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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
What's the general likelihood that Terence Koh released some of his work into the public domain? Does Wikipedia have protocol for verifying the identity of contributors? Queerudite ( talk) 18:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a lengthy and circular discussion going on at Talk:National Organization for Marriage regarding how the article should be categorized. It's currently under "Homophobia," but some are arguing that it doesn't belong there, that a new category is needed, that the category is inherently biased, etc, etc. Cue lots of debate about "rights," the definition of "homophobia," whether NOM is anti-gay and whether anti-gay=homophobia, and whether being opposed to same-sex marriage=homophobia.... Exploding Boy ( talk) 06:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Despite being under discussion on Files_for_deletion/2009_May_7#LawrenceFobesKing.jpg and as yet unresolved, somebody decided to remove the photo. I have reverted the edit, and directed the editor to discuss in the appropriate place. There seems to be a concerted effort at the moment on the part of another editor to eliminate as much material from the article as he can at the moment. Mish ( talk) 15:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to alert people. The attack on this article has been escalated into an edit war, with the main protagonist getting quite sarcastic, verging on abuse, and has now slapped an NPOV tags etc. on the article. Given the track record on a similar article on transgender killings, he isn't going to stop until the page is either in tatters or removed. Mish ( talk) 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC) And the individual concerned is now proposing an RfC for the page because it does not conform to his understanding. Mish ( talk) 15:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
For image reviews and things that are funny in German, I trust User:Elcobbola above anyone else on Wikipedia. I approached him for clarification on this issue. The thread is here. -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There is currently an effort underway to rename or remove this category to one of a selection of euphemisms. Exploding Boy ( talk) 15:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a banner on this talk page and on the project page as well, listing "open tasks". There's a link there to Unsourced sexuality. That link essentially refers to a talk page. On that talk page were a few articles which I either found not wanting anything or took care of myself with relative ease. For reasons I don't understand, that talk page did not include a link to Category:LGBT articles with unsourced categories which was created specifically for this purpose. There you can find four articles that I have not been able to source (three of them since 16 February). Work to do... Debresser ( talk) 08:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Allstarecho there's only one left. Debresser ( talk) 15:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
An interesting point has been made at Template talk:LGBT. I'm notifying the project here so anyone that wishes, can go there and discuss. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Homosexual Equality Rally in London 1974 is a new article that was PRODded for deletion. This is the UK version of our Stonewall riots so this article definitely needs some love and attention. Sources are out there as I searched before removing the PROD tag. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 00:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have cleaned the item of rhetoric and inserted it into the CHE page. Will leave the old page a while, then make it redirect to the main CHE page. Mish ( talk) 01:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Folks:
I attempted to add a section to the NPR article (national public radio) to mention their censorship on the review of the documentary movie Outrage. It was cited with two references.
Another user almost immediately deleted the change, saying that it it irrelevent to NPR.
I disagree with this, since there is already a section about their being too liberal and another on alleged anti sementicism.
I don't want to immediately revert the change since that might start a revert war.
I would like to know if you all agree that such an inclusion is appropriate for the article on NPR and whether or not I should revert the change.
Thanks
Mark Allyn Allyn ( talk) 20:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI: recent BBC article "Gay protest broken up in Moscow" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8053181.stm - Don't know if we want to mention this somewhere or where: LGBT culture in Russia, LGBT rights in Russia -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 17:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Mish ( talk) 17:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
A bit about it has aleady been added at Eurovision Song Contest 2009#LGBT protests. Siawase ( talk) 18:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi - this is just a note to everyone who edits LGBT rights articles that the new ILGA "State-sponsored Homophobia" annual report is out, downloadable in PDF format at: [1]. It is generally a good source for LGBT rights info for various countries (including text of laws), though use caution if other sources or article info conflicts. :-) Wikignome0529 ( talk) 04:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I have done a search, and it looks like the only place terms like 'LGBT rights opposition' exist are in on-line encyclopedias and essay-generators. It is not Wikipedia policy to rely on other encyclopedias or itself as original sources, so I propose that we need to start working our way through all articles that use this novel terminology, as WP:Original research and begin removing it from Wikipedia. Mish ( talk) 14:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I have inserted this comment on the LGBT rights opposition article talk page:
The term used in this and other contexts as 'LGBT rights opposition' as in 'LGBT rights opposition movement' etc. is a construction that cannot be found in reliable sources. A google search reveals that it is mainly found in online encyclopedias, such as this one, and high school essay-generators. To suggest that all movements which involve heterosexist principles and practices, homophobia, hate crime, eugenic killing and/or opposition to LGBT rights in some fall under such a description is both WP:synthesis and WP:original research. On this basis I suggest that this article be either deleted or merged with homophobia. Mish ( talk) 14:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If you look here Everton F.C., and here Liverpool F.C., you'll notice they are not called 'Everton rivals' or 'Liverpool rivals'. How would you decide which sentence to construct out of all the possible sentences. Why is 'Opposition to gay rights' better than 'Opposition to LGBT human rights' or 'Denial of gay rights' or 'Denial of the human rights of LGBT people' or 'LGBT human rights opposition' or the 'anti-homosexual human rights'? If I do a search on the term "Opposition to gay rights", I do get more results that "Everton rivals", unlike "Opposition to LGBT rights" - but they are in a specific context - Christian opposition to gay rights.
