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 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox person#Spouse and Partner parameters and I'd appreciate additional input.
The reason I'm posting here is that this issue is of relevance for WikiProject LGBT studies in that the "Spouse" infobox parameter appears to place undue emphasis on marriage over non-married unions.
E.g., a married or formerly married person's infobox may state their marriages under the "Spouse(s)" parameter, and then below that their non-married partnerships under the "Partner(s)" parameter, clearly setting them apart and placing undue emphasis on marriage.
This also means that e.g. a homosexual person living where they cannot marry, or anyone just choosing to not get married but living in a relationship, would be assigned the --in context-- "lesser" or at least substantially-different-from-marriage label of "partnership".
This is not the only issue I see with these infobox parameters. They also lead to unwieldy things like e.g. on Natalie Portman, the article that initially brought me to the template. See the template talk page for more on that.
Imho, the Spouse and Partner parameters should unified, in order to remove the cultural bias of unduly emphasizing marriage over non-married relationships. Your input is welcome. -- 213.168.108.17 ( talk) 12:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
You probably want to know about this. Rcsprinter (state) @ 17:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Could somone transclude Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Spark (2nd nomination) to the proper related delsort(s)? Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
This in reference to me changing the offensive term "homosexual" to "gay". Are there similar WP:MOS guidelines on referring to classes of people? Common sense tells me and probably most people not to refer to black people as nigger or Jewish people as kike, but it's a little different in reference to gay vs homosexual. Is this better discussed at WT:MOS? CTF83! 08:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe people will leap to assumptions about me on the grounds of this, but I certainly do not recognise the term homosexual as outdated, aggresive or biased. I would consider it as simply the opposite of heterosexual, and compared to gay, more formal and technical, and therefore more suited to a project that is meant to have a formal tone. Kevin McE ( talk) 11:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
One thing we should note here is that there is some slightly subtle usage differences, and context will determine which ones to use. 'Gay' can be used to refer both to people who are attracted to people of the same sex, and it can also be used to to refer to a gay identity. David Halperin has written a book on the topic that I'm planning to write an article on shortly. Chris Morris says he doesn't identify as gay in this article. There's different uses: Halperin uses it to refer to a shared culture of camp and so on, while Chris Morris is referring to it pejoratively as being like a "mask" that some people hide behind. All of this differs from Men who have sex with men, the clinical category which is used in things like HIV/AIDS prevention. I guess what I'm saying is that we shouldn't have a hard-and-fast rule about whether to use "gay" or "homosexual" or even "men who have sex with men". It depends on context and sources (go back far enough and we'll start talking "homophiles"). That said, I will be rather disappointed if the next time a celebrity comes out, their article gets updated to talk about how they are gender "inverts" or some such nonsense. There shouldn't really be politics here: most of the time and in most contexts, if you are referring to a man who is sexually and romantically attracted to other men, you probably want the term "gay". Probably. Not always. There will be exceptions. But that's the term that is in wide use in academic and media sources.
On a personal note, I'm not offended when someone refers to me as a "homosexual"; I just ask them whether they are going to ride in their horseless carriage to visit a phrenologist. — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Looking for published style guides, I note that the Guardian simply states that gay is an adjective, not a noun; the Times notes gay as a "fully acceptable as a synonym for homosexual or lesbian"; the Economist points out that homosexual refers equally to men and to women, and the Guardian and the BBC are silent on the matter. None of the online journalistic style guides linked at
style guide indicate any preference between the two terms, and none deprecate homosexual. Are there major established style guides that take the opposite view?
Kevin McE (
talk) 13:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I just Googled for use of the word "homosexuals" and the word "gay" in the New York Times. On the first page of results, all of the results for "gay" are from 2012. The results for "homosexuals" aren't: they are mostly from the 1980s and early 1990s. A search for "gay" and "homosexuals" in The Guardian leaves the latter outnumbered "about 9,100" to "about 150,000". (One of the top results is a piece advocating that the Guardian stop using the word 'homosexual'.) BBC has the same: about 113,000 for 'gay' and "about 4,410" for 'homosexuals'. Not a scientific study, but if we're going to follow reliable sources... — Tom Morris ( talk) 13:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Historical articles should use the word gay with care. For example, discussions of service by gay men and women in the US military circa 1945. The word gay is jarring in that context. Many (I think just about all) of the first set of edits made last night to DADT were well considered, I thought, but ham-fisted when dealing with background decades. I figured I'd wait until the undo-ing festival ended and then do a few modest repairs, with quotes if need be, but one really shouldn't be required to re-write with quotes to make simple points. Words like homosexual and queer are occasionally appropriate. Categorical rules never work. ;) Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 15:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Can we try to establish what we agree on here? How does everyone feel about the following points?
