![]() | 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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
A discussion has been started on whether the article on this book should be merged with the (largely identical) article on the school. Input from members of this project are welcome. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Malcolm_X:_A_Life_of_Reinvention#LGBT Tag WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. I saw the Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Privileging words over thoughts and deeds: attraction vs identity vs behaviour in sexual orientation discussion yesterday and decided that one or more of you may be interested in weighing in on it. Bearcat, a member of this LGBT project, has already. I am also interested in weighing in on it, but some of what I would have stated has essentially already been stated by those opposing the editor's proposal (the editor who started that discussion), and I'd rather not get into a debate about this. I waited until today to notify this project of it because I was both busy and lazy yesterday, and also wanted to see how things developed on that discussion matter. As for the other discussion, that is Talk:Jodie Foster#Redo consensus; it's currently closed, but any one of you may want to re-open that discussion or start a new one about that topic. For the record, I don't see the problem with putting Foster in the LGBT category. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Question: Regarding two of the subsections in Gary North (economist) -- which describe his views (in part regarding his alleged hatred of, and alleged desire to stone to death, homosexuals, but contain original rather than secondary sources – are they proper? Please see the discussion here. Steeletrap ( talk) 05:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a current discussion under way that may need more editor attention. It appears a new editor (possibly a single purpose account) has begun a discussion about violence to the LGBT community and is stating the article is intentionally misleading.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 21:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody here put it on your watch list? An unnamed editor keeps removing the categories. I don't want to have to buy into arguments about Cellini's sexuality. Dealing with Leonardo and Michelangelo are sufficient. Amandajm ( talk) 06:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I posted a long comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Guidelines#Deceased_LGBT_.28.3F.29_people and it said to cross post it here. I hope to get some guidance about placing historical figures in LGBT categories. Newjerseyliz ( talk) 21:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
It's just been found that a number of categories in use by this project were created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, so User:Ronhjones has had to delete them. However, it looks like a number of them were very useful, so one may want to look through these deletions and re-create/re-categorize. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I did catch as much as I could of what happened yesterday, but unfortunately I'm not able to guarantee that I caught everything. For what it's worth, although I've also directly deleted some of Rafiki's categories in the past, I do typically make sure to upmerge the entries back into a parent category before deleting the category — but I do recognize that my status as an administrator does enable me to do that in a way that a regular editor might not have access to.
It's not necessarily a requirement to recreate every deleted category wholesale, however — part of what got Rafiki banned in the first place was that he had a persistent habit of splitting any and all "LGBT" categories he came across into four separate quadrant-specific gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender subcategories, without regard to whether that was warranted or not. So some of the categories listed above do not need to be recreated; however, whenever possible the articles that were in those categories should be refiled in common "LGBT" categories instead of recreating quadrant-specific ones. And as noted, I did try to catch as many former "LGBT entertainers from the United States" as I could, and refiled them back into the existing ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT people from the United States (where they were before the entertainer-specific subcategory was created) instead of recreating the deleted category, if they weren't already in another subcategory such as ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT African Americans or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT writers from the United States. I can't guarantee that I caught everybody, however, although I can't think off the top of my head of any obvious people that I missed. I see, however, that the category has since been recreated — and accordingly, the people can be moved back into it again.
One thing it's important to keep in mind is that even banned users who created a lot of bad stuff can still occasionally hit on something valid and useful anyway, and it also doesn't mean that the category becomes permanently banned from ever being recreated again even by an editor in good standing. I would suggest that as much as possible, regular editors should list categories created by banned users for CFD rather than speedy, precisely so that we can prevent things like this from happening — because editors should have the option of being able to say "actually this category is useful enough that we should keep it anyway" and/or "make sure that the closure involves upmerging the articles to this parent category rather than just decatting them". Or alternatively, if it's important to strip the banned user from the edit history, one could delete the category and then recreate it under their own name so that it has a valid user behind it instead.
