Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20

Judy Garland

Promoted to FA!!! Congratulations to User:Otto4711 and all the others that helped to get it there! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Rookie question

So I'm new to this gay mafia project, but I was wondering if Kimpton Hotels & Restaurant Group should be added to the project? I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with them, but it's one of the most gay-friendly companies and hotel chains in the country. Look at their website's LGBT section.[1] They do alot of charity work and cater heavily to the LGBT crowd. I know they're popular with the gays here in D.C. I'm not sure if companies are added to the project or not, but I thought I'd check with you guys and gals...and those in between.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! The article has a well-ref'd section regarding LGBT issues. --Phyesalis (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Done.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

More category puzzles

I nominated the Christian Wikipedian and American Wikipedia categories for deletion using the same rationale which was used to purge Wikipedia of the Gay Wikipedian categories. Both were speedily closed by admin Jc37 as speedy keeps without any discussion allowed at all. On the face of it, this seems a double standard to me, and I am wondering if anybody has any thoughts on what, if any, action should be taken about it. Personally, I think we should simply start a category titled "LGBT Wikipedians interested in collaborating", and use these speedy keeps as precedent for keeping our category when it is inevitably nominated for deletion. The current LGBT category has a userbox which says, "This user is interested in LGBT issues - which does not necessarily reflect the user's sexual orientation". Unless we can add ourselves to the category without such a disclaimer, I am removing myself from it. Jeffpw (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should trim down the four paragraphs on Category:LGBT Wikipedians and add something similar to Category:Christian Wikipedians. Just so that category is safe from deletion as well. I'd hate for them to worry about their cat being deleted. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
If the userbox says that, then there should be a different userbox that isn't so equivocal. "Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues" is not the name or point of the category. I don't know that trying to delete other categories is constructive, though - I think what you want is to have categories retained on the same basis, and if the categories you nominated are deleted it spells the inevitable deletion of the LGBT Wikipedian category (again). The most powerful argument is that these categories need to be dealt with collectively and not by cherry picking. I'm fine with seeing the intro paras of the category refined or removed, but making this argument and providing some background was my primary motivation for writing it. Avruchtalk 16:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
That's easily fixable with Category:Wikipedians interested in Gays, Category:Wikipedians interested in Queers, Category:Wikipedians interested in Lesbians, Category:Wikipedians interested in Bisexuals, etc. :P - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 16:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No offense was intended towards you, Avruch! My point was that we're forced into having a full page of info defending our category, whereas other categories escape CfD speedily. Perhaps adding the defensive language to the other cat will help people understand the disparity. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Satyr, I don't think the Christians are worried. After all, they have the lord on their side. They've put up with being eaten byb lions, I doubt a category deletion will bother them much...though I predict yet another stunning KEEP result for that malignant devout category. Jeffpw (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that transferring the language on isolated deletion to the other similar usercats is a good idea, both in the GF sense and in promoting general parity. LOL, though I agree that the Christians probably aren't too worried. -Phyesalis (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Something for the Ladies!

Bisexuality Not A Transitional Phase Among Women, According To New Research

Angelina Jolie is taking calls! Benjiboi 01:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality in sports

I was reading Alone in the Trenches: My Life As a Gay Man in the NFL by Esera Tuaolo, which is very moving by the way, a good read. I am active in St. Louis Rams WikiProject and a general fan of the NFL and I thought I would see if there is an article about homosexuality in the NFL or in sports in general. The only one I saw was Homosexuality in women's sports‎. Would any be interested in or find notable to have an article about homosexuality in sports in general? Or even homosexuality in the National Football League? --Pinkkeith (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Ray McDonald (running back). -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The lesbian article is just begging for a sports section to be added. It would be more of a summary but might be a good place to start. Benjiboi 18:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Homosexuality in figure skating is just begging to be created and heavily vandalized. Kolindigo (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Gay Olympians could be a timely article and also heavily vandalized, perhaps we could develop a tour for vandals? Benjiboi 04:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
"And on your left, you will find premium flaming ground for both homosexuals and athletes you can't stand. On your right, the Washington Monument. Please watch your step." Kolindigo (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Gay porn!

Hey homos - I'm interviewing porn king Michael Lucas (porn star) on Sunday. There are two purposes to this interview: 1. to clarify problems he has with his Wikipedia page (even if we don't remove info, we can give his side); and 2. to talk philosophically about the porn industry and the life of a porn star. If you have a question you'd like to ask Mr. Lucas, please leave it on my talk page. I hope you all are doing well out there in your Wiki worlds. --David Shankbone 01:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Right. "talk philosophically". Sure. Are you taking pictures of you two "talking philosophically"? And will they be available at my favorite sites?
=D =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little envious, David, at your chance to interview such a hunk. But does that not amount to "original research"? Not trying to be a smartass here, just genuinely wondering. (But even if it is, by all means, enjoy! And get us some good pics too . . . .) Textorus (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I imagine it's not OR since he's probably doing the interview for Wikinews, of which David is a credentialed reporter. And if by hunk, you mean "yuck!".. lol :P - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 04:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's a Wikinews story. Lucas is actually quite an intellectual and we have had some pretty heavy philosophical e-mails (e.g. "What is love?") so don't count him as a lightweight. He's very passionate about his beliefs, and I assured him that if I could tongue-tie the President of the ACLU no less than two times in an interview, I could probably tongue-tie him. --David Shankbone 04:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the image! =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I had to postpone my Lucas interview by a week, just FYI. --David Shankbone 02:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Lucas (porn star) COI

Resolved

FYI on a WP:COI Noticeboard debate involving User:David Shankbone and the Michael Lucas (porn star) article in: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Michael Lucas (porn star). — Becksguy (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Closed today as not COI. — Becksguy (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

David Leavitt

Someone created a disambiguation page and the author would go as David F. Leavitt, but tbh I have *never* heard him being referred to that way. Is my dismay misguided?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

They've changed things again, and whilst I think it would be all right now (as per David Leavitt (author)), they've also removed the wikiproject tags.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It's been fixed (see Talk:David_Leavitt).
Call me cynical, but it seems someone wants to make sure that David O. Leavitt gets mentioned early on. --Sturm 20:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Paddock Club

This article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paddock Club, with the reasoning "Non-notable. Kill it with fire." Pairadox (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take a look at it and see if I can tidy it up so deletion won't occur. I lived in Greenville for a while and I want to keep the article.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There's already been a good bit added to the article that seems to have given this article a bit of a firmer foundation. I'm especially proud of finding the Playboy's "best place to pick up chicks" bit... You can't make stuff like that up. The AfD was closed because of the nominator's track record, but the article still needs some work. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions?--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW: Most of the article is still reads as someone's fond remembrances, though recent cleanup has hidden that a bit. This leaves a good bit of the article completely unsourced as well. Additionally, having the article orphaned is never a good thing: orphans tend to get pruned off every now and again. - Mdsummermsw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try to work on it some more...after I eat this delicious pint of strawberry cheesecake heaven I purchased this afternoon. That's right, don't be jealous. (FYI: APK is a sweets addict and stops all activities to enjoy his sugary habit) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Tone

Is he worthy of an article? [2] He's Andrew Sullivan's husband, but also an artist and sometimes actor. Thoughts?--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I take that as a no. Anyway, it looks like Teddy couldn't rid himself of his gay affliction.[3] AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User categories

Help request

Would someone who is not me please take a look at Rick Pantera? I'm trying to believe that World News International (talk · contribs), despite the name, is a well-meaning newbie that could be coaxed into being a good wikipedian. To that end, I haven't outright speedied the article, and I haven't alerted hir that Mr. Pantera doesn't seem notable by any standard and the article is ripe for anyone to come by and speedy it, prod it, or even afd it. So if someone else could lend a hand, I would very much appreciate it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it might meet the porn bio notability but the videography section as certainly too HUGE to handle. Benjiboi 02:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I just left a note on the talk page of the article - the descriptions of the videos need to be deleted completely - they read as pure advertisements, not at all appropriate for an encyclopedia. Aleta (Sing) 02:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the descriptions need to go. I have been known to watch porn (allegedly), but Wikipedia isn't the place. My DVD player on the other hand... AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Which hand? Wait - not here. ANYWAY... :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Look at the user box near the bottom of my page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice userbox. lol :P - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 08:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
"Which hand do you wank with?"
"Depends."
"On what?"
"Whether I'm moving a mouse."
Which brings up a delightful image of one hand down your trousers and the other shoving a rodent around a table... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rick Pantera does meet notability guidelines, as he got a Grabby Award in 1994 - see here. Note that the community may need to act on this article if World News International (talk · contribs) starts to go too far into the use of the name Rick Pantera by another porn star years after this Rick Pantera left the business. There was a long thread on this at ATKOL a while back here. So, a disambiguation page may become necessary, and some help on encyclopedic content may be needed (as Titan stole my name and IMPERSONATOR!!!!!!!!!! are not - just to give a flavour of where I fear this could go, not accusing anyone of anything or saying these are direct quotes, as they are just the impression I recall of that thread). Jay*Jay (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the descriptions. I have no idea if the page author will want to replace them, but y'all might want to watch the article just in case. Aleta (Sing) 22:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Jay*Jay I would recommend doing the disam page and maybe even moving the current one so it's clear which is which Rick Pantera (porn actor 2000s) maybe? Benjiboi 23:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Help! I have just had a look at the information on disamguation. I understand the purpose, but am not sure how to create one correctly (or to move a page, for that matter). I also think that some disambiguation is needed in relation to the porn star Joe Foster. I was here and noticed Joe Foster (performer of the year) had a page. But, the page [[Joe Foster]] is a redirect to Slaughter Joe about a British musician, and I am pretty sure these are different people! Should the Joe Foster page be for the porn star, with a disambiguation link at the top for the musician? Or, should the Joe Foster page be a disambiguation page that links to both? Or, should the link from the GayVN Awards page just be removed? Or...? I'm confused. Would someone who knows what they are doing help please? Thanks, Jay*Jay (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
More Help Please. On the COLT Studio Group article, I have added in a mention of the 2007 proclamation of a 'COLT Studio Day' by San Francisco Mayor Newsom, to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the studio. I borrowed a ref from the Gavin Newsom page, but must have done something wrong as there is no reference list appearing. Can someone please fix this, and let me know so I can look and see what I should have done? Thanks (again), Jay*Jay (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 Done This is what you were missing. Pairadox (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Harlequin (color) encore

The AfD for Harlequin (color) has been closed as no consensus. Since the article is staying at least for now, does anyone know of a reliable source for its association with homosexuality? The original source was not very strong, and has long since been removed. Or, should we just remove our project tag from the talk page? Aleta (Sing) 01:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I may have hit the jackpot! Take a look at this - and Moni3, Gittings is mentioned in the very first paragraph, so take a look at that! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 08:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that blog isn't citeable for this, and doesn't explicitly mention harlequin at all, but it does point to some good possibilities for material that would be citeable. Even if it doesn't mention harlequin specifically, there may be some stuff worthy of adding to the articles for green and kelly green, possibly other shades. Aleta (Sing) 17:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - I didn't mean that was (in itself) an RS - but it has references to a whole host of sources that look RS. And I'm hoping some of those will mention the color by name or lead to a source that does. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry - I didn't think you were saying you thought the blog entry a RS, but were happy about the references there, and I was trying to agree with you! :) Aleta (Sing) 17:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
/me happy dances at Aleta :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL Aleta (Sing) 17:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Bonobo

Should we add Bonobo to the project? Bonobos are known for their sexual behavior, including both male and female homosexual behavior. The article talks about this - see in particular Bonobo#Sexual social behavior. So, LGBT project? Aleta (Sing) 23:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, qualifies as material related to LGBT and Queer studies. --Phyesalis (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've added it now. I thought it should be, but wanted to hear from someone else. Aleta (Sing) 00:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Um. Does that mean we have to add all these? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so; however, the bonobo is particularly noted for its sexual social behaviors. (They use sex all the time!) Aleta (Sing) 00:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Templating sections

I'd like to make the suggestion that Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies#New articles related to LGBT and Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies#Articles newly tagged as LGBT be moved to seperate pages and them be transcluded to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. Two reasons. Ease of editing the 2 sections and the main reason is so that users can transclude these 2 sections to userpage. So if I wanted to see changes made to these 2 sections I would put {{WikiProject LGBT studies/Articles newly tagged as LGBT}} on my userpage and each time someone made a change, I'd see it there. If there's a consensus, I'll build it. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 19:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Question: would we be able to click on an "edit" link directly from the main project page? (There's no reason why not, is there, it could be like the to-do list at the top of the talk page, right?) Aleta (Sing) 19:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Correct. An edit link would take you to the actual page to make the changes. So you could edit it from your own userpage or from Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 19:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
In that case, I have no objections. Aleta (Sing) 19:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No objections here. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No issues with your bot? Does it do any editing to these sections? I'm sure it wouldn't be an issue there, just sending the bot to the individual pages instead, but wanted to make sure. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's done..

