Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 12
 | This page 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. |
Double Dog Dare for the Dudes
Much of what I've been working on in this project has to do with pre-Stonewall lesbians, and I'm finding much of the resources for the articles I'm working on are related to men's issues. Barbara Gittings (I'm working on) and Frank Kameny (I haven't) worked together, but their articles are quite different, despite the fact that Kameny is alive and well and has his own website (hint, fellows - write to him). The Daughters of Bilitis (working on) and the Mattachine Society (haven't worked on), and The Ladder (working on) and ONE, Inc. (not working on) are also quite different also despite the fact that there seems to be a lot more information on the Mattachine Society than the DOB. Articles are only as good as people who care about them, so if any guys out there who are history buffs want to take me on in a specialized jumpaclass article competition to improve these articles, let me know. I'm working on GA or FA class for mine. I'll point you toward the references I used, assist and whatnot. It's not that I'm a sexist pig or anything - I seriously don't have the time for all the information available on the early homophile movement. My stupid job gets in the way.
So - any takers? Must I resort to insulting your mothers, dance skills, or taste in disco? Must I??? --Moni3 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Content dispute RfC on Chris Crocker
Talk:Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) Content dispute if source of content is considered reliable to subject, need outside opinions. Posting to both wikiprojects associated with article. Benjiboi 20:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Putting out another call for help as article has been locked for nearly a month. Please consider offering a comment it should only take a few minutes. Benjiboi 05:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm reposting as this has gone on six weeks and there doesn't seem to be any movement from either side to change position. Could some other editors please weigh in your wisdom is appreciated! Benjiboi 04:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Proposed guidelines regarding sexuality
Following Wikipedia's policy for biographies of living people, an article may categorize and/or describe a person as lesbian, gay, and/or bisexual and/or transgender if reliably sourced material indicates one of the following criteria is met:
- A person identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, regardless of relationships or apparent gender, ie Billie Joe Armstrong.
- A person has had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes, such as Marlon Brando.
- Reliable sources allege the person to be, or have been, in relationships with their same sex or with both sexes, ie Lord Byron and Alfred Kinsey.
An article may categorize and/or describe a person as transgender if reliably sourced material indicates either a self-identification as transgender/transsexual or that the person meets the description of transgender.
- Open for comments
- Obviously, having written the original draft oh so long ago, I am all in favour. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment - It looks good now, but when applied practically, as in the case of Foster, who is in a relationship of 15 years with a woman, who she's raising children with, who she addressed publicly, we're still confused as to what to do. Is this relationship notable? Is it not romantic or sexual enough? --Moni3 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This standard would require us to remove the numerous cross-dressers, drag queens, and other gender noncomformists who are currently listed in "transgender and transsexual" categories and on the List of transgender people. Then there are the more difficult issues: what about people who qualify as transgender or transsexual by Wikipedia's definition, but who adamantly deny this label? I was able to find two clear examples of this in List of transgender people without scrolling past the C's"
- Wendy Carlos - Carlos has an entire page apparently dedicated to her intense dislike of being labeled "transgender" - "If you had recovered from cancer thirty years ago, would you enjoy being defined as "that person who was dying of cancer"? Could "cancer-victim" ever be your essential identity? Okay, then how about: "former cancer-victim?"" [1]
- Sara Davis Buechner - From the article: "She underwent gender reassignment surgery in 1998.[2] She dislikes the term "transsexual", and is said to be "mildly peeved" about being referred to as such, stating that living as a woman was the only honest way to live her life.[3]" The second article referenced contains this gem: "In fact, she's mildly peeved that her Wikipedia entry begins "Sara Davis Buechner is a transsexual American concert pianist and educator." Becoming a woman was simply the only way she could continue to live her life in an honest way–which is not, she admits, how others around her saw it."
This issue is going to come up time and time again, since many "FTMs" and "MTFs" self-identify as "male" and "female" respectively, and not as trans. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 17:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yeah. We should probably just knock the transgender bit and devlop different guidelines for them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- As much as I can't stand the critical theory crowd, I have the standard Foucault-style objections to (2) and (3). It seems problematic, e.g., to identify ancient Greeks or anyone pre-18th or 19th century as "gay". Fireplace (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- A second concern -- suppose a gay man is married to a woman, then divorces and marries a man (but without ever making a public statement to the effect of "I'm gay, not bi"). Would this guideline require us to incorrectly classify him as bi? Fireplace (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Depends - living or dead? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Either? Maybe I'm confused about the scope of this proposal -- is it limited to BLP? Fireplace (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, not limited to BLP, but BLP trumps this - it's a policy, what we're crafting is a guideline. So if the hypothetical person you mentioned didn't say anything (in words) all we can report is what they did - married so-and-so, then married so-and-so. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- If one takes the word "gay", not to mean a specific label but to mean the sexual identity which has come to be known as gay, then it's easy to label, say, Louisa May Alcott, who stated "...I have fallen in love with so many pretty girls and never once the least bit with any man" as a lesbian, even if she wouldn't have understood the concept. Regarding the hypothetical gay/bi man, these proposals ARE only guidelines - they can't cover every case ever. Oscar Wilde breaks virtually every mould people have tried to place him in, for example. Ant (comedian) has also proved something of a headache given he has stated himself as being gay, bi, AND straight at various times. Sexuality being the messy, fluidy, slippy (that didn't come out right) thing that it is, we can't hope to nail everyone down with one definitive guideline - but we can get as close as we can, and WT:LGBT is here for the rest. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Both the issues I raised reflect my underlying hesitancy about identifying someone's sexuality on the basis of their relationships. I suspect that this might create more distress than it resolves: as far as I can tell, #2 and #3 would only apply to dead people (otherwise BLP would trump?), and #2 and #3 would only be used when there isn't a reliable source that calls that person gay/lesbian/bi. But those are probably exactly the cases where there would be dispute over whether the label "gay/lesbian/bi" is appropriate (otherwise the reliable source probably would have used that label). Fireplace (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- No-one's addressed your comment, so I thought I'd give it a stab. Identifying someone based on their relationships is secondary to their self-identification. And it's the way we (Wikipedia) are most likely to succeed - relationships are documented far more often than inner thoughts and feelings :)
- These guidelines are mostly for dead people, you're right. BLP definitely trumps. You're right about #2 & #3 - they're the reason the guideline comes in to play, for the most part. The examples given are exactly the kinds the guideline was created. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Both the issues I raised reflect my underlying hesitancy about identifying someone's sexuality on the basis of their relationships. I suspect that this might create more distress than it resolves: as far as I can tell, #2 and #3 would only apply to dead people (otherwise BLP would trump?), and #2 and #3 would only be used when there isn't a reliable source that calls that person gay/lesbian/bi. But those are probably exactly the cases where there would be dispute over whether the label "gay/lesbian/bi" is appropriate (otherwise the reliable source probably would have used that label). Fireplace (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Either? Maybe I'm confused about the scope of this proposal -- is it limited to BLP? Fireplace (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Depends - living or dead? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Related issue for lists
Related to the question of these guidelines is how we label people in our LGB lists. I think an anonymous IP user recently labeled everyone in the A list, which was then reverted. I confess to sympathising with said IP. It strikes me as non-NPOV to label specifically only known bisexuals, and not known gays and lesbians. Aleta (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I made the revert, Aleta. My reasoning was that if they were on the list, it was obvious if they were gay or lesbian. It was only the bisexuals who needed clarification. I don't see that as POV, just sort of Duh. Jeffpw (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- That issue came up on one of the FLC's, too. It assumes that one can tell who on the list is male (and therefore gay by default) or female (and therefore lesbian). I'm torn on the issue, but don't really see the need for the "gay" or "lesbian" on the lists. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think by their being on the list, it's obvious they are one of the three (the "duh" aspect), but it seems like by singling out bisexuality for specification, it appears to make it the "odd one". Aleta (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it sort of is. There's only a few per list, after all, it doesn't seem extraordinary to point them out. Personally, I like to see my own. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think by their being on the list, it's obvious they are one of the three (the "duh" aspect), but it seems like by singling out bisexuality for specification, it appears to make it the "odd one". Aleta (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- That issue came up on one of the FLC's, too. It assumes that one can tell who on the list is male (and therefore gay by default) or female (and therefore lesbian). I'm torn on the issue, but don't really see the need for the "gay" or "lesbian" on the lists. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Respectfully disagree, there are quite a few folks whose self-labeling changes and others who simply reject any labels. Perhaps the lede should be adjusted accordingly to reflect that individuals may alter from being considered exclusively gay or lesbian to bisexual and vice versa? Benjiboi 06:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's really not helpful to people looking at the list though. If their self-labelling changes, then we can change it, and if they refuse to label themselves, we do it for them (admittedly this is a rather harsh view, but you've probably gathered by now that I think insisting you have no defined sexual orientation is daft). We already do for the purposes of categorisation anyway. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- The more I think about this, the more I'm changing my mind. I wouldn't mind combining the "Notes" column (which is really just for indicating bisexuals) and the "Refs" column. That way each person listed could have: L37, which would serve the triple purpose of a) removing white-space, b) indicating which of "LGB" each person is, and c) not singling out the Bi-s. Insert Bingo™ joke here. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I like this suggestion. I have no objection to there being labels, just to singling out bisexuals. Aleta (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds interesting. Could be difficult for those we have noted as being problematic - but then we could just stick that in a secondary footnote to draw people's attention. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- The more I think about this, the more I'm changing my mind. I wouldn't mind combining the "Notes" column (which is really just for indicating bisexuals) and the "Refs" column. That way each person listed could have: L37, which would serve the triple purpose of a) removing white-space, b) indicating which of "LGB" each person is, and c) not singling out the Bi-s. Insert Bingo™ joke here. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's really not helpful to people looking at the list though. If their self-labelling changes, then we can change it, and if they refuse to label themselves, we do it for them (admittedly this is a rather harsh view, but you've probably gathered by now that I think insisting you have no defined sexual orientation is daft). We already do for the purposes of categorisation anyway. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This Gay Lib v. University of Missouri should be added to that section [4]. In 1977 William Rehnquist condoned the University of Missouri's refusal to recognise a gay students' organisation. See the Harvard Law Review, volume 98. I don't have time to expand - maybe someone else does? It seems like an interesting case.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Actor/actress
Has this group considered going with gender-neutral language for actors on the lists of LGBT people? You don't say poetess, sculptress, etc., and actor is just as correct for women as it is for men. Most occupations on your list don't indicate gender -- why not do the same for actors? --Melty girl (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support; we don't say "Professoress" or "Surgeoness" either; female actors should have their profession described with the original word, "actor". Photouploaded (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I always write actor for both genders, unless I am writing about someone from the Golden Age of film, where it seems forced. Jeffpw (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Would you still call Emily Dickinson a poetess? :) --Melty girl (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Objection. Poetess is a word. I think you are alluding to the issue of catachresis that comes with queerness in language, but in the patriarchal, heteronormative world that we live in, language has still not been deconstructed and I don't believe you can just throw it out of the window and ignore it, it's still there. There is a binary opposition between inside and outside (see Diana Fuss), in this particular instance male/female, and to say male for everyone would be slightly simplistic.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Would you still call Emily Dickinson a poetess? :) --Melty girl (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I always write actor for both genders, unless I am writing about someone from the Golden Age of film, where it seems forced. Jeffpw (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- The two words, "actor" and "actress" are not the male and female version of the words. They are, respectively, the word for the profession, and, a feminized version of the word. The word "actor" simply means "one who acts", just as a professor is one who professes, and a surgeon is one who performs surgery. "Actor", for everyone, is not "male for everyone", it's "the word for the profession, used for everyone". Photouploaded (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Poetess is a word, but it's a discarded word. Just because Emily Dickinson was called a poetess in her time doesn't mean that we should still call her that here on WP. And yes, "actress" is still used, but "actor" is also currently used to refer to female actors. Men have one option, women have two. Shouldn't we go with the gender-neutral option? --Melty girl (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be neutral to use a masculine word for a woman. The idea that 'actress' is an offshoot of 'actor' sounds like an updated version of Eve being an offshoot of Adam. It is actually quite misogynistic - and whilst it might be a socially widely-upheld idea, we can subvert, shift and 'queer' it through usage. I am probably quite hopeful in that I believe an actress to be just as talented as an actor. People are welcome to use 'actor' for an actress if they think that sounds better, but I am not of that opinion, and I believe that would lead to being blinkered in light of the patriarchal, heteronormative order. The main issue with gender within language though would be transgenders.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Poetess is a word, but it's a discarded word. Just because Emily Dickinson was called a poetess in her time doesn't mean that we should still call her that here on WP. And yes, "actress" is still used, but "actor" is also currently used to refer to female actors. Men have one option, women have two. Shouldn't we go with the gender-neutral option? --Melty girl (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
See Actor#Terminology for a discussion of the terms. It gives some history of the usages. Aleta (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well then if it is historically an Adam-and-Eve-offshoot kind of thing, we can still queer it anyway. I do believe saying 'actor' for an actress would sound a lot more catachretic. Also bear in mind that most signifiers of professions were historically masculine because women didn't work, or their jobs were socially ignored or strongly downplayed.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Another way to look at it is that by using the same word for profession for a female as for a male, we indicate that females are equally able to perform that task. A female's performance of the task does not require a special word to distinguish it from the "real" task, the one performed by males. Photouploaded (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Are you in favor of every occupation being split into gendered words even though the job is the exactly same? Should we bring back poetess, sculptress, stewardess, and aviatrix? Should we start referring to women directors as directresses? I think you are mistaken that this would be subversive. The reason why so many of these words have been discarded is because the job is exactly the same, so to distinguish when women do the job serves to make us second-class. The whole point is that women can do the same work than men can do and do not need a separate category. --Melty girl (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is not catachresis. The definition of the word "actor" is "one who acts." The HISTORY of "poetess", etc., is that women were considered second-class and that the dominant culture held that they did the same work in an inferior manner. Obviously, that was not the case, and the work is the same, so feminists worked long and hard for gender-neutral titles for jobs that were gender-neutral. I believe you are ignoring both the dictionary and the history. By your logic, we should go back to poetess and should move toward directress. --Melty girl (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your mentioning feminism is interesting. In other languages like French, feminists have striven to have words like 'actress' used instead of the male equivalent. Language is always catachretic, that harks back to the Saussurian distinction between signified and signifier I believe. Anyway, I still believe to call someone of female gender with a feminine noun is less catachretic than to call them with a masculine noun. We can queer history and meaning. This whole debate is highly political. By using a masculine noun for a woman, I think you, or your strand of feminism apparently, are attempting to disregard the patriarchal order. That is jejune. Surely the idea would be to expose it and threaten it by wearing it down.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Zigzig20s, we've only got three choices here: use a feminine word, use a word that can be masculine, feminine, or gender neutral, or use an awkward phrase like "Person who acts". We can argue this all the way around the block, but I say we go with the one that's a) gender neutral, b) ambiguous (you choose the gender), and c) less prone to error. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- 'Person who acts' might be the best option, actually. That would be long in a sentence but on a list perhaps that would work?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't care what term we use, as long as it doesn't require us to have separate "male" and "female" lists. This is for practical rather than ideological reasons. Separate lists make it more difficult to find things, since you have to keep going back and forth from one to the other, and they require more maintenance. People have to do twice as much work to find information about a topic just because of a quirk in the English language. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 02:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would second that, because ultimately what matters is the profession - that's what those people would be on that list for. We can ignore the patriarchal order by using the masculine noun as generic but that makes it harder to expose it and threaten it and wear it down. I am not a fan of assimilation, I believe that ultimately it gives more sway to the dominating element. What's wrong with 'person who acts'?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Zigzig20s, we've only got three choices here: use a feminine word, use a word that can be masculine, feminine, or gender neutral, or use an awkward phrase like "Person who acts". We can argue this all the way around the block, but I say we go with the one that's a) gender neutral, b) ambiguous (you choose the gender), and c) less prone to error. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to work out why I was happy to use doctor instead of doctress but not actor instead of actress, and I think I've got it - the acting profession, by it's nature, makes big distinctions between men and women. Whether a doctor is a man or a woman doesn't matter, you're going to see them because you're ill, but you go to the theatre to see people performing for you and in that case gender does makes a difference. You can't ignore that an actress is a woman, or an actor a man. I suspect that's also why doctress have fallen into disuse and we're still using actress. My thoughts have run out now, and I think I'm going to go back to bed... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Responses and then a new proposal... The idea of using "person who acts" is absurd. We're an encyclopedia -- we're not supposed to invent terminology. Gender and lack of gender is inherent in current professional terms, and we must use them as given by the current form of the English language. In this version of WP, we're writing in English. The history, baggage and current usage of the words "actor" and "actress" in English are what matter here. Sorry, but the French language context is besides the point for our purposes in making a decision about English terminology, and one person's feelings and academic musings are not more relevant than the broad history and current societal usages of the English terms in question.