If you look here, you will see this is already covered in some depth here Religion and homosexuality, here Christianity and homosexuality, here The Bible and homosexuality, here List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality, here Homosexuality and Anglicanism, and numerous other pages linked to from the 'Christianity and homosexuality' infobox on them all. The article Homosexuality and Islam does not go into quite as obsessive detail about homosexuality as the articles on Christianity and homosexuality, and nether does Homosexuality and Judaism. So, I am not sure what the need for yet another article on views very well documented elsewhere is. If you are saying that there is a different type of opposition to those listed under the Religions, then why would that warrant using a term that is normally used in describing views by people like the Pope, when his views are explained elsewhere? If people feel strongly enough that there is a case for some article and/or category that falls outside this, and falls outside "homophobia" - a term that features 100 times more frequently than "Opposition to gay rights" and about double the frequency of all the possible constructions appearing anywhere in any online text using 'rights' & 'opposition' & ('LGBT' v 'gay') together - then they need to specify what it is, why that is an accurate description, how it differs what already exists under the religious sections, and provide sources to substantiate that. Even that though, does not provide an argument for replacing 'homophobia', because that is the only category and descriptor available for things that are classed as 'homophobia' outside Wikipedia, all it will mean is there might be some justification for an article on one particular construction, and possibly a very narrow category that might hold a few fairly isolated articles. 'Homophobia' will still stand, and it will be clear that it has a specific meaning.
Some might argue that the Pope (say) be included within the category, not because he is homophobic, but because having been accused of being homophobic in asserting his 'opposition to gay rights', he clearly condemned homophobic acts against LGBT people. I would be very concerned to see his views in a category 'opposition to gay rights' alongside Louis Farrakhan and neo-Nazi groups, when they are not the same sorts of views, and the views he and the Roman Catholic church hold are pretty well covered here Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism and here Pope Benedict XVI#Homosexuality. I am not saying he should be, but I would not discriminate between a religious leader who speaks out against homophobia, a human rights activist who speaks out against it, and a religious leader who categorically supports homophobia; in all these cases the category is appropriate, but for different reasons.
If you want to argue that there is particular movement beyond this, then you will have a job substantiating that, because "opposition to LGBT rights movement", "opposition to gay rights movement", "LGBT rights opposition movement", and "gay rights opposition movement" do not exist on the internet, and substituting 'activism' for 'movement' in the above four constructions yields only two results, neither of which are verifiable sources. Move on. Mish ( talk) 13:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to remind everyone of the Article alerts exist for this project — click "show" to view box at the very top of this page. Please try and monitor these alerts, especially the Articles for Deletion alerts and the PROD deletion alerts. I just went through the PRODS and found some very old (what I call "legacy") articles that were PRODded. If you'd like to put the alerts box on your own userpage or user talkpage, do so by copying this code...
<center><table class="collapsible collapsed" style="width: 75%; background: #FFFFF3; font-size: 110%; border: 3px solid red"><th>[[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|45x45px|left]]Article alerts exist for [[WP:GAY|WikiProject LGBT studies]] — click "show" to view<br/><small>(Deletion discussions, peer reviews, featured article candidates, and other alerts)</small></th><tr><td><div style="font-size:90%">{{Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Article alerts}}</div></td></tr></table></center>
THIS CODE HERE:
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/LGBT article alerts}}
...and pasting it into your userpage or user talk page. It will give you this:
If you don't want it centered on your page, remove the <center> at the beginning of the code and the </center> at the end of the code. If you want it smaller or bigger, change the style="width: 50%; to a different numeric percentage such as 75% or 30%.
