment was added in the 1996 reedition, and he's having a vanilla ice cream...this is code for vanilla sex. It's very inchoate though - and later developed in Rabbit Redux, when he's wearing pink and goes to men's houses, has divorced his wife, and is basically out. Anyway. Perhaps this doesn't qualify as LGBT - though it would definitely qualify under the queer umbrella, I think.Zigzig20s 21:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Small thought.

Why do we have such a large amount of porn in our lists? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about focusing on queer literature, sociolinguistics and aesthetics?Zigzig20s 02:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to create a list of queer literature, Zig, you go right ahead. What's queer aesthetics? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Ummmm.... – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
LGBT literature. It's there already, isn't it? Though, as I tried to explain with Rabbit, Run, 'queer' encompasses a lot more...Anyway...Queer aesthetics would be queer theory applied to aesthetics...I think literature is very interesting because it retains elements of grammar (sociolinguistics; debunking phallogocentrism) and aesthetics (transcendence - often through style and the unsaid). Aesthetics can apply to other art forms obviously (such as the visual arts, the performing arts, etc). I don't mean to sound priggish though - porn is an interesting topic too. I was just hinting at other pathways we could focus on - which doesn't mean I'm negating all the good work that's been done already! Zigzig20s 02:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm sure there'll always be room for more porn on the Internet. :) That article is all on authors by the way (it could really do with some overhauling to making it more like LGBT history), I was thinking an actual list of books on LGBT themes. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

March on Washington

Aren't ours ('89, 93, '02) somewhere? Shouldn't there be a dab page? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, good point; I changed the redirect to the more comprehensive (though incomplete) List of protest marches on Washington, D.C.. The '93 March has an article, which is listed; are the '89 and '02 marches just alternate years of the same protest, or differet altogether? They are not listed and articles may need to be created. I'll try to link all currently-listed articles back to this "master list". TAnthony 01:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I meant "make sure" articles are linked to the list, which most seem to be already. TAnthony 01:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian LGBT website on this WikiProject

I don't know if you already know but five days ago this website [2] wrote about the LGBT WikiProject. I thought someone could find it interesting. A.Z. 18:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as no-one informed me they pitched an article to them - which seems to suggests that they wrote it on their own initiative. Thanks for telling us! We should start a publicity scrapbook. :D
I also just found this article by NARTH attacking us and more specifically Joie de Vivre for alleged inaccuracies in their article. God, much more of this and we'll be notable. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ugly Betty?

