Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. 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 5

←

Archive 7

→

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A

We finally finished one of the lists and I've put it up for FLC here. Feedback has been great, except for one user who opposes on the grounds that the list is not "encyclopedic", which I won't comment on, but also that the list is inaccurate because there's no compelling evidence that Hadrian and Antinous were lovers. As my reply shows, I am completely taken aback by this because I have never seen any source, classical or contemporary, that has suggested they were anything but. It is possible that I am wrong though, so if anyone who knows anything about Hadrian could comment, I would appreciate it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The objection is on a level with the flat-earth theory. On the spur of the moment, I can't find a direct quote from a classical source that says "these guys slept together" in so many words. But no doubt there are such sources (Crompton cites the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 3 vols., Harvard Univ. Press, 1953) because the whole body of scholarly opinion seems to concur that they were in fact lovers, and early Christians attacked the worship of Antinous on this very ground. I've worked up some extracts from Crompton you can read here. You might also refer to the article on Hadrian at glbtq. The onus is on the objector to provide a classical or scholarly quote that they were not lovers.--Textorus 19:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S.--Britannica also identifies Antinous as "the homosexual lover of the Roman emperor Hadrian." So the objection is obviously specious.--Textorus 20:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Dunno why I haven't seen this list before, but can we add to the list if we note names missing?Moni3 23:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Oh, absolutely. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And, if you're feeling froggy and want to have a go at some of the people we know we've missed, take a look at Wikipedia:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/To be sorted. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange edits

I noticed earlier today that Benjiboi had reverted some edits by Kootenayvolcano (talk · contribs) in the Transgender article. I've just noticed that the same editor seems to have done some odd rewording of the Transphobia article[1]. I'm inclined to revert this as well, but I thought I'd ask for opinions first. I don't have time but I'd suggest that someone really should keep an eye on this editor's contributions. --AliceJMarkham 02:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed those too but didn't have time to sort through them all, they didn't seem right but I didn't have trust they were all wrong either. Benjiboi 02:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted those too and left a message on the user's talk page. They seem new-ish and just did too many wonky edits with loads of minor edits. Benjiboi 13:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Marijane Meaker

I just rewrote the page for Marijane Meaker (uh, not logged in apparently so it looks like a blank IP address edited it - duh), but because she's a rather well-known young adult author, her page is written as her young adult pseudonym of M.E. Kerr and barely glanced over her lesbian writings. Unfortunately, I'm too ignorant to rename the page as Marijane Meaker, which it should have been originally. Nor can I create disambiguation a page for Ann Aldrich and her other multiple usernames. The Wiki style manuals drive me crazy. Any help would be appreciated. Moni3 03:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Go to the article page, and at the top look for the tab that says "Move." Just follow the easy directions there to rename the page. I've never disambiguated, but the procedure looks relatively simple at Disambiguation_page#Disambiguation_links. :-) --Textorus 04:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. OK, thanks. Moved the page. I also saw the disambiguation links, and simple it is not, especially when they include words and stuff about things I don't need to know about. :| Moni3 04:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

I'd offer my help with a disambig page, but it doesn't seem like one is appropriate. In this case, all her various names should just be redirected to Marijane Meaker, which they seem to be. A disambig page is for multiple uses of the same word (see Medusa (disambiguation) for an example). By the way, I am manually fixing the double redirects. TAnthony 04:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tinkering. If it looks fine, I guess we should leave it. Yay. Moni3 12:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

David Leavitt - anyone from Florida?

I was wondering if someone could take a picture of David Leavitt - apparently he is located in Florida, where he is a professor [2]. He might reply to an e-mail.Zigzig20s 12:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I work at the University of Florida. I can take a pic of him, but have no idea really who he is beyond his wikipage. Any background on him would be helpful before he considers me his personal papparazzo.Moni3 12:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Lol. I am just finishing off his book, The Lost Language of Cranes. I found it in my local library (I live in a small town and they only have a few shelves with books in English), so I reckon he is not that anonymous.Zigzig20s 12:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I did a major overhaul on the page for the novel, so it might make more sense to you now. When would you be able to meet him? Isn't the university closed because of the Summer holiday at the moment?Zigzig20s 14:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not, since I'm at work and not throwing pencils at the ceiling. There is a lull between semesters this week, but because the fall semester starts on the 23rd, students and professors both should be close by. I can send him an email, asking if I can come by his office to take a picture, or I could hide in the bushes hoping to see him walk by...I'll read the page you just rewrote and hope I don't sound like such the dork I am.Moni3 14:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

The email I sent him: Dr. Leavitt,

I am a staff member here at UF and a member of WikiProject: LGBT studies. We are a group of wiki editors who create and maintain pages with subjects relevant to LGBT issues. A fellow member in France has edited your page and a page for The Lost Language of Cranes. To improve the quality of the articles, the member has requested a photograph of you. Wikipedia has very stringent standards for the photographs that are allowed, mostly to avoid copyright infringement issues. The easiest way to get around this is to upload a photograph an editor has taken him/herself. Since I am the closest, I was wondering if you wouldn’t mind my coming by your office and taking a photograph of you with a digital camera to be placed on your Wikipedia article page.

If you’d like to learn more, you can go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies where you are the subject of discussion, all the way down at the bottom as of today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Leavitt your page as it appears today

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moni3 my user page, in case you were wondering who in the world I am.

I appreciate your time and consideration. Please don’t hesitate to respond if you have questions. Thank you.Moni3 16:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

He got back to me pretty fast. He says he's not teaching in the fall and won't be around much. He offered his publisher's publicity shot, but I don't think that will work. It's gonna get deleted in that case, right? I can get him again next semester if you remind me.Moni3 16:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Yeh - publicity shots aren't PD, so that won't work. Best if *you* take the picture and upload it. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it rude to ask where he'll be? If he is in NYC (as he is a 'Literary Lion' at the New York Public Library - whatever this quirky honour means), David Shankbone would probably be able to take a pic.Zigzig20s 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Homoeroticist

Homoeroticist - any clues? I mean, it's just a definition, no refs, no further info. Speedy delete? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of this term in my life. Sounds like someone who peddles gay porn. (We all know there's no such thing as good lesbian porn, unless it's written.)Moni3 17:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Well, I may have come across it but with regards to homoeroticism...Zigzig20s 17:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What Zigzig20s said... Raystorm (¿Sí?) 19:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Moni3, LOL!

Sounds plausible, but it needs a source and should probably redirect to homosexual if a source is found and homoeroticism if not. CaveatLector^Talk 20:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Found this in Terminology of homosexuality - "Other terms include men who have sex with men or MSM (used in the medical community when specifically discussing sexual activity), homoerotic (referring to works of art)," so a homoeroticist is presumably someone who produces homoerotic art. Probably not worth an article in its own right, would suggest redirect to homoeroticism. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A bit old-school or highbrow or both. I would redirect to homoeroticism.[3][4][5][6][7]Tom of Finland ref, (warning erotica) Benjiboi 00:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've boldly redirected the page to homoeroticism on account of the advice here. Any objections? CaveatLector^Talk 03:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandboxes appear in Google results

Just a note and warning to all who might be as clueless as I am: sandbox pages show up in Google searches. When I search on "Homosexuality and Civilization," my ~~Greek love sandbox,~~ created just yesterday, appears second from the top on the Google results list. Huh. IMHO, sandbox pages are for doodling and shouldn't show up in internet searches. But no doubt the Grand High Cosmic Internet Cabal planned it that way. LOL.--Textorus 22:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted sandbox, saved at home. Anyone wants some of that material for an article, let me know.--Textorus 17:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty stupid. You are correct and I am a little worried about that. How does one delete a sandox or subpage?--Amadscientist 02:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

{{db-user}} should do the trick. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!--Amadscientist 02:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

New article Lesbiphobia up for deletion

Seems to be valid and distinct enough from homophobia. comments? Benjiboi 14:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Could it be included in a section of the homophobia article? I'm trying to think if I've ever met someone who disliked lesbians but not gay men, but who wasn't herself a complete closet case (Ann Coulter) and I'm drawing a blank.Moni3 14:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

I removed the prod tag in order to give the article creator (or anyone else) an opportunity to improve the article. I also made suggestions on the article talk page for some possible improvements, & alerted the article creator about it. To be retained, the article needs sources for its claims at the very least. I think it's a pretty sure candidate for AfD otherwise, & will likely be nominated even with sources unless it can make a lot stronger case for lesbiphobia as a needed term as distinguished from homophobia. Personally, I think it could be integrated into Homophobia (& not for any lesbiphobic bias; I'm a lesbian myself), but I want to give the creator (or others invested in the article) a chance. --Yksin 16:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a valid topic of a separate article. I've heard the term increasingly used lately - and it was popular in some Dworkinian writings I seem to remember. Anyway I've added a couple of references, hopefully we turn this into a decent article. WjBscribe 17:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the stuff you've been adding -- good stuff! -- which has convinced me that yes, this article is worth keeping as its own article. I too hope it will expand into a decent article. Wondering if there are references to lesbiphobic stereotypes re: women's colleges (one of which I'm an alum of -- of course, in my case the stereotype turned out to be true). --Yksin 17:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the word 'lesbOphobia'? I've come across it many times...Zigzig20s 17:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now after some thought, it seems that this term would be applicable in mostly female societies and organizations, like when Betty Friedan called lesbianism the Lavender Menace. I've also heard of this on women's sports teams and sororities, the leadership afraid of these organizations becoming associated with lesbians. Moni3 18:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Looks like Lesbophobia is the more common spelling. Have moved the article accordingly. WjBscribe 18:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Edmund White - anyone from Princeton University? or possibly Edinburgh...

I might as well ask, since we've managed to take a picture of Eve Sedgwick and David Leavitt replied - is there a member from Princeton University, or possibly from Edinburgh, who could take a picture of Edmund White? Apparently he is a Professor at Princeton [8], and on his website he says he might go to the Edinburgh festival [9].Zigzig20s 16:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Edmund White has agreed to have me do his portrait (after Labor Day when he returns). --David Shankbone 18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Amazing.Zigzig20s 18:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Roger Casement did what?

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the descriptive phrase "promiscuous homosexual" as being just a tad POV? Or maybe even more than just a tad? It's in the first paragraph of this section.--Textorus 05:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Holleran - anyone from Washington D.C.?

Could anyone from Washington DC take a picture of Andrew Holleran? Apparently he is a Professor there. I was thinking also that perhaps he would be doing book signings for his latest book - so maybe he'll be in NYC or somewhere else? He doesn't seem to have a website though - but he has an e-mail address [10]. BTW, imo his page needs a major overhaul - not very encyclopedic.Zigzig20s 19:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yukio Mishima

Hello to the members of the WikiProject LGBT studies. Recently User:Dezidor removed these two categories [[Category:Gay writers]] and [[Category:LGBT people from Japan]] from this authors page using the edit summary Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. Aside from the fact that who decides what is and isn't controversial is POV by its very nature I wanted to bring this to your attention because every biography that I have read (granted I have only read the ones written in English) mention his relations with men as a fact and not as speculation. Thus my inclination is to restore them to the page. But I do not want to get into an edit war so I have come to this project to see if there is some way to get to a consensus on how you feel that this should be handled. Whatever you members of the LGBT studies project decide will be fine with me and thank your for your time and attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article does state: "Although he visited gay bars in Japan, Mishima's sexual orientation remains a matter of debate." If you can cite a source, I'd correct the article and re-add the categories. Until then, the categories would remain controversial -- the other editor has a point, but that doesn't mean s/he is correct in the long run. My 2¢. HalJor 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested photos

Given the plethora of requested photos recently, shall we set up some kind of page for people to list photos they want that we can update the task template with? I'm thinking we could have a page of name, location and contact details, where people can say "I'll take it" and then update the template with, say "Ben Bradford (London)". Would this be a good idea? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. The reqphoto tag only leads to a page for a place at best, so I think something needs to be done.Zigzig20s 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Should that also include people who are dead, and other lgbt-related things for which there needs a picture? Or just people whom we might be able to take a picture of?Zigzig20s 21:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to be photos that people can see listed on our page, grab a camera, and go snap a photo of it. When I used to monitor reqphotos in the UK, I would create a list of things around my house I could easily photograph and ignore the rest - I imagine that many people would something similar. Also, although I wouldn't mind nipping down to my local LGBT memorial/pride parade/center to snap it, I'd be rather more uncomfortable about approaching, say, my local bishop John Gladwin who is patron of Changing Attitude. So, it might be an idea to split any such list into three - people, places, and events. We could have a rotating list of randomness on the task template of all three possibly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

S. L. v. Austria

Just wanted to point out that S. L. v. Austria has just been tagged for this project and could use some attention. 24.6.65.83 06:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories...