- The point is that "actor" was originally gender-neutral; "actress" as a feminized variant came later and renders masculine qualities on "actor" in some contexts, but "actor" is currently used in a gender-neutral way in English. Many film and theatre people do refer to female "people who act" as "actors." Therefore, given the current state of the English language, using "actor" for a woman is a valid, correct option on WP; "actress" is also a valid, correct option. Dev makes a good point about gender in drama, and the industry certainly does still use "actor" and "actress" in gendered ways, particularly at awards time, but all this is actually starting to become more blurry (the most recent example being Cate Blanchett in I'm Not There).
- In summary, I think there is no doubt that either term can be correctly used for women on WP, given the current state of English. That is not something that can be decided here -- it's already been decided by the English-speaking culture at large. The question for this project is this: do you (and I say you because while I'm queer, I'm not an official member), in your wonderful LGBT people lists, want to use separate professional categories for men and women who act, in stark contrast to most other professions listed, even though in the list context, "actor" and "actress" are used simply to state someone's job and the job is fundamentally the same? This split categorization of the same work is something that has long been considered to be sexist, so much so that it's been eliminated in many, many other fields over the last 40 years, in a change to the language that reflects massive social change. The option to be gender-neutral on the lists is unquestionably available, because people do use the term "actor" for women, and therefore it's fine for WP -- the real question is whether you want to take this on as a project style guideline for your lists. --Melty girl (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome to use the term 'actors' if you want, but I object to it. It still is more catachretic than actress for a woman, you are ignoring binary oppositions and thereby making it harder to expose them and break them down. Just my opinion, in view of poststructuralist queer theory. Oh, and I mentioned French feminism to show that my argument was just as feminist as yours. But this is a democracy.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- To put a little context around the question of "actor/actress" on the LGB lists, there are 197 people listed with an occupation of "actor" and 73 people listed with an occupation of "actress". Each of those includes "porn actor" or "porn actress", as I saw no reason to distinguish. Even given the gender bias of the lists, that's still almost three to one, which would argue that we're already leaning towards using "actor" for either gender.
- And to address Melty's question, I see no need to put it in a guideline. The "actresses" that have appeared on the list are fairly random. The project already refers to Category:Lesbian actors, Category:Bisexual actors and Category:Gay actors. Unless there's a pressing need or someone feels specifically called to make the change on the 18 lists? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome to use the term 'actors' if you want, but I object to it. It still is more catachretic than actress for a woman, you are ignoring binary oppositions and thereby making it harder to expose them and break them down. Just my opinion, in view of poststructuralist queer theory. Oh, and I mentioned French feminism to show that my argument was just as feminist as yours. But this is a democracy.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- What percentage of the people listed as "actors" are women? Is that something that's easy to figure out? Thanks for the category info. Gotcha on your feeling that a guideline isn't needed. But would you object to my changing those "random" occurences of "actress" to "actor"? --Melty girl (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to assume it's OK. --Melty girl (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- What percentage of the people listed as "actors" are women? Is that something that's easy to figure out? Thanks for the category info. Gotcha on your feeling that a guideline isn't needed. But would you object to my changing those "random" occurences of "actress" to "actor"? --Melty girl (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I propose that we bring asexuality under our umbrella. Unlike intersexuality, which we recently decided not to add, asexuality is a sexual orientation. What do you all think? Aleta (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's fine to bring asexuality under. It is a non-standard sexual orientation. I also disagree with the decision to exclude intersex people. Intersex is absolutely intertwined with GLBT issues; anyone who reads the works written by intersex people can see that they are part of the community. Photouploaded (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, We didn't decide not to include intersex we simply didn't have consensus to include it thus it wasn't. I am firmly in the camp of inclusion for both asexual and intersex and will simply wish upon a lavender Santa for it to happen. Benjiboi 06:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Would you just go join WP:SEX please? We're not about non-standard sexual orientations, we're about LGBT. Maybe I'm some kind of dinosaur, but to me there is a big difference. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Dev, although I would have been nicer about it... I don't feel that someone who's "not attracted to sex" is anywhere near being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. But I'm also one of the few who believe transgender shouldn't be included either, so what do I know? ;) -- ALLSTARecho 10:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about the bluntness but I am a) hungover and b) starting to get irritated with these constant attempts to add unrelated people to our project because they are a persecuted minority. I'd have agreed with you in principle on transgender a while back, but especially since I heard a Muslim cleric on Monday ranting about how decadent and sinful trans people were and found myself getting so angry I could have decked him, I rather think that I've taken transgender on board in my subconscious. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Dev, although I would have been nicer about it... I don't feel that someone who's "not attracted to sex" is anywhere near being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. But I'm also one of the few who believe transgender shouldn't be included either, so what do I know? ;) -- ALLSTARecho 10:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Would you just go join WP:SEX please? We're not about non-standard sexual orientations, we're about LGBT. Maybe I'm some kind of dinosaur, but to me there is a big difference. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well luckily for all of us, queer people have fought with their lives so that we could today freely discuss these subjects without being thrown into psychiatric facilities for "treatment" including lobotomies and castration for our deviant thoughts and behaviors. Luckily we can postulate on who is currently allowed in our rainbow tent meanwhile people worldwide are still routinely tortured and killed regardless if they are any or all of the above but someone simply accuses them of same. Luckily we have some choice in our destiny unlike the thousands of babies who are the whim of a doctor's knife and societal dictum as to what gender they will live with. We have much more in common with gender minorities and would do well to find ways to work together on these issues. Benjiboi 11:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are now officially completely missing the point of what we are doing here. If you want to go campaigning for alternative sexualities and gender identities and whatever, go do it elsewhere, I am certainly not going to stop anyone fighting for the right of people to be who they are and live as they are without fear. But here, on this site, we are about documenting neutral, factual information for an encycylopedia, and simply from a logistical point of view, it simply makes no sense whatsoever to go lumping LGBT, asexuality, or the intersex together. Different people write those articles, they require different guidelines, structures and approaches - it's hard enough reconciling LGB and T in the same project (as in the conversation above), let alone LGB, T, A, and I. We write - if you want to go POV campaigning, you need to go find somewhere else to do it.
