Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 38

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Homosexual agenda renaming

Please weigh in on my proposed renaming of the article: Talk:Homosexual_agenda#Requested_move CTJF83 06:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

China: Gay people marrying straights

Here is a news article that could be a good source:

Davison, Nicola. "Gay Marriage With Chinese Characteristics." Slate. Wednesday February 9, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

LGBT parenting

Please help me patrol the LGBT parenting article, thanks. AV3000 (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Category deletion discussion

There is a category being considered for deletion here. It is a relatively new category so the talk page of the category has not been tagged with a WikiProject template, but given the topic I think it will be of interest to at least some members of this WikiProject. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Chaser (gay slang) has been prodded for deletion

By an admin even. If it's not dealt with within 7 days it will be automatically deleted. Jerk could have considered merging it with Bear (gay culture) or Chub (gay culture) instead... 108.81.116.34 (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone, inc. editors not logged in, can contest a prod. Also, the article is unreferenced. I suggest you find a decent reference or a few, add them, and then contest the prod on that basis. LadyofShalott 17:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Chubby chaser redirects to Fat fetishism—the term is not specifically gay or "bear", tho as just chaser it is rather ambiguous. I'd say redirect to Fat fetishism as well. I haven't checked, but wouldn't be surprised to find this article was created as a host for linkspam. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Charley Parkhurst Pronoun Issue

Hi, I'm fairly new to editing on wikipedia so forgive me if I've posted this in the wrong section. I tried looking around for the best course of action to take, and this looked like the best bet.

Basically, I came across a pronoun issue on Charley Parkhurst's page and tried editing it, but another user undid the edit saying I was pushing a point of view. I changed it back again, but then undid it since it seemed pointless to get into a pointless editing war. From everything I've ever read on Parkhurst, it would appear that they were transgender. They lived their entire life as a man, and female biological sex was only revealed after death. Yet discussion on the issue claims that we supposedly "know now that 'she' was a woman." Yet there is no evidence I've read to suggest that Parkhurst ever did identify as a woman, given that the majority of life was spent living as a man, rather "masquerading."

While using male pronouns in the article may be too much to ask (though they are used in the article about Billy Tipton, I fail to see the difference beyond that Tipton's family members were alive when he died and the sex he was assigned at birth was revealed), is there any way to settle with gender neutral pronouns (they/them/theirs) at the very least? While no one living can confirm how Parkhurst saw himself/themselves, I think it's a reflection of heteronormative and cisgender perspectives that rejects Parkhurst as a transgender person. Calling Parkhurst definitively a "woman" seems dismissive of a person who, from what evidence has shown, was more than likely transgender within the context of that particular period.

Can anyone take a look at the article and give feedback? Maybe a possible course of action/resolution beyond getting into an editing war over it? See: Charley Parkhurst

NumeralD5 (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Manual of Style with respect to identity says: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to using the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." Since Parkhurst identified himself as a man at last report, that means "he", "his", and "him" are appropriate.

I've tried to make suitable changes. "She" at birth and in earliest years and then "he" from the time he leaves the orphanage and goes West. The MoS also tells us to avoid statements that startle like "She fathered her first child," so I've had to write around the fact that Parkhurst once had a child. If I just changed the pronoun, it would say "he was once a mother"! Check it out and see what you think. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking a look. I totally agree with the changes you've made putting "she" for early years and "he" for his life after leaving the orphanage. It looks much more representative and respectful of Parkhurst's life this way. Thanks again. NumeralD5 (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Rigid sexuality categorisation queried

I support the general aims of this WikiProject, but the practice of tagging articles is problematic. It would be quite a different matter to create internal lists of articles here at the WikiProject. Tony (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Tagging articles as being of interest to one project or another is not problematic in the least. It only means that some aspect of the article's subject is of interest to the project and says nothing else about the subject. Comparing projects tagging articles to dogs urinating on things is unhelpful. Harley Hudson (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Harly, have you sought to discredit what I said on that page by deliberately misquoting to change the tone? On the debate itself, it might well signal something administrative to the WikiProject, but it also sends signals to the readers (who count more, IMO)—signals that are likely to mean quite different things. Tony (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't sought to discredit you at all. Why, do you think I should? If some reader chooses to infer something from a tag other than that it's of interest to the project in question, that is entirely on the individual and of no concern to the project. Harley Hudson (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Article on pheremones and "gaydar"

I found an article that could be of use:

Rochman, Bonnie. "Is He Gay? Ovulating Women Can Tell." TIME. Friday June 24, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

New article needed - LGBT in the United States

There is a huge number of LGBT articles relating to the US and there needs to be a LGBT in the United States article written to tie it all together. LGBT in the United States currently redirects to LGBT rights in the United States. Note that there is a Category:LGBT in the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, but it will need a peer review and a lede section. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Gloria Hemingway

Consensus is needed and other opinions are welcome here:[1]...Modernist (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Greek Love

Check out the article within the scope of the project and determine if it is OK. Could at least use a more varied opinion that one person.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Worldwide Map of Gender-Diverse Cultures

For those interested in gender issues - [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factking (talk • contribs) 20:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"nature of his abuse was male-on-male homosexual acts"

I'm uncertain to the exact Wikipedia and accepted definitions, but this editor's approach seems at best dubious to me. Should these people be categorized like this? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor has been indefinitely blocked as a block-evading sockpuppet. LadyofShalott 18:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Femininity#Definition of femininity

Anyone here willing to read or partially read through the long discussions about this and help out? Outside opinions are definitely needed. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Gay rodeo help!

