Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ studies/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Aubrey O'Day

Former lead of Danity Kane may be stepping into the LGBT world - it's the hip thing to do! - dirt and discussion on the talkpage. -- Banjeboi 07:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Get ready to add it to celesbian --Skyler }:^| 07:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Oy, celesbian is cute but just so you're not too heart-broken it's likely to go down as too new a neologism unless you start adding refs. Here's a ref[1] that may help. And this and this and these will certainly help. -- Banjeboi 07:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I've never heard of celesbian before and I was going to suggest we delete it...Zigzig20s (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Bear Community

A wikiproject for the Bear Community is up as a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Wikiproject Bear Community. Please come and support it! --Skyler (:^| 02:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend making a bear taskforce of LGBT instead. See if there is sustained interest and need. I'm not sure a new wikiproject is the way to go. -- Banjeboi 01:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Taskforce would probably be a safer bet.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Category: People by sexual attraction

Resolved
 – category deleted, necrophiles and pedophiles redirected to Category:People by behavior and Category:LGBT people links straight (no pun intended) up to Category:LGBT.Scarykitty (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This category is problematic to me. LGBT people make bedfellows with necropheliacs and pedophiles. Kind of plays into the hands of anti-gay rhetoric. See Category:People by sexual attraction. It was created in October 2008 by an editor that doesn't frequent the LGBT categories so may have been unfamiliar with the structure. Edit history doesn't show any particular anti-gay animus. But I think it's a problem. A new category Category:People by sexual orientation that linked up to Category:Sexual orientation would be a good substitute. (Although I wouldn't want pedophiles or necrophelia to migrate over there. Maybe just removing LGBT from "people by sexual attraction" there and letting the LGBT people categories speak for themselves. Scarykitty (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've CFDed the category. This will at least get the discussion going. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 05:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Bradley Kiley and Brian Bond - are they notable enough?

Bradley Kiley has been named as Obama's Director of the Office of Management and Administration. [2] Is he notable enough?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see [3].Zigzig20s (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't suppose they are then, are they?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual firsts

Hmmmm. Both interesting and yet ... -- Banjeboi 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I put this on the talk page, but this is an article I've edited before and might be a good template for this page. List of persons considered father or mother of a field. Scarykitty (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
"Firsts" or pioneers/trailblazers? To be honest, it reads like a magazine article to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sexual orientation profiling

Any ideas on this one? It seems rather borderline notable. -- Banjeboi 01:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

An article on perceived sexual orientation (which currently redirects there) might be worthwhile... the current title is problematic though. --Alynna (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is necessary, though the FBI data is interesting. It could probably be inserted into homophobia or something else though.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Give it time, Rome wasn't built in a day, and a seed didn't turn into a tree over night. I hate this culture of wikipedia where we delete articles within seconds.... let them expand.... one person can't make a prized article themselves..... give it time for people to collaborate.--cooljuno411 02:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The article's now at perceived sexual orientation, which is what it was about anyway. --Alynna (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sex On Premises Venues

Here's another unique new article. We learn so much here - woo hoo! -- Banjeboi 03:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest deleting it.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month

How can I change the Collaboration of the Month to Sexuality in Star Trek (this month's collaboration apparently) at the top of this page? And I've just tried to change it there [4] but it didn't work apparently.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

(i think..) the magic file apparently is Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Collaboration/Current. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. How was this collaboration decided btw? I can't help anyway, I have never watched Star Trek!Zigzig20s (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting Lesbian

Due to questionable edits that have invited some unpleasantness in the Lesbian article, I'm rewriting it top to bottom. I have to say that I don't really want to do this, but now that I am, I'm going all the way...I hope. If you are interested in its progress, you can find it here, still very much in a draft form.

Obviously, since it has its own article, the concept of Lesbian deals with unique issues. I had several weeks of trying to decide how to organize the topic. You can see some of the outline already in place. I decided to approach the article by discussing the changes the term has gone through within the past 130 years, then the re-examination of what female homosexuality was before the development of lesbian identity. That is what I'm going with now. It may not seem terribly logical at first, but I hope to complete it in such a way that it is encyclopedic and comprehensive of the many subtle distinctions that describe women who have had romantic and sexual relationships with women.

