![]() | 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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
I bought a telescope about a month ago, and about the same time decided I was a bit sick of some of the editing approaches, and certain approaches to insert 'normative' views into minority articles, so took a break. I'm not sure how to pick up on the editing where I left off - I only came here to work on intersex, and not to get as involved as I seem to have. If there is anything anybody wants looking at specifically, try e-mailing me, and if I'm not trying to figure out how to control a telescope using linux and get a signal from a webcam stuck down the hole for an eyepiece back to a laptop, or (heavens forbid - I live in England) actually looking at the stars, then I'll go have a look. I'm sorry, but some of the stuff going on really started to get to me, and I had to break out of it for my own peace of mind. Mish ( talk) 22:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we create this category considering that there are a lot of LGBT serial killers including Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Aileen Wuornos, Ronald Dominique, Dennis Nilsen, etc, etc -- 190.50.86.22 ( talk) 02:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Much of the material that would have been expected to be under the headword eunuch is now in an article called spadone. I had not previously heard of this term. Nor, apparently, have the New Oxford Dictionary of English, dictionary.com, the Cambridge Dictionary of American English, or (except as a back-reference to the Wikipedia article in question) in OneLook. The word does not, as far as I can tell, occur in the current mainstream medical literature, based on a search of abstracts of articles stored in PubMed.
As far as I can tell, the word "spadone" is being used in this article as a "more correct" term for a castrated or impotent man because it occurs in Latin literature. However, I can't find any references to support this. The term "spadone" appears to be almost universally translated into English as "eunuch": see, for example, this reference used within the article itself. So does this reference, also used to support the spadone article: [1]; indeed, in its own words, it translates spadones et steriles as "eunuchs and the sterile", rather undermining the distinction being made by the article.
See also the UND Latin lookup tool, Whitaker's Words, which lists it as one of three words cognate to the English word "eunuch" [2]. Perseus appears to concur. Lewis and Short make a distinction between spadon and castratus, but this does not seem to me to be enough on which to base the distinction between "eunuch" and "spadone" made by the authors of the article.
While I can't say I've made an exhastive search, none of the web-accessible references given in the article actually appear to use the term "spadone" as an English word, either in the sense given in the article or any other. (Furthermore, several of the references given in the article only point to top-level pages in sites, and not to the material they cite, so it's impossible to use them to confirm anything at all.)
Nor can I find any usage anywhere else. Given my failure to find such usages, I can only conclude that the term is at the least very rarely used, in either common or scholarly English, or in medicine. Without evidence to the contrary, this suggests to me that the distinction being made in splitting the "eunuch" material into a "eunuch" article and a "spadone" article may well constitute original research based on extrapolating from Latin usage to English.
I therefore propose that the material currently in spadone either be merged into the eunuch article, or moved to another title. -- The Anome ( talk) 13:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Update: I've read User:Newman Luke's references on their talk page. I don't think they show sufficient evidence for this term being common English usage. Accordingly, I've reverted the recent article split of Eunuch into two articles. -- The Anome ( talk) 13:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need Same-sex marriage in Maine and Domestic partnership in Maine? Shouldn't these be merged into one article for easability? CTJF83 chat 20:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a proposed overhaul draft at the talkpage; could folks have a look and comment, etc. Any extra eyes would be appreciated. -- Banjeboi 01:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on at Gay community that I'd like some more input on. It started out as a proposal to rename, but we're now starting to discuss whether there's a coherent topic for an article at all. -- Alynna ( talk) 22:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
since they were in many ways a "Newspaper of Record" for the LGBT Community and have taken down all their related websites. Some of the articles are undoubtedly used as references in a number of articles. CyntWorkStuff ( talk) 22:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
There are lists of LGBT rights by country or territory, a list of LGBT rights organizations, and the main LGBT social movements section is organized in a timeline. However, nowhere on Wikipedia is there a breakdown of what LGBT rights include. I think it would improve Wikipedia if there were an article that would discuss all the different LGBT rights, and point to relevant articles. This would help us to easily spot places where information is lacking. For example, there is a lot of information about same-sex unions, but little information about employment rights and housing rights for LGBT people. I think there should be one article that talked about same-sex unions, immigration rights, housing rights, parenting rights, employment rights, hospitalization rights, military service, and other anti-discrimination laws. I have added a category for Category:LGBT rights by issue, but this only accents the lack of information for some LGBT rights. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 20:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Could anyone interested have a look at {{ Gender and sexual identities}}? Im concerned we have a kitchen sink effect where everything could be listed which would seem to defeat the purpose a bit. -- Banjeboi 22:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 24#Category:LGBT ordained or vowed people of faith needs more opinions to make the best path forward. -- Banjeboi 14:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The deletion of the above article is at deletion review
