![]() | 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 35 | ← | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
Hi, folks. I happened by this article and I think there's some discrimination going on with attacks on it. There are unreasonable challenges to properly cited information and some discussion that belittles the subject and calls for deletion. I'm attempting to add to the article but I'm encountering quite a bit of resistance. Could I get some folks to review the history and provide opinions on the talk page? Thanks. Pkeets ( talk) 03:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Discussion about whether a controversy involving Rob Portman's stance on gay and lesbian issues should be removed from his article or not. Kaldari ( talk) 17:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I am trying to promote Nicki Minaj to GA status and I was looking over her Personal Life section and saw this paragraph on her sexuality (or, rather, alleged sexuality):
Does this paragraph meet MOS:IDENTITY guidelines? Is it too speculative? Should it be re-worded? Or is it okay? I would be grateful for your opinion on this issue as I am struggling on how to word it. Thanks! Jennie | ☎ 20:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
vibe
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I'm having trouble finding coverage of the much disputed Mark Regnerus paper in Social Science Research titled "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study". I understand that it is not a study of "gay parenting" and has been excluded from the entry on LGBT parenting. Can someone point me in the right direction? It has just been cited (ignorantly) for the first time in a federal court decision. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 19:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I know sources are widely available. I'm looking for it on Wikipedia. Even as bad science it merits some discussion. I see it mentioned/misrepresented at Witherspoon Institute, and that's just a one-liner. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've just noted the case as the first to cite Regnerus where the court decision is listed in Same-sex marriage in the United States#Case law. I've also posed a question on Talk:LGBT parenting#Regnerus follow up. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 17:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
These two articles need their information to be segregated from each other. One is the organization, the other the event, but both seem to be about both topics, and should instead be separated to clearly be about one or the other. -- 70.24.247.242 ( talk) 01:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, all. Please comment about this at Talk:List of paraphilias#Homosexuality should not be on this list. 109.123.127.204 ( talk) 23:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Will some of you comment on this? The article in question is the Tomboy article and I am in a dispute with an editor who doesn't think that glbtq.com counts as a reliable source, especially regarding this current blockquote: "Throughout their history, tomboys have had to contend with the stigma of presumed lesbianism or the accusation of wanting to be male. Both assumptions were categorically refuted by twentieth-century psychology, which established the normality of the tomboy experience among girls of all identities. However, for many, the tomboy stage is the first manifestation of a gender-fluid life journey." 66.85.128.186 ( talk) 00:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Impact/evolution of TV shows featuring LGBT content; don't know which article fits the best so here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/business/media/gay-on-tv-its-all-in-the-family.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.49.47 ( talk) 14:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Could other editors please look at the recent changes made to Outing? I'm uncomfortable with the vast re-interpretation of transgender people as having "conflicted gender identity" as well as the other sweeping changes. More eyes would be appreciated and I'm already dealing with some hate crime organizations so I'd rather not take on a new project right now. Insomesia ( talk) 23:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Possibly not the best place to put this, but the category for gay wikipedians is currently undergoing deletion review, so anyone interested in weighing in, please do so here. Thanks. Ncboy2010 ( talk) 13:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject LGBT,
Several days ago or so I went ahead and moved the prior content of the Real-Life Experience subsection ( link to pre-modified page) of the transitioning (transgender) article to its own article, which can now be found here: Real-Life Experience. In addition, since doing so, I have significantly expanded upon and rewritten most of the original content.
Upon moving the content to its own article, another user objected to the change for a variety of reasons, and has tagged the new page with a deletion request. We have been discussing the matter in attempts to resolve it but do not appear to be getting anywhere. As a result, I would like to invite others involved in WikiProject LGBT to the discussion to help us reach a consensus/resolution.