So there you go. Use this valuable tool either here where it's at, or on your own pages. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 08:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 06:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Same-sex marriage in New England has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the article's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (Full disclosure: I am the article's inital author) - Epson291 ( talk) 13:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI, UK Gay Liberation Front 1971 Festival of Light action has been created Mish ( talk) 12:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed John's posting this on some of the other projects I watch. Since I doubt he'd be posting it here (I could be wrong about that), I am just swiping his post and pasting it here. Lady of Shalott 19:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Mr.Z-man has a new service available to various requesting WikiProjects which gives the project a monthly update of the number of hits on the 1,000 most frequently accessed articles for that project. An example of such a listing can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Popular pages. Would the members of this project be interested in getting such a list for their use? John Carter ( talk) 18:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Having looked at the sample at Christianity, I think this looks like a really neat service. I think we should get it. Anybody else interested? Lady of Shalott 19:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I see Z-man has been active in replying to other people since our requests, but hasn't responded to our requests. I can only guess maybe he's working on them... - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 04:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Update on this.. From his talk page:
So feel free to go on and watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Popular pages and when it goes live, you'll see it. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 00:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Two important articles to watchlist and to work towards FA. I've tagged both with our project. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Władysław III of Poland was supposedly gay. Should we tag and categorise him? It'd be great to add more references from scholarship. It is particularly relevant as LGBT activists in Poland are concerned with it too: [2]. Zigzig20s ( talk) 11:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I've just created these pages. Please expand them if you can - I already tried google to find more references. Zigzig20s ( talk) 12:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Open query at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Sexual_orientation_section needs a scholarly response. Basic question is why is sexual orientation discussed in an article about human rights? I would answer it but I'm too busy right now and I'm sure someone here knows more than I do. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 02:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn with no objections. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 19:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
In case you don't already know, Category:LGBT issues and religion is being discussed here. APK straight up now tell me 11:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest adding, when you click to show, a link with some "how to" instructions. For instance chilled margin doesn't apply to us but if I remove it will the bot simply re-add? and how do I remove it anyway? Should we use {{ done}} to each entry, etc. -- Banjeboi 04:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The above article is due to be linked in WP:DYK? as part of the hook for Kyell Gold's article. It could do with some work, but I'm not a topic expert. Could someone here have a look? GreenReaper ( talk) 20:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Human rights in the United States#Sexual orientation is back on the menu again. Mish ( talk) 01:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Queer heterosexual is an interesting little project I stumbled across. Somebody set it up as a one-line neologism, and somebody else wanted to delete it almost immediately. I have padded it out a bit, and it seems to me to potentially be a valid article. It is not an area I am that knowledgeable in, but I am sure that anybody with an interest in polyamory, BDSM, transgender, male femininity, female masculinity, (even about guys who dress up as little girls or wear nappies - that might be OR though) etc. would have something they could contribute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MishMich ( talk • contribs)
Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article I did UK Gay Liberation Front 1971 Festival of Light action today - how cool! Mish ( talk) 14:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Lady Gaga's being bisexual keeps getting readded and removed from her article. More eyes and some more stringent copy edit would probably be helpful here. For a month or so the only source was this [3], but just recently someone tried to add a reference from Rolling Stone. [4] [5] Right now there is no mention of her bisexuality in the article at all. I don't know how much this helps, but I also dug up an old interview from HX magazine (Issue number 883, Aug 8, 2008, Going Gaga by Brandon Voss, page 30-31) The original article is offline, but it was reported here [6] and I found a mirror here. [7] Siawase ( talk) 20:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) I added to the talk page discussion. I think it is currently 4 editors for including the sexuality information to one against. But as this is the one piece of info that editors claim is non-notable or defaming, i think more comments to consolidate consensus would be useful. Yob Mod 11:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. 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 • contrib) 02:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this person might a transgendered physicist, but I am unsure. There are very good things that this is the case, but I cannot a reliable source establish Joan Vaccaro as being John Vaccaro. If someone could confirm (and add the appropriate categories, and expand the article accordingly). Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have recently expanded this article, to try to meet the broad coverage of the subject requirement of the Good Article criteria. I think, though, that the article may now be so long that it might perhaps be a good idea to divide it into smaller and more specific articles. I'd appreciate it if people could take a look at it and comment (and if possible correct any errors I may have made). I think that this article should be part of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality as well as WikiProject LGBT studies, since it clearly falls within their area as well, but I don't know how to arrange this. Help with arranging this would also be welcome. Born Gay ( talk) 06:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The article, Mr. Lady Records, has been reassessed as part of the GA Sweeps project. The article has been found to not be meeting the GA Criteria. As such it has been put on hold and may be delisted if work is not done to bring it up to the GA Criteria. My assessment can be found here. I am notifying the interested projects and editors of this eventuality. If you have any questions please discuss them on my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 01:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Can I get you guys to comment on concerns raised that the photo is a copyright violation. Thanks, CTJF83 Talk 16:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at this article and see if you agree that it should be deleted? Besides the aberrant POV issues; from a self-declared "ex-gay" himself; the term is nothing more than neologism; containing only 2,800 google search results when searched in quotes.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixed-orientation marriage Thank you.