Newman Luke ( talk) 05:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
There's an interesting question about why we should/shouldn't describe John Barrowman as "openly gay" in the lead section. The discussion is over at Talk:John Barrowman/GA1. Any thoughts on this would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. Viriditas ( talk) 03:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Some editorial input from this project on the Crisco article might be helpful. I notice it has been subject to repeated edit warring over whether the article should include Crisco's use as a lube for fisting. Material has repeatedly been removed with cries that it is "nauseating" etc etc-- feline1 ( talk) 19:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The article LGBT in the Philippines is essentially an essay, complete with a 'conclusions' section, and needs help very badly. Zazaban ( talk) 06:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 4 and the related discussion. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yet again a paragraph of well-sourced material about the adventurer and travel writer Richard Halliburton (1900-1939) has been removed without discussion. When I discovered it, I re-instated it. It would be great if a few people could keep it on their watchlists. BrainyBabe ( talk) 01:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newman Luke ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I just reorganised and supplied references for Angus Oblong, identified by The Advocate in this 2001 article as the "the out creator of the WB's The Oblongs ." The reason I mention this here is that the article's history suggests that there have been various edit wars about his life. Even his talk page was vandalised by anons who would remove comments from other anons as well as registered editors. A review of the sources I introduce make it sound like he values his privacy, so I'd like members of your wikiproject to (1) review my recent edits to see if I've violated his rights to privacy, and (2) keep an eye on the article for any future vandalism. Thanks. 72.244.203.160 ( talk) 10:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Could someone contribute to discussion on Talk:Homosexuality#Pediatric Neuroendocrinology: Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation? We are discussing the way of presenting conclusions "gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb." and "There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation" of recent peer-reviewed study to several related articles. These are essential points with very important implications in homosexuality-related topics. -- Destinero ( talk) 10:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone offer an opinion on this subject? Gracias. APK whisper in my ear 17:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
[6] This must suck in Gaza. -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated V for Vendetta (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 20:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Since this is one of the bigger projects, and that a couple of Wikipedia-Books are LGBT-related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WP LGBT people can oversee books like LGBT themes in science fiction, fantasy and horror much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.
There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not tagging Monteagle, Tennessee, but just letting you know that I added a reference for William Alexander Percy's summerhouse with gay professor Hugh Jervey there. Please watch it. Zigzig20s ( talk) 04:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I have recently run into an editing issue regarding a LBGT topic. It has to do with the article on the United Methodist Church. I would appreciate help dealing with the issue. A user is trying to keep LGBT issues hidden by accusing me of vandalism or POV.
You can see what is going on by reading the talk page at Talk:United_Methodist_Church#Inclusivity_item.
Wshallwshall ( talk) 15:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to read this! I've just started to do a bit of editing on here and would appreciate it if someone who knows what there doing could have a look at the stuff that I've been doing! Just want to make sure it's of an acceptable standard. I've been looking the clean up/ rough translations list and have worked on the following article;
What do you think? Regards! Orionsbelter ( talk) 18:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Gay Blue Jeans Day has been nominated for AfD It seems important for editors participating in this project to have a voice in that discussion Anniepoo ( talk) 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
(Is there a better place to discuss editing issues & problematic articles?)
There was a previously-deleted WP:Articles_for_deletion/Homofascism article, and now there's a new Homofascism article - the text itself seems non-notable, referring to a term created by Scott Lively and having no reliable primary news sources referencing the term, so it too seems like a candidate for deletion.
Meanwhile, I removed a link to it from Protests against Proposition 8 supporters on POV grounds.
Thoughts? AV3000 ( talk) 16:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homofascism (2nd nomination). -- Ladyof Shalott 20:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a core article. It should be better. Help. Talk:Homosexuality#Rewrite_agenda_2 Phoenix of9 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
If anyone is bored and looking for things to do to help out the project, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Cleanup listing#BLP articles lacking sources lists articles that are biographies of living people and need references. They are tagged either as being completely unreferenced, or requiring extra references. BLPs are a hot topic at the moment and biographies without any references at all are in danger of being deleted. Obviously, we don't want to lose valuable biographies, many of which can be easily referenced to reliable sources in a few minutes.