LGBT? I haven't seen the show and know nothing about it, but a quick scan of the article shows one minor character that's gay. I also recall reading someplace about its relationship with the Gay Community™, but don't recall where. Anyone want to jump to its defense before I remove our banner? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head there are two glbt characters. One is an...assistant...who recently came out to his mother after first trying to cover it up with Betty's help. The other is the magazine the show is centered around. The character went through a sex change op, from Alexander to Alexis. Like I said, though, this is off the top of my head, so I might have some details and phraseology incorrect. Anyway, suffice it to say, our banner is appropriate on the article. Perhaps we need to bolster it up a bit? ZueJay (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Two gay characters does not an LGBT series make. Tag any episodes where they are the main plot, but don't tag the entire series, whose central premise has nothing to do with LGBT at all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Ooh! A TV show Dev and I agree on :) I'm going to remove the tag, but if anyone feels strongly about it, replace it and let us know here. Thanks! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Tagging episodes sounds like a good idea in the case of shows that A) have individual episode articles and B) have a limited number of gay-themed shows. But, for example, Dynasty has no individual episode articles as yet (and probably doesn't need to), and if it did you'd probably have to tag most of the first season and I would imagine countless episodes over the show's run dealing with Steven's struggle. Same for Dawson's Creek or Soap ... if no one wants to tag these shows themselves as LGBT-related, there needs to be another category created as they are notable as far as their contribution to the LGBT community. And these shows also fall within the scope of this WikiProject folks, if only to make sure the LGBT components are portrayed accurately and completely. TAnthony 22:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
As I believe in expressing my opinion even when no one cares (get with it), I don't quite grasp the significance of removing tags from topics that are somewhat queer related, because they are not "queer enough".Zigzig20s 03:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Because I believe firmly that we should only tag articles that people are likely to work on. How many members here are going to edit Ugly Betty because it has two minor gay characters? Who would edit Bring It On because one of the male cheerleaders in a fifteen strong squad is gay? What is the point in muscling in on another WikiProject turf for an article that no-one will actually improve? Additionally, the fact that television series have taken to adding gay characters without a particular point to make is fantastic, and we should honour that by not going "OMG SO GAY!!!" anytime we see a character who just happens to be gay on a tv series. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, Ugly Betty should not have the LGBT banner. I've only watched a few episodes but there's no major or semi-major gay theme to it. In fact I would say the fact gay people appear in at all is that it's to do with the fashion industry which has a stereotypical relation to the 'gay community', but so what? It doesn't really tackle any issues related to gay life in the the same way as other TV series such as Queer as Folk/Will And Grace/The L Word, etc. Mentality 14:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Zigzag20s: the category is "LGBT-related" not "LGBT only." If I am looking at that category to find shows with LGBT content, this should include shows with significant gay characters and storylines, not just The L-Word and Queer as Folk. And I would argue that Will & Grace on the whole covers actual gay life as much as Friends. And by the way, Ugly Betty may not tackle gay issues in full every week, but the recent coming-out episode alone makes it notable here (not mentioning the fact that the "outsider" theme alone is an intentional gay parallel). And who says no one here will improve Ugly Betty and others just because they're not all gay? I'd guess 85% of the people editing the Dynasty article are as gay as you and me. TAnthony 20:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
On further research, I find that the LGBT-related films category is a bit more forgiving, including films like Deathtrap and fame, which is perfectly appropriate. Excluding shows like Soap or Dawson's Creek with significant LGBT content because they're not 100% gay is really ridiculous. I'd create a category called "Television programs with significant LGBT content" but it just seems so redundant. This is a big issue which needs to be discussed here. TAnthony 20:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
First, "LGBT-related" is not the polar opposite of "LGBT only". One could argue that *everything" is LGBT-related. I won't, but some would.
Second, let's see if we can come to an agreement about "LGBT enough" for this show. There've been 18 episodes. How many would you say had significant LGBT themes? From what I can see, only one or two. And how many characters are LGBT? One transgendered major character and one minor gay character? To be honest, the Trans character almost sways me that it is LGBT-related, but only almost. Is that "LGBT-enough"? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we can certainly argue these things by percentage, but on that note I would add that both "the assistant" and "the transsexual" are core characters, as is the "we're not saying he's gay but DUH" nephew. It's not like "a very special gay episodes guest-starring RuPaul." Maybe we don't tag the show LGBT if the group thinks it has to be 90% gay or something, but I'm arguing for some other category to note these shows' significance. Looking at Wikipedia as a resource, if I'm trying to research shows with significant LGBT content, will I not be able to find this show because of a technicality? Come on now. TAnthony 22:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If you are keen to note a show's gay content, tag the specific episodes. Don't tag the entire series. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree in principle, but as I noted above, what about shows with no individual episode articles? And Even if Dynasty and Dawson's Creek had these, it's counter-productive to tag dozens of episodes for each show. I think we're missing the point of categories here; they're to organize information, not to assign everything to lists. "LGBT-related" may not be the polar opposite of "LGBT-only", but that's how this "policy" is presenting it. Can we not come up with some category so we can list a show like Ugly Betty once and not five times (for every "gay-related" episode)? TAnthony 23:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
But the fact is Dynasty, Dawson's Creek and Ugly Betty aren't LGBT. They may occasionally have LGBT storylines but that does not, in themselves make them LGBT. The best example I can offer for this is the fact that The Simpsons is not tagged by us, even though it has several gay charcters and numerous gay storylines, because it in itself is not LGBT. However, the episodes Homer's Phobia and Three Gays in a Condo are tagged, because they are predominantly LGBT. No-one in this project, I am willing to bet, would edit Desperate Housewives because Andrew Van De Kamp is gay and most of Season 2 was taken up with his war against his mother for rejecting him on account of that. But I know one person who would edit Andrew's article on that basis - which is why he is tagged but the main series is not. If the specific episode articles don't exist, create them! We are a wiki, you know.
Do you see where I am going with this? There's no point tagging entire series which we won't edit, the assessment system is meant to pinpoint areas that need work, not to indulge ourselves in self-congratulation about how pervasive we have become on national television. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(margin reset)Another thing that occurs to me in reading the above is that we may have a miscommunication about something. I (personally) don't have a problem with an article (say, Ugly Betty, for example) being in the Category:LGBT-related television programs and not being part of the project. Though I see from the edit history, I did just that :) But I was probably wrong to remove the cat - the show might be LGBT-related without being part of the LGBT project. Does that satisfy? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, yes, I am talking about categorization, not necessarily tagging articles for the Project. If that's what Dev920's comments refer to, then I do agree. But that's not how I'm reading it, she seems resistant to categorizing them LGBT. Yes, for The Simpsons you have a few episodes and a few characters, but for other shows? I'm tempted to go ahead and create the 200 Dynasty stubs, categorize the 50 gay episodes and see how unwieldy that LGBT tv programs category becomes. In the meantime, I'll try to think of a better way to do what I think should be done, and I look forward to further commentary. TAnthony 01:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at the Dynasty article. I did not realise previously that the main chracter's son was homosexual and was was a theme of the program. In which case, like Six Feet Under, it would be completely appropriate to bring it under our auspices on that basis. But I remain resistant to labelling tv shows like Ugly Betty and the Simpsons "LGBT-related", because they're not, they're just shows that has the occasional gay episode. Which isn't enough, in my book, to count as being LGBT-related, anymore than Are you being served? is LGBT-related. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for you consideration on this; even with all my griping, I do agree that there needs to be a certain degree of "gay coverage" on a program for it to be classified as LGBT (and Ugly Betty probably does not fit the bill as yet). I will look into tagging characters/episodes of some of the shows I've mentioned here, but for some we may need a consensus. For example, Dawson's Creek explored many gay issues in later seasons through the character Jack McPhee, so it was more than just a few episodes but classifying the series as LGBT may be overstating it. TAnthony 23:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Dawson's creek also has articles on its seasons as well, so you can tag them if you feel it necessary. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