Camillex555 (
talk)
21:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems that Barak Obama has declared June 2009 LGBT Pirde Month. I didn't see a mention of this here or on the Gay Pride page. ...Should there be one there? -- Tyrfing ( talk) 22:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
As one more example why people should make use of the Article Alerts box found on this page, Homosexual transsexual has been nominated a fourth time for Good Article status. See Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA4 (Old noms: Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA1 - Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA2 - Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA3). Feel free to weigh in. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 00:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject LGBT studies to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also get provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a couple weeks after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 04:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a fun but wonky newly minted neologism. it will be gone in days unless contested. I was unable to quickly find refs. Anyone want to fix/defend it? -- Banjeboi 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
You are warned, bumpy ride ahead - and not the good kind. -- Banjeboi 08:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
new and poorly written article at AfD, any thoughts? -- Banjeboi 09:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I know Vito Russo wrote a book and Celluloid Closet was based on that, do we have a hidtory article though? -- Banjeboi 10:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I was interviewed for the Wikipedia Signpost, Wikipedia's weekly in-house newsletter for the WikiProject report. It has nearly 1000 Wikipedian subscribers and arguably many of those folks actually read it. It came about rather quickly and my worst fears, that it was an elaborate hoax by a troll, were apparently unfounded. I hope y'all feel I did fine by the project, I did my best to avoid the phrase " man-humping, cock-sucking, doggy-style loving queer" but otherwise did ok. -- Banjeboi 11:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
LOL! Sounds like a good read. How did you avoid those terms? (Joking!)-- Amadscientist ( talk) 00:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
"Some of the worst vandalism is when subtle slander is woven in and not caught or is otherwise masked as credible content" - Benjiboi.
BEN YOU ARE MY NEW HEROE!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 00:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Before I add the project tag to such an obvious article, I want to make sure there wasn't some discussion before my wiki-birth or since regarding the project's tag at Talk:Anal sex. This is certainly within our scope. If there's no valid reason as to why the tag isn't there, I'll add it. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 17:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
! Fisting is tagged? I understand that strong elements of gay subculture revolve around anal sex, but I do not see fisting as having that same kind of element. Due to my own experience in various lesbian communities and the pile of reading I did/ am still doing for the Lesbian article, I would not say that cunnilingus, vibrators, or strap on sex toys should be tagged. Yes, they are all a part of lesbian sex, but I have serious doubts that parts of lesbian subculture revolve around these things. In the same vein, I'm skeptical that fisting is so integral to gay or lesbian subculture. -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Can look these up in the journals I have access to & Jeffries if required, but not for another week (busy), also seem to recall a section in the Lesbian Sex Guide (forget who wrote it that is on a shelf somewhere too) Mish ( talk) 16:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
So we are leaving the project tag on Talk:Anal sex? seriously? Just because guys don't have vaginas, so they must do it up the butt, we tag anal sex? sheesh :-D guess I should notify the WikiProject Council in case any other cultures, countries, or ethnicities are renowned for their liking of anal sex, so they can project-tag it as well :-D Wikignome0529 ( talk) 04:22, 17 June 2009 (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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
What's the general likelihood that Terence Koh released some of his work into the public domain? Does Wikipedia have protocol for verifying the identity of contributors? Queerudite ( talk) 18:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a lengthy and circular discussion going on at Talk:National Organization for Marriage regarding how the article should be categorized. It's currently under "Homophobia," but some are arguing that it doesn't belong there, that a new category is needed, that the category is inherently biased, etc, etc. Cue lots of debate about "rights," the definition of "homophobia," whether NOM is anti-gay and whether anti-gay=homophobia, and whether being opposed to same-sex marriage=homophobia.... Exploding Boy ( talk) 06:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Despite being under discussion on Files_for_deletion/2009_May_7#LawrenceFobesKing.jpg and as yet unresolved, somebody decided to remove the photo. I have reverted the edit, and directed the editor to discuss in the appropriate place. There seems to be a concerted effort at the moment on the part of another editor to eliminate as much material from the article as he can at the moment. Mish ( talk) 15:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to alert people. The attack on this article has been escalated into an edit war, with the main protagonist getting quite sarcastic, verging on abuse, and has now slapped an NPOV tags etc. on the article. Given the track record on a similar article on transgender killings, he isn't going to stop until the page is either in tatters or removed. Mish ( talk) 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC) And the individual concerned is now proposing an RfC for the page because it does not conform to his understanding. Mish ( talk) 15:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