To be perfectly frank, this was a major f*ck*p that should not have happened in the way that it did. I do recognize that the practice of deleting a banned user's contributions comes from a place of rational intentions — however, we all have to make every effort to ensure that we don't accidentally create another massive problem in the process as happened here. Although I'm relieved that there is an effort underway to fix it, we need to make absolutely sure that nothing like this ever happens again. I'm not going to blame any specific user, as both Nymf and Diannaa quite clearly acted in good faith according to the rules — but if two good faith actions combine into a massive disaster like this, there's clearly a flaw of some kind in the process. Bearcat ( talk) 05:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I worked on it only in August. I first depopulated the category and then deleted the category. So in my case, matching up the preceding contribs to the matching log entry will reveal what the contents of each category was at the time of deletion. A couple categories were empty when I arrived, and that's how I realised that another person was working on it simultaneously. Here's a list of the 94 that I did: -- Diannaa ( talk) 22:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Bearcat, thanks for your continued input and assistance. Diannaa, thanks for recognising and admitting a mistake and contributing to the clean up. On quadrantisation, it seems to me to be appropriate in the pornography area, porn actors are not in LGBT porn, but rather in gay, straight, bi, lesbian, trans, ... porn. On the deletions, I note that Ronhjones, who deleted many categories, apparently got bored with upmerging. :( I have requested an explanation. EdChem ( talk) 22:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Three months ago, the same user began to make systematic disruptive edits from different computers on Benvenuto Cellini, Poliziano, Torquato Tasso and Lucio Dalla among others.
The different IPs used by this person, probably Guido Lonchile ( talk · contribs), are, for the more recent ones :
217.203.129.136 ( talk · contribs), 95.74.248.0 ( talk · contribs) and 109.52.145.74 ( talk · contribs) for Torquato Tasso
217.203.139.73 ( talk · contribs), 95.75.19.58 ( talk · contribs)and 109.52.145.74 ( talk · contribs) for Benvenuto Cellini
95.74.240.181 ( talk · contribs), 217.203.139.73 ( talk · contribs), 109.54.162.138 ( talk · contribs) and B. River ( talk · contribs), specifically created on this purpose for Poliziano.
Isn't it possible to block that person or to protect these articles ? Frimoussou ( talk) 22:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Greta Garbo#LGBT stuff - again (it's hard to miss, as it's currently the only discussion on the page). I participated briefly in a sub-discussion about synthesis, and have advised the current principal editor of the article on technical issues in the past, but am myself a bit confused as to what is considered acceptable in this area (i.e., what constitutes a "documented, notable relationship"). Could someone from this project take a look and offer an opinion regarding the appropriateness of the current article content and the recently removed (unrelated to the mass-deletions discussion above) LGBT-related categories? TIA. Fat&Happy ( talk) 23:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there :) Could someone please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinky_Lifestyle and let me know why it qualifies for speedy deletion? The author stated he works on adding english ref. - as far as I can see the german refs (incl. a german newspaper) proove the significance, which I also feel stated within the article itself. - as for advertising maybe someone here has an edit proposal? (pers. I don't consider it advertisment) - any insight would be really appreciated, cause I'm kinda baffled esp. when comparing this one to other bdsm organizations' articles.-- YahZila ( talk) 21:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Can I get some comments/more eyes on this matter from this project with regard to the James Dean article? Like I stated in that edit summary, I don't feel strongly about this matter (Dean being in the LGBT category). And I am the one who had Dean removed from the bisexual category years ago, as that hidden note points to. But it seems justifiable to have him in the LGBT category for reasons Bearcat and I stated in this discussion at the Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality talk page. By linking his username now, I also invite Light show, who removed the category before I reverted him, to discuss this. I see that he is also discussing a LGBT matter with regard to the Greta Garbo article. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments are needed with regard to the linked matter in the heading of this section. I've already commented there. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Albert Fish, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 02:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This has probably been discussed before, so I wanted to bring it up here before taking any action. Why do we categorize people as "LGBT" something when more specific categories (especially ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Gay men and ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Lesbians) exist? I thought it was odd that we have ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT people by nationality but not ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Gay men by nationality or ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Lesbians by nationality. So Mathieu Chantelois is an LGBT person from Canada, not a gay Canadian (or gay Canadian male, if "gay" is deemed too broad). I understand some individuals won't neatly fit into one letter of LGBT, but when they do, doesn't it make sense to have more specific categories? -- BDD ( talk) 18:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
By and large, the practice of this project has been to avoid subdividing "LGBT" categories into distinct subcategories for each individual letter, except in a few very specific cases where a single "LGBT" category would be populated into the thousands. That goes for occupational categories (a few of which have quadranted subcategories but most of which do not) and for "nationality" ones (none of which have the quadrants and none of which have sufficient population to need them anyway).
