Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 7

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

Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8


Deputy Coordinators.

if we're going to have deputy coordinators for May we'd better get on with it. I think we need three - would people agree? Would anyone like to stand? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A few random thoughts to throw into the melting pot. Answers may depend on who is willing to take on the responsibility:
  1. Structure. Do we want need a heirachy among the projects coordinators. i.e. would we rather have:
    • 3 or 4 coordinators, or
    • 1 coordinator and 2/3 assistant coordinators
  2. Functions. What tasks need to be performed by coordinators (more correctly I think this should be "what tasks need to be performed by coordinators if no one else has gotten round to doing them")?
    • One of the areas that needs closer watching is the Portal which Dev is too overstretched to do. And regretfully Satyr and I have been rather distracted from by tasks elsewhere (Jeff is away for an unknown length of time).
    • Should coordinators each be assigned responsibility for maintaining various project areas?
I haven't reached any conclusions as regards the above but those seem to be some of the things we should discuss. WjBscribe 15:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think following MILHIST's example, we should have one lead coordinator and three deputies. Also, under the terms of my resignation a few weeks ago, the deputies are there to give people experience in the job before my current role also comes up for reelection. So I was thinking we could elect three deputies now, then in July follow a system where there are four posts and whoever gets the most votes becomes coordinator and the three runners up become deputies. The functions as I see it are to maintain all the pages, updating the collaboration, the open tasks templates, the jumpaclass, to peer review where needed (which I admit I don't do a lot because I find it tedious), and other maintence tasks, to chivvy people when there are lots of peer reviews not being done among other things, to identify projects needs and either fulfil them or find members suitable to do so, to recruit, to participate in discussions where necessary, and be on hand to answer any questions necessary. With my rapidly decreasing time I simply cannot do all of this as much as I would really, really, like to.
Areas which I hope some fresh blood could inject some new life is the Portal, as mentioned by WJB, which really got put onto the back burner (mainly because WJB said he would automate it all and hasn't yet, so I can't do anything. :D), but also the Translation section, which has lots of people willing to translate but could do with a bit of a revamp so translations actually get done. I don't see the need to limit anyone to a particular area: we don't limit members so why limit coordinators? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
How does this look for an election page? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I like it, but I'm not so sure about the timing. Ideally, I'd like our coordinators to be elected by May so they can get a full three months in, but I'm not sure how to arrange that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
<shrug> I'm not sure one week makes that much of a difference. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose not. My autism just likes things to be tidy. :) But you're right, six days doesn't mean much, in the general scheme of things. Thoough possibly not May 6, the day the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft was attacked by Nazi Youth? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to advertise a bit. Can you send out a notice about how we're going to hold elections and could anyone interested please stand (and maybe tack on a small notice about helping out on our LGBT people list)? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Today is May 1st.... Raystorm 17:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, now you know why I wanted to get this over with before I had to leave. SatyrTN has decided to break until the 8th as well. Anyway, my exams are calling, I really can't deal with this now, it's too late. Prove your worth. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take over the running of the election. I'm going to keep nominations open until May 5 to encourage more people to come forwards (which also means they won't be open for too long before Satyr in back). WjBscribe 19:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

.......What an auspicious beginning. Raystorm 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I do think we need to publicise this a bit more. When is the next newsletter due out? WjBscribe 19:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, it should have come out today. Raystorm 19:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, all the more reason to have a few more days of noms. I'll make sure it gives good notice of the elections and deliver it by hand if necessary. WjBscribe 19:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
@_@ Surely we can get a bot to do that? Even if Satyrbot is unavailable now. Raystorm 20:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Doesn't look as if this is even started. Help appreciated to get in done quickly. WjBscribe 19:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

On it. Raystorm 20:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Right that's done. Thanks for your input. Thanks also to Coelacan for helping me deliver them all :-). WjBscribe 04:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Tribeca Film Festival LGBT photos

The gays have been staying in the Tribeca Film closet. At the Spiderman 3 premiere last night only a couple of known homos showed up: Mario Cantone and Lee Daniels. By the way, Daniels, at right, is not in a part of our project even though he is a prominent gay African-American dad. I'll be at the Drew Barrymore premiere tonight. I'm very, very tired...this has been a lot of work! --David Shankbone 19:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Drew Barrymore? :-D Awesome! You're the best David, thanks for your great work. Raystorm 19:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Raystorm. It's important to remember that I have done all this just based upon my Wikipedia work. If I can do it, anyone else can too. There's nothing special about me. It's worth consideration... --David Shankbone 20:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The Drew Barrymore photo is live; the Eric Bana photo will be as hot, he was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidShankBone (talkcontribs) 04:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Joris-Karl Huysmans

Was Joris-Karl Huysmans gay or not then? I was told he was, back at school. Anyone know for sure?Zigzig20s 21:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Gay vandalism on two articles

I tried to get these two pages semi-protected due to repeative anonymous homophobic vandalism but the admins turned me down. I've been standing watch over these articles for too long and I hereby resign for a few weeks. Someone else needs to take up the cause. The articles are: Fudge and Jim Jones. Kids and Lusers seem to find it amusing to link up to "insert" objectionable words or statements that some friend of theirs is a "faggot". The Fudge article gets hit the most but some of the stuff that gets edited into Jim Jones is pretty nasty.LiPollis 07:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Change to Section 28

I assume this change (explained here, kind of) is by someone who thinks "gay" can only mean "jolly". Either way, I think we should keep an eye on this and other articles. garik 15:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Tribeca project ends

Drew Barrymore by David Shankbone.jpg

*As of last night, with my Drew Barrymore, Eric Bana, Chris Hanson, Robert Duvall and Phyllis Somerville additions, my Tribeca project is now officially ended. It was an exhausting week - around 200 portraits done.--David Shankbone 17:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fashion project

I've been tagging and assessing articles for the new fashion project for about a month now and have noticed we share a lot of overlap, mainly in bios of designers. So, I just thought I'd drop the WP:LGBT community a note here letting you know about the project if you didn't already, and inviting any interested editors to join in (the need is great, I can say from having waded through so many of our poor-quality fashion articles) if they wish to help improve this aspect of Wikipedia. And even if you can't, a little attention and improvement to some of these articles we share could only help. Daniel Case 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

collaboration of the month

Please change it to the one for May. I would do it if I could figure out all the codes...Also, where do we suggest things for June? (on the collaboration talkpage perhaps?)Zigzig20s 18:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Yeah the collaboration talkpage seems the best place for now. Maybe once the new coordinator team is up and running we can have a slightly more efficient process :-) ... WjBscribe 19:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Ta.Zigzig20s 19:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Breakfast on Pluto (film) page

Apologies if this isn't allowable; I'm new and don't really understand if this is where I'm supposed to post this question. A page I recently expanded greatly is still listed as a stub under your project, and it's far from being a stub anymore: Breakfast on Pluto. Could someone upgrade it? Thanks. Melty girl 01:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Congrats on the good work. :-) Raystorm 03:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

John Cameron Mitchell

I took a crack at finding some cites for this article. Can anyone help? There has to be a FEW of his fans out there! Bearian 02:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He has agreed to let me do his portrait. --David Shankbone 03:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Obesity and lesbians

An editor has gotten into a bit of revert battle over adding information from a study to the Homosexual and Lesbian articles. The study links lesbians with increased incidences of obesity and was published by the American Journal of Public Health, so it is both academic and notable. However, the information doesn't actually seem to "fit" in either article, and editors have been quick to remove all references to this study.

When I examined this matter, I noticed neither the Lesbian nor the Gay articles had sections detailing health-related matters (if I've overlooked something, please bring it to my attention). As a result, this bit of information about an obesity correlation seems to have no home, and its inclusion in these articles indeed appears out of place.

I think that both the Gay and Lesbian articles should have "health" sections with mental and physical health subsections (or are there already separate articles I've overlooked…). Obviously these sections will become lightning rods for POV pushers, but managed carefully, they can become quite useful for information sharing and myth-busting. The B.U. study/revert war simply highlights the need for such sections. Thoughts? Rklawton 19:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I have the same health as a heterosexual. Perhaps you're thinking of the way society impinges on how homosexuals may feel - depression, eating disorders, etc... I fear that may all become rather stigmatising.Zigzig20s 19:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The question at hand, though, is does this type of information rate a section? Rklawton 19:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
If the information is in fact valid, the place it would belong is on the obesity article. It does not seem relevant to the lesbian page, as it is only a recent study and not relevant to lesbianism throughout history. — Emiellaiendiay 20:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the information comes from an academic source. I should also note that the research doesn't indicate causality - just correlation. What about the maladies listed by Zigzig20s? Wouldn't these rate a section? Rklawton 22:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. Depression and eating disorders occur when people don't feel valued and deserving...Homophobia and heteronormativity can lead to that, obviously. But then lots of things can lead to that too - patriarchal pressure on women (to fit into specific patterns of behaviour); grief; divorce...So again, I really don't think so. Zigzig20s 22:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

deputy coordinator election, on now!

So, the deputy coordinator election are going on now!

Here is the voting page: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Coordinator/May 2007

It's going on until 23:59 (UTC) on May 11. ··coelacan 03:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Independent on Sunday Pink List 2007

2007 list of the most influencial gay person in Britain I have updated the entries of 5 top people... feel free to use the rest of the list... --Zefrog 14:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi. I and StuRat translated an article in Portuguese about this WikiProject. I left a message to Dev, but no-one answered on her talk page, nor on mine. Here is the translation. I hope it's useful. A.Z. 03:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! When you say, "linked from this page", you're talking about the link from Template:LGBT open tasks, right? ··coelacan 04:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes! A.Z. 05:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. I've also put it at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Community#Publicity, which I think is the long-term place to track these things. ··coelacan 04:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
My apologies A.Z., I am online for only a few minutes a day and I'm trying comment only where absolutely necessary.

Which is where this message comes in. Some time ago, I gave an interview to The Advocate, and after not hearing anything for months, suddenly got an email a few days ago that an article about us will be in the "Pride issue" in two weeks time. It has a subscribership of 165,000, so I don't think a WikiProject has ever pulled anything off like this before. Yay us!

And if anyone knows where I can buy The Advocate in London, please tell me, because I spent two hours last week trekking all over London, from Gay's the Word to Borders (where I had a very embarrassing conversation with two shop assistants who had bad English and made me bellow that I wanted a gay magazine in front of the entire paying queue, which got me some very strange looks), and got nothing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am well impressed. The Advocate has a huge readership worlwide. Funnily enough I've never tried to buy it in the UK though...BTW, is it gonna appear on their website as well?Zigzig20s 09:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Propose change to nav Template:Civil union

I've proposed a significant change in the format of the navigational Template:Civil union on the talk page there. I'd welcome suggestions, input, etc. from project members. I've proposed it first b/c the changes would be significant. ZueJay (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Thegosis keeps trying to add the LGBT tag to these pages:

And more. Look at his contribs for the others.

Basically, I don't know if this counts as vandalism or if it should actually be included. The pages are all about convicted child sex offenders, and whilst the sex offenders offended against the same sex...they were kids. Help? I've reverted his edits which summarise as "fagtagging" and "fudepacking" etc. But the others, I don't know if they pass as vandalism.... – Marc 13:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks like it's under control. The user has been blocked, and it appears that it might be a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user. --AliceJMarkham 15:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes it has been sorted. Thanks =) Marc 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:LGBT history vandalism

Hi, don't know if it's isolated to one user but Burntapple has been removing Category:LGBT history tag from various articles including Lonnie Frisbee, Mark Foley and possibly others who were closeted but aren't so anymore. He's been warned about edit wars and had 3RR a few times. Just wanted to give a heads up.Benjiboi 19:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • 1) Watch who you call a Vandal.