To add New articles related to LGBT to your userpage/space, use {{Template:WikiProject LGBT studies/New articles related to LGBT}}
To add Articles newly tagged as LGBT to your userpage/space, use {{Template:WikiProject LGBT studies/Articles newly tagged as LGBT}}

I'll be putting them both at User:Allstarecho/LGBTinfo so I can watch and edit them from one place. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 20:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No issues with the bot - it doesn't do anything there. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, they should probably be moved to Wikipedia space. As in

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/New articles related to LGBT}}.

Mostly because they're sup-pages of the project, not really pages that will be used in articles. And the "/" makes them look like sub-pages anyway. Also, Wikipedia-space can be transcluded just like Template-space. Just a thought. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I moved them to Wikipedia: instead of Template: but that caused the 'e' edit link to fail since navbox template requires it to be Template:. So I moved it back to Template: - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion/request

Allstar, would you make the view and edit links separate, so that you can go to the editing screen directly from the page on which you're viewing the template? Aleta (Sing) 20:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried that but for some reason it wouldn't work. I'll work on it and see what's causing the issue. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 20:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Aleta (Sing) 20:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've implemented a temporary work around so that the edit link goes right to editing. I've got to find the code for getting to editing using direct wikilink instead of formatting to a full URL as I have it now. I remember seeing the code, just have to find it. For now, it still works. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 21:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Better Aleta? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks good! Thanks, ASE! Aleta (Sing) 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


Cooler heads

I don't know if many of you watch Homosexual transsexual, but there's a discussion on its talk page that might benefit from a greater diversity of viewpoints (i.e., yours!). The primary question is whether to include an image in the article. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange... I've seen that text before...

So I just got back from spending a day with Ann Bannon and I'm completely smitten. She signed all my books and is cooler than I could ever have hoped for. She gave me a signed calendar from the Lambda Literary Foundation, because she's in it, but in reading through the rest of the calendar, what do I notice that the month's entry on Barbara Gittings was lifted verbatim from the lead I wrote on August 28, 2007. So, I know my stuff is going to be plagiarized here on Wikipedia, but the Lambda Literary Foundation?? Wtf?? Do I write to them and tell them they're busted? --Moni3 (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL! I think that, because we're GDFL, they can pretty much get away with it. There might be something in the calendar that credits Wikipedia (should be, anyway). -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, sure I checked to see if it was credited at all, but no. They have the same photo I used at the top of the page, taken by her partner Kay Lahusen, and owned by the NYPL, but it's credited to some archive in Philadelphia. --Moni3 (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think writing them would be a good idea. It's one thing to use the Wikipedia information - it's quite another not to attribute it as such. When you write them, be sure to include the information about when you wrote the text, and maybe even include the link to the diff(s) where you added it. Aleta (Sing) 16:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
And that *is* strange. You would think a Literary Foundation, especially one that's relatively well known, would be above plagiarizing... <sigh> Ledger, Brannan, now this. I'm losing all my faith in my heroes. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Should I ask them for something? As in - you screwed up, now give us this? Except all nice-like. How about some exposure in the Lambda Book Report that goes out to LGBT writers? A little snippet of info about WP:LGBT studies? --Moni3 (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If you can ask for that in a nice way, that would be totally kewlio!!! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So I says to them, I says:
Dear Sir or Madam,

My name is (Mr. Mytzplk) and I am a member of Wikiproject:LGBT studies. We are a group of editors who create and improve articles pertaining to LGBT issues on Wikipedia. Under the user name Moni3, I created the article for Ann Bannon, and have worked on articles for Jane Rule, Gale Wilhelm, Tipping the Velvet, Marijane Meaker, Barbara Gittings, The Ladder, the Daughters of Bilitis, and Barbara Grier, among other topics.

I recently had the immense good fortune to visit Ann Bannon, who graciously gave me the Lambda Literary Pioneers calendar as a gift. While reading through it later, I saw to my astonishment the text describing Barbara Gittings was taken verbatim from the lead paragraph of her article, that I wrote on August 28, 2007. It has since changed, but it is possible to see its state on that day by looking through the article history, found with the "History" tab at the top of the page. All versions of edits on Wikipedia are saved. First, I'm flattered you like my words. Second, I'm a bit surprised and a little dismayed that the Lambda Literary Foundation didn't credit Wikipedia. I understand Wikipedia articles are made almost for the purpose of copying (I also wrote the article on To Kill a Mockingbird, so I can only imagine the numbers of middle school students I have written papers for), but I have not yet seen my words used by a foundation based upon literature.

I was wondering if this might benefit our project at any rate. I've used a few articles from the Lambda Book Report, so I have to recognize the value of your work. Should you be in need of a worthy topic in a future publication, Wikiproject: LGBT studies is indeed one. Some of us, like me, add most of the content to articles by researching and reading as much as we can. Some patrol articles endlessly to counter vandalism. Some argue policy that should make it easier for articles to contain conflicting information about people, events, and works of art that are related to gay and lesbian interests. And some effectively battle with other Wikipedia editors who don't see the value of articles highlighting gay and lesbian issues. We always need help from people who are interested. If you are amenable, we can write something for your publication.

Wikipedia is available to millions of readers. I believe it is eighth most visited website on the internet. It is closely linked with Google so that articles I write anonymously show up first, second, or third on Google results. Wikipedia is history and information, and its sometime lack of credibility is a disturbing illustration of just how tenuous our knowledge really is. We are trying to keep gay history and culture alive, from the most important people and events to the slightest reference, and place it on par of importance with any other aspect of information.

You can find my user page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moni3 You can find WP: LGBT studies here, which can give you an idea of our mission and accomplishments so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies My greatest accomplishment on Wikipedia is having my Ann Bannon article promoted to featured status.

I eagerly await your response and I appreciate your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

(Moni3)


That was nice, wasn't it? --Moni3 (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done, I say! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed! Let us know what you hear from them. Aleta (Sing) 23:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Foxy Moni3,

Thank you very much for writing, and for reminding me of the need to acknowledge Wikipedia -- I drafted the bios for the calendar, using a variety of sources, as you rightly guessed, and I'm embarrassed not to have credited Wikipedia for the quote at the beginning of the Gittings material. I've worked in publishing a long time, and believe in acknowledging sources, so as I said, I'm embarrassed by my error, and I don't know why I did it, other than sloppiness.

If we were to reprint the material, I would certainly add a credit, but unfortunately, we probably won't be reprinting this year's calendar. We printed 300 of these as a fundraising experiment, and it worked well enough for us to continue with a 2009 version (the names of the pioneers are under consideration). If you'd like to work together on some of next year's versions, and allow us to cross promote the Wikiproject:LGBT Studies group, that'd be great. I'd also very much be interested in a profile of the wikiproject group for Lambda Book Report -- have you seen a recent issue? The book report wasn't published for a while before I became e.d. in January 2006, and when I relaunched it, the style changed, etc. I'd be happy to add you to our comp list.

It'd be great to have regular communication about the wikiproject's work too, so I could report to our subscribers when new content has been added, etc.

Again, please accept my apology for not acknowledging your work as a source for the calendar, and I hope we can help each other for the promotion/benefit of LGBT literature.

Best wishes,


So - I think I shall respond asking what he would like is to produce and how long and by when. Once I get those parameters, shall I start a little somefin somefin off my userpage? (He didn't really refer to me as Foxy Moni3, by the way.) --Moni3 (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesomeness! Would you be willing to put your somefin somefin off the WikiProject space? Maybe the project could help put together one or more of the months' descriptions?
And I think another chastisement is in order - how dare he not refer to you as FoxyMoni3! :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
(From Lambda Literary Foundation): Great! What's your mailing addresss? How big is the group? I'm happy to send several copies to share, etc. I suppose you're all over the country. If you could get me something by March 15, it'd make the spring issue which will be out in late April/early May. 1,000 words? Maybe a side bar of resources, too, some of the more popular LGBT entries on wikipedia? a top ten list? a list of future/current projects? feel free to brainstorm with the others -- our circulation is around 2,000, but they're really committed, so you might be flooded with requests/offers to help, etc. And of course, a few authors will offer themselves as suitable for entries :) so let me know where to send you some recent issues, and if your group isn't too big (5? 10?) I could probably comp more of you . . .
Absolutely that's do-able, SatyrTN. If folks who read this don't know what the Lambda Book Report is, it's a publication for LGBT writers in the US and Canada, I think. So all those books you read from your favorite gayass writers - they all get the Lambda Book Report. Buck up and shine your writing. Think of who's going to read this. --Moni3 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Here's the link: Pitch in!!!

Maybe something could go in this month's newsletter... Oh, Miss Julie? Aleta (Sing) 21:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of cross-promotion

First off, kudos to Moni - that rocks! Secondly, I was wondering what everyone thought about regularly posting award requests over at the WP:REWARD board and User:The Transhumanist/Award Center, like making it a regular project task. LGBT barnstars will increase the project's visibility as well as encourage article improvement. The reward board will encourage inter-project collaboration, or just collaboration. Thoughts? --Phyesalis (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Needing Sources/References

I would be interested in creating the following articles: LGBT rights in Africa, LGBT rights in Asia, and LGBT rights in Oceania. However, I need sources/references. If somebody could list some references or sources for me to use for the articles, I would gladly create the articles. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission has a heading for "Publications & Resources." They also might maybe be willing to make available a Wiki-suitable license on some photography like the great pic on their front page. Good luck on this! It's a great subject to include in WP. I don't know anything about the topic, but if there were some way I could help, please let me know. William P. Coleman (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the source, William! :) I'm glad you think its a great subject to include in WP. Thanks for wishing me luck as well. I will check out the source within 24 hours and start the articles. Can you think of any more sources? --Grrrlriot (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've included pretty well every worthwhile LGBT link I know in the bottom half of the sidebar on my blog. Listed there under "_ Gay news and journalism," there's a fair amount of worldwide news coverage, including human rights, at the Pinknews link, some at 365Gay, and less at NY Blade (which is mostly US).
To some extent, the links categorized there under "_ Gay teen suicide" and "_ Youth in crisis" represent human rights issues and, in that form, very definitely include the US and Canada. (I'm personally especially interested in those problems and feel that the US and other countries are practicing virtual genocide against LGBT youth. I plan eventually to ensure that Wikipedia covers it adequately.) The Covenant House link under "_ Youth in crisis" makes some attempt to cover all of North and Central America. William P. Coleman (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
In that case, I direct your attention to Teenage suicide; it could use some attention from this Project. Pairadox (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Here are a few more:

