![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Good news for one gay Iranian. APK yada yada 16:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how Age of Consent falls under the scope of LGBT studies. This project's own first guideline states that "Sexuality and Sexual identity are not interchangeable." So, since the Age of Consent article is about sexuality but not LGBT studies (other than one brief section), I thought perhaps it should be removed from this project. Comments? - kotra ( talk) 05:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The Age of Consent article is about SEXUALITY and NOT about LGBT studies. I have removed it from this project. CadenS ( talk) 02:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
*I'm copying this from Portal talk:LGBT. Aleta Sing 02:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Category:Queer studies has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.
There is a very spirited discussion taking place. Cgingold ( talk) 02:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
APK, surely you have met homophobic gay folks - the ones who aren't comfortable with men who are too swishy, or the women who are that butch. I believe we have had some extensive discussions with some of these people. The ones who are ok with your being gay (when you're in bed with them) but get really freaked out when you start "throwing it in peoples faces" or, (how telling) "ramming it down people's throats", and then the tragic ones who live their entire lives in denial a la Ted Haggard. -- Moni3 ( talk) 13:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The CfD was closed as keep. Aleta Sing 13:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey y'all, just for laughs go check out #8 of User:Raul654/Raul's laws. :-D Textorus ( talk) 03:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I created the article Kremlin (bar), which underwent some revisions (namely the addition of a couple of other Kremlin bars in different parts of the world). The article was nominated for deletion, which succeeded due to consensus.
I wasn't sure where to put a possible appeal, and so I wrote a hasty note here, hoping some interested parties might investigate the worth of an article about the bar.
The original AfD nominator subsequently moved my note to here without any explanation as to why it should be considered for undeletion. Obviously therefore, it failed the process. Rather pointless of the editor to have done that, but anyway...
The Kremlin bar is well-known in Belfast, and previously claimed to be Northern Ireland's first (openly?) gay bar. Belfast and Northern Ireland's gay scene, for a long time, wasn't particularly .. prolific.. and the Kremlin (along with The Parliament) played an important role for gay society here.
I'm not sure how people from the USA (which is where I think most of the voters hail from) could necessarily determine the notability of a bar in Belfast. Unfortunately for the article, I'm not part of the gay scene, and I know little to nothing about it or the bar. I was hoping a member of this project might be able to do some investigation and come up with a decent reason as to why the article should be re-created, and possibly some more detail for the article too, as it had been sitting as basically a stub for a long time. That bar and The Parliament are definitely a major part of the (recent) social landscape of Belfast and, to an extent, Northern Ireland as a whole.
Anyway, feel free to contact me about it, or leave comments here. Cheers, -- Setanta747 ( talk) 06:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you replaced User:SatyrTN's User:SatyrBot? We at WP:CHICAGO are looking for a replacement since he is no longer active. Please respond at my talk page.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 18:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated Section 28 for GA status. Anyone care to review? SP-KP ( talk) 23:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for a "neutrality check" on this article. I'm one of those evil government types that enforces the restrictions, so a quick look from other interested parties would be very helpful to ensure that I'm not missing any of the major arguments and that the article is balanced. Help with globalizing the article and cites for the criticisms are also appreciated. Somedumbyankee ( talk) 06:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep an eye on them, ta. Dauphinee ( talk) 10:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
They have deleted the referenced part on homosexuality again. For the fourth or fifth time. After we explained why it should be there. See talk page and archives of this talk page too. Zigzig20s ( talk) 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the LGBT tag. We agreed before that AIDS was not necessarily an LGBT issue. Zigzig20s ( talk) 11:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess the argument could go either way. The AIDS article is under the WP:Africa project due to the epidemic there and among African-Americans. I suppose it would rightfully fall under LBGT Studies as well since it was originally though of as a Gay disease. I would bring it up as a discussion on both talk pages. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. How about if this project decides what to tag before everyone ups and leaves? We're barely keeping it together right now as it is. In fact...are we? I haven't even checked to see if California's Supreme Court strike of the gay marriage ban has been included. Has anyone else?
As for HIV/AIDS, I think there needs to be some kind of balance. I don't think all HIV/AIDS-related articles need to be tagged, but perhaps looking at the ones that are already existing and considering others that need to be written is a good idea. -- Moni3 ( talk) 23:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to back up the statistics claim... from the Center for Disease Control... "MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men. In a 2005 study of 5 large US cities, 46% of African American MSM were HIV-positive." http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm. That's a fairly huge proportion, even if assuming that a few men claimed not to be MSM. learly then, not only a significant LGBT link, but a topic of significant specific interest to LGBT people (or at least, those that have sense... there are always a few bad apples in every basket) Crimsone ( talk) 09:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
More than 2 thirds of HIV infections are MSM, compared with one tenth of the hetero population... and it's not an LGBT issue? Hmmmmmmm. Of those infected MSM, less than half are African American. It's not homophobia... it's bare facts, which an encyclopedia deals with. By the way, the first article I edited at Wikipedia was Transphobia a couple of years back. Hardly new then! Crimsone ( talk) 08:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Recent Report Sheds Light on LGBT Homeless Youth An Epidemic of Homelessness
A 2006 report titled, "An Epidemic of Homelessness," by Nicholas Ray cites a study in
which "50 percent of homeless youth...considered it likely or very likely that they will someday test positive for HIV." This report was published by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for the Homeless.
This report estimates that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth make up 20 to 40 percent of all homeless youth in the United States. As New York City is the epicenter of HIV/AIDS and has significant homeless and LGBT populations, this information is highly relevant both to SMART, Inc. in terms of policy and outreach, as well as to SMART Youth, which works with adolescents living with and affected by HIV/AIDS and those at high risk.
The report cites the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' estimated statistics that the number of homeless and runaway youth ranges from approximately 500,000 to 1.5 million each year. While this particular report does not specifically focus on HIV/AIDS or New York City, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates that there are between 15,000 and 20,000 homeless youth in New York City, of whom
3,000 to 8,000 are LGBT.