Roger that. I'll watch his contribs.  E. Sn0 =31337Talk 20:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Same dude who was trying to get the obesity thing linked into Homosexuality and Lesbian at the weekend. See my talk page - Alison 20:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
And you kept trying to prevent a legitimate study from being posted on the grounds that I cited an Australian newspaper. Burntapple 20:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, nope on both counts. Details are on my talk page and User:Rklawton has taken up the challenge (see above). Linking to a newspaper is one thing, linking to a study is another - Alison 20:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
"Quotes out of Australian newspapers aren't exactly 'scientific', regardless of what they're referring to"[1] Burntapple 20:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes. Which is not what you were saying above. Read carefully - Alison 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the real question, Burntapple, is why are you so contentious and making so many edits that spur conflict? Has it occurred to you that many of us rarely are involved in edits that so many people consider to be contentious or problematic? --David Shankbone 23:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, I support the inclusion of information obtained from scholarly research published in peer-reviewed journals regardless of whether or not it supports my own point of view. Rklawton 01:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A quick update, Burntapple, seems to have disappeared so possibly a bot watch for removing LGBT tags for someone to check on such instances might be appropriate. Not fully sure if possible or already being done but wanted to suggest it. Also the original reason I was pulled into the whole drama was with Lonnie Frisbee article which has had some proper attention and although still needs improvement is at least more accurate that he was gay.Benjiboi 19:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because you work as a pack doesn't make you right and you all know it. Burntapple 21:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

lol. The only reason queer-folk are in a pack is because we were all demonized similarly effectively pushing us together. A trans-person's struggle for human rights benefits everyone as much as gay men and lesbians. And even if a bisexual person chooses to live under the radar doesn't mean they want to hide who they are and I, along with many others, feel that no one should have to hide who they love for fear of their lives, their jobs and/or their children.

As far as pack mentality goes the same is true for wiki majority rules mentality, which is flawed but for the time being it's the way it is. LGBT folks are used to be written out of history, our accomplishments and contributions to society overlooked, underplayed and generally dismissed but I will quote one of my favorite chants heard at the Stonewall Inn during the 25th Anniversary of the Stonewall riot after the drag march - "We're Here, We're Queer - We Designed Everything You're Wearing." Benjiboi 05:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Tag

Alright, sometime ago I saw that the talk page of the Victor Salva article had an LGBT Wikiproject tag. Salva, along with being the director of such films as Jeepers Creepers, is also a convicted child molester so it seemed wrong to me to associate homosexuality with pedophilia as it seemed to have been done in this situation. The tag was originally added by User:SatyrBot, a bot used by this project to tag LGBT-related articles. I have again removed it after it was re-added by User:Jeffpw. [2] I just thought that I should bring it to the attention of this Wikiproject.--Jersey Devil 03:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Salva directed Rites of Passage and Powder, both of which have pretty heavy gay themes. Bracketing the same-sex child abuse stuff, I think the article on him is within the scope of the project on the movie basis alone. Fireplace 03:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, any of his films with significant gay themes should be tagged, but Salva himself should not based on the crimes alone. This issue was sort of covered the other day when someone was tagging a bunch of child molester articles; I think the point is that only someone who is self-identified as gay or has some notable contribution/significance to the community should be tagged. Touching little boys doesn't "count" and anyway, sex crimes are rarely about sex at all. When there is credible information that Salva has a boyfriend or wins a GLAAD award, then he can be tagged. I've had sex with women but I assure you, I shouldn't be part of the WikiProject Hetero Studies.  ;) TAnthony 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
There's this ("I am a gay man" -VS), which is probably real but the source (an MSN group) is kind of sketchy. Fireplace 16:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note

Happened to be passing by here looking at the discussion on whether The Devil Wears Prada belongs, saw this and thought I'd add that articles like this belong under the pedophilia watch project. I have so tagged the Salva talk page. Daniel Case 12:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

deputy coordinators

Following the election, SatyrTN and Fireplace are now deputy coordinators of the project. There were supposed to have been three, but Raystorm is now too busy to take it up (though Raystorm had sufficient support), and Jet123 did not have sufficient support from project members. So, SatyrTN and Fireplace, hopefully you won't be overwhelmed. ··coelacan 11:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

List of new LGBT-related articles

I came across AlexNewArtBot, which scans newly created articles and tries to sort them into subjects, so I started a set of rules to find LGBT articles. The results are here; they get updated once a day. This should help identify articles that need to be tagged or categorized, as well as violations of Friends of gays should not be allowed to create articles that slipped past the newpage patrollers.

The rules it's using are at User:AlexNewArtBot/LGBT – what other keywords should be included? —Celithemis 09:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is great, thanks. TAnthony 12:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
T-girl, Intersex, dyke, bulldagger, gee the list seems endless to me! Benjiboi 12:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Boy, that'll be superuseful. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Too many keywords will lead to lots of false hits, right? Still if we're also using it to catch the hate sites, then "fag" would be a helpful addition. Not so much if its main purpose is to catch articles for addition to the project. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
We could just put them in and see which ones cause false positives. It can also handle rules like "dyke but not levee or Netherlands", so we should be able to fine-tune it.
I'd definitely rather find the article with the word fag in it than let it slip through the cracks, no matter what else we're doing with the list. —Celithemis 13:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest an optional hyphen in bisexual [[3]], a common misspelling. Some other terms to consider, but I'm not sure if they will improve searches by much:
  • "third gender" [[4]], "gender variant" [[5]], and "third sex" [[6]] all of which people might hyphenate.
  • "non-heterosexual" and "nonheterosexual" [[7]]
  • "heterosexual" [[8]] - it's only stated to emphasize its distinction from non-heterosexual identities, and so is probably of interest
  • "Same gender loving" and "same-gender loving" [[9]]
  • "men who have sex with man" [[10]]
And great idea, Celithemis! Thank you! Queerudite 21:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've added a link to this result page to the "Articles needing attention" task box with an explanation for its use. TAnthony 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

New Page Needing LGBTProject banner

Similar to a comment posted above, SatyrBot routinely reviews the category tree under Category:LGBT for articles that have been placed in LGBT cats and don't yet have the project banner. I've added instructions on reviewing the list and the bot places it at WP:LGBT/NP. Please review and contribute as you have time. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on this, tagging articles with the Project banner and/or marking an unreferenced assertions of homosexuality or LGBT relevance. The The Devil Wears Prada (film) article was tagged as Category:LGBT-related films, and vaguely remembering the character played by Stanley Tucci, I tagged it for the project. An editor who monitors the article noted that there had been some discussion here and here, and that after reviewing this discussion) she decided just to cat it as LGBT-related (I guess the character's sexulaity was never stated explicitly in the film).
I kind of thought that an article aptly categorized as LGBT in some way should be part of the Project, or should not be categorized LGBT. I'm hoping someone can make the determination, or this article will keep coming up on the automated list. Thanks. TAnthony 00:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I do have several articles marked as "don't tag" for the bot. If you run across any, make a note on WP:LGBT/NP about it and I'll tell the bot. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've added a link to this New cat results page to the "Articles needing attention" task box with an explanation for its use. TAnthony 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, look, I'm famous!

Okay, I'm not personally famous. But the new issue of The Advocate has a small article about us. Pretty neat. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, congrats Dev920, the article is finally out (June issue, with T.R. Knight on the cover). TAnthony 21:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I would be really grateful if someone could email me a scan... Dev920. 23:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Congratulations to you all. LuciferMorgan 15:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to see a scan too. Perhaps someone can add it to this page for all to see?Zigzig20s 16:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

TAnthony has kindly sent me a scan which I've uploaded to our website. You can see it at . I think it looks quite good... DevAlt 18:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, you have to copy and paste it into your browser, you can't just click, I'm afraid. DevAlt 18:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The link doesn't work.Zigzig20s 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That would be because you have to copy and paste it, like I said. :) But I've uploaded it to photobucket as well, so check it out there:

Whee! Good work, Dev! - Kathryn NicDhàna 21:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That is great! Nice bit of recognition for the group... Aleta 02:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (I'm back!)

Nice. I do hope more people join.Zigzig20s 05:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Party views requested

I'd like to request some third party views on a dispute between myself and another member of the LGBT studies project on the Toby Meltzer page. Thank you for your time. AgneCheese/Wine 19:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Another second opinion?

Would someone take a look at Melanie Brown? There's a quote and reference in the last paragraph of the "Personal life" section that claims she's bisexual, but I'm not sure a) that's reliable, and b) that "qualifies" her for inclusion in our spectrum. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the article as of about 9 PM Pacific time on Tuesday, May 21st. I see nothing wrong with it. I do not see any of the pictures that were mentioned in the talk page. I also looked at the external web site, but there were no pictures there either. --Allyn 04:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Closer is a very reliable source...In the past, Melanie was asked if she was a lesbian, and she wouldn't give a definite answer, implying that she doesn't like labels. A video of that interview can be found on youtube if I remember correctly. Anyway, the whole paragraph doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me, especially since the news doesn't come from an official source - herself.Zigzig20s 18:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


There's a spammer going round adding links to "coming-out" articles on various other wikis. Watch out for this one, they usually use an account once, then switch to another. It may happen here, so watch out! --SunStar Net talk 14:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"She's a lesbian"

I added the LGBT musicians from the United States and Lesbian musicians to the Brandi Carlile article, but they were removed because they were not verifiable. I don't agree with that because a source is listed in List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, but ofcourse not everyone can be expected to check there. So, it should be mentioned in the article itself, with the proper source[11].

My question is: how?

The article currently lacks a 'Biography' section, and to add one just to mention she's a lesbian seems wrong to me. Rewriting the first sentence to "Brandi Carlile [..] is a lesbian American singer and songwriter." also seems wrong. Especially since in the source she says it's not a big deal for her, so I don't want to make it look to 'defining', if you know what I mean. nield 06:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Gave it a quick shot by placing a "Biography" header with subheaders of "Career" and "Personal life." There is definitely a lack of cites in this article, but the Medleyville Q&A article cited gives a lot of good info on her musically-formative years that could be put into a subheader of "Early career" or "Early life." Its certainly interesting to note the artists she talks about are k.d. lang, Indigo Girls and Elton John. ZueJay (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks! nield 08:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Bit of a bump in the road: User:Ubtrbelizeit68 indicated on my userpage that s/he feels this is not an acceptable source. Additional input on the validity, credibility, etc. of this source would be appreciated. Thanks ZueJay (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I found this, but that might not be considered a reliable source either. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No, the fact that she's a "lesbian icon" doesn't make her a lesbian, anymore than the fact that Judy Garland is an icon to a lot of gay men made her a gay man. I'll see if I can scour up anything in NewsBank. --Yksin 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Update. All I found in Newsbank (a subscription news archive) were two references to her playing at Pride events in 2003 in Seattle. Which again isn't enough to say "she's a lesbian," but do provide helpful backup if otherwise verified. --Yksin 17:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess my issue is that there are hundreds of articles out there about her with no mention of her sexuality. Yet here, she keeps getting labeled (though, I suspect some if it is vandalism). I would think that the real goal of any Wikipedia article is to make it a quality one, regardless. The current article seems so generally empty but any time content is added it is usually about her personal life and not about her music. Does this make sense? I'm not trying to stir up the waters or anything...just trying to understand and see a quality article come out. I think some time should be spent writing a decent article about her music and her life as a musician.Ubtrbelizeit68 16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I totally understand and agree with you, Ubtrbelizeit68. Of course, since this WikiProject is more concerned with LGBT issues, we may not be the ones to help much with a critical analysis of her music :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Some suggestions. You may have to simply document your initial findings (of reliable sources) on the talk page and revisit the issue later. Artists do come out but you have at least two issues, is there documentation of sexuality, is there indicators that this influences the artwork. In this case (without even looking at the article) my hunch is the way to go is "although seen as an icon in the lesbian community perhaps for playing at pride events and for citing out musicians such as k.d.lang, the Indigo Girls, (etc) she has not commented publicly on her sexuality." Personally, i would then go into a bit of research on the music she performs, lyrics (if a singer-songwriter) and first-hand accounts of what she does and says (or doesn't do and say). Does she sing about catching that guy but with irony? Does she talk about love but with no pronouns? If she does concerts are they with other out artists? Benjiboi 02:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone opposed...