I've made a stab at organizing our over-wieldy category tree into five basic sections. Anyone who is interested can find them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Categories. I plan on reviewing this list monthly so they don't get out of hand (there are at least 50 more than when I did this 6 months ago). I was also thinking that we could work in task-forces on sections - for instance, I'm more comfortable working with the "People" and I've noticed others working on "Culture" (specifically film).

Specifically, I'm thinking of adding tags to our banner that would sort an article into one or more of the sections. That would greatly enhance our ability to track our list of people, and would probably help those working on the "Same-sex marriage" and "civil rights" pages.

Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea but can't see red link.--Textorus

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Categories. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Cats look good to me.--Textorus 01:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As always, SatyrTN, you are a genius and a saint. TAnthony 03:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....

Category:HIV/AIDS - include it? My instinct is to not include it, mostly because there's another (though defunct) WikiProject. And there's so much there that's not related to LGBT issues. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't. It's not an inherent issue to the gay community. Yes, it affected us badly, but it's now way, way beyond that and we can't "lay claim" to it in the way that we might have done twenty years ago. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a lot of people would prefer to put HIV/AIDS out of sight, out of mind these days, even though the rate of infection remains quite high among gay men and is increasing, last I read, among young men. As one who has seen the entire Names Project quilt displayed, I personally can't ever forget the devastation this still-lethal and lifelong disease has had on our community, as well as others. I won't debate the point here any further, but let me just ask: if we don't oversee these categories, who will?--Textorus 17:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That is entirely not our concern. As I said when others were arguing to include the intersex in this project, "We can't take on a bunch of articles because no-one else covers them or the wikiproject that does is crap and you pity them!". We cannot change our purview or take on other project's work because we are the next nearest area - it makes a mockery of what we are attempting to do. If people want to take care of the HIV articles, WP:AIDS is that away, and I can put you in touch with a writer at Poz if you want to promote it, but to add a category that is not relevant to us and hence will not be edited by people contributing to this project is pointless, and sets a bad precedant, not to mention the cluttering up of our article lists and structuring and the obscuring of articles actually within our purview. There is nothing to stop concerned people working on them, and restarting WP:AIDS, but as a project WP:LGBT shouldn't be getting involved, anymore than we should trying to take over ballet because it's disproportionately represented in gay men and WP:BALLET is similarly defunct. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is relevant to the gay community, being the single biggest threat to its existence. I watch and maintain And The Band Played On and there is a prodigious amount of material produced by gay folks on AIDS and HIV. The science of it perhaps doesn't apply, but the social reaction to it by gay folks and straight alike still does. Do I think all articles involving HIV need to have an LGBT tag on it? No, but gay and HIV issues in some instances are inseparable.Moni3 18:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

I agree with Dev. Very strongly.Zigzig20s 19:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The biggest threat to the gay community are those who demand that we be "cured", not a disease which spares no-one be they gay, straight, Angeleno or African. By all means, tag every article which contains an intersection between LGBT and AIDS - but because of the LGBT, not the AIDS.

If you wish to make the argument that we should take it on because we have a disproportionate number of casualties, then I make the argument that we should instead leave it to WP:AFRICA, as 67% of people living with HIV currently live there. But I really think that given there is a wikiproject specifically devoted to it, WP:AIDS, we should really leave it to them. That or WP:MED. They will work more on it than we would - they have the technical detail, the sources, the science etc. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Lavender Mafia

This article had been tagged with notability concerns in December 2006, if found in on the backlog of the Notability wikiproject. I added some sources that show at least that the term is somewhat widespread use. Still, the article definitely needs cleanup and better attribution to sources. Maybe it might also be merged somewhere else. Could someone have a look? --B. Wolterding 08:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What a letdown, not what I thought it would be. I had visions of becoming a gay mafioso :) Maybe redirect to that guy's page?Zigzig20s 09:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And again my hopes for cute outfits go out the closet door - harumph. Benjiboi 22:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer review requested

Hi. Ruth Kelly is up for peer review here. Your comments are welcome. SP-KP 18:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why? Ruth Kelly is not exactly "getting it down wit' teh ghey". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the reason! :-) SP-KP 19:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to do something concrete

I've been a member of this WikiProject for quite a while, but haven't been very active. Thus far. all I've done is created a few articles loosely related to the project. I'd like to contribute in a more meaningful way. If anyone is currently involved in any side projects and would like help...I'd appreciate if you'd get in contact with me on my talk page. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 14:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Know anything about fiction? A couple people have recently noticed that there isn't a "List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction", which could be formatted like "List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters". Just a thought :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

uh... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with that. For instance, have a look at Rabbit Redux, now that the category's been removed, there is no way to know that there is an lgbt character in there...Of course this should appear in a character section, but it's a work in progress - as many other pages on novels are - and so in the end I can't help but notice it's a loss.

As for doing something concrete, you could create a referenced page on the Violet Quill. You could also try to improve pages on lgbt-themed novels if you like to read. You could also try to make a banner without a signature, as someone said they would and I don't think they did, did they?Zigzig20s 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmph. Silly me. I've moved the one to the other a) to expand it to include LGB and T, and b) to specify it's a list of characters. I assumed (without reading) that it was authors. My bad!

BTW, Zigzig20s, my trouble with having the cat on a book is that it labels the whole book as LGBT when there may only be one character. Including the list as part of the "See also" section would a) alert the reader and b) not label the book. Just my opinion, though... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as the list of characters goes, we could do with references for them. Otherwise I worry that someone will put it up for deletion, calling it OR. --Beloved freak 16:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Aiza Seguerra, Filipina Musician/Actor

Someone not logged in added this lesbian musician to the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/P-T, and I had to adjust the entry and had never heard of her before. In Googling her, there is quite a bit of information, even on YouTube but much of it is in Tagalog, which I don't read or speak. Does anyone read it and can add to her article? 17:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Moni3

Advice on "dyke" in Slut night article

Hi, I need a bit of advice about this edit [11]. In my experience the labels "dyke" and "lesbian" are hardly interchangeable and "dyke" keeps getting removed as redundant, pejorative or LGBT insider-jargon. I think it's important but I'm not sure how to back up the phrase "dykes and lesbians." Should I just give up? Benjiboi 07:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose in order for Wikipedia to remain as objective as possible, the term "lesbians" in inclusive enough for now. Since "dyke" is still controversial enough to be considered an insult by some and a charged word of empowerment for others, in contrast there really is no other connotation for "lesbian". And I wish there was a Slut Night closer to me...Moni3 14:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Help me out here, y'all. Dyke is to lesbian as queer is to gay, no? A term of abuse in the mouths of homophobes, but "reclaimed" and acceptable within the community, right? So usage in an article would depend on context. We already have articles on "queer studies" and "queer theory," etc. If I'm off base, please correct me.--Textorus 17:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the context, as usual. Queer theory has been written about and apparently named by people with letters behind their names - it has been intellectualized. And on Wikipedia, the use of "queer" is used only as it has been named by the aforementioned folks with letters behind their names, as opposed to more POV statements like, "George Bush proposed an amendment to the US Constitution to make it illegal for queers to get married." or, "The Stonewall Riots were initiated when the police raided a queer bar." Yes, it's odd, but I do see a distinction.Moni3 18:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

"Dyke" is to "lesbian" what "queer" was to "gay" - about 20 years ago. IMHO. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

So do I re-add it with a qualifier like "self-proclaimed dykes?" Benjiboi 23:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You could do that, but you'd have to cite it where the participants called themselves dykes.Moni3 23:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Cheers. Done and cited. I also accept that the editor had a good point that many readers wouldn't understand using the term wasn't meant in a negative way. Benjiboi 00:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:GAY

Up until a short while ago, the wikilinkage above directed to here. What happened? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That redirect was nominated at Redirects for discussion - the consensus was that it should be retargeted. You can read the discussion here. WjBscribe 21:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, nothing showed up in WM regarding the RfD, so the discussion kinda happened without oppositional input. I don't mind the redirect, but you don't break one thing to make another thing work slightly better. I would suggest that someone involved in the redirect discussion fix the essay's redirect with something new, like WP:NOGAY, or whatever. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well anyone can create a new redirect for the page on en.wiki. But as the essay itself is on meta, the shortcut listed on it is the shortcut you would use to get to it from meta- where you just type "GAY" to be redirected. As to a good choice for a local redirect, WP:NOGAY is a little hostile given the pages is a joke. How about WP:FRIENDS? WjBscribe 22:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheer, Dorothy, Cheer! up for deletion - check out the videos though

Hi all, so Cheer, Dorothy, Cheer! is a small performance art troupe that I'd never heard of but I'm glad I did. They do campy reinterpretations of the Wizard of Oz meets modern cheerteams as part of their extended Pride shows and I think they're hysterical. I've put a link to the videos in the external links section if you're looking for a bit of a giggle. Benjiboi 01:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sumptuary law where are the lesbians?

Hi, so another of those wacky ideas popped into my feeble brain and I checked the article and little mention (actually no mention) is made that lesbians helped expose sumptuary laws for being unjust etc. These were laws that define who was allowed to dress like a certain class of society but also a certain gender. Another example of bulldykes leading the way as it were. Anyone have interest or knowledge of where to find info on this? All help appreciated. Benjiboi 06:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Musical Groups discussion

There's a bit of discussion going on at Category talk:LGBT musical groups#Gray areas that could use some input. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fun Home on FAC

I should probably have given you good people a heads-up on this sooner, but better late than never. Fun Home is now being considered at FAC. Early indications are fairly good, but reviewers want more coverage of themes in the work and scholarly commentary. If any members of this project have access to scholarly sources which discuss Fun Home, please feel free to add them to the article. (At the moment, "theme" is combined with "plot" in the article because of the book's non-linear structure, but anyone who wants to separate the two is welcome to try.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Judy Garland bisexual?

I've just deleted Judy Garland from List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/F-J, where she was listed as bisexual. I read her mainspace article twice, and there's no mention of bisexuality in there. Whoever posted her to the list gave only one reference, a 2006 book by Darwin Porter, Katharine the Great: A Lifetime of Secrets Revealed (1907-1950).

Looking at the review of this book on Amazon.com, I see more than one reviewer has noted that it is based on uncorroborated rumor and gossip. Apparently, Porter's thesis is that Hepburn slept with everybody in Hollywood, male and female (I haven't gone to the Hepburn article to check it out). I haven't seen Porter's book myself; but a quick Google search doesn't seem to turn up any other sources for Garland's bisexuality, other than reviews and mentions of Porter's book.

We know the divine Miss G liked men well enough to marry five of them; I'd be just as happy to learn that she liked women, too, but I'd like to see a reliable, fact-checked source for this assertion. Hollywood gossip just ain't good enough for an encyclopedia, IMHO. I was about to remove the LGBT template from Judy's talk page, but I'll leave it there until others have a chance to look at this matter too. What do y'all think?--Textorus 20:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw a TV programme a few years ago where someone who knew her when she was young said something about Garland having affairs/an affair with women/a woman, and getting into trouble with film studio peope. I can't really remember, certainly don't know any reliable sources, and chances are it was just gossip, but it might be worth a further look. --Beloved freak 21:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, her bisexuality is addressed in Judy Garland: The Secret Life of an American Legend, by David Shipman. The New York Times gives the book a very good review, and even mentions that her bisexuality was well known in Hollywood. Put her back in or leave her out. But it is verifiable, which is the only criteria for Wiki. Jeffpw 08:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Femslash

The article on Femslash has been prodded a couple of different ways now. My resources for referencing are limited. If others could help out here, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks ZueJay (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly notable. Check out Google Scholar. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dev. Added some sources from those searches. Another editor has removed the Notability tag (wheh - the 150 MB of word files on my computer are still femslash and notable), but more sources are still needed. ZueJay (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese?