The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Historical ramifications did. Not any more. I am out for a stroll by the sea. Zigzig20s ( talk) 12:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I'm not sure where this dicussion is going, but it doesn't seem to be doing anything. Nor am I sure what it is really we're arguing about. But there seem to be three options:
If there are more options feel free to add. I think the discussion should be about what the project should do. -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It is doing something... it's arguing against a project tag on the basis of a given article on the part of one person that denies the facts presented to him. The CDC article mentioned is actually where the sorce specifically citing the proportion if infections held by MSM comes from. Where it's a significant feature in LGBT, or where there's a significant (more than substantial in this case LGBT involvement, not least because there is a proven case for higher infection rates, but equally out of historic relevance and the gay giftgiver subculture, the tag belongs on it. QED as far as I can see. The argument against it is "Oh no - can't do that... it attaches a stigma", which is unencyclopedic... and besides... the stigma's already there. Crimsone ( talk) 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, guys, could we talk about the point of a project tag for a second? I realize that there are some projects whose primary activity is placing their "territory mark" on articles -- turning a project tag into a kind of "my favorite articles" tag -- but that's not why these things exist (and WP:LGBT has never been that kind of project). A project tag is not part of the categorization system. Category:LGBT means "we think this article is related to LGBT topics or affects LGBT people." If you think AIDS is significantly related to LGBT people (well, GBT people), then please put the (appropriate sub-)category on the article's main page.
This project's page outlines the three legitimate uses for the project tag:
I'll add that it effectively advertises the project in some cases and so can be useful for recruiting new members.
"This disease disproportionately affects persons engaging in anal sex, such as gay men" is not anywhere on the list of legitimate uses -- because that information is properly addressed in the article itself, through categorization (and presumably text). Project tags do not exist for the purpose of duplicating the category system. If "it affects LGBT people" were the primary criterion for adding a project tag, you'd have to tag not only HIV/AIDS articles, but also nearly every article about STIs, tobacco, and personal finance, not to mention a good number of articles about family law, psychology, psychiatry, urban studies, and drugs of abuse.
Instead, the question you need to answer is "Does this project have an interest in improving this article?" What would happen if someone posted a note here about the article? Would your answer by, "Go talk to WP:MED?" Or "Sure, we'd be happy to help?" If you reasonably expect that the project isn't (in practice) going to support the article's improvment, then you should skip the project tag on grounds of overtagging and misrepresentation of the project's actual work. If you're likely to help, then, by all means, include the project tag (and, of course, do something to improve the article).
BTW, on a long-established article like AIDS, I think you could find the answer by looking through the article's recent history. If that's not convincing, then those who support adding the project tag can solve this dispute right now by simply indicating their willingness to improve the article in question and to answer any questions left on this page by readers of that article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to make everyone aware (if you're not already) of the Social Science Research Network, it is an amazing collection of free of charge access to scholarly papers on many different topics. I have found some great stuff done on prison rape and I am certain that a multitude of the topics will be useful here. The search results link to an abstract and you can download PDFs from that page. Looks like you can only link to the abstract though, so if you use them as a source and someone needs to check it out they will have to download the document. -- Aujourd'hui, maman est morte ( talk) 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In light of some of the recent (and current) discussions on this project talk page. I think it would be beneficial if LGBT wikipedians modified the LGBTProject banner to include a small description on the reason why any article tagged by the project rightfully falls within its scope. One example I found was on Eleanor Roosevelts talk page.
The bullet points on the consensus among editors could be hidden under the "show/hide" feature so it would not take up space. Is there any support/opposition for the modification? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It's the talk page. If it falls under the scope of our editors' interests, it's good to stick on, flag and all. Don't give an inch, they'll take a yard.~ Zythe Talk to me! 10:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was the extra parameter isn't apparent at all. I didn't even realize it was an option until I came across the article mentioned above. I was suggesting the parameter should be a visible option for anyone who comes across the LGBT tag for the first time and hasn't seen any of these discussions or the archives. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Since it can not be proven he is homosexual I don't think he should be part of the LGBT studies project. What do you guys think? K.H ( talk) 19:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
A request for comment has been posted at Talk:Harvey Milk#REQUEST FOR COMMENT: Milk's involvement with Jim Jones/Peoples Temple. Other editor's input would be appreciated. Banje boi 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding whether the LGBT infobox should be placed on the Pederasty article, thus implying the relevance of pederastic relationships between grown men and adolescent or at least much younger youth or men to LGBT, Homosexuality and Queer Studies.
For me, there are two approaches (I admit that my presentation may be biased here):
If we are talking about sexual relationships between people of the same (homo) sex, then it fits within the purview of this project, and therefore the project banner should be used on the talk page. I agree with Moni that the template does not belong in the article though if the article is not part of the template.
As for anachronisms... yes we use LGBT anachronistically. Aleta Sing 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
...... Dendodge .. Talk Help 11:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
A Visitation of Spirits is up for deletion. It is a rather well-known book, though. Can anyone please help? Zigzig20s ( talk) 14:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
One of the best ways to remind folks that though there are some Wikiprojects floundering and half asleep, we are kinda too... But an attempt to undo that could be to revive the newsletter. By sending it out to members, we can remind them that there are still things to do. I don't mind contributing content, but I don't know jack shit about making it all pretty with the div and the colors and images and whatnot. And is there a delivery bot we can use? Any ideas? -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well...I noticed the newsletter eliminates the TOC on my talk page, which drives me nuts. I compared it to the newsletter on February 29, which allows a TOC. The difference between them is the June newsletter has a _NOTOC_ code. But when I take that out, it turns the table of contents into a weirder subtable of contents. I don't know what to do and I don't know who to ask. Make it stop! -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There is some debate on Talk:Stewie Griffin on whether he should be added to Category:Fictional LGBT characters and Category:Fictional gay men. These discussions could use some input in terms of what those categories are for, and what would be consistent with Wikipedia policy and established conventions in these matters.