Portal LGBT.svg

to using this image in our portal? It was a gift from Poland :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Gof ro it ( I am drunk. This message to k five minutrds to write.) DevAlt 21:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I love it. And I'm giggling about Dev being drunk. --David Shankbone 21:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Awesome, love it. TAnthony 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Good logo. ROFL at Dev :-). WjBscribe 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Nice! I like ... Can we issue User:DevAlt with a cite for EUI or something? There has to be a template somewheres :) I looked through the citation templates and couldn't find one :) - Alison 21:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
ROTFL - both at DevAlt and the tons of users that are so quick to respond!! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Very nice. I certainly approve. :) --AliceJMarkham 02:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it. And to think I almost forgot Poland. ··coelacan 13:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

COI issue

I need some more eyes on this article, please. I'm pretty sure the subject is editing it, and has been introducing copyvio from the lead of this interview (the lead was not written by him). There's a promising note at the bottom of that page: "This feature interview may be used free for other publications and may be creatively edited. Please contact [name] for details." I will email that person and see where we can go with it. But even if we can get the content GFDL'd, there's still conflict of interest problems. So, help, please, gently. The guy might be a helpful contributor to other articles once he's got Wikipedia figured out. ··coelacan 08:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:LGBT characters in comics

I've been thinking about the intersections of categories like Category:Fictional African-Americans and Category:Superheroes and wondering if maybe it would make more sense subcategorise Category:Fictional gay men, Category:Fictional lesbians and Category:Fictional bisexuals as Category:Gay superheroes, Category:Lesbian superheroes and Category:Bisexual superheroes (and supervillains) to make a new category system, deleting the old overly inclusive Category:LGBT characters in comics. I figure it works better to show portrayal by medium than say... as there are no "Category:Black people in comics" style categories, only the more appropriate "Category:Black superheroes" and its parent category.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Most LGBT characters in comics are supporting characters, not superheroes. Any debate over such changes in the comics realm should include involvement from the Comics WikiProject, where you're likely to see some resistance (if the current debate/history over the category "Female Superheroes" [12] is any indication). HalJor 21:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Understanding that this will cause some resistance initially I thought it would be good to consult the Wikiproject. As it stands, minor say black or Asian comics characters are not listed by medium AND ethnicity, but with the two as separate. I was thinking for consistency, it might not matter if Green Lantern's gay friend Terry Berg was listed separately as gay and as a comics character. Also, I was aware of the "female" debate shortly after posting it and contributed towards the discussion :).~ZytheTalk to me! 21:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd be concerned that a category like "Gay superheroes" would not have enough articles in it to warrant the creation of a category... I'm not a big fan of tiny categories. But mine is only one small voice, and inexperienced in the category-creation business. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It definitely matters. If I want to investigate how LGBT characters are portrayed in comics – a very plausible research topic – I'm going to want to find Terry Berg and Maggie Sawyer. If there's no good way to find them, I'm not getting the whole story.
Also, distinguishing gay/lesbian from bisexual comic characters is going to be impossible without original research in some cases. Add that to the fact that some comics characters wander back and forth across the boundary between hero and villain, and I'm left with no idea where, for example, Destiny would be filed. —Celithemis 23:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Per above, if you want to split the cat up, use Category:Lesbian characters in comics, Category:Gay characters in comics, etc, since many of the characters won't be superheros. A quick look at the LGBT category shows 132 articles. Split evenly (which it won't be), that would mean ~33 articles each. Not "tiny", though not large. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
My concern is that basing the idea off the category "Superheroes by race" is troublesome as there are concerns about that too [13] so I'd not use it as a precedent. There has been quite a lot of discussion on the Comics Project and the feeling seems to be that lists are prefered to categories. As I say on the otehr discussion if there are controversial or difficult to define areas (like race) then a list not a category seems the best way to go as it is easier to police as you can produce a consensus and discuss problematic additions. As there is already a pretty good list then I think this topic already has the best approach right there. Further splitting of the current cat (which can easily be policed by reference to the list) could just result in messy categories. Not that I'm saying it shouldn't be done if people think it is a good idea but the current system works well and if it ain't broke.... (Emperor 04:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC))
...then WP:CFD would be happy to break it. ;-) Subcategorize anything more than "necessary" and you'll find it all upmerged again. I expect that several of the regulars at CFD will be concerned with the ambiguity that Celithemis raises: "distinguishing gay/lesbian from bisexual comic characters is going to be impossible without original research in some cases." If you want to make the split, I suggest you decide beforehand who will go in which categories (with refs to justify each). If it can be clear cut, then it might be worth a shot. ··coelacan 13:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Also worth noting this guideline which I have mentioned on the discussion about "Superheroes by race" but applies here: Overcategorization by sexual preference: "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category." So unless anyone can justify full articles on Lesbian superheroes and Bisexual superheroes (I doubt they'd even make comprehensive lists) the idea seems a non-starter. (Emperor 15:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC))
I've found lists to be much less accurate than categories. People interested in an article subject will read the article, but will never see what lists it's on, so you don't get as much sanity checking. For example, in LGBT comic book characters I immediately saw one piece of pure fiction; I doubt that claim would have survived long if it had been in the characters' articles.
The list also makes very dodgy judgments about who's gay and who's bisexual. For example, the only thing actually known about Destiny's sexual orientation is that she had a lifelong relationship with Mystique; it's implied that she has a grandchild but we know nothing about how that came to be. The list blithely tags her as "bisexual, prefers females". This is the kind of original research that any attempt to separate LGBT characters into subcategories or sublists is going to be prone to. —Celithemis 00:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Falwell as a key player in LGBT history

Greetings. I think Jerry Falwell is a key player in LGBT history in the United States and his article should be tagged as such. With his recent death more research is being added to wiki but because of his homophobia his contributions to LGBT history are more along the lines of an anti-hero (much like George Bush) and less readily added. Think Hitler for Jewish history although not as obviously sinister.

Together with Pat Robertson he helped demonize gays and relentlessly used homosexuality as a fundraising tool with offensive statements in his churches fundraising letters and using his "Ministry" of radio and TV programs to say outrageous things that caused rippling setbacks throughout US culture stalling what had been progressive gains building on the black, women and student movements of the 1960s and 70s. Surveys showed more support for gay rights in the eighties than today.

When the AIDS pandemic was at its infancy he used his bully pulpit to position the emerging health crisis as God's retribution against America for giving homosexuals rights and condoning a sinful behavior. Influencing the Reagan White House and key right-wing Republicans he helped ensure that not only was AIDS labelled a gay disease but that research, treatment and education about the disease was woefully underfunded causing the sexually transmitted disease to go virtually unchecked for years causing the deaths of thousands in the US and now millions worldwide.

His legacy can be seen in the current right-wing of the Republican party which he helped nurture and bring into prominence when the culture wars were just starting to replace the cold war mentality. And his university continues to feed the current administration and ideology.

Falwell's legacy is also found in the many LGBT activists and allies who were incensed by his words and actions and started organizing and became politically active as a response. One gem was the $5000 libel suit that Falwell lost with that money becoming the seed to build Sacramento's first LGBT community center in California's state capital. Benjiboi 02:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've grown weary of wiki conflict lately. IMHO anyone in this project who is interested in the Falwell article can and should edit it as appropriate, and discussion of this topic on the article talk page is useful, discussion on each others' talk pages, the same. But tagging these kinds of articles would seem to do little more than bring discord and animosity upon the project. I want to emphasize that I feel this way only about biographies. The benefits can outweigh the drawbacks when it's an organization or a book or whatever other noun. But biographies get so emotional (that goes double for biographies of recently deceased rich white guys). Do the work, add the relevant content to the article, etc., but this can all be done without tagging. My opinion only. ··coelacan 08:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
On review of your edits to the article, I see you're talking about Category:History of LGBT civil rights in the United States, not {{LGBTProject}} (which is what I normally think of when someone says "tagged"). My above comments make little sense now. But to be perfectly frank I do not think the man had the effect he imagined he had. For all of his work, the United States has grown or remained progressive on every one of his pet issues. The Republican party maneuvers the religious right, not the other way around; cf. David Kuo's comments upon leaving the Bush administration. Falwell handed his followers over to the party as a reliable constituency, and they have received nothing but lip-service in return. This is a perennial complaint of social conservatives in the US. The media has always been eager to play up Falwell's more strident comments, but what did he actually do? Reagan was already a social conservative: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me." ··coelacan 16:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I think he had an enormous impact shaping and defining the evangelicals rise to power in American politics and casting gays (and LBT by guilt of association) as the new face of evil to replace the communists - good luck if you're both! However, I feel that history will catch up to him (and others) soon enough so getting into a tired (and hyper-emotional) edit war does seem pointless use of energy so in this case I'll let it pass. I'm researching references into his impact on the AIDS pandemic which in itself will help ensure his legacy is long remembered regardless of his long-standing vilification of homosexuality. Benjiboi 19:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Map of civil rights laws in US