Hi, the article Gay rodeo needs some help with copyvio issues. In short, the editor who created the article was uncovered as a massive sockpuppet who had created or massively edited dozens and dozens of articles, creating many blatent plagiarism issues. This much-needed article, unfortunately, was one of them. (See Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/ItsLassieTime#Buttermilk1950_Articles_1_through_11) Because all of this sock's contributions are at issue, we have to review this article (and every single other one they dove into) to see if it suffers from plagiarism. Unfortunately, though I tasked myself with cleanup of all the rodeo articles that were affected, I simply have too many other things to do at WP:EQUINE (and real life) to get through to the end of the biggest articles that are going to need the most thorough review. (I am warily circling the Animal treatment one and may enlist others to help there, too) So am letting folks here know that someone needs to go in there, review all the footnotes, compare them to the sources, and if that's not possible (though Google books can REALLY help!), to either find alternative sources or delete the material altogether. I or others at WPEQ will be glad to eyeball the horse-cattle-rodeo stuff, but I'd like a topic-friendly editor to check the refs. User:Moonriddengirl is sort of the leader of those who are working on copyvio problems if anyone needs advice or assistance on how to redo or reword plagiarised materials. Montanabw

Resolved

Textorus (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

LGBT magazine article in need of English version

de:First (Zeitschrift) is about a German LGBT publication

It needs an article in English WhisperToMe (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you do a translation from the German? LadyofShalott 23:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not know German myself.. Editors at WikiProject Germany may know. There may be many Wikipedians on here who know German. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ...But, I'm Your Teacher

The article ...But, I'm Your Teacher has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sign of notability Bulwersator (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

RS noticeboard on Amina Abdallah Arraf al Omari

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Amina_Abdallah_Arraf_al_Omari.2C_Minal_Hajratwala regarding an RS noticeboard entry on the Amina Arraf/Minal Hajratwala interaction WhisperToMe (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Article or redirect?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sexual preference#Own article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Raymond Burr and Rock Hudson

I am opening up discussion to my edits to Raymond Burr here as well as Rock Hudson.

Both never during their lifetime confirmed their sexual orientations. The "sources" used cannot be reliable. ~~If I died, and my friend said, "yeah, Kira's gay", and my Wikipedia article stated it as fact, though I never during my life said this, Gay, Bi, or not, I would be appalled.~~ kiranerys(u,c) 04:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reinstated most of the information here that I had previously in the Raymond Burr article, but changing the wording to stress that Benevides stated it. I'm narrowing down my concerns to the two pages to two basic things.

That categories like 'Gay Actor' or 'LGBT people from ....' be removed, as well as infobox stating 'Partner'
That the WikiProject LGBT studies be removed from talk pages note-I have not yet done this to allow discussion here.
That the respective 'Personal Life' sections be slightly tweaked to leave it to the reader if it is fact.

Anyway, I am totally okay with the personal life sections staying mostly how they are, as they are a good source, I just do not believe they should be used to definitely state with fact that the aforementioned people are gay.kiranerys(u,c) 05:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Being appalled after having died—now that would be a neat trick. Seriously, though, in your hypothetical above, substitute the word "spouse" for "friend" and the word "straight" for "gay"; would that appall you too? Rivertorch (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Being appalled after dying, I admit is a neat trick, but an even neater one is my 'spouse', the authenticity of which had not been confirmed by me until after I died?kiranerys(u,c) 06:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion might be better suited to the articles' respective talk pages, but since there's a similar issue at play in both articles, it might be well to explore it a little further here. (Btw, it would be nice if an actual member of the WikiProject would jump in and say something. Hint hint.) You didn't answer my question above, and I'm not sure exactly what you mean. If I'm reading it correctly, you appear to be implying that a spouse or partner should not be identified as a spouse or partner in an article unless they publicly identified as such when both parties were alive. Carrying that to its logical conclusion would likely lead to the erasure of LGBT identity for thousands of deceased subjects, excepting only the very few who were openly gay back in the day when virtually no one in the vast majority of occupations was openly gay. Rivertorch (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a member of the wikiproject, but my opinion is that:

1) the Wikiproject tag definitely must stay in the talk page; its only meaning is that both articles are of interest to the project, nothing more or less, without implications about the person's sexuality.

2) these are not biographies of living persons where extreme care must be taken; these are historic characters and should be treated the same as, say, Leonardo or Shakespeare. Third party sources are more reliable according to the verifiability guidelines than how the characters identified themselves (or failed to identify).