I'd also say that I agree with everything Tom Morris has posted here. - htonl ( talk) 10:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The study of mental health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations has been complicated by the debate on the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder during the 1960s and early 1970s. That debate posited a gay-affirmative perspective, which sought to declassify homosexuality, against a conservative perspective, which sought to retain the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder (Bayer, 1981). Although the debate on classification ended in 1973 with the removal of homosexuality from the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; American Psychiatric Association, 1973), its heritage has lasted. This heritage has tainted discussion on mental health of lesbians and gay men by associating—even equating—claims that LGB people have higher prevalences of mental disorders than heterosexual people with the historical antigay stance and the stigmatization of LGB persons (Bailey, 1999).
The religious right still promotes the persistent use of homosexual to spread Anti-Gay Myths. Insomesia ( talk) 00:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Can't believe I missed this discussion and am amazed at some of the comments. One in particluar that glares is the comment about the term homosexuality not being a reference to the romantic side but just centering on the sex. Really? because a very recent discussion on the article Homosexuality was clear that the term does indeed refer to romance. Hey...I even brought the discussion here and it gained little momentum. Comparing homosexual to "nigger" is a point of view. I would think that the comparison would be "fag" as the terms are bastardisations of other words where homosexual is just a 19th century invention based on latin terms.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Adding a break for accessibility, and hopefully to help coalesce agreement around htonl's suggested guidelines from above (modified):
Regarding the SPLC article there was some disagreement as to how to characterize its use of homosexual, which it might be helpful to clarify. It uses the noun homosexuality 28 times, including in the SPLC's voice; I don't think there is any question about this usage. Outside of quotes, it uses homosexual as an adjective 4 times (all of which occur when attributing positions to others), vastly preferring gay. It uses homosexual or homosexuals as nouns only in quotes from anti-gay organizations ("the homosexual must be completely eliminated," "the Nazi party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals"). In other words, it agrees strongly with the points suggested above. As an adjective, homosexual is occasionally appropriate, especially when paraphrasing. It should not be used as a noun in Wikipedia's voice. This is in strong agreement with the AP and WP style guides. So can we agree that the above points (with suggested modifications) are a good guideline, and that further discussion on specific uses can occur in articles?-- Trystan ( talk) 16:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposal to change the 2013 naming to 2013 in LGBT events or something similar because currently it lists "Deaths" and there are often disputes in what constitutes a right, whereas a process of laws and comments are not so, though they could be influential in LGBT affairs
Please comment on whether Category:American LGBT-related television programs is an appropriate category for this particular season, which featured three openly gay contestants (including the winning team). Category was added and removed, once by someone who says that the show is not "just for Gays" and it's "not just directed at those people". A second editor removed the category with the comment "absolutely not" and has refused to comment further. Buck Winston ( talk) 22:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
"Expressing interest" means tagging the article with this project on its talk page. A Category is something quite different. I think the Cat is justified. The show is "related" -- that doesn't mean just for any audience segment or just about any one thing. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 00:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the topic of whether or not to split the Androphilia and gynephilia article so that there are separate articles, with one titled Androphilia and the other titled Gynephilia. The discussion is at Talk:Androphilia and gynephilia#Split and restore. Like I stated there, I would also leave a note about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, but that WikiProject is pretty much dead. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Discussion is starting on how to best improve and expand Gay literature and move the article back to it's old title, LGBT literature. Interested editors should give their input on the article talk page. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 17:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I'm a newbie to editing Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I'm not using the appropriate channel here to address my concerns. Basically, I'm having a dispute with another editor on the Laura Jane Grace article. For those not familiar with her, Laura Jane Grace is a trans woman and the lead singer of the American punk rock band Against Me!. There is another editor who insists that virtually the entire article on her be written using her former male name, Tom Gabel. I believe that this editor is injecting his own personal opinion about the validity of Grace's identity into this article and that in doing so he is violating NPOV.