The discussion for the matter can be found here on the talk page of the transitioning (transgender) article. Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks. — el3ctr0nika ( Talk | Contribs) 20:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Please consider this Request for Comment re notability. Fight OUT Loud Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 19:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The article on Kim Petras consistently cites her as "he" despite identifying as a woman. I do not believe this is accurate protocol but am not entirely sure so would rather leave it/bring it to the attention of people who deal with this topic. Thank you. Wherschel ( talk) 21:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:Tom Cruise#LGBT Project about whether the article should be in this Wikiproject or not. As far as I can tell, the only link he has to LGBT is that he has a history of suing people who say he's gay. The concern that apparently sparked the discussion was that he could sue Wikipedia for putting him in the LGBT project/putting the template on his talk page. I don't have strong opinions on the matter myself, but I thought I'd notify interested editors here. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 01:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
There can be no denial of the fact that as humanity evolves so too does our sexuality. It would be ignornat to assume otherwise. What is considered to be an evolved sense of sexuality or of gender identification? That is a question that is not asked enough. There are many clinical and phsycological studies and theories. Ranging between what was "wrong" with those with alternative gender identifications or sexual preferences to what is "wrong" with those who would repress, deny, or otherwise dishonor their own sexual desires. Being of an alternative gender identification or sexual orientation can provide difficult circumstances for personal growth, sexual coupling, or simply societal functioning. Historically in Native American and other indigenous tribal cultures, there were those who were simulaneously a male and a female presence. Although these indidviduals were often intuitive and held places such as medicine men and women and tribal councellors, their connection to the devine left them as targets for retribution or sacrifice when the gods didn't bless the community with a healthy crop or disfortunes of the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.204.60 ( talk) 20:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The usage of " dyke" is up for discussion, see Talk:Levee -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 04:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The new binarism article could use some help getting off its feet. All help will be greatly appreciated.- Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 04:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The article Gold star lesbian (the term refers to a lesbian who has never had sex with a man) has been deleted as non-notable. The term has been used in scholarly articles (see this Google Scholar search) and appears in various dictionaries of slang, but perhaps should only be considered a dictionary definition. If the concept is notable, then there ought to be a Wikipedia article on it, but I am not sure that notability can be proven. I have submitted the definition to Wiktionary. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me the catchy header, just hoped to draw another eye or two. For what, by my count, is the fourth time in about two months or less, Talk:Batman is seeing another wall-of-text "rabble rabble Batman's not gay remove your reliably-sourced and appropriately-weighted section on scholarly interpretation of Batman as a gay figure rabble rabble" rant; I really am getting to the point where I'm liable to start responding with nothing of value beyond vitriol. Any of you guys maybe want to watchlist the page in case you could add something now or in the future? Current fella is literally arguing that an author is not a good source for his own intent, just to give you a taster. Thanks for any help you might be able to add. GRAPPLE X 08:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Paris Lee's latest piece for the Independent's blog network is a good read about how the journalistic community, despite their standards of practice, are often terrible when it comes to reporting of trans issues. It's nothing new; Trans Media Watch submitted evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on a similar tangent. Should these problems be explicitly noted? I've seen on several pages where the source's description is preferred over the person's self description. Sceptre ( talk) 12:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello - I think we should redirect the project noticeboard here. No one uses it, and people wanting to post a heads-up should be coming to the talk page. What I'm not sure how to handle is integrating that page's history/archives into the talk page's history/archives, so people are aware that the material is there to be read. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Gay Wikipedians is being proposed for deletion after the earlier deletion review discussion. Please feel free to participate. Thank you! Ncboy2010 ( talk) 17:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that this article may not be NPOV but would prefer other editors to take a look. Primarily it seems to be yet another article legitimizing Blanchard's work which has been seen as controversial. Insomesia ( talk) 22:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a member of this project, but the ongoing discussion at Talk:Tom Cruise brought an issue to my attention which should be discussed here. Currently, {{ WikiProject LGBT}} is being added to any article that has some interest to members of this project. It has been argued (and I agree) that when added to the talk page of a biography of a living person, it has problematic BLP implications. But there's also a widespread view that WikiProjects should have the right to tag articles as part of their scope. So, here's a possible solution to this dilemma: should the template include a short disclaimer, something alone the lines of The use of this template does not necessarily imply that the subject is LGBT?
We already take a similar approach with potentially contentious categories - as I'm sure this project's members are aware, Category:LGBT people and its subcategories have a clear disclaimer at the top stating This category may inappropriately label persons. I think we should do something similar with the template. This isn't a matter of 'protecting us from getting sued', it's simply a matter of basic decency, and not making potentially offensive implications about living people. What does everyone else think? Robofish ( talk) 19:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm of two minds.
Mind One: We are not labeling persons when we use a project tag. We are stating our interests. Need we list the homophobes and homophobic organizations we tag as obvious evidence of that? We could discuss someone's sexual orientation ad nauseam on a Talk page without being challenged, but the rainbow is too much? And I don't think a comparing Talk page material with entry page material is appropriate.