And 3) I have no strong opinion about the 'Gay Actor' and 'LGBT people' categories. IMO that should depend on the evidence presented by the sources; if there's overwhelming evidence for their being homo or bisexuals, and there's not similar evidence about them being strictly heterosexuals that would base a different point of view, that would be enough basis for including them in the relevant categories. Diego (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the discussion of the sources and their reliability needs to be taken to each of the appropriate Talk pages. Only once the sources are evaluated and the entries written to reflect consensus can we consider, if need be, the category tagging. I did a little editing to Raymond Burr just to remove some of the sensational tone. But I'd like kiranerys to explain on the appropriate Talk page just which sources are or are not reliable and why. But I don't think this is teh place for that sort of discussion. We can come back here if need be. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledgedkiranerys(u,c) 00:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Films and Filmmakers

We have categories for LGBT-related films and for LGBT filmmakers. Am I correct that we do not have relevant categories for makers of LGBT-related films? LadyofShalott 19:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a category for filmmakers who make LGBT-related films because directors direct in multiple genres and having categories for all of them would result in category clutter. A particularly prolific director could be in dozens of such categories that impart very little in the way of encyclopedic information. 76.204.100.66 (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Cara Judea Alhadeff

Cara Judea Alhadeff might be of interest to some editors here. Right now it's a very short stub that doesn't mention sexuality, but her website says "In 2008, she was awarded a residency at Fundacion Valparaiso in Playa de Mojacar, Spain to develop a creative non-fiction project and photographic work addressing eroticism in the context of politicized bisexuality." Cloveapple (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous editor spamming category

Hi folks. I just wanted to let you know that there appears to be a dynamic IP that is intent on adding the category of Fictional Bisexuals and other related categories to every page he touches. Some of them are rational, while others have no proof. The editor has gone by the IP of 98.209.63.216, but I have a strong suspicion that the IP 86.221.90.15 is the same editor, given his or her spamming of category addition. I just wanted to let you folks know so you can keep track of the influx of new listings and perhaps double check to make sure they are accurate to Wikipedia standards.

Thanks. --Tarage (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, have happened upon this myself to the Kira Nerys Deep Space Nine character page.kiranerys(u,c) 22:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Keith Caputo

Hello. Life of Agony frontman Keith Caputo has announced he's begun transition from male to female (more info in the article). Naturally, the article is having a surge of edits, mainly from anon. IPs about this. One IP changed all the "he's" in the aticle to "she's". I assume this is incorrect (I reverted the change), but wanted to seek guidance on this matter from this project. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If memory serves, you don't make such changes if it would produce nonsense (I believe that the MOS gives an example of "she fathered her first child"), but otherwise, the pronouns should (eventually) be switched. Whether that should be done this instant is beyond me. One interim solution is a copyedit that minimizes the use of pronouns whenever possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge via AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphilia and gynephilia is basically a merge proposal involving Sexual orientation and Androphilia and gynephilia. (I assume the proposal is based on the idea that we'd merge an article on Homosexuality and heterosexuality into that article, so why not merge in this newer classification scheme?) Editors are invited to share their opinions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A DYK to add

I was going to leave this at the DYK talk on rthe portal, but obviously it said post queries here. Could someone add the DYK for Dan Hamilton and Antoine Malick to the fold?RaintheOne ^BAM 12:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

LGBT rights opposition

One user is removing large parts of this article. Can somebody react. I don't know if this is the right place. My english is not so good.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 20:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

LGBT turism

As I am involved on plwiki in this general topic I have a questions for you: IHMO I think that the importance (both economically and culturally) of specific LGBT tourist destinations (Vallarta, Whistller, Mykonos, and so on)requires that it be specifically categorized. In this case in general category "LGBT tourism". Category:Gay villages is altogether different as it pertains more to social aspect of a city/town than tourist. I have noticed, though, that there is a total lack of articles in this category in regards to this specific tourist destinations. I have added Puerto Vallarta as a prime example. Is this in any way contrary to your guides of categorization? with regards, --emanek (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Feedback requested: androphilia and gynephilia diagrams

Androphilia and gynephilia survived an attempted deletion recently. As part of expanding the article, several editors have been developing illustrations to explain the relationship between androphilic/gynephilic and homosexual/heterosexual. Based on the terminology as described by Ron Langevin, Milton Diamond, and Rebecca Jordan-Young (all cited in the article), we have developed two illustrations to help lay readers understand why androphilia and gynephilia are more scientifically elegant than homosexual and heterosexual in some situations. One is a basic matrix showing the four combinations of two variables each on the X and Y axes; the other is a Venn diagram. We are seeking feedback from uninvolved editors at Talk:Androphilia_and_gynephilia on which of the two illustrations is better, and if an illustration helps clarify the concept. Please stop by and comment on your preference and thoughts. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Luke Evans dispute

A relevant discussion about whether an actor's sexuality being referenced on Wikipedia violated "privacy" or is "relevant" is under way at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luke Evans (actor). For further context, here are two very recent news articles, one of which addresses changes to the Wikipedia page. here and here.Zythe (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