- As I said before, there are only so many hours in the day and I for one cannot spend it all being guilted by you into perpetual campaigning for every sexual and gender minority I can think of - I have my community and I want to work with them. I'm sure the castrated and lobotomised queer people who have fought for my right to be me will be happy that I'm contributing at all. Excuse me for choosing to direct my energies to somewhere I can make a difference. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Dev on this issue. LGBT is a common acronym that has been used for years. A google search for "LGBT community" gives 500,000 results. "LGBTIA community" gives 6. While I am all for inclusionism, I do think Intersexuality and Asexuality are properly covered by other projects. Jeffpw (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- True but "LGBT" + intersex does produce almost 64,000 g-hits. That is not too shabby. AgneCheese/Wine 13:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Dev on this issue. LGBT is a common acronym that has been used for years. A google search for "LGBT community" gives 500,000 results. "LGBTIA community" gives 6. While I am all for inclusionism, I do think Intersexuality and Asexuality are properly covered by other projects. Jeffpw (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well luckily for all of us, queer people have fought with their lives so that we could today freely discuss these subjects without being thrown into psychiatric facilities for "treatment" including lobotomies and castration for our deviant thoughts and behaviors. Luckily we can postulate on who is currently allowed in our rainbow tent meanwhile people worldwide are still routinely tortured and killed regardless if they are any or all of the above but someone simply accuses them of same. Luckily we have some choice in our destiny unlike the thousands of babies who are the whim of a doctor's knife and societal dictum as to what gender they will live with. We have much more in common with gender minorities and would do well to find ways to work together on these issues. Benjiboi 11:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) Dev, I've noticed that you are staunchly opposed to the suggestion that intersex should be a part of this project. I'm really surprised by that, and I want respectfully ask you: Have you taken the time to sit down and read about intersex issues? Have you talked to any intersex people? The reason intersex people aren't included in the acronym is probably due to the fact that intersex carries an even larger stigma than any of the others. At least most LGBT people are physically "normal" people, whereas intersex people are seen as ghouls, walking birth defects, freaks. It's not surprising that the LGBT movement (going for normalcy and acceptance) would want to shrug off the "freaks of nature" contingent and suppose that they are "properly covered" elsewhere. But is that really the best choice? We are talking about people whose genitals are cut off in infancy, not for medical reasons, but to make their parents and doctors and society at large more comfortable. Most LGBT people don't have to endure anything close to that. The vast majority of LGBT people will, at the most, be directed to a therapist by any anti-queer people in their family. They aren't sent for shock treatment, institutionalization, or surgery. Society is still far behind when it comes to basic human rights for intersex people. As people who transgress often not just gender boundaries but the boundaries of those holy, "immutable" boundaries of biological sex, itself, they are intimately, intimately entwined with the plight of people who seek acceptance for their sexual orientation. I am surprised and dismayed that you would put your foot down to keep intersex out of this project. If you haven't read the Chrysalis magazine special issue on intersex issues, please consider reading it. If you don't understand how a person who is neither male nor female might very often become part of the queer community, I challenge you to figure out why that might be. Photouploaded (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you want to speak to me specifically, we should take this to my talkpage. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is directed towards any person who feels that intersex issues are not to be included in this project. Since you have spoken so openly with your opinion that they should not be included, and since you are the project's Coordinator, I would like to hear your answer where we can all discuss it. Photouploaded (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
While I'm not so sure about asexuality, I was also surprise to see that intersex issues didn't fall under the project's scope. I would also respectfully ask the project members to reconsider the issue. Members of the intersex community certainly fall under the "Q" in the often/cited LGBTQ acronym and they also play a sizable role in the "T" transgender community. Often intersex individuals are seemingly forced into a "gay category" by family and society who have deemed them of one gender and in a relationship with some of the same gender. Other times they may identify as gay but others, who again have their own perception of gender, have categorized them as straight. While I'm not as up to date on the "politics of the movement", I really can't see how the LGBT community can not find common ground with the intersex community? It really is the essence of being queer in every sense of the word. AgneCheese/Wine 13:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please, I am asking this sincerely, so don't jump on me if I appear ignorant: Since LGBT covers men and women who are sexually attracted or form deep meaningful relationships with others of the same gender (or with partners of their original gender), why do we need to include people who have a physical condition which gives them qualities of both genders. This is a medical condition; homosexuality is not now nor has it ever been classified as a medical condition (distinct from a psychiatric one). That link to Chrysalis is fascinating and I plan to continue reading it. I truly have no objections if we include Intersexuality under our LGBT umbrella. I would just like a clear explanation as to why others feel it is appropriate. If it is just because they are oppressed, then we should include all oppressed groups. Where does inclusionism end? Jeffpw (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- From my view, it has a large sense to do with mainstream society view of intersex people. They are almost always "lumped in" with us whether they like to or not. As I referenced above, both examples of individuals that I met in the LGBT community, what gender a person feels that they are and what gender was "assigned" to them don't always match and while an innersex male may feel that he is in a heterosexual relationship with a woman the fact that the doctor thought it was easier to "dig a hole" means that family and society will perceive his relationship as gay. My friend, who has the misfortune of being born in the wonderful state of Texas, can't get married because of this without going through a whole lot of legal headache. A lot of our issues overlap with intersex issues which is why I think they should be included. As with most things there is always a slippery slope but this one I think is pretty valid. AgneCheese/Wine 13:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I must confess I had never given the matter much thought until now. The last time this came up I just read the Intersexuality article and decided it wasn't a good fit for our project. The more I think about it, though, the more I can see that intersexed people face a number of similar challenges and share a number of issues with LGBT. I have no objection if we want to include them. Jeffpw (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah it's not the "run of the mill" stuff we encounter. I confess that over 5 years I'd probably be in the same boat thinking that it has nothing to do with us but once but oh the things that a farm girl from Missouri learns when she get to the big city. ;) Though I'm still trying to figure out the handkerchief thing.... AgneCheese/Wine 13:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I know what you mean. I live in a lazy, provincial backwater, where things like this just don't come up for discussion. This article might help you with your other area of concern :-) Jeffpw (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah it's not the "run of the mill" stuff we encounter. I confess that over 5 years I'd probably be in the same boat thinking that it has nothing to do with us but once but oh the things that a farm girl from Missouri learns when she get to the big city. ;) Though I'm still trying to figure out the handkerchief thing.... AgneCheese/Wine 13:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I must confess I had never given the matter much thought until now. The last time this came up I just read the Intersexuality article and decided it wasn't a good fit for our project. The more I think about it, though, the more I can see that intersexed people face a number of similar challenges and share a number of issues with LGBT. I have no objection if we want to include them. Jeffpw (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- From my view, it has a large sense to do with mainstream society view of intersex people. They are almost always "lumped in" with us whether they like to or not. As I referenced above, both examples of individuals that I met in the LGBT community, what gender a person feels that they are and what gender was "assigned" to them don't always match and while an innersex male may feel that he is in a heterosexual relationship with a woman the fact that the doctor thought it was easier to "dig a hole" means that family and society will perceive his relationship as gay. My friend, who has the misfortune of being born in the wonderful state of Texas, can't get married because of this without going through a whole lot of legal headache. A lot of our issues overlap with intersex issues which is why I think they should be included. As with most things there is always a slippery slope but this one I think is pretty valid. AgneCheese/Wine 13:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please, I am asking this sincerely, so don't jump on me if I appear ignorant: Since LGBT covers men and women who are sexually attracted or form deep meaningful relationships with others of the same gender (or with partners of their original gender), why do we need to include people who have a physical condition which gives them qualities of both genders. This is a medical condition; homosexuality is not now nor has it ever been classified as a medical condition (distinct from a psychiatric one). That link to Chrysalis is fascinating and I plan to continue reading it. I truly have no objections if we include Intersexuality under our LGBT umbrella. I would just like a clear explanation as to why others feel it is appropriate. If it is just because they are oppressed, then we should include all oppressed groups. Where does inclusionism end? Jeffpw (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This is what i get for missing an evening here in WP:LGBT talk. I'm not even sure where to post this, but I don't think asexuality is a topic that should be under the scope of this project. The first thing that comes to my mind when