Chile
Poland
Thanks for the references, Phyesalis. I will check them out. --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oops - I must have completely misread your request - ack! Sorry. --15:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Pairadox. I've looked at Teenage suicide, and you're completely right: it could use some attention from this project -- or even just from anybody human. Even more than the controversy over the LGBT Category, it's the single thing that makes me most enraged around here.
If I were a teen thinking of suicide, then reading Teenage suicide wouldn't stop me. And if I read that article's talk page, I'd certainly go ahead and off myself. It's an incredibly cold display of "I'm stuffy. I'm macho. I imagine myself to be a professional. I'm strictly here to write an encyclopedia."
Some people there don't even think teen suicide is a special problem that deserves its own article. What would they say if we asked for a special article about gay teens? . . . I mean, who cares if a couple of kids are dead? We have a worldwide reputation for boringness to maintain.
  • I understand that WP is not a social service agency -- and that it would, in fact, be positively dangerous to the kids for us to pretend to be so.
  • But we could still take into account that many young people who consult us are not on the same high level of awareness about WP's mission and that they might come to us by mistake.
  • I also understand that maintaining our objectivity and factualness would be more helpful than getting all weepy or preachy.
  • Nonetheless we -- without abandoning our mission, our integrity, or our policies -- could take a stance that we care about each and every young person who consults us, that we're aware of their possible problems.
  • Without pretending to be a social service agency, we could encouragingly, with some kindness, redirect them to people who would be able to fulfill that role.
There are also millions of kids (straight or LGBT) who, while not suicidal, are abused. Many, many of them have run away from home -- or have been kicked out by their parents.
There are also tens of millions of (straight or LGBT) kids who, while not formally abused, do not grow up in an atmosphere (at home, at school, at church) that helps them in the delicate, emotionally stressful, confusing task of growing up -- as humans or as sexual beings. They waste their youth in years of depression and become adults slowly, painfully, and incompletely.
Lots of such kids might (incorrectly, of course) seek information or solace from WP.
Only MHO William P. Coleman (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I used to volunteer as a crisis/suicide hotline counselor, William, and I agree with all your concerns about suicidal teens. However, as you say, Wikipedia is not a social service agency. Giving advice, even good advice, is risky without being a trained counselor and knowing the particular situation firsthand. The external links section of the teenage suicide article do, however, provide good resources for a teen who wants to access them.Textorus (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Huge in Austrailia

Did I mention I'm huge in Austrailia? Yes, me, Allstarecho, aka Allstar, was quoted at http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23195635-5014239,00.html from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Worthington (2nd nomination). I probably wouldn't care one way or the other about Corey if he weren't so damn cute. lol But now that I'm famous there, I wonder what color sunglasses I should start wearing? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Pshaw. Join the club. Evidently Australians have a lot more time to surf Wikipedia :) But that brings up an interesting idea - should we have a "Project / Project members - In The News" or something like that? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Considering that article was quite in depth, I'd say yes, we should! And I'm impressed. I didn't know/think you were that young. lol
To commemorate this momentous occasion:
This user's Wikipedia comments have been quoted by the news media once.
Carry on.. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

ShowOff!! Don't worry, I'll be HUGE in Australia one day. I'm already "HUGE in Japan." think about it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

lol I know what it means, that's why I said "huge in Austrailia" in the first place. Of course, it could just be because I'm a Bear. :P - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
"North Carolina continues to produce some of the best bear hunting in the lower 48 states. Can it get better?" ([4]) North Carolina sounds like a good place for you...or bad...depending on your interpretation of the word "hunt." AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a userbox about how many times you've sen yourself plagiarized? I didn't know there were news articles about us. I think we should store them somewhere central. --Moni3 (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, those are neat to read, esp. the feature about the project - I hadn't seen that before! It would be nice to collect these somewhere. I know Dev's been quoted somewhere else, too. Aleta (Sing) 03:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
We do... And I trump you all because I got myself into The Advocate, mwahahaha! Lol, I'm going to go all out when we finish that LGB people list. If we ever do... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Pscha, I'm big in Spain, so what? XD *Puts on the sunglasses so the rabble won't bother her* XD Raystorm (¿Sí?) 15:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You know, I haven't seen hide nor hair of y'all in months. But as soon as the paparazzi show up, you come crawling out of the woodwork! =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for your Moni..
{{User:Allstarecho/plagiarize}} =

File:AT&T Yellow Pages of Wyandotte County.jpg Thall shall not plagiarize this user's contributions to the Wiki least ye be flogged with a wet phone book!

Enjoy! - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 04:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Corey could get Wikipedia entry after all" Slow news day? --Tyrfing (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

LGBT society...

There is an issue at stake here [5]. I'm not sure why sports should hold more sway than the LGBT society...Zigzig20s (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay Brannan

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Brannan. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 20:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Jay Brannan sure is, he wants it deleted, and is absolutely convinced that you guys are deliberately setting out to make his life a misery. Seriously. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
He could be less miserable if he actually worked *with* us rather than simply complaining. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I still say JzG/Guy should not have removed the content while the article is fully protected and then turn around and nom the article for deletion. That was foul. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I dunno - per BLP, that's about right. It'll get sorted out - and Guy's going through some stuff, so my opinion is to cut some slack. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggestion On the AfD, in response to Sam Blacketer's comment, I was able to find quite a few independent, reliable sources that I posted on the AfD page. With the article under full protection, we can't add them there unfortunately. However, if anyone is ambitious enough to create a sandbox article it could probably be convincingly demonstrate that a neutral, BLP compatible article can be written with several reliable sources to establish notability. That could help ally some of the delete voters concerns and, optimistically, maybe Jay Bannan's as well. I have a few articles in production myself, elsewise I would give it a go, but I thought I'd throw the suggestion out. AgneCheese/Wine 01:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
fyi- The photograph of Jay Brannan is also up for deletion at Wikimedia Commons at the request of Brannan, who claims to hold the copyright. It was uploaded from Flickr were it is licensed under an CCA license. Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:JayBrannan-MercuryLounge.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queerudite (talk • contribs) 04:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Jay Brannan AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Brannan has been closed as Keep today (Feb 14) with a particularly fine closing rationale. YEH! Now we can work on the article. There is already a comment about going to DRV for BLP issues, so stay tuned. — Becksguy (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Radical Faeries

This page is a disaster as of now.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For some reason someone's translating it or something, and there's now a transclusion of the French/English translation mix. I don't know what's going on with that, and I don't know how to fix it, but it makes the article FUBAR. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

recently tagged/newly added articles

I've noticed there is now a template to edit when one wants to add a recently tagged or created article germane to our project. It takes longer to type in - why was this changed? I wouldn't mind getting back to the old layout.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For why, see above section, #Templating sections. Aleta (Sing) 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it takes longer.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You know you can just hit the "e" on the top left of any of those sections and you're editing the template, just like before? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I know, that's what I did. It takes longer - or so it seems. Maybe because the "e" is smaller.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
How does it take longer? You just click the 'e' and you're there. *blinks* - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 19:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Cos it's smaller..Zigzig20s (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Help, Mk II

In the earlier help thread, I asked a few questions together, and some went unanswered - lost in the mix, most likely. So, I'd like to ask again:

  1. In relation to the whole Rick Pantera situation there have actually been two porn stars using that name - the one we have, and a more recent one who did some work for COLT. I have no idea about the work of either, and thus whether the second one meets notability, etc. If they do, we'll need a disambiguation page, and I don't know how to make one. Benjiboi also suggested "maybe even moving the current one so it's clear which is which Rick Pantera (porn actor 2000s) maybe?" Thoughts? Assistance?
    • I don't have any idea if the new one is notable by WP:N, WP:BIO, or WP:PORNBIO. If not, then a short note in the current Pantera's article should be plenty. If the new one is notable, we should move the current and make a disambig page.
  2. I also think that some disambiguation is needed in relation to the porn star Joe Foster. I was here and noticed Joe Foster (performer of the year) had a page. But, the page [[Joe Foster]] is a redirect to [[Slaughter Joe]] about a British musician, and I am pretty sure these are different people! Should the Joe Foster page be for the porn star, with a disambiguation link at the top for the musician? Or, should the Joe Foster page be a disambiguation page that links to both? Or, should the link from the GayVN Awards page just be removed? Or...? I'm confused. Would someone who knows what they are doing help please?
    • I think we just need to change the link. I'll take care of that one.

Thanks in anticipation. Jay*Jay (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Gay Affirmative Psychotherapy (de:Gay Affirmative Psychotherapy)

I've copied this from my talk page. Does anyone here have an interest in either Psychotherapy and/or German?

Hy SatyrTN, i saw that in the english wikipeda is missing a very important article over Gay Affirmative Psychotherapy. On german wikipedia we have a good article and here is the literature. So i can try to translate that article, but you have to look for that article because my english translation isn' t so perfect for correct psycholocial specific terms. In only found in english wikipedia an article over the wrong and old Reparative therapy, where the Gay Affirmative Psychotherapy is only a part of the article. GLGermann (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Literature

  • Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, Schwerpunkt: Homosexuality and Psychoanalysis revisited, 2002, 6. Jhrg., Nummer 1
  • Isay, Richard A. (1993). Schwul sein. Die psychologische Entwicklung des Homosexuellen. München: Piper. ISBN 3492116833 (Original 1989: Being homosexual. Gay men and their development. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.)
  • Rauchfleisch, Udo u.a. (2002). Gleich und doch anders: Psychotherapie und Beratung von Lesben, Schwulen, Bisexuellen und ihren Angehörigen. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. ISBN 360894236X
  • Ritter, Kathleen Y. & Terndrup, Anthony I. (2002). Handbook of Affirmative Psychotherapy with Lesbians and Gay Men. New York: Guilford. ISBN 1572307145
I'll be glad to keep an eye on it and make corrections, once it is translated. Haiduc (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Ex-gay movement

I have been working on a few articles "Love Won Out", "Exodus International", "Focus on the Family", and then sub pages such as "Joe Dallas", "John Paulk", Dr. "Joseph Nicolosi", and still need to do "Mike Haley." These articles are concerning the Religiouse Right movement to stop homosexuality and cure them of their disease restoreing a more godly and normal lifestyle. It is my goal to provide factual truth as to what these organizations represent, who their founders are and the contriversy surrounding them. I would greatly appreciate any help being offered. Also, editing and rating such articles relating to this movement.

"Love Won Out" has already been awarded a class "B" rating, some improvements have been made but I would enjoy seeing a "GA" rating in the future. The content is well cited but I am sure there are plenty of grammatical and spelling errors throughout the article.

"Focus on the Family" is the original point where I started and eventually broke "Love Won Out" into its own article, I still want some facts to be a parallel bridge but I am sure someone can improve on the links. This should have a LGBT Start rating because a lot of work should be done.

The various people listed are all involved in the ex gay movement and should have brief autobiographies posted or improved on.

    • Remember these organizations are not friends of the LGBT community but deserve fair representation of their ideology's and beliefs. Of course that means iterating the controversy behind them as well.

Nycutiepi (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC) ~Nycutiepi~

Mr Gay Sweden

Hi there, it seems this article is up for deletion. This seems a bit strange to me as it is a really big deal in Sweden (amongst gays anyway). I know sod all about writing articles but I do speak Swedish. If anyone wants to save this from deletion then let me know and I'll translate whatever you need.