Incidentally, while Talk:Lois Griffin has been tagged for {{ LGBTProject}}, Talk:Stewie Griffin is not. I'm not a project member, and don't know if this is right. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to thank Moni and all the people who contributed to it for this month's newsletter. I found it informative and useful. Well done to all! Will we be getting one next month? ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
OneTwo possible sources for the The Violet Quill is are:
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) This book is not just an anthology of stories by the seven authors that comprised the Violet Quill in 1980-1981, but includes some unpublished material from correspondence, journals, and interviews. This group is compared to the Paris Salon of
Gertrude Stein, as well as others. Paperback (1995)
ISBN
978-0312132026.See also here from GLBTQ encyclopedia. The seven authors are: Edmund White, Andrew Holleran, Robert Ferro, Felice Picano, George Whitmore, Michael Grumley, and Christopher Cox. — Becksguy ( talk) 02:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There is enough there to start the article, so I'm creating it. Why wait. — Becksguy ( talk) 03:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, 3.5 hours later, done. Not a great article, but a stub start nevertheless. This will tie the seven writers together while we improve it. Further discussion should probably take place on the article
talk page. I included the references above into the article. And I will post some thoughts on article expansion that everyone is more than welcome to join in on. OK, Zig, your request in the newsletter is on it's way to completion. —
Becksguy (
talk)
07:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Would someone assess the article so I can nominate for DYK. I think its pretty much a start class now, but as creator, I obviously can't assess. Also check for appropriate cats, tags, and banners as I added just the ones I'm familiar with. Thanks. — Becksguy ( talk) 15:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see this movie rising to the level of being an LGBT film as the only identified gay character's orientation doesn't really seem to be a factor in the film's plot or character development. Or am I missing something... I don't want to just up and pull the tag based on a possibly spotty memory or understanding of its meaning. - Richfife ( talk) 02:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone, If you wouldn't mind, I would like to get on soapbox for a minute. My intention is to bring up a POV issue for discussion. Wikipedia is a NPOV encyclopedia. It's not a "Gay"-only encyclopedia. It's not a niche encyclopedia like the conservatives' Conservapedia, or Star Trek fans' Memory Alpha. As Wikipedia editors, we all ideally aim to portray topics (controversial and not) fairly and balanced, even if we have personal views of agreement or disagreement with the topic.
Homosexual/bisexual affection/attraction/relationships/etc are nothing new. They have been going on since caveman days. However, the "LGBT" movement, gay pride flags, and pride colors are 20th century inventions (and not all "LGBT" individuals even identify by these labels, or feel that the flag and "gay pride" represent them) Through the use of the LGBT infobox, most homosexuality/bisexuality/etc related articles on Wikipedia automatically carry and are co-branded with "LGBT", the Pride flag, and Pride colors in horizontal dividers.
Rightly or wrongly, this gives the appearance that these articles are being maintained by people with a Pro-LGBT slant. (Like Fox News' American flag "LIVE" graphic gives the appearance of a jingoistic right-wing slant). We are here to contribute to the whole of human knowledge, not to hold a pep rally or turn Wikipedia into a gay version of Fox News.
IMHO, the use of Pride Flags & colors have no place in NPOV articles unless directly addressing the modern LGBT movement (of which the pride flag is a historical part). At best, the pride flag has nothing to do with most of the articles it appears on, and at worst it lends the appearance of POV slant. Thanks, -- Caveman80 ( talk) 08:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the issue here, sorry. Perhaps you could point out an article where you think the presence of an infobox is inappropriate. WjB scribe 11:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually see Caveman80's point on this. Perhaps the rainbow flag could be kept to the talk page? I'm not sure we should have any graphics on any article on Wikipedia that isn't relevant to that article, like photos for example. GreenJoe 15:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So? We're the LGBT project editors. We can have a personal POV, as long as the mainspace does not reflect this; in templates, it exists simply as a binding image for the LGBT topic. Total non-issue. Try hard-hitting Wikiproject Scientology if you want to talk bias.~ Zythe Talk to me! 17:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to assume good faith - unless you apply that same principle to the logo used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. - Davodd ( talk) 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Crimsone, in a way you make my point. :-). Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. are belief systems, and their symbols accompany their infoboxes and portals appropriately. LGBT, Pride Flag, Pride colors also symbolize a belief system. If the LGBT label, pride flag & colors were only co-branded on articles about the LGBT movement, this wouldn't matter. But the LGBT label, flag & colors are projected onto wide variety of same-sex related article topics that have nothing to do with the "LGBT" modern western (and expanding to the east) movement. Some topics such a
homosexuality in ancient greece are NPOV articles examining the context of same-sex relations in an ancient culture, and claiming ownership of that ancient culture under our modern label and banner. Homosexuality as a label did not exist before CE 19th Century, and LGBT movement, etc, did not exist before the 20th. For the vast overwhelming majority of human history & pre-history "gay", "lesbian", and "bisexual" people did not identify by these labels (or flags and such). They either id'd by no label, or whatever label or identity was relevent to their culture and time. Branding all same-sex topics throughout human history (and through-out the non-western, and non-identifying as LGBT world) with a modern POV political symbol brings up questions of appearance of POV IMHO. --
71.226.14.103 (
talk)
22:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think switching over to footers would solve most potential-POV questions as footers are relatively unobtrusive and allow a reader to review a nuetral article before further exploring any related topics including the
Gay pride flag (interesting to note that if you skim the article too fast, you will not see the template). Personally, I've always prefered the footers because they are unobtrusive, and I know right where to find them.
Ooh, bugger; just stumbled across {{
LGBT}} and it has some changes since I last saw it - well, the autohide keeps the flag tucked away until a reader chooses to explore. This might be a reasonable compromise, and remember nothing is set in stone - give it another month and opinions may shift more or again (heck, give it five minutes and they may change).
Zue
Jay (
talk)
23:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Should there be a vote to change ALL sidebar LGBT tags to the LGBTFooter? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The article about The Female Man, a major feminist/science fiction novel from the 1970s, discusses the character Janet who comes from a world containing only women. My emphases:
Is it just me or is the article rather excessively heterocentric in its tone? The Wednesday Island ( talk) 04:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Would some one assess that article, hopefully to start class, so I can nominate it for DYK. Thanks — Becksguy ( talk) 21:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Put her on watch, please. She has a gay icon section. -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
If you haven't heard, they got married and their article, sad as it is, is getting a lot of IP edits. If someone can watch it, that'd be great. I also noticed a few edits to the Daughters of Bilitis article, some that I had to revert.