A more up to date selection of articles that are totally unreferenced can be found by doing specific google searches eg. "does not cite" contentious "lgbt people" site:en.wikipedia.org - where "lgbt people" targets likely categories being used. -- Beloved Freak 22:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
People interested in the thoughtful treatment of historical subjects should pay close attention to what is being done to this article. Haiduc ( talk) 11:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated List of gay and lesbian resource centres in Ireland for deletion here, in case anyone wants to comment. -- Beloved Freak 14:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a concern that such a high profile article on a living person is so poorly sourced. It is a matter of priority that statements are sourced. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Quotations from Elton John or any other person must be closely cited, as per Wikipedia:Quotations. If reliable sources cannot be found then all contentious material should be removed - [7]. It is better for us to have no material at all than to have incorrect, misleading or potentially libelous material. SilkTork * YES! 10:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical pederastic relationships (3rd nomination). Pcap ping 11:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone need a hnad working on any article? Orionsbelter ( talk) 20:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
There is an RfC to remove dozens of entries from the only list of male performers in gay porn films because the articles for the performers don't yet exist. More eyes would be appreciated. -- Banjeboi 21:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about how same-sex divorce would work in Orthodox Judaism (among Orthodox Jews who support gay marriage) - its only a stub section at the moment ?
Newman Luke ( talk) 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Harisu/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I considered posting this to ANI, but in the current wikipolitical climate, I know nothing will happen. So, posting here instead.
User:Tonalone has returned form a long wikibreak to remove the edits of User:Haiduc, after the ban of the latter. Unfortunately Tonalone's actions have been bordering vandalism, and they are certainly pushing a POV, the exact opposite POV of Haiduc (pretty much: pederasty never happened, Byron and many others had no gay affairs with younger men, etc.) Here are some examples:
He also removes traces of gay affairs from obscure biographies. While Haiduc colored these in this favorite terminology ("pederasty", or course), Tonalone completely removes the sexual aspects. Example [8]. Compare with the source [9], which was (of course) removed as well. More of the same: [10] [11].
There is no entitlement for anyone to remove the edits of banned/blocked user that were made before the administrative action against him. (Should we delete all of Ottava Rima's articles too while he's not around? Obviously not.) Tonalone appears fairly educated. He reminds me of the trolling that Peter Damian has been doing, although it's not necessarily him. There is fat chance in hell any admin will block him, even though the WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics and WP:DISRUPTIVE editing are rather obious. Editors here better review his edits. One POV pusher undoing another doesn't result in NPOV articles. Pcap ping 18:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Another editor who may be familiar here, User:Amadscientist, has descended on Pederasty in ancient Greece and is removing text left and right because it's not "varyfied" (meaning not "accessable" to him, and seems not to even use google books; he removed Percy's theory for instance, book easily available, never mind well-known). Also introduces many grammar errors in text, as you can imagine from that quotation, and changes common terminology like "boy" to "youth" based on his personal preferences and in contradictions with what many, many sources use. Pcap ping 23:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I know it's 30 days. But the bill was signed December 18, almost two months ago. Are we talking 30 calendar days? Business days? Days Congress is in session? — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 06:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me? — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 23:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe it's days congress is in session. The projected date now seems to be March 3 [12] MaesterTonberry ( talk) 00:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
In the talk page of the Ryan White article [13], an author argues for the use of "homosexual" over "gay" and points out the absence of objection to this by LGBT project members. What do LGBT project members think? 67.100.222.184 ( talk) 08:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
A user is trying to move the article Homophobia to Anti-Homosexualism. Weigh in here CTJF83 GoUSA 02:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
On Johnny Weir, who has been proclaimed out by some in the LGBT and alternative press, and whose sexuality is discussed in mainstream media, there is a heated discussion how our Wikiproject tag (not categories) is itself a BLP violation. More input and eyes would be welcome, also I'm trying to clean-up what the article does state about his sexuality so would appreciate any input on that thread. -- Banjeboi 03:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
What's the status on an RfC for this, or must I initiate an MfD for this project? -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Contradicting_informations_between_English_and_Czech_Wikipedia.3B_Czech_Wikipedia_presents_propaganda_for_a_year_and_nobody_care_of_it_there. Pcap ping 23:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
As a editor engaged in dispute from its beginning I'd like to point out to the absurd situation when Czech Wikipedia in article "Curing homosexuality" states "The reason to not include homosexuality to ICD ( International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems) was not a medical one, but political one" and rely on one exceptional and unfounded claim of one religious doctor in his college textbook "Sexology for lawyers" which nobody professionally reviewed/checked before publishing in 1997. I really don't know what to do. After a year almost nobody in Czech Wikipedia listens. The majority of editors don't care and the majority of rest are ultraconservative active editors who promoted such formulation and locked the article for a year. :( -- Destinero ( talk) 06:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to include homosexuality topic even as historic perspective (40 years old) in Paraphilia article? Or the article should held with real paraphilias and homosexuality theme let be covered in depth in homosexuality? See Talk:Paraphilia#Homosexuality_2 -- Destinero ( talk) 06:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Is Femina Potens Art Gallery even notable? My inclination is to post it for AFD, but wanted some outside opinions. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 22:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Should his BLP be tagged by the project? In the case of Weir, recording the facts about remarks by commentators about his gender and sexual orientation, and hios response to this, as well as tagging his BLP as part of LGBT studies project was rejected by one admin, and referred to discussion. Cliff Richard has been the subject of speculation for several decades, and now lives in a relationship with another man, although feels what he does in his private life is his business (and I would support this), so like Weir feels no need to state whether he is gay or not. However, he has come out in clear support of civil partnerships, and as a committed Christian has criticised the churches' attitude to gay partnerships and limiting marriage (and thereby love) to people of the opposite sex. On this basis, and not on the basis of any speculation about his domestic arrangements, would this justify tagging his BLP within the project? I appreciate that this whole issue is up for discussion, and would not wish to make matters more difficult, so really this is thrown out as a thought for when the dust has settled on that discussion. Given his role as poster-child for the born-again movement in the UK for over 40 years, I could foresee some opposition to such a tag being placed on his bio, even though it would not be done on the basis of any speculation, but because of public stance on gay unions. Would his bio be the sort of bio we could justify tagging in future?