asexual and LGBT are related is the self-imposed punishment LGBT people endure because they can't accept their desires - like the helpful suggestions by the Christian organizations to people struggling with sexuality and faith. Otherwise, I'm not sure how it can be related to LGBT issues at all. --Moni3 (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is a non-heterosexual orientation in a world where, to a large albeit declining extent, one is "supposed" to be heterosexual. To me this makes it possibly closer to L, G, and B than T is. Aleta (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Are there psychological or medical studies of people claiming to be asexual that state the cause of it? Incredibly aware of how bad I sound in reference to gayness...I admit my ignorance here. Are there asexual people who are organized into groups? Political action groups? On the face of it, it just doesn't seem like a related topic - people who have no sex at all. Clearly there doesn't have to be two ideas for sexuality: gay or straight. But what falls outside of straight - does that qualify it as gay or related? I need more information, clearly. Help me out. --Moni3 (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Moni, these are good questions. I'll state for the record that I am just starting to look more closely at this. I encourage everyone to read the article on asexuality before deciding if you agree or disagree that it fits with our project. According to that, research into asexuality is a relatively new phenomenon in sexology, but is growing rapidly. Note that a distinction is drawn between celibacy - a choice not to have sex regardless of orientation - and asexuality - an orientation of no sexual attraction. An asexual may have sex for various reasons, and an asexual may have affectational attractions of any orientation and identify as gay/lesbian, bi or straight. As for organizations, "The Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) was founded in 2001 with two primary goals: to create public acceptance and discussion of asexuality and to facilitate the growth of an asexual community." I hope this helps. :) Aleta (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Jeff said up above that intersexed people face a number of similar challenges and share a number of issues with LGBT. Here's my reply: yes, but they aren't gay, lesbian or bisexual. Afro-Americans face a number of similar challenges and share a number of issues with LGBT but we aren't the LGBT-AA wikiproject. They have their own. Down to the foundation of what LGB is, is the sexual orientation for people of the same-sex, and this includes the actual act of sex. Even bisexuality has a penchant for the same sex organ at least 50% of the time. Intersex, asexual, transgender... these people aren't exactly oriented to the attraction or lust for someone of the same sex.. hell, asexual people don't even want sex so how can they be gay or lesbian? Transgender folk most often end up oriented to someone of the opposite sex of what they surgically become (ie: a woman becomes a man and is oriented to women once becoming man makes that person heterosexual, not gay). LGB is all it should be but since it was LGBT before I got here, I'll have to live with the T part. But I'm totally against adding any other minority that isn't gay, lesbian or bisexual in attraction and act. -- ALLSTARecho 20:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is really beside the point, but I can't leave it alone. Your definition of bisexual is not accurate; it does not require a minimum of 50% same-sex attraction to be bisexual. There's a whole range between comepletely homosexual and completely heterosexual which may be described as bisexual. (80/20 one way or 20/80 the other both are bisexual as is 50/50.) Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion. ;-) Aleta (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to define bisexuality dear Aleta, and I know it doesn't require a minimum 50%. I was just pointing out that even Bisexual people like "the other white meat" at least significantly enough to be grouped with Gay and Lesbian. :) -- ALLSTARecho 17:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lol, that's certainly the most interesting way I've ever been described! :) When you look at it like that, it does seem fairly pointless to group in vegetarians (A) with all us meat eaters (!). :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to define bisexuality dear Aleta, and I know it doesn't require a minimum 50%. I was just pointing out that even Bisexual people like "the other white meat" at least significantly enough to be grouped with Gay and Lesbian. :) -- ALLSTARecho 17:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is really beside the point, but I can't leave it alone. Your definition of bisexual is not accurate; it does not require a minimum of 50% same-sex attraction to be bisexual. There's a whole range between comepletely homosexual and completely heterosexual which may be described as bisexual. (80/20 one way or 20/80 the other both are bisexual as is 50/50.) Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion. ;-) Aleta (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Jeff said up above that intersexed people face a number of similar challenges and share a number of issues with LGBT. Here's my reply: yes, but they aren't gay, lesbian or bisexual. Afro-Americans face a number of similar challenges and share a number of issues with LGBT but we aren't the LGBT-AA wikiproject. They have their own. Down to the foundation of what LGB is, is the sexual orientation for people of the same-sex, and this includes the actual act of sex. Even bisexuality has a penchant for the same sex organ at least 50% of the time. Intersex, asexual, transgender... these people aren't exactly oriented to the attraction or lust for someone of the same sex.. hell, asexual people don't even want sex so how can they be gay or lesbian? Transgender folk most often end up oriented to someone of the opposite sex of what they surgically become (ie: a woman becomes a man and is oriented to women once becoming man makes that person heterosexual, not gay). LGB is all it should be but since it was LGBT before I got here, I'll have to live with the T part. But I'm totally against adding any other minority that isn't gay, lesbian or bisexual in attraction and act. -- ALLSTARecho 20:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Moni, these are good questions. I'll state for the record that I am just starting to look more closely at this. I encourage everyone to read the article on asexuality before deciding if you agree or disagree that it fits with our project. According to that, research into asexuality is a relatively new phenomenon in sexology, but is growing rapidly. Note that a distinction is drawn between celibacy - a choice not to have sex regardless of orientation - and asexuality - an orientation of no sexual attraction. An asexual may have sex for various reasons, and an asexual may have affectational attractions of any orientation and identify as gay/lesbian, bi or straight. As for organizations, "The Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) was founded in 2001 with two primary goals: to create public acceptance and discussion of asexuality and to facilitate the growth of an asexual community." I hope this helps. :) Aleta (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Are there psychological or medical studies of people claiming to be asexual that state the cause of it? Incredibly aware of how bad I sound in reference to gayness...I admit my ignorance here. Are there asexual people who are organized into groups? Political action groups? On the face of it, it just doesn't seem like a related topic - people who have no sex at all. Clearly there doesn't have to be two ideas for sexuality: gay or straight. But what falls outside of straight - does that qualify it as gay or related? I need more information, clearly. Help me out. --Moni3 (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Outdent. I would also respectfully ask everyone o remember that it took many battles to get the current acronym to be LGBT and include bisexual and trans people, Before that lesbians were invisible. We all were just the "gays" the "homosexuals" the "freaks", the "fruits", the "queers", etc. The same battles that have been and are currently waged by the AIDS community will, in part, greatly help all the rest of us. Did you know that before AIDS activists demanded and fought for reform at the FDA (United States Food and Drug Administration) that medicines weren't tested on women before approvals because their bodies were different and too variable. Did anyone expect that as an outcome, probably not but it's an example of how our umbrella communities are continually battling for human rights that not only benefit them but so many others as well. The issues that transgender people face have enormous implications for the L, the G and the B and yet no one here is required to do a thing on those articles although when asked for support or advice it would be nice. And I'll also apologize as I'm really not trying to guilt-trip as I think that backfires so I'm sorry if I did do that and will try to stop it. What I meant to do is share a bit of my perspective in hopes that others could also get more of a historical perspective because our two-dimensional world on wikipedia impacts many many real-world lives. We are Oprah, saving lives with good information, IMHO. Benjiboi 04:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- So does that mean you think asexuality should be included in the scope of the project? --Moni3 (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would definitely include it as the study of and implications of research on asexuality issues has, if nothing else, cultural significance toward other non-heteronormative sexualities. Benjiboi 16:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Having established the fact that I know less than nothing about people who are asexual aside from its being a choice for celibates, an effect of childhood or sexual trauma (rape), or a physiological or psychological condition that makes a libido markedly low, I am not convinced that all sexual issues that are not heteronormative should fall under the scope of this project. If it has not already started, we shall be seeing another branch of sociology soon that deals with non-heteronormative sexual issues that aren't under the LGBT (and maybe T) range. What unites the issues for the articles in this project is the shared experience of belonging to a group of people who are singled out for their desires - for who they are - and the expression of those desires, particularly in the face of oppression and fear. Although asexuality is not the norm for most adults, it doesn't qualify people who practice it to be persecuted, and the practice of it isn't necessarily a political act of defiance. For these reasons, I don't feel like the topic should be under the scope of this project, however, should other information arise that qualifies asexuality as related to LGBT issues, I reserve the right to change my mind.