~~Per WP:CANVASS please post neutral messages about discussions like this in the future Zythe. This message was not neutral in the least.Griswaldo (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)~~

Thanks for rephrasing your original comment.Griswaldo (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

citing self-identify

An article about Andy Mangels, a gay writer and media visibility advocate, has been proposed for deletion. In addition to the question of the subject's notability, there has been disagreement over whether the subject's own web site can/should be cited to document his gay/leather/bear self-identification. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

ISGD terminology is not recognised by intersex groups

This term is the brainchild of Sydney Hypnotherapist Tracie O'Keefe who proposes grouping trans people under an intersex banner to take advantage of the surgical model of "normalisation" that is assumed by the a conservative heath system to be required for intersex people (and is opposed by intersex groups). The ISGD term is widely rejected by intersex groups as apropriative and nonsensicle and further it makes no grammatical sense! Sparkleshy (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sexual orientation as a contentious claim

I think everyone would agree that asserting someone has a sexual orientation which they've denied either explicitly or implicity (such as by marrying someone of the opposite sex) would be contentious because it essentially accuses the person of lying. However, is it contentious when someone freely admits they are gay in an interview? That's the question at Talk:David Ogden Stiers/Archives/2013#Contentious claims. If anyone has any useful opinions their participation would be welcome. (There's also a parallel thread at WP:BLPN#Revisiting the labelling of David Ogden Stiers as gay, but that discussion covers other issues). Will Beback talk 00:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction nominated for deletion

Plain as day. Discussion is here.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom Kahn

I noted that Kahn was viewed as a "wimp" (for being gay) and physically menaced by an SDS leader (who later apologized for his 1962 prejudices).

I expanded some content about Tom Kahn's conflict with Michael Harrington, perhaps too extensively for an encyclopedic entry.

Harrington alleged that Kahn wrote a gay-baiting 1972 speech for the AFL-CIO president, and this allegation has been repeated in two books, by Jack Newfield and Maurice Isserman. Rachelle Horowitz criticized the scholarship in these books and noted that the AFL-CIO President had many other speech-writers and she quoted an associate that Kahn would never have written such a speech.

Harrington was criticized later for not supporting gay rights at the Democratic Midterm Convention in 1978, by The Nation, according to Isserman.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking for Online Ambassadors interested in sociology of marriage

Hi WikiProject LGBT studies members! The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is working with a class for the upcoming term on the sociology and marriage, and we're looking for some experienced Wikipedians with an interest in the subject area to support the class as Online Ambassadors. If you're interested, please let me know.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

BLPs and sexual orientation

The BLP noticeboard seems to be a regular spot for discussing whether to mention that a person is gay, or that their orientation has been the subject of news reporting. There do not appear to be any consistent standards. Interested editors could help set the de facto standards by participating there. Current threads include WP:BLPN#Tim Cook and WP:BLPN#Anderson Cooper. Will Beback talk 02:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Just as an intro - both of these living people have not self declared their sexual orientation. The reports are unconfirmed and anonymous. In the case of Cook he has never commented about his sexuality and in the case of Cooper he has commented a no comment reply to the claims. It would be great to get a consensus agreement about such situations regarding "speculative claims" about the sexual orientation of living people. Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't de facto standards be set by Wikipedia contributors as a whole, rather than by participants in a WikiProject? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Two points: Wikiproject contributors often determine small issues of concern to their project. And everyone helps set the de facto standards at noticeboards and policy discussions. This posting was just to alert interested parties of a set of relevant discussions. I hadn't intended to start a discussion here. Will Beback talk 03:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The basic question imo is should an encyclopedic project contain unconfirmed speculative sexual orientation reporting in relation to the living subjects of their articles. Does BLP support that and if not and community consensus supports such reporting what should be added to the BLP policy to clarify that. Off2riorob (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole American & British tradition of common law arises from handling cases one at a time, unlike the Napoleonic Code, so while striving for consistency we can't always expect one-size-fits-all standards to deal with evolving issues. The endless efforts to re-litigate the Anderson Cooper article are tiresome, WP:RS have reported for years the fact that he's gay, as a fact, and it has more sources than any other fact in the whole article. Some editors have literally said (perhaps facetiously) that they won't accept it until they see pictures, otherwise they call it speculation; they never objected to any of the less well sourced facts in the article, for example there were NO sources for Spanish ancestry yet nobody tried to delete that. However, Tim Cook is a different case, he may have been hoping until this week to continue in the shadow of Steve Jobs and prudence may suggest waiting for him to figure out how to handle becoming a public figure.TVC 15 (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting - In regard to living people it seems in my small world, more of a contentious thing to state as if fact claims about someones sexually when they have never confirmed it than the claim that they had a Spanish grandparent. That is my interpretation of BLP, that reporting of sexuality is a highly personal and in general private affair, and so a heightened level of sensitivity and quality of sources would generally be required for inclusion, if and when such detail made it to a level of notable re-portability. I am hoping that this discussion will reveal the community's position on this, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