M.
SatyrTN removed our Project tag from William Allain's talkpage. While it's not been proven that he is gay, there is strong suspicion. My approach was to add a tag (mostly to protect the referenced info I added), and of course I didn't categorise him as LGBT. Any thoughts? Zigzig20s ( talk) 05:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Since there is an article for Versatile (sex) should we rebreak off Top (sex) and Bottom (sex) or should Versatile be merged to Top, bottom and versatile like the other two? CTJF83 chat 21:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance in the above two instances. TBH, if Cliff is not a suitable candidate for the project banner, I cannot see how Weir can be either - there has been far more interest in Cliff's sexual orientation (in this country, anyway) for much longer than there has been Weir's. In the case cited above I cannot see any justification.
Perhaps we need to establish some clear guidelines within the project for tagging BLPs? So, a clear connection with LGBT issues, self-identity, and so on. Then we float the intention to tag the BLP first, seeking consensus, depositing a rationale for the tag; if it is agreed, once tagged, challenges to the project banner can be referred to the rationale and consensus.
If we were to agree to this internally, then it could be proposed in the appropriate discussion as a possible way forward. Mish ( talk) 19:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I suggest to include in this category not only songs that deal with LGBT lyrically but also songs that are lgbt-related through music videos like for example Beyonce&GaGa's "Telephone". A Man from Poland ( talk) 18:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Anyone care to weigh in on the discussion of describing "homo" as pejorative at Talk:Homo (disambiguation)#abbreviation_for_homosexual ? Thanks. AV3000 ( talk) 15:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Somebody keeps trying to replace sourced material on the origins of the term with unsourced material & circular linked material that "bigs up" a particular individual. I don't want to end up edit warring to retain the previous version, but there seems to be a tag-team of one user and and one anon-IP doing the reversion/insertion supposedly at the request of the individual concerned. I have already had to go to Oversight because they tried to stick the guy's phone number in an edit heading. I have told them to tell the guy to write in if he has a problem. Mish ( talk) 22:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Please comment. See: Talk:HIV#HIV_Risk_Table Phoenix of9 00:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project.
Here is an example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects:
There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Unreferenced BLPs.
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you. Okip 08:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
OMG!!! I couldnt believe this. Not only this guy is calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours", he is also comparing them to drug use. And wait, here's the "best" part. This guy is an admin. See: [15] Also see HIV, it seems like it is infested with heterosexism. Phoenix of9 06:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Not only you are calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours" here [16], you are also comparing them to drug use. I cant actually believe you can be so openly homophobic. Stop spreading such BS in Wikipedia. Phoenix of9 07:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Zazaban, if that is your opinion, I see no need in discussing anything further with you. Cla68, if you think that my response is more serious, you are too biased for me to take you seriously. Phoenix of9 08:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Referring to this: calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours" and comparing it to drug use. [17] What is the procedure here? WP:RFA/U? Phoenix of9 07:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
If Jimbo Wales would not be interested at this specific case (
User:2over0), he might be interested at:
1) Question of offensive FAQ's in general. Looking at
Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, this question could be relevant.
2) What to do with homophobic admins in general.