On a related note, I just made reservations to get my ass married in August. Which I paid for with my Republican funded stimulus payment. Thanks George W!!! You're awesome. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed GayFest and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 00:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Is he gay? A couple of lines say he is, then that he has married a woman apparently... Zigzig20s ( talk) 17:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
See this for a example of homophobia and other slurs in edit summaries. Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks in edit summaries by User:Say nesh — Becksguy ( talk) 23:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a courtesy note - Homosexuality is up for Good Article reassessment due to the globalise cleanup banners and the lack of referencing in the "Middle East, South and Central Asia" and some stray {{ fact}} tags. - Malkinann ( talk) 23:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I am working on Black Cat Bar at the moment in hopes of getting it to GA status. I wanted feedback as to whether the article should be moved to Black Cat Café. Every source I have uses "Bar" but these photos of the establishment's signage show "Café." Additionally, there is another notable Black Cat Bar, in Los Angeles, which was the site of rioting in 1967, two years before Stonewall. An article on that bar could be placed at Black Cat Bar (Los Angeles) but if the current article were moved it would free up the space. My inclination is to leave the article where it is because of all of the sourcing using that terminology and build the LA article at the LA article space. Otto4711 ( talk) 04:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 2538 articles assigned to this project, or 28.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 11:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
On the discussion page for this article at Talk:The Kite Runner (film)#WikiProject LGBT Studies, another editor asks an interesting question about why this film should be considered part of LGBT Studies. I just saw the film and I think he/she makes a valid point. Can someone explain why this film would be considered LGBT-related? I'm very interested in hearing the rationale from someone involved in the project. Thank you. 209.247.22.166 ( talk) 15:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello guys, I'm French Canadian from Québec, so my english isn't too good... and I need your solidarity here!! I'm wondering if one of you would be able to start a stub about a gay non-profit organization, who prevent suicide and provides help for gay youth across the eastern part of Canada.
I wrote the French version ( fr:Gai Écoute meaning "Gay are listening") and the English version is known as Gay Line. You can find historic and more infos at http://www.gayline.qc.ca/ ... Some pics under GFDL license will be soon available on Commons.
Thanks for your help,
Antaya (
talk)
08:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Kermit Love, one of the creators of Big Bird on Sesame Street, died this week. He was gay and had quite a cool career, working with Balanchine and Jerome robbins before going into children's television. Should he be added to the project? Dybryd ( talk) 22:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
There are currently a couple of discussions at Talk:Conversion therapy regarding whether or not conversion therapy and reparative therapy are the same thing. Discussion are taking place between User:66.30.20.71 and User:Skoojal, and could perhaps use some more opinions. I had a sort-of request to get involved, but am not too familiar with the subject. The threads are Reparative therapy versus conversion therapy and Throckmorton. -- Beloved Freak 18:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Paragraph 175 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. — An gr 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's something Rod McKuen posted to his own website in June of 2004:
Am I gay? Let me put it this way, Collectively I spend more hours brushing my teeth than having sex so I refuse to define my life in sexual terms. I've been to bed with women and men and in most cases enjoyed the experience with either sex immensely. Does that make me bi-sexual? Nope. Heterosexual? Not exclusively. Homosexual? Certainly not by my definition.
I am sexual by nature and I continue to fall in love with people and with any luck human beings of both sexes will now and again be drawn to me. I can't imagine choosing one sex over the other, that's just too limiting. I can't even honestly say I have a preference. I'm attracted to different people for different reasons.
I do identify with the Gay Rights struggle, to me that battle is about nothing more or less than human rights. I marched in the 50's and 60's to protest the treatment of Blacks in this country and I'm proud of the fact that I broke the color barrier in South Africa by being the first artist to successfully demand integrated seating at my concerts. I am a die-hard feminist and will continue to speak out for women's rights as long as they are threatened. These, of course, are all social issues and have nothing to do with my sex life (although admittedly I've met some pretty hot people of both sexes on the picket line.)
Although wishing to respect McKuen's preferred self-labeling (or avoidance of same) per WP:BLP, it seems clear that he is perfectly comfortable being identified as part of LGBT-ness in general. Add him to the project?
Dybryd ( talk) 17:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Gay bathhouse and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a few issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article. Please consider helping address the multiple points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 01:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if there might be interest in creating a deletion page similar to what the Wikiproject Video Games does here. I have noticed a fair amount of LGBT related articles coming up for deletion over time and it might be a good idea to have a place to house the discussions of them. -- Pinkkeith ( talk) 15:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I started it up here. -- Pinkkeith ( talk) 15:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
does anybody know of a website that takes all the common arguments against homo/bisexuality and rebuts them in as much detail as possible? because I'm always repeating the same old stuff to people (and would prefer not to have to make such a website myself!) :)
p.s. sorry to post this here when its not related to wiki stuff. I didn't know where else to ask —Preceding unsigned comment added by P.MML ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
12 Reasons why gay people should not be allowed to marry!
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer life-spans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
I'm writing July's newsletter here. Let me know if you have any input.
As I was adding our new members to the welcome list, it occurred to me that we should be taking advantage of these fresh sides of meat fine people. Since it looks like we get maybe one person adding their name to the
member list a week, what if we had someone add a welcome message to their talk pages and direct them to where we need assistance? Basically be an usher, delivering this (or something prettier, if you're good at graphics).
![]() |
The
WikiProject LGBT Studies welcome wagon
![]() | |
Welcome to our Wikiproject! Here are the places you can help out / people you can contact for help. Please join our talk page for the discussion. Other messages go here... |
Thoughts?