Intesvensk (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Administrator

I reported User talk:97.88.222.103 for vandalism in regards to constantly vandalizing the Talk:Ted Haggard page, and for the personal attacks seen here: [6] & [7]. The admin seems to think nothing is wrong and has not blocked the user. The same user was blocked 2 days ago for vandalizing and leaving me this message on my talk page: [8]. If an admin reads this, could you please help me out and either block this person or tell someone who will do it since the admin who is monitoring Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism right now doesn't seem to care. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going to block them, but someone's beaten me to it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Where is the block template that is usually on talk pages? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess the admin didn't put a notice on the talk page, but the block log shows the following:

16:19, 2008 February 17 John Reaves (Talk | contribs) blocked "97.88.222.103 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 55 hours ‎ (Disruption)

-Aleta (Sing) 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll bet the same dude sits in church and shakes his head, wondering why more people don't come to church. Wtf? Actually, he sits in church and shakes his head at all the faggots in the world, especially that one kid - his best friend back in high school (weren't those days fun?), who introduced him to the wonderful world of oral sex a couple dozen times before he finally beat the crap out of him just to prove he wasn't gay. The human mind is fascinating. Hang in there, APK. --Moni3 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha

I've removed the prod from this article, because I found a review of her work in Canadian Literature. I added a reference to that, and will be trying to find some more RS to add. It definitely needs more refs, or is likely to go up on AfD. Aleta (Sing) 22:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I put the prod up. A review of her work isn't quite the same as "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject". Go for it - my research on Google was less-than-convincing, though :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I know it's just one thing, but I thought it was enough of a start to pull off the prod. I hope (but am not certain) that I can find more. If not, AfD away! :D Aleta (Sing) 22:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... she seems to be published all over the place, and lots of blogs talk about her, but I'm not finding much more that would constitute an independent RS for WP. Aleta (Sing) 00:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation is a western concept and should not be seen as universal

I'm copying these comments from Talk:Gay. Aleta (Sing) 15:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire idea that people, especially men, can be divided on the basis of their 'proclaimed' sexuality is a concept peculiar to the modern west, and to discuss the concept as a universal phenomena, and to judge or study other sexuality, men and masculinities in other cultures and in other times on the basis of these concepts not only distorts and misrepresents their reality, but also is seen as oppressive by people on whom the west enforces these identities, often through the one-sided process of globalisation.

Wikipedia, should take into account this fact when discussing modern western concepts such as 'sexual orienatation', 'homosexuality', 'heterosexuality', 'gay' and 'straight', etc., and it should clearly mention this fact, because, although it is an English site, it is meant for the entire world, and not only for the western world. Only that will make it a truly relevant and global site. (Masculinity (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

I don't know how true or false this statement is, but I have read similar things before. We should make an effort not to be ethnocentric in our articles. In anthropological terms, there are the emic (insider) and etic (outsider) cultural points-of-view. We should strive to include the emic where possible. Aleta (Sing) 15:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The concept of sexual orientation may not only be western, but modern. Anything that's included in the article, though, needs a citation. Can he provide a source that says sexual orientation is only a western concept? --Moni3 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's the same old essentialism v. social constructionism issue, with regards to postcolonial queer. *yawn* Zigzig20s (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Masculinity, Aleta, and Moni3. I don't feel that it has anything to do with essentialism versus social construction. One is not arguing the fact that people throughout history have been attracted to their own sex or the fact that this is not a conscious choice for them, but at least feels inborn. Instead it has to to with the linguistic and cultural concepts that different cultures offer, the patterns of behavior that can be referred to simply in a word or two, without complicated esoteric explanations. the Greeks and the Romans had different concepts for it than we do, and anyone "homosexual" in the modern sense must have had a difficult time explaining themselves -- even to themselves. Even in the 1950's, when I grew up, the terms "homosexual" and "queer" had very different meanings than the roughly corresponding terms "gay" and "faggot" do today -- and a main struggle in my life has been just figuring myself out. From what I read, young LGBT people today have related but different problems trying to fit themselves into the terminology. It's important for us at WP to be non-ethnocentric about other historical periods and other cultures -- not just because we ought to be historically accurate, but because our culture too is inevitably limited in the menu of conceptual choices it offers, and there must be people (including perhaps we ourselves) who are not well-served by it. The only possible remedies are objectivity and clarity of thought. William P. Coleman (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should accommodate this perspective by moving the article to Homosexualities. I don't think it will happen, but I am only half joking. Another thing we can do is to avoid the use of the term "homosexuality" whenever not essential (sic), using "same-sex relations" or "same-sex attraction"as much as possible. Haiduc (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
More wikiangst over hair-splitting definitions and connotative nuances by folks who, in all likelihood, have no credentials in lexicography or sociology. We would be much more convincing and helpful to our readers if we provided clear, solid, reliable sources to back up all our wishful ideas about what words mean, or ought to mean in an ideal wikiworld. Anybody who's followed the Marriage article word wars will understand what I'm getting at. There's my humble 2 cents' worth . . . skulking back into homolurk mode now.Textorus (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't another side of the coin recognizing that we currently live (mostly) and read WP in the modern western world? I'm not making any excuses about foisting modern western values on anyone else, I'm just saying we don't live in ancient Greece, so we don't understand (at least not intrinsically) their concept of sexuality/homosexuality. We understand our own, and we're writing for people who understand our own. To try and do anything different is impossible - we can only be aware that that's a built in bias/POV/whatever you want to call it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the op is right in stating that sexual orientation began as a western concept, and there are still a few places where sexuality is conceived in terms of behaviours rather than identities, however for better or for worse the idea that some people have a primary attraction to people of particular genders is pretty well accepted across large swathes of the world.
If we're talking about people in Edo-period Japan or Classical Greece, for example, "gay" would be an anachronistic and misapplied term. But among modern Japanese and Greek people, even if they don't identify as "gay" per se, probably most same-sex-loving people would agree that they have a particular orientation. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I can reference the point I made from the first chapters of David Halperin's One Hundred Years of Homosexuality. An essentialist view of homosexuality is when we use the term 'homosexuality' or the mere distinction of same-sex love/desire/attraction for hermeneutics of times before the term was coined, or of settings when the term has no resonance (e.g. Lesotho women). However, this is an LGBT project; 'LGBT' is essentialist, 'queer' wouldn't be but then it would eschew encyclopedic classification... I henceforth suggest, as per Halperin p. 60, that LGBT history is the way 'we' look at it now. (So-called objective history would be humanist and thereby male, white, and so forth). This is a pretty boring argument, hence the foregoing yawn.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Zigzag ... the debate of essentialism vs social constructionism is again a very western one, essentially of a highly heterosexualised society with a Christian past. The man in the orient not does not see things in this manner. Male eroticism is known as a universal male behaviour not limited to a certain section of men. There is no question of it being seen as a different behaviour, not at least in the peer male group. In formal spaces, yes, no one talks about it and it is seen as non-existent, but as soon as one is in the peer male group it is the most natural thing for a man to be doing. Of course, things change with the level of westernisation that society has achieved, because westernisation is essentially heterosexualising the society. And here, same-sex relations are shown as 'queer', 'uncommon' and occurring in men who are 'different'. (Masculinity (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

I would also like to post here excerpts from another text I posted ... perhaps this would help in seeing the non-western world's viewpoint somewhat. Although, I am glad that many people from the west already know what I'm talking about -- at least, they have an inkling, even if they can't put their finger at it.

"It describes the social construction of human, especially male sexuality, as it is formally and popularly seen in the west ... assuming it to be universally applicable. As far as the article is concerned, the only difference is between people who are open about their 'gay' identities and those men who relate with sexually wtih other men but do not call themselves gay, who are described as 'closeted' (or bicurious or so). A person from the orient finds the entire notion of isolation on the basis of so-called 'sexual orientation' problematic. When almost everyman is involved in some sexual way with another man, you don't really feel different for liking men.

How do you explain this dichotomy in the article? The term 'Gay' carries with it all the negative baggages of the 'heterosexualised' society, where the pressures on men to disown their same-sex needs is so extreme, that only very few men think of indulging in male-to-male sexuality by acknowledging it. The rest either keep away totally and deny their feelings, or indulge in male-eroticism without acknowledging their own interest. The term 'gay' is based on the lots of assumptions which are invalid in a non-western, non-heterosexualised world. E.g., the very concept of their being 'gay' assumes that most men do not feel sexuality towards other men. Then, who is defined as the 'same-sex'. The western culture only considers the outer sex of an individual when deciding their sex-identity, but in most non-western cultures, the sex-identity also involves, compulsorily the Gender or the inner sex of an individual. Thus a Hijra may have a penis, but he will be a different 'sex' or rather 'gender' than 'Men', because s(he) is a woman inside a man. A man and Hijra having sex is not seen as 'same-sex' in non-western countries. Of course, the west doesn't recognise 'Gender' as a valid human phenomena, and ascribes it to a mental aberration. Then of course, there is a whole lot of conspiracies behind the very concept of 'gay' or 'sexual orientation' -- revolving around men and manhood, which is relevant both in the west and the east, but men in western countries do not have a space to address these issues, and also that their cultural mindset makes them incapable to comprehend the exact parameters of these issues." (Masculinity (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

SatyrTN: <<<Isn't another side of the coin recognizing that we currently live (mostly) and read WP in the modern western world?>>>

(a) If I'm not mistaken, today, we live in a globalised world. Especially in the cyberworld. There are simply too many readers/ participants on such sites from the non-western world.

(b) Even, if it were only for the western world, even then, do you think it would be a good idea to misrepresent the rest of the world. It is not fair to them.

SatyrTN: <<<We understand our own, and we're writing for people who understand our own. To try and do anything different is impossible - we can only be aware that that's a built in bias/POV/whatever you want to call it.>>>

If this is the case, then we should not define or explain the terms 'sexual orienation' 'gay', 'straight' etc. as if they were universally true concepts. We should clarify that we are talking only about certain societies or people -- in particular, western societies, actually modern western societies, and westernised/ heterosexualised societies in the other parts of the world.

In this case the proper definition of homosexual will be: "A man who is attracted to another man in modern western societies." And, homosexuality as, "sexual attraction between men in the modern west." (Masculinity (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Exploding Boy: <<<however for better or for worse the idea that some people have a primary attraction to people of particular genders is pretty well accepted across large swathes of the world.>>>

(a) Before the western media bombarded our society with their misinformation and destroyed our male spaces, it was common knowledge here in India, at least amongst men, that all men have a sexual desire for other men, and men had no qualms about accepting it.

(b) Gay is not defined as 'primary' sexual attraction towards men. the entire male society is divided into 'heterosexual' majority and 'homosexual' minority. the straight men are not supposed to be into men at all -- as per western standards/ propaganda.

Exploding Boy: <<<But among modern Japanese and Greek people, even if they don't identify as "gay" per se, probably most same-sex-loving people would agree that they have a particular orientation.>>>

I can tell you about India, and it is pretty much the same in all non-western and even western societies. Before the heterosexualisation/ westernisation of the society there are extremely high levels of male-eroticism and it is in fact given preference over male-female eroticism, for all practical purposes and marriage is seen mainly as a social duty. As the society is heterosexualised/ westernised and male-male relations propagated/ isolated as 'gay' or 'homosexual', the formal/ acknowledged space for male-male sexuality is then reserved for the queer/ feminine male, while 'straight' men start disowning their same-sex desires. This is how you get the western kind of scenario. It is not that the straight men, even in the west, do not feel male sexual desire, but they have no social space to acknoweldge it. They do sometimes engage in male eroticism, but without recognising it as such, and for most of the time they fight and suppress their same-sex tendenices, so that 'gay' people can then claim it to be their 'exclusive' trait. (Masculinity (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

I have issues with generalizing any person's or group's thought to the extent that you wrote "The man in the orient doesn't see things in this manner..." Regardless, I'm sure your points are valid, but so are mine that Fred Phelps is a dickhead and is probably gayer than me and Liberace put together, which is extraordinarily gay. I can't post that on Wikipedia though, without a source. If you have a source that describes western concepts of sexual orientation vs eastern concepts, you're free to include that information in whatever articles it applies to. --Moni3 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
And personally, I stopped reading at "the man in the orient." Odd that you're trying to avoid essentialism by being essentialist. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Exploding boy:: I have issues with generalizing any person's or group's thought to the extent that you wrote "The man in the orient doesn't see things in this manner..."