Phoenix
of9
07:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Why do you think it is appropriate for this project talk page to move copies of entire conversations from other people's user talk pages and dump them here? Did you get permission from these users to recycle their discussion? I collapsed the above text to avoid overly disrupting this talk page, that was a compromise as it is hard to understand why this blanket cut & paste should not just be deleted. Ash ( talk) 08:46, 25 March 2010 (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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
I bought a telescope about a month ago, and about the same time decided I was a bit sick of some of the editing approaches, and certain approaches to insert 'normative' views into minority articles, so took a break. I'm not sure how to pick up on the editing where I left off - I only came here to work on intersex, and not to get as involved as I seem to have. If there is anything anybody wants looking at specifically, try e-mailing me, and if I'm not trying to figure out how to control a telescope using linux and get a signal from a webcam stuck down the hole for an eyepiece back to a laptop, or (heavens forbid - I live in England) actually looking at the stars, then I'll go have a look. I'm sorry, but some of the stuff going on really started to get to me, and I had to break out of it for my own peace of mind. Mish ( talk) 22:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we create this category considering that there are a lot of LGBT serial killers including Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Aileen Wuornos, Ronald Dominique, Dennis Nilsen, etc, etc -- 190.50.86.22 ( talk) 02:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Much of the material that would have been expected to be under the headword eunuch is now in an article called spadone. I had not previously heard of this term. Nor, apparently, have the New Oxford Dictionary of English, dictionary.com, the Cambridge Dictionary of American English, or (except as a back-reference to the Wikipedia article in question) in OneLook. The word does not, as far as I can tell, occur in the current mainstream medical literature, based on a search of abstracts of articles stored in PubMed.
As far as I can tell, the word "spadone" is being used in this article as a "more correct" term for a castrated or impotent man because it occurs in Latin literature. However, I can't find any references to support this. The term "spadone" appears to be almost universally translated into English as "eunuch": see, for example, this reference used within the article itself. So does this reference, also used to support the spadone article: [1]; indeed, in its own words, it translates spadones et steriles as "eunuchs and the sterile", rather undermining the distinction being made by the article.
See also the UND Latin lookup tool, Whitaker's Words, which lists it as one of three words cognate to the English word "eunuch" [2]. Perseus appears to concur. Lewis and Short make a distinction between spadon and castratus, but this does not seem to me to be enough on which to base the distinction between "eunuch" and "spadone" made by the authors of the article.
While I can't say I've made an exhastive search, none of the web-accessible references given in the article actually appear to use the term "spadone" as an English word, either in the sense given in the article or any other. (Furthermore, several of the references given in the article only point to top-level pages in sites, and not to the material they cite, so it's impossible to use them to confirm anything at all.)
Nor can I find any usage anywhere else. Given my failure to find such usages, I can only conclude that the term is at the least very rarely used, in either common or scholarly English, or in medicine. Without evidence to the contrary, this suggests to me that the distinction being made in splitting the "eunuch" material into a "eunuch" article and a "spadone" article may well constitute original research based on extrapolating from Latin usage to English.
I therefore propose that the material currently in spadone either be merged into the eunuch article, or moved to another title. -- The Anome ( talk) 13:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Update: I've read User:Newman Luke's references on their talk page. I don't think they show sufficient evidence for this term being common English usage. Accordingly, I've reverted the recent article split of Eunuch into two articles. -- The Anome ( talk) 13:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need Same-sex marriage in Maine and Domestic partnership in Maine? Shouldn't these be merged into one article for easability? CTJF83 chat 20:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a proposed overhaul draft at the talkpage; could folks have a look and comment, etc. Any extra eyes would be appreciated. -- Banjeboi 01:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on at Gay community that I'd like some more input on. It started out as a proposal to rename, but we're now starting to discuss whether there's a coherent topic for an article at all. -- Alynna ( talk) 22:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
since they were in many ways a "Newspaper of Record" for the LGBT Community and have taken down all their related websites. Some of the articles are undoubtedly used as references in a number of articles. CyntWorkStuff ( talk) 22:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
There are lists of LGBT rights by country or territory, a list of LGBT rights organizations, and the main LGBT social movements section is organized in a timeline. However, nowhere on Wikipedia is there a breakdown of what LGBT rights include. I think it would improve Wikipedia if there were an article that would discuss all the different LGBT rights, and point to relevant articles. This would help us to easily spot places where information is lacking. For example, there is a lot of information about same-sex unions, but little information about employment rights and housing rights for LGBT people. I think there should be one article that talked about same-sex unions, immigration rights, housing rights, parenting rights, employment rights, hospitalization rights, military service, and other anti-discrimination laws. I have added a category for Category:LGBT rights by issue, but this only accents the lack of information for some LGBT rights. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 20:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Could anyone interested have a look at {{ Gender and sexual identities}}? Im concerned we have a kitchen sink effect where everything could be listed which would seem to defeat the purpose a bit. -- Banjeboi 22:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 24#Category:LGBT ordained or vowed people of faith needs more opinions to make the best path forward. -- Banjeboi 14:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The deletion of the above article is at deletion review