US civil rights map

I created a map that shows the current status of anti-discrimination laws in the US after not finding such a map on WP. This map could be used in articles such as LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States. Does anyone have thoughts as to whether this map is useful? Any changes you would recommend? Or even feel free to change it yourself. The map should include Colorado in purple soon as the governor is expected to sign the bill recently passed by the state legislature. I am also considering creating a similar map for the entire world.
--Slyguy (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Where can it be seen?Zigzig20s 17:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
=) Have you ever written an email saying "see attachment" and forgotten the attachment? Found it in Special:Contributions/Slyguy. ··coelacan 17:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. --Slyguy (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Cool map... I might change "Statewide legislation or Official Government Policy" to "State laws" to make it clear that the map doesn't depict federal law. (All federal civil service employees are protected under Executive Order 13087.) Fireplace 18:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that many of the policies governing public-sector discrimination are executive orders issued by governors and not actual laws...I don't know...I'm having trouble thinking of a title that's both accurate and doesn't sound too long-winded. --Slyguy (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
What a great editing quiz! I edited title down to "Policies Banning Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identity Employment Discrimination" Nuances can be footnoted in graphic. I would change the "No ban on discrimination in public/private sectors" to "No Protections" or similiar. Benjiboi 19:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Those are good suggestions. Thanks. --Slyguy (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Awesome map. I want to try tweaking it on my own. Does anyone know how to edit the image that the area around the map stays "empty" rather than filled with white? Is there a free image editing program that allows you to do that? Thanks! Joie de Vivre 19:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I used Inkscape (free) to create it, I don't know quite what you mean by the area around the map but you can edit it however you want using Inkscape. --Slyguy (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
When viewing the image page at Image:US LGBT civil rights.svg, there should be a "checkered" pattern in Moz-based browsers, which signifies transparency. It will show up as white in the thumbnail up there, the background color provided by MediaWiki. In IE, it will be background (white) on both pages. If that's not answering the question, then I don't know. ··coelacan 20:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, by "the area around the map" I meant the checkerboard pattern that I see in Firefox. Joie de Vivre 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this intended to reflect statewide policy, or just employees of the state? Because unless I've misunderstood the news lately, Ohio law still permits employment discrimination; the governor's recent decree only applies to government agencies, and isn't binding on private employers. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The pink color is for anti-discrimination laws in the public sector only. Maybe the subheads in the legend should be bolded to make this clearer?
It does look great! Thanks for creating this, Slyguy. —Celithemis 23:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and accolades.
1. The title was simplified and nuances were added in a footnote, acknowledging that federal civil service employees are protected as well as employees in "gray" states who live in counties or cities with local ordinances. Also, the sub-heads in the legend were bolded.
2. The background was changed to transparent in Inkscape (at least, I think that's what I did - I changed something called the "alpha factor" to 0 - not very sure about what I'm doing, this is the first time I've used Inkscape) – please give feedback as to whether this style is better. I was trying to get rid of the chessboard pattern altogether – I am using IE 7 and this pattern shows up regardless of what I try to do.
3. This map might be rendered moot this year if Congress passes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, giving all employees in the country protection. However, since the president's advisors have stated they will advise him to veto the recently-passed hate crimes bill, he might veto ENDA also... Time will tell.
--Slyguy (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if ENDA occurs it's still useful for research to see the progression, I would consider dating the map "as of May 2007" Benjiboi 03:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think if you make updated maps, you should save them under different filnames. If the Colorado change happens in July, next map could be Image:US LGBT civil rights 2007 July.svg, and so on. That way we will have the different times in easily accessible separate filenames (it's harder to work with a single filename's revision history). I would also suggest that once you have this current image in a version that you consider finished and stable, you might upload it to Commons:, where a progression of dated images would be quite welcome (presumably with a series, not all will be in use at any given time, and some people get fussy about unused images being stored on Wikipedia, but this is not an issue on Commons). ··coelacan 17:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
US civil rights map (May, 2007)

Image renamed, and will take advice re Wikicommons. (BTW, the Colorado governor signed the bill.) I'm considering placing the image in Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act at the 3rd paragraph where state laws are currently documented, as well as the State Civil Rights section of LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States.
--Slyguy (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Cat deletion?

Should Category:People who have at some stage claimed they are not gay really exist? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

NO. WjBscribe 14:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
ROTFL - that was quick :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Bisexuality articles and NPOV concerns

I just did a massive NPOV-based overhaul to Lesbian until graduation; see before, diff, and after. I'd appreciate feedback on my work at the talk page.

The second thing I would like to see is an overhaul of Bisexual chic. Edit: I have made such an overhaul. The version about which I expressed concerns is here. I have stated my concerns at Talk:Bisexual chic and would love to hear from you folks.

If we may, I would like to keep the conversation from getting split so please reply at the appropriate Talk pages. Thanks! Joie de Vivre 19:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I nominated my article Tompkins Square Park Police Riot for FA status

From the nomination page:
(self-nomination)This article is simply excellent. Excellent writing, interesting subject matter, improved during its Good Article trial, and eye-witnesses have left notes on the Talk page that talk about the article being so accurate, it's like they were living it all over again. Written in a NPOV and heavily cited with the highest of sources, it includes GFDL media, is wikified to the fullest, a fantastic "See Also" section, and looks at the story from every angle. --David Shankbone 18:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sexual orientation and medicine

New article and category of this name, at Sexual orientation and medicine and Category:Sexual orientation and medicine, created by User:OsteopathicFreak. They aren't so much about "sexual orientation and medicine" as "non-heterosexual sexual orientations and medicine". Is this category useful? Joie de Vivre 23:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the title seems homophobic or at least way geeky but the info is good. I put this in the same field as special med needs of any other minority but clumping all LGBT folks together, for now at least, is helpful as a starting point. Benjiboi 00:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that this category adds anything over the preexisting Category:Sexual orientation and science. Fireplace 11:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, my hunch is that the medicine category would focus on health and medical variances of GLBT folks while the Science category would be looking at broader issues issues including non-human sexual variance, chemical and biological theories, etc. Benjiboi 17:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
So should articles in this category be part of the LGBT project? I ask so I know whether to have the bot add it to categories it scans. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Definitely. As science and technology clip along these will become the controversial topics of nature vs. nurture and what does male or female mean. Having a good foundation for people who are genuinely researching the topics is helpful.Benjiboi 22:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for discussing this. I share all your concerns. I do think a category like this needs to exist. There is of course significant overlap with Category:Sexual orientation and science as well as Homosexuality and psychology, but there are issues unique to this grouping. I created an Category:Transgender and medicine as well. These two groups have unique and well-documented health needs. There are entire organizations and journals that exist solely to address this issue. Hopefully, myself and others in the medical world will be able to update this category and article to make it more meaningful. Thanks for your patience. I hope you'll read Sexual orientation and medicine to get an idea of where this article/category could go.I have no objection to a name change to something more fitting with the conventions of this project.OsteopathicFreak 21:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
As for the naming convention I would see if there is medical/health categories for Blacks, Asians and other minorities and seem what naming patterns are in use. Benjiboi 22:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rosie O'Donnell LGBT Portal formatting help

Hi, someone removed the LGBT portal because of formatting issues - it covered over text. if someone can figure out how to avoid this, please help. Benjiboi 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Renaming article to Faux Queen help

Greetings, I was interested in creating an article for Faux Queens (female drag queens) but a (one paragraph) article Bio queen exists and is wiktionary linked. I've worked with faux queens for over a decade but never heard of the phrase bio queen, is that in use in other parts of the world? If no one objects how can get the article renamed and how do I address the wikitionary link? All help appreciated. Benjiboi 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Even the article used as a reference says Faux Queen rather than "bio queen", so I'd say you're on pretty solid ground if you just BOLDly rename it. You can do that by clicking the "move" tab at the top of the page. —Celithemis 00:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I've moved it and done some associated tidying up. Bio queen now redirects to faux queen. I've also added {{transgender footer}} and {{LGBT-stub}}. If you enlarge the article beyond stub, remove the stub tag. If you make the article big enough that the {{Transgender sidebar}} right-side template won't dominate, convert from footer to side. It appears that "bio queen" was transwikied to wikitionary, but has since been deleted. I've taken the transwiki tag out of the talk page, so the bot might transwiki faux queen. Hope that helps. :) --AliceJMarkham 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The Wiktionary entry is still in the holding area for transwikied stuff, at Transwiki:Bio_queen. Someone with an account on Wiktionary could just move it to Faux Queen. I'm not sure if you have to wait four days after signing up to be able to move pages there. —Celithemis 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I've created wiktionary:Faux queen now.  :) Aleta 01:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Article is looking somewhat respectable now. I'm not all geeky smart for formatting but welcome any changes to the template or even the first reference which keeps appearing wrong. Any other ideas might be better placed on the talk page. Benjiboi 02:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

New vandal

It seems that a new user, Mrphph (talk · contribs) has been editing some TG articles towards saying that drag queens includes any male who dresses as female in public and that we are "She-male" prostitutes. Could people keep an eye on this user's contributions for a while, please. --AliceJMarkham 03:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Someone redirected the page gaymer to gay gaming, being active in the gayming community I never once heard the term "gay gaming" unless it was used in a derogatory manner. Yet, there are a few academic studies out there that does use the term gaymer to describe people who identify as LGBT and play video games. I would suggest that this article be redirected back to its original title. --Pinkkeith 20:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that "gaymer" is a more appropriate location for the article. I haven't heard the term "gay gaming" either, and usage of "gaymer" is not limited to the community. Carom 02:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

New Article - Gay Teacher; Joe Acanfora

hello all .. I am a first-time article contributor of the "Gay Teachers Fight to Teach - The Case of Joe Acanfora", and clearly admit I am not up to speed on protocols and styles of Wiki articles. I very much welcome your review and comments on the article and ways to improve it. I'm not certain why the article does not appear based upon my searches (??) but hope you can find it here.

regards Ja3ja3 16:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The full-text search can take a while to update, but you'll find your article at Joe Acanfora. I've moved it back there because Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, uses simple noun titles rather than headlines like a newspaper. —Celithemis 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinion on Inge Meysel?

Hi! I've run across Inge Meysel and would like some opinions. I didn't find any references about her bisexuality, but I asked Gilliam for some help and he replied:

Here's what I read in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung article about Inge Meysel.
She said in 1992 to Deutsche Presse-Agentur "I was bisexual, I the mother of the nation... I have learned to know bodily love through a woman at 17. But that was the only time."
She said in 2001 to the magazine Bunte "Who ever is not bisexual is missing the best of course."
This article from 2000 [14] reports on an interview and the headline is 'Inge Meysel: bisexual and happy'. It claims that Meysel had her first and last sex with a woman.
A Yahoo search in German [15] produces many results. Gilliam 21:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Given all that, is she bisexual? I mean, one experience, but a couple of statements. What do others think? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the perspective of her generation I would say yes. That she used the term at all and said so. Did she ever deny it or was she married? Benjiboi 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I see no ambiguity here. We certainly can't second-guess an out bisexual based on whether or not she had "enough" same-sex partners. —Celithemis 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Based upon what you've cited here, there doesn't seem to be any question. Aleta 01:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Guess I was being overly cautious :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with a personal attack?

I reverted an exceedingly inappropriate non-NPOV edit in the hair removal article yesterday. Not only did the user revert back to the inappropriate version, but personally attacked me in the edit summary. I'm not certain what is the best course of action in these circumstances and would welcome suggestions from others. --AliceJMarkham 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Document and take the high road. Looking at that contributors effort for Dumb blond may indicate your not about to win new levels of enlightenment. Benjiboi 23:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPA says the initial response should be to ignore it. If things escalate, there's a list of options. But do let us know if that gets out of hand! – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Having dealt with a personal attack situation that started off tiny and ended up a big mess, I would agree that you "ignore" this initial attack but monitor this user's contributions to see if this sort of abuse is a pattern. The first steps of "official arbitration" basically involve apologies and bygones anyway; if you do see a continued pattern of abuse, you might want to leave a polite message on the person's talk page (or ask me to do it) telling them that their edit summaries etc. may be construed as offensive and should be toned down. Their response (or lack thereof) will probably tell you right away of they just had a bad day or if they're the "crazy type" that cannot possibly be convinced they are wrong. With an obvious pattern of bad behavior and some warnings, an unrepentant user can be blocked, sometimes forever. TAnthony 02:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not looking like getting out of hand. I had to laugh at his response to my comments on the talk page, though. :) --AliceJMarkham 05:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Has been nominated for speedy deletion. Has anyone got any sources for it? Nick mallory 02:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Although it's always nice to have an editor point out how an article could use help it seems like that editor simply tagged all these for speedy delete, I suggest watching for future activities. Mandate magazine, On Our Backs, Men (magazine), Playguy, Bear Magazine, QX (Swedish magazine), Gay Youth UK, GayRomeo, Gaydar (website), Utopia (website), Gingerbeer (web community), GayOne, DataLounge,,,, PlanetOut Inc.. Benjiboi 06:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

None of us have met in person?

182 members? Doesn't that seem ... wrong?