An IP has started adding our banner to the articles of child sexual offenders and serial killers, I'm in the middle of reverting now but people might want to keep an eye out. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted some of the remaining ones but I agree its something we need to keep an eye out for. WjBscribe 00:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually it looks like the IP is a sock of DavidYork, a white supremacist who was indef blocked, and he's adding the entire convicted child sex offenders' category to our project. Can you block him? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It appears he was blocked on the 15th and hasn't made any edits since. – Steel 00:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Press links

Is anyone maintaining a list/section of the external articles featuring this project? I think they are of continued interest to current and new members but are getting lost in the archives. I can start such a list/section with recent links but am not sure of the appropriate place to put it. Also, perhaps Dev920, SatyrTN, etc. can advise me on features that may have occurred before my time. TAnthony 13:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We have a choice between putting them on our website or listing them on the main page: which would people prefer? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Putting them on our website? We have a website? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a web page? I'm new, but is it referenced anywhere on the project pages? In any case, I'd definitely put them on Wikipedia, perhaps on subpage with a link from the main page so as not to clutter it up. TAnthony 13:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, yes, I did tell you all about it: How did you think I was linking to our poster? I was planning to revamp it slightly: shall I mention it again in our next newsletter when I have? I think both would be the best option - I'm trying to get a translation of the Portuguese one, and we can't host that here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've listed what items I know about on the Community Department page. TAnthony 15:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed reparative therapy/ex-gay merge

See here. I'm not looking to stack votes (I see this as a structural rather than pro/anti-exgay decision), but given the limited number of people watching these pages, input is appreciated. Fireplace 20:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

so does anybody know why Jeffpw left?

(section header says it all) coelacan — 22:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Victim of wikistalking, by the looks of things. Not good :( - Alison 22:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
He didn't give enough detail to demonstrate stalking, though, in the last few threads he started. Do we have anything to go on to pursue the issue? coelacan — 04:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've spoken to Jeff- he's got a lot going on in real life and was finding that editing Wikipedia was adding to his stress levels. He's decided to take a break for a while but hopefully will be back when things are calmer. I don't think the fact he was feeling stalked helped but I agree with Coelacan- we didn't have enough to go on. Its a shame he's gone but lets keep our fingers crossed that its temporary. WjBscribe 04:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, WjB. The editor he mentioned has previously been called out for wikistalking people's fair use contributions. See the RFC Jeff linked to from my talk page. So it would be worth following up on if possible. If it's an ongoing problem, Jeff isn't the only one being hit. coelacan — 05:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Scopes of WikiProjects

I thought I should give notice here, since I've given this WikiProject as an example of scoping I feel has gone off track. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject reform#The scope. – Ned Scott 00:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. I just looked at the page you linked to- the word LGBT is nowhere on it. Please clarify how you think the discussion relates to this project. Saying that a project has "gone off track" seems to me a fairly strong accusation. Please substantiate it. WjBscribe 04:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Probably should cut and paste that to Ned's talk page, I don't know if he's coming back here anytime soon. coelacan — 04:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot it was actually a discussion via user talk page: User talk:SatyrTN/Archive 4#Banners. – Ned Scott 05:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
An archived discussion you had with Satyr a month ago? Is this still a live issue- he seems to have answered your questions very fully? WjBscribe 05:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It was an example I cited in this discussion. – Ned Scott 06:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Larry Kramer bio by David Shankbone