Newman Luke ( talk) 05:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
There's an interesting question about why we should/shouldn't describe John Barrowman as "openly gay" in the lead section. The discussion is over at Talk:John Barrowman/GA1. Any thoughts on this would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. Viriditas ( talk) 03:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Some editorial input from this project on the Crisco article might be helpful. I notice it has been subject to repeated edit warring over whether the article should include Crisco's use as a lube for fisting. Material has repeatedly been removed with cries that it is "nauseating" etc etc-- feline1 ( talk) 19:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The article LGBT in the Philippines is essentially an essay, complete with a 'conclusions' section, and needs help very badly. Zazaban ( talk) 06:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 4 and the related discussion. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yet again a paragraph of well-sourced material about the adventurer and travel writer Richard Halliburton (1900-1939) has been removed without discussion. When I discovered it, I re-instated it. It would be great if a few people could keep it on their watchlists. BrainyBabe ( talk) 01:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newman Luke ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I just reorganised and supplied references for Angus Oblong, identified by The Advocate in this 2001 article as the "the out creator of the WB's The Oblongs ." The reason I mention this here is that the article's history suggests that there have been various edit wars about his life. Even his talk page was vandalised by anons who would remove comments from other anons as well as registered editors. A review of the sources I introduce make it sound like he values his privacy, so I'd like members of your wikiproject to (1) review my recent edits to see if I've violated his rights to privacy, and (2) keep an eye on the article for any future vandalism. Thanks. 72.244.203.160 ( talk) 10:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Could someone contribute to discussion on Talk:Homosexuality#Pediatric Neuroendocrinology: Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation? We are discussing the way of presenting conclusions "gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb." and "There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation" of recent peer-reviewed study to several related articles. These are essential points with very important implications in homosexuality-related topics. -- Destinero ( talk) 10:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone offer an opinion on this subject? Gracias. APK whisper in my ear 17:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
[6] This must suck in Gaza. -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated V for Vendetta (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 20:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Since this is one of the bigger projects, and that a couple of Wikipedia-Books are LGBT-related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WP LGBT people can oversee books like LGBT themes in science fiction, fantasy and horror much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.
There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not tagging Monteagle, Tennessee, but just letting you know that I added a reference for William Alexander Percy's summerhouse with gay professor Hugh Jervey there. Please watch it. Zigzig20s ( talk) 04:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I have recently run into an editing issue regarding a LBGT topic. It has to do with the article on the United Methodist Church. I would appreciate help dealing with the issue. A user is trying to keep LGBT issues hidden by accusing me of vandalism or POV.
You can see what is going on by reading the talk page at Talk:United_Methodist_Church#Inclusivity_item.
Wshallwshall ( talk) 15:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to read this! I've just started to do a bit of editing on here and would appreciate it if someone who knows what there doing could have a look at the stuff that I've been doing! Just want to make sure it's of an acceptable standard. I've been looking the clean up/ rough translations list and have worked on the following article;
What do you think? Regards! Orionsbelter ( talk) 18:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Gay Blue Jeans Day has been nominated for AfD It seems important for editors participating in this project to have a voice in that discussion Anniepoo ( talk) 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
(Is there a better place to discuss editing issues & problematic articles?)
There was a previously-deleted WP:Articles_for_deletion/Homofascism article, and now there's a new Homofascism article - the text itself seems non-notable, referring to a term created by Scott Lively and having no reliable primary news sources referencing the term, so it too seems like a candidate for deletion.
Meanwhile, I removed a link to it from Protests against Proposition 8 supporters on POV grounds.
Thoughts? AV3000 ( talk) 16:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homofascism (2nd nomination). -- Ladyof Shalott 20:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a core article. It should be better. Help. Talk:Homosexuality#Rewrite_agenda_2 Phoenix of9 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
If anyone is bored and looking for things to do to help out the project, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Cleanup listing#BLP articles lacking sources lists articles that are biographies of living people and need references. They are tagged either as being completely unreferenced, or requiring extra references. BLPs are a hot topic at the moment and biographies without any references at all are in danger of being deleted. Obviously, we don't want to lose valuable biographies, many of which can be easily referenced to reliable sources in a few minutes.
