Proseminar in Homophile Studies is a former
featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the
archive.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Proseminar in Homophile Studies, one of the first university courses about homosexuality, was held only once?
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I am currently talking to the archives. They may have a directory of materials in the Crompton papers collection -- though that's not yet available (online or otherwise) -- so I will update with more information when it's available.
Urve (
talk)
12:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Stored under number RG 12-10-55, these are the materials.
Homophile course, correspondence, Peter McGrath, 1969-1970
It
appears that
Julia Penelope offered the first class in lesbian novels in the country at UNL. It does not appear to be linked to the proseminar in secondary sources, so I have omitted it for now. However, I am reaching out to some archives and sources that should know more.
Urve (
talk)
12:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)reply
For whoever cares: This is almost certainly true based on my research and communication with others, but not presently verifiable.
Urve (
talk)
06:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Gay rights is not a movement. But if I understand your point correctly (homophile movement maps onto the LGBT movement), these are not the same thing and it is anachronistic. The homophile movement -- a term that Crompton continued to use despite it falling out of favor for gay -- was concerned largely with gay men of a particular political persuasion (conservative), with lesbians and bisexuals on the periphery of the movement (if at all), and trans people not discussed. I'll do this if you insist but it feels quite out of place in the context of the article.
A source should be included directly after the quote "procedure involved in the homophile course", per
WP:INTEGRITY
done
"Apparently" → "Per Milan Wall of the Lincoln Star,"
done with amendment (jargon)
"requested that control of the course"
this is a bridge verb so it is grammatically correct, but amended. see articles like Śmiecińska, Joanna (1 January 2007). "On Bridge Requirements in English". Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. 43 (1).
doi:
10.2478/v10010-007-0008-1. - this might ultimately be an ENGVAR or individual speaker difference
"said it would be seriously considered" → "said the request would be seriously considered"
done with amendment to remove the word "request(ed)" from being in the same sentence twice
"department with Cole as its coordinator" → "department, with Cole acting as its coordinator"
done
"the course's purpose is" → "the purpose of the course was"
done
"including through" → "through use of"
done
Political reactions
The course was controversial. Expand on this just in the topic sentence: controversial among whom?
done
said it was "not necessary" Clarify that the course was not necessary, not interfering with the course
done
Add (NIMH) acronym after the full sentence
why? the acronym is never used in the article
"senator" should be capitalized when referring to an individual
"in addition to introducing" → "and would additionally introduce"
done with amendment (do not like adverbs)
"approval and prohibit" → "approval, as well as prohibit"
I do not like this comma so I have clarified (what I believe you intended this to do) another way.
"not only suit for study" → "not only suitable for study"
done
Aftermath
"before the legislature" → "before legislature" OR "before the state legislature"
I think this is obvious from context - the previous section's last paragraph is about his testimony at the state legislature. The first suggestion is not how the legislature is referred to in Nebraska (I have never heard omission of "the"). The second one is redundant.
"Two other bills by Terry" → "Two other bills by Carpenter"
I am asking you to add the link to LGBT movement because
Gay rights redirects to
LGBT rights by country or territory. The article on LGBT movements covers historical ones as well as contemporary, and has an entire subhead devoted to the Homophile movement, so I do not believe it is anachronistic.
The discrepancy between "before legislature" and "before the legislature" appears to be done state by state. Pennsylvania exclusively uses the phrase "before legislature", hence my assumption that that was the universally proper terminology. My apologies. — GhostRiver22:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)reply
No worries at all, my friend. Thanks for the explanation. I'll think about the gay rights issue. As for legislature, that's very interesting. Pennsylvania must be like the UK - an act of Parliament, not the Parliament, etc. Appreciate your time!
Urve (
talk)
00:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Did you know nomination
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that the Proseminar in Homophile Studies, offered in 1970 by
Louis Crompton(pictured) at the
University of Nebraska–Lincoln, was one of the first university courses about homosexuality? Source: "I want to reproduce a shortened version of an archival essay written by Louis Crompton, a pioneer in the field of gay and lesbian studies. The course about which he writes was among the two or three "firsts" in the United States" - McNaron cite, pp 167-168
Interesting course, substantial GA on fine sources, offline sources accepted AGF. The hook is fine, but you could also go further and say that it was only held one semester. Does it really matter which university (... trying to avoid the repetition of that word in the little space we have)? The image is licensed and a good illustration. - In the article, you may want to separate Cited sources from Further reading (compare
In Freundschaft), and may go a step further using sfn referencing (see also there) which makes the link from short citation to the actual definition of the full citation automatically. I wonder if there's an appropriate infobox. I understand that you are still exempt from qpq. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
12:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the review. No, university does not matter. Your suggestion for semester is good, and avoiding university name; perhaps these? (only differences is a word):
ALT1a: ... that the Proseminar in Homophile Studies, offered in 1970 by
Louis Crompton(pictured), was one of the first university courses about homosexuality and offered only once?
ALT1b: ... that the Proseminar in Homophile Studies, offered in 1970 by
Louis Crompton(pictured), was one of the first university courses about homosexuality and was offered only once?
Urve sorry that your FAC was not successful. Have you considered
WP:GOCE/REQ? I've found that they can improve the prose of an article substantially and head off prose-related objections at FAC. Unfortunately, the turnaround time looks quite long at present. (
t ·
c) buidhe06:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I considered it. Nobody had ever said there was an issue with prose, so I thought it was okay. I'm not interested in having another peer review open for months without comments or having a copyedit if I'll just get more opaque and unactionable feedback at FAC. I've removed this page from my watchlist.