Can anyone read Portuguese? I've placed the LGBT Project banner on Rosely Roth, but before I add her to the list of people, I'd like to verify that she is a lesbian. Help? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, none of them actually say she is a lesbian, but it's quite implicit. I don't think there can be any doubt about it, considering her entire career. :-P Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 10:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging Kinsey Scale & Kein Grid into new article: Measures of Sexual Orientation

There was an untagged request for a merge and a bit of discussion on Talk:Klein Sexual Orientation Grid about merging the Klein grid article into the Kinsey scale article. Rather than that, I thought that the two articles should be merged into a third new article, Measures of Sexual Orientation (as a suggestion), leaving the redirects in place, of course. There is a longish comment by me on the Klein talk page. Right now, one article (Klein) is a stub, the other a start class. Continue to discuss on (to be created) Talk:Measures of Sexual Orientation rather than here? Or where? I'm not sure on process for this kind of discussion. Any thoughts? — Becksguy 16:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no discussion on Kinsey scale so I left well enough alone but did comment at Talk:Klein Sexual Orientation Grid that I feel both articles should be developed and simply reference each other appropriately. Other article can then reference either or both for issues that are well sourced. Benjiboi 10:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

French or German speakers?

Jacques Teyssier is on our list of people to be referenced and I'm unable to find reliable sources in English, though Google News does return [12] several results in French and German (scroll through to find the ones that don't have a price or the word "Subscription"). If someone could a) verify that he's gay, and b) verify that he's notable for something other than being Volker Beck's boyfriend, I'd much appreciate it! Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This link is talking about the LSVD's campaign in the UN last year for recognition in the UN (I think). I am certain that this news article refers to Teyssier as the spokesman (Sprecher) for the LSVD. What sort of information are you looking to add into the article (this link is more about the organization than about him) I'll continue looking through these results to see what I can find. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 03:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing shows up when combining his name with "homosexuel," "pede" or "gay". Haiduc 03:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The LSVD's website says that he is the treasurer and that he was among two to represent the LSVD at the first conference of the 'year of equal rights' in Europe (which I am not familiar with). And he's definitely queer. His name turns up plenty of results with 'homosexuelle' [13] and 'schwule' [14] on the German google. I'm having a hard time believing that he's notable enough to garner an article for just himself, though. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 03:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was afraid of. He's somebody's boyfriend, which unfortunately doesn't satisfy WP:N :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Time to prod then? CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 05:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not be bold and merge it into Volker Beck, which could have a brief discussion about his partner? That way people who search for Jacques Teyssier still find out about him (and in the context that they're most likely to have heard of him)... WjBscribe 08:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone in LA or Alabama to get Fannie Flagg photo?

Her schedule isn't made public that I can see. She does book signings all over the US. She lives half her time in LA and the other half in Birmingham, AL. Does anyone know how to contact a publisher to get her schedule?Moni3 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Reassessment from Stub to...?

I'm still learning here, obviously. Not sure how to go about getting reassessed for quality, but can I get a reassessment on 2 articles I've been working on from Stub to a higher class? Desert Hearts and Patience and Sarah? Both are under different projects as well as LGBT - films and novels. Do I need to have those projects reassess the articles for quality, too? Was thinking of submitting a DYK for either or both and one of the first rule says they can't be Stub class articles. What if it's start class under one project and stub class under another?Moni3 16:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

I've upgraded it. I went ahead and graded it for the films and novels project too, so that you can submit it to DYK. They can change the grading if they feel it necessary, but I think it's pretty clear it's no longer a stub. Kudos on the job with the article, btw. :-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! Yay!! Anyone care to reassess Patience and Sarah? Moni3 18:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

I went ahead and assessed it too (forgot you had mentioned two articles, heh). ;-P Less clear on this one -Start or B? Would appreciate someone else's input. Cheers! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't add the part about the opera, but I think it needs better references, so I'll work on that. Can the B class stay as long as I promise to put better refs to the opera part? And do you (you=anyone) have any idea how hard it is to find references regarding the impact of gay/lesbian books from 1949-1973? I've just about had to give up on my pet Ann Bannon project of the individual book articles. I can't get them past start class. Thanks again, Raystorm! Moni3 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

If I were you, Moni, I would leave it at start, then upgrade it yourself to B when you've reached that point. There's no policy saying someone else has to re-grade :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

See, I didn't know these things. Didn't know I could make all my articles Good Article class if I felt like it...Not that I'm going to do that, but still... Moni3 20:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Well, that's actually the one grade (+ FA, for obvious reasons) you can't put for yourself. ;-) It has to be evaluated by another person following the standard GA routine (nomination, eternal wait, corrections, etc...). Although you could grade yourself the article, it's not a bad idea to ask someone else to do it. Main contributors tend to be protective of their babies. ;-) Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling tag questions

Heyall, I have a question about scrolling tags and, I guess, scrolling in general. My understanding was that scrolling tags and other templates were discouraged as they didn't work in some web browsers and had readability issues (like interpretive software for sight impaired users, etc.). The Feminists For Life article has the tag "Articleissues" on it to see what I mean. I personally find them hard to use but if they are considered the best option to replace multiple tags then so be it. Comments, ideas, alternatives? Benjiboi 19:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've recently been told, scrolling boxes are discouraged for several reasons - readability, accessibility, printing, site mirroring, and browser-compatibility. Plus (IMHO) it looks terrible! :) I've left word with the template-talk page and with some more knowledgeable template creators to have that changed. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I've never seen a tag like thatb here before. It works fine on my browser, but as SatyrTN said, it looks dreadful! I would can it on aesthetic grounds alone. Jeffpw 20:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the info! Benjiboi 03:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Work, grrl! Is there a "Beautification Barnstar"? Oh - wait - here it is :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

BloomingOUT Gay radio show up for deletion

Afd discussion here [15]

It seems to me that this article is simply an advert for the show without any particularly useful information in it. (Pi 21:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

Questions about Notability, Etc.

I've been engaged for the past month or so in documenting anti-LGBT hate crimes here on Wikipedia. To date I've added the following:

I also added significant information to the Paul Broussard article.

I have several more articles that I'm researching and intend to add. I'm currently working on articles about: Ukea Davis and Stephanie Thomas, Edgar Garzon, Sandetar Singh, Dwan Prince, and James Maestas. I also plan to update the Danny Overstreet article in the same way I did with Paul Broussard.

I'm concerned because twice I've had articles challenged on grounds of notability. An article on the death of Erika Keel, a transgender woman, was deleted entirely. Most recently, the article about Roberto Duncanson was flagged due to notability because, according to the person who flagged it, it was "a routine hate crime-apparently no controversy, no major protests, no new laws."

I am new to Wikipedia, but having read the notability guidelines, I'm not sure where it reads that major protests, new laws, etc., are a prerequisite where hate crimes are concerned. If those criteria are to be applied, then most of the anti-LGBT hate crimes recorded on Wikipedia should be disqualified. Can someone explain to me that aspect of notability, because it seems a bit subjective.

Is Wikipedia the wrong place for this project, or these articles? Where should I put them if not here?

Also, I'd like to improve my articles by adding pictures. However, given my earlier experience, I'm concerned that articles might suffer for violating image guidelines. Most of the images I have of the hate crime victims I've covered are from news articles and are almost certainly copyrighted. I've read the guidelines, but I'm not sure I understand them well enough to avoid trouble.

Can someone explain to me in simple terms the guidelines for using copyrighted images from news articles, and the likelihood that they fall under fair use? TerranceDC 15:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Now the article on Nireah Johnson has been threatened with deletion. After being featured on the front page.

I also noticed someone left a message challenging the notability of that case. The same happened with the article I just published on Roberto Duncanson. Plus the Erica Keel article was deleted entirely a while back. The problem I have is that notability seems to be subjective. I've read Wikipedia's notability guidelines and I don't see how the those cases fell short.

Does anyone know the politics of Wikipedia very well? It seems that at least some people think that if a hate crime didn't get widespread coverage, wasn't the first of its kind, and didn't inspire new legislation, etc., that it doesn't belong there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that criteria could be used to disqualify most of the anti-LGBT hate crimes already documented there.

The articles that have been challenged on those grounds have all involved LGBT people of color; people whose deaths would never receive widespread coverage anyway, which is the reason I started this project: so they wouldn't not be entirely forgotten. But I am getting the sense that there is some hostility to these cases being documented on Wikipedia, and that it the attention the project has received has increased that. My guess is that every article I put up may be "watched" and challenged on some grounds.

I mentioned the other articles I am working on. My sense right now is that most of them will face similar challenges as the articles I've mentioned above.

If anyone has any knowledge of how Wikipedia works, or any advice on how to deal with this, I'd appreciate hearing it.

I want to continue this project, as I believe in its importance. But I'm concerned that efforts at Wikipedia will be further impeded, and I don't know of a better place for this project to live. I've saved copies of all the articles I've written. So, they could potentially be posted elsewhere.

But where are they more likely to be accessed by as many people as on Wikipedia? The whole point was to make information about these hate crimes and these victims accessible to more people in the first place. TerranceDC 20:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as the subjects are sourced to notable sources, such as mainstream newspapers, etc., then it should be fine. However, Wikipedia is not a place for memorials (see WP:NOT) so some of what you want to do may fall outside the realm of the scope of the project. Murders happen every day, as do hate crimes. This isn't the place to catalog them all outside of the ones that do not meet the WP:BIO notability standards. I would read up on those policies and guidelines to stop yourself from doing work that may be undone. --David Shankbone 20:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, then there's nothing more for me to do with this at Wikipedia. It looks like I picked the wrong place to tell these stories. But then I think that they're all worthy of notice. Somewhere. TerranceDC 22:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with it. --David Shankbone 22:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. There's a difference between a memorial to someone whose died with accurate statements and an encyclopedic article with verifiable statements of the events. If you're citing sources (which it looks like you are) then the article might not be a wow fantastic one but it should survive the onslaught of deletionists. Also try not to take other editors tags and edits personally, they might have a point that "most" readers or the "average" reader is going to read the top section of the article (only) and needs to understand from that who the person was and why should they care.Benjiboi 22:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the notability requirements are so subjective and arbitrary that the only "safe" material to put on Wikipedia is that which has already been so widely covered as to be known to a great many people.

Many of the cases I'm writing about were not widely covered beyond where they happened, and almost certainly didn't get national coverage. In many cases that's at least in part because the victims were LGBT, and in many cases people of color, whose stories would never take up, say, a great deal of Nancy Grace's time, or any other major media outlet.

If I compile the objections to the stories mentioned above, these are the notability requirements I have to keep in mind:

Is it the first of its kind?
Did it receive wide mainstream coverage?
Was it "high profile"? Was the victim "high profile"?
Did it cause large protests or demonstrations?
Did it inspire new legislation?

In most of the cases I have left to research and write up, the answer to all of the above is "No." And so, if I don't want to spend the hours researching and documenting them only to see them deleted, I probably shouldn't put them here.

I won't go so far as to say that it was a mistake to start the process of adding them to Wikipedia. But even upon reading the guidelines, or as many of them as I could get through, I realized that it might be impossible to complete and abide by all of the guidelines.