A more up to date selection of articles that are totally unreferenced can be found by doing specific google searches eg. "does not cite" contentious "lgbt people" site:en.wikipedia.org - where "lgbt people" targets likely categories being used. -- Beloved Freak 22:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
People interested in the thoughtful treatment of historical subjects should pay close attention to what is being done to this article. Haiduc ( talk) 11:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated List of gay and lesbian resource centres in Ireland for deletion here, in case anyone wants to comment. -- Beloved Freak 14:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a concern that such a high profile article on a living person is so poorly sourced. It is a matter of priority that statements are sourced. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Quotations from Elton John or any other person must be closely cited, as per Wikipedia:Quotations. If reliable sources cannot be found then all contentious material should be removed - [7]. It is better for us to have no material at all than to have incorrect, misleading or potentially libelous material. SilkTork * YES! 10:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical pederastic relationships (3rd nomination). Pcap ping 11:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone need a hnad working on any article? Orionsbelter ( talk) 20:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
There is an RfC to remove dozens of entries from the only list of male performers in gay porn films because the articles for the performers don't yet exist. More eyes would be appreciated. -- Banjeboi 21:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about how same-sex divorce would work in Orthodox Judaism (among Orthodox Jews who support gay marriage) - its only a stub section at the moment ?
Newman Luke ( talk) 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Harisu/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I considered posting this to ANI, but in the current wikipolitical climate, I know nothing will happen. So, posting here instead.
User:Tonalone has returned form a long wikibreak to remove the edits of User:Haiduc, after the ban of the latter. Unfortunately Tonalone's actions have been bordering vandalism, and they are certainly pushing a POV, the exact opposite POV of Haiduc (pretty much: pederasty never happened, Byron and many others had no gay affairs with younger men, etc.) Here are some examples:
He also removes traces of gay affairs from obscure biographies. While Haiduc colored these in this favorite terminology ("pederasty", or course), Tonalone completely removes the sexual aspects. Example [8]. Compare with the source [9], which was (of course) removed as well. More of the same: [10] [11].
There is no entitlement for anyone to remove the edits of banned/blocked user that were made before the administrative action against him. (Should we delete all of Ottava Rima's articles too while he's not around? Obviously not.) Tonalone appears fairly educated. He reminds me of the trolling that Peter Damian has been doing, although it's not necessarily him. There is fat chance in hell any admin will block him, even though the WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics and WP:DISRUPTIVE editing are rather obious. Editors here better review his edits. One POV pusher undoing another doesn't result in NPOV articles. Pcap ping 18:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Another editor who may be familiar here, User:Amadscientist, has descended on Pederasty in ancient Greece and is removing text left and right because it's not "varyfied" (meaning not "accessable" to him, and seems not to even use google books; he removed Percy's theory for instance, book easily available, never mind well-known). Also introduces many grammar errors in text, as you can imagine from that quotation, and changes common terminology like "boy" to "youth" based on his personal preferences and in contradictions with what many, many sources use. Pcap ping 23:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I know it's 30 days. But the bill was signed December 18, almost two months ago. Are we talking 30 calendar days? Business days? Days Congress is in session? — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 06:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me? — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 23:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe it's days congress is in session. The projected date now seems to be March 3 [12] MaesterTonberry ( talk) 00:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
In the talk page of the Ryan White article [13], an author argues for the use of "homosexual" over "gay" and points out the absence of objection to this by LGBT project members. What do LGBT project members think? 67.100.222.184 ( talk) 08:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
A user is trying to move the article Homophobia to Anti-Homosexualism. Weigh in here CTJF83 GoUSA 02:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
On Johnny Weir, who has been proclaimed out by some in the LGBT and alternative press, and whose sexuality is discussed in mainstream media, there is a heated discussion how our Wikiproject tag (not categories) is itself a BLP violation. More input and eyes would be welcome, also I'm trying to clean-up what the article does state about his sexuality so would appreciate any input on that thread. -- Banjeboi 03:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
What's the status on an RfC for this, or must I initiate an MfD for this project? -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Contradicting_informations_between_English_and_Czech_Wikipedia.3B_Czech_Wikipedia_presents_propaganda_for_a_year_and_nobody_care_of_it_there. Pcap ping 23:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
As a editor engaged in dispute from its beginning I'd like to point out to the absurd situation when Czech Wikipedia in article "Curing homosexuality" states "The reason to not include homosexuality to ICD ( International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems) was not a medical one, but political one" and rely on one exceptional and unfounded claim of one religious doctor in his college textbook "Sexology for lawyers" which nobody professionally reviewed/checked before publishing in 1997. I really don't know what to do. After a year almost nobody in Czech Wikipedia listens. The majority of editors don't care and the majority of rest are ultraconservative active editors who promoted such formulation and locked the article for a year. :( -- Destinero ( talk) 06:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to include homosexuality topic even as historic perspective (40 years old) in Paraphilia article? Or the article should held with real paraphilias and homosexuality theme let be covered in depth in homosexuality? See Talk:Paraphilia#Homosexuality_2 -- Destinero ( talk) 06:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Is Femina Potens Art Gallery even notable? My inclination is to post it for AFD, but wanted some outside opinions. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 22:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Should his BLP be tagged by the project? In the case of Weir, recording the facts about remarks by commentators about his gender and sexual orientation, and hios response to this, as well as tagging his BLP as part of LGBT studies project was rejected by one admin, and referred to discussion. Cliff Richard has been the subject of speculation for several decades, and now lives in a relationship with another man, although feels what he does in his private life is his business (and I would support this), so like Weir feels no need to state whether he is gay or not. However, he has come out in clear support of civil partnerships, and as a committed Christian has criticised the churches' attitude to gay partnerships and limiting marriage (and thereby love) to people of the opposite sex. On this basis, and not on the basis of any speculation about his domestic arrangements, would this justify tagging his BLP within the project? I appreciate that this whole issue is up for discussion, and would not wish to make matters more difficult, so really this is thrown out as a thought for when the dust has settled on that discussion. Given his role as poster-child for the born-again movement in the UK for over 40 years, I could foresee some opposition to such a tag being placed on his bio, even though it would not be done on the basis of any speculation, but because of public stance on gay unions. Would his bio be the sort of bio we could justify tagging in future?