Particularly because LGBT-related categorization is still a sensitive issue that raises WP:BLP concerns, the project's goal when it comes to "LGBT people" categories has always been to strike a balance: we want there to be enough categories for the tree to be useful, but we also don't want there to be so many categories that the tree becomes too unwieldy to properly monitor for vandalism or BLP issues. And accordingly, part of the balance that was chosen was to keep most categories at the common "LGBT" level rather than comprehensively subdividing them, and to allow quadrant-specific subcategories only in cases where the common "LGBT" category was getting large enough to need the breakdown on size grounds.
Just as an example to illustrate the problem, let's say that you created "Gay men from Canada", "Lesbians from Canada", "Bisexual people from Canada" and "Transgender and transsexual people from Canada". A lot of people could be filtered down into the subcategories, true, but there would still be a few people who would have to be left in the main ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT people from Canada parent for the reasons noted above — with the result being that instead of having one category to monitor for vandals who still think it's funny to add Justin Bieber, you now have five.
Now keep going, and maybe you'll see the problem even more clearly: every "LGBT" category that we have on Wikipedia turns into five categories instead of one? Dear gawd, please no. Bearcat ( talk) 08:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
While the world's eyes are on Russia at the moment, that phrase is not exactly a new concept. As British editors will recall, we had our own "promotion of homosexuality" law (which, thank Christ, only applied to schools and local councils) which got repealed ten years ago. However, the idea of homosexual propaganda still exists here (I've come across four schools whose SRE policies prohibit it, despite the Equality Act), and Section 28 is often brought up to compare similar proposed (but never passed) laws and bill amendments, both here and overseas. I seem to remember Tennessee had what was effectively Section 28 passed a few years ago, for example?
In any case, the idea of homosexuality as something that can be "promoted", and this being an excuse to oppose or roll back LGBT rights, is a possible case for an article; do others think this is the case? Sceptre ( talk) 00:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Members of WikiProject LGBT studies are invited to participate at a Request for Comments concerning material on African countries' obligations under international law to protect LGBT rights. — Psychonaut ( talk) 12:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys, can i get some more eyes at the Coalition for Marriage article. I'm not able to scrutinise every edit at the moment and strangely the article is attracting more brand new users than it was when it was in the news on a weekly basis. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 10:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This and this are matters some of you might be interested in commenting on. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
After seeing the debates at Chaz Bono, Laura Jane Grace, and now Chelsea Manning regarding MOS:IDENTITY, it seems like some sort of essay might be helpful explaining the basic principles behind the guideline. I don't think the level of understanding of trans issues in the general public is very high, and a quick overview might make a lot of things clearer for many editors. Do we have anything like that?
I've done up a draft here; please feel free to edit, as I am not an expert on transgender issues. I think it would ultimately live best as a project space essay, perhaps at WP:GENDERIDENTITY.-- Trystan ( talk) 00:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to readers of this talk page. Josh Gorand ( talk) 23:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Totally serendipitously, I've stumbled upon what looks to me like an aspect of the "List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films" pages that is out of synch with the Manual of Style guideline on flag icons. Beyond notifying this wiki-project about it, I'm going to leave the issue alone. It's my hope that there will be a recognition here that the flags provide no additional information beyond that already conveyed by the names of the countries they decorate. That's the logic behind the guideline. Happy editing. David in DC ( talk) 03:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
An article in this WikiProject,
Pangender, has been proposed for a
merge with the article
Genderqueer. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
April Arcus (
talk)
07:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I have updated Missing LGBT topics - Skysmith ( talk) 10:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I have proposed that Homophobia in the black community should be split into separate articles Homophobia in the African American community and Homophobia in the Black British community anybody with opinions would be most welcome. Dwanyewest ( talk) 20:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, a larger article covering several ethnicities sounds like a good idea. Some might not have enough material to warrant stand-alone articles. Maybe model it after the LGBT and religion topics article? There would also be some overlap where we already have articles like Judaism and sexual orientation for example. I still don't think the "Homophobia in..." format is neutral, and indeed, some of the content already in the Homophobia in the Black Diasporic community (like the number of openly LGBT people, or president Obama speaking out against homophobia) would fit better under a more general "LGBT and the Black Diasporic community" rubric. Siawase ( talk) 09:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey all, after reading this news story about a victory for same-sex couples in the case of Cooper-Harris v. United States, I went looking for the wikiarticle but all I can find is one short mention here. Since this case has major effects regarding veterans benefits for same-sex couples, seems like it deserves its own article. I don't have time to create one and track down refs and legal citations - anyone else want to give it a go? Textorus ( talk) 17:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Can I get more eyes at the LGBT rights in Russia article. IP users are making many questionable and POV edits. Thanks!