For image reviews and things that are funny in German, I trust User:Elcobbola above anyone else on Wikipedia. I approached him for clarification on this issue. The thread is here. -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There is currently an effort underway to rename or remove this category to one of a selection of euphemisms. Exploding Boy ( talk) 15:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a banner on this talk page and on the project page as well, listing "open tasks". There's a link there to Unsourced sexuality. That link essentially refers to a talk page. On that talk page were a few articles which I either found not wanting anything or took care of myself with relative ease. For reasons I don't understand, that talk page did not include a link to Category:LGBT articles with unsourced categories which was created specifically for this purpose. There you can find four articles that I have not been able to source (three of them since 16 February). Work to do... Debresser ( talk) 08:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Allstarecho there's only one left. Debresser ( talk) 15:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
An interesting point has been made at Template talk:LGBT. I'm notifying the project here so anyone that wishes, can go there and discuss. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Homosexual Equality Rally in London 1974 is a new article that was PRODded for deletion. This is the UK version of our Stonewall riots so this article definitely needs some love and attention. Sources are out there as I searched before removing the PROD tag. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 00:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have cleaned the item of rhetoric and inserted it into the CHE page. Will leave the old page a while, then make it redirect to the main CHE page. Mish ( talk) 01:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Folks:
I attempted to add a section to the NPR article (national public radio) to mention their censorship on the review of the documentary movie Outrage. It was cited with two references.
Another user almost immediately deleted the change, saying that it it irrelevent to NPR.
I disagree with this, since there is already a section about their being too liberal and another on alleged anti sementicism.
I don't want to immediately revert the change since that might start a revert war.
I would like to know if you all agree that such an inclusion is appropriate for the article on NPR and whether or not I should revert the change.
Thanks
Mark Allyn Allyn ( talk) 20:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI: recent BBC article "Gay protest broken up in Moscow" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8053181.stm - Don't know if we want to mention this somewhere or where: LGBT culture in Russia, LGBT rights in Russia -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 17:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Mish ( talk) 17:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
A bit about it has aleady been added at Eurovision Song Contest 2009#LGBT protests. Siawase ( talk) 18:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi - this is just a note to everyone who edits LGBT rights articles that the new ILGA "State-sponsored Homophobia" annual report is out, downloadable in PDF format at: [1]. It is generally a good source for LGBT rights info for various countries (including text of laws), though use caution if other sources or article info conflicts. :-) Wikignome0529 ( talk) 04:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I have done a search, and it looks like the only place terms like 'LGBT rights opposition' exist are in on-line encyclopedias and essay-generators. It is not Wikipedia policy to rely on other encyclopedias or itself as original sources, so I propose that we need to start working our way through all articles that use this novel terminology, as WP:Original research and begin removing it from Wikipedia. Mish ( talk) 14:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I have inserted this comment on the LGBT rights opposition article talk page:
The term used in this and other contexts as 'LGBT rights opposition' as in 'LGBT rights opposition movement' etc. is a construction that cannot be found in reliable sources. A google search reveals that it is mainly found in online encyclopedias, such as this one, and high school essay-generators. To suggest that all movements which involve heterosexist principles and practices, homophobia, hate crime, eugenic killing and/or opposition to LGBT rights in some fall under such a description is both WP:synthesis and WP:original research. On this basis I suggest that this article be either deleted or merged with homophobia. Mish ( talk) 14:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If you look here Everton F.C., and here Liverpool F.C., you'll notice they are not called 'Everton rivals' or 'Liverpool rivals'. How would you decide which sentence to construct out of all the possible sentences. Why is 'Opposition to gay rights' better than 'Opposition to LGBT human rights' or 'Denial of gay rights' or 'Denial of the human rights of LGBT people' or 'LGBT human rights opposition' or the 'anti-homosexual human rights'? If I do a search on the term "Opposition to gay rights", I do get more results that "Everton rivals", unlike "Opposition to LGBT rights" - but they are in a specific context - Christian opposition to gay rights.