Thanks. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that we've had Template:LGBT Welcome, which produces
![]() Hi, WikiProject LGBT studies, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender ( LGBT) and intersex people. LGBT Studies covers people, culture, history, and related subjects concerning sexual identity and gender identity - this covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful:
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! |
for ages, and often one member or another would take it upon him/herself to put it on the pages of new members. I guess we've fallen down on that lately. Aleta Sing 03:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Good news for one gay Iranian. APK yada yada 16:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how Age of Consent falls under the scope of LGBT studies. This project's own first guideline states that "Sexuality and Sexual identity are not interchangeable." So, since the Age of Consent article is about sexuality but not LGBT studies (other than one brief section), I thought perhaps it should be removed from this project. Comments? - kotra ( talk) 05:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The Age of Consent article is about SEXUALITY and NOT about LGBT studies. I have removed it from this project. CadenS ( talk) 02:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
*I'm copying this from Portal talk:LGBT. Aleta Sing 02:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Category:Queer studies has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.
There is a very spirited discussion taking place. Cgingold ( talk) 02:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
APK, surely you have met homophobic gay folks - the ones who aren't comfortable with men who are too swishy, or the women who are that butch. I believe we have had some extensive discussions with some of these people. The ones who are ok with your being gay (when you're in bed with them) but get really freaked out when you start "throwing it in peoples faces" or, (how telling) "ramming it down people's throats", and then the tragic ones who live their entire lives in denial a la Ted Haggard. -- Moni3 ( talk) 13:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The CfD was closed as keep. Aleta Sing 13:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey y'all, just for laughs go check out #8 of User:Raul654/Raul's laws. :-D Textorus ( talk) 03:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I created the article Kremlin (bar), which underwent some revisions (namely the addition of a couple of other Kremlin bars in different parts of the world). The article was nominated for deletion, which succeeded due to consensus.
I wasn't sure where to put a possible appeal, and so I wrote a hasty note here, hoping some interested parties might investigate the worth of an article about the bar.
The original AfD nominator subsequently moved my note to here without any explanation as to why it should be considered for undeletion. Obviously therefore, it failed the process. Rather pointless of the editor to have done that, but anyway...
The Kremlin bar is well-known in Belfast, and previously claimed to be Northern Ireland's first (openly?) gay bar. Belfast and Northern Ireland's gay scene, for a long time, wasn't particularly .. prolific.. and the Kremlin (along with The Parliament) played an important role for gay society here.
I'm not sure how people from the USA (which is where I think most of the voters hail from) could necessarily determine the notability of a bar in Belfast. Unfortunately for the article, I'm not part of the gay scene, and I know little to nothing about it or the bar. I was hoping a member of this project might be able to do some investigation and come up with a decent reason as to why the article should be re-created, and possibly some more detail for the article too, as it had been sitting as basically a stub for a long time. That bar and The Parliament are definitely a major part of the (recent) social landscape of Belfast and, to an extent, Northern Ireland as a whole.
Anyway, feel free to contact me about it, or leave comments here. Cheers, -- Setanta747 ( talk) 06:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you replaced User:SatyrTN's User:SatyrBot? We at WP:CHICAGO are looking for a replacement since he is no longer active. Please respond at my talk page.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 18:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated Section 28 for GA status. Anyone care to review? SP-KP ( talk) 23:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for a "neutrality check" on this article. I'm one of those evil government types that enforces the restrictions, so a quick look from other interested parties would be very helpful to ensure that I'm not missing any of the major arguments and that the article is balanced. Help with globalizing the article and cites for the criticisms are also appreciated. Somedumbyankee ( talk) 06:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep an eye on them, ta. Dauphinee ( talk) 10:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
They have deleted the referenced part on homosexuality again. For the fourth or fifth time. After we explained why it should be there. See talk page and archives of this talk page too. Zigzig20s ( talk) 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the LGBT tag. We agreed before that AIDS was not necessarily an LGBT issue. Zigzig20s ( talk) 11:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess the argument could go either way. The AIDS article is under the WP:Africa project due to the epidemic there and among African-Americans. I suppose it would rightfully fall under LBGT Studies as well since it was originally though of as a Gay disease. I would bring it up as a discussion on both talk pages. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. How about if this project decides what to tag before everyone ups and leaves? We're barely keeping it together right now as it is. In fact...are we? I haven't even checked to see if California's Supreme Court strike of the gay marriage ban has been included. Has anyone else?
As for HIV/AIDS, I think there needs to be some kind of balance. I don't think all HIV/AIDS-related articles need to be tagged, but perhaps looking at the ones that are already existing and considering others that need to be written is a good idea. -- Moni3 ( talk) 23:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to back up the statistics claim... from the Center for Disease Control... "MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men. In a 2005 study of 5 large US cities, 46% of African American MSM were HIV-positive." http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm. That's a fairly huge proportion, even if assuming that a few men claimed not to be MSM. learly then, not only a significant LGBT link, but a topic of significant specific interest to LGBT people (or at least, those that have sense... there are always a few bad apples in every basket) Crimsone ( talk) 09:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
More than 2 thirds of HIV infections are MSM, compared with one tenth of the hetero population... and it's not an LGBT issue? Hmmmmmmm. Of those infected MSM, less than half are African American. It's not homophobia... it's bare facts, which an encyclopedia deals with. By the way, the first article I edited at Wikipedia was Transphobia a couple of years back. Hardly new then! Crimsone ( talk) 08:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Recent Report Sheds Light on LGBT Homeless Youth An Epidemic of Homelessness
A 2006 report titled, "An Epidemic of Homelessness," by Nicholas Ray cites a study in
which "50 percent of homeless youth...considered it likely or very likely that they will someday test positive for HIV." This report was published by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for the Homeless.
This report estimates that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth make up 20 to 40 percent of all homeless youth in the United States. As New York City is the epicenter of HIV/AIDS and has significant homeless and LGBT populations, this information is highly relevant both to SMART, Inc. in terms of policy and outreach, as well as to SMART Youth, which works with adolescents living with and affected by HIV/AIDS and those at high risk.
The report cites the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' estimated statistics that the number of homeless and runaway youth ranges from approximately 500,000 to 1.5 million each year. While this particular report does not specifically focus on HIV/AIDS or New York City, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates that there are between 15,000 and 20,000 homeless youth in New York City, of whom
3,000 to 8,000 are LGBT.