-- В и к и T 19:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Template:MOS-TM and Template:MOS-TW have been nominated for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 31#Template:MOS-TM and Template:MOS-TW. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Go to the bottom of Talk:Christine Jorgensen and you'll see a discussion between just 2 users; myself and User:JanetWand. JanetWand appears to believe that I don't understand the difference between gender and sex. The truth is that I do, but that gender is the method that Wikipedia is supposed to use when determining how to refer to trans people. Anyone (besides JanetWand) able to reveal their thoughts on the discussion?? Georgia guy ( talk) 17:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Georgia guy does not seem to be able to demonstrate his understanding of the terms, and is making a superfluous edit of the term male to female when referring to the process that Ms. Jorgensen underwent in her transition, going from male to female. He seems to think that using male is offensive here, but I say it is not, but is merely the truth in describing what occurred and the conventional expression. I am a transwoman, and it does not offend me, however, we would like to hear from others. I feel confident that I can demonstrate that this is how medical professionals refer to the procedure, which by itself should be enough to render GeorgiaGuy's argument baseless. GeorgiaGuy is working with another user, both of whom seem to have the agenda of revising gender terminology, which is a noble cause, but one which oversteps its usefulness here, in my opinion. At the very least his argument represents a fringe movement, not the concensus view. However, the subject is open to discussion. JanetWand ( talk) 20:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
For clarification, I have a big concern that people who see the term "male-to-female" on Wikipedia will think that it's perfectly okay for Wikipedia to say that trans women actually were men, as opposed to women trapped in men's bodies, before the surgery operation. Georgia guy ( talk) 01:13, 3 September 2013 (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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
A discussion has been started on whether the article on this book should be merged with the (largely identical) article on the school. Input from members of this project are welcome. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Malcolm_X:_A_Life_of_Reinvention#LGBT Tag WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. I saw the Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Privileging words over thoughts and deeds: attraction vs identity vs behaviour in sexual orientation discussion yesterday and decided that one or more of you may be interested in weighing in on it. Bearcat, a member of this LGBT project, has already. I am also interested in weighing in on it, but some of what I would have stated has essentially already been stated by those opposing the editor's proposal (the editor who started that discussion), and I'd rather not get into a debate about this. I waited until today to notify this project of it because I was both busy and lazy yesterday, and also wanted to see how things developed on that discussion matter. As for the other discussion, that is Talk:Jodie Foster#Redo consensus; it's currently closed, but any one of you may want to re-open that discussion or start a new one about that topic. For the record, I don't see the problem with putting Foster in the LGBT category. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Question: Regarding two of the subsections in Gary North (economist) -- which describe his views (in part regarding his alleged hatred of, and alleged desire to stone to death, homosexuals, but contain original rather than secondary sources – are they proper? Please see the discussion here. Steeletrap ( talk) 05:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a current discussion under way that may need more editor attention. It appears a new editor (possibly a single purpose account) has begun a discussion about violence to the LGBT community and is stating the article is intentionally misleading.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 21:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody here put it on your watch list? An unnamed editor keeps removing the categories. I don't want to have to buy into arguments about Cellini's sexuality. Dealing with Leonardo and Michelangelo are sufficient. Amandajm ( talk) 06:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I posted a long comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Guidelines#Deceased_LGBT_.28.3F.29_people and it said to cross post it here. I hope to get some guidance about placing historical figures in LGBT categories. Newjerseyliz ( talk) 21:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
It's just been found that a number of categories in use by this project were created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, so User:Ronhjones has had to delete them. However, it looks like a number of them were very useful, so one may want to look through these deletions and re-create/re-categorize. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I did catch as much as I could of what happened yesterday, but unfortunately I'm not able to guarantee that I caught everything. For what it's worth, although I've also directly deleted some of Rafiki's categories in the past, I do typically make sure to upmerge the entries back into a parent category before deleting the category — but I do recognize that my status as an administrator does enable me to do that in a way that a regular editor might not have access to.