M.
SatyrTN removed our Project tag from William Allain's talkpage. While it's not been proven that he is gay, there is strong suspicion. My approach was to add a tag (mostly to protect the referenced info I added), and of course I didn't categorise him as LGBT. Any thoughts? Zigzig20s ( talk) 05:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Since there is an article for Versatile (sex) should we rebreak off Top (sex) and Bottom (sex) or should Versatile be merged to Top, bottom and versatile like the other two? CTJF83 chat 21:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance in the above two instances. TBH, if Cliff is not a suitable candidate for the project banner, I cannot see how Weir can be either - there has been far more interest in Cliff's sexual orientation (in this country, anyway) for much longer than there has been Weir's. In the case cited above I cannot see any justification.
Perhaps we need to establish some clear guidelines within the project for tagging BLPs? So, a clear connection with LGBT issues, self-identity, and so on. Then we float the intention to tag the BLP first, seeking consensus, depositing a rationale for the tag; if it is agreed, once tagged, challenges to the project banner can be referred to the rationale and consensus.
If we were to agree to this internally, then it could be proposed in the appropriate discussion as a possible way forward. Mish ( talk) 19:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I suggest to include in this category not only songs that deal with LGBT lyrically but also songs that are lgbt-related through music videos like for example Beyonce&GaGa's "Telephone". A Man from Poland ( talk) 18:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Anyone care to weigh in on the discussion of describing "homo" as pejorative at Talk:Homo (disambiguation)#abbreviation_for_homosexual ? Thanks. AV3000 ( talk) 15:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Somebody keeps trying to replace sourced material on the origins of the term with unsourced material & circular linked material that "bigs up" a particular individual. I don't want to end up edit warring to retain the previous version, but there seems to be a tag-team of one user and and one anon-IP doing the reversion/insertion supposedly at the request of the individual concerned. I have already had to go to Oversight because they tried to stick the guy's phone number in an edit heading. I have told them to tell the guy to write in if he has a problem. Mish ( talk) 22:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Please comment. See: Talk:HIV#HIV_Risk_Table Phoenix of9 00:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project.
Here is an example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects:
There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Unreferenced BLPs.
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you. Okip 08:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
OMG!!! I couldnt believe this. Not only this guy is calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours", he is also comparing them to drug use. And wait, here's the "best" part. This guy is an admin. See: [15] Also see HIV, it seems like it is infested with heterosexism. Phoenix of9 06:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Not only you are calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours" here [16], you are also comparing them to drug use. I cant actually believe you can be so openly homophobic. Stop spreading such BS in Wikipedia. Phoenix of9 07:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Zazaban, if that is your opinion, I see no need in discussing anything further with you. Cla68, if you think that my response is more serious, you are too biased for me to take you seriously. Phoenix of9 08:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Referring to this: calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours" and comparing it to drug use. [17] What is the procedure here? WP:RFA/U? Phoenix of9 07:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
If Jimbo Wales would not be interested at this specific case (
User:2over0), he might be interested at:
1) Question of offensive FAQ's in general. Looking at
Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, this question could be relevant.
2) What to do with homophobic admins in general.
Phoenix
of9
07:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Why do you think it is appropriate for this project talk page to move copies of entire conversations from other people's user talk pages and dump them here? Did you get permission from these users to recycle their discussion? I collapsed the above text to avoid overly disrupting this talk page, that was a compromise as it is hard to understand why this blanket cut & paste should not just be deleted. Ash ( talk) 08:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)