Mind Two: I'd be happy with language that says that "this entry is of interest to participants in the LGBT Project". I'd have serious problems with anything that smacked of a disclaimer. As usual, it's all in the details. Maybe we need to subtract the "LGBT-related" language. Of interest shoudl suffice. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that an even handed approach is much more palatable than one that targets just this project. I would not be opposed to modification of Template:WPBannerMeta to the effect of The presence of this banner does not constitute a material statement about the subject of this article, though it seems a little legal-y to me. Changes to that template should be discussed at the village pump first since it they would impact virtually every article talk page. VQuakr ( talk) 02:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you give your opinions here? Ron 1987 ( talk) 00:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
And your ideas about how to improve that woeful and bloated article would also be useful and welcome there. 70.253.91.210 ( talk) 07:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
As someone who is interested in differences in LGBT rights in different countries, I have frequently been disappointed to find that in many of the "LGBT rights in *country*" articles, the rights of transgender people are never discussed. This is a huge problem, and I think that a systematic effort should be made to include a section on transgender rights (or the lack of) in every article, regardless of how brief. Otherwise, it's just LGB. Incidentally, I've also noticed a tendency to focus on gay men, with lesbians frequently receiving little to no attention; this is also something which needs to be assessed, but it's much less prevalent than the trans problem. -- 92.39.193.94 ( talk) 05:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Pgarret has recently been removing the Category:LGBT Royalty from a number of gay and lesbian dead royals, such as Edward II of England, Henry III of France and Princess Isabella of Parma. He has also in at least one instance replaced "gay" with "homosexual" which may be indicative of his WP:POV. I started a conversation on his talk page and he simply reiterated his view that it is WP:OR for these individuals to be declared gay simply because they had sexual relations with people of the same sex and then reverted my reverts. Apparently, his grandfather was baptised by one of the royals whom he has decided is not gay enough to be labeled LGBT (which he views as a "political" term) so it is also somewhat personal to him. Please feel free to weigh in. Argos' Dad 18:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not saying any of these people are/are not GLBT. I am struck by the standard PGarret is using to determine who is gay enough to warrant the category. Argos' Dad 19:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
All very funny were we not still reeling from the death of Her Majesty's corgi. Dogs are people too, my friend. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 23:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
What about LGBT interest or Person of LGBT interest? Or is that too broad? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 20:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
A request for comment about this article is now pending. You are invited to join the discussion. 70.253.91.210 ( talk) 16:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
So, I'm looking to replace terms like "sex change operation" with more appropriate ones like " sex reassignment surgery" after noticing it being used in Hong Kong's LGBT rights page. I have a style question, though: In the example shown, I changed "has had a sex change operation" to "has undergone sex reassignment surgery". "Undergo[ne]" is frequently used in reference to surgery and medical treatments, especially significant ones, but I'm curious whether the term could be construed as non-neutral. I don't want to say "had sex reassignment surgery" because it sounds stupid and reads badly, but at the same time I don't want to introduce new issues into pages whilst updating terms.
Thoughts? -- Poppy Appletree ( talk) 17:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to make the change myself (I haven't edited Wikipedia before), but the section of the LGBT rights in Rhode Island page which states that "Rhode Island has a criminal statute covering acts of violence motivated by both sexual orientation and gender identity/expression" is not correct. Rhode Island does have a statute providing for penalty enhancement for crimes motivated by, among other things, sexual orientation (R.I. GEN. LAWS § 12-19-38), but the statute does not cover gender identity or expression.
A 2012 law (2012 Rhode Island Laws Ch. 12-124 (12-S 2488) (effective May 30, 2012)) amended the definition of “Hate Crimes” in the hate crime monitoring and reporting law (R.I. GEN. LAWS § 42-28-46) to include gender identity and expression, but this law explicitly does NOT affect the sentence enhancement statute ("This section shall not be construed to increase or enhance the penalties against the perpetrators of hate crimes as defined in this section, unless provided for by any other section of law")
The whole thing is a bit of a mess, but the take away is that when a criminal selects their victim because of the victim's gender identity or expression the person has committed a hate crime as defined by the hate crime monitoring statute (R.I. GEN. LAWS § 42-28-46), but their sentence will not be enhanced by the state's Hate Crime Sentencing Act (R.I. GEN. LAWS § 12-19-38). In other words, the state tracks crimes motivated by bias against gender identity or expression, but it does not have a has a criminal statute covering acts of violence motivated by gender identity/expression.