--Moni3 (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would definitely include it as the study of and implications of research on asexuality issues has, if nothing else, cultural significance toward other non-heteronormative sexualities. Benjiboi 16:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Asexualtiy is only an LGBT issue in the very limited sense of a closet homosexual who hides under the illusion of asexuality. Asexuality as a genuine orientation is disputable anyway - it can be symptomatic of ISD or some other erotophobic childhood experience. Basically, to add the concept to the LGBT banner would be to invite any paraphilia or "alternate sexuality" into the banner, so that it would instead say "the gays, the lesbians, the trannies, paedophiles and zoophiles" which I'd rather not be associated with. In fact, compare asexuality with zoophilia in their relation to LGBT issues, they're just irrelevant to the entire issue of LGBT people and culture.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I Oppose this. The project should stay focused. Asexuality is not an LGBT issue as defined by our purpose. It belongs in the Sexuality project, not here. - Davodd (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Suggestion Provided there are reliable sources to create a worthwhile article, what about the creation of Asexuality and Homosexuality and Intersexuality and Homosexuality (or something titled along those line)? AgneCheese/Wine 00:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- This discussion wasn't about creating an article. It was about whether or not to include Asexuality under the WikiProject LGBT studies umbrella. Asexuality already has an article. -- ALLSTARecho 17:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This article was created today. She wrote the first book to be considered a lesbian pulp fiction novel. She was not gay, and even though her book sold an astounding 4.5 million copies between 1950 and 1952 and launched the genre of fiction that is so near and dear to my heart, she was quite astonished that her book got so much attention. She thought the salacious attention it got was unwarranted, and I read an interview with her a while back that implied she wasn't too happy to be the ringer-in of the new genre either. The book is not a first person account of a lesbian experience, but the narrator's description of all of the women who were in her barracks in WWII. Two just happened to be lesbian. Should it be tagged? --Moni3 (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Women's Barracks, right? I'd say tag the book, but I'm not too sure about the author herself. My first instinct was to say no. What do others think? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Tereska Torres in more than one interview stated that she was surprised at the reception the book got in the US, as she considered it not that raunchy compared to other French books at the time. Furthermore I'm against tagging the author as this is the only lesbian themed book she wrote and she did not write it purposely as a lesbian novel, but as a fictionalized account of her experiences while serving in the Free French Forces. --noclador (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- My thought is no, definitely do not tag the author, as it just isn't warranted by what I've read here and in the article on her. If there was an article specifically on Women's Barracks, I would lean toward tagging the book. Not because it was intended to be a lesbian novel—since apparently it wasn't—but because it was adopted as the first of a genre. — Becksguy (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I dunno. Her book was published by The Feminist Press, there's a significant section of her article on its reception, and she's the first author of Lesbian pulp fiction. Seems significant to our community to me. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Articles needing verification
Are all editors allowed to add items to the "Open Tasks" list? Or is it decided by the community which are considered "tasks"? Hormone replacement therapy (female-to-male) and Hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female) are in serious need of verification. The former only has ONE reference! Photouploaded (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, the New York Native was 'a paper produced by and for the gay community' (Lee Edelman, Homographesis, Preface page xvii) in the 1990...or maybe it's still around? Anyway I cannot find much about it on google, can anyone remember it at all, and where can some basic info about it be found?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some articles I found that might interest you:
- Patrick Merla, Tim Dlugos (which needs some serious help and probably needs the project banner), Timeline of AIDS#1981, 1,112 and Counting, Joseph F. Beam (another one that needs work and probably our banner), Automatic Pilot, Michael Callen, Ken Mandelbaum (which might need our banner?), AIDS reappraisal, Douglas Sadownick
- -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was a gay newspaper in New York City from December 1980 to January 1997 (16 years), especially during the beginning of the AIDS crisis, when it was the only gay paper in town. No, it's not around anymore. See here. Part of the problem was that the paper was later going against the tide on the cause of AIDS by claiming that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. Conspiracy theory, anyone? Part seems to be that gay newspapers don't tend to survive in NYC. Here's a minor reference. Another interesting take on NYC gay newspapers is here. See also Larry Kramer, who wrote a notable 1983 front page piece in the New York Native that focused attention on AIDS. And here is a interesting NY Times piece on gay papers in NYC. There should be an article on the New York Native. In fact this got me to start a draft version here. I want to get enough together before creating the article to avoid a speedy for non-notability. It would seem to have enough reliable sources and it's notable enough. — Becksguy (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh that is great, please do create it! Surely if 2CUZ FM can have its own page - which I think it should - then this media can too. Also the New York Times references seem good...Can we try to find the real article from The Advocate? It would be great to have a picture as well. It's not on Ebay...Surely it is stored in a library somewhere?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Created. However, I had to move the page as, of course, it created New york native. Now there is a redirect. Drat. Also, now I can't watchlist it. Anyone know why? I think it's a nice stub at this point. At least it's cited, which is more than many stubs start out with. Pictures? The NYPL has a collection, as does NYU, I think. It may be harder to find a leftright licensed image. I wanted to get the article up ASAP, now it can be improved with more information and sources (including The Advocate). So dive in. It was a rather important gay newspaper for quite a while, even outside of NYC to some extent, until it went cockamamie with the conspiracy theories. — Becksguy (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is Whoopi under this project's scope? there's no explanation for it in the article. -Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 16:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- SatyrBot did it on January 28, 2007. Not sure why. I'll leave that for User:SatyrTN since it's his bot to figure out. -- ALLSTARecho 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- The article does say she is a strong supporter of the LGBT community, and that she has received a GLAAD award for her efforts. Isn't that enough for the article to fall under our interest? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. They don't have to be gay to be tagged. Look at Fred Phelps. Jeffpw (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- The other GLAAD Vanguard award winners are not under the scope (except for Cher and Charlize Theron). The LGTB has a bizillion of supporters, should they all indiscriminately be under the project's scope? And is Whoopi really that strong a supporter? i saw "the view" the other day, and when the other black girl said that she didn't want her son's to be gay Whoopi wasn't THAT outraged, she just wanted to change the topic. I'm just saying, that tag can be misleading. -Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 18:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. They don't have to be gay to be tagged. Look at Fred Phelps. Jeffpw (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- She was considered a gay icon and likely still is and actually has been pro-LGBT issues on the view although certainly as not as much as Rosie O'Donnell was. Benjiboi 21:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure she belongs in the Category:LGBT rights activists from the United States, but she definitely is within our scope. The article could use some work to expand that, though. And why do you think the tag is misleading? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Because as there's no info on her being an active activist or gay in the article, by being within the project's scope soemthing is being implied, but like, what? If she really is a gay icon that should really be expanded, i'll do a google search now, see what i can find. Cheeriooo- Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 23:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure she belongs in the Category:LGBT rights activists from the United States, but she definitely is within our scope. The article could use some work to expand that, though. And why do you think the tag is misleading? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- The article does say she is a strong supporter of the LGBT community, and that she has received a GLAAD award for her efforts. Isn't that enough for the article to fall under our interest? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Sometime ago we contextualised the sentence that equals homosexuality to an ailment, and that was recently removed. I have put it back. Just thought I'd bring this to everyone's attention.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- While I appreciate what you did there, I wonder if that section in parenthesis is necessary. Even today, declaring yourself homosexual would keep you out of the military. I'm inferring from the edit that you feel including the term "homosexual" alongside "insanity and other illnesses" gives the reader the impression that homosexuality is an illness. I don't think it does, myself. Jeffpw (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- We discussed that before, the thing in parenthesis was someone's suggestion. I really do think that it needs contextualisation, otherwise it sounds like it equals homosexuality to an illness - which it did at the time, but pyschiatry has come a long way.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Categories - again...
So I've run in to our categorization scheme again...
I have a suggestion for at least part of the cat hierarchy. When it comes to "LGBT people", our nationality section is pretty well set up and clean. The occupation section, though, is a little messy.
My suggestion is to try to clean these up to have:
- LGBT widget makers
- Lesbian widget makers
- Gay widget makers
- Bisexual widget makers
- Bisexual widget makers from Peru
- Transgender widget makers
I think having that setup will limit the number of articles that are in cats and subcats and will make things pretty clean. Most people articles will then (most likely) have two categories - "LGBT widget makers" and "LGBT people from Peru". Often the second category will be more specific with regard to sexual orientation.
Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good except for the last example (Bisexual widget makers from Peru): I think by adding too many variables to the categories (gay/lesbian/bi + writer/singer/plumber/etc + peru/australia/jamaica/etc) the number of necessary categories will multiply beyond manageability (number of cats necessary = 4 (lgbt) * # of occupations * # of countries = tens of thousands of cats). To avoid this, maybe we should cut off the LGBT occupation categories at occupation, so Oscar Wilde would have Category:Gay people from Ireland, Category:Gay dramatists and playwrights, and Category:Irish dramatists and playwrights. Fireplace (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hm - sorta kinda? That last set of categories wouldn't be created until absolutely necessary. A person might be in "Bisexual widget makers" and "LGBT people from Peru". Then, if the intersection becomes large enough, the "Bisexual widget makers from Peru" would be created. A good example of this is our Category:LGBT musicians. It's almost empty because everyone's in "Lesbian musicians", "Bisexual musicians", etc. And the sub-sub cat "Lesbian musicians from the United States" could probably be created and populated.
- What I might not have stated explicitly is that most people would have two categories of "ours" - a place and an occupation. Only when we have enough of the intersection would we create the cat for it - then that person would only have one of "our" cats. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Template question
- I've noticed a discontinuity between the LGBT Project's template banner and others: e.g. - {{Template:LGBTProject}} vs. {{Template:WikiProject New York City}}. Also, the Importance parameter isn't supported in this one. I looked at the code for the two examples and can probably fix the LGBT template, but I have no idea what to do after that. Is there a specific process or place? Also, shouldn't the {{LGBTProject}} name be changed to {{WikiProject LGBT}} or {{WikiProject LGBT Studies}} to use the same canonical format as the other projects I've seen? Or at least support both template invocations (using the same template code)? If anyone is sufficiently experienced in Wiki template design and usage to answer, I would appreciate it. Even if just to know why it is, or is not, a good idea
and where to find extensive information on template design. It's something that's looks interesting, and potentially useful, based on my programing background. Thanks — Becksguy (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure {{WikiProject LGBT}} already points to the current template, so feel free to use that one if you'd like. At one point we discussed adding importance and decided against it, though I'm pretty sure that discussion was a while ago. If you have any questions about templates or design, I've done a few :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't it better to avoid redirects when we can? Also, I know that we aren't the only project to deviate from the "Wikiproject X" style - for instance, {{PrimateTalk}}. Eh, I just don't see it as that important, frankly. Aleta (Sing) 02:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, it isn't that important. It's my anal retentative tendencies speaking and a strong curiosity about how templates (as well as other things) work. And since the Importance issue was already decided, I'm dropping the whole subject (except to learn more about templates). There is enough here to keep all of us busy without that. Thanks for responding, both of you. — Becksguy (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure {{WikiProject LGBT}} already points to the current template, so feel free to use that one if you'd like. At one point we discussed adding importance and decided against it, though I'm pretty sure that discussion was a while ago. If you have any questions about templates or design, I've done a few :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
gay radio stations?
Is there no page with a list of gay radio stations as there is for Radio stations in Omaha, Nebraska for instance?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- There are gay radio stations in Omaha?!?!? :)
- I don't believe there's a list, but there is Category:LGBT radio stations. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well there must be at least one! Anyway this category is a crying shame! I am positive there must be lots more gay radio stations in this whole wide world! Where are they?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest renaming to gay radio programs as I think there is a shortage of stations but a long history of programs. Benjiboi 13:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well there must be at least one! Anyway this category is a crying shame! I am positive there must be lots more gay radio stations in this whole wide world! Where are they?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
James I
I know it seems repetitive, but James I of England could use some input from others - I'm getting frustrated. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just read the talk page...I also recently read the talk page of Muhammed, where there is a hot argument over providing images of the prophet. In both, it's just clear that nothing will get resolved on a talk page. I'm trying to determine if 1. my involvement would help., 2. if I would spend the energy you, Jeffpw, and Allstarecho have in arguing with critics of the category LGBT royals. Way back in my former life as a teacher, arguing with students about *why* they couldn't throw pencils at each other just got shortened to me blurting "Rules," and the argument was over. Can you devise a formally worded statement that expresses what it needs to express and just use that (historians have written about James I's relationships with men. That qualifies him, in modern terms, as bisexual. He is thus included within the category of LGBT royalty.)? Then post it every time someone decides to argue, yet again, with the existence of the category, because quite honestly, that's as far as I would go in time and energy in an endeavor that seems so fruitless in this context. Maybe you could even keep count, as in: This point has been brought up xx times. Post the rules, then the consequences. Sorry if I'm not more helpful here, but I think more people arguing with the critics of the category aren't going to persuade them to leave it alone. --Moni3 (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Moving sections from Homosexuality to Gay
Five sections were just moved from Homosexuality to Gay. Please look at the changes and at the start of a discussion here and comment as appropriate. — Becksguy (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: The moves were reverted by Fireplace. Lets see what happens now. — Becksguy (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy new year and Collaboration
Happy New Year to you all. I recently went through all our Jumpaclasses and tallied them up, and 2007's winner is Fluffball70 (talk · contribs) with 12 points! As her prize, she has chosen LGBT symbols as this month's Collaboration. Can we make an extra special effort on this as a thankyou? ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Congrats Fluffball70! and excellent choice, I've fluffed the lede a bit and will be happy to take a try at reffing some items after others have had a go at it. Benjiboi 14:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you everyone and I am honoured at having the choice! I felt that this article needed help and was something that all LGBT people across the world and from all walks of life could work on. Fluffball70 (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
What happened to her was horrible, but does anyone else think this POV article needs to be cleaned up?
The opening paragraph includes "Nicholas Gutierrez had resented her questioning his gay lifestyle choices." Most of the sources are from Conservative Christian websites, with the titles of the articles being stuff like "Man Raped and Murdered Woman because she Vocally Opposed Gay Lifestyle says Defense Lawyer" and "'Gay' Reaction to Mrs. Stachowicz’s Murder: Silence to Applause." --Silvestris (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, definitely needs cleanup. Could do with some more mainstream sources. (edit: which I'm struggling to find...) --BelovedFreak 21:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I added some sources from the Chicago Sun-Times, at least the factual information about the murder, arrest, and trial. If I need to find anything else to remove the neutrality tag, let me know and I can look for it. --Moni3 (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well done, Moni, that helps a lot. I've removed the neutrality tag as I think it's much better now. One thing I'm not sure of is the sentence in the lead that says "what has been labeled a hate crime". It's hard for me to tell from the article & the sources I've found online, but was it widely labelled as a hate-crime? Or just by some conservative/Catholic groups. If it was widely called a hate-crime by all kinds of people, then fair enough, but if it was just those groups, or just a few people calling it that, then maybe it's best to make that a bit more clear. But, as I say, it's not really clear to me, maybe you could help having seen the Sun-Times articles.--BelovedFreak 00:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone has deleted my bit on his take on homosexuality [7]. It was referenced from the Journal of Homosexuality. The person who deleted it explained why on the talkpage [8]. I think it should be reverted it back again (it had already been deleted and I'd put it back) because it's not like I had written an overkill long passage on it, and it feels like that person is simply deleting valid info. For the record, they also added another bit [9] which is not referenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Referenced information, in my view, trumps reverts from anonymous editors who can't say why they're reverting other than not important enough. Single editors don't make that determination. It was important enough for the guy to talk about it. --Moni3 (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I reverted, replied and added note to anon's page. Benjiboi 00:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If all goes well Judy Garland as gay icon should be the lead (with photo) at DYK, which runs on the mainpage. I got the nom in pretty much at the last minute so it's not terribly zingy but congrats to Otto for a stellar article and keep an eye out for those who may want to give ol' Judy some special attention. Benjiboi 00:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Bisexual Awareness Month
FYI... January is Bisexual Awareness Month in Utah. See Utah Pride Center. Aleta (Sing) 03:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- ...Why is *Utah*, of all places, holding a big bi party and didn't bother to inform any of the rest of us? I want to play. :( Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure they'd be happy to have you join them! :) Aleta (Sing) 20:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's Bisexual Awareness Month? I had no idea! ;-) --Tyrfing (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yayy!!! Wheeeee .... I'd no idea. How on earth does one celebrate? - Alison ❤ 04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (at least, I guess we could try bringing bisexuality to a GA status article :) )
- It's Bisexual Awareness Month? I had no idea! ;-) --Tyrfing (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure they'd be happy to have you join them! :) Aleta (Sing) 20:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
possible addition -- James Brooke
I know nothing about this colonial adventurer, but came across the article at James Brooke and discovered that although he won a kingdom, he had no legitimate issue to pass it on to, his closest relationships being with adolescent boys. Is it worth adding him to a LGBT category? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that would do it. Thanks for the heads up. I tagged him. --Moni3 (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks!BrainyBabe (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: There is already opposition to his addition to this category. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks!BrainyBabe (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
another DWM
Okay, here's another query. Richard Halliburton is already tagged. On the talk page I found the following:
- Here's the most relevant passage from André Soares, Beyond Paradise: The Life of Ramon Novarro, St. Martin's Press, 2002. ISBN 0-312-28231-1.