Dear gay folks: I have spent the last two weeks researching and writing a new Larry Kramer biography, that culminating in my spending two hours with Kramer at his home overlooking Washington Square Park (where he allowed me to read his un-published magnum opus). There are sections that need editing, re-working, expanding and some (especially the Gay Activism sections) that are almost criminally untouched. But I wanted to go live with this new biography because 1. I am impatient; and 2. to give the project a chance to join in on the fun, if it so wishes. I am very proud of it, and I have no less than 26 sources thus far. It's a future Featured Article candidate, once the nips and tucks are done. Comments on the discussion page, here, or on my talk page are welcome. --David Shankbone 03:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Gay law

Right now, gay rights redirects to LGBT social movements. I've tried to hunt down an article on LGBT law or something, but cannot find any. Does one exist? Should LGBT social movements be split? Fireplace 14:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Working from the expanded version of Template:LGBT, I see Homosexuality laws of the world, Sodomy law, Legal aspects of transsexualism, Timeline of LGBT history, and the various articles and subcategories of Category:LGBT civil rights, including Category:Gay rights by country. What do you have in mind for an LGBT law article? coelacan — 04:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
See also Template:LGBT topics. WjBscribe 04:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
What is that? Is that just for use at the portal? coelacan — 05:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
That's what I made it for. Its a bit unwieldy to be used anywhere else really... WjBscribe 05:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm imagining a summary-style article that tracks the history and status of gay rights from a legal perspective (probably restricted to the US, otherwise it'd get very unwieldy) separately from the broader topic of the gay "social movement." Anti-discrimination laws, sodomy laws, marriage-related laws, trans law, military law, hate crime laws, etc. Major players like Lambda Legal and HRC would get their mention, as would major pieces of legislation, major court cases, etc. This is the sort of thing I'd expect when typing in gay rights (maybe after a dab page or summary-of-summaries page to avoid US-centricism). Fireplace 13:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You might want to have a look at Gay rights in the United States. WjBscribe 14:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Aha! Fireplace 14:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why all the Gay rights in (country) pages aren't LGBT rights in (country)? Fireplace 15:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
They seem to be in the category: Category:Gay rights by country. The naming of these articles has been a little hit and miss I'm afraid. I also the existence page of the page Gay rights by country which seems to have a huge message apologising for the state of that page... I would be in favour of renaming all of these to "LGBT rights in (country)", what do others think? WjBscribe 15:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Once Gay rights by country is cleaned up, it seems like it should be the target of gay rights. (I've been here a while and am not entirely incompetent, but I couldn't find Gay rights in the United States on my own – the list page would be good for that.) Fireplace 15:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm all for the renaming, though it is a big job. By the way, I changed the redirect for Gay rights to Category:Gay rights by country. TAnthony 15:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted you, sorry. We shouldn't have redirects from one namespace to another. Redirects from articles to categories are a bad idea. Though I agree we do need to find a better target for that redirect. WjBscribe 15:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's OK for now, that handy "LGBT Rights" template on the page has a link to Gay rights by country anyway ... TAnthony 15:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm cleaning up the tables in Gay rights by country now (currently they wrap if your browser window isn't huge). Fireplace 15:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Cleaned up Gay rights by country (although it is missing a few countries/regions I believe) and sent gay rights to it. Fireplace 16:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've moved all the Gay rights in (country) and Gay rights in (year) articles to LGBT rights in... and fixed the corresponding nav boxes and categories. Old categories are up for deletion here. Fireplace 23:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW - Great job!!!! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, Fireplace has gone above and beyond here, and so quickly! I've given him a well-deserved LGBT Barnstar from all of us... TAnthony 17:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


I am so behind the news these days it's almost painful. But I gotta admit it was really nice to see Dev's article (thanks Dev!) at the GLBTRT Newsletter (link is provided at the top), and even more so to see a mention of the Spanish project and (I'm human after all) SSM in Spain. :-D I'm thinking, what happened with that idea of creating a project at Meta, to coordinate the projects of different wikis (especially those that suffer homophobia)? Raystorm 17:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the people I most wanted to help with it left Wikipedia and so it got shifted down my priority list (and my priority list is very long) because I am going to have very little time to edit for the next two months. Is it still something people want? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

lesbian books, movies and other stuff?