@TVC 15: a request for comment has been started by Off2riorob. Please comment there if you wish your opinion to be heard. WP:BLPN#WP:RFC question. Will Beback talk 03:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This project has long had the standard that sexual orientation had to be self-identified to be included. I can't point to the exact place where this was spelled out, but maybe someone such as User:SatyrTN can do so. LadyofShalott 03:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of such a standard. There is such a standard for categorizing people, but not for simply discussing the matter in the article. Will Beback talk 03:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is. I found it: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies#Guidelines #3. LadyofShalott 03:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, but it doesn't directly address this issue. It talk about "identifying and categorizing" a person, which would be doing something like saying "Jones is a lesbian novelist", and adding "Category:LGBT novelists" to the article. What we're talking about is different, such as reporting that someone has been included in a list of the 50 most powerful gay people. Will Beback talk 03:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, it'd be more productive to keep this discussion over at the RFC. Will Beback talk 03:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Men who have sex with men and Women who have sex with women

I would like to vote on a proposal to merge the two pages together and call the article "Gay sexual activity" Personally I think these two titles are too long and while everyone knows better what to look for between the two, Gay Sex only redirects to MWHSWM, While I can't find a fair redirect for the other.

Someone fix this or consider my idea please? JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually like (wo)men who have sex with (wo)men better, since I think these terms are rather more neutral. The point is that "gay" beings up issues of identity, while many MSM and WSW don't consider themselves to be gay. The terms are also widely used in medicine and other branches of science. I see your point about the redirect problem, but I think a better solution is a disambiguation page. garik (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Garik, particularly since these are clinical terms. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What would be a good disambig? JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:QUEER

Good morning everyone,

long time no see, I hope you are all working hard. :) I have received a message from someone involved with WikiQueer who like to see if we could get some kind of collaborative partnership going on. I thought I would ask to see how everyone felt about that before I made a substantive reply? Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 22:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Good morning Jeffpw,

I am under the assumption that these articles are licensed under some open source type of deal or what not so if you use content from anything here it might be a good idea to give credit to where its due in certain or all parts of the articles JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sex and gender in first line of Homosexuality article

There's recently been some to and fro on the Homosexuality article about the first line, specifically the words "sex and gender". Now, it seems to me that a worthwhile distinction is being made there. However, I'm not really an expert on gender studies, and I don't want to mislead. Could someone who knows rather more about it than me please see whether Svanslyck has a point, or if I'm right that this is a distinction worth maintaining? I've started a section on the talk page about it. Thanks! garik (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality in the New Testament

A bit of a mess - badly sourced for a start. Lack of sources in some places, lack of page numbers where there are sources, possibly unreliable sources, etc. Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD notification: List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people

Per "Notifying WikiProjects that support the page", since the nominator didn't provide notification: Note that the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people article has been nominated for deletion, and its discussion is here. AV3000 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

March on Washington 1993 article looks weird to me

I'm probably posting this in the wrong place, but I'm not quite sure where to post to get the LGBT community's attention. I looked up the Wiki entry on the March on Washington (in which I and a huge group from Haverford / Bryn Mawr participated :) ) and was confused to find an entire news article copied, verbatim, onto the end of the Wiki entry. At first I thought someone had hacked the entry to post their personal agenda. A closer reading showed the article is actually pro-LGBT, but it still looks weird to me: shouldn't there be a link to that news article, rather than a complete copy of it? It's longer than the entire Wiki article covering the march itself.

Grammar Geek (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)sepdet

That's for posting this, I've taken the dumpertrucked 1993 article out as per Wikipedia:COPYOTHERS#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others for a start AdamCaputo (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ex-gay movement

Included in the article Ex-gay movement is a list of individuals that consider themselves ex-gay and/or part of the ex-gay movement. Many of those included are of no or minimal notability, with extremely little or no coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is currently a heated debate about whether mention of these individuals should be deleted or retained. See [[3]]. I've started an RfC on the article talk page [[4]], and your input would be highly appreciated. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The RfC is located here. --Noleander (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

MSM blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom

Any help at MSM blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom would be much appreciated. I've started an article but can't claim to be an expert on the topic Quickbeam44 (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've posted at the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamCaputo (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've put some content in, It doesn't have to go much bigger to be a reasonable candidate for a DYK... anyone want to add more stuff in the next couple of days? AdamCaputo (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Slightly less ambitious - can someone familiar with the project give us a importance/completeness rating? AdamCaputo (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Tom Kahn nominated as a WP:Good article

Tom Kahn was a democracy activist, first with the Socialist Party of America, then in the civil rights movement (with Bayard Rustin and Rachelle Horowitz), and the AFL–CIO International Affairs Department (where he worked to support Solidarity (Polish trade union).

The article Tom Kahn has been nominated as a WP:Good article. Writing a review is a chance to earn good karma!

:)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking to try a GA review for a while, if you don't mind being my first, I'm happy for you to be my first AdamCaputo (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Dog Day Afternoon for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Red Link Recovery Live

Howdy. For a while now, the Red Link Recovery Project has been using a tool (named Red Link Recovery Live) to find and correct unnecessarily red links in Wikipedia articles. For example, for the red link Müllerian-inhibiting factor on the article Intersex it might suggest that the link be changed to Müllerian inhibiting factor.