I'd never contributed to Wikipedia before, and I'm sorry it wasn't a better experience. I'm not sure how to contribute at this point and abide by the various guidelines. TerranceDC 23:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it feasible to create an all-encompassing victims of hate crimes article? Power in numbers and all...Moni3 01:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

I don't know. There's already Violence against LGBT people. But given the level of detail I've been providing, that would make for one very long article, unless it was just short summaries. But what would they link to? Longer articles? That's what I'd pefer, but that brings us back to square one. Most of the articles I'd write at this point would be vulnerable to notability challenges, for the reasons stated above. At this point I could add a dozen or more bullet points (sans links to longer articles) at Violence against LGBT people and let it go at that. But that doesn't tell these stories in the way I'd hoped to do. TerranceDC 02:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite hard to define a hate-crime. There are so many crimes with either a slight racial/sexual motivation behind them or with disputible aggrivation which could be considered hate-crime or standard crime (Pi 10:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Is it possible for me to delete the articles I've contributed to Wikipedia thus far? Rather than wait for someone else to do it? I honestly now feel that the time spent posting them here was wasted and that the information is not wanted here and has no place here.TerranceDC 05:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to contact an administrator for that. Or place a delete tag on them. Sure you can't do a subarticle in Violence against LGBT people, and place some of your info there? Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 10:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already contributed short summaries all along to Violence against LGBT people - Individual violence for all the articles I've done thus far, but there's apparently nowhere on Wikipedia that's appropriate to tell these stories in the detail that I've been telling them. None of them are the first of their kind. None have spawned major protests. None have gotten widespread coverage beyond the areas where they happened. None have spawned new lesgislation, etc. And none of them are recent enough to qualify for WikiNews. At best, I can add summaries and post the full length stories on another site, and use them as citations on the Wikipedia article. That's probably what I'll do.

There isn't much more I can do here, since it's likely that the full length articles I've been doing would violate the guidelines here. I read the notability guidelines before I started, but I didn't realize how subjectively they can be applied. I though it was enough if I could cite enough verifiable resources to show that the information recorded was factual. But verifiability isn't enough. The subject apparently has to be somewhat recent and already somewhat famous to qualify for an entry, along with either being a first or establishing other record. By that token, outside of Matthew Shepard, Brandon Teena, Gwen Araujo, Allen Schindler, Barry Winchell and a few others, most of the other hate crime cases on Wikipedia probably shouldn't be here either.

Including most of the ones I've added, since none of them meet the standards above. Roxanne Ellis and Michelle Abdill shouldn't be here. Roberto Duncanson shouldn't be here. Steen Fenrich shouldn't' be here. Jason Gage shouldn't be here. Nireah Johnson shouldn't be here. Glenn Kopitske shouldn't be here. Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder shouldn't be here. Nizah Morris shouldn't be here. Ronnie Paris shouldn't be here. Richie Phillilps shouldn't be here. Michael Sandy shouldn't be here. Arthur Warren shouldn't be here. Rebecca Wight shouldn't be here.

None of them would pass muster as far as notability is concerned, at least according to some of the people who've commented on some of them recently. They're either too old or not widely known enough to actually make the cut, depending on who's making the judgment. Most of these people were not notable in life as far as most people are concerned, so they're not notable in death either. And most of the cases I'll be writing about from here on out are even less recent and even less widely known.

None of them are recent. Most of their stories have been buried in news archives that nobody can read without paying to see them. And very few will do that. So, except for a few scattered sites on the internet that arent' all that regularly updated, their stories pretty much fade into invisibility. That's what I'd hoped to change.

So, I've decided to establish a freestanding wiki for LGBT-related hate crimes. I'll post copies there of the articles I've posted on Wikipedia, as well as new ones that I'm researching.

(outdent)After looking at Michael Sandy, I hope you don't leave us! That article is absolutely amazing!!!! Extremely well sourced, well written, just beautiful! Please contribute here when the articles warrant it! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Same sex marriage in Malaysia

There is this marriage by Joshua Beh and Jessie Chung in Kuching, Malaysia. Joshua is a male, while Jessie was born male (Jeffrey), now a lady. Their marriage is not recognized by Malaysian law. And i dont think Jessie's sex change is recognised. Would this fall under same-sex marriage? Which category would this fall under. If i created an article on Jessie Chung will it satisfy the notability criteria? Thanks and Good day.. :) kawaputra^torque 06:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And here's some links:

kawaputra^torque 06:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont think that we can call it same-sex marriage if the state doesnt recognise it. I have lesbian friends who performed a wedding in the UK before same sex unions came in and so their marriage wouldnt have been recognised due to there not being same-sex marriage allowed by law at that time. I think the same must apply in this case (Pi 10:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

I concur, in the movie Shotgun the female couple had one who was still transitioning so they quickly married to be legally married before the driver's license was amending to reflect that she was no longer male. The marriage was legal by sttae standards though. Benjiboi 15:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Baltimora

Is Baltimora a band or a person? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's a pseudonym of Jimmy McShane (Pi 10:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

"Word is Out"

Does anyone have the Nancy Adair book "Word is Out"? Is her coming out story one of the ones presented? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Gender binary

I just started the article Gender binary. Take a look if you're interested and please peer review. --Ephilei 02:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK process?

Anyone know anything about the DYK process? I've just created glbtq.com and think it could qualify. Help? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. Just list a short (approx. 200 characters) hook - something like "...that glbtq.com is an online encycolpedia?" (but more interesting) - at Template talk:Did you know under the day that the article was created. If other editors think the nomination is problematic in some way, they'll comment, otherwise, it will most likely be listed some time in the next few days. Carom 03:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

How does this sound?

...that the online encyclopedia glbtq.com has almost 2,000 entries categorized into Arts, Literature, and History and Social Sciences - and was called "the Britanniqueer Encyclopedia" by The Advocate? (self-nom) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

glbtq.com says that Joris-Karl Huysmans was gay. [16] Yet see [17]. Maybe the biography that the person refers to is wrong?Zigzig20s 07:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just done a pretty thorough Google (and Google Book) search on Huysmans. Most biographies don't say he was gay. However, a couple do. And furthermore (as far as the LGBT Project banner goes), Huysmans was important in early gay literature - his work A rebours, for one, is an explicitly gay book. And a lot of his work influenced Oscar Wilde. I'm off to edit the article - and I may jot a note to the guy that wrote the glbtq.com article to see if he has any further information. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems like an interesting enough hook. Carom 16:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yaay! It's going to be on tomorrow! :) :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats - always satisfying to have your work displayed (more or less) prominently! Carom 02:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggested a factoid for DYK for Patience and Sarah for the August 17 date, and it's gone. I updated it again last night, now it's not there this morning. Was it deleted by a vandal, or was it taken out by an admin??Moni3 12:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Dude! I'm such an idiot!! It was posted today!! Yay!!! Moni3 13:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Graphic Design request

Could someone please take this image [18] and stripe it diagonally with the rainbow flag? Please? Thanks. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dev920, if you haven't gotten that resolved yet I found Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve to be quite helpful. Benjiboi 01:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am right on it Dev Pi 13:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have created the new image:

If this is not what you meant just let me know.

I changed the file name so as not to delete the other image, the new one is located at Image:Rainbowghost.jpg (Pi 13:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

What in the world is this for, Dev!?!? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"You are dead in the eyes of the WikiProject LGBT studies" barnstar? --David Shankbone 14:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the ghost of gay cabals future. Benjiboi 15:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Thanks ever so much, Pi (is it Pi?). I saw the original image on Crockspot with the caption "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy - Spectres and Apparitions Directorate (VRWC-SAD)", and I thought modified it would make a great gay cabal image. Just thought it might be a good piccie for any future eventualities... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Commons, please! X-D Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Done :-) - Alison ☺ 17:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Alison!!! ;-D Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Confrontational vandal at Transgender

It seems that we have a new, rather confrontational vandal attacking the transgender article and putting some very inflammatory statements in the talk page. I've had to refrain from responding to the most recent remarks because I'm completely unable to form a civil response to them. This vandal has so far been Greghist (talk · contribs) and R jay72 (talk · contribs). Their general claims (all completely unreferenced) are:

Gay men are being forced into sex changes as an alternative to death in Iran
Transgender people are homophobic and are trying to distance themselves from LGB
Crossdressers are gay and only dress to have sex with other men (contradicts existing ref in article)

Perhaps someone from the gay cabal might like to have a quiet word with them? :p --AliceJMarkham 07:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been pretty entertaining so far and (gasp) I've actually learned something when I was trying so hard not to! This reminds me of an idea I had for rainbow burkas which I'm glad I never did. But they would have been fab! Benjiboi 17:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

LGBT project IRC Channel

Thanks to the amazing help of Siabef (one of my admin pals at es:wiki), we now have our brand new, shiny & registered, official (did I say new?) IRC channel!!! ;-) Simply register your desired nicks following normal irc procedures (it will make things easier in the long run, though it's not a prerequisite), and join irc://irc.freenode.net/LGBTproject. Enjoy! :-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not working for me. It says, "Firefox doesn't know how to open this address, because the protocol (irc) isn't associated with any program.".Zigzig20s 14:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's weird, because I'm talking with Dev there. :) Perhaps you should download X-Chat before joining #LGBTproject? Check out this tutorial, you may find it helpful. :-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 14:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Zig, just go here and put in #LGBTproject. It'll be easier for you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We are having a blast at the irc channel, just so those people who haven't visited us know (you know who you are). ;-) Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside from once when I should have been in bed asleep, it's always been empty (aside from Dev's away placeholder) when I've been in there. :( --AliceJMarkham 01:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we've talked about that there Alice. I'm really sorry about it (did you see the message we put for you at the top?), but you being in Australia makes it somewhat difficult to synchronize with the other user's time zones. Keep trying though! :-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 19:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Nope. No message there now. What sort of time is anyone in there, anyway? --AliceJMarkham 02:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say 8ish pm, CEST. :-) Someone took out the message, I'll see if I can put it back up. Cheers! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

CEST. That's UTC+2. I'm on UTC+10, so 8pm CEST = 6pm UTC = 4am Australian Eastern Standard Time... Maybe some other time. :) --AliceJMarkham 11:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Well, maybe if one day we all stay until 12pm-1 am CEST, and you wake up really early... ;-D People do log on at very odd hours on weekends, you know... Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Twinkie defense

Could someone please advise me on this editors mass deletions at Twinkie defense [19], the editor at vandalism said it wasn't vandalism and I should take it up with mediation which I've not familiar with. Any advice/help appreciated. Benjiboi 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this topic really to assist you, but jeez. Thanks for assuming good faith and being polite. What a prat this person is...Sorry - hope someone else can help you. Moni3 16:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

It's been given what looks like 10-day Anonymous protection, but the user seems to pop up every couple of day so will probably just return and revert at that time. They don't seem to believe that the Twinkie defense had anything to do with Dan White and has nothing to do with Milk being gay which is why I did the work I did. Benjiboi 17:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Having read both your preferred & the other editor's preferred version of the article (granted that in either case it's still a "work in progress"), I think the other editor 192.250.34.161 (talk · contribs) does have a point about your preferred version being far more detailed about the Moscone-Milk than is necessary. For example, in the subsection Twinkie defense#Background to assassinations, only the first paragraph seems to me to be relevant to the article at hand (Twinkie defense); the rest of it belongs in the article on the Moscone-Milk assassinations. On the other hand, I think the other editor is probably deleting too much -- as Mwelch (talk · contribs) notes on the talk page), "Clearly many felt and feel that homophobia on the part of the jurors made them more willing to buy [the Twinkie defense] than they might have been otherwise. So that is valid point." -- & I don't get the impression that 192.250.34.161 recognizes that.