If you look here, you will see this is already covered in some depth here Religion and homosexuality, here Christianity and homosexuality, here The Bible and homosexuality, here List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality, here Homosexuality and Anglicanism, and numerous other pages linked to from the 'Christianity and homosexuality' infobox on them all. The article Homosexuality and Islam does not go into quite as obsessive detail about homosexuality as the articles on Christianity and homosexuality, and nether does Homosexuality and Judaism. So, I am not sure what the need for yet another article on views very well documented elsewhere is. If you are saying that there is a different type of opposition to those listed under the Religions, then why would that warrant using a term that is normally used in describing views by people like the Pope, when his views are explained elsewhere? If people feel strongly enough that there is a case for some article and/or category that falls outside this, and falls outside "homophobia" - a term that features 100 times more frequently than "Opposition to gay rights" and about double the frequency of all the possible constructions appearing anywhere in any online text using 'rights' & 'opposition' & ('LGBT' v 'gay') together - then they need to specify what it is, why that is an accurate description, how it differs what already exists under the religious sections, and provide sources to substantiate that. Even that though, does not provide an argument for replacing 'homophobia', because that is the only category and descriptor available for things that are classed as 'homophobia' outside Wikipedia, all it will mean is there might be some justification for an article on one particular construction, and possibly a very narrow category that might hold a few fairly isolated articles. 'Homophobia' will still stand, and it will be clear that it has a specific meaning.
Some might argue that the Pope (say) be included within the category, not because he is homophobic, but because having been accused of being homophobic in asserting his 'opposition to gay rights', he clearly condemned homophobic acts against LGBT people. I would be very concerned to see his views in a category 'opposition to gay rights' alongside Louis Farrakhan and neo-Nazi groups, when they are not the same sorts of views, and the views he and the Roman Catholic church hold are pretty well covered here Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism and here Pope Benedict XVI#Homosexuality. I am not saying he should be, but I would not discriminate between a religious leader who speaks out against homophobia, a human rights activist who speaks out against it, and a religious leader who categorically supports homophobia; in all these cases the category is appropriate, but for different reasons.
If you want to argue that there is particular movement beyond this, then you will have a job substantiating that, because "opposition to LGBT rights movement", "opposition to gay rights movement", "LGBT rights opposition movement", and "gay rights opposition movement" do not exist on the internet, and substituting 'activism' for 'movement' in the above four constructions yields only two results, neither of which are verifiable sources. Move on. Mish ( talk) 13:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to remind everyone of the Article alerts exist for this project — click "show" to view box at the very top of this page. Please try and monitor these alerts, especially the Articles for Deletion alerts and the PROD deletion alerts. I just went through the PRODS and found some very old (what I call "legacy") articles that were PRODded. If you'd like to put the alerts box on your own userpage or user talkpage, do so by copying this code...
<center><table class="collapsible collapsed" style="width: 75%; background: #FFFFF3; font-size: 110%; border: 3px solid red"><th>[[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|45x45px|left]]Article alerts exist for [[WP:GAY|WikiProject LGBT studies]] — click "show" to view<br/><small>(Deletion discussions, peer reviews, featured article candidates, and other alerts)</small></th><tr><td><div style="font-size:90%">{{Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Article alerts}}</div></td></tr></table></center>
THIS CODE HERE:
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/LGBT article alerts}}
...and pasting it into your userpage or user talk page. It will give you this:
If you don't want it centered on your page, remove the <center> at the beginning of the code and the </center> at the end of the code. If you want it smaller or bigger, change the style="width: 50%; to a different numeric percentage such as 75% or 30%.