Is there already an article which sums up the books and movies of lesbian interest? If not,I would be interested to write it. Which title would you reckon useful and where would it be the best place I could put it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boomboomeve (talkcontribs) 08:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

There's Lesbian literature as well as LGBT literature - the latter could probably use a touch of lesbian. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A concern

Hi there! I hope this is the best place to pose this question, but if anyone would like to refer me elsewhere I would appreciate it. Basically, I was wondering if there was any sort of template to warn vandals with when they are using derogatory LGBT terms in order to vandalise. I find it difficult to tag with a "stop adding defamatory content" when there is nothing inherently defamatory about the words gay or queer etc. but the vandal is obviously using them in a hateful manner. I'm hoping for something like "Please do not post defamatory content on Wikipedia. You should also note that using LGBT terms to vandalize promotes hate and is offensive to many people. Please educate yourself and stop promoting intolerance." Thanks! --Xnuala (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, I don't think we have a friends of gays template. We should. Someone build one? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll create it, if you can give me an example of one that is similar to what you want. And can we refine the wording just a little? "Please educate yourself" sounds a little WP:BITEy :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
For sure, remove the "educate yourself"! I also wonder whether there is a more effective intro than "Please do not post defamatory content on Wikipedia". Also, the inclusion of "many people" seems to be a bit weasellish..does "is offensive" carry a strong enough message?--Xnuala (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I created {{Uw-vandalism-lgbt}}. It's a verbatim copy made from {{Uw-vandalism3}}, with the text added. As such, the documentation is a little off - specifically the part about "carefully designed based on guidelines...". Change at will :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
(add) Oh - and to your questions - I think we should keep the "offensive to many people" part, but I wouldn't mind being over-ruled. And combining "offensive" with "promotes hatred" seems strong enough to me. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
That is fantastic! I will be using this one whenever the opportunity comes up!--Xnuala (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I got to use it once earlier today :) Enjoy! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is VERY helpful. Thanks so much. I encountner an awful lot of Queer bashing vandalism or just people adding the words Gay or Queer to articles on various primate articles, articles on criminals, and subjects having to do with new religious movements such as the Jim Jones article or atciles on various aspects of Islam. it seems that some activists find nothing more awful to say about a belief they disagree with than to call it gay. I will find the template helpful.LiPollis 00:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll just play devil's advocate for a moment. Is this template a good idea? It seems to run a little counter to the suggestions of WP:RBI and WP:DENY. Give homophobic vandals their own template and kids at high schools will race each other to try to get one. It says, "your particular kind of vandalism is special and deserves special recognition; being a homophobe is so bad interesting and exciting that we made this just for you." I'd rather treat them with "yawn, you're boring, your hate is boring, and we'll block you if we have to, just like every other boring vandal." I suggest the old standby of {{uw-v4im}}. coelacan — 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hm, the motivation for me to use such a template has to do with the cognitive dissonance that I feel when I tell a user to stop posting defamatory content for placing "Ichabod is gay!!!!!" on a page when there is nothing inherently defamatory about Ichabod being gay or not gay. I definitely see your point.--Xnuala (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I always use db-bio instead of db-attack on those articles, though sometimes people disagree with me. That Ichabod is gay isn't a personal attack; it's just not very interesting to anyone but Ichabod's fortunate boyfriend, who presumably already knows. But I don't think we need a special template for homophobic vandalism, just like we don't have one for racist vandalism- whatever the content, the offense is the same, and uw-v1 or uw-creation1 is effective. -FisherQueen (Talk) 04:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
As much fun as it would be to have a meta:GAY warning...
Anyway, Xnuala, you don't need to get specific in warnings; any fourth-level warning is sufficient for an admin to block at WP:AIV (often a third level warning is sufficient, and {{uw-v4im}} is always a one-step option). Don't use "defamation" warnings, obviously. I agree those are inappropriate for the task at hand. I would just use the {{uw-vandalism}} series, which is boring and generic.
Fisherqueen, there actually is a {{uw-racism}} warning template. I lean toward thinking that's problematic as well for the same reasons. It is a variant of the {{uw-npa}} style, as it applies to attacks made against other editors, not injected into articles. It might be a good idea to run that one through WP:TFD, actually.
This {{uw-vandalism-lgbt}} is currently not being used except by members of this wikiproject, as far as I know. We can scrap it, or we can keep it. Anybody object to me deleting this? Anybody agree? coelacan — 04:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've only just seen this thread. Past consensus has been to delete such specialised vandalism templates- it would not in my opinion survive TfD. I see nothing worse in LGBT vandalism and I don't think we should give homophobic vandals special recognition. Vandalism should be treated as what it is- childish and mildly annoying. Don't let them think they got to you. I strongly support the deletion of the warning template, with apologies to Satyr who has put work into creating it. WjBscribe 05:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that. WP:RBI here. Vandals aren't likely to reform/repent when confronted with {{uw-vandalism-lgbt}} and we've a proliferation of other, useful templates. - Alison 05:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I would be fine with that. I suppose trying to educate vandals is probably not a worthwhile use of our time an efforts! Thanks to Satyr though, and everyone for their input.--Xnuala (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked Satyr on his talk page, he doesn't object to deletion, so I'll go ahead and do it, as it seems there's agreement here. coelacan — 06:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you want to continue issuing this message, you can have the exact same output by typing