It's not necessarily a requirement to recreate every deleted category wholesale, however — part of what got Rafiki banned in the first place was that he had a persistent habit of splitting any and all "LGBT" categories he came across into four separate quadrant-specific gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender subcategories, without regard to whether that was warranted or not. So some of the categories listed above do not need to be recreated; however, whenever possible the articles that were in those categories should be refiled in common "LGBT" categories instead of recreating quadrant-specific ones. And as noted, I did try to catch as many former "LGBT entertainers from the United States" as I could, and refiled them back into the existing ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT people from the United States (where they were before the entertainer-specific subcategory was created) instead of recreating the deleted category, if they weren't already in another subcategory such as ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT African Americans or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT writers from the United States. I can't guarantee that I caught everybody, however, although I can't think off the top of my head of any obvious people that I missed. I see, however, that the category has since been recreated — and accordingly, the people can be moved back into it again.
One thing it's important to keep in mind is that even banned users who created a lot of bad stuff can still occasionally hit on something valid and useful anyway, and it also doesn't mean that the category becomes permanently banned from ever being recreated again even by an editor in good standing. I would suggest that as much as possible, regular editors should list categories created by banned users for CFD rather than speedy, precisely so that we can prevent things like this from happening — because editors should have the option of being able to say "actually this category is useful enough that we should keep it anyway" and/or "make sure that the closure involves upmerging the articles to this parent category rather than just decatting them". Or alternatively, if it's important to strip the banned user from the edit history, one could delete the category and then recreate it under their own name so that it has a valid user behind it instead.
To be perfectly frank, this was a major f*ck*p that should not have happened in the way that it did. I do recognize that the practice of deleting a banned user's contributions comes from a place of rational intentions — however, we all have to make every effort to ensure that we don't accidentally create another massive problem in the process as happened here. Although I'm relieved that there is an effort underway to fix it, we need to make absolutely sure that nothing like this ever happens again. I'm not going to blame any specific user, as both Nymf and Diannaa quite clearly acted in good faith according to the rules — but if two good faith actions combine into a massive disaster like this, there's clearly a flaw of some kind in the process. Bearcat ( talk) 05:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I worked on it only in August. I first depopulated the category and then deleted the category. So in my case, matching up the preceding contribs to the matching log entry will reveal what the contents of each category was at the time of deletion. A couple categories were empty when I arrived, and that's how I realised that another person was working on it simultaneously. Here's a list of the 94 that I did: -- Diannaa ( talk) 22:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Bearcat, thanks for your continued input and assistance. Diannaa, thanks for recognising and admitting a mistake and contributing to the clean up. On quadrantisation, it seems to me to be appropriate in the pornography area, porn actors are not in LGBT porn, but rather in gay, straight, bi, lesbian, trans, ... porn. On the deletions, I note that Ronhjones, who deleted many categories, apparently got bored with upmerging. :( I have requested an explanation. EdChem ( talk) 22:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Three months ago, the same user began to make systematic disruptive edits from different computers on Benvenuto Cellini, Poliziano, Torquato Tasso and Lucio Dalla among others.
The different IPs used by this person, probably Guido Lonchile ( talk · contribs), are, for the more recent ones :
217.203.129.136 ( talk · contribs), 95.74.248.0 ( talk · contribs) and 109.52.145.74 ( talk · contribs) for Torquato Tasso
217.203.139.73 ( talk · contribs), 95.75.19.58 ( talk · contribs)and 109.52.145.74 ( talk · contribs) for Benvenuto Cellini
95.74.240.181 ( talk · contribs), 217.203.139.73 ( talk · contribs), 109.54.162.138 ( talk · contribs) and B. River ( talk · contribs), specifically created on this purpose for Poliziano.