Reputable articles on The Guardian and MTV.com describe Grace by using her current name--even for events that happened to her long before she came out. This other editor, however, is reverting all my edits that attempt to incorporate information from these articles as well as my other attempts to update the rest of the Wikipedia entry to reflect Grace's current identity. I believe that continuing to use Grace's former name throughout 90% of the article is not consistent with the precedent on Wikipedia regarding other transgender individuals or with the spirit of the MOS:IDENTITY guideline. I would appreciate it if anyone here has any advice to me as to how I could best handle this situation. Thanks! Rebecca ( talk) 08:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Just letting the project know that this image is nominated at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 6#File:Ellengay.jpg. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This film is currently described here:
However, although there is a film released in 2000 of this name, the film described is not that plot. The film described on this page is a Spanish film in Spanish and released in called Segunda piel released (English title Second Skin). Clearly the title of the page should show 1999, not 2000. Also, since this is a Spanish film, maybe the title should be the original Spanish name? I have made the minimum edits to correct the year in the Info-box and lede paragraph, but leave it to others to amend the page title, etc. Enquire ( talk) 04:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
We are missing a few articles from the IoS' 2012 list: Note some of the blue links are pages or may be otherwise incorrect.
Rich
Farmbrough, 15:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC).
As the banner notices at the tops of articles may have informed you, Wikivoyage, the Wikimedia Foundation's fork of Wikitravel, has recently made its debut. Expeditions are the project's analog to Wikipedia's WikiProjects, and the LGBT Expedition has been started. The goal is to develop and maintain content that aids the LGBT traveler. We hope you join us. — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 19:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a BLP sourcing dispute which I have attempted to summarize at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lynette_Nusbacher. At issue is outing this person's change of gender. She is a LGBT hero in the UK. Insomesia ( talk) 11:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hate speech by one editor who is currently indefinitely blocked; part of it has already been removed.
|
---|
|
I have to say, I am very disapointed in the way I, and others were used by this "person". I am glad this issue is over and that we can move on. I have a feeling, however, from the last post on the user's talkpage (before it was protected) that this is not the last we hear from them.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Could some people please watch Template:Transgender sidebar? I removed a paysite for shemales that had been there for a while and now an anon is attempting to re-add it. I put in a request for semi-protection. Insomesia ( talk) 02:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I would expect that members of this project might want to comment on this discussion. Mangoe ( talk) 01:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
A category deletion discussion for Category:LGBT scientists and Category:Transgender and transsexual scientists is currently taking place at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 23#Category:LGBT scientists. - Mr X 02:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
A large number of subcategories from Category:LGBT people by occupation has been proposed for deletion in the last few days. Already deleted are LGBT austronauts, LGBT linguists and LGBT psychologists. Category:LGBT_physicians is proposed for speedy deletion. LGBT_scientists and LGBT_historians are currently at CFD. The main argument for deletion is that "Being LGBT and a x ocupation is not a cultural topic in its own right". If that argument is accepted, than all subcategories from Category:LGBT people by occupation will probably be deleted. I think that members of this project should have the opportunity to express their opinion, no matter what that opinion is.-- В и к и T 12:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
When I was writing the notice, I was particularly careful not to break WP:CANVASS, and I'm confident that I haven't broken that or any other policy or guideline. My English is not good enough, perhaps I used some inadequate word or phrase. Be that as it may, from now on I will post only generic template-like notices about categories at CFD. I'm very concerned because it's obvious that a very small group of regular users at WP:CFD makes all decisions without input from community and relevant wikiprojects. There is no deletion sorting for categories, and they are watched by very small number of users, so the problem is not insignificant.-- В и к и T 21:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
More opinions welcome here. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 15:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Per no objections here for over a month, I've created the above page. The lead is horrible now, so if someone wants to help with that! CTF83! 01:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey, everyone. The title of this section essentially explains it all. Opinions are needed on the matter it mentions. The discussion it found at Talk:Genderfuck#Merge proposal. Flyer22 ( talk) 15:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Discussion here. More opinions welcome and necessary. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 12:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I have just created a new article called Transexual pornography if anyone can help I would appreicate it. Dwanyewest ( talk) 15:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to invite people to check out and comment on a new project being organized by Wikimedia LGBT, the LGBT Free Media Collective on Wikimedia Commons. The LGBT Free Media Collective is a collaborative effort by LGBT organizations and Wikimedia projects to collect, archive and make available media files related to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities. To date the collective has contributed 740 media files to Wikimedia Commons. -- Varnent ( talk)( COI) 05:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to invite people to check out and comment on an additional new project being organized by Wikimedia LGBT, Wiki Loves Pride. The idea behind " Wiki Loves Pride" is a global campaign to expand and improve LGBT related content across several Wikimedia projects. The activities of Wiki Loves Pride are focused on June and October. Thousands of LGBT cultural events and celebrations are held around the world during the month of June. October is observed in several nations as LGBT History Month (others observe it in February - which may be added in future years) and is also when "coming out" is celebrated. -- Varnent ( talk)( COI) 05:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Neutrois people are people who do not identify with male or female and seek to remove any body parts associated with either gender. This wish to remove such parts comes from what is known as dysphoria, a strong displeasure with something, and transgender people feel the same feelings.
Anyone heard of this? Or is it just a non-notable neologism? Insomesia ( talk) 21:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#Blanking of content verified by multiple reliable sources. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to let the project know about two discussions taking place that fall within its scope.
-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I came across this neglected, little orphan of an article today, and have expanded it somewhat and provided more references. I've added the LGBT studies project banner to the talk page. If not appropriate, please remove. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 10:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
We have no article on Gay propaganda? I've created one at that link in my user space here. If you have any tips, advice, or contributions then chuck them in. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 10:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I think some people have either failed to do the simplest google search here to see what's available before commenting, or have misunderstood. Although i will take the advice of FisherQueen and merge this into Homophobic propaganda. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:49, 8 March 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 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox person#Spouse and Partner parameters and I'd appreciate additional input.
The reason I'm posting here is that this issue is of relevance for WikiProject LGBT studies in that the "Spouse" infobox parameter appears to place undue emphasis on marriage over non-married unions.
E.g., a married or formerly married person's infobox may state their marriages under the "Spouse(s)" parameter, and then below that their non-married partnerships under the "Partner(s)" parameter, clearly setting them apart and placing undue emphasis on marriage.
This also means that e.g. a homosexual person living where they cannot marry, or anyone just choosing to not get married but living in a relationship, would be assigned the --in context-- "lesser" or at least substantially-different-from-marriage label of "partnership".
This is not the only issue I see with these infobox parameters. They also lead to unwieldy things like e.g. on Natalie Portman, the article that initially brought me to the template. See the template talk page for more on that.
Imho, the Spouse and Partner parameters should unified, in order to remove the cultural bias of unduly emphasizing marriage over non-married relationships. Your input is welcome. -- 213.168.108.17 ( talk) 12:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
You probably want to know about this. Rcsprinter (state) @ 17:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Could somone transclude Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Spark (2nd nomination) to the proper related delsort(s)? Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
This in reference to me changing the offensive term "homosexual" to "gay". Are there similar WP:MOS guidelines on referring to classes of people? Common sense tells me and probably most people not to refer to black people as nigger or Jewish people as kike, but it's a little different in reference to gay vs homosexual. Is this better discussed at WT:MOS? CTF83! 08:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe people will leap to assumptions about me on the grounds of this, but I certainly do not recognise the term homosexual as outdated, aggresive or biased. I would consider it as simply the opposite of heterosexual, and compared to gay, more formal and technical, and therefore more suited to a project that is meant to have a formal tone. Kevin McE ( talk) 11:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
One thing we should note here is that there is some slightly subtle usage differences, and context will determine which ones to use. 'Gay' can be used to refer both to people who are attracted to people of the same sex, and it can also be used to to refer to a gay identity. David Halperin has written a book on the topic that I'm planning to write an article on shortly. Chris Morris says he doesn't identify as gay in this article. There's different uses: Halperin uses it to refer to a shared culture of camp and so on, while Chris Morris is referring to it pejoratively as being like a "mask" that some people hide behind. All of this differs from Men who have sex with men, the clinical category which is used in things like HIV/AIDS prevention. I guess what I'm saying is that we shouldn't have a hard-and-fast rule about whether to use "gay" or "homosexual" or even "men who have sex with men". It depends on context and sources (go back far enough and we'll start talking "homophiles"). That said, I will be rather disappointed if the next time a celebrity comes out, their article gets updated to talk about how they are gender "inverts" or some such nonsense. There shouldn't really be politics here: most of the time and in most contexts, if you are referring to a man who is sexually and romantically attracted to other men, you probably want the term "gay". Probably. Not always. There will be exceptions. But that's the term that is in wide use in academic and media sources.