If someone could figure out how to format this into an accurate/succinct edit it would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.0.100 ( talk) 02:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Is there a collapsible version of the project template? I'd like to add it to articles, but it feels really intrusive at full size. -- Poppy Appletree ( talk) 22:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
So far I've found seven with plenty of reliable sources being prodded. More eyes on these articles would be appreciated. Insomesia ( talk) 00:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
All the articles are in the same category, it's the only context I can see. Now they are all being sent for deletion by AfD. Insomesia ( talk) 12:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
These are the first four ... Insomesia ( talk) 12:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
A couple more:
-- В и к и T 16:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
An RfC:
Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the
Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. –
MrX
14:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. I'm mentioning the "Most Lesbians Have Sex With Men" discussion here because one or more of you may have something to state about it. I've already commented on the matter on the article's talk page, especially since the main contributor of the Lesbian article, Moni3, who got it to WP:GA status, is currently retired from Wikipedia (see User talk:Moni3) and cannot be reached through email. It's also because of this that more eyes on this article from members of this project would be beneficial to it. Moni3 used to keep it well-policed. And now that she's gone, it seems that role now defaults to me.
As for the Sexual identity and Sexual orientation identity articles... They are covering the same topic and therefore need to be merged...with one redirecting to the other. The former is used more commonly in everyday usage. And having studied the topic extensively, I know that the former is also used more than the latter in sources concerning heterosexuality and LGBT topics. Therefore, I suggest that the latter redirect to the former. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
A user is trying to ″correct″ pronouns in Brandon Teena article (see see revision history). In my opinion his edits are against policy, perhaps even vandalism, but I will not edit war. Can someone look into his edits in this article?-- В и к и T 19:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:LGBT neo-Nazis and its sub-category Category:LGBT German neo-Nazis, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Input is needed with regard to the above linked discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I've been working on adding context and sources to Big Easy Metropolitan Community Church which is at deletion. I think it's history, including the one of the worst LGBT arson attacks, the last major LGBT event ignored by national media, and the first LGBT national fundraiser (all in the US and tied to the 1973 fire) help add to the notability. I'm still adding sources but would appreciate other eyes looking at the discussion and article since it's being written under the deadline of AfD. Insomesia ( talk) 06:50, 2 October 2012 (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 35 | ← | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
Hi, folks. I happened by this article and I think there's some discrimination going on with attacks on it. There are unreasonable challenges to properly cited information and some discussion that belittles the subject and calls for deletion. I'm attempting to add to the article but I'm encountering quite a bit of resistance. Could I get some folks to review the history and provide opinions on the talk page? Thanks. Pkeets ( talk) 03:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Discussion about whether a controversy involving Rob Portman's stance on gay and lesbian issues should be removed from his article or not. Kaldari ( talk) 17:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I am trying to promote Nicki Minaj to GA status and I was looking over her Personal Life section and saw this paragraph on her sexuality (or, rather, alleged sexuality):
Does this paragraph meet MOS:IDENTITY guidelines? Is it too speculative? Should it be re-worded? Or is it okay? I would be grateful for your opinion on this issue as I am struggling on how to word it. Thanks! Jennie | ☎ 20:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
vibe
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I'm having trouble finding coverage of the much disputed Mark Regnerus paper in Social Science Research titled "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study". I understand that it is not a study of "gay parenting" and has been excluded from the entry on LGBT parenting. Can someone point me in the right direction? It has just been cited (ignorantly) for the first time in a federal court decision. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 19:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I know sources are widely available. I'm looking for it on Wikipedia. Even as bad science it merits some discussion. I see it mentioned/misrepresented at Witherspoon Institute, and that's just a one-liner. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've just noted the case as the first to cite Regnerus where the court decision is listed in Same-sex marriage in the United States#Case law. I've also posed a question on Talk:LGBT parenting#Regnerus follow up. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 17:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
These two articles need their information to be segregated from each other. One is the organization, the other the event, but both seem to be about both topics, and should instead be separated to clearly be about one or the other. -- 70.24.247.242 ( talk) 01:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, all. Please comment about this at Talk:List of paraphilias#Homosexuality should not be on this list. 109.123.127.204 ( talk) 23:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Will some of you comment on this? The article in question is the Tomboy article and I am in a dispute with an editor who doesn't think that glbtq.com counts as a reliable source, especially regarding this current blockquote: "Throughout their history, tomboys have had to contend with the stigma of presumed lesbianism or the accusation of wanting to be male. Both assumptions were categorically refuted by twentieth-century psychology, which established the normality of the tomboy experience among girls of all identities. However, for many, the tomboy stage is the first manifestation of a gender-fluid life journey." 66.85.128.186 ( talk) 00:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Impact/evolution of TV shows featuring LGBT content; don't know which article fits the best so here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/business/media/gay-on-tv-its-all-in-the-family.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.49.47 ( talk) 14:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Could other editors please look at the recent changes made to Outing? I'm uncomfortable with the vast re-interpretation of transgender people as having "conflicted gender identity" as well as the other sweeping changes. More eyes would be appreciated and I'm already dealing with some hate crime organizations so I'd rather not take on a new project right now. Insomesia ( talk) 23:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Possibly not the best place to put this, but the category for gay wikipedians is currently undergoing deletion review, so anyone interested in weighing in, please do so here. Thanks. Ncboy2010 ( talk) 13:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject LGBT,
Several days ago or so I went ahead and moved the prior content of the Real-Life Experience subsection ( link to pre-modified page) of the transitioning (transgender) article to its own article, which can now be found here: Real-Life Experience. In addition, since doing so, I have significantly expanded upon and rewritten most of the original content.