So is anyone up for a Northeastern US WikiMeet? I know there's another NH person, and David, you're in NY. And Fireplace, you're in Cambridge, MA, right?. Anyone else in the northeast? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I'd be up for a NE Meet. I'll photograph it. --David Shankbone 21:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Shame I can't go to the Manchester wikimeet, or I could have met WJBscribe... Anyone else here in England who could go to the Manchester one? Dev920, aka 21:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a date for the Manchester one? This may sound odd, given that I'm in Oklahoma, but... it would probably be easier for me to get to one in the UK than one in NE USA, given that I'm spending a good bit of time in the UK this summer. Philippe 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
June 8 has been decided, so far as I know. I got us in the Signpost as well, woo! DevAlt 15:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I should have known that was Dev by the Jake Gyllenhaal edits! --David Shankbone 01:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Lol, I suppose that does make it kinda obvious. DevAlt 15:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually in NY for the summer. I'd be into it. Fireplace 23:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
We are (sorta) having one in Madrid, Spain (actually, members of the Spanish project will be getting together for the Europride event hosted in Madrid this June). If you wish to drop by... ;-D Raystorm 10:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

California, anyone? — Emiellaiendiay 05:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Hey guys. :-) Seems there's a rising wave of Homophobia going through Eastern Europe right now. In Moscow, gays have been insulted and bashed for trying to give a letter to the mayor so he would allow the gay pride march (which is now prohibited). Well, the police not only didn't protect them, but in fact detained them. In Poland, authorities want to investigate if the teletubbies promote homosexuality. The European Comission was against it, and the polish authorities have backed down (for now). Do we have Homophobia in... articles? Should we add this kind of info to the Homophobia article itself (as they do in es:wiki, but, for some reason, not here)? What do you think? We could even create a Homophobia taskforce. I have a few interesting references about this phenomenom but (alas!) they're in Spanish. Cheers Raystorm 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Homophobia is hardly new and with increased visability comes increased violence - in word, deed or both. An article about homophobia in Eastern Europe might make sense but I caution against calling it a wave as that can be harder to prove and more subject, one person sees it clearly, another not so much. Benjiboi 17:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
LGBT rights in... would probably be the best place - see LGBT rights in Poland for example. And a taskforce is a great proposal, even if our track record with them so far has not been brilliant. :) DevAlt 06:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was using the words the media here have given these recent actions. :-) I'm more neutral than that (I think. I hope!). But there really has been a rise of Homophobia lately in Eastern Europe (Rusia, Latvia, Ukraine, Poland...). An article about it might not be amiss. At this point, I only want to know if people would be interested in creating a taskforce to coordinate and record all the info, in such an article or LGBT rights in... articles. :-) Raystorm 10:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest simply starting the most accurately titled article and adding to it as appropriate. Once it's created you might find other editors interested in the subject, and you can always re-post here for guidance or support if needed. Benjiboi 02:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual activity was de-criminalized in Russia in the '90's. What we're seeing isn't a rise in homophobia (ie, an increase in the number of people opposing gay-rights) but rather a vocal and violent backlash to homosexuals who are publicly asserting their legal rights. If homophobia in Russia were actually increasing, we'd see the Duma reestablishing anti-sodomy laws (etc), increasing enforcement efforts, lengthening jail times, and so on. But that's not what we're seeing. My guess is that the press wants Americans to feel all warm and toasty by comparing present day Russia to America when they really should be comparing present day Russia with Russia twenty, forty, and eighty years ago. Rklawton 04:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, I am not American and I’m not referring to what the american media says. :-) I am Spanish, and I make reference to european media. And that’s how they are calling it. If you haven’t seen the images coming from Moscow, then, well, the american media is really trying to keep you guys all 'warm and toasty'. I suggest searching for them at youtube. And as I said, the LGBT activists were gay-bashed by on-lookers and then arrested (yes, they went to jail) by the police. And that’s the most recent example. As I said, there are other Eastern Europe countries facing similar problems. Poland has this law against the ‘promotion of homosexuality’, etc... Sorry, but there’s no 'american media' conspiracy here. And I find it curious, to say the least, that you don’t consider 'a vocal and violent backlash to homosexuals' as homophobia. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we are seeing these same images in the media. However, the points I raised above still stand. Those arrested were attending a demonstration (asserting their rights as I noted above) whereas twenty years ago these same people faced arrest at home simply on a tip from an informant. That's a huge difference, one that doesn't mark a "rise" in homophobia. Rklawton 13:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
They were not attending a demostration, they were on their way to see the mayor. But I do not wish to discuss personal opinions about if there is a rise or not: european media consider there is one, and if we want to write an article about it, we have the sources. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 13:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC) PD: You think it's a huge improvement they were bashed and arrested instead of being arrested by a tip? I'd say it's the same, perhaps even worse.
Rklawton may be right here, Raystorm. Not that it isn't homophobia - but it may not be a rise in homophobia. It may just be more visible homophobia. The US had a similar situation during the 70s - see Anita Bryant. When the community starts advocating equal rights, the backlash is often violent and visible. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I used to live in Moscow, and I actually found it generally less homophobic than people had told me before I went. From what I hear, homophobia has almost certainly decreased since the Soviet era. We're not talking Amsterdam levels of tolerance here, obviously, but I really think that the violence we saw in the news is more to do with the rise of vocal right-wing groups than with a rise in homophobia itself. garik 14:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is everyone focusing on the word 'rise', anyway? The topic was about Homophobia in Eastern Europe, and if people here wanted to help contributing to such an article, or a taskforce about homophobia. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. Why did you write this at the start of the thread Seems there's a rising wave of Homophobia going through Eastern Europe right now? I simply wanted to make it clear that this was a false premise. Rklawton 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
False? I have said 'Easten Europe', have I not? And there are sources for what I'm saying. You seem to focus only on Russia. Whatever. I have an answer now. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 10:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should now address the pejorative term "homophobia." In a clash of ideas regarding morality and rights, it's not reasonable or fair to brand one side "phobic" when such a suffix is generally applied to clinically diagnosed psychological maladies. The LGBT community has been subjected do numerous slanders and slurs. However, I'm not at all certain that it's useful to return the favor – at least not in an encyclopedic forum. Rklawton 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

While it's true that the suffix "phobia" is generally applied as you describe, the term "homophobia" is well documented in the context of discrimination, as plainly seen (and cited) in the lead paragraph of Homophobia. If you want to dispute the use of the term, I suggest you start there. HalJor 20:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, RK. Whatever about the correctness of the term, it's extremely common parlance hence the article. We're kinda stuck with it :) It's clear from Phobia that the term is used in more than a clinical sense - Alison 03:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The Moscow attacks were front page in San Francisco this week. Also I'm not sure if it has been spelled out but the trend, in America with queer hate-crimes, is that although attacks percentage-wise are down the level of violence within attacks are higher. If you are still looking for a place to document information you might check out Violence against LGBT people. Benjiboi 09:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Rklawton, you aren't listed as a member of this project. Would you like to join it? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 15:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite. I don't think I'm a member of any project, actually. Too many folks feel that membership = cabal = COI (and they may have a point). My primary interests are photography, vandalism (fighting), academics, and (of all things) formatting (wiki-gnome type stuff). I've got wiki-friends here, so I pop in from time to time to say hi or see if I can help out with something. Rklawton 05:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gingerbeer (web community)

Has been deleted by a newly appointed 18 year old administrator. This site is a pathetic joke. Rubywine 00:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone else? (User:Tobbytobby) nominated some sites for speedy deletion last night, without bothering to use the right templates (db-web for some magazine entries) or noticing that previous deletions were overturned or decided as "keep". These sites included: Bound & Gagged (magazine), Blueboy (magazine), Adam4Adam, and OUTeverywhere. One did get deleted, though – I think it was Big Muscle. HalJor 00:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone contested Gingerbeer? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I am the author of Gingerbeer, and I've commented on Reedy Boy's talk page. If there's somewhere else I can go to contest the issue then let me know. But whatever the outcome, I didn't keep a spare copy of the article. I'm really annoyed about this. Rubywine 08:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Reedy Boy replaced Gingerbeer (web community) pretty immediately after Rubywine's complaint; see also Rubywine's talk page, where Reedy Boy was quite civil and responsive. I can't say that calling Reedy Boy "kiddiewinks" was particularly civil, however. --Yksin 08:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
And I can't say that deleting a decently written article which is tagged as coming under the scope of this project without any thought or discussion is particularly civil either. However, I was happy to accept his apology. Rubywine 09:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
To which I should add that Reedy Boy has come back again to offer help if there are any further problems with the article in future. So he is clearly a good guy, and I have apologised to him for the snarky tone I took before. Rubywine 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything we can do to prevent this sort of thing from happening? — Emiellaiendiay 05:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. (1) Write articles that besides asserting notabilty of the articles' subject, also proves it by with good, verifiable sourcing. Too many articles have little or no sourcing at all. If an article is worth starting at all, start it with good reliable info, even if its only stub length. (2) Keep articles on your watchlist & check your watchlist often in case batch-deletion homophobes or anyone else marks it for speedy delete or AfD. (3) If it is marked for deletion, advocate for it with intelligence & civility & facts. If the person who marked it for deletion is a "bad guy," get help by discussing the situation with others here &/or with an administrator you trust. --Yksin 08:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This was the second (attempted) deletion within two days of an article which clearly asserts its significance. The article has good, verifiable sourcing, in that it points directly to Gingerbeer and its forum statistics, and anyone spending a minute there can verify that the site is highly active. What more do you expect? Even the most popular and significant of UK sites for LGBT women is highly unlikely to have received any attention from scholars or the mainstream press. The gay press is not archived on-line. We are a small social minority, with all that that entails. Rubywine 09:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rubywine. I don't know if we've met, but I'm glad to see you here. =) I've been involved with the LGBT Wikiproject for a few months now and I've become an admin in the meantime, so I see things from both perspectives. I've seen articles I wanted kept be deleted, and vice versa. There are some abusive users here, but we do our best to stay on top of them and minimize the damage. That said, there will be some articles that get deleted, for which you or someone knows they are notable, but others cannot verify that notability. WP:N is a guideline and open to interpretation, but WP:V is non-negotiable for all articles. If we can't verify something, then we can't print it, and if we can't verify anything about a subject, then we just can't have an article about it. Sources, of course, do not have to be online. A lot of people expect that they do, since this is an online encyclopedia, but actually an article can be entirely sourced by offline citations if that's necessary, as long as the citations are to reliable sources that fulfill WP:RS.
If ever you find that an article is deleted that should not have been, there are always options for undeletion. You've been here for a while, so this is a more general note to any newer users reading: there's help at Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?#What you can do about it. One of the most important things, though, is not to assume bad faith on the part of the deleting administrator. WP:RFA is pretty good at screening out jerks; almost all of Wikipedia's administrators are decent folks who want what's best for the project, and who only want to enforce our policies like WP:NPOV and WP:V. So if you feel like yelling at an admin, check my talk page for examples and try to use an appropriately enraged section header, like user talk:coelacan#What did you do that for?!?!?! Or, preferably, take a short break from the computer, fix a snack or walk the dog, and leave a cheery note on the admin's talk page asking what was the problem and how can it be fixed. A lot of admins are LGBT, many more are friendly, and this Wikiproject maintains good relations with the administrators in general. If there is one biased admin who's up to no good, the pattern will become evident and we have ways of dealing with that, but it's never advised to jump to that conclusion. And of course, every admin makes mistakes, every day, just like anyone else.
If ever anyone here feels that you need an admin advocate, you have my talk page and my email. I won't violate policy, but I will do whatever seems sane to help you out. And as a side note: from my observations, bias exists on Wikipedia, but this Wikiproject is not feeling much of the heat. ··coelacan 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Coelacan has put this very well. I am also an administrator, willing to step in when needed. Due to the nature of a Wiki, there will be all sorts of people, from first time users to seasoned administrators, all behaving according to their own interpretation of the policies and guidelines. There is no set standard way of interpreting things, and no centralized administration involved in day to day decision making. The closest we have to a central administration only steps in when the normal channels of solving disagreements fails. This means that people need to be civil and discuss their differences. It also implies that mistakes will be made, but they can be corrected. People who behave rashly or who take extreme positions end up loosing the trust of the community. Eventually they either calm down, leave the project, or get banned. – SamuelWantman 05:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Core Topics