On a personal note, I'm not offended when someone refers to me as a "homosexual"; I just ask them whether they are going to ride in their horseless carriage to visit a phrenologist. — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Looking for published style guides, I note that the Guardian simply states that gay is an adjective, not a noun; the Times notes gay as a "fully acceptable as a synonym for homosexual or lesbian"; the Economist points out that homosexual refers equally to men and to women, and the Guardian and the BBC are silent on the matter. None of the online journalistic style guides linked at
style guide indicate any preference between the two terms, and none deprecate homosexual. Are there major established style guides that take the opposite view?
Kevin McE (
talk) 13:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I just Googled for use of the word "homosexuals" and the word "gay" in the New York Times. On the first page of results, all of the results for "gay" are from 2012. The results for "homosexuals" aren't: they are mostly from the 1980s and early 1990s. A search for "gay" and "homosexuals" in The Guardian leaves the latter outnumbered "about 9,100" to "about 150,000". (One of the top results is a piece advocating that the Guardian stop using the word 'homosexual'.) BBC has the same: about 113,000 for 'gay' and "about 4,410" for 'homosexuals'. Not a scientific study, but if we're going to follow reliable sources... — Tom Morris ( talk) 13:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Historical articles should use the word gay with care. For example, discussions of service by gay men and women in the US military circa 1945. The word gay is jarring in that context. Many (I think just about all) of the first set of edits made last night to DADT were well considered, I thought, but ham-fisted when dealing with background decades. I figured I'd wait until the undo-ing festival ended and then do a few modest repairs, with quotes if need be, but one really shouldn't be required to re-write with quotes to make simple points. Words like homosexual and queer are occasionally appropriate. Categorical rules never work. ;) Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 15:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Can we try to establish what we agree on here? How does everyone feel about the following points?
I'd also say that I agree with everything Tom Morris has posted here. - htonl ( talk) 10:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The study of mental health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations has been complicated by the debate on the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder during the 1960s and early 1970s. That debate posited a gay-affirmative perspective, which sought to declassify homosexuality, against a conservative perspective, which sought to retain the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder (Bayer, 1981). Although the debate on classification ended in 1973 with the removal of homosexuality from the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; American Psychiatric Association, 1973), its heritage has lasted. This heritage has tainted discussion on mental health of lesbians and gay men by associating—even equating—claims that LGB people have higher prevalences of mental disorders than heterosexual people with the historical antigay stance and the stigmatization of LGB persons (Bailey, 1999).