I agree with the admin at WP:AIV that this is not a vandalism issue -- it's a content dispute, which is what mediation is designed to help -- if both you & 192.250.34.161 can pull back from your anger with each other & agree to undergo that process... assume good faith & all that. If you can't agree to mediation, there's are other avenues of the dispute resolution. One I can recommend in particular is an article RfC (Requests for comment), which you can initiate with or without the other editor's cooperation. It can draw more people into the discussion about the article's content issues & help to create a consensus, which right now seems to be lacking on that article. We were able to break a month-&-a-half full protection on Battle of Washita River through an article RfC (see Talk:Battle of Washita River for all the gory details). It's important that in creating an article RfC you be able to state both your & the other editor's positions in neutral language. But it's eminently worth it. Hope this helps. --Yksin 17:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you do decide to try an article RfC, I'd be glad to help you set it up. --Yksin 18:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback and I'll look at the section you cite to moving to a more appropriate article. I'm sure that won't appease the other editors concerns but if it makes sense to have it there then that's where it should go.Benjiboi 18:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather just do what fixing needs to be done while the gettings good and the article is protected before giving them a new platform to screed at this time in an RfC. I spent hours doing all that research and am less inclined to spend even more time defending it all. For now though just improving the article and finding more appropriate homes for some of the material makes sense. I'm working on a another article but will return to this soonly. Thanks again! Benjiboi 18:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't spent much time looking at the article, but the "Twinkie defense" is, without a doubt, a reference to the Harvey Milk assassination trial. I went to law school, but it is also common knowledge. Whether the article contains superfluous details outside of this defense is another issue, and one I can't comment on right now. --David Shankbone 19:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the Milk/Moscone assassinations need to be dealt with in the article, as the Twinkie defense was coined as a direct result of White's defense strategy. I do see the Anon IP's point in some of the edits (background to the assassination, for instance), but I think s/he has done far too much pruning, and is not collaborating so much as edit warring. Further, his/her edit summaries are more than a bit incivil, they are outright rude. If there is not already a warning on his/her talk page, I will leave one, and Iwill also go through his contributions and contact an admin about him/her if necessary. There's no reason you should get stressed by an Anon asshole while you are legitimately creating/expanding articles. Jeffpw 06:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

After having read the article after my coffee, I am leaning more towards removal of background of the assassination and verdict aftermath. While interesting, in my eyes they do not add significantly to the twinkie defense article. As the words or phrases Twinkie, junk food, depression or diminished capacity do not appear in either of the sections, you'd be hard pressed to defend their remaining in an article about the subject. Jeffpw 06:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking things over. Besides the bios for Milk, Moscone and White there are three main articles; The Moscone-Milk assassinations, the Twinkie defense (trial related portion from assassinations) and the resulting White Night Riots. I wasn't looking to edit all three but it looks like I need to add to each for continuity, etc. which isn't the worst thing in the world. Benjiboi 18:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Twinkie defense RfC initiated

Please see Talk:Twinkie defense#Request for comment: Twinkie defense content dispute. This article RfC is was initiated per the Dispute resolution process. Please see WP:RFC, particularly the section on Request comment on articles, for information about this process. Please maintain civility if you choose to comment. Thanks. --Yksin 01:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Hate Crimes Project

Just wanted to let folks know that I've established a new site: The LGBT Hate Crimes Project. I will continue researching and writing lengthier articles there. Along with that I will add summaries to Violence against LGBT people of the cases I'm writing up, and citations to the LGBT Hate Crimes Project. I've added a summary of the murders of Ukea Davis and Stephanie Thomas to the list at Violence against LGBT people along with a citation, and added a citation to the Erica Keel summary as well.

I haven't quite figured out how to tell when an article satisfies the guidelines well enough to be safely posted here. But if I end up writing about something that obviously passes muster I'll also post it here.TerranceDC 00:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

2008 US presidential candidates

If there are any politically minded US folks interested in monitoring the articles of 2008 US Presidential candidates, help would be appreciated. I just ran through all the political positions articles, those that had them, for their position on LGBT issues, trying to establish neutrality, and cleanup wikilinks and language/terminology; I haven't had a chance to review the main candidate articles yet. The quickest way to see who's running is to look at Template:United States presidential election, 2008 navigation. We have to remember to keep an eye on things we won't necessarily put the project tag on. Thanks! ZueJay (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Jón Þór Birgisson

Anonymous IP vandals seem to be very upset that Jón Þór Birgisson is gay, and are determined to remove this information from his Wikipedia article. The article has been vandalized at least 13 times. My request for semi-protection was denied on the basis that the vandalism wasn't frequent enough. (???)

I'm going away for a week and won't be able to keep an eye on this article. If you kind folks wouldn't mind keeping an eye out for vandalism, I'd really appreciate it! :) Popkultur 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Anon IPs are going to be the death of me yet. Jeffpw 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia

Another editor and I have been .. discussing .. whether or not the Category:Homophobia belongs on articles about people - specifically Garry Bushell, but it looks like Anita Bryant, Bill Whatcott, Colin Ireland, Eric Robert Rudolph, Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford, Glenn Bahr, James Anderton, Jerry Falwell, Kevin Tebedo, Mike Mendoza, and Tony Marco are all there as well.

IMHO, with the exception of Bryant and Fallwell, none of these people should be there. First, people aren't homophobia. They may be homophobic, but they aren't a fear or aversion.

BTW, seems this incident has sparked another deletion discussion for the cat.

Anyway, thoughts anyone? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a WikiProject Discrimination that this might fall under. Might it be worth it to get them involved for the articles on acts of discrimination and the people who advocated for the acts? --Moni3 14:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Thanks - I've posted there for an opinion as well. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

New Featured List

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/W-Z has been promoted to a "Featured List". Yaay! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Larry Craig needs watching

Another of those well-meaning Wikipedians has been removing our project tag fro the article. This is not the first time it's happened since the good Senator's trolling for dick has made headlines, and it won't be the last. I warned the user, but the article bears watching. Jeffpw 20:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything anyone wishes to raise in the project newsletter? I'm going to try and get it finished tomorrow and sent off then, so the deadline's tight! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

Assistance in explaining why being jailed for sodomy qualifies da Vinci for the Category:People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws. An editor seems to be POV pushing, using the argument "because da Vinci was actually accused of violating a law which prohibited sodomy and not homosexuality (the sexual attraction to members of the same sex). A law prohibiting homosexuality would be impossible to enforce" and "dubbing laws prohibiting sodomy as 'anti-homosexual' is just as absurd as designating laws prohibiting traditional rape as 'anti-heterosexual.'" Pairadox 00:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The rape comment is bizarre. Rape is a crime because the act is against one party's will. Sodomy between two consenting adults cannot be equated with rape. Were there similar laws prohibiting male-female anal sex in Italy during da Vinci's time? If not, then it's anti-homosexual. --Moni3 03:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Sorry, I should have specified that all comments are probably better posted to the article's talk page. Pairadox 03:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Iowa

So, there's this problem cropping up regarding Iowa, US in SSM and related articles and templates. My understanding is that, for a short while, any pairing could legally marry in Polk, County, Iowa after a judicial ruling. Shortly after (next business day) the judge placed a "stay" on the ruling while an appeal was being made. Thus, non-heterosexual pairs can not marry at this time in Iowa. Is this interpretation correct? How do we address this limbo status? I see Iowa added (by IPs) to various articles and templates in a fashion that indicates it is currently legal - should these be flat out rv'd? I honsetly don't have the time (or patience, right now) to clarify this every time someone drops it in to an article. Please, some feedback on this would be really helpful. Thanks, ZueJay (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Russian?

Could someone who knows Russian take a look at the third reference on Vera Gedroitz and verify that it mentions her lover? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The relevant sentences are "Она живет с графиней Марией Дмитриевной Нирод и ее детьми (Федором и Мариной) - живет как муж и жена. Кроме любви, их объединяет работа: Мария Дмитриевна служит у Гедройц медицинской сестрой." That translates (roughly, as my Russian is rather rusty) to "She lived as husband and wife with the countess Maria Dmitievna Nirod and her children (Fyodor and Marina). In addition to love, they were united in work: Maria Dmitrievna served as a nurse with Gedroitz."

I was actually pleasantly surprised to find that I could read that — it's been about 15 years since I studied Russian in college. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

ROTFL! Thanks, Josiah! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

List of LGB people/A and Christina Aguilera.

Quadell removed Christina Aguilera's entry on /A, citing "BLP" reasons. A long discussion has since ensued on the BLP noticeboard and Talk:Christina. I don't really care what the chaps at Talk:Christina do, but on /A it's largely my word against Quadell's. Could more people comment on this, because this debate is going nowhere between just me and him. Ta, Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd chime in, but SatyrTN said what I was going to. --Moni3 13:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Larry Craig recently tagged

Given the guilty plea for his lewd conduct in a men's restroom recently, and long-standing rumors that he is gay, I tagged Craig's article as falling into the LGBT Project. Someone may want to give it a rating. --David Shankbone 17:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Along those lines, is this material for an article along the lines of Gay sex signals (or some better title)? The foot tapping thing has caught a lot of attention and when I tried to google for more information all I found was more people requesting to know more about it. I don't know if there is enough reliable sources to make a half way decent article but it would get a lot of traffic if linked to the Craig article. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 17:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm - I likey the way you thinkey. Outside of Larry "Cruising" Craig's bathroom bounty hunt, a sex signal article would be good. You can get a stub started with some known issues, such as the bandannas, and some on-line phrases, etc. I think there was awhile back where bracelets were used as signals to others? Also, I know Jim McGreevey used to cruise the bathrooms at rest stops; he talks about it in his book. Might be a good source, especially considering the well-known public figure aspect? --David Shankbone 17:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I found a good source to back up the foot tap. Also, check out Cottaging. --David Shankbone 18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also check out:

Delany, Samuel Ray (1999). Times Square Red, Times Square Blue. NYU Press. ISBN 0814719201.

as a source, since he talks a lot about cruising Times Square (pre-Disneyfication). -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Another source: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein30aug30,0,1533982.story?coll=la-home-commentary --David Shankbone 19:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

there's a bit of weak and nebulous chatter at talk:Larry Craig over adding Category:LGBT politicians. for some reason, the thought is that wiki policy requires that one must declare one's self gay before the cat can be used. this guy was basically convicted of being gay!....what more should one require? --emerson7 | Talk 04:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hate Crimes Added

I'm continuing to research and record hate crime cases at The LGBT Hate Crimes Project, and I have added (with citations back to the LGBT Hate Crimes Project entries) to the list at Violence against LGBT people summaries for the following:

If people think any of these warrant adding to Wikipedia, let me know and I'll be happy to add them and see what happens. TerranceDC 05:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, a BIG Conflict of interest warning went off when I read this. You are basically referencing yourself in the article. It would be better if you would cite the sources you used to create the The LGBT Hate Crimes Project pages. Pairadox 05:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. All references that I had anything to do with writing the entries on the site that I maintain have been deleted. TerranceDC 06:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear. The conflict of interest exists whether or not you admit you wrote both. Instead of referencing the Project, you should reference The Washington Blade or the Southern Poverty Law Center, for example. Pairadox 06:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Initially I removed, all references that I had anything to do with writing the entries on the site that I maintain have been deleted. Then I re-read the comment. You want me to cite the sources I used to create the pages? The sources are cited on the pages. I guess I could create citations for all of those sources, but the citations would actually be longer than the two-or-three-sentence summaries of some of the cases.

It's actually kind of funny to me that I apparently can't write actual entries about most of these cases, just summaries, but I have to provide all the same citations as if I were writing full entries. So, when I write entries at another site, with citations the bar actually gets raised higher for what I can add to Wikipedia in terms of just adding items to a list.

Ironically, if I hadn't done the research I did, and written articles on another site that I can't write on Wikipedia and abide by guidelines, I would not -- judging by the items that are already on the list, none of which have more than one or two citations -- have to cite nearly as much.

For Ukea Davis and Stephanie Thomas that's 11 citations for a three sentence summary.

For Bella Evangelista, that's 10 citations for a summary of a few setences.

For Edgar Garzon, that's 10 citations for a summary of a few sentences.

For Dwan Prince, that's 15 citations for a summary of a few sentences.

For Julio Rivera, that's 16 citations for a summary of a few sentences.

For Emonie Spaulding, that's 7 ciatations for a summary of a few sentences.

That's citing each article once. Is that really what I'm supposed to do?