The Core Topics list is now at 203, round about the number we said we would evaluate at. What does everyone think of the list? Is it ok? Is it broad and unbiased enough? DevAlt 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

New to the whole core topic idea but ... I would hesitate to put a cap and opt instead to choose a few from each category listed after getting the categories more well-rounded. Then looking at a historical and geo-political perspectives to ensure that the group of favored articles would be broad and inclusive and start from there whether it's 150-300 start with a round that's do-able. I probably wouldn't do too much as i have the attention span of a long commercial break so I imagine there are others who are in a like state. For categories I suggest adding Transman and Gender outlaws, I would change drag queen to just drag; I would remove Exodus Intl and Focus on The Family as I don't see either as having LASTING contributions that outweigh loads of other groups like MCC or the Radical Faeries. I would add Ellen and Rosie and Queer Eye for the Strait Guy. I also didn't see a LGBT / politics category but might have missed it. Benjiboi 15:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The list looks really good. I don't mind having a cap, as having a relatively short list inspires people to dive in and start pushing articles toward GA/FA status (it had that effect on me). But I also don't like the idea of a fixed, definitive list... maybe just let people make additions/subtractions (on a 1-1 ratio) as they see fit. It's sufficiently buried within the LGBT project that I don't think it'll attract edit warriors. Fireplace 15:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • First I even knew that the list even existed. Rather surprised cross-dressing didn't make the list. I sorta see it as fundamental. :) --AliceJMarkham 15:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Which reminds me , Sumptuary law would fit in that same category, the laws were used to separate classes and gender but once you make a leap of drag the rest is easy! Benjiboi 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
What about Unitarian Universalism and LGBTQ persons? UUism has been strongly supportive of the LGBTQ community and of SSM. Aleta 16:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Are either of those (Sumptuary law & UU) really core? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think so, but I admit to being biased. I think UU is at least as important as Falun Gong, which is in the list. I'll go along with whatever others think though. Aleta 23:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Sumptuary law is drag 101 and should be put in the drag category and le whoever does the work decide if it's important, the article itself is pretty extensive. Benjiboi 23:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Another set of eyes...

Could I get someone to take a look at The Dresden Dolls? Are they Category:LGBT musical groups? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the last bit of Trivia (which is cited), I would have to say "yes". I didn't read the source, though. HalJor 22:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Mmmm. They're seen as, by many. I cannot comment as to the sexuality nor identity of the members, but the lyrics ... well, the lyrics are certainly LGBT-themed - Alison 22:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, Amanda Palmer = bi - Alison 22:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Right - so Amanda has Category:LGBT musicians from the United States. Does that make The Dresden Dolls an "LGBT musical group"? Doesn't that mean the group is LGBT? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this article. --Allyn 04:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeking input into Newsletter

Does anyone have any input for the Newsletter? It's looking really sparse :) But I'd like to get it out in the next day or two, since it's already the 4th... – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that we consider a recruitment drive to find folks interested in LGBT issues who perhaps have limited experience with wikipedia but who might be willing to help research or even just read over articles checking for grammar, typos and accuracy. As the place is open 24 hours were pretty flexible schedule-wise! I envision reaching out to students and other folks in the education industries who have a vested interest in good research resources. Benjiboi 02:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And we can have a summer theme like "knowledge is hot!" Benjiboi 02:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

BAYSWAN tagged for speedy delete

Hey all. I added BAYSWAN to add context to another article about activist Carol Leigh and it's been tagged for speedy deletion - The given reason is: notability of the organisation is not suggested, WP is not Yellow Pages. BAYSWAN is widely quoted throughout WP and academia and I think I've fluffed the article to a decent stubby level but would like someone else to look at it as I'm bleary eyed for now. All suggestions appreciated. Benjiboi 03:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You've done a good job of getting the article to a good place. About the only thing I could suggest that would keep it from getting deleted for sure is to find a reliable source specifically about the organization. Not an easy task, given the subject, but if you can find one, you'll be free and clear. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a damn good job of work on this article, Benjiboi. However, while no longer in danger of speedy delete, it's been put on AfD – see AfD discussion here. After reading the AfD nomination I went & found some articles through NewsBank – a subscription news archive service that I have access to – three of which document the early history of BAYSWAN as it was happening (1997). I've emailed them to myself, & will add info from them tomorrow when I get a chance. Too late in the night for it now.
Another thing which might be done for this article is to see if there are other articles which relevant to this one which might link to it. --Yksin 07:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, I've added a bunch of items through reverse research (finding research papers then tracing their research to find buried and misnamed articles.) Thanks SatyrTN for the one posted to the talk page. The subject's website is also "special" in its organization so that didn't help at all plus the different sex-worker organizations share research duties and don't always push for name recognition. (I think this comment was left by Benjiboi – Yksin.)
Just did a whole buncha work, with further sources. Thank goodness also for the Internet Archive, because that helped track down some stuff about what BAYSWAN was originally founded to do, & what organizations collaborated in its creation. --Yksin 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Result of AfD discussion was speedy keep, so this article is now safe. --Yksin 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on the use of pictures


For a while, I had a picture of myself in the Radical Faerie article showing an example of a Radical Faerie in full drag.

Someone took the picture off of the article, saying that I was too prominent in the picture, violating Wikipedia policy.

I looked through the policies and I could not find anything regarding having pictures of yourself in Wikipedia article, as long as you were not trying to sell anything in the picture or the article.

Do any of you know of anything prohibiting or discouraging pictures of oneself in Wikipedial articles? I would like to have some input before I decide whether or not to replace the picture.

Thank you for your help.

Cleara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allyn (talkcontribs)

In looking at your talk page, it appears that they had a lot to say - including citing the relevant policies.[16] The main issue I see is that the images are relatively low quality - and that may detract from the article. However, I'd recommend leaving the images up until someone (yourself perhaps) can replace them with higher quality images. In short: leave the images up - they're no big deal. Rklawton 04:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointint that out; I forgot to mention that I had removed the link to my web site from my page here (someone had added it back and I removed it again. Also, at the time, I changed my own web site to indicate that I am not accepting commisions any more due to time limitations. I had hoped that these efforts would eliminate any suggestion of spam (as I am no longer in the business). However I have been having pictures (including the one in Radical Faerie) removed after my removing my link and clearly indicating that I am not taking commissions. As far as the quality of these pictures, I am saving up for a better digital SLR; the one that I have (Canon eos30d) is not a full size frame. The full frame camera (eos5d) is probably the one that I need for decent low light level work for the lighted clothing. That is in my plans for later this year. --Allyn 12:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The 30D is a nice camera. However, to improve your photos, I recommend a less busy background, longer exposure times, and patience. The model will have to hold very still, but that's where the patience comes in. Alternatively, you might consider a manikin to model your garments. In that way, you can use much longer exposures. The 5D performs a little better in low light conditions, but since you are shooting still-life, you really don't need it. I'd much rather shoot a still-life at ISO 100 with a 5 second exposure than pay an extra couple of thousand dollars to shoot at ISO 6400 with a 1/80 second exposure. Rklawton 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

1972 Gay Rights Platform

1972 Gay Rights Platform is only sourced from rather dubious websites. But isn't it in some 1970s book too? Is this a legitimate document? If so, should it be moved to WikiSource? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Living Memory LGBT History Timeline from Trans perspective

Transgender Aging Network has launched a project - Living Memory LGBT History Timeline to assist with aging LGBT folks "It is impossible to tell without asking someone precisely which public events shaped their lives, but knowing what was likely reported in newspapers and discussed at dinner parties during a person’s lifetime may help you understand how their worldview was shaped. To offer insight into the concerns, lifestyles, and belief sets of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people who are now 50 and older, the Transgender Aging Network has constructed the following timeline showing how old they would have been when there were critical events or changes in the lives of LGBT people." Starting with the 1920s the events list can be cross-referenced with current GLBT timelines and used as a possible stepping stone to aid Trans projects and awareness. The PDF version is here [17] Html via Google is here [18] Benjiboi 04:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, great link. What a cool project, thank you. Joie de Vivre 06:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A Separate Wiki for LGBT studies?

I am genuinely shocked that the BAYSWAN article was even considered for deletion - especially when you consider all the trivial crud that goes unchallenged. Having to defend socially useful, decently written articles against all the so-called Deletionists seems a total waste of time and effort. I am seriously beginning to question whether I want to spend any more time at all supporting Wikipedia. Wouldn't it be more efficient and productive - and helpful for the global LGBT community - to set up a separate Wiki for LGBT Studies? Please discuss. Rubywine 17:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but no, I do not think it would be helpful. The benefit of Wikipedia is that our history is integrated with global history. I disagree with balkanization in this regard. It is up to us to defend notability, and we all have let-downs as to what is not considered notable. If something is of particular note and interest to the LGBT community, then e-mailing members and letting them know an important article is in danger of being deleted is one tool we have. It's up to each member to review the notability and make a decision. There are, however, problems. For instance, one thing that came out of my recent trolling problem is over drag queens. I'm not "into" drag queens, but they may interesting subjects to photograph. My troll went on to Miss Understood and kept trying to get the article deleted for lack of notability. Drag queens are typical not the source of news stories and discourse in the MSM, so finding mainstream sources that evidence notability can be challenging, and it was in this case. One of the sources is an erotica magazine (but also the NY Times). Drag queens have played a vital role in our community since Stonewall, like 'em or not. But they aren't the topics of mainstream coverage, usually. Here in New York, *I* know Miss Understood is a notable drag queen, and so do many others here, but finding mainstream sources that confirm it can be difficult. --David Shankbone 18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ideally, perhaps, but Wikipedia is such a well-known, much-used source of information that it seems like our best interest would be served by focusing our attention here. And as far as BAYSWAN, the article was a new, tiny stub when it was tagged, and the editor who did so seems to patrol new articles and mark them for notability, etc, which is something I do myself at times. Of course, I don't agree that he should be nominating everything for speedy deletion. But hey, his annoying tag did get the article up to decent status! TAnthony 18:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There are really three issues with that:

  1. Unnecessary duplication of resources - all the infrastructure, process, sources of help etc, are already here. To try and build that all up on a separate website would not make sense.
  1. Fall in visibility - people constantly visit Wikipedia, it's the ninth most popular site in the world. That means we have a massive captive audience to feed neutral, factual LGBT information to. Remember, we're working to bring knowledge to straight people as well as gay. Startinga separate wiki would immediately reduce our traffic, and also cuts off potential new recruits to the project. Additionally, all the publcity material I have created and have planned advertises here. :)
  1. Loss of manpower A lot of the people who work on our articles are only minorly involved in our project - they see themselves as part of Wikipedia, not WP:LGBT. To move to an entirely separate website would be to lose these casual users. On top of that, many of our regulars also edit widely outside of the LGBT purview - I personally only fell into editing LGBT through Jeffpw, if I hadn't met him through the LGBT Barnstar proposal; I also help with films, Jake Gyllenhaal-related articles, and general maintenence, and would be more involved in the politics articles if I didn't work here. Moving to another site to focus exclusively on LGBT would be a massive hassle for me, as I'm sure it would other people here. Concurrently with this, many of our top editors are now admins, and thus they have a vested interest in remaining here.