The tool currently has around 3000 suggestions for corrections to red links on articles relevant to this project (those in Category:LGBT_articles_by_quality). Each time you visit this link, you'll be shown two or three of these suggested fixes. I'll be delighted if anyone with a few minutes to spare would care to do so and help improve the quality of this project's articles. -TB (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The tool works well. Kind of addictive. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia Loves Libraries and Tom of Finland Foundation in LA

Hi folks, thought you might be interested in helping out this live wiki-editathon on LGBT content, especially if you are around the LA area: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Loves Libraries#Los Angeles: Echo Park.--Pharos (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Intersex, Sex and/or Gender Diverse (ISGD)

Hi, been a while since I have posted here - wear-and-tear from wiki-homophobia, geographical relocation and intermittent internet access led to my having to take an extended Wiki-break.

I am raising a number of issues about this page, on the talk page Talk:Intersex,_Sex_and/or_Gender_Diverse_(ISGD) It conflicts on with a number of guidelines: WP:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#Neologisms_and_new_compounds - WP:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Neologisms - WP:SPS - WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources - WP:SOAP. It needs to be moved towards deletion, but as I have a COI I feel I am not in a position to instigate this, so request some more experienced eyes on this please. It is not registered as part of this project, but the content clearly falls within the domain of this and/or sexuality projects.

Thanks.

Forgot to sign this above, apology, but I see it has now been addressed. Thanks to whoever did that. - MishMich - Talk - 22:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Gay icon

Do we have inclusion criteria for this page? We should develop some. This good for Betty White? CTJF83 22:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding articles on Gay icons: The divisive word "queer" has a radical connotation. Contrary to what some academics would lead you to think, it does not have blanket approval from the so-called Gay community. "Queer" should not be casually used in write-ups about significant figures in Gay history, such as Vito Russo. It can, of course, appear in quoted text and in the names of organizations like "Queer Nation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.163.212 (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone feel like Wiki-Gnoming?

If anyone feels like Wiki-Gnoming a bit, there is currently a List of Stub-Class LGBT Articles that can be quickly reviewed. Most are still stubs, but there are a few to upgrade. Swing through the list, pick a few and review, upgrade them if need-be, and remove them from the list. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Help with Zachary Quinto Biography

Hi, I am concerned that there are attempts to either minimize or remove all LGBT aspects of this article. I'm not getting anywhere with those editors making the changes. They've changed things then semi-protected the article. After being accused ov vandalism (I have not made one single change), being called a troll and other confrontations it is obvious that a registered editor who understand how to work with Christians is needed. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.33.191 (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist to keep an eye on things.

It looks fine atm from what i can see though.

Thanks Jenova20 13:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Jenova, Thank you! I want to put quite a bit of the material which was cut back into the article. I am want to work with others. When the semi-protect is lifted, I will give it a try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.33.191 (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fab news.

Remember though to sign your posts with 4 tildes or at least register with Wikipedia for more editing options.

Some people don't take anonymous editors seriously so you can argue a position better logged in.

Thanks Jenova20 13:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The rules say you needn't register, but if that will help get fair treatment then I'm willing to give it a try. I try to keep up on most of the LGBT entries and there seems to be a constant battle, waged through policy and drive-by admins who just happen to take the anti-LGBT side. (George Reekers was how I first noticed this, one of my German colleagues went nearly insane battling through that one). Which is a long way of asking, would it be better, given the enormous level of hostility already there, to just live with you folks monitoring it? It sounds like the anti-LGBT side is already standing-by to revert and wage a procedural war against me the second I make any changes. Thanks again - 92.194.33.191 (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There are tonnes of edit wars going on.

Wikipedia projects can end up warring over things aswell since they both have their thing to promote.

Conservative clubs are a thorn since they keep warring over abortion and gay articles to reword them for their own POV.

As for registering, it may help, it may not. But either way you will have more editing tools to use.

Thanks Jenova20 14:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And again with the attacks and taking text out

I freely admit that I am not good at editing, this is my first time. The personal attacks and no discussion, simply delete approach on the Zachary Quinto article have continued. Is there anyway to mediate this or do we just proceed with several of the editors there using their greater knowledge of how to block things at Wikipedia to prevent any change which doesn't fit their agenda? This is very frustrating. I'm not looking for a fight, I'm trying to improve an article. Thanks!92.194.214.93 (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

gender identity

The first section of this article says that anyone is welcome to join regardless of sexual orientation. I would like to change that to read "regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity". This is because my gender identity (female, assigned male at birth) is separate from my sexual orientation, which is gynephilic (a word I use to avoid people objecting to me saying I am lesbian). I am irritated by people saying that my transsexuality is a "sexuality" or "sexual orientation" particularly because of the theory of autogynephilia which wickedly and demonstrably falsely alleges that transsexuality is a sexual perversion. The project is LGBT studies, which includes me. "Regardless of sexual orientation" without saying "Regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity" does not include me. Abigailgem (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Do it. LadyofShalott 19:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I added this into the previous paragraph, as it should be reflected there that this situation already exists. - MishMich - Talk - 23:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I made the edit on 15 October when I saw no objection here. Abigailgem (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Still Semi-Protected

I don't understand the process, would appreciate help. The Zachary Quinto article still shows the semi-protect lock on it. Now, I have not made one change, I am not required to register to edit. It looks to me as if the same tactics are being used here as on so many LGBT articles in order to lock things in. Thanks92.194.16.13 (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You can edit it if you create an account when it's locked but I believe the current protection has expired now.