I give up. I've deleted all the summaries I've added for the entries mentioned above. I no longer know what's appropriate to add to Wikipedia and what isn't. If anyone sees fit to add them with whatever citations are deemed necessary, feel free to go out and do the research I did, and cite a dozen or so sources for each bullet point summary. Because you can't just cite what I've researched and written. Or maybe I can't cite it. So, maybe I should just do what I'm doing where I'm doing it and leave Wikipedia alone.

I will add nothing further to Wikipedia. That way, I can't violate any guidelines, and I'll have no conflict of interests. It seems there is no way to so, that makes sense, without violating some guideline or another.

If I don't do anything, I can't do anything wrong. I should have remembered that before I started, and I probably wouldn't have come to Wikipedia in the first place.TerranceDC 06:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've discouraged you from contributing - that was not my intent. I don't expect you to cite all the sources involved. I'm guessing, not having read all of them, that a single one would provide the info in your summaries. Personally, I appreciate the effort you've put into this and hope you would continue. If you would rather cite your own work rather than relying on the original source documents, then just provide the info on the talk page for the article and let somebody else move it into the article. That's what the COI page suggests, and I have no doubt that editors would be eager to use your suggestions. Hell, I'd probably do it myself. Pairadox 07:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrance - please note that I say this with all the love in my heart - I have to note that your victimized attitude doesn't help anyone - you least of all! I've just taken a quick look at the articles you created, and all of them are extremely good articles that can and should be posted on Wikipedia (side note, Julio Rivera could do with having some references that come from another source besides NY Times). And I do mean all of them!

Instead of being defeatist, why not take the criticism as offered, learn from what people say, and make the articles top notch? If I were you, I'd post all of them, and I'd leave a note at WP:CRIME to see what they may have to offer. I don't know for sure, but I'd say you could bump several of those up to FA status in no time!

You're really very good - we'd love to help, since that would make Wikipedia *and* the project that much fuller! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What would make them "top notch"? Honestly, many of them take hours to research and days to write, and there literally hundreds waiting for me to get to them. And, invariably, I discover another case as I'm in the process of researching and writing up one. I know that many of them need cleaning up, proof reading, and probably updating in some spots. Maybe I'm just in a hurry to get to as any of them as I can as quickly as I can.

I'd like to upload photographs of some victims, since some of the comments say that photos would help, but the images I have are copyrighted. I've read the image guidelines and the guidelines about "fair use" but it wasn't any clearer to me after reading them that they could be added without violating some guidelines.

On the Julio Rivera article, much of what written about that case and many others is buried in news archives that require a fee to get into. The only reason I was even able to find what I did about Julio Rivera is because I discovered that my library card lets me access news paper archives via the Maryland Public Library website. And my searches there didn't turn up much that had been written about it outside of the New York Times. I didn't find much coverage outside of New York, at least in online resources, which is how I conduct the bulk of my research.

There are other things I can't change, no matter how much editing, proof reading, research, etc. I do. My guess is that the Bella Evanglista and Emonie Spaulding articles would be challenged on the basis of notability right away. Ukea Davis & Stephanie Thomas too. What makes them different from similar crimes that happen every day? They weren't covered much outside of D.C. and the gay media, and didn't spark any significant changes in their wake.

There are others that happened more than a decade ago, and that people outside of the area where they happened haven't heard of them. I can see them being challenged too. Either that or the notability guidelines aren't as subjective as they seem to me. They seem to fall into the same "know it when I see it" category as obscenity or pornography. Or, at least, I get different feedback about them -- what they are, what they mean, and what they include, in both spirit and letter -- from different people.

Maybe it's just that the bar is higher than I expected here. But it seems that the last several times I've contributed to Wikipedia I've done something wrong or discover I've potentially violated some guideline. (Like apparently, I shouldn't cite or link to anything that I've written.) It gets frustrating after awhile.

So, what specifically do I need to do to make the articles I've written (and those I've yet to write) Wikipedia-worthy? It feels kind of like nailing Jell-o to a tree. At first, I thought it was enough to cite as many verifiable sources as I could, but then its seemed like it didn't matter how many sources I cited.

I'm just reaching a point where I'm not sure what I need to do when it comes to contributing to Wikipedia. That's why I decided to start an independent site. Because I figured I could cover more cases in the time it seems to be taking me to figure out what I can contribute here and how. I think the last article I've contributed here was Roberto Duncanson. I've finished half a dozen more that would probably have taken longer to even start here.

And on my list coming up are Adrian Exley, Nicholas Gearing, Kenny Hellstrom, Joseph Konopa, Ruby Rodriguez, Alexander Ruppert and Satendar Singh, as well as Danny Overstreeet I can probably make a lot of progress on them while I'm figuring out what it is I'm not quite "getting" re: Wikipedia.

What am I not "getting"? TerranceDC 20:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Should this be linked to WikiProject_Discrimination? would it be worth posting something on their talk page and seeing if any of their pps what to chip in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3.14 etc (talk • contribs) 18:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrance, all the articles you posted above pass Notability, without a doubt. As the guideline says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." With the exception of Julio Rivera, all of those articles have multiple sources from very reliable places, all of which are independent of the subject.

When I mentioned making it top notch, what I meant was:

Post the article on Wikipedia.
Mention it here. That gives us in the project a chance to clean it up - copyedit, punctuation, reference citing, etc.
You may also want to post a note to WP:DISCRIMINATION and/or WP:CRIME for the same reasons.
When you've given it some time (a week? a month? six months?), nominate it on either WP:GA or WP:FA.

You may notice that, with the exception of the first one, all of those steps are geared towards getting input, advice, even rewriting from other people. Wikipedia is a place for collaborative effort. While we appreciate and even laud the effort you've put in to create the articles, once you've posted them you can sit back and see what others can contribute.

One thing that bears mentioning is that this project in particular is chock full of WikiFairies and WikiGnomes. We may not have that many article writers in the project, but once we're sicced on an article, there are bunches of us that can clean it up, format it, fix spelling and punctuation, basically get it "up to snuff". Then you (or someone else) can bring it to the attention of the Wikipedia Community as a whole, who will add or make suggestions that will lead to Featured Article status - the goal of every article :)

You may also want to consider slowing down just a bit. You jumped in and added quite a few articles to Wikipedia without really knowing how the community might take it - so I can quite understand your frustration at coming up against things like notability or conflict of interest. They're not meant to be traps, but I can sure see how it would feel that way. All in all, though, I feel your writing style, your attention to detail, and above all your passion, all clearly contribute to you being a great article writer - one I'd like to see stay around in the project! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrance, sometimes our favorite pet projects don't get above a certain class for various reasons, but not for our lack of work on them. I've chosen an area that's destined to remain barely a B class at best for want of 3rd party references, but it's better than nothing at all being out there. Sometimes gay topics in particular are hard to get references on because so many gay people lived their lives in the closet and helped deny their own sexuality. If you consider the fact that when people search for these topics on Google, articles on Wikipedia comes up usually within the top 3 responses, they do have some kind of impact. Information that wasn't there yesterday is now here in glorious detail. The folks in this project will give you some helpful suggestions. --Moni3 01:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Photos of Barbara Gittings

I have to defer to the folks who know the rules of photos best, here. I added some information to the Barbara Gittings article, and really think the pictures have to do it justice. Specifically, one of her picketing in 1965 like this one and I thought this one was way too good to pass up, kissing Alma Routsong on live television in 1971 - you can see here. Can I use either or both of these photos? What are the licensing rules on them, if so? Thanks. --Moni3 19:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

You might be able to get away with using them, as she's dead and free images are virtually impossible to get. Also, that kiss could be defined as historic and non-repeating, and acceptable. BUt if I were you, I'd write to the person hosting the image to see where the copyright lies, and if you can get permission to use it, That would save you from the rabid deletionists, for sure. Jeffpw 20:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I contacted 3 different folks who have sponsored the photos and no replies so far. Bummer for me. Should I just give them a shot and put them up to see what happens? Historic and non-repeating - is that a licensing option?

On another note, so impressed was I with the stuff Gittings did that I got a message to her partner to tell her how impressed I was. She just might write me back, so yay! --Moni3 16:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

ROTFL! I had a similar experience with Janis Ian, who I'd met once before. I ended up asking her to release one of her pictures as PD, which she did!

I don't know a whole lot about copyright issues, but I would suggest not just uploading one. It's actually something of a serious legal issue for Wikipedia. But maybe her partner knows about the copyright status of the pics? Or has one available? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the folks I contacted for info on the pics gave me Kay Lahusen's address and phone number yesterday! Gah! I could be anyone! However, I sent her a very nice letter with the copy of the article enclosed requesting information about the pictures, with much gratitude. --Moni3 17:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

/me crosses fingers! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo workgroup

An idea that has been bounced around for a while is some kind of group that editors can sign up to to take photos of people, places, and events in their area. Would anyone be interested in this/willing to thrash out a workable proposal? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean like Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers and Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service? --AliceJMarkham 15:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but a system that actually works. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Larry Craig

Is this article of interest to this Wikiproject? If so, please add the project tag to the talk page of that article. If not, please make a comment in talk. Many thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Has the project tag been removed again? I have given up counting how many times homophobic editors have removed it. <sigh. I will add it once again. Jeffpw 19:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, why is Craig of interest to the project? Just looking for opinions, not objecting. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It falls under LGBT studies for a variety of issues: how LGBT issues are seen in the media; cottaging; how anti-gay public officials who are accused of gay behavior are portrayed and the response to them; toe tapping and gay sex signals; and without a doubt, the heart of the controversy is...Craig's sexuality and record. This tag does not identify him as an LGBT person, it simply means there are issues present that are of relevance to the LGBT WikiProject. --David Shankbone 23:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleavage enhancement

Due to prompting from Dev920, I've now created the article cleavage enhancement, which I've been intending to do for quite some time...

If anybody thinks that there is something worth putting in dyk, you're welcome to do so.

Now, how do this fit into jump-a-class? :) --AliceJMarkham 08:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I always wondered how that was done :) Fascinating article - Alison ☺ 08:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That is sooo clever. :) I don't know how complete it is, but I think we usually treat newly created articles as stubs, so it would be stub to start/B. Go add yourself! :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What, no bonus point for starting from less than a stub? :) --AliceJMarkham 10:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Alice! What a great, informative article! And thank you for uploading those pictures, too. The article works much better with illustrations. Definitely worth submitting to DYK. The part about Julia Roberts might be a good factoid to use to get people to the article. Jeffpw 17:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to submit it, you're welcome. I am not familiar with the DYK process and will be fairly busy for about the next two days or so but don't want to miss the window of opportunity! --AliceJMarkham 23:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought going to the Renaissance Fair was an automatic cleavage enhancement. Good article, Alice.--Moni3 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Thanks for the suggestion. I might see if I can find a cite so that I can add it to the reasons section. :) --AliceJMarkham 23:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language proposal at MOS talk

Dear colleagues—You may be interested in contributing to a lively discussion (which I hope will form consensus) here. Tony 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit caught up on an article to which this debate might apply, but it has to do more with sex (intercourse) rather than gender neutrality per se. It's a bigger issue than just this page of course but the use of "homosexual sex" makes me feel like this is following on bias, whether intended or not, that makes intercourse between partners other than a clinically defined female and male a deviation from the status quo and further implying that it is a negative or stereotypically unhealthy form of sex. This may be endemic to Wiki, and certainly it is rampant in scholarly writing to this day, but the article I'm speaking of is Antibiotic resistance, most particularly in the sub section on "Prevention."

I wanted to bring this issue up here before I attempted any edits because I truly would love and welcome any advice so the article is free from what I view is derogatory language.