I'm glad that you're against generalising. If I get enough time to explain myself, I can prove that I am not generalising at all. Rather it is the western notions of 'sexual orientation' and 'homosexuality'/ 'heterosexuality' that do the generalisation. But right now, I will concentrate on giving the published sources for my contention (Non-published sources are aplenty).

Quote from the book "Masculinity for boys", published by UNESCO in 2006:

Page 98:

In Indian society, men have traditionally enjoyed close bonds with each other. These bonds can easily become secretly erotic. Relationships between men have prospered within this male solidarity, albeit secretly. .....

..... We have seen how the heterosexualisation of the Indian society is changing this traditional masculinity pattern. Heterosexualisation also includes the homosexualisation of male-male love. It is one of the most basic forms of male oppression.

Page: 102:

"Terms like "sexual orientation", 'heterosexual', and 'homosexual' distort and misrepresent the truth about male gender and sexuality. Sexual Orientation is not a valid concept. The basic assumptions behind it are wrong."

When these heterosexual terms are imposed upon a traditional society like India, their meaning and connotation changes. E.g., a sexual identity 'homosexual' becomes a gender identity.

The book has been compiled, documenting discussions and workshops held with Indian Youth (in North India for the past ten years). • (Masculinity (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Finally, a source. Great, why don't you create a section in the Homosexuality article, say, "Non-western concepts of sexuality" or something like that, and include these quotes over there where readers can see them? A single sentence at the beginning of the article would suffice to indicate that most of it is discussing the Western viewpoint, however. And that viewpoint doesn't need to be deconstructed to the point of invisibility: I don't know what's "true" for boys and men in India, but "sexual orientation" is most certainly true and applicable in my life and millions of others in the Western world of today. But I would be interested in learning in more detail how non-Westerners view these things, so why don't you get going on the alternate viewpoints you've raised, and get them into the article? :o) Textorus (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
After reading that material, perhaps sexual orientation isn't quite as invalid as you're making it out to be. All this secrecy between men and boys creates identities behind closed doors. I'm attracted to you, but not where everyone can see. For men and women who feel this all the time and reject what's expected of them in this society, traditional marriage, reproduction, etc., and rather prefer to live with the people they love and are attracted to, they are a minority. For wanting to do what they want, that goes against what society tells them to, they share an identity. The next step is creating a label for themselves, identifying others who are like them, seeking them out, and creating a community, even in secret. Sexual orientation exists because gay people are declared to exist outside the norm. --Moni3 (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Moni3: <<<perhaps sexual orientation isn't quite as invalid as you're making it out to be.>>>

Moni3, what needs to be understood here is that sexual eroticism between males is considered an essential and integral part of manhood not only in traditional Indian male-space but in fact in all male spaces all over the world. The thing is that in heterosexualised societies like the modern west, there are hardly any male spaces left. They've been destroyed by the Forces of Heterosexualisation, by heterosexualising these spaces and making them mixed gender. Put alongwith the traditional pressures on men in the formal space to have sex with women and the modern western pressures of extreme hostility towards male-male sexuality -- it kills most of the male eroticism amongst men.

But, in a men's space, like in traditional India, where male eroticism is considered a normal and integral part of manhood, in the men's spaces, and they even talk about it fairly openly ... it would be foolish to think of this as an identity. Identity are made up of things that are different. You can't have an identity of a human being with two eyes, because, well, everyone has two eyes.

In fact, it was the same in the west, before it was heterosexualised, I think we're talking about before the 60s. There is documentary and published evidence of it.

The concept of sexual orientation, and of 'gay' has relvance only when the men's spaces are destroyed and changed with anti-man, heterosexual spaces. But this in itself is an oppressive process, that needs to be challenged. Adherence to the concept of sexual orientation validates the anti-man oppressive forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs) 15:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Moni3 <<<For men and women who feel this all the time and reject what's expected of them in this society, traditional marriage, reproduction, etc., and rather prefer to live with the people they love and are attracted to, they are a minority>>>

Certainly, you're right. But then, the definition of 'gay' should not be: "a man who is attracted to men", but a man who is open about his sexual attraction for men.

However, things are not as simple as that. The term 'gay' has several other drawbacks. I have evidence to show that the term gay is actually part of the an age old social conspiracy against men, which has only succeeded once the men's spaces have been totally destroyed in the west. It serves to isolate men from the rest, who rebel against men's heterosexualisation, and own up their sexual need for men. It is like a punishment.

Also, again, 'gay' is historically and biologically, a third-sex space. Now, the western society doesn't recognise a third-sex as such, but, nevertheless, the entire non-western world, and pre-Christianity west recognised and understood this concept. Men do not belong in this third-sex/ queer space.

Again, should we strengthen the forces which have forced men who like men to be a minority, when they are not in reality --- by playing into their plan of isolating into a mismatched and highly discredited and marginalised third sex space --- in order to buy short term peace for ourselves; or should we fight these oppressive forces by rejecting their identities and assumptions and exposing their mispropaganda.

The westerners have all the money brought by industrialisation. When you're that rich, you are not dependant upon a community, like humans in nature are dependant on. You become individualistic. That is probably why western men don't see the dichotomies of adopting a 'gay' identity.

However, people in non-industrialised world, and in fact in working-class groups even in the west, live in communities where these things do matter a lot. And men immediately understand if there are things that are meant to harm their interests, and are oppressive for men as a group. (Masculinity (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

  • My essential problem with this topic is that it is really one of semantics, not of substance. "A person from the orient finds the entire notion of isolation on the basis of so-called 'sexual orientation' problematic." I've known many people from Asia who more than readily identify as gay. Regardless, we can't take every nuanced view a person has about themselves and try to accomodate it within article if there is no sourcing or citation to the phenomenon. We have articles on Pansexual, Transexual, Transvestite, Bisexual, Omnisexual, Asexual, Gay, Lesbian, and the list goes on...Homosexuality describes a documented phenomenon, and if the term is applied to some people where it doesn't fit, it still has a set of criteria. IN some Latin countries men aren't considered gay if they aren't on the bottom, and I believe the same is true in some Arabic cultures. Perhaps the best place to go is just Sexuality. Instead of trying to round out the square peg of the Homosexuality article go to a more general article like Sexuality to flesh out what you see as important differences. David Shankbone 15:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

David, your contention sounds like cultural hegemony to me. What you're saying in effect is, since the definition suits you, you do not want to accomodate other notions and cultures. And as far as the citations are concerned I have already provided one. That is what is needed as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Through the discussion I'm just trying to make people here understand what the issue is really all about.

David Shankbone <<<My essential problem with this topic is that it is really one of semantics, not of substance.>>>

One problem with people who fit into the 'established' norms/ concepts/ identities is that sometimes they refuse to see that other people may have a genuine problem with the same established norms, and that these norms may not be all that perfect.

It is with these concepts and identities that male sexuality is so grossly misrepresented by the western societies. Otherwise, it is never witnessed in any culture or society, that men find male eroticism digusting -- the way they do in the west. That it is believed (and actually practised) that the majority of men have no sexual interest in men whatsoever, when it is not natural. And you say, it is just a matter of semantic not substance ... ?

David Shankbone <<<Ive known many people from Asia who more than readily identify as gay.>>>

But, what you don't know is that right in your country, straight men are forced, trained and conditioned to disown their own sexual need for men, thanks to the misconstrued notions of 'sexual orientation'. I have been in touch with several such men, and have been studying the phenomena at the macro level.

Of course, there would be people all over the world who would perfectly fit into the 'gay' identity. But, if you notice carefully, you'd know that like in the west, most of them are feminine gendered males ---, also known as the 'third sex', which is the real meaning of the term 'queer'.

Of course, there are always a few non-queer westernised guys in countries like India, who adopt the term, misguided by the English definitions. But the majority of men do not relate with it as an identity, even if they loosely use it to describe their sexual choices.

If you look carefully, in the west too, most non-fem guys prefer to remain in the closet. And most people who adopt the 'gay' identity are feminine gendered males.

It is not without reason that this is happening. The Conspiracy against men has fixed it this way. The forces of heterosexualisation banish men who own up their sexuality for men into the third sex group (gay), so they can say that men who like men are not really men ... they are queers, third sex, gay, homosexual. This acts as immense pressure on the masculine gendered males, for whom the third-sex, gay space is not a valid space. Since they cannot comprehend the conspiracy which is made invisible, they end up hating their own same-sex feelings.

Actually, in the end, it is the same in the east as well as the west. The concept of 'sexual orientation' is equally invalid in both the places. But, since it is so entrenched in the west, and queer people have lots of (unreasonable) power -- given to them by the forces of heterosexualisation (IN FACT Gay men are part of the forces of heterosexualisation) ... so non-westerners cannot ask you to change things at your end. But, we can ask you to stop imposing your definitions on us, and pretending as if they are the natural way to be. Thankfully, I have a few references to support my contention, which is an issue, which is otherwise totally invisible, since it does not have a voice. (Masculinity (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

An explanation to my earlier contention: <<<If you look carefully, in the west too, most non-fem guys prefer to remain in the closet. And most people who adopt the 'gay' identity are feminine gendered males.>>>

Of course, in the west however, there are also many masculine gendered males (men) who like men, who are isolated because, men's spaces have been destroyed, and they have been isolated by a heterosexualised society which is extremely hostile to male-male sexuality. But, these men are never really comfortable in the 'gay' space or identity. They know something is amiss, however, becasue of the invisible nature of the oppresion of men, they can't pinpoint what is wrong, and so are doomed to bear their cross. (Masculinity (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

I'm sorry, I simply can't read these long-winded explanations. On Wikipedia, the art of being succinct and efficient in your wording will wield you far more influence. With all due respect, Masculinity, when you write these long posts few people read them in my experience. I did not. The second problem is you can espouse theory and purport cultural norms and mores for pages and pages. But if you don't have W:V-worthy sources from notable researchers or publications, we can't use anything you write. Your keystrokes are wasted without being able to say "And this [university professor] [sociologist] [gender issues expert] [magazine] [newspaper] said [X]." --David Shankbone 17:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed David, I have already provided the sources, and they have been accepted by the members -- they are from a book published by UNESCO, documenting 10 years of work with youth in India. The book is called "Masculinity for Boys", and I have also included excerpts that clearly point out the essence of my point here, namely, that the concept of 'sexual orientation' is invalid. If at all it is valid, it is only in westernised, heterosexualised societies. (Masculinity (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