The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Historical ramifications did. Not any more. I am out for a stroll by the sea. Zigzig20s ( talk) 12:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I'm not sure where this dicussion is going, but it doesn't seem to be doing anything. Nor am I sure what it is really we're arguing about. But there seem to be three options:
If there are more options feel free to add. I think the discussion should be about what the project should do. -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It is doing something... it's arguing against a project tag on the basis of a given article on the part of one person that denies the facts presented to him. The CDC article mentioned is actually where the sorce specifically citing the proportion if infections held by MSM comes from. Where it's a significant feature in LGBT, or where there's a significant (more than substantial in this case LGBT involvement, not least because there is a proven case for higher infection rates, but equally out of historic relevance and the gay giftgiver subculture, the tag belongs on it. QED as far as I can see. The argument against it is "Oh no - can't do that... it attaches a stigma", which is unencyclopedic... and besides... the stigma's already there. Crimsone ( talk) 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, guys, could we talk about the point of a project tag for a second? I realize that there are some projects whose primary activity is placing their "territory mark" on articles -- turning a project tag into a kind of "my favorite articles" tag -- but that's not why these things exist (and WP:LGBT has never been that kind of project). A project tag is not part of the categorization system. Category:LGBT means "we think this article is related to LGBT topics or affects LGBT people." If you think AIDS is significantly related to LGBT people (well, GBT people), then please put the (appropriate sub-)category on the article's main page.
This project's page outlines the three legitimate uses for the project tag:
I'll add that it effectively advertises the project in some cases and so can be useful for recruiting new members.
"This disease disproportionately affects persons engaging in anal sex, such as gay men" is not anywhere on the list of legitimate uses -- because that information is properly addressed in the article itself, through categorization (and presumably text). Project tags do not exist for the purpose of duplicating the category system. If "it affects LGBT people" were the primary criterion for adding a project tag, you'd have to tag not only HIV/AIDS articles, but also nearly every article about STIs, tobacco, and personal finance, not to mention a good number of articles about family law, psychology, psychiatry, urban studies, and drugs of abuse.
Instead, the question you need to answer is "Does this project have an interest in improving this article?" What would happen if someone posted a note here about the article? Would your answer by, "Go talk to WP:MED?" Or "Sure, we'd be happy to help?" If you reasonably expect that the project isn't (in practice) going to support the article's improvment, then you should skip the project tag on grounds of overtagging and misrepresentation of the project's actual work. If you're likely to help, then, by all means, include the project tag (and, of course, do something to improve the article).
BTW, on a long-established article like AIDS, I think you could find the answer by looking through the article's recent history. If that's not convincing, then those who support adding the project tag can solve this dispute right now by simply indicating their willingness to improve the article in question and to answer any questions left on this page by readers of that article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to make everyone aware (if you're not already) of the Social Science Research Network, it is an amazing collection of free of charge access to scholarly papers on many different topics. I have found some great stuff done on prison rape and I am certain that a multitude of the topics will be useful here. The search results link to an abstract and you can download PDFs from that page. Looks like you can only link to the abstract though, so if you use them as a source and someone needs to check it out they will have to download the document. -- Aujourd'hui, maman est morte ( talk) 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In light of some of the recent (and current) discussions on this project talk page. I think it would be beneficial if LGBT wikipedians modified the LGBTProject banner to include a small description on the reason why any article tagged by the project rightfully falls within its scope. One example I found was on Eleanor Roosevelts talk page.
The bullet points on the consensus among editors could be hidden under the "show/hide" feature so it would not take up space. Is there any support/opposition for the modification? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It's the talk page. If it falls under the scope of our editors' interests, it's good to stick on, flag and all. Don't give an inch, they'll take a yard.~ Zythe Talk to me! 10:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was the extra parameter isn't apparent at all. I didn't even realize it was an option until I came across the article mentioned above. I was suggesting the parameter should be a visible option for anyone who comes across the LGBT tag for the first time and hasn't seen any of these discussions or the archives. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Since it can not be proven he is homosexual I don't think he should be part of the LGBT studies project. What do you guys think? K.H ( talk) 19:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
A request for comment has been posted at Talk:Harvey Milk#REQUEST FOR COMMENT: Milk's involvement with Jim Jones/Peoples Temple. Other editor's input would be appreciated. Banje boi 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding whether the LGBT infobox should be placed on the Pederasty article, thus implying the relevance of pederastic relationships between grown men and adolescent or at least much younger youth or men to LGBT, Homosexuality and Queer Studies.
For me, there are two approaches (I admit that my presentation may be biased here):
If we are talking about sexual relationships between people of the same (homo) sex, then it fits within the purview of this project, and therefore the project banner should be used on the talk page. I agree with Moni that the template does not belong in the article though if the article is not part of the template.
As for anachronisms... yes we use LGBT anachronistically. Aleta Sing 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
...... Dendodge .. Talk Help 11:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
A Visitation of Spirits is up for deletion. It is a rather well-known book, though. Can anyone please help? Zigzig20s ( talk) 14:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
One of the best ways to remind folks that though there are some Wikiprojects floundering and half asleep, we are kinda too... But an attempt to undo that could be to revive the newsletter. By sending it out to members, we can remind them that there are still things to do. I don't mind contributing content, but I don't know jack shit about making it all pretty with the div and the colors and images and whatnot. And is there a delivery bot we can use? Any ideas? -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well...I noticed the newsletter eliminates the TOC on my talk page, which drives me nuts. I compared it to the newsletter on February 29, which allows a TOC. The difference between them is the June newsletter has a _NOTOC_ code. But when I take that out, it turns the table of contents into a weirder subtable of contents. I don't know what to do and I don't know who to ask. Make it stop! -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There is some debate on Talk:Stewie Griffin on whether he should be added to Category:Fictional LGBT characters and Category:Fictional gay men. These discussions could use some input in terms of what those categories are for, and what would be consistent with Wikipedia policy and established conventions in these matters.