Thanks! JuniorMuruin 20:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - "homosexual sex between two men" is redundant, and I believe it belies a bias on the part of the author. Popkultur 20:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed as well. And furthermore, "homosexual sex" is ... well, it's not redundant, but close. I can't think of when the adjective would be necessary - thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at the source.[20] It uses the phrase "men who have sex with men (MSM)," and that's probably the most neutral phrasing for the article. Pairadox 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait... The section on prevention under discussion currently reads:

High risk activities include: unprotected sex (including homosexual sex between 
two men,[9] homosexual sex between women [10] and heterosexual sex); [11]

Couldn't it just read "unprotected sex[9][10][11]"? Why spell out each individual pairing? Doesn't that imply that homosexual sex between a man and a piece of raw meat isn't a high risk activity? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Those were some of the most heart warming responses I've ever gotten on Wiki! I will fix the problem after work today! Thanks again! JuniorMuruin 17:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Lewis

Hi folks - given the recent anti-gay slur by Jerry Lewis, you may be interested in watching this page and helping to maintain an appropriate account of the event. Thanks! Popkultur 19:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think adding information about a momentary lapse of judgment during a point of exhaustion in the scheme of Lewis' 50+ year career is a way to "stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details" as suggested at Wikipedia:What is a good article?. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Clay Aiken

At Talk:Clay Aiken, there is a seemingly endless debate as whether to include in the article materials suggesting that Clay may (or may not) be gay. Your thoughtful opinion on this at Talk:Clay Aiken would be most appreciated. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize it as "materials suggesting that Clay may (or may not) be gay". Rather the materials are quotations from Aiken in response to questions about his sexual orientation. But yes, more input would be helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To W.H.

This is a stub article on a British play performed in 2006, written by Stuart Draper and apparently part of Fringe Theatre. This play is about the controversial issue of the existence/identity of W.H., who may, or may not, have been the young male object of Shakespeare's affections. It's speculated that W.H. is Willie Hughes, among others. Anyway, I removed the prod based on having found sufficient sources (I think) to establish notability, although some are more about about the concept of W.H., and not Drapper's play, per se. Any one know enough about this subject to suggest what is the best thing to do with it? See the talk page. — Becksguy 08:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality in animals needs attention

The Homosexuality in animals article is in dire need of work, but two recent editors have been making extremely poor changes (such removing the intro entirely). I suggest experienced LGBT project editors help improve this article, as their objections to the poor style and content of the intro and other sections has merit, but they seem to not understand some elements of basic article writing. Cheers, VanTucky ^(talk) 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done some work on the lede, formatted all refs, general formatting and added images to the different animal sections. It's starting to look like a real article but could use more attention and fresh eyes to check it over. Benjiboi 03:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Awesomeness! WB, btw :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Who founded the Mattachine Society?

Franklin E. Kameny says that Kameny founded the Mattachine Society with Jack Nichols, making no mention of Harry Hay. But the Mattachine Society article says it was founded by "Harry Hay with a small group of friends". Which is right? Whatever it is, we need sources for this info! Dybryd 01:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just googled, and site says it was Kameny and Nichols, without Hay. Dybryd 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Apparently Kameny/Nichols founded the Washington branch some time later. I will try to clarify this in the articles for the benefit of clueless fellows like myself. Dybryd 01:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

According to "Before Stonewall" (Bullough, Vern L., 1978, p. 78), the original group was the "Mattachine Foundation", started by Harry Hay, Rudi Gernreich, Robert Hull, Charles Dennison Rowland, and Dale Jennings in 1950. In 1953 (Hay says), a more "conservative" group, including Hal Call, "took the organization out of the founders' hands" (Call's words), and formed the "Mattachine Society." -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A similar disagreement occurred when the Daughters of Bilitis folded and the ex-president "took possession" of the only 2 copies of the mailing list for The Ladder. Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin say it was stolen. Barbara Grier and Rita LaPorte say they saved it from certain destruction. If you can find references to back up both viewpoints, include them in the article. --Moni3 02:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Babur Needs Help!

Babur is currently a GA article. It's in our project - Dev added the banner noting that glbtq.com mentions his sexuality. I've also found this ref:

Dale, Stephen Frederic (2004), The Garden of the Eight Paradises: Babur and the Culture of Empire in Central Asia, Afghanistan and India, BRILL, ISBN 9004137076

If there's anyone on the project who knows more about Babur, Central Asia ca. 1483, etc (not hard to do :), could you take a look at the article and find where his personal life fits in? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I have a vague recollection that I did add a thing some months back about how he had a thing for beautiful young men, maybe it got removed? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Goals

I was just wondering if there was any particular reason that wikiproject LGBT studies wants

To create a thriving WikiProject that rivals WP:MILHIST in its activity, efficiency, and success.

Why that one in particular? --Tyrfing 02:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the other day, too - made me chuckle :) In the beginning (meaning nine months ago), that was a fine goal - WP:MILHIST has 650 members, 38,000 articles, is active, and is well organized. So fine praise (for them) for us to aim that high! Now, though, that seems a bit silly as a goal :) Perhaps it's time to revisit the goals and see what fits now? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why, have we given up on being all that we can be? :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Pshaw! We've far surpassed them, Dev! Do they have Jumpaclass?!?!? Seriously, though, we need to stand on our own and not be comparing ourselves to other WPs. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do, they stole it off us! WP:MILCON. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, I totally agree on setting our own standards. Besides, what we do has a different impact than what WP:MILHIST does. What they do is pull information from vast resources and present it in article form. What we do is squeeze blood from turnips hoping that we can get enough references for good articles, and do our darnedest to improve everything we can, then justify everything we do to folks who doubt the notoriety of the articles (simultaneously denying that a gay cabal exists). And frankly, I think we do a damn fine job. --Moni3 16:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Moni, that just gave me the biggest laugh I've had in a while! TYVM! And you're sooooo right!!! There is no Gay Cabal -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we set a goal of recruiting 10% of all active admins. Why 10%? No reason. And stop saying gay cabal - you'll just piss off the rainbow ghost. Benjiboi 21:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Benji! You're back! Oh, this is great. *hugs*

Also, I think our de facto plan for ~~world domination~~ Wikipedia improvement is to elect all the members we currently have instead of targetting people who are already admins - admins are usually too busy to actually get involved in WikiProjects. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe both? I'm not sure I'm interested in being an admin, at least not yet. And regardless many of the current admins are LGBT and simply need to know we exist and need their support even if it's a heads up on things or little bits of assistance from time to time. Send in the cabal ghost Scoobie! Benjiboi 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, they know we're there. I've got eloquent enough on behalf of WP:LGBT members on AN/I they ought to bloody be aware of us... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why that one in particular? -- because an army of lovers can never be defeated. Benjiboi, I'm glad you're back. --Yksin 23:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews Interviews with gay leaders

I am going to be moving off Wikipedia, mostly. The photography will still be there, but I am going to concentrate on doing interviews. I am in the process of preparing interviews with Edmund White, Jim McGreevey, Evan Wolfson and Vivien Goldman and I am asking the project to help me formulate questions, and if you have any good resources for research to leave them at the pages above. --David Shankbone 14:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I will have nothing to do with Wikinews, and they are a waste of your time too, David. Do you not recall what happened the last time you were there? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand how you feel, but I think your advice that if we don't engage but give up, then we will lose out. Jimbo helped to get the accreditation moving along. This is also an opportunity to get the articles improved via interviews that we create ourselves. I won't do the interviews without press accreditation, although I will do a couple to start off with. I'm a little burned out on Wikipedia, though, and I feel Wikinews will be a good fresh start. I've already made it clear that without accreditation I will retire from the Wikimedia projects and focus on writing my book. At this point, I want to develop a new skill, as I did with the photography. The skill of the interview. I have enough contacts to get some good ones. It is a chance for all of us to ask questions we want asked. I'm not afraid to ask or say anything. And look at it this way, Dev - you'll have a friend over there. --David Shankbone 15:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds Kewl, DSB! Are you going to start WikiBureau LGBT or WikiBureau NYC? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure...maybe! I've been on Wikinews all of one day, so once I get my bearings I will be able to break more ground. Are you interested in being a member if I do? --David Shankbone 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, this is all going exactly according to my master plan. :) Members are setting out sister projects right left and center, we now have a thriving Spanish project, A.Z. just started the Portuguese one, and now you're moving into Wikinews (and you're completely right David, though I'll miss you here. :) *sighs with happiness* Now if only we could get the enwiki one moving a bit faster again... :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You taught us well, Dev. So click on the links under those names and help me devise some good interviews! Vivien Goldman will probably be the first; and very interesting! Check out her WP page. --David Shankbone 14:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yellow Head

May I please get feedback (even assistance) regarding Yellow Head (person)#Yellow Head, the berdache?

Should the current article be split into 3 different articles, making the article about Yellow Head, the berdache, be a "start" while making the articles for the other two people named Yellow Head each be a stub? And if splitting how should the three be named?
Since in the Ojibwa culture, Yellow Head, the berdache, was considered to be a woman and not a man, so how should the non-direct-quotation portions be re-worded such that this is refected as such. However, please keep in mind that in the Anishinaabe language, there are no words for "he" or "she"... just "animate being" and "inanimate being" of which both a male and a female are one in the same - both are "animate beings".

Suggestion (even edits) would be appreciated. Miigwech CJLippert 14:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC) (from WP:IPNA/Nish)

Moved here from the portal talk page -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

With regards to item two, I would say to use the same protocol for a transgendered person, ie use the pronoun relevant to the person's perceived social gender. In this case, that gender is female so "she" and "her" would be appropriate. TechBear 20:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely start it as its own article, it's confusing right now what's going on and even a little fleshing out to provide some background of what tribe (and country? was that in there?) would help explain the significance of this person. Benjiboi 22:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would title something like Yellow Head (two-spirit) as Berdache is not considered appropriate. Benjiboi 22:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Lesbian race

Um, stumbled across this article, Lesbian race, while checking changes made to templates LGBT and LGBT-footer. It seems a bit contrived, and hinges on non-inline references which never use the phrase "Lesbian race", which Googles only ~950 hits most of which read "Lesbian:race and ethnicity". I'm not sure what to do with it - can I just nom for deletion? Speedy? Help?! ZueJay (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the creator & only contributer thus far is User765 (talk · contribs) -- a fairly new editor, a bit inexperienced. Mainly this editor has worked on lesbian topics. I would assume good faith with this editor, but perhaps write to her (I'm guessing it's a her, anyway, given the topic she's editing) on her talk page, & try to ascertain what she's on about. She created a redirect page to this article called Lesbian utopia, which seems to be the overall idea driving her -- a sort of politically driven ideal of a nation based on reproduction by parthenogenesis -- which has had some relevance to some lesbian separatists; I'm not sure about it's notability though. And in its current state the article seems to have a lot of original research in it -- as a new editor, she may not be aware of such policies. I'd personally recommend that this article & Lesbian utopia be switched, so that Lesbian utopia become the actual article, as there is a lot of utopian or semi-utopian fiction out there that posits a female-only & lesbian society (e.g., Sally Miller Gearhart's The Wanderground, or the work of Suzy McKee Charnas), with this biological stuff being included in answer to "would such societies really be possible?" In sum, I think maybe this editor just needs some guidance on Wikipedia policies & the advice & help of other editors, rather than a speedy on her article. --Yksin 00:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw that too, and didn't know what to do with it. Is there another article that addresses lesbian separatists in the same vein as written by Charlotte Perkins Gilman (Herland) or Katherine V. Forrest's Daughters of a Coral Dawn series? Or discusses the separatist movement in the 70s? In one of the articles I read for Patience and Sarah, a commune of women wore the novel around their necks...There is a place for an article that discusses radical lesbian separatism, but I don't think it should be titled "race". There's no ethnicity or anthropological feature connected to lesbianism. --Moni3 00:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Don't forget A Door into Ocean by Joan Slonczewski (and in fact her other books in the "Daughter of Elysium" series. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Lesbian separatism redirects to Separatist feminism, which has just a brief section on lesbian separatism -- a pretty inadequate one, & its one literature reference is to a lesbian separatist community depicted in the Gaea trilogy novels of John Varley (which are actually pretty good, & in my opinion fair in their depiction of lesbianism though in novels written by a man). I think lesbian separatism deserves its own article; but I also don't think what this editor is driving at is exactly the same thing. Seems to me she wants something like what novels that have lesbian societies in them -- like Gearhart's, Charnas' Holdfast Chronicles (which aren't exactly utopic), Gilman's, Forrest's -- but in actual biological fact. But better probably to ask her, & bring her into this conversation. Or bring this conversation to her. --Yksin 00:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC) -- added comment: I guess the better description for Suzy McKee Charnas' Holdfast Chronicle novels would be dystopic. --Yksin 01:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Dropped a note on the user's talkpage. Can't believe ya'll saw that and made no comment! Whoa is me! ZueJay (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I dropped a note too, with a link back to this discussion & also invited her to join the project. I hope we'll see her here. --Yksin 01:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "race" is the right title for this, either. But I am in full support of having a lesbian separatism article, which I can see including the "lesbian Utopia" article as well as the information in this one. I suspect most people would never think to look up "lesbian race" as a search term, and thus would miss this.Kootenayvolcano 01:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, "race" is not a good word for this. It may be a matter of User765 not knowing the best name for it herself. I actually see a place for two articles: Lesbian separatism and Lesbian utopia (both of which are currently redirects, to Separatist feminism & Lesbian race, respectively). Anyway, I'm adding the LGBT project template to the talk page for this article, & maybe we can continue this discussion there. --Yksin 01:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And my first thought when I saw this article title was "Is it a 10k or a marathon?" Pairadox 03:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should be renamed and could be helped by citations woven more thoroughly into the text. I've commented on its talk page. Gwen Gale 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've copied this entire conversation to this point to the article talk page, to provide context for continuing discussion there. --Yksin 16:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pederasty and Pedophilia