The religious right still promotes the persistent use of homosexual to spread Anti-Gay Myths. Insomesia ( talk) 00:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Can't believe I missed this discussion and am amazed at some of the comments. One in particluar that glares is the comment about the term homosexuality not being a reference to the romantic side but just centering on the sex. Really? because a very recent discussion on the article Homosexuality was clear that the term does indeed refer to romance. Hey...I even brought the discussion here and it gained little momentum. Comparing homosexual to "nigger" is a point of view. I would think that the comparison would be "fag" as the terms are bastardisations of other words where homosexual is just a 19th century invention based on latin terms.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Adding a break for accessibility, and hopefully to help coalesce agreement around htonl's suggested guidelines from above (modified):
Regarding the SPLC article there was some disagreement as to how to characterize its use of homosexual, which it might be helpful to clarify. It uses the noun homosexuality 28 times, including in the SPLC's voice; I don't think there is any question about this usage. Outside of quotes, it uses homosexual as an adjective 4 times (all of which occur when attributing positions to others), vastly preferring gay. It uses homosexual or homosexuals as nouns only in quotes from anti-gay organizations ("the homosexual must be completely eliminated," "the Nazi party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals"). In other words, it agrees strongly with the points suggested above. As an adjective, homosexual is occasionally appropriate, especially when paraphrasing. It should not be used as a noun in Wikipedia's voice. This is in strong agreement with the AP and WP style guides. So can we agree that the above points (with suggested modifications) are a good guideline, and that further discussion on specific uses can occur in articles?-- Trystan ( talk) 16:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposal to change the 2013 naming to 2013 in LGBT events or something similar because currently it lists "Deaths" and there are often disputes in what constitutes a right, whereas a process of laws and comments are not so, though they could be influential in LGBT affairs
Please comment on whether Category:American LGBT-related television programs is an appropriate category for this particular season, which featured three openly gay contestants (including the winning team). Category was added and removed, once by someone who says that the show is not "just for Gays" and it's "not just directed at those people". A second editor removed the category with the comment "absolutely not" and has refused to comment further. Buck Winston ( talk) 22:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
"Expressing interest" means tagging the article with this project on its talk page. A Category is something quite different. I think the Cat is justified. The show is "related" -- that doesn't mean just for any audience segment or just about any one thing. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 00:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the topic of whether or not to split the Androphilia and gynephilia article so that there are separate articles, with one titled Androphilia and the other titled Gynephilia. The discussion is at Talk:Androphilia and gynephilia#Split and restore. Like I stated there, I would also leave a note about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, but that WikiProject is pretty much dead. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Discussion is starting on how to best improve and expand Gay literature and move the article back to it's old title, LGBT literature. Interested editors should give their input on the article talk page. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 17:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I'm a newbie to editing Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I'm not using the appropriate channel here to address my concerns. Basically, I'm having a dispute with another editor on the Laura Jane Grace article. For those not familiar with her, Laura Jane Grace is a trans woman and the lead singer of the American punk rock band Against Me!. There is another editor who insists that virtually the entire article on her be written using her former male name, Tom Gabel. I believe that this editor is injecting his own personal opinion about the validity of Grace's identity into this article and that in doing so he is violating NPOV.
Reputable articles on The Guardian and MTV.com describe Grace by using her current name--even for events that happened to her long before she came out. This other editor, however, is reverting all my edits that attempt to incorporate information from these articles as well as my other attempts to update the rest of the Wikipedia entry to reflect Grace's current identity. I believe that continuing to use Grace's former name throughout 90% of the article is not consistent with the precedent on Wikipedia regarding other transgender individuals or with the spirit of the MOS:IDENTITY guideline. I would appreciate it if anyone here has any advice to me as to how I could best handle this situation. Thanks! Rebecca ( talk) 08:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Just letting the project know that this image is nominated at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 6#File:Ellengay.jpg. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This film is currently described here:
However, although there is a film released in 2000 of this name, the film described is not that plot. The film described on this page is a Spanish film in Spanish and released in called Segunda piel released (English title Second Skin). Clearly the title of the page should show 1999, not 2000. Also, since this is a Spanish film, maybe the title should be the original Spanish name? I have made the minimum edits to correct the year in the Info-box and lede paragraph, but leave it to others to amend the page title, etc. Enquire ( talk) 04:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
We are missing a few articles from the IoS' 2012 list: Note some of the blue links are pages or may be otherwise incorrect.
Rich
Farmbrough, 15:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC).