- p.163: …Novarro spent much of… late 1930 in the company of… Richard Halliburton, whom he probably men through Pancho Barnes [(Florence Barnes)]. … [In] The Royal Road of Romance (sic)… he narrates some of his notorious capers—though carefully omitting any mention of his sexual orientation and frequent libidinous escapades. Some reports have contended that Novarro and Halliburton were more than just pals, but there is no indication of an affair in Halliburton's lettters to their common gay friend Noël Sullivan, even though the adventurer was generally quite open about his romantic and sexual romps in his correspondence. …"
- At p.302, Soares asserts that Paul Mooney, who disappeared with Halliburton on his fatal sea voyage, was his lover.
- Also, a note on p.343 (endnote related to p.163) refers to Michael Blankenship, "A Fellow Traveller", The Advocate, July 18, 1989 for discussion of Halliburton's sexuality. He says that Ellenberger's Ramon Novarro and "the gay press" have asserted a sexual relationship between Halliburton and Novarro, which he sees as possible but unproven.
So, my question is, does anyone here have access to The Advocate archives to find out more from Blankenship's article? Thanks. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- This might help: glbtq.com
- And this says "it's abundantly clear from his correspondence" - though not where to find any of his correspondence :)
- The footnote in Soares' book, though, mentions that "letters can be found in Sullivan" - though, again, no indication about where/what that is - "Noel Sullivan" is mentioned in the text many times, though I can't find any books by him that are about halliburton. The footnote also mentions:
- Ellenberger, Allan R. (1999). Ramon Novarro: A Biography of the Silent Film Idol, 1899-1968. McFarland & Company. p. 162. ISBN 0786400994.
- Don't know if that helps... :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. The glbtq writer admits to getting most of his material from Wikipedia (circular spam!) but also mentions a 1982 book -- does anyone here have a copy? My rough paraphrase: The Gay Book of Days by Martin Greif, which references Playing The Game by Roger Austen, mentioning 'affairs' with Rod La Roque and Ramon Navarro. Halliburton "settled down with another bachelor in Laguna Beach". Greif quotes John Paul Hudson as follows: "Halliburton certainly did a lot of straight-approved things, though his exploits were self-stretching and not competitive - which is the gay way". BrainyBabe (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Shout out to the Homeys
- Oh, David! Thank you! I love me some Ms Peru! And I'd been wondering where you were... Hippo Gnu Deer! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was in Israel, hanging with Shi-Pe, better known as President Shimon Peres. I had been meaning to upload Coco Peru photos since November. I also have an interview still to publish with Peru - and it's an interesting one about Ugly Betty stealing a storyline. --David Shankbone 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Are former actors who appeared in gay pornography really considered in the scope of the LGBT Wikiproject? Avruchtalk 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
redlinks on template
A bit drained from a few of my special admirers; could someone else check on some of the redlinks on {{LGBT}}? 11:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
A lot depends on whether we want to create the new articles to match the links or delete the links. I deleted the LGBT Studies link because it was only a redirect page to Queer Studies. Pi 12:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Someone more versed in the WP LGBT Studies project needs to look over the 6 edits made by User:Fokion today. From what I can tell, they all appear to be valid but the template sure did go through an overhaul. -- ALLSTARecho 15:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
He was gay apparently [10]. It would be good to find more references perhaps - this is bound to create some controversy.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do we need more references? The book itself seems to cite three references - my only fear is that it is a bit succinct.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- While the article has been around since 2003, it has almost no sources on it. It's woefully POV-written. So *anything* you add in the way of referenced material will be an improvement in my book :) Go back to the three sources if you get the chance, just to see if there's more material for a "Private life" section in the article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The thing is, I have heard of this man since I was a little boy, and I have never - ever - heard that he was gay before. Then again this could be a perfect example of the 'shaming of gender' (Judith Butler) or homophobia-driven ignorance/silence (Eve Sedgwick).Zigzig20s (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- While the article has been around since 2003, it has almost no sources on it. It's woefully POV-written. So *anything* you add in the way of referenced material will be an improvement in my book :) Go back to the three sources if you get the chance, just to see if there's more material for a "Private life" section in the article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- After a bunch of Google searching, I'd have to agree that this is probably a red herring. The "Who's Who" book is the only source I've found, though it's repeated on a couple sites (glbtq.com, knittingcircle.org). If you want to be sure, I'd find those original three sources and see what they say. The French probably won't be an issue for you, so go for it! :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:LGBT rights activists the United States
It's red. See Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. Is there a similar, more widely-used category?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Try Category:LGBT rights activists from the United States =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Policy discussion
There's an important policy discussion relevant to this project at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Religous Beliefs and Sexual Orientation. It has to do with when sexual orientation (and religious beliefs) used for category tags or mentioned at all in articles about living people. Aleta (Sing) 20:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Ken Hutcherson needs some lovin'
I mean the article on Ken Hutcherson, not the man himself (although you know what they say about vociferous homophobes....)
I rolled back some POV edits made yesterday. While trying to work out how to put his notability as an internationally known bigot back into the lede, I realized that the reference citations are total mess. I won't be able to tackle him until late tonight, so if anyone else wants to take a stab at him -- I mean at fixing the article -- feel free. TechBear (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Many thanks to Aleta for her efforts. I see that the article was much more of a mess than I had thought, and she is doing a bang-up job cleaning it up. TechBear (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
POV pushing at Alfred Kinsey
I'm having trouble with an editor on a smear campaign against Alfred Kinsey. Many of his edits and suggestions are not in line with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:BIO and other policies. I've been trying to reign him in, but he is very persistent and confrontational. If other editors could weigh in on the discussions, it would be most appreciated. Kaldari (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I added some info for you..don't know if that makes it better or worse... --Moni3 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Could anyone else please check up on this bio of gay Brazilian asylum actvist Flavio Alves? The article seems to be under a bit of an unwelcome overhaul and this may have to do with his work for Hillary Clinton. Primary author accused of autobiography, which may be true but they also seem to just be a very new editor. Benjiboi 23:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to exist. That's the first probelm I guess... --Tyrfing (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was deleted, wrongly, in my opinion, by an admin who was able and felt justified in doing so. I hope it is restored but I don't have the energy myself to deal with it. Benjiboi 03:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Maiden of Amherst needs your love
Emily Dickinson is up for peer review in the big peer review, but you guys are a talented crew. Can some of you take a look at it? The primary author is working on FA, already having passed GA. Here's LGBT peer review. --Moni3 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be any mention of her sexuality (beyond the fact that she was married) why is it LGBT related? --Tyrfing (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I wrote something on the main peer review page, not realizing there was also an LGBT page. William P. Coleman (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ask a Dumb Question..
I'm fairly new to wikipedia. Can someone refresh my memory as to the tag to place on the pages of supporters of GLBT issues? In particular, I'm speaking of Martie Maguire and Emily Robison, and yes, I have documentation to use to back it up. Anybody? Thanks. --leahtwosaints (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Leahtwosaints! There isn't so much a "tag" to use for supporters of LGBT issues. If it's a large part of the person's life or notability, the appropriate category can be used - see Category:LGBT rights activists or one of it's subcats.
- In addition, consider putting {{LGBTProject}} on the article's talk page.
- Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
List of animals displaying homosexual behavior is up for AfD. Benjiboi 17:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)