So there you go. Use this valuable tool either here where it's at, or on your own pages. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 08:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 06:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Same-sex marriage in New England has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the article's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (Full disclosure: I am the article's inital author) - Epson291 ( talk) 13:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI, UK Gay Liberation Front 1971 Festival of Light action has been created Mish ( talk) 12:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed John's posting this on some of the other projects I watch. Since I doubt he'd be posting it here (I could be wrong about that), I am just swiping his post and pasting it here. Lady of Shalott 19:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Mr.Z-man has a new service available to various requesting WikiProjects which gives the project a monthly update of the number of hits on the 1,000 most frequently accessed articles for that project. An example of such a listing can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Popular pages. Would the members of this project be interested in getting such a list for their use? John Carter ( talk) 18:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Having looked at the sample at Christianity, I think this looks like a really neat service. I think we should get it. Anybody else interested? Lady of Shalott 19:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I see Z-man has been active in replying to other people since our requests, but hasn't responded to our requests. I can only guess maybe he's working on them... - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 04:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Update on this.. From his talk page:
So feel free to go on and watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Popular pages and when it goes live, you'll see it. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 00:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Two important articles to watchlist and to work towards FA. I've tagged both with our project. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Władysław III of Poland was supposedly gay. Should we tag and categorise him? It'd be great to add more references from scholarship. It is particularly relevant as LGBT activists in Poland are concerned with it too: [2]. Zigzig20s ( talk) 11:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I've just created these pages. Please expand them if you can - I already tried google to find more references. Zigzig20s ( talk) 12:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Open query at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Sexual_orientation_section needs a scholarly response. Basic question is why is sexual orientation discussed in an article about human rights? I would answer it but I'm too busy right now and I'm sure someone here knows more than I do. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 02:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn with no objections. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 19:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
In case you don't already know, Category:LGBT issues and religion is being discussed here. APK straight up now tell me 11:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest adding, when you click to show, a link with some "how to" instructions. For instance chilled margin doesn't apply to us but if I remove it will the bot simply re-add? and how do I remove it anyway? Should we use {{ done}} to each entry, etc. -- Banjeboi 04:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The above article is due to be linked in WP:DYK? as part of the hook for Kyell Gold's article. It could do with some work, but I'm not a topic expert. Could someone here have a look? GreenReaper ( talk) 20:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Human rights in the United States#Sexual orientation is back on the menu again. Mish ( talk) 01:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Queer heterosexual is an interesting little project I stumbled across. Somebody set it up as a one-line neologism, and somebody else wanted to delete it almost immediately. I have padded it out a bit, and it seems to me to potentially be a valid article. It is not an area I am that knowledgeable in, but I am sure that anybody with an interest in polyamory, BDSM, transgender, male femininity, female masculinity, (even about guys who dress up as little girls or wear nappies - that might be OR though) etc. would have something they could contribute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MishMich ( talk • contribs)
Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article I did UK Gay Liberation Front 1971 Festival of Light action today - how cool! Mish ( talk) 14:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Lady Gaga's being bisexual keeps getting readded and removed from her article. More eyes and some more stringent copy edit would probably be helpful here. For a month or so the only source was this [3], but just recently someone tried to add a reference from Rolling Stone. [4] [5] Right now there is no mention of her bisexuality in the article at all. I don't know how much this helps, but I also dug up an old interview from HX magazine (Issue number 883, Aug 8, 2008, Going Gaga by Brandon Voss, page 30-31) The original article is offline, but it was reported here [6] and I found a mirror here. [7] Siawase ( talk) 20:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) I added to the talk page discussion. I think it is currently 4 editors for including the sexuality information to one against. But as this is the one piece of info that editors claim is non-notable or defaming, i think more comments to consolidate consensus would be useful. Yob Mod 11:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. 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 • contrib) 02:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this person might a transgendered physicist, but I am unsure. There are very good things that this is the case, but I cannot a reliable source establish Joan Vaccaro as being John Vaccaro. If someone could confirm (and add the appropriate categories, and expand the article accordingly). Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have recently expanded this article, to try to meet the broad coverage of the subject requirement of the Good Article criteria. I think, though, that the article may now be so long that it might perhaps be a good idea to divide it into smaller and more specific articles. I'd appreciate it if people could take a look at it and comment (and if possible correct any errors I may have made). I think that this article should be part of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality as well as WikiProject LGBT studies, since it clearly falls within their area as well, but I don't know how to arrange this. Help with arranging this would also be welcome. Born Gay ( talk) 06:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The article, Mr. Lady Records, has been reassessed as part of the GA Sweeps project. The article has been found to not be meeting the GA Criteria. As such it has been put on hold and may be delisted if work is not done to bring it up to the GA Criteria. My assessment can be found here. I am notifying the interested projects and editors of this eventuality. If you have any questions please discuss them on my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 01:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Can I get you guys to comment on concerns raised that the photo is a copyright violation. Thanks, CTJF83 Talk 16:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at this article and see if you agree that it should be deleted? Besides the aberrant POV issues; from a self-declared "ex-gay" himself; the term is nothing more than neologism; containing only 2,800 google search results when searched in quotes.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixed-orientation marriage Thank you.