As the banner notices at the tops of articles may have informed you, Wikivoyage, the Wikimedia Foundation's fork of Wikitravel, has recently made its debut. Expeditions are the project's analog to Wikipedia's WikiProjects, and the LGBT Expedition has been started. The goal is to develop and maintain content that aids the LGBT traveler. We hope you join us. — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 19:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a BLP sourcing dispute which I have attempted to summarize at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lynette_Nusbacher. At issue is outing this person's change of gender. She is a LGBT hero in the UK. Insomesia ( talk) 11:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hate speech by one editor who is currently indefinitely blocked; part of it has already been removed.
|
---|
|
I have to say, I am very disapointed in the way I, and others were used by this "person". I am glad this issue is over and that we can move on. I have a feeling, however, from the last post on the user's talkpage (before it was protected) that this is not the last we hear from them.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Could some people please watch Template:Transgender sidebar? I removed a paysite for shemales that had been there for a while and now an anon is attempting to re-add it. I put in a request for semi-protection. Insomesia ( talk) 02:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I would expect that members of this project might want to comment on this discussion. Mangoe ( talk) 01:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
A category deletion discussion for Category:LGBT scientists and Category:Transgender and transsexual scientists is currently taking place at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 23#Category:LGBT scientists. - Mr X 02:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
A large number of subcategories from Category:LGBT people by occupation has been proposed for deletion in the last few days. Already deleted are LGBT austronauts, LGBT linguists and LGBT psychologists. Category:LGBT_physicians is proposed for speedy deletion. LGBT_scientists and LGBT_historians are currently at CFD. The main argument for deletion is that "Being LGBT and a x ocupation is not a cultural topic in its own right". If that argument is accepted, than all subcategories from Category:LGBT people by occupation will probably be deleted. I think that members of this project should have the opportunity to express their opinion, no matter what that opinion is.-- В и к и T 12:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
When I was writing the notice, I was particularly careful not to break WP:CANVASS, and I'm confident that I haven't broken that or any other policy or guideline. My English is not good enough, perhaps I used some inadequate word or phrase. Be that as it may, from now on I will post only generic template-like notices about categories at CFD. I'm very concerned because it's obvious that a very small group of regular users at WP:CFD makes all decisions without input from community and relevant wikiprojects. There is no deletion sorting for categories, and they are watched by very small number of users, so the problem is not insignificant.-- В и к и T 21:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
More opinions welcome here. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 15:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Per no objections here for over a month, I've created the above page. The lead is horrible now, so if someone wants to help with that! CTF83! 01:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey, everyone. The title of this section essentially explains it all. Opinions are needed on the matter it mentions. The discussion it found at Talk:Genderfuck#Merge proposal. Flyer22 ( talk) 15:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Discussion here. More opinions welcome and necessary. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 12:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I have just created a new article called Transexual pornography if anyone can help I would appreicate it. Dwanyewest ( talk) 15:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to invite people to check out and comment on a new project being organized by Wikimedia LGBT, the LGBT Free Media Collective on Wikimedia Commons. The LGBT Free Media Collective is a collaborative effort by LGBT organizations and Wikimedia projects to collect, archive and make available media files related to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities. To date the collective has contributed 740 media files to Wikimedia Commons. -- Varnent ( talk)( COI) 05:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to invite people to check out and comment on an additional new project being organized by Wikimedia LGBT, Wiki Loves Pride. The idea behind " Wiki Loves Pride" is a global campaign to expand and improve LGBT related content across several Wikimedia projects. The activities of Wiki Loves Pride are focused on June and October. Thousands of LGBT cultural events and celebrations are held around the world during the month of June. October is observed in several nations as LGBT History Month (others observe it in February - which may be added in future years) and is also when "coming out" is celebrated. -- Varnent ( talk)( COI) 05:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Neutrois people are people who do not identify with male or female and seek to remove any body parts associated with either gender. This wish to remove such parts comes from what is known as dysphoria, a strong displeasure with something, and transgender people feel the same feelings.
Anyone heard of this? Or is it just a non-notable neologism? Insomesia ( talk) 21:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#Blanking of content verified by multiple reliable sources. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to let the project know about two discussions taking place that fall within its scope.
-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I came across this neglected, little orphan of an article today, and have expanded it somewhat and provided more references. I've added the LGBT studies project banner to the talk page. If not appropriate, please remove. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 10:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
We have no article on Gay propaganda? I've created one at that link in my user space here. If you have any tips, advice, or contributions then chuck them in. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 10:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I think some people have either failed to do the simplest google search here to see what's available before commenting, or have misunderstood. Although i will take the advice of FisherQueen and merge this into Homophobic propaganda. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)