In conclusion, it's simply not, in the end cost-benefit analysis, worth moving. We'd gain ownership of our process, true, but we would also lose our resources, manpower and most importantly, our audience. If you want to strengthen our position here, try strengthening the project - we only know LGBT articles are up for deletion if they are tagged with our banner and listed on our tasks template, so you might want to check our potential new articles list to see if any need tagging. Try cross referencing our lists to find entries that haven't been tagged. If we don't know we oversee an article, we can't improve it,a nd we certainly can't save it. A lot of our articles are unsourced, so many people mistakely AfD them without realising their notability. And finally, the more editors we have, the more eyeballs look over all our articles, so recruit, recruit, recruit. :) DevAlt 18:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Dev! Aleta 21:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly agree. Moving away from wikipedia would be counter productive and would, in my opinion, be giving in to those who oppose our very existence. --AliceJMarkham 22:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I'd rather stick it out here & advocate for good representation here. I seriously believe that the recent rash of speedy delete attempts was the work of one or two particularly homophobic vandal-types, which unfortunately in a couple of cases resulted in less-experienced admins making errors – thankfully fixed in at least one case. But overall I think the LGBT studies stuff on Wikipedia is only getting better & healthier, and so with articles dealing with sexuality. BTW, BAYSWAN still has four days to go under AfD. Besides the nomination, three votes so far, all of them to keep. The article itself has undergone a huge amount of work – no longer a stub, & I think notability is pretty darn clear. --Yksin 23:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

From experience, there are 2 techniques for article creation that tend to avoid deletion. The first is good practice, the second is very dubious to the extent that I'm hesitant to mention it.

  1. Instead of creating a stub, aim to create the article at start class, complete with at least 6 solid refs. I don't know what implications that would have for jump-a-class.
  2. Create a redirect that makes sense. Wait several days before upgrading it to an article.

As I said, I see the 2nd method as dubious behaviour and would much rather see the first one. --AliceJMarkham 00:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is actually an LGBT wiki at - if they want to work with us I'm sure we could send them our best articles and maybe some other content. Could we build up a network in some way? Maybe you should act as our liason, Rubywine? DevAlt 11:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

New York Wikipedia Meet-Up

Hello all. Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC --David Shankbone 15:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

List of gay and bisexual people in modern written fiction

I have only just discovered this article exists. Can we clean it up a bit? It would be a great article to have if it were comprehensive. DevAlt 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comprehensivity is a pretty tall order! At first, though, I thought, well, I could at least add characters that I know of, & so could other people. But then I thought, well, no, I don't really find much use to this list, at least not in the way its organized now. To me a better organization would be to order it by author and book title, & then the characters within the book. That would seem much more useful for, for example, readers who was looking for good books that had LGBT characters. So... I doubt I will be contributing to this list in its present organization. But if consensus was that it be reorganized according to my suggestion, I'd be glad to contribute to it. --Yksin 01:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I believe there's a set of wikitools for creating a table that can be sorted by any column. That way it could be sorted by book, or by author, or by character. Should I look in to that? Or does anyone have a ref handy for that? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that would be great if we can do it. I've made a suggestion about renaming the page on its talk page. Aleta 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
See Help:Sorting.
There must be tens of thousands of gay and bisexual characters in books, though. It's not like TV or comic books where you can hope to be reasonably comprehensive. Limiting it to books with their own articles might help. —Celithemis 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not very hard to do. It's the same format as a regular wikitable, except that in the class header at the top, you put "wikitable sortable" instead of just "wikitable". Bearcat 19:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ad for Wikipedia ads

You may have seen the ads which display current Wikipedia projects. A user has expressed a request for me to make a banner on LBGT. This subject is generally controversial, and I do believe we have a general banner advertising WikiProjects, shown here at this link. Please leave me a note on my talk page or here, so that I can see opinions. Miranda 06:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is our previous discussion. And LGBT is not "generally" controversial, it's only controversial for those who don't know better. I fail to see how some people being bigots somehow means we have to edit or live our lives differently. DevAlt 10:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I must say I think most of those banners are quite dreadful, I personally would not want to add to the pile. I also feel it takes away from the user experience of being a good reference source as opposed to a commercial space with pop-ups and other distracts like banner ads. Benjiboi 10:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree, they are visually appealing. And I believe they're for user pages, not articles, so it doesn't affect the user experience of the casual reader. I like them as promotional tools for the Projects. TAnthony 13:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
lol! We can agree to disagree, you say appealing - I say appalling but more to the point if they are just on user pages I can wretch politely in the comfort of my own abode. Moving into a more constructive phase I want to now vote that they be more fabulous than not to keep in line with the queer stereotype of fashion visionary and, of course, camp humor.Benjiboi 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Of course, I said I like them, and yet haven't implemented them on my own user page as yet. Hmmm. TAnthony 15:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Dev, didn't you already have one made for us? I didn't see it in the list, but I couldn't watch the blinking things for too long - might induce epilepsy :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I may have asked, but I don't think I ever heard anything back. We never finished the deisgn, so I may well not even have got that far... DevAlt 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) LOL, these "dreadful ads" take a lot of time to make...almost a day, with the design, font, sizing, etc. Second, I think this image with the flag and the pen would be okay. All I need is what the text should be on the ad, if I am indeed making one. Miranda 17:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that banner looks great! And is serene (no movement or flashing, motion etc.) I posit "Building a better Wikipedia for all" Benjiboi 23:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


I'm thinking about AfD'ing Helen Wong. Anyone have any opinions? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Go for it. Barely notable if even, IMO - Alison 22:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've done some googling and am not coming up with much, and even less that looks like a reliable source. Aleta 22:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Allenina is huge in the T-girl world which is relegated to the XXX universe so would hardly be found in mainstream anything. Article should be named for her stage name. Benjiboi 23:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
actually I'll take the part about the article renaming back. Part of her legacy is as a cross-over actress in both mainstream and porn movies as a transexual t-girl. Benjiboi 23:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you know of any reliable sources about her? And what's she notable for? I mean, being a transsexual porn star isn't notable any more :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
As I stated, many if not most of her movies are in the XXX spectrum and, I believe, under several names, I know she appears at strip clubs, events, conventions, etc and is considered a star in those arenas which are all within the fringe adult entertainment arena of pre-op XXX T-girls. Finding notable sources for porn is always a challenge and t-girls are notoriously under the radar - although through artists like Allenina that is changing. I think her notabilities are found in that she acted as both male, and female, in mainstream and porn movies, was one of the first (if not the first to do so) and continues to travel, perform and act as an openly pre-op t-girl. Benjiboi 00:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless we can find a reliable reference, she's ripe for AfD'ing... – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Do what you must, you asked for opinion and you got it. Benjiboi 17:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


So we don't have a Collaboration of the Month for June. Or in fact for the rest of the year. If you have an article you'd like to see the project work on, please nominate it. Unless there's an overwhelming number nominated, articles will just be assigned as they're added. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Collaborations rarely add references, so please choose an article which is part of our essential purview and one which needs a lot of superficial work in terms of copyediting, small additions, lots of eyeballs etc. That way we maximise what we get out of a collaboration. DevAlt 14:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I nominated Zackie Achmat (the HIV+ gay, South African HIV/AIDS activist and Nobel Peace Prize nominee) in May for June. TAnthony nominated LGBT literature. Our original nominations are on the Collaboration Talk Page. I'm still confused as to where to do nominations. You link to the nominations page, but the nominations page directs back to here. So I hope this is the right place... Queerudite 17:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Doh!!! Sorry - didn't realize those were there. Ignore my previous post. Our collaboration for June is Zackie Achmat then :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

infobox spouse

what are the policies--if any--regarding the use of spouse within infoboxes to indicate one's sig-other/life-partners etc. there's a mini-revert war going on over at Charles Nelson Reilly, and before i jump in with all fours with my opinion, i'd like to see where the community stands on the issue. --emerson7 | Talk 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for it, a la the Chip and Reichen "scandal" when The Amazing Race referred to them as married. However, I'm unaware of any policy or convention that supports it and I'm sure it'd be hard to enforce. Opposers would argue that if we allowed "unmarried" partners, editors would start listing celebrity boy/girlfriends and we'd have to change Wilmer Valderrama's infobox every week. ;) Of course, for gay couples who have officially married in other countries (Armistead Maupin) or are registered legal domestic partners (as in California) I think it's worthy and enforcable to list in infoboxes. TAnthony 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Or they could have been legally married in that other country, Massachusetts ;-) - Kathryn NicDhàna 00:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
LOL, forgot to mention that one ... ;) TAnthony 01:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Spouse" notation on infobox templates

[Copied from User talk:SatyrTN, as it applies here. And, by the way, I agree with the idea to adapt the template to allow a "partner" parameter that would only appear if used. TAnthony 00:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC) ]:

Hi there-- as we have seen with Charles Nelson Reilly and others, the infobox template as it stands is both heterosexist and US-centric. People who wish to diminish the value and legitimacy of LGBT relationships, or promote a DOMA-type definition of "marriage" in general because of a personal belief POV, will make the argument we saw on the Reilly talk page. The issue is not just that article, but the template itself.
As the least contentious option, I would propose a second line be added to the template right under "spouse =" that says something general enough to cover all serious committed relationships. Reilly and Hughes were together for 27 years. Some heterosexual couples are together for long periods without marrying. Perhaps "companion =" or "life partner =" or "partner ="? I'd prefer something like that over a more sexualized term like "lover =" or something less serious like "boyfriend =" etc. Perhaps once we think on this a bit, we can raise the issue on the template talk page after reaching consensus among the LGBT editorial project team? In a perfect world, any committed relationship would be given at least the same recognition as, say, Britney Spears' 55-hour marriage to Jason Allen Alexander. Jokestress 23:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I just did that: changed infobox actor so there's a line for "partner", & changed the infobox for the Charles Nelson Reilly article so his partner shows as a partner, not a spouse. Other bio infoboxes need a similar change. It was easy to do. --Yksin 00:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Is partner unambiguous enough? Consider Raymond Burr and Robert Benevides: they were indeed life partners, but they were also business partners, owning and managing a vineyard together, information which is contained in the article on Burr. Isn't "partner" in this instance – presumably there are others like it – potentially confusing? --Rrburke(talk) 11:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
"life-partner" seems to be the phrase du jour for both queer and straits who aren't married. When in doubt check with a kindergarden teacher - they know everything! Another marriage example not referenced is when a traditional male/female couple is married and one of them transitions gender. Unless legal challenged and judged against the marriage license stands. Benjiboi 13:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "partner" can be ambiguous between "business partner" & "life partner". And yet I have never once referred to my partner as my "life partner", though we've been together for 14 years. The phrase "life partner" is treacherous, because just as a lot of married people get divorced, so do a lot of "life partners" unpartner themselves, even after lengthy periods of time living together. "Companion" is almost okay... but then, my cat is my companion too – it really does have a rather pet-like aspect to it.
There is also the possibility of going back to "spouse" with the argument that "spouse" is not necessarily a legal definition – which is what the person insisted who had the original problem with the Charles Nelson Reilly infobox.
Personally, I continue to prefer partner when discussing my partner, or other unmarried partners. Maybe "domestic partner" to differentiate from "business partner" – but I disagree with "life partner" for the reason I've already given. Let's keep on discussing this until we can come up with a consensus, & then if necessary can go change the actor infobox & other bio infoboxes. --Yksin 17:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I've never referred to my wife as my "spouse" either, but I don't think I can object to the continued use of the term on those grounds. I think a broader consensus of what common practice is, beyond what individual preference might be, should probably be sought. Are you aware of any sources on the topic – magazine articles on the naming difficulty, for instance? Maybe the following exercise might offer a useful starting point: what clarifying alternative would you reach for if you introduced your partner as your partner and your interlocutor seemed confused? --Rrburke(talk) 20:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't carry any weight, since it's just an opinion piece, but The Advocate had an article about what word to use. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I want to add that if we come up with a consensus on a word to add to bio infoboxes, we probably should also bring up discussion with WP:Biography. --Yksin 01:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