I would not edit the page yet however, instead join the discussion on the talk page and try to avoid personal attacks or accusations.

You can think someone is biased but if you can't prove it then you can't say it (basically again it's comment on content only).

Thanks Jenova20 14:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Jenova, that makes sense. I do take attacks on our civil rights very seriously. I'll probably take a user-name eventually. There is no way to fight the wikilawyering tactics of the anti-civil rights Christians, otherwise. And I'll try hard not to get so personal. Thanks, again.92.194.16.13 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No problemo, let me know if you need anything Jenova20 09:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Homophobia In The Media

Hi, i'm trying to get an article off the ground and could do with a hand. User:Jenova20/Homophobia in the media Anyone who has anything they can do to help and improve it, please go ahead. Thanks Jenova20 16:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd worry even if fully-developed and based on third-party sources, it would fail to make it as an article because of the inherent (and unfair!) NPOV debates that the term "homophpobia" incites. Conservative straight editors have tried to argue that homophopbia is a controversial designation, or non-existent, or a loaded term, etc. etc.. It would make a fantastic blog (which I'd love to read), but as I see it, it's a subject which both requires and inspires original research, personal insight, and opinion-giving. Without these, as a collection of "things someone called homophobic" (you can't just deduce Littlejohn's obvious homophobia for yourself), it would fail to justify its presence. It's sad, but homophobia isn't recognised objectively by the Western world quite as firmly as racism or even religious discrimination, because the ignorant are very opinionated. My job at the moment involved cataloging, scanning and archiving every mention of gays in the British press in the 2000s, and while I certainly agree that the problem is there, I think it would be tough-going to use the Switzerland that is Wikipedia to illustrate it.Zythe (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Or you could rename it Heterosexism in the media, which is a less loaded term. Its like the difference between sexism and misogyny: not all form of sexism are the result of a direct hatred of women (such as benevolent sexism). Likewise, not all forms of heterosexism are the result of hatred or irrational fear of homosexuality. (Ex: commercials which prominently feature heterosexual couples using household products/dining out or other family/romantic situations may not be a direct result of homophobia, but simply a lack of diversity driven marketing.)

There are of course other examples in google books/scholar. This is a clear subject of academic study, so its not original research. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well it's not original research, i've been careful to avoid that.

Also since the term of homophobia is fairly understood and the definition is on Wikipedia there shouldn't be much point with the POV.

I do understand that the homophobia page comes under constant attack though.

I'm currently getting a few helping opinions on it, including from Wikiproject Journalism, although they are less active on their talk page.

Thanks for your opinions Jenova20 14:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I will look into the books though, thanks for that =] Jenova20 15:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen the 'Homophobia in the Media' article so far and it is just an opinionated list of things which YOU feel are 'homophobic'. I mean this a serious point not a criticism before you attack me. It is all POV/OR, you can't just take things which you feel are homophobic and pass them off as 'homophobia' it doesn't work like that. Its Mac's cartoon, I find it funny and harmless as do many people, just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can come on WP denouncing it as 'homophobic' it is purely POV, not facts. As WormTT rightly said, drop this idea of a list of 'homophobic' incidents, most of which I find dubious anyway and write a properly sourced and fair balanced article. Your current effort is just biased and opinionated. Now please do not abuse me for these comments, I am simply providing constructive criticism. Christian1985 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Christian1985, I have actively encouraged this article. The vast majority of sources there are discussing incidents of homophobia in the media, not incidents that Jenova feel are homophobic. It needs work, and that's what Jenova (and a few other editors) have done. I'm keeping an active eye on things, and will be reviewing it thoroughly before it goes live. I will be focussing on ensuring that the article will be neutral and will not consist of OR - it may however not agree with your POV, but that isn't a massive concern of mine. Oh and for the record, that Mac cartoon negatively stereotypes gay people, and therefore is homophobic - as a satire it is designed to be not "politically correct", and many people will find it funny, but that doesn't make it less homophobic. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It has also been called "anti-semitic" due to the swastikas.