Incidentally, while Talk:Lois Griffin has been tagged for {{ LGBTProject}}, Talk:Stewie Griffin is not. I'm not a project member, and don't know if this is right. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to thank Moni and all the people who contributed to it for this month's newsletter. I found it informative and useful. Well done to all! Will we be getting one next month? ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
OneTwo possible sources for the The Violet Quill is are:
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) This book is not just an anthology of stories by the seven authors that comprised the Violet Quill in 1980-1981, but includes some unpublished material from correspondence, journals, and interviews. This group is compared to the Paris Salon of
Gertrude Stein, as well as others. Paperback (1995)
ISBN
978-0312132026.See also here from GLBTQ encyclopedia. The seven authors are: Edmund White, Andrew Holleran, Robert Ferro, Felice Picano, George Whitmore, Michael Grumley, and Christopher Cox. — Becksguy ( talk) 02:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There is enough there to start the article, so I'm creating it. Why wait. — Becksguy ( talk) 03:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, 3.5 hours later, done. Not a great article, but a stub start nevertheless. This will tie the seven writers together while we improve it. Further discussion should probably take place on the article
talk page. I included the references above into the article. And I will post some thoughts on article expansion that everyone is more than welcome to join in on. OK, Zig, your request in the newsletter is on it's way to completion. —
Becksguy (
talk)
07:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Would someone assess the article so I can nominate for DYK. I think its pretty much a start class now, but as creator, I obviously can't assess. Also check for appropriate cats, tags, and banners as I added just the ones I'm familiar with. Thanks. — Becksguy ( talk) 15:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see this movie rising to the level of being an LGBT film as the only identified gay character's orientation doesn't really seem to be a factor in the film's plot or character development. Or am I missing something... I don't want to just up and pull the tag based on a possibly spotty memory or understanding of its meaning. - Richfife ( talk) 02:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone, If you wouldn't mind, I would like to get on soapbox for a minute. My intention is to bring up a POV issue for discussion. Wikipedia is a NPOV encyclopedia. It's not a "Gay"-only encyclopedia. It's not a niche encyclopedia like the conservatives' Conservapedia, or Star Trek fans' Memory Alpha. As Wikipedia editors, we all ideally aim to portray topics (controversial and not) fairly and balanced, even if we have personal views of agreement or disagreement with the topic.
Homosexual/bisexual affection/attraction/relationships/etc are nothing new. They have been going on since caveman days. However, the "LGBT" movement, gay pride flags, and pride colors are 20th century inventions (and not all "LGBT" individuals even identify by these labels, or feel that the flag and "gay pride" represent them) Through the use of the LGBT infobox, most homosexuality/bisexuality/etc related articles on Wikipedia automatically carry and are co-branded with "LGBT", the Pride flag, and Pride colors in horizontal dividers.
Rightly or wrongly, this gives the appearance that these articles are being maintained by people with a Pro-LGBT slant. (Like Fox News' American flag "LIVE" graphic gives the appearance of a jingoistic right-wing slant). We are here to contribute to the whole of human knowledge, not to hold a pep rally or turn Wikipedia into a gay version of Fox News.
IMHO, the use of Pride Flags & colors have no place in NPOV articles unless directly addressing the modern LGBT movement (of which the pride flag is a historical part). At best, the pride flag has nothing to do with most of the articles it appears on, and at worst it lends the appearance of POV slant. Thanks, -- Caveman80 ( talk) 08:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the issue here, sorry. Perhaps you could point out an article where you think the presence of an infobox is inappropriate. WjB scribe 11:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually see Caveman80's point on this. Perhaps the rainbow flag could be kept to the talk page? I'm not sure we should have any graphics on any article on Wikipedia that isn't relevant to that article, like photos for example. GreenJoe 15:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So? We're the LGBT project editors. We can have a personal POV, as long as the mainspace does not reflect this; in templates, it exists simply as a binding image for the LGBT topic. Total non-issue. Try hard-hitting Wikiproject Scientology if you want to talk bias.~ Zythe Talk to me! 17:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to assume good faith - unless you apply that same principle to the logo used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. - Davodd ( talk) 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Crimsone, in a way you make my point. :-). Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. are belief systems, and their symbols accompany their infoboxes and portals appropriately. LGBT, Pride Flag, Pride colors also symbolize a belief system. If the LGBT label, pride flag & colors were only co-branded on articles about the LGBT movement, this wouldn't matter. But the LGBT label, flag & colors are projected onto wide variety of same-sex related article topics that have nothing to do with the "LGBT" modern western (and expanding to the east) movement. Some topics such a
homosexuality in ancient greece are NPOV articles examining the context of same-sex relations in an ancient culture, and claiming ownership of that ancient culture under our modern label and banner. Homosexuality as a label did not exist before CE 19th Century, and LGBT movement, etc, did not exist before the 20th. For the vast overwhelming majority of human history & pre-history "gay", "lesbian", and "bisexual" people did not identify by these labels (or flags and such). They either id'd by no label, or whatever label or identity was relevent to their culture and time. Branding all same-sex topics throughout human history (and through-out the non-western, and non-identifying as LGBT world) with a modern POV political symbol brings up questions of appearance of POV IMHO. --
71.226.14.103 (
talk)
22:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think switching over to footers would solve most potential-POV questions as footers are relatively unobtrusive and allow a reader to review a nuetral article before further exploring any related topics including the
Gay pride flag (interesting to note that if you skim the article too fast, you will not see the template). Personally, I've always prefered the footers because they are unobtrusive, and I know right where to find them.
Ooh, bugger; just stumbled across {{
LGBT}} and it has some changes since I last saw it - well, the autohide keeps the flag tucked away until a reader chooses to explore. This might be a reasonable compromise, and remember nothing is set in stone - give it another month and opinions may shift more or again (heck, give it five minutes and they may change).
Zue
Jay (
talk)
23:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Should there be a vote to change ALL sidebar LGBT tags to the LGBTFooter? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The article about The Female Man, a major feminist/science fiction novel from the 1970s, discusses the character Janet who comes from a world containing only women. My emphases:
Is it just me or is the article rather excessively heterocentric in its tone? The Wednesday Island ( talk) 04:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Would some one assess that article, hopefully to start class, so I can nominate it for DYK. Thanks — Becksguy ( talk) 21:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Put her on watch, please. She has a gay icon section. -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
If you haven't heard, they got married and their article, sad as it is, is getting a lot of IP edits. If someone can watch it, that'd be great. I also noticed a few edits to the Daughters of Bilitis article, some that I had to revert.