Do these subjects belong to this project? I'm having a difficult time accepting that it's OK for adults, no matter what sexual preference, who think it's OK to have sex with children. Please help me understand the relevance. As there are enough people who think homosexuality is "bad" and now to add these categories in this topic. It's embarrassing. It makes things worse for others to take it seriously. Please help. - Jeeny ^Talk 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

With a quick review I would say that pederasty probably does and although culturally it's currently associated with child sexual abuse it was not always so and speaks to relationships between adults and those who are yet to be considered adults (including teenagers). Recall that in the good old days people routinely were married as pre-teens so using our standards applied to other cultures doesn't always fly. And what one culture considers an adult might vary greatly from another. I also know that GLBT kids are coming out at younger ages and all kids seem to be much more sexually experimental so these issues do support inclusion.Benjiboi 03:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia, however, speaks to sexual relations with pre-pubescent children so I doubt that would get much mileage here unless there was a big upswing in pedophiles kidnapping GLBT kids and good luck proving all of that. There is a wikiproject just for pedophilia articles so they might be able to clarify the overlap, if any. Benjiboi 03:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but would others? I guess I shouldn't concern myself with how others may look at it, huh? Thanks for your reply. - Jeeny ^Talk 03:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny, you are not alone. The Greeks also criticized those who abused children. But they treated teenagers differently - as indeed most countries do today. I would oppose anyone trying to hang an LGBT tag on pedophilia, but pederasty is a very different matter. Did you take a look at those muscular quasi-adults depicted on the Greek vases? Or did you read the stories of the eromenoi who murdered their lovers, for a variety of reasons. Greek youths were not to be trifled with, and were hardly "children", all the more so considering the brevity of life those days. And much the same thing can be said of other times and traditions. This is our history. Let's not trash it to please the hoi polloi. Haiduc 04:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's just it, I don't want to trash being gay what-so-ever, but this statement from GLAAD says, "In 1994 the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) adopted a "Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA" saying GLAAD "deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD." Also in 1994 the Board of Directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) adopted a resolution on NAMBLA that said: "NGLTF condemns all abuse of minors, both sexual and any other kind, perpetrated by adults. Accordingly, NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA and any other such organization.". And I agree. I have many friends and family of the Gay and Lesbian community, and they too feel the same way. Oh, and Pederasty is included. Children is the line in the sand, teenagers count (of course the age difference if it is small, like four years, it's OK). Those Greek youth may have been big and strong physically, but that does not mean that they did not have fragile psyches (maybe why they killed their lovers). It's difficult enough growing up thinking one is different as it is, and then to have older adults take advantage of that by having sex with them. Kids cannot give consent in the same way as adults. It's exploitation. And I am no hoi polloi. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I was suggesting that you not cave in to the desire to please the hoi polloi. As for the rest, I think we are saying the same thing but talking past each other. Of course children are out of the game, but if you go by current laws in most developed countries, teenagers are empowered to enter into relationships at some age or another. Let's not presume to disempower them here by turning them into victims. If a relationship is legal we should not intrude with our opinions. After all, the LGBT community in the UK fought to extend the right to enter into relationships to sixteen year old boys. Are we going to trash them too, to please the puritan taliban? And Oscar Wilde? Into the trash can because he was not into men, and did it from the front? Give me a break! Haiduc 04:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about age of consent, whatever that is. I'm in the US, and each state is different. I think the range is 14-18, or maybe it's 16-18 depending on the state. But there are some conditions. Today things are different, we live longer, children can have a longer childhood before all the adult crap we have to deal with. Ahh, I guess we have to rely on WP:RS rather than our opinions anyway, like my wise friend of 19 says. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 04:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If the articles involving pederasty are well-written enough, they should explain themselves. The terms pederast and pedophile are almost interchangeable now, but they weren't always. I would rather explain the difference on Wikipeida than refuse to discuss it at all, thereby neglecting mention of homosexuality in ancient cultures. If we present factual information that's reliable and verifiable, we can't control how people will interpret or spin that information for their own agendas. --Moni3 11:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

I think Pederasty certainly falls within the scope of our project, but cannot see why Pedophilia would. The reasons for each should be obvious after reading the articles. But I am a bit confused. Jeeny, wouldn't it have been better to remove the project tag from Pederasty after this discussion was completed rather than before starting it? I have reverted your edit, and would ask that you not remove the project tag again until consensus is reached, from this or any other article. I have had to look through your edit history in order to revert several tags you deleted which were of obvious relevence to our project. However well intentioned it is, it comes across as vandalism with an agenda and borderline WP:Point when so many are deleted at one time. Jeffpw 05:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pederasty yes; pedophilia no. --David Shankbone 14:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that LGBT detractors have previously labelled pedophilia as being in our scope as a slur towards us, and are likely to try it again. We need to ensure that such attempts are reverted. With there being Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch dedicated to watching the pedophilia articles, I'd suggest that we, as a project request that they assist us in this. --AliceJMarkham 16:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) help & advice please

Hi, so the latest chapter in internet fame Chris Crocker (internet celebrity)'s article is up for deletion and it neatly was nominated at the same time his video vaulted to the top of YouTube (over 4 million views in two days). I think there are plenty of references but I believe because he's way femme and flaming and outspoken he's getting a lot of negative attention as a part of the recent high exposure and I think it's adversely effecting the AfD process. Do number of delete votes alone count? Any advice toward the article and AfD voting concerns appreciated. Benjiboi 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick update. Thanks for all who've helped tag and edit as well as made insightful comments on the AfD page. It's hard to believe the article won't survive the process and now is starting to actually be a good source of information thanks to all the attention. Benjiboi 01:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In editing this I realize we need an article about drama queens! Benjiboi 14:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

POV dispute at Pregnancy

The dispute surrounds whether using gendered pronouns "she/her/her" is appropriate, considering that some FTMs and other-gendered female-bodied persons choose to give birth. Your input is appreciated at Talk:Pregnancy#Gender neutral language. Thank you. -- Photouploaded 13:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hi, I was just about to post this, lol. see talk:pregnancy and Wikipedia:Requested_templates#LGBT_oddities. Basically, it's come to our attention that it's offensive to transmen and so forth to refer to a pregnant person as a woman or "she", but for the sake of sanity, we have to pick a pronoun (can you imagine picking up a book on pregnancy where it says "When one becomes pregnant, one will feel..." or "he or she may experience"? Ick. Messy). Anyway, we're looking for input, and I've also inquired at the human sexuality wikiproject, since they have a claim on the article in question. And if someone can make a template, that'd be nice. Kuronue | Talk 13:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, good to see you. I would be far more likely to pick up that gender-free book than I would one that foisted a gendered assumption on me without asking. Regarding it being "messy", yes, life is messy. Gender is messy. A lot of cisgendered individuals don't like it when other people's gender expression don't fit neatly into their worldview, it's too "messy" for them. But that is not a reason to write an encyclopedia that just slices off those "messy" edges to fit the neat little boxes, leaving a lot of people's experiences undocumented and unaddressed. Photouploaded 13:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

While I fully understand and support my cisgender, intresex, and trans brothers, sisters, and others, I must say that this is a bit silly. Given that 99.999999+% of people who go through the process of giving birth are women, WP:UNDUE would seem to apply both on Wikipedia and almost all books on the subject. I could see having a small section regarding other genders and pregnancy, in which gender-neutral language would be appropriate, but for the rest of the article it would seem prudent to use "She/her/her". I also feel that creating a template for LGBT oddities is simply silly. Marginalizing the marginalized, IMHO. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that 99.999999+% of people who go through the process of giving birth are women... -- Stop. You made that figure up. Perhaps your personal belief is that the numbers of trans and gender-variant people who give birth is so infintesimal as to justify ignoring, I completely disagree.

I also disagree about the template, btw: it is entirely appropriate to point out, if only in passing, that the limitations of gendered pronouns are great, and that people are excluded by their use in many Wikipedia articles. Photouploaded 14:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a statistic available on what percentage of the human population is transgendered or gender-variant? A lot of people are calling it a "tiny percentage", which isn't accurate, considering the dozens I know, and the throngs at the gay pride parades around the world. Photouploaded 14:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right - I made that number up. Can you provide a figure for how many male-identified persons have given birth?

And you're right as well that it's entirely appropriate to point out in passing the limitations, etc. But adding a template regarding (and creating articles on) "LGBT oddities" reinforces the marginalization of trans folk, IMHO. Much more appropriate to link to the trans article and keep things as mainstream as possible. I can't believe I just said that, but there ya go :) But really - "oddities"!?!? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur - oddities is beyond marginalization. Might as well be a side-show entry in Freaks as label people as "oddities". One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding: the "tiny minority" is of pregnant females who self identify as male, as this is about the pregnancy article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And no, I haven't located any numbers yet - my searches keep turning up abuse statistics. :-( KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

~~Who are you questioning about the use of the term "oddities", Satyr? You seem to have used the word first.~~ In case anyone else is as confused as I was, Satyr seems to have used the word "oddities" to refer to the title used in this template request. Photouploaded 15:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kuronue mentioned the template request above - is that not the template we're talking about? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. For what its worth...In my experience, anyone who is in the arena of gender variance from societal norms of male/female and are dealing with pregnancy issues and/or young children tend to refrain from bringing undue attention to gender issues, gay marriage and politically charged concerns in favor of relieving their families and dependents from real or perceived threats to their safety and well-being. To put it simply, LGBT folks go into whatever closets are needed to just get on with their lives and choose battles that don't threaten their kids. This is true, in my opinion, with most LGBT folks but especially true with parents of minors who still face considerable risks and exposure. Benjiboi 01:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with SatyrTN that the pronouns should be feminine. Individuals may be non-cisgender and pregnant and choose the gender terms by which to define themselves, but an article on pregnancy should be scientific. Were the article to suggest that a "he" could be pregnant, the assumption would be that the male sex can become pregnant; this is a fallacy. It would be confusing, ridiculous, and unnecessary to avoid mentioning gender when discussing pregnancy. Gender, or at least sex, is a VERY important aspect of pregnancy. Female pregnancy is the rule, not the exception. To be transgender-inclusive, a section addressing the fact that people who do not identify as female can still be pregnant would be more prudent than undoing all mentions of femininity. The topic is also mentioned this article. — Emiellaiendiay 18:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)