For Wikipedia purposes, it is not relevant as to what he could be called, it is only relevant what WP:RS generally called him (if anything). If they generally called him "spouse" then he is spouse for purposes of the Charles Nelson Reilly article. If they generlly called him "partner," "life partner," or whatever then he is partner, life partner, or whatever in the Wikipedia article. If there is little to no mention of his relationship to Riley in WP:RS, then the answers obvious, he shouldn't be mentioned in the article. By placing the burden on WP:RS, we can avoid injecting our personal beliefs in the article content. If the Infobox does not have the designation generally used in WP:RS, simply modify the infobox on a case by case basis. – Jreferee 18:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Am looking for input at Template talk:SSM#US States. Another editor and I are in disagreement over whether or not individual US states should be listed in the template. If you have a second, I would appreciate your input. Note that I will be "out of the wikioffice" for the coming week, but will be sure to check back in as soon as possible on this...interesting...discussion. ZueJay (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Just a quick note to let interested parties know that Burntapple, about whom there was some previous discussion here, has been indefinitely blocked. Burntapple was a sockpuppet of Grazon, previously indefinitely blocked. Visit the user page of either account for relevant links concering this problematic editor. —SlamDiego←T 09:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with New article

I have restarted The Houston Gay Pride Parade after being deleted (and obviously neglected), but I didn't know which portal or category, to put it under. If someone can help with this as well as someone to help that is more aware with the history, I would greatly appreciate it. --Hourick 16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Holsinger, Nomination for Surgeon General

So there's a lot of activity on the Holsinger page. Obviously this is a massively controversial issue at the moment. The Holsinger Wiki will undoubtedly becomes a major reference for the many staffers looking up general info on the man as his confirmation hearing approaches in a few weeks. If people are interested, please check it out. I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia, so I don't know all the rules and how exactly to deal with current, unfolding events. This is shaping up to be a major event in US LGBT medical and political history. At his hearing, Reparative therapy will almost surely go on trial before a national audience. I've been trying to keep the LGBT stuff above board on the page. But its challenging. OsteopathicFreak 05:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT by religion?

Does anyone else feel the Category:LGBT people by religion (and three subcats) is ... out of place? I'm not sure labeling people by sexuality and religion is a) all that important, and b) very useful? It also seems to go against Wikipedia policy. Thoughts? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but if people are going to use the subcats, they need to be sure the relevant cited info, for both sexuality and religion, is in the article. I had to take off two cats Muslim cats, one of which was LGBT Muslims, from an article that had no mention of the subject's religion. We all have to be careful about following WP:BLP. Aleta 03:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's relevant because of the nature of the relationship between LGBT people and religion. Having a Muslim businesspeople category for instance would only serve to marginalize Muslim businesspeople from the broader business community, but the experience of being LGBT and Muslim is distinct enough to warrant its own category. To me, the relevance is demonstrated by the strong community ties that form around LGBT-religious identities. Queerudite 05:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Being gay and a certain religion or sect within a religious group is relevant and helpful to researchers. Benjiboi 11:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Musical Groups

What's the definition? A group made up of only LGBT performers? Mostly LGBT? Just one? LGBT-supportive? There's a discussion going on at Category talk:LGBT musical groups - would love some input. – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul DeBoy

There appears to be a great deal of confusion between Paul DeBoy and his cousin, PJ DeBoy. It appears that PJ is the gay cousin, not Paul, and therefore the LGBT project tagging of Paul's article may be wrong. I am going to stubify Paul's article. If somebody wants to write an article about PJ and put your tag on that, please do so. I have removed the LGBT tag from Paul's article. Corvus cornix 04:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Three questions

Where would I go about:

  1. asking people to help with an article that looks pretty POV?
  2. suggesting an expansion for the scope of the project?

Can someone make a list of the various Talk pages and where different types of comments should be directed? I am not certain that this comment is in the right place; I find Portals slightly confusing.

Joie de Vivre T 11:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Right here, and right here :)
The portal, as I see it, is a place for casual readers, interested in LGBT articles as a whole, to start. It's not so much project related as the "face" the project puts out for readers. IMHO, anyway :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT portal on individual bio

hey'all, I'm not terribly bothered one way or another but an editor has removed the LGBT portal for Rosie O'Donnell stating "the portal is for articles about LGBT issues, not appropriate on an individual's bio page." True? Anyone care? Benjiboi 22:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that editor. Biographies of LGBT people are definitely within the purview of this project, and there is no reason the LGBT series box shouldn't be on the pages of those bios. Aleta 02:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't really care one way or the other either, but I don't see it on other prominent performers who are gay - none have the portal so I wonder why it's being inserted on Rosie O'Donnell. Seems to be about issues, not individuals. Is there precedent? In fact I have not found the portal on any bios other than Rosie's, in a spot check of over a dozen pages of people who are in the various categories of gay actors, etc. Tvoz |talk 03:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
So it sounds like it's fine to have the portal there it just needs to be added onto other bios as well. Does that seem right and if so do we have a plan to do it or do we need one, or is this along the lines of a core topic list of priorities? Benjiboi 04:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the other editor, that the portal does not belong on the article page of individual bios, unless that bio includes a reasonably large section on LGBT topics (and the portal should be placed in/near that section). The Project link should always be on the talk page of relevant articles, but the portal should be on the main article page only when LGBT is prominent. My 2¢. HalJor 06:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better to just put the portal template than the full lgbt series infobox? Aleta 20:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know which one you're talking about - the O'Donnell article has {{LGBT}} which I think is disproportionate to the content of the article. And again, Mary Cheney, Melissa Etheridge, Ellen de Generes, Elton JOhn - and any celeb in the LGBT categories that I've clicked on - none have any of these portals or templates. Their articles are bios, not articles about LGBT issues, and I maintain that the templates are not appropriate. Tvoz |talk 21:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is {{tl:Portal|LGBT|Portal LGBT.svg}}, which produces this box/link. Aleta 22:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the portal would be okay - most notably in a "See also" section, but since this article does not have one of those... But the infobox is too much. Have altered the article to reflect this. ZueJay (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Procedure REQUEST FOR COMMENT for article "The Rocky Horror Picture Show"

As per Wikipedia procedure for dispute resolution I am asking any and all members of this project to add input on a dispute over deletion of Taglines for this film, which was added to the National Film Registry in 2005. The original tagline "A Different Set of Jaws" is also listed as one of the most memorable taglines in history along with others. I also have at least one other reference source, an article on "The Rocky Horror Picture Show as Cultural Performance" with mention on the cultural impact of the tagline "Don't Dream It, Be It." Input is needed to resolve a current "Edit War" where an Editor keeps deleting without adding a better reason than he "Does not believe they are notable" with no further reference to back up the assertion. Thank you. --Amadscientist 23:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

anyone able to interpret Polish?

This was posted in Homophobia article:

  • Poland: W czerwcowym (2007) wywiadzie dla polskiej wersji Newsweeka wiceminister zdrowia Grabowski ( w rządzie J. Kaczyńskiego) zapowiedział, że jego resort przygotowuje się do "policzenie wszystkich gejów i lesbijek w Polsce" oraz wdrożenie programu propagującego "zdrowe, heteroseksualne wzorce" [19]


Benjiboi 20:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing LGBT topics


This anon-user has been removing LGBT info from many articles.

The user also posted at Category_talk:Lesbian_actors#Categorizing_by_sexual_orientation, saying "Categorizing by sexual orientation is non-encyclopedic and should not be done at all. The only time a person's sexuality should be mentioned is when it is a fundamental element of their contribution or professional activities. Otherwise it's often inaccurate, rumor, innuendo or serves only to titilate or serve an agenda." --Silvestris 15:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking for essay about usage of "fag" as derogatory

Hi there. I've been hunting all over wiki-community for this. I can't remember the title, but it was a "Wow, it's great that you're being supportive and celebrating that your friend is gay" way of mocking the inappropriate usage of "fag" as an insult. Can anyone point me to where this article is? ColtsScore 20:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not thinking of m:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles, are you? – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Hey all, I am new to wiki and not sure of protocol, but if one or more of you could check out the heteronormativity entry and edit/delete/put in your 2 cents on the discussion page about the "defense of" section, which makes no sense and requires further research into Will Smith's wife (?!) to make heads or tales of, I'd appreciate it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:02, 20 2007 June (UTC)

Watchlisting deletion discussions

If you haven't already, I recommend going to the top of this page, and in the "Open Tasks" box, click "Watch". This will notify you on your watchlist when new AfDs are posted. Thanks! SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Homintern accuracy

I was looking at the article Homintern, and I saw it didn't cite any sources. Would it be possible for someone to check how accurate it is? Drum guy 19:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I put a few references on the talk page that could be worked in, a quick search on Google brought up quite a few references so the term seems above board. Benjiboi 21:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

German, anyone?

If someone with some knowledge of German could take a look at Hirschfeld Eddy Foundation and their website: [21], there's an issue of notability at the associated AfD. Thanks - or rather, Danke! :) – SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Julian Mitchell

Hi --

I assume this project should not only be about people who are (openly) GLBT, but also about anyone who contributes to GLBT culture. As such, I think Julian Mitchell should be a part, whatever his orientation, because he has written Another Country (play) and Wilde (movie), among other things.

I can't really find much out about him, but I'd really love to read an interview. He must be in his 70s by now. --Jaibe 22:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I return.

I am now back at the keyboard, so if anyone needs my help or wants to message me about anything, feel free. I'm going to overhaul the main page in the next few days (nothing splendid, just making everything bit more accessible for everyone) and get on with our to-do list of LGBT people who aren't on our lists. I'm aiming to oblierate them before Thursday, so if anyone wants to help me with that undertaking, I would be grateful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

July collaboration

I am suggesting LGBT literature for July's Collaboration of the Month. This article is meant to be a much-needed overview/analysis of the genre, in particular its history, but is now not much more than a list (which itself began as a jumping-off point, but editors continue to add authors and titles instead of actual content). I have been anxious for this article to be expanded, but unfortunately I am not knowledgable on the subject and haven't had time to do any research. Pending this article becoming a Collaboration, if anyone is able to step up to the challenge (or knows someone who can), please do. TAnthony 16:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support that collaboration. The trouble is, the article itself seems difficult to write. Do we want something like this [22] for LGBTs? That would take some time but a collaboration can't hurt.Zigzig20s 15:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, African American literature is a perfect example; it will certainly take time, but someone out there must be an expert/have a special interest, or have a term paper they wrote on the subject that they can adapt!  ;) TAnthony 20:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)