On a related note, I just made reservations to get my ass married in August. Which I paid for with my Republican funded stimulus payment. Thanks George W!!! You're awesome. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed GayFest and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 00:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Is he gay? A couple of lines say he is, then that he has married a woman apparently... Zigzig20s ( talk) 17:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
See this for a example of homophobia and other slurs in edit summaries. Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks in edit summaries by User:Say nesh — Becksguy ( talk) 23:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a courtesy note - Homosexuality is up for Good Article reassessment due to the globalise cleanup banners and the lack of referencing in the "Middle East, South and Central Asia" and some stray {{ fact}} tags. - Malkinann ( talk) 23:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I am working on Black Cat Bar at the moment in hopes of getting it to GA status. I wanted feedback as to whether the article should be moved to Black Cat Café. Every source I have uses "Bar" but these photos of the establishment's signage show "Café." Additionally, there is another notable Black Cat Bar, in Los Angeles, which was the site of rioting in 1967, two years before Stonewall. An article on that bar could be placed at Black Cat Bar (Los Angeles) but if the current article were moved it would free up the space. My inclination is to leave the article where it is because of all of the sourcing using that terminology and build the LA article at the LA article space. Otto4711 ( talk) 04:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 2538 articles assigned to this project, or 28.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 11:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
On the discussion page for this article at Talk:The Kite Runner (film)#WikiProject LGBT Studies, another editor asks an interesting question about why this film should be considered part of LGBT Studies. I just saw the film and I think he/she makes a valid point. Can someone explain why this film would be considered LGBT-related? I'm very interested in hearing the rationale from someone involved in the project. Thank you. 209.247.22.166 ( talk) 15:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello guys, I'm French Canadian from Québec, so my english isn't too good... and I need your solidarity here!! I'm wondering if one of you would be able to start a stub about a gay non-profit organization, who prevent suicide and provides help for gay youth across the eastern part of Canada.
I wrote the French version ( fr:Gai Écoute meaning "Gay are listening") and the English version is known as Gay Line. You can find historic and more infos at http://www.gayline.qc.ca/ ... Some pics under GFDL license will be soon available on Commons.
Thanks for your help,
Antaya (
talk)
08:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Kermit Love, one of the creators of Big Bird on Sesame Street, died this week. He was gay and had quite a cool career, working with Balanchine and Jerome robbins before going into children's television. Should he be added to the project? Dybryd ( talk) 22:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
There are currently a couple of discussions at Talk:Conversion therapy regarding whether or not conversion therapy and reparative therapy are the same thing. Discussion are taking place between User:66.30.20.71 and User:Skoojal, and could perhaps use some more opinions. I had a sort-of request to get involved, but am not too familiar with the subject. The threads are Reparative therapy versus conversion therapy and Throckmorton. -- Beloved Freak 18:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Paragraph 175 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. — An gr 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's something Rod McKuen posted to his own website in June of 2004:
Am I gay? Let me put it this way, Collectively I spend more hours brushing my teeth than having sex so I refuse to define my life in sexual terms. I've been to bed with women and men and in most cases enjoyed the experience with either sex immensely. Does that make me bi-sexual? Nope. Heterosexual? Not exclusively. Homosexual? Certainly not by my definition.
I am sexual by nature and I continue to fall in love with people and with any luck human beings of both sexes will now and again be drawn to me. I can't imagine choosing one sex over the other, that's just too limiting. I can't even honestly say I have a preference. I'm attracted to different people for different reasons.
I do identify with the Gay Rights struggle, to me that battle is about nothing more or less than human rights. I marched in the 50's and 60's to protest the treatment of Blacks in this country and I'm proud of the fact that I broke the color barrier in South Africa by being the first artist to successfully demand integrated seating at my concerts. I am a die-hard feminist and will continue to speak out for women's rights as long as they are threatened. These, of course, are all social issues and have nothing to do with my sex life (although admittedly I've met some pretty hot people of both sexes on the picket line.)
Although wishing to respect McKuen's preferred self-labeling (or avoidance of same) per WP:BLP, it seems clear that he is perfectly comfortable being identified as part of LGBT-ness in general. Add him to the project?
Dybryd ( talk) 17:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Gay bathhouse and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a few issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article. Please consider helping address the multiple points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 01:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if there might be interest in creating a deletion page similar to what the Wikiproject Video Games does here. I have noticed a fair amount of LGBT related articles coming up for deletion over time and it might be a good idea to have a place to house the discussions of them. -- Pinkkeith ( talk) 15:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I started it up here. -- Pinkkeith ( talk) 15:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
does anybody know of a website that takes all the common arguments against homo/bisexuality and rebuts them in as much detail as possible? because I'm always repeating the same old stuff to people (and would prefer not to have to make such a website myself!) :)
p.s. sorry to post this here when its not related to wiki stuff. I didn't know where else to ask —Preceding unsigned comment added by P.MML ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
12 Reasons why gay people should not be allowed to marry!
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer life-spans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
I'm writing July's newsletter here. Let me know if you have any input.
As I was adding our new members to the welcome list, it occurred to me that we should be taking advantage of these fresh sides of meat fine people. Since it looks like we get maybe one person adding their name to the
member list a week, what if we had someone add a welcome message to their talk pages and direct them to where we need assistance? Basically be an usher, delivering this (or something prettier, if you're good at graphics).
![]() |
The
WikiProject LGBT Studies welcome wagon
![]() | |
Welcome to our Wikiproject! Here are the places you can help out / people you can contact for help. Please join our talk page for the discussion. Other messages go here... |
Thoughts?
Thanks. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that we've had Template:LGBT Welcome, which produces
![]() Hi, WikiProject LGBT studies, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender ( LGBT) and intersex people. LGBT Studies covers people, culture, history, and related subjects concerning sexual identity and gender identity - this covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful:
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! |
for ages, and often one member or another would take it upon him/herself to put it on the pages of new members. I guess we've fallen down on that lately. Aleta Sing 03:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)