Camillex555 (
talk)
21:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems that Barak Obama has declared June 2009 LGBT Pirde Month. I didn't see a mention of this here or on the Gay Pride page. ...Should there be one there? -- Tyrfing ( talk) 22:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
As one more example why people should make use of the Article Alerts box found on this page, Homosexual transsexual has been nominated a fourth time for Good Article status. See Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA4 (Old noms: Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA1 - Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA2 - Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA3). Feel free to weigh in. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 00:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject LGBT studies to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also get provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a couple weeks after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 04:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a fun but wonky newly minted neologism. it will be gone in days unless contested. I was unable to quickly find refs. Anyone want to fix/defend it? -- Banjeboi 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
You are warned, bumpy ride ahead - and not the good kind. -- Banjeboi 08:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
new and poorly written article at AfD, any thoughts? -- Banjeboi 09:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I know Vito Russo wrote a book and Celluloid Closet was based on that, do we have a hidtory article though? -- Banjeboi 10:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I was interviewed for the Wikipedia Signpost, Wikipedia's weekly in-house newsletter for the WikiProject report. It has nearly 1000 Wikipedian subscribers and arguably many of those folks actually read it. It came about rather quickly and my worst fears, that it was an elaborate hoax by a troll, were apparently unfounded. I hope y'all feel I did fine by the project, I did my best to avoid the phrase " man-humping, cock-sucking, doggy-style loving queer" but otherwise did ok. -- Banjeboi 11:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
LOL! Sounds like a good read. How did you avoid those terms? (Joking!)-- Amadscientist ( talk) 00:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
"Some of the worst vandalism is when subtle slander is woven in and not caught or is otherwise masked as credible content" - Benjiboi.
BEN YOU ARE MY NEW HEROE!-- Amadscientist ( talk) 00:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Before I add the project tag to such an obvious article, I want to make sure there wasn't some discussion before my wiki-birth or since regarding the project's tag at Talk:Anal sex. This is certainly within our scope. If there's no valid reason as to why the tag isn't there, I'll add it. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 17:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
! Fisting is tagged? I understand that strong elements of gay subculture revolve around anal sex, but I do not see fisting as having that same kind of element. Due to my own experience in various lesbian communities and the pile of reading I did/ am still doing for the Lesbian article, I would not say that cunnilingus, vibrators, or strap on sex toys should be tagged. Yes, they are all a part of lesbian sex, but I have serious doubts that parts of lesbian subculture revolve around these things. In the same vein, I'm skeptical that fisting is so integral to gay or lesbian subculture. -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Can look these up in the journals I have access to & Jeffries if required, but not for another week (busy), also seem to recall a section in the Lesbian Sex Guide (forget who wrote it that is on a shelf somewhere too) Mish ( talk) 16:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
So we are leaving the project tag on Talk:Anal sex? seriously? Just because guys don't have vaginas, so they must do it up the butt, we tag anal sex? sheesh :-D guess I should notify the WikiProject Council in case any other cultures, countries, or ethnicities are renowned for their liking of anal sex, so they can project-tag it as well :-D Wikignome0529 ( talk) 04:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)