{{uw-vandalism3|Article name|Also note that using [[LGBT]] terms to vandalize promotes hatred and is offensive to many people. Please stop promoting intolerance.}}

or by putting

{{uw-vandalism3|{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1|}}}}}|2=Also note that using [[LGBT]] terms to vandalize promotes hatred and is offensive to many people. Please stop promoting intolerance. }}

in a subpage of your userpage and use it as a template. This way, the warning will remain consistent with the lv 3 vandalism template. – lucasbfr talk 09:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's how it would be done. Not a Good Idea™ though, imho. But I'm not going to yell about it. coelacan — 04:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality in sport

Reading a newspaper article about John Amaechi coming out made me wonder whether there we had an article about homosexuality or attitudes to homosexuality in sport. Gay Games aside, the only one I found was Homosexuality in women's sports, which reads like someone's soapbox essay. I figure the subject could make for a good article, covering the likes of Lily Parr and Martina Navratilova, and the tragic case of Justin Fashanu. I don't think I've got sufficient knowledge of the subject to make a decent job of such an article on my own, so I thought I'd ask here to see if anyone would be interested in working on one. Oldelpaso 19:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I do think this is a good idea. It's also a topic about which I know squat. =( Hmmm. Isn't there a "requested articles" section around here somewhere? coelacan — 04:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing WT:MOS discussion re. transgender individuals and pronouns/identity

See here. Suggestions being made here re. editorial policy changes re. referring to individuals as "he" or "she", etc. - Alison 06:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

what needs to be done (essential biographies)

Hi – How do we keep up to date with what actually needs work done on it? I don't see any problems with the Gertrude Stein or Sinead O'Conner biographies, although part of that is just that I'm not sure how to get things up to the top category of editing anyway (I just catch sloppy factual errors & fill in holes :-). But it seems to me like a lot of the grading is not keeping up with the editing. Should grading be dated? How do you suggest regrading?--Jaibe 09:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If the class of an article needs to be updated, be bold! Unless you think it should be A, GA, or FA, of course - those have a separate process. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 12:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I only created that section as a way of originally encouraging people to edit. I was thinking of deprecating it and replacing it witha list of tasks people at a loose end can help with - what do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ted Heath and allegations of gaiety

What shall we do about Ted Heath, in light of this article? Add him? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a difficult one – we kind of need a category for "alleged gay people" or "gay people in denial"... Interesting thought though: I'd have said gayness. To me "allegations of gaiety" implies allegations of merriness. garik 10:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, "gay people" should imply happy people too. But since we appropriated the word, we ought to appropriate the correct grammar as well. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There should indeed be a List of allegedly gay or bisexual people (maybe not the exact wording we want) which actually provides links/references to the "incriminating" works. For example, Abraham Lincoln and the assertions made in Tripp's book. I don't think this necessarily would apply to current celebrities and such who are subject to tabloid rumors, but historical figures (and current people) for whom "evidence" exists but who cannot be designated gay. And the sources would of course have to be legitimate, not just the Enquirer or the statement of a porn star. TAnthony 15:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT template

The nav box template {{LGBT rights}} should really be changed to LGBT rights, but does anyone here run a bot that can change it in all the articles that use the template? TAnthony 12:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

TAnthony, it's just a name (not to mention easier to spell). The template itself says "LGBT rights". Does it really matter? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't need a Bot to change the articles. Just move it and leave the redirect that results. It should still show up fine on all the pages its used. WjBscribe 14:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice website