By all means, include the source, but it is going to take more than one book to counteract western thought on the articles. You can't craft an entire response section based on one source, especially when challenging what is the dominant view (worldwide, mind you; I've traveled a great deal and I have interviewed a good deal of notable people).--David Shankbone 18:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about the cross-cultural differences Masculinity refers to, but I know something about one version of them, among males. You might look at:
An hour of research with with their reading list, Amazon Reader, and Google Books would produce enough scholarship to write a WP:FA on m2m sexuality in Ancient Greese -- and another hour would give material for a similar article on Ancient Rome. These articles would say:
  • A Brokeback Mountain, romantic relationship between two equal, adult males was generally impossible in Ancient Greece (as much as it was 50 years ago in, say, the US).
  • The reason was that, for 2 males to have sex, at least one is probably going to get penetrated -- too effeminate, totally culturally taboo, something no one would admit to. (It was OK for a boy but not for a man.)
The problem is that people made too simple an equation between the gender a person identifies with and the gender s/he is attracted to.
Imagine a questionnaire like:
  1. Which gender were you born?
  2. Which gender would you prefer to be?
  3. Which gender(s) attract you?
  4. Do you feel most comfortable acting publicly with mannerisms of your own gender or the opposite?
  5. Do you feel most comfortable in sexual/romantic relationships acting your own gender or the opposite?
  6. . . . and so on . . .
What seems to be obvious now is that your answer to any of these questions does not predict your answer to any other. The variety of legitimate behavior and emotion is totally diverse.
There do, admittedly seem to be problems with Masculinity's posts: (1) He doesn't understand references; (2) He may not be accurate in distinctions about "Western," "Modern," and so on; (3) He's even more verbose than I am, and I'm intolerable.
However, I feel he's right to point out that the variety of gender roles and preferences is important -- and universal. We all need to figure ourselves out and to be able to claim respect from others for what we are. And he's right that this is something the LGBT Project should address. William P. Coleman (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

<<<A Brokeback Mountain, romantic relationship between two equal, adult males was generally impossible in Ancient Greece (as much as it was 50 years ago in, say, the US).>>>

It is difficult for us to fully comprehend the construction of male sexuality in such an ancient past ... but surely there are innumerable examples of sexual love between equals (Alexander and Hephaistion). Definitely, it would be wrong to say that the ancient greek society in any way discouraged or frowned upon sex between equals. They might have structured it in a manner that there usually was a gap of a few years between two lovers. That had more to do with organisation of the society than regulating male sexuality.

There usually was not a hell of a difference between two male lovers ... it was usually between a younger youth and an older youth. Male-female marriage on the other hand used to have a huge age gap -- of more than 15 years. And, it was so even in India till about 100 years ago. If you look at nature, things are probably this way only. Amongst wild mammals, eg. adolescent males often have sexual relations with adults. So, the value of sex between equals (meaning equal age) is not necessarily an ideal situation.

In any case, how many partners even in the modern west are of exactly the equal age. (Masculinity (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

<<<::The reason was that, for 2 males to have sex, at least one is probably going to get penetrated -- too effeminate, totally culturally taboo, something no one would admit to. (It was OK for a boy but not for a man.)>>>

(i) It is true that receptive anal sex has been unfairly adjudged 'feminine' from a time even before the ancient Greeks. But the idea had been to discourage men from indulging in it. Anything that you designate as 'feminine' becomes out of bound for masculine gendered men (straight men as they're called in the west). (And that is one of the problems with 'gay').

This adjudication of receptive sex as feminine prompted the queer/ feminine (called catamite in ancient greek, Hijra in medieval India) male to adopt it as its trademark, making it even more stigmatised for men.

But this would not have prevented Greek men from indulging in sex with equals, because in any case, at least outwardly, they were supposed not to have anal sex at all, but have intercourse through the thighs.

(ii) I have reason to believe (I'm a sexual health counsellor) that two equal men, if they come down to having sex will have anal sex as equals, but they will just not talk about it. This is there way to deal with the dichotomies of social masculinity and personal preferences.

(iii) It is a myth that men can't (or don't want to) have sex with each other without indulging in anal sex. In fact, I remember a survey somewhere, which said that even amongst gay men (I think in America) only about 30% men indulged in anal sex, while the other 70% did not.

Anal sex seems to be more prominent amongst gay identified men. My experience of working with straight men in India shows that eventhough they are interested sexually in other men, often they are not into anal sex. In fact, you can be exclusively into other men but not be into anal or even oral sex.(Masculinity (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC))


Haiduc: <<<Another thing we can do is to avoid the use of the term "homosexuality" whenever not essential (sic), using "same-sex relations" or "same-sex attraction" as much as possible. >>>

THAT'S AN EXCELLENT IDEA. REALLY. (Masculinity (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

William (and anyone for that matter), can you help me put the references in the article on 'homosexuality'. I don't seem to have the permission to do that. (Masculinity (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

Wikigender

I got an email today addressed to Dear User of Wikipedia, claiming to be from the OECD Development Centre www.oecd.org/dev. They were inviting involvement in a gender equality wiki site, www.wikigender.org (which appears to require login to view). I suspect from the wording that they're interested in equality between male and female and not the slightest bit interested in transgender issues. I'm wondering if others have received similar emails. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of it. Aleta (Sing) 02:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I just clicked your link, and got the login box as well. I'm not about to try to register for a page for which I can't even see an initial screen. I tried googling on wikigender and wikigener.org: neither had any results. Aleta (Sing) 02:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I got the same email: Dear User of Wikipedia, You have created or modified an article related to “gender equality”. We would like to inform you that the OECD Development Centre (www.oecd.org/dev) has recently introduced a new wiki-based Internet platform exclusively focused on gender equality, called Wikigender (www.wikigender.org). If you are interested in joining this initiative and sharing your knowledge with other experts of gender equality, please contact us at contact@wikigender.org. We look forward to hearing from you soon. The OECD Wikigender Team is what mine said. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That's odd...but I'm not about to register for a site before viewing...If someone does, let us know what it's about. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, I don't recall having edited any "gender equality" articles. Could have been during my vandal patrol, but nothing on purpose. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I got that e-mail as well. At least it's an unusual form of article-related spam. No one's calling me names. ;) Kolindigo (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I got the exact same email. I didn't edit a "gender equality" article, but I have edited some gender studies related articles. It said if your interested in an account to email them back and I did. We'll see what happens, if anything. --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeshayahu Leibowitz

Someone has removed the referenced part about homosexuality AGAIN, as per [9] - well this shows my putting it back.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a message for the user that removed it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref desk

Just came across this and figured some of you may be interested: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Coming out euphemisms - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Birth name" for Transgendered people

Brought on by some controversy at Calpernia Addams, as she requested her article be deleted, the result of which was to keep it (as she is notable, & a public person). Part of her stated reasons was that "birth name" for transpeople is a trickier subject than for people like Bill Clinton (Blythe) & Marilyn "Norma Jean" Monroe. Which is a fair point. Is there a forum to discuss the subject of "born as" & such ilk, & if not, should we create one? --mordicai. (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It needs to follow WP:BLP closely. If multiple reliable sources can be found linking the current name of the person with the person's birth name, then we can state. If not, then we absolutely should not. Ideally, we would have something where the person stated, "X was my birth name". We are not, however, in the business of outing people. Aleta (Sing) 21:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd recommend we go with MOS:IDENTITY on this rather than WP:BLP. There are always birth-records, which are WP:V, but if a transgender person wishes to go by the name "Tomb Thumb", we should respect that more than the government's pieces of paper. You're right, Aleta, that if someone says "Sam was my name, but now I'm Tomb Thumb", that's about the only time we should be bringing in birth names. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I'd forgotten about that. It even specifically addresses how to write about transgendered people. It doesn't, however, comment on whether or not even to mention other names, and so I'd say we need to use it and BLP, neither one being sufficient alone. I agree with you, Satyr, that we ought not to be using birth records. I was trying to emphasize the use of multiple sources, and should have specified published (not just governmental). Whatever policies we reference, I think we basically agree on the practice. :) Aleta (Sing) 22:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm certainly glad to become aware of MOS:IDENTITY; good. Still, the question does remain whether such information is notable & worthy of inclusion. I am sort of inclined to think that it might be, under biographical information, especially given the aegis of MOS:IDENTITY to keep the article from becoming becoming "I gotcha!" or anything gross. --mordicai. (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Using a "heightened" WP:BLP standard would seem to apply: 1. Is the information widely known and 2. We have multiple WP:RS's reporting that info. Until both of those have been met I'm reluctant to add that information especially if the subject has shown a desire for privacy in that area. People are routinely targeted, threatened, attacked and killed for such accusations, suspicions and revealations and we should take great care not to add to someone's victimization. Benjiboi 02:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Biography guidelines for transgender people of note

I have posted this comment to the Biographies of living persons project page. It addresses difficulties in updating an article for performer Heather Alexander who now performs as Alexander James Adams. I believe the current article for Heather Alexander can be used as a model for editing biographical articles of others who transition. It would be nice if the LBGT project could weigh in on the current lack of guidelines with regards to transgender individuals, and provide constructive suggestions on what such guidelines should include. Thanks! TechBear (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

CfR

Hello. Not sure where to announce this but I've nominated Category:Christian LGBT people for renaming. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_23#Category:Christian_LGBT_people. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that a few people from this project have contributed. FYI, I have proposed a rename to category:LGBT Christians for consistency with category:LGBT Jews and category:LGBT Muslims, which you might like to consider. Jay*Jay (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews news: First Trans Reporter

Our first openly trans reporter was given resounding accreditation on Wikinews: http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Accreditation_requests&oldid=583355#NicholasTurnbull]. --David Shankbone 04:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome!! Is there an LGBT project on WN? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Here. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could use help. Although I don't know why I don't see my Augusten Burroughs interview. We need news! --David Shankbone 06:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

best lGbt video ever

I...just...wet...myself. I'm sorry to get off-topic, but I thought everyone in this project would get a kick out of this video. It's a response to this popular video. Ok, I promise no more off-topic posts. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual

Could I please get someone who has had no previous involvement in the article homosexual transsexual to have a look at the article and it's talk page. I'm very concerned that the article about this controversial term has been seriously skewed to make the term appear acceptable, which would mean that the article has a serious POV problem. I think that it may be a one-person effort similar to that attempted in the article shemale a while ago by the now indefinitely blocked user vinay412 and his sockpuppets. I'd like some independent objective input because I'd like to know if I'm over-reacting. My best NPOV solution for this article would be AfD or reduce to stub and merge elsewhere. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've stepped in to address the image issue. Is the article still unbalanced? Benjiboi 01:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I've just copied one statement into the article from what is nominally supposed to be a summary of the article at Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy#Criticism of the Homosexual transsexual hypothesis but I think that it still needs considerable work to be NPOV. I won't be surprised if that addition gets reverted out... --AliceJMarkham (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
"Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some sexologists to describe male-to-female transsexual women who are exclusively or predominantly attracted to males" Wouldn't that make them straight? --Tyrfing (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
That's what's so controversial. The term is based upon birth sex, not brain gender. Nobody who meets the definition will self identify as a homosexual transsexual. If they meet the definition, they'll self identify as hetero female, not gay male. Apparently some autogynephilic transsexuals actively seek to misrepresent themselves as homosexual transsexuals because they see that as being a "true transsexual", so those who self identify as such fail the definition. :) --AliceJMarkham (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