Upon moving the content to its own article, another user objected to the change for a variety of reasons, and has tagged the new page with a deletion request. We have been discussing the matter in attempts to resolve it but do not appear to be getting anywhere. As a result, I would like to invite others involved in WikiProject LGBT to the discussion to help us reach a consensus/resolution.
The discussion for the matter can be found here on the talk page of the transitioning (transgender) article. Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks. — el3ctr0nika ( Talk | Contribs) 20:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Please consider this Request for Comment re notability. Fight OUT Loud Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 19:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The article on Kim Petras consistently cites her as "he" despite identifying as a woman. I do not believe this is accurate protocol but am not entirely sure so would rather leave it/bring it to the attention of people who deal with this topic. Thank you. Wherschel ( talk) 21:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:Tom Cruise#LGBT Project about whether the article should be in this Wikiproject or not. As far as I can tell, the only link he has to LGBT is that he has a history of suing people who say he's gay. The concern that apparently sparked the discussion was that he could sue Wikipedia for putting him in the LGBT project/putting the template on his talk page. I don't have strong opinions on the matter myself, but I thought I'd notify interested editors here. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 01:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
There can be no denial of the fact that as humanity evolves so too does our sexuality. It would be ignornat to assume otherwise. What is considered to be an evolved sense of sexuality or of gender identification? That is a question that is not asked enough. There are many clinical and phsycological studies and theories. Ranging between what was "wrong" with those with alternative gender identifications or sexual preferences to what is "wrong" with those who would repress, deny, or otherwise dishonor their own sexual desires. Being of an alternative gender identification or sexual orientation can provide difficult circumstances for personal growth, sexual coupling, or simply societal functioning. Historically in Native American and other indigenous tribal cultures, there were those who were simulaneously a male and a female presence. Although these indidviduals were often intuitive and held places such as medicine men and women and tribal councellors, their connection to the devine left them as targets for retribution or sacrifice when the gods didn't bless the community with a healthy crop or disfortunes of the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.204.60 ( talk) 20:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The usage of " dyke" is up for discussion, see Talk:Levee -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 04:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The new binarism article could use some help getting off its feet. All help will be greatly appreciated.- Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 04:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The article Gold star lesbian (the term refers to a lesbian who has never had sex with a man) has been deleted as non-notable. The term has been used in scholarly articles (see this Google Scholar search) and appears in various dictionaries of slang, but perhaps should only be considered a dictionary definition. If the concept is notable, then there ought to be a Wikipedia article on it, but I am not sure that notability can be proven. I have submitted the definition to Wiktionary. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me the catchy header, just hoped to draw another eye or two. For what, by my count, is the fourth time in about two months or less, Talk:Batman is seeing another wall-of-text "rabble rabble Batman's not gay remove your reliably-sourced and appropriately-weighted section on scholarly interpretation of Batman as a gay figure rabble rabble" rant; I really am getting to the point where I'm liable to start responding with nothing of value beyond vitriol. Any of you guys maybe want to watchlist the page in case you could add something now or in the future? Current fella is literally arguing that an author is not a good source for his own intent, just to give you a taster. Thanks for any help you might be able to add. GRAPPLE X 08:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Paris Lee's latest piece for the Independent's blog network is a good read about how the journalistic community, despite their standards of practice, are often terrible when it comes to reporting of trans issues. It's nothing new; Trans Media Watch submitted evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on a similar tangent. Should these problems be explicitly noted? I've seen on several pages where the source's description is preferred over the person's self description. Sceptre ( talk) 12:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello - I think we should redirect the project noticeboard here. No one uses it, and people wanting to post a heads-up should be coming to the talk page. What I'm not sure how to handle is integrating that page's history/archives into the talk page's history/archives, so people are aware that the material is there to be read. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Gay Wikipedians is being proposed for deletion after the earlier deletion review discussion. Please feel free to participate. Thank you! Ncboy2010 ( talk) 17:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that this article may not be NPOV but would prefer other editors to take a look. Primarily it seems to be yet another article legitimizing Blanchard's work which has been seen as controversial. Insomesia ( talk) 22:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a member of this project, but the ongoing discussion at Talk:Tom Cruise brought an issue to my attention which should be discussed here. Currently, {{ WikiProject LGBT}} is being added to any article that has some interest to members of this project. It has been argued (and I agree) that when added to the talk page of a biography of a living person, it has problematic BLP implications. But there's also a widespread view that WikiProjects should have the right to tag articles as part of their scope. So, here's a possible solution to this dilemma: should the template include a short disclaimer, something alone the lines of The use of this template does not necessarily imply that the subject is LGBT?