Just in case you guys aren't already aware of it, I recently came across this website while doing some research on James I of England. Hope it's of use. Carcharoth 00:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I love Rictor Norton, I just wish he would give his website a more formal sounding name.... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Though this project is, of course, careful not to give too much weight to those that some say overstate the issue, right? Seriously, giving all sides of an argument is important, and it would be bad if LBGT articles tended towards the sources that favoured the "XYZ was gay" viewpoint. If you know what I mean. I haven't looked in detail (though I like the Nazi article you linked above), so forgive me if I'm off target here. Carcharoth 08:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I believe there's an ongoing debate over that within the project. Certainly over at List of GLB people, I think it was decided that his collection of "Love letters" couldn't be used as a source because they were sometimes too quick to read things into letters that were merely phrased in the touch feely language of the day. I'm not overly keen on people going "Look, he's gay, he's GAAAYYYY!" on flimsy basis, and I like to think that most of the members of this project refrain from doing so as well.Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
And large WP:OR and similar tags have been put on Personal relationships of James I of England. Looks like it might need a bit of work to allay the concerns there, which, from my ramblings around the place, I know are located at User talk: VI of Scotland. Hope that helps. Carcharoth 16:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The edit summary adding those tags stated "significant synthesis of historical accounts from political opponents of James with present day scholarship qualifies under OR". Carcharoth 16:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is fairly obvious that James VI was homosexual, and my history teacher told me so, and there are several books mentioning it, so it hardly seems to be OR. 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think what it means is that Wikipedia shouldn't present historical accounts by enemies of James (accounts that need to be taken with a pinch of salt - ie. assessed by professional historians), and use those historical accounts in support of modern theories. Anyway, not really my concern, I'm just pointing it out so this WikiProject is aware of concerns with that article. Carcharoth 21:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


We need one more person to join the proposed taskforce on LGBT publications, so sign up if you're interested!

And I've been going through our Stub articles and upgrading the ones where needed (though I have a horrible feeling I've mispromoted a few, so someone might want to check that) - our percentage of stubs is thus steadily dropping, and I'm only down to F. But what has most struck is that DAMN, we have a lot of articles on gay porn stars and DAMN, are they really poor quality. About three quarters of most articles are taken up with every film they've been in ever. So, would anyone be interested in starting a taskforce in pornography to clean these articles up (hopefully to Jenna Jameson standard)? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sol'n to stubs on SSM, civil unions, domestic partnerships by state

Have noticed an awful lot of stubs created for US states regarding SSM, civil unions etc. Was wondering if it would behoove the project to consider altering these stubs to instead be "LGBT rights in XX state" such that we reduce the number of stub articles by expanding the issues covered within each article. Ideally, a "LGBT rights" state article would still provide an informational overview of how each state covers SSM, unions etc while also including info regarding adoption, discrimination etc laws. Human Rights Campaign covers the basics here and could be utilized as a launching pad. A potentially large undertaking, but something I think worth considering when an article like this is created - I'm, unfortunately, tempted to propose it for deletion, but figure it's more beneficial to develop and propose a project-wide solution than argue with another editor over a single article. Whaddaya think? ZueJay (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it annoys me when articles like that are created (particularly the odd one or two "civil union in" articles that only have "civil unions do not exist in blah because they legalised SSM"!). I think that's a good idea for smaller articles, but for larger ones or ones that have been significant in themselves (SSM in Israel comes to mind), it might be an idea to keep them separate. Say, keep start level articles, but merge all the stubs. What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I am all for this idea, since (unfortunately) there's not a lot to say about LGBT rights in many states; of course, larger articles like Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and Domestic partnership in California should stay separate with a link from the "main" articles. Is there a state with enough written about the key issues (ssm/civil unions/dom part, adoption, anti-discrim, etc) that can be used to establish a format? TAnthony
Don't think so. You might find this template helpful in deciding which to merge and which not to, though. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This is what I'm thinking. I encourage others to work on this, and quickly as the New Hampshire civil unions might make this one hot for a bit. We can use this as a launching pad. I'm trying to be WP:BOLD on this one. As for states with significant histories regarding the LGBT rights, individual articles regarding SSM, CU and the like can be left, but linked to a primary article. ZueJay (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Press Kit!