Isn't it possible to block that person or to protect these articles ? Frimoussou ( talk) 22:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Greta Garbo#LGBT stuff - again (it's hard to miss, as it's currently the only discussion on the page). I participated briefly in a sub-discussion about synthesis, and have advised the current principal editor of the article on technical issues in the past, but am myself a bit confused as to what is considered acceptable in this area (i.e., what constitutes a "documented, notable relationship"). Could someone from this project take a look and offer an opinion regarding the appropriateness of the current article content and the recently removed (unrelated to the mass-deletions discussion above) LGBT-related categories? TIA. Fat&Happy ( talk) 23:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there :) Could someone please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinky_Lifestyle and let me know why it qualifies for speedy deletion? The author stated he works on adding english ref. - as far as I can see the german refs (incl. a german newspaper) proove the significance, which I also feel stated within the article itself. - as for advertising maybe someone here has an edit proposal? (pers. I don't consider it advertisment) - any insight would be really appreciated, cause I'm kinda baffled esp. when comparing this one to other bdsm organizations' articles.-- YahZila ( talk) 21:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Can I get some comments/more eyes on this matter from this project with regard to the James Dean article? Like I stated in that edit summary, I don't feel strongly about this matter (Dean being in the LGBT category). And I am the one who had Dean removed from the bisexual category years ago, as that hidden note points to. But it seems justifiable to have him in the LGBT category for reasons Bearcat and I stated in this discussion at the Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality talk page. By linking his username now, I also invite Light show, who removed the category before I reverted him, to discuss this. I see that he is also discussing a LGBT matter with regard to the Greta Garbo article. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments are needed with regard to the linked matter in the heading of this section. I've already commented there. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Albert Fish, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 02:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This has probably been discussed before, so I wanted to bring it up here before taking any action. Why do we categorize people as "LGBT" something when more specific categories (especially ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Gay men and ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Lesbians) exist? I thought it was odd that we have ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT people by nationality but not ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Gay men by nationality or ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Lesbians by nationality. So Mathieu Chantelois is an LGBT person from Canada, not a gay Canadian (or gay Canadian male, if "gay" is deemed too broad). I understand some individuals won't neatly fit into one letter of LGBT, but when they do, doesn't it make sense to have more specific categories? -- BDD ( talk) 18:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
By and large, the practice of this project has been to avoid subdividing "LGBT" categories into distinct subcategories for each individual letter, except in a few very specific cases where a single "LGBT" category would be populated into the thousands. That goes for occupational categories (a few of which have quadranted subcategories but most of which do not) and for "nationality" ones (none of which have the quadrants and none of which have sufficient population to need them anyway).
Particularly because LGBT-related categorization is still a sensitive issue that raises WP:BLP concerns, the project's goal when it comes to "LGBT people" categories has always been to strike a balance: we want there to be enough categories for the tree to be useful, but we also don't want there to be so many categories that the tree becomes too unwieldy to properly monitor for vandalism or BLP issues. And accordingly, part of the balance that was chosen was to keep most categories at the common "LGBT" level rather than comprehensively subdividing them, and to allow quadrant-specific subcategories only in cases where the common "LGBT" category was getting large enough to need the breakdown on size grounds.
Just as an example to illustrate the problem, let's say that you created "Gay men from Canada", "Lesbians from Canada", "Bisexual people from Canada" and "Transgender and transsexual people from Canada". A lot of people could be filtered down into the subcategories, true, but there would still be a few people who would have to be left in the main ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT people from Canada parent for the reasons noted above — with the result being that instead of having one category to monitor for vandals who still think it's funny to add Justin Bieber, you now have five.
Now keep going, and maybe you'll see the problem even more clearly: every "LGBT" category that we have on Wikipedia turns into five categories instead of one? Dear gawd, please no. Bearcat ( talk) 08:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
While the world's eyes are on Russia at the moment, that phrase is not exactly a new concept. As British editors will recall, we had our own "promotion of homosexuality" law (which, thank Christ, only applied to schools and local councils) which got repealed ten years ago. However, the idea of homosexual propaganda still exists here (I've come across four schools whose SRE policies prohibit it, despite the Equality Act), and Section 28 is often brought up to compare similar proposed (but never passed) laws and bill amendments, both here and overseas. I seem to remember Tennessee had what was effectively Section 28 passed a few years ago, for example?