We already take a similar approach with potentially contentious categories - as I'm sure this project's members are aware, Category:LGBT people and its subcategories have a clear disclaimer at the top stating This category may inappropriately label persons. I think we should do something similar with the template. This isn't a matter of 'protecting us from getting sued', it's simply a matter of basic decency, and not making potentially offensive implications about living people. What does everyone else think? Robofish ( talk) 19:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm of two minds.
Mind One: We are not labeling persons when we use a project tag. We are stating our interests. Need we list the homophobes and homophobic organizations we tag as obvious evidence of that? We could discuss someone's sexual orientation ad nauseam on a Talk page without being challenged, but the rainbow is too much? And I don't think a comparing Talk page material with entry page material is appropriate.
Mind Two: I'd be happy with language that says that "this entry is of interest to participants in the LGBT Project". I'd have serious problems with anything that smacked of a disclaimer. As usual, it's all in the details. Maybe we need to subtract the "LGBT-related" language. Of interest shoudl suffice. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that an even handed approach is much more palatable than one that targets just this project. I would not be opposed to modification of Template:WPBannerMeta to the effect of The presence of this banner does not constitute a material statement about the subject of this article, though it seems a little legal-y to me. Changes to that template should be discussed at the village pump first since it they would impact virtually every article talk page. VQuakr ( talk) 02:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you give your opinions here? Ron 1987 ( talk) 00:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
And your ideas about how to improve that woeful and bloated article would also be useful and welcome there. 70.253.91.210 ( talk) 07:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
As someone who is interested in differences in LGBT rights in different countries, I have frequently been disappointed to find that in many of the "LGBT rights in *country*" articles, the rights of transgender people are never discussed. This is a huge problem, and I think that a systematic effort should be made to include a section on transgender rights (or the lack of) in every article, regardless of how brief. Otherwise, it's just LGB. Incidentally, I've also noticed a tendency to focus on gay men, with lesbians frequently receiving little to no attention; this is also something which needs to be assessed, but it's much less prevalent than the trans problem. -- 92.39.193.94 ( talk) 05:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Pgarret has recently been removing the Category:LGBT Royalty from a number of gay and lesbian dead royals, such as Edward II of England, Henry III of France and Princess Isabella of Parma. He has also in at least one instance replaced "gay" with "homosexual" which may be indicative of his WP:POV. I started a conversation on his talk page and he simply reiterated his view that it is WP:OR for these individuals to be declared gay simply because they had sexual relations with people of the same sex and then reverted my reverts. Apparently, his grandfather was baptised by one of the royals whom he has decided is not gay enough to be labeled LGBT (which he views as a "political" term) so it is also somewhat personal to him. Please feel free to weigh in. Argos' Dad 18:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not saying any of these people are/are not GLBT. I am struck by the standard PGarret is using to determine who is gay enough to warrant the category. Argos' Dad 19:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
All very funny were we not still reeling from the death of Her Majesty's corgi. Dogs are people too, my friend. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 23:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
What about LGBT interest or Person of LGBT interest? Or is that too broad? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 20:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
A request for comment about this article is now pending. You are invited to join the discussion. 70.253.91.210 ( talk) 16:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
So, I'm looking to replace terms like "sex change operation" with more appropriate ones like " sex reassignment surgery" after noticing it being used in Hong Kong's LGBT rights page. I have a style question, though: In the example shown, I changed "has had a sex change operation" to "has undergone sex reassignment surgery". "Undergo[ne]" is frequently used in reference to surgery and medical treatments, especially significant ones, but I'm curious whether the term could be construed as non-neutral. I don't want to say "had sex reassignment surgery" because it sounds stupid and reads badly, but at the same time I don't want to introduce new issues into pages whilst updating terms.