Thanks Worm Jenova20 09:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment WormTT, I disagree however. I am glad to hear you will be overseeing the article, at present it is just a list of things jenova20 feels are 'homophobic'. Like he has put 'Melanie Phillips', she is not homophobic and he has no evidence to back this. Also I do not feel Mac's cartoon is homophobic or anti-semitic and Jenova20 has no evidence to back these claims up. He is simply tryng to reference the cartoon and saying "Look homophobia", this is POV/OR. I also notice Jenova20 has been attacking me again on your talk page accusing me of allsorts, I would appreciate it if you would tell him to stop this. I am simply providing constructive criticism as I do not object to the article, I simply object to its present form which just seems to be Jenova20 settling his personal vendetta with the Daily Mail and other papers. I take very unkindly to being accused AGAIN of 'stalking' and 'hounding', I have done nothing wrong. Please be neutral and tell him to lay off me, thanks. Christian1985 (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

To be blunt, I don't find your tone particularly constructive. Constructive criticism usually implies suggestions on how to improve something, not just saying "this is bad." And you're also incorrect on evidence. A number of sources User:Jenova20 has listed in the sandbox Such as here, here, here, here, and here, are considered to be highly reliable sources, which actually use the term "homophobic" in those articles. As such, the article even in its rough draft format is not "just a list of things jenova20 feels are 'homophobic'," nor a "vendetta with the Daily Mail and other papers" especially when those papers are actually discussing various accusations of homophobia. On the other hand, the rest of the links are mostly blogs, which are inherently unreliable for use on wikipedia and should be removed. Nonetheless, the article currently does not suffer overwhelming POV or OR, thuogh to be safe, only reliable sources such as I links I pointed out or books like the ones I provided from google books should be consulted. As I said, this is an obvious subject of academic study and there would be no need for OR considering the wealth of sources available on the subject. Although I would say User:Jenova20 should start with Heterosexism in the media as the primary article and then focus on homophobia as a sub heading or a sub article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The article is a work in progress - and yes, at the moment, it has areas where Jenova20 may feel that there is homophobia, but has not yet found sources. If he can't find sources, he won't put it in, I'm sure. Have you looked at the sources that he's found for the the article? There's dozens there - more than enough to write a very good article on the subject. Please do ensure your critique reflects the fact that the article is a work in progress and wouldn't be put live in that state.

Regarding the supposed "attacks", I certainly will not tell him to stop. He has reported to me, in my dual roles as his mentor and an administrator, that he feels uncomfortable with the behaviour of an individual and asked for the different ways he could handle it. This is certainly appropriate behaviour. I find it interesting that you are assuming that the individual is you, since Jenova20 said very little and never mentions anyone in particular - do you feel you are behaving in a way similar to that which he described? However, I see you are overtly accusing Jenova20 of having a "personal vendetta" against the Daily Mail and other newspapers - I've seen no evidence of that. What I saw (over 6 months ago) was that Jenova20 was unclear about what information should be put on Wikipedia, due to verifiability and undue weight issues. He's come a long way since then and it would be better if tried to assume good faith. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

WormTT, I accept this is a work in progress but I will be continuing to monitor it and I am perfectly entitled to scrutinise the article which I will do. As I say I do not object to the article in principle, I just want it to be properly sourced and in line with WP policy. Thank You for your comments. Christian1985 (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Like he has put 'Melanie Phillips', she is not homophobic and he has no evidence to back this."

There is much evidence to suggest this, i will add it as soon as i go into greater depth on the media in the UK.

With "constructive criticism" like yours Christian then who needs enemies or vandalism.

Comment on the article if you like but your voice holds only as much weight as everyone elses and i won't respond if your comments are like the ones here.

Thanks Jenova20 11:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your civil comment jenova20, I will continue to monitor the article and I agree my voice holds as much weight as anyone else's. But I will be scrutinising the article and references and I will critique them if they are contentious, that is how WP works. Thanks. Christian1985 (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed your Melanie Phillips references, the First Post one is reasonably sound, but Liberal Conspiracy is absolutely not RS and the other one is simply a blog site, they are not reliable references. This is not an attack but simply pointing out the facts. Christian1985 (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I know full well some are not RS and are blogs but i need a note to look them up in future and know the full story.

That's the only reason they're there at the moment and since it's not a proper article i don't see the harm until i can find proper sources.

If you can note which ones are NOT RS somehow then that will help me later on though.

Thanks for being civil Jenova20 12:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I have sources for Melanie Phillips now if you want to check in periodically.

Can't see her winning any awards for her stance though.

Jenova20 13:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So - based on the article as it is now, and the debate above - how about a list instead? 'List of media reporting accused of bias by sexuality' for example? AdamCaputo (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The article would actually be more practical as a full article with prose rather than just a list of incidents. At the moment Jenova is simply gathering sources to write it out. I would be against changing it to list format. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I did like that idea but i was advised by The Worm That Turned that i would have an easier time writing an article than a list.

Most of that list can be added anyway so a list won't be too irrelevant.

Feel free to add anything you like to it, even if you don't have references since the article is currently in construction anyway.

Thanks Jenova20 09:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that generally a list article should come after the main article and I think as an article it's something that Wikipedia is sorely lacking. It's not an easy task to do, but I'm confident it will be worth it. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the motivating words =]

Will do my best!

Thanks Jenova20 09:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)