Urve (
talk)
06:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Proseminar in Homophile Studies is a former
featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the
archive.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Proseminar in Homophile Studies, one of the first university courses about homosexuality, was held only once?
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I am currently talking to the archives. They may have a directory of materials in the Crompton papers collection -- though that's not yet available (online or otherwise) -- so I will update with more information when it's available.
Urve (
talk)
12:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Stored under number RG 12-10-55, these are the materials.
Homophile course, correspondence, Peter McGrath, 1969-1970
It
appears that
Julia Penelope offered the first class in lesbian novels in the country at UNL. It does not appear to be linked to the proseminar in secondary sources, so I have omitted it for now. However, I am reaching out to some archives and sources that should know more.
Urve (
talk)
12:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)reply
For whoever cares: This is almost certainly true based on my research and communication with others, but not presently verifiable.
Urve (
talk)
06:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Gay rights is not a movement. But if I understand your point correctly (homophile movement maps onto the LGBT movement), these are not the same thing and it is anachronistic. The homophile movement -- a term that Crompton continued to use despite it falling out of favor for gay -- was concerned largely with gay men of a particular political persuasion (conservative), with lesbians and bisexuals on the periphery of the movement (if at all), and trans people not discussed. I'll do this if you insist but it feels quite out of place in the context of the article.
A source should be included directly after the quote "procedure involved in the homophile course", per
WP:INTEGRITY
done
"Apparently" → "Per Milan Wall of the Lincoln Star,"
done with amendment (jargon)
"requested that control of the course"
this is a bridge verb so it is grammatically correct, but amended. see articles like Śmiecińska, Joanna (1 January 2007). "On Bridge Requirements in English". Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. 43 (1).
doi:
10.2478/v10010-007-0008-1. - this might ultimately be an ENGVAR or individual speaker difference
"said it would be seriously considered" → "said the request would be seriously considered"
done with amendment to remove the word "request(ed)" from being in the same sentence twice
"department with Cole as its coordinator" → "department, with Cole acting as its coordinator"
done
"the course's purpose is" → "the purpose of the course was"
done
"including through" → "through use of"
done
Political reactions
The course was controversial. Expand on this just in the topic sentence: controversial among whom?
done
said it was "not necessary" Clarify that the course was not necessary, not interfering with the course
done
Add (NIMH) acronym after the full sentence
why? the acronym is never used in the article
"senator" should be capitalized when referring to an individual
"in addition to introducing" → "and would additionally introduce"
done with amendment (do not like adverbs)
"approval and prohibit" → "approval, as well as prohibit"
I do not like this comma so I have clarified (what I believe you intended this to do) another way.
"not only suit for study" → "not only suitable for study"
done
Aftermath
"before the legislature" → "before legislature" OR "before the state legislature"
I think this is obvious from context - the previous section's last paragraph is about his testimony at the state legislature. The first suggestion is not how the legislature is referred to in Nebraska (I have never heard omission of "the"). The second one is redundant.
"Two other bills by Terry" → "Two other bills by Carpenter"
I am asking you to add the link to LGBT movement because
Gay rights redirects to
LGBT rights by country or territory. The article on LGBT movements covers historical ones as well as contemporary, and has an entire subhead devoted to the Homophile movement, so I do not believe it is anachronistic.
The discrepancy between "before legislature" and "before the legislature" appears to be done state by state. Pennsylvania exclusively uses the phrase "before legislature", hence my assumption that that was the universally proper terminology. My apologies. — GhostRiver22:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)reply
No worries at all, my friend. Thanks for the explanation. I'll think about the gay rights issue. As for legislature, that's very interesting. Pennsylvania must be like the UK - an act of Parliament, not the Parliament, etc. Appreciate your time!
Urve (
talk)
00:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Did you know nomination
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that the Proseminar in Homophile Studies, offered in 1970 by
Louis Crompton(pictured) at the
University of Nebraska–Lincoln, was one of the first university courses about homosexuality? Source: "I want to reproduce a shortened version of an archival essay written by Louis Crompton, a pioneer in the field of gay and lesbian studies. The course about which he writes was among the two or three "firsts" in the United States" - McNaron cite, pp 167-168
Interesting course, substantial GA on fine sources, offline sources accepted AGF. The hook is fine, but you could also go further and say that it was only held one semester. Does it really matter which university (... trying to avoid the repetition of that word in the little space we have)? The image is licensed and a good illustration. - In the article, you may want to separate Cited sources from Further reading (compare
In Freundschaft), and may go a step further using sfn referencing (see also there) which makes the link from short citation to the actual definition of the full citation automatically. I wonder if there's an appropriate infobox. I understand that you are still exempt from qpq. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
12:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the review. No, university does not matter. Your suggestion for semester is good, and avoiding university name; perhaps these? (only differences is a word):
ALT1a: ... that the Proseminar in Homophile Studies, offered in 1970 by
Louis Crompton(pictured), was one of the first university courses about homosexuality and offered only once?
ALT1b: ... that the Proseminar in Homophile Studies, offered in 1970 by
Louis Crompton(pictured), was one of the first university courses about homosexuality and was offered only once?
Urve sorry that your FAC was not successful. Have you considered
WP:GOCE/REQ? I've found that they can improve the prose of an article substantially and head off prose-related objections at FAC. Unfortunately, the turnaround time looks quite long at present. (
t ·
c) buidhe06:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I considered it. Nobody had ever said there was an issue with prose, so I thought it was okay. I'm not interested in having another peer review open for months without comments or having a copyedit if I'll just get more opaque and unactionable feedback at FAC. I've removed this page from my watchlist.
Urve (
talk)
06:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)reply