Thoughts? -- Poppy Appletree ( talk) 17:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to make the change myself (I haven't edited Wikipedia before), but the section of the LGBT rights in Rhode Island page which states that "Rhode Island has a criminal statute covering acts of violence motivated by both sexual orientation and gender identity/expression" is not correct. Rhode Island does have a statute providing for penalty enhancement for crimes motivated by, among other things, sexual orientation (R.I. GEN. LAWS § 12-19-38), but the statute does not cover gender identity or expression.
A 2012 law (2012 Rhode Island Laws Ch. 12-124 (12-S 2488) (effective May 30, 2012)) amended the definition of “Hate Crimes” in the hate crime monitoring and reporting law (R.I. GEN. LAWS § 42-28-46) to include gender identity and expression, but this law explicitly does NOT affect the sentence enhancement statute ("This section shall not be construed to increase or enhance the penalties against the perpetrators of hate crimes as defined in this section, unless provided for by any other section of law")
The whole thing is a bit of a mess, but the take away is that when a criminal selects their victim because of the victim's gender identity or expression the person has committed a hate crime as defined by the hate crime monitoring statute (R.I. GEN. LAWS § 42-28-46), but their sentence will not be enhanced by the state's Hate Crime Sentencing Act (R.I. GEN. LAWS § 12-19-38). In other words, the state tracks crimes motivated by bias against gender identity or expression, but it does not have a has a criminal statute covering acts of violence motivated by gender identity/expression.
If someone could figure out how to format this into an accurate/succinct edit it would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.0.100 ( talk) 02:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Is there a collapsible version of the project template? I'd like to add it to articles, but it feels really intrusive at full size. -- Poppy Appletree ( talk) 22:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
So far I've found seven with plenty of reliable sources being prodded. More eyes on these articles would be appreciated. Insomesia ( talk) 00:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
All the articles are in the same category, it's the only context I can see. Now they are all being sent for deletion by AfD. Insomesia ( talk) 12:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
These are the first four ... Insomesia ( talk) 12:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
A couple more:
-- В и к и T 16:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
An RfC:
Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the
Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. –
MrX
14:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. I'm mentioning the "Most Lesbians Have Sex With Men" discussion here because one or more of you may have something to state about it. I've already commented on the matter on the article's talk page, especially since the main contributor of the Lesbian article, Moni3, who got it to WP:GA status, is currently retired from Wikipedia (see User talk:Moni3) and cannot be reached through email. It's also because of this that more eyes on this article from members of this project would be beneficial to it. Moni3 used to keep it well-policed. And now that she's gone, it seems that role now defaults to me.
As for the Sexual identity and Sexual orientation identity articles... They are covering the same topic and therefore need to be merged...with one redirecting to the other. The former is used more commonly in everyday usage. And having studied the topic extensively, I know that the former is also used more than the latter in sources concerning heterosexuality and LGBT topics. Therefore, I suggest that the latter redirect to the former. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
A user is trying to ″correct″ pronouns in Brandon Teena article (see see revision history). In my opinion his edits are against policy, perhaps even vandalism, but I will not edit war. Can someone look into his edits in this article?-- В и к и T 19:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:LGBT neo-Nazis and its sub-category Category:LGBT German neo-Nazis, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Input is needed with regard to the above linked discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I've been working on adding context and sources to Big Easy Metropolitan Community Church which is at deletion. I think it's history, including the one of the worst LGBT arson attacks, the last major LGBT event ignored by national media, and the first LGBT national fundraiser (all in the US and tied to the 1973 fire) help add to the notability. I'm still adding sources but would appreciate other eyes looking at the discussion and article since it's being written under the deadline of AfD. Insomesia ( talk) 06:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)