where to report homophobic comments

Hi - hopefully someone on the project can point me towards the right place to report homophobic comments? is it the administrators board. thank you. --87.115.7.37 (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That (i.e. WP:AN)would probably be the best place - but if you don't get a satisfactory response do come back here where at least people will be supportive and may have further ideas for how to proceed. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was just coming to ask a similar question. User:Aminz has been having a discussion here, which includes a post in a foreign language (Farsi, at a guess?). Is this allowed on English Wikipedia? Given the rest of the discussion, where Aminz expresses his views on homosexuality in this diff, I am also wondering (as is the IP Editor) about reporting this somewhere. Thoughts? Jay*Jay (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Note, also, that the IP editor has posted a query on Aminz's talk page. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hmmm, it appears that IP editors like you cannot post on WP:AN - you can post on its talk page, or if you could provide the diffs then I could post your complaint there for you. DuncanHill (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Posting in foreign languages is sort of allowed, but a translation should be provided on request. DuncanHill (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, IP vandalism of WP:AN has been frequent recently, resulting in semi-protection. A sub-page has been set up here for use by IP editors to raise serious questions. As for the foreign language comment, I will await the translation that you have requested from Aminz, but I am considering posting on WP:AN/I about this. I find the comments in this diff unacceptable, even in talk space. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing some of Aminz's other posts, I don't really know if the message is unsuitable for talkspace. He didn't really say anything hateful or vulgar about gay people. He apparently doesn't "agree" with someone being LGBT, but he has a right to think that way. Although that's my P.O. I'm just wary of editing opposing views because at one time we (LGBT people) were the ones who were heavily censored...it wouldn't be fair for us to censor opposing views now. ;) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
An example of gays/gay allies trying to censor free speech in a dangerous manner is this...note the 7 year prison sentence. Also, I'm not comparing the news story to what Jay*Jay said. He's acting in good faith and there's a big difference between the two. I just added the news link as a warning for my fellow queers to read since I think it's an important topic. (I hope I don't come across as picking on Jay*Jay, I'm really not.) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a note - could you provide a warning when linking to the Daily Mail? It's a homophobic, xenophobic, racist, sexist, islamophobic and pro-child-abuse (in the form of encouraging physical punishment of children) paper and some people would rather not have it leap onto their screens on a Sunday morning. It's an important debate, but the Mail is not in any way a reliable source for it. DuncanHill (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
My intention with the DM article was not to start some type of debate over reliable sources. It appears to be fairly reliable and your opinions on child abuse, islamophobia, etc. are debateable. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the article states the information about the ammendment, prison sentence possibility, etc. I'm not going to argue about this because it was a simple example. G'day. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
AgnosticPreachersKid (do you mind if I call you APK?), I find the argument advanced in Aminz'a post to be simplistic, ill-informed, possibly misogynistic, and trivially falsified. They demonstrate significant misunderstanding of evolution and an absolutist view on religion. However, it is only with the inclusion of the last sentence that the post becomes unacceptable. If I encounter someone advocating that homosexuals are not worthy to consume natural resources, I object to those comments. It is only a small step to advocacy that LGBT people should be restrticted in the resources we may consume. Having said that, I may have a bias here as I strongly advocated the need for Aminz to remove a WP:SOAP-violating section of his user page which attacked pornography and argued that watching porn leads to committing rape. To be fair, he did act to remove the section when I (as an uninvolved editor) became involved. Note, by the way, that I would not ask that the comments be censored or removed, but they do warrant challenging. I will wait for the translation before acting. If it is harmless, I will likely talk to Aminz directly; if it is blatantly offensive, I will respond more forcefully. (Incidentally, an independent translation might be good to havem if anyone can provide one.)
On the legislation described in that tabloid article, I suspect we will disagree. Seven years gaol for inciting hatred seems a reasonable maximum sentence for the worst offenders, and that is irrespective of whether the object of that hatred is gays, muslims, blacks, christians, hispanics, ... (I could go on!) BTW, I did not take your post to be picking on me. I'm a big boy, and happy to engage in discussion and debate. Jay*Jay (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC) NB: post after edit conflict.
You can call me APK...it's my nickname, waaaaay cooler than J.Lo :-) I didn't realize Aminz had posted those other comments. Yeah, we'll agree to disagree on limiting free speech and throwing people in jail for a time period longer than rapists. I like big boys. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What the Daily Mail objects to is the idea that LGBT people are entitled to the same protection from hate-crime that is already enjoyed by Jewish, black, Christian, Muslim etc people. The maximum sentence for rape in England and Wales is life imprisonment, so the comparison made by the Daily Mail is highly misleading, and I suspect deliberately so from a paper which in this century has published an article calling for all gay men to be castrated in order to prevent child-abuse. DuncanHill (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I would just like to apologize if I seem bad-tempered about this - in my defence I will just say that the Mail seems to hate just about everyone and everything I hold dear, and sometimes it's important to get angry! APK has made some important points, and is obviously a decent sort, and I certainly don't mean to get at him. DuncanHill (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Once again, the point of my earlier comment was NOT to start a discussion on the validity of the DM. I am not familiar with that newspaper. I did a simple google search and came up with that article. All I did was simply point out the FACT that 7 years is a possible prison sentence for people that use so-called hate speech, and the DM article seemed like a reliable source. My intent was not to start a goddamned debate about all of this. If you would like to show me the article where the DM calls for castrating gay men, then please do so on my talk page because I find that fascinating/scary. Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Aminz has given a translation at User_talk:Aminz#Translation_request, which seems reasonable. I have given him a link to this discussion, as it seems the polite thing to do. DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Guys, I really don't know what to say. I started that discussion to get a bit of aside from the usual cold wiki-conversation. I never thought it might turn into such a big discussion. I was rather trying to understand the issue for my own benefit. I certainly do not subscribe to the pure evolution, hence I do not myself agree with the evolution part, but I added it for the sake of completeness of my argument.
P.S. I have never interacted with any homosexual in my real life, and I do know of anybody I "hate".--Be happy!! (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Aminz, two points:
  • You wrote that "Being homosexual is bad also because the person uses human resources, a double negative point". The suggestion that the use of human resources becomes "bad" because a person is gay is prejudiced.
  • Unless you know very few people, you have interacted with LGBT people in real life - you just don't know their sexual orientation. If you know only 100 people, and we use the lowest reasonable report of the prevalence of LGBT people in the community, the chance that none of them is LGBT is less than 5%. Using more realistic prevalence data, it's less than 0.1%. I am guessing that you have interacted with a lot more than 100 people in real life.
Jay*Jay (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Aminz simply said in Persian that he wanted to talk to me about this later hopefully, and that I ought to be happy. Regardless, this discussion was more or less a philosophical one between me and him on my user talk; neither of us edits LGBT articles, and Aminz was trying to become better educated on the subject. Certainly nothing Aminz said was incorrect with respect to homosexuality being maladaptive from a genetic perspective. Genetically, an organism that refuses or is unable to procreate is useless - this is not Aminz's opinion, this is biological truth. I understand that could tap on one's sensitives, but he meant no harm by his comments, and I can vouch for him. He was trying to get a better understanding of homosexuality. This has certainly blown way out of proportion, and I don't think anyone has any right to tell Aminz to apologize for his views. Aminz has not made any threats or attacks against homosexuals, so I really don't see what the problem is here. Please note that I also disagree that homosexuality is an outright choice (I think hormonal or childhood factors play a role, which also would better explain concepts like bisexuality or sexual curiosity), and that I am an Iranian (albeit, one born and raised in America). This is probably why he felt more comfortable discussing this with me, since he knows I won't attack him or his views, simply because we may differ. -Rosywounds (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not true to say that refusal or inability to reproduce is maladaptive. Many species rely on non-reproductive individuals for survival. Bees spring most readily to mind. Non-reproductive members of a species may contribute to the transmission of genetic material in other ways than simply breeding, eg by providing food, shelter, nurturing etc. A highly socialized species such as homo sapiens requires an awful lot more than simple reproductive activity to thrive. Personally I think Aminz was acting in good faith, as he commented on his talk page there is a huge cultural difference in play here. DuncanHill (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well certainly there are other mechanisms in which homosexuals can contribute to society (which I don't deny); they can benefit society through jobs, charity, etc. and other mechanisms that heterosexuals also do. I was simply trying to articulate the position that Aminz had originally provided, although you do bring up interesting exceptions to the genetic rule. However, the point here is that Aminz was trying to learn, he wasn't trying to offend; I think you have understood this though. Cheers -Rosywounds (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, although the Wikipedia is not a Soapbox, Wikipedia is pretty lax when it comes to user talk and user pages, so long as its within reason. Userboxes, by their very nature, provide a simplistic medium through which one can express one's political views, for example. If we are going to tell Aminz that he can't have a critique of porn on his user page, then why don't we tell various other users not to express their politics on their user pages? How about User:GHcool's rant against all of those that criticize Israel? How about my 5-6 userboxes on politics? Should "I support Zionism" or "Palestinian right to Return" user boxes be abolished, too? WP:SOAP should not be used with the intent to bypass WP:CENSOR; this is simply WP:wikilawyering because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Certainly things like that should be treated equally? I don't mean to single any one user out, but this really doesn't seem like as big of a deal as people here are making it. And evolutionarily, it would be a major exception for homosexuality to be genetically adaptive in mammals, since mammals have a relatively long period of sexual immaturity (and therefore, a population of mammals can take years to produce a new generation). That doesn't mean homosexuals are useless as humans, but it does mean that it is very difficult for anyone to justify homosexuality by saying that "it's genetic," which is what Aminz was trying to say. I also think Aminz wouldn't necessarily be in the wrong for reporting Jay*Jay to administration for WP:STALK, based on his constant analysis of all of Aminz's edits. Jay*Jay and I have never even crossed each other, so it's odd how he would pop up on my User page by accident. -Rosywounds (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Genetically, an organism that refuses or is unable to procreate is useless - this is not Aminz's opinion, this is biological truth. - Seriously? And you don't think that would offend a gay person? That's like when "Dr." Laura Schlessinger called us "biologoical errors". I know I am quite useful and I'll vouch for most other homosexuals as being useful. Granted, there are a few I can do without, but I'm sure even they are useful - and not just "through jobs, charity, etc." - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 19:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality, if we assume it is genetically inherited, is almost as genetically unfavorable as Klinefelter syndrome (which leads to sterility) or Tay-Sachs Disease (which leads to death before sexual maturity). Whether or not you like those comments, it is obvious that if it were a genetic trait, it would not be nearly as prevalent as it is, since any organism that exhibits homosexuality would theoretically never reproduce to pass those traits on. I'm not saying that to be offensive, but that's just the reality that Aminz was articulating. Rather than deconstructing my post, you could have seen that I still don't agree with the notion that homosexuality is a choice, but I also oppose the position that someone genetically inherits it (which makes very little sense; it would not be as prevalent as it is if it were genetic - Homozygote recessive for Tay-Sachs, for example, occurs in less than 0.5% of the world population, and around 1% in Ashkenazi Jews). Many homosexuals, on the other hand, claim that anywhere from 5-15% of the population is gay or bi. This is simply too great of a percentage for this to be genetically inherited. Most scientists today are beginning to look at hormones during pregnancy that could cause it, since fetuses are highly sensitive to hormonal balances. At this point, we are simply getting off topic; this discussion was intended to be between Aminz and I, not the whole wikicommunity. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If I cry "UNCLE", will y'll stop? we've totally strayed from not only the original question, but the purpose of this project and even the purpose of Wikipedia. Y'all are now firmly in the realm of "my opinion is..." -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to be able to close this out: I accept the assurances from Aminz and Rosywounds as to the content of the comment made in Farsi. As a result, I will note my objections to the comment I see as prejudiced, reiterate that the argument advanced by Aminz (and some arguments presented here as well) reflect a poor comprehension of evolution, and move any further discussion back to talk space where it is now clear that it belongs. For the record, I believe that the WP:STALK accusation is misguided (to be extremely generous), and is problematic in light of WP:AGF and WP:AAGF. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Why is Cosmetics included in the LGBT project? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think because of it's relevance to the Trans community. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Kinda strange, given that the article itself has no LGB or T content whatsoever - Alison ❤ 19:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It was added by User:AliceJMarkham - you could always try asking her. DuncanHill (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW Duncan, I asked AJM about it...just waiting for some feedback. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If Mr. Herbert (Family Guy) shouldn't have the tag, Cosmetics sure shouldn't. lol - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 19:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure it really belongs in the project. The reasoning (and I'm not trying to be smart ass or sarcastic) is since a trans person uses cosmetics then it should be included. If that's the case, then anything a gay or lesbian person uses would have to be included. (ex: I use condoms, then condoms would be added to the LGBT project) See my point? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree; if there were some significant discussion of cosmetics use by/ importance to the transgender community[ies], then that would be one thing. However, as Alison said, there's nothing. Aleta (Sing) 23:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