Ladies, gentlemen and otherwise, I present to you... the WP:LGBT press kit! There's statistics, quotes, testimonies, mission statements, oh my! Send it to your local gay press, and see what happens. :) Anyway, I hope you like it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sodomy law

I left a question on the article's talk page, and thought perhaps some of you might know a definitive answer to it. --Mal 05:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest LGBT Photo: Billie Jean King

Billie Jean King

Hey guys. Opening night at Tribeca with my new camera has produced my best photos yet: Added my photos of Martin Scorsese, Jimmy Fallon, Christie Brinkley, Eric Bogosian, Freddy Rodriguez, Adrien Grien, Kerry Washington, Julia Stiles and Diego Luna. *SWOON* Freddy Rodriguez. The only open LGBT was lesbo Billie Jean. I am hoping the premiere of the new Alexis Arquette movie will be more fruitful with the Rich n' Fruity. --David Shankbone 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I quickly tried to add the pic to the Spanish wiki article, but someone got there before me. :-) Raystorm 18:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, Freddy Rodriguez. Hot guy! We need to stop drooling on this page you know. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehe - I work fast Raystorm ;D Do you know who else was really hot? Jesse Bradford. He was with some guy, but it turned out it was his producer - but they had their arms around each other's waists for a bit like they were lovers. So cute. Short, though. Adrian Grenier was also hot. I still can't believe Christie Brinkley was born in 1954. Edie Falco looked very Edie Falco, and like she was pained to take photos. --David Shankbone 19:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the funny thing was that EVERYONE wanted to photograph Al Gore, who was opening the festival. And he refused to do the red carpet, so all the photographers were bitchin' and moanin' - also, De Niro practically ran, making it impossible to shoot him. Same for Jon Bon Jovi. --David Shankbone 19:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean about Christie Brinkley, she doesn't look a day over 35. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I know! I would think she was 32 - like, a "looks good for 32" 32. Those can't be her boobs, though. She really loves cameras. --David Shankbone 20:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
We are so queer. :) I bet MILHIST doesn't gossip about their battlefields... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, love *is* our battlefield (we are young!) --David Shankbone 20:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL! And acceptance our weapons! And gay anthems our battlecries! Hehehe - I'll stop now. ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL!!!! =D – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

More Tribeca reporting

How did I end up with the least attractive people in the room?

Well, I'm pretty exhausted, and I have another week of this photographing. My legs hurt, I feel like a cold is coming on, and I have to tell you all that paparazzi are a bunch of beer-swillin' and fartin' fuglies. They are almost too much to take. They scream, they yell, they are some of the more unattractive creatures you've seen. There was one guy who was so repulsive, he would get models like Petra Němcová and Ana Beatriz Barros to laugh by yelling "Hey, over here! I'll be your boyfriend!" I've seen more attractive teeth on horses than this guy. They all have bawdy humor, talk about fucking the celebrities (as if) and generally are unpleasant to hang around. Of course, the really big stars like Leonardo DiCaprio barely stay to take photos, although mine was semi-decent. But gee my legs hurt right now. I guess it makes up for not getting to the gym. --David Shankbone 12:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Core Topics

Our Core Topics now has 144 articles. I've been adding to it, but I want more LGBT history, non-American LGBT media, and important LGBT biographies. Contributions to this list would be welcome, trying to avoid national or sexuality bias (for some reason there are like, ten articles on lesbian literature and various sub-genres but virtually none on gay literature). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Kate Bornstein - picture!

I think it would be good to add a picture to the page on Kate Bornstein, and as she will be at the Netherlands Transgender Film Festival (, I was wondering if anyone was going to be there? More public appearances can be found on their myspace though.Zigzig20s 11:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What would be even better is if there was actually an article on Kate Bornstein to speak of - it's pretty flimsy. --David Shankbone 12:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I know...I do intend to read their books - probably in the summer, or next academic year. I've added a link to a recent lecture they gave; very interesting imo. Zigzig20s 13:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It's too bad User:Jeffpw is no longer with us; you could ask him. --David Shankbone 04:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Does he live in Amsterdam? His page seems to say he has left Wikipedia though...Zigzig20s 18:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Jumpaclass - why haven't I moved?

Erm, I was wondering why the article on The Swimming Pool Library hadn't been moved up a notch? I don't think it qualifies as a stub any more - though surely reviews and criticisms could be added (difficult to find them though). The Wikiproject Novels moved it from stub to start-class. Anyway, it's been way longer than a week...Zigzig20s 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm seemingly the only one who grades Jumpaclasses, and I don't do it very often. As I am going on Wikibreak from May, I suggest you stand for Deputy Coordinator and get more interest going. ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like a lot of responsibility...Zigzig20s 18:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)