In any case, the idea of homosexuality as something that can be "promoted", and this being an excuse to oppose or roll back LGBT rights, is a possible case for an article; do others think this is the case? Sceptre ( talk) 00:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Members of WikiProject LGBT studies are invited to participate at a Request for Comments concerning material on African countries' obligations under international law to protect LGBT rights. — Psychonaut ( talk) 12:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys, can i get some more eyes at the Coalition for Marriage article. I'm not able to scrutinise every edit at the moment and strangely the article is attracting more brand new users than it was when it was in the news on a weekly basis. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 10:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This and this are matters some of you might be interested in commenting on. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
After seeing the debates at Chaz Bono, Laura Jane Grace, and now Chelsea Manning regarding MOS:IDENTITY, it seems like some sort of essay might be helpful explaining the basic principles behind the guideline. I don't think the level of understanding of trans issues in the general public is very high, and a quick overview might make a lot of things clearer for many editors. Do we have anything like that?
I've done up a draft here; please feel free to edit, as I am not an expert on transgender issues. I think it would ultimately live best as a project space essay, perhaps at WP:GENDERIDENTITY.-- Trystan ( talk) 00:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to readers of this talk page. Josh Gorand ( talk) 23:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Totally serendipitously, I've stumbled upon what looks to me like an aspect of the "List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films" pages that is out of synch with the Manual of Style guideline on flag icons. Beyond notifying this wiki-project about it, I'm going to leave the issue alone. It's my hope that there will be a recognition here that the flags provide no additional information beyond that already conveyed by the names of the countries they decorate. That's the logic behind the guideline. Happy editing. David in DC ( talk) 03:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
An article in this WikiProject,
Pangender, has been proposed for a
merge with the article
Genderqueer. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
April Arcus (
talk)
07:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I have updated Missing LGBT topics - Skysmith ( talk) 10:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I have proposed that Homophobia in the black community should be split into separate articles Homophobia in the African American community and Homophobia in the Black British community anybody with opinions would be most welcome. Dwanyewest ( talk) 20:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, a larger article covering several ethnicities sounds like a good idea. Some might not have enough material to warrant stand-alone articles. Maybe model it after the LGBT and religion topics article? There would also be some overlap where we already have articles like Judaism and sexual orientation for example. I still don't think the "Homophobia in..." format is neutral, and indeed, some of the content already in the Homophobia in the Black Diasporic community (like the number of openly LGBT people, or president Obama speaking out against homophobia) would fit better under a more general "LGBT and the Black Diasporic community" rubric. Siawase ( talk) 09:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey all, after reading this news story about a victory for same-sex couples in the case of Cooper-Harris v. United States, I went looking for the wikiarticle but all I can find is one short mention here. Since this case has major effects regarding veterans benefits for same-sex couples, seems like it deserves its own article. I don't have time to create one and track down refs and legal citations - anyone else want to give it a go? Textorus ( talk) 17:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Can I get more eyes at the LGBT rights in Russia article. IP users are making many questionable and POV edits. Thanks!-- В и к и T 19:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Template:MOS-TM and Template:MOS-TW have been nominated for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 31#Template:MOS-TM and Template:MOS-TW. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Go to the bottom of Talk:Christine Jorgensen and you'll see a discussion between just 2 users; myself and User:JanetWand. JanetWand appears to believe that I don't understand the difference between gender and sex. The truth is that I do, but that gender is the method that Wikipedia is supposed to use when determining how to refer to trans people. Anyone (besides JanetWand) able to reveal their thoughts on the discussion?? Georgia guy ( talk) 17:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Georgia guy does not seem to be able to demonstrate his understanding of the terms, and is making a superfluous edit of the term male to female when referring to the process that Ms. Jorgensen underwent in her transition, going from male to female. He seems to think that using male is offensive here, but I say it is not, but is merely the truth in describing what occurred and the conventional expression. I am a transwoman, and it does not offend me, however, we would like to hear from others. I feel confident that I can demonstrate that this is how medical professionals refer to the procedure, which by itself should be enough to render GeorgiaGuy's argument baseless. GeorgiaGuy is working with another user, both of whom seem to have the agenda of revising gender terminology, which is a noble cause, but one which oversteps its usefulness here, in my opinion. At the very least his argument represents a fringe movement, not the concensus view. However, the subject is open to discussion. JanetWand ( talk) 20:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
For clarification, I have a big concern that people who see the term "male-to-female" on Wikipedia will think that it's perfectly okay for Wikipedia to say that trans women actually were men, as opposed to women trapped in men's bodies, before the surgery operation. Georgia guy ( talk) 01:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)