← Basically, a lot of women use cosmetics so why would trans women be any different? As LGBT people, all our lives touch so many areas, just as non-LGBT folks' do. We can't just tag everything! - Alison ❤ 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Awww... why not? I like to eat chocolate. Can we tag that? (just kidding!) Aleta (Sing) 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I second that request! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yah, me three. Let's add Category:Bisexuality :-D - Alison ❤ 02:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion that led to the tagging of that article is in archive 2 of this talk page. It should have more transgender content but it never quite got done. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I read the discussion and since no action was ever taken, should the tag be removed? There are some good points made in that archive discussion btw. I just think that some of the articles that have been tagged for this project are a bit of a stretch and reducing the ones that aren't directly related to LGBT issues would be a good idea, IMO. Thanks for finding the discussion Alice. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess what needs to be weighed up is whether we're going to remove the tags from articles that have genuine potential for expansion in our realm even though they currently have little or no LGBT content, or leave the tags on those articles in the hope that it will spur members of our wikiproject to work on those articles. If we remove the tags now on the basis of lack of LGBT content, do we then add them again if such content is subsequently added? --AliceJMarkham (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And then, will we include drag queens and drag kings, both users of cosmetics? I just think this is a stretch.. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 10:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. If I ever get around to doing something about TG makeup, I'll likely start a new separate article anyway. It's not likely to be soon though... I said that about cleavage enhancement, too. :) --AliceJMarkham (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

News source

I'm not sure of how many of you ladies & gentlemen read the Washington Blade, but the 'Blade Wire' and other news stories on the website can be very helpful in finding sources for LGBT-related articles. In the past few minutes, I've found sources for articles related to Ex-gay, Transsexuality in Iran, Freeheld, Radical Faeries, and more. Just a friendly tip. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

List of male performers in gay porn films

I posted a message in regards to this on my talk page, but I'll re-post it here so all of my queer brothers/sisters can see. I'm currently trying to clean up the articles listed under this category by removing porn/marketing links and reducing the number of movies mentioned per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Filmographies. I know some of the guys on here feel very protective of these articles for some reason. (My guess is they're incredibly horny and want porn on wikipedia in addition to the countless porn websites already on the Internet) I've already had to revert some of the edits guys have made to these articles...edits that are re-adding the links and movie titles. I'm the first one to admit I admire the male anatomy and enjoy the guys in these articles, but come on, this is supposed to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Articles dealing with the porn stars is totally fine, but adding links to their studios and to pictures of their dicks hard is not. A few users, User talk:Ciompi.sellone, seem to think constantly adding copyrighted/pornographic images on WP is fine...it's not. I'm not a prude, but WP is supposed to be educational and adding images of guys giving blowjobs is inappropriate for a website that is used by minors. If someone really wants to see naked images and view a full list of the movies a porn star has been in, then a simple google search will satisfy his cravings. Besides, most of the articles contain a link showing the full list of movie titles. I hope the guys that are adding these links and images reads this and realize this isn't some kind of "attack" on porn actors, but an attempt to make WP encyclopedic and relevant. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I assume since you placed a notice of this discussion on my talk page that I'm one of the people you so charmingly consider too horny to make good decisions about articles (very civil of you, by the way). The notion that Wikipedia must be cleansed of links at which some minor might see a penis is completely contrary to our cornerstone policy Wikipedia is not censored. I have little interest in using Wikipedia as a repository for blow job pics either but if the blow job pic is otherwise allowable under our extensive image use policy then you have no business removing it under the rubric of "inappropriate for minors." As for the notion that a complete videography is improper for a porn star's article, that's nonsense. Most articles on actors contain lists of their works and we have several categorization structures for capturing articles that are solely devoted to listing actors' films, authors' books, asrtists' paintings and sculptures and so on. Unless you're suggesting that the entire contents of for instance Category:Filmographies should be deleted (and if you are then going about it by complaining about porn stars' videographies is to say the least an odd way to approach it) then you may want to examine your own bias that those articles are worthwhile and encyclopedic but lists of porn films are not. I would also point out that the desires of any particualr Wikiproject regarding content should be given consideration but that the desires of that Wikiproject do not automatically outweigh the opinions of other editors who work on the articles without being part of the project structure. The notion that a link could be added to another site that has a listing of films strikes me as self-contradictory, as there is a decent likelihood that the site housing that list will have pictures of naked men on them. Otto4711 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The standard of no more than six videos being listed on each porn actor's page comes from WP:WPPORN. Since you disagree with the standard, I suggest discussing it there. APK is just trying to bring the articles in line with the established standard. Aleta (Sing) 22:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, again, the wishes of the individual project are certainly important but they are not the end-all and be-all in deciding on content. Consider for example Ryan Idol. He appeared in eight adult films. It makes little sense to me to delete two of those films off the list just because the Wikiproject says so. As far as I know having a complete filmography in an article is not discouraged or forbidden by any policy or guideline above the project level, whether for porn stars or "legitimate" actors. Otto4711 (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
So you are the end-all and be-all in deciding content? Tell me if this [10] & [11] (the images have now been deleted from that link but contained oral and anal sex) belongs in an ENCYCLOPEDIA. WP is viewed by minors and I'm having a hard time thinking parents would agree that having pornogaphic pictures and links in an encyclopedia is a good idea. This has nothing to do with the articles themselves...having an article about a porn star is fine, but the marketing and porn links is NOT educational. I'm not here to argue and I wasn't uncivil in my first paragraph...I merely stated what was going on and if you took it as being rude then that wasn't my intention, but when you throw a brick into a pin of dogs...the one that yelps is the one that got hit. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Or maybe the one that yelps is the one who happened to be near his computer when you threw your little "brick." And sweetie, please, I am the master of the snide comment and if you really think that you had no intention of being rude above then you're simply not being honest with yourself or us.
  • I never said that I was the end-all or be-all in deciding content. I said that the Wikiproject isn't. And you certainly aren't. And as I also said, it is irrelevant that Wikipedia is viewed by minors because Wikipedia is not censored. It is not the job of Wikipedia to decide what is or isn't safe for little Jonny or Sue to look at. That's up to little Jonny and Sue's parents. Wikipedia editors have no role in loco parentis and removal of content on any article I see had damn well have a real reason behind it because Won't someone think of the children! cuts no ice with me or with bedrock Wikipedia policy. Otto4711 (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Relax, breathe, calm down, and don't make this into a big deal when it's not. G-DD--N, people on here are touchy about their porn. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm "touchy" about editors seeking to contravene well-established policies and guidelines and then trying to act like the person reacting to their campaign is constipated. I'm "touchy" about editors going into GA-class articles and unilaterally removing links that have passed that peer-review process with the claim that it links to "porn," when linking to sites with adult content is not prohibited nor even listed as a sort of link to be avoided. I suppose it's easier to dismiss these concerns by suggesting that all I really need to do is take a good dump, and that's certainly your perogative, but I find your actions disruptive and harmful to the project and you've said nothing here that indicates to me that you have any real interest in improving Wikipedia but are interested instead in purifying it according to your personal standards of decency. Otto4711 (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A wise woman wrote on my talk page: ":Hey APK, I suggest you post about this at WT:P*, since it's that project's standards you're using, and it seems reasonable to refer critics of your work to discuss it there. If they don't like the standard, that's where they should try to change it, not with you as an individual. Aleta (Sing) 22:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)" I agree...and the "disruptive and harmful to the project" line is real cute. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know about removing links to porn sites - the whole List of male performers in gay porn films debacle really soured me on that topic, so I won't comment. However, given the fact that a single porn star can be listed as "appearing in" 100 movies a year or something ridiculous like that, and given that each film is about as likely to be notable as each Romance novel is, limiting the number of titles is, IMO, a Good Thing™. But you're right, Otto - six is an arbitrary number, and PORNBIO is a guideline, so some leeway is advisable. And guys - stop the pot shots at eachother, K?thx bai. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that a large videography may unbalance an article, and suggest that the solution to that problem is to split it into a filmography article rather than deleting it. Otto4711 (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tabercil wrote on my talk page: "I'm one of the participants in WT:P* and I would suggest you take a look in the archives of the Talk page regarding discussions about the "six film" rule. It's been a source of contention in the past, and it's probably still a valid issue of discussion. Look here, here and here for three of the discussions we had on the topic... there may be more which escape my memory. Mind you the talk at the time was geared toward the breeder side of the market. <G>" AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm more in agreement with Otto4711 on this. 6 is an arbitrary number (whereas 3 is a magic number). If we evidence that a scene has been lifted and recirculated then we can simply tie those two film together. There are multiple ways to address this issue but simply hacking away at lists in articles doesn't seem entirely helpful. I'm also concerned who decides which six? I think it should be handled on a case-by-case basis if there is a strong desire to delete material. Benjiboi 02:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
At least one person agrees with me. Also, for those that read the above discussion...a civility attempt was made on Otto4711's talk page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
So cut it down to six and if the number creeps up a bit, let it go. Eight (or even 10) is still better and more concise than the lists of 30 I've seen on some. Incivility, of course, is still not acceptable. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with "So cut it down". Unless you are quite familiar with an actor's full body of work you're putting yourself in the seat of a knowledgeable biographer determining which handful is fully representative of their work and career. I also sense disparagement against porn as something just to jerk off to. If that's how you see it fine but that is hardly a world view. This, to me, also seems generally dismissive of pornography actors in general and perhaps sexphobic or otherwise inspired by puritanical morality. These articles should be improved through regular editing. A list of an actor's work is valid and we should treat it encyclopedicly not just hack what we somehow deem as just a bit too much. Benjiboi 04:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Claiming me or some of these other guys are "sexphobic" is like claiming Paris Hilton is sexphobic. I love men. I love sex with men. I love watching videos of men having sex with men. I also think listing every single porn movie these guys have been in is not encyclopedic because most of these movie aren't noteworthy (as in they didn't receive a GayVN award for it...most porn movies are quickly and easily made, so they're not like mainstream movies). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, please avoid claiming we are inspired by "puritanical morality." WP:AGF I agree those articles should be improved through regular editing. Most of the articles are full of OR and uncited claims. They're a mess. But simply listing all of the movies doesn't make the article any better...the actual content of the article should be focused on instead of naming countless porn titles (some of the articles also list the entire cast of the movie...which i don't understand). AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't claim, nor do I need the visual (thanks), of anyone's motivations, I stated "seems generally dismissive" and "perhaps sexphobic or otherwise inspired by puritanical morality". This still may be true but we agree the articles should be improved so let's stay focussed on that. I completely disagree that a film is not notable unless it gets an award or nomination, frankly there are plenty of notable films (mainstream and porn) that neither have an article on wikipedia nor any award history. The awards systems are not always freely open and available and actors/studios don't always submit them for consideration. And these articles do need more work so it makes sense to leave the myriad of film titles which other editors saw fit to add as it at least shows a volume and breadth of material which is better than a simple stub. Building articles is an organic process and sometimes sections are way huge compared to the rest. The answer usually is to build up the rest and restore balance not to delete content so it feels better/balanced. And we still have little to guide which movies should be arbitrarily selected until the article is massively improved. Benjiboi 03:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed this response and this morning I noticed your comment from January 19th. Looks like someone agreed it was a WP guideline and that listing a sampling of 6 titles was a good idea back then. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Archive_13&oldid=1190116023"