There are areas I need to back up with better sources (Krafft-Ebbing, Havelock Ellis, Sigmund Freud). I'm teaching myself as I go, as usual. I'm taking input on the talk page, or here. By all means, if you would like to help, please pitch in. --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I do some Lesbian Theory... The trick is not to view lesbian in an essentialist way, though I suspect you may have to for a historical account. Because of phallogocentrism, I would tend to argue that the term 'lesbian' really takes origin in the 1970s and later decades. Monique Wittig and Audre Lorde give some pointers. We can then go back and look at Willa Cather through a lesbian feminist lens. For a less political point of view, Lillian Faderman gives a more lengthy history of lesbians, though it is mostly essentialist, e.g. in Twilight Lovers when she writes about "lesbian" educators who lived together yet repudiated homosexuality in writing. We'll never know if those women slept together - but does that matter? Defining the term lesbian outside of lesbian feminism is not easy; good luck. I do think female same-sex love has always existed of course, but defining it is difficult because it strives to go outside phallogocentism.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Faderman's books are two of my major sources. I plan to discuss the re-definition with lesbian feminism and how that affects views of romantic friendships and whatnot. As well, behavior that would be characterized as homosexual is observed by women in Lesotho, but they do not call themselves lesbians. So...I'm working on it... --Moni3 (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Jesus, good luck with this, I'll be over there ----> not getting at all involved! I had quite enough of the essentialist vs. determinism debate in college thankyewverymuch. Otto4711 (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Erm, I think you mean essentialism vs social constructionism. It's fun, though. David Halperin makes it very easy to understand in How to do the History of Homosexuality.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it inherently POV to approach Lesbian through social constructivism? Please say no, or else I'll have to reorganize the entire article and it's already a royal pain in the ass. --Moni3 (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
No, but you may veer towards essentialism if you're not careful, which would probably be POV.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you be clearer about what careful means? Do you mean by overcompensating for the POV I think I might be making in the social constructivism approach that I lean toward essentialism, or is there something you notice already in the draft? Or something else? --Moni3 (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd love to help but your article is long and I don't have time atm. I tend to shy away from broad articles and focus on biographies or book summaries. I can answer quick questions on academic construals of lesbian though.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I tend to work on specific articles as well. The fact that one person is writing this article is unsettling, even if that person is me, with all my self-apparent gifts. Ehhhhhhh. I just didn't understand what you were cautioning. --Moni3 (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with the current article? Perhaps you can write a draft and put it on the backburner while we're all very busy. I'll probably be able to find references in my notes somewhere. To understand essentialism vs. social constructionism, I can't stress enough how useful Halperin's book is.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions. --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

LGBT Civil Rights

Found the article LGBT Civil Rights when deorphaning. Has a number of major issues (not least basically being an essay) and probably covers ground covered in other articles. Have tagged it for this project, but wanted to alert you here in case someone has any ideas on what to do with it - merging, reworking etc. I'll leave it with you if that's ok, but will keep an eye from afar if there is anything I can help with. Many thanks! sassf (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest deleting it.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe redirect (or merge if there's anything useful in it) to LGBT social movements? --Alynna (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Redirect.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
suggest redir to LGBT rights. LGBT rights was a redir to List of LGBT rights by region, but Homosexuality laws of the world provides more (modern-day) information (and LGBT social movements provides more historical information). just replaced redir w/ a disambig page to the 3 articles. (Note: the laws of the world article also now includes links to individual LGBT rights in ____ country articles). Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
That's a better thing to redirect to, yeah. --Alynna (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Redirected. --Alynna (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles Trenet

Could anyone please check that he was gay? Please see section 'World War II' and 'Return to France'. [5] and [6] are rather vague; I don't think it will be easy to find the info, but I think it's worth it. He was a very famous singer in France.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In August 2007 I did a bit of research to see if I could find any refs and was unsuccessful. There may be more available online now than there was then. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
95 articles come up during a JSTOR search for Charles Trenet, and most of them are in French, meaning I could provide a list of titles for you to choose from, and send the articles via email. You don't want me to use my poor French to try to figure out what's relevant. --Moni3 (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I have access to JSTOR now. But did you try to type in 'gay' or 'homosexual' (or possibly 'queer') alongside his name?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility of LGBT rights/laws maps to colorblind readers

An IP user raised a very good point at File talk:World homosexuality laws.svg#color scheme - POV? about the current color scheme of that map not being colorblind-friendly. A sizable portion of males (7 percent?) actually are colorblind so this might be something to remember on all of the LGBT rights maps. I'm not sure what color scheme would be most colorblind friendly (other than the obvious getting rid of green or red, or modifying them slightly (i think traffic signals actually have their green's blued a little for this reason, at least in some areas (?)), so posting this here in case another WP:LGBT member has experience in this area. Thx, Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but there are lots of different types of colourblindness, one colourblind person can see colours 'correctly' that another can't and vice-versa. I'm pretty sure that colourblind internet users can use software to alter colours so that they see things that otherwise might be hidden, but don't hold me to that. Basically, my point is, we could change the colour-schemes, and suddenly make it so that someone else can't see them when before they could. --Ged UK (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we could ask the people at the Accessibility wikiproject? --Alynna (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The header of Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users (which I found through Alynna's accessibility project suggestion) lists 4 different color groups that are supposedly acceptable. After checking usage on Commons, that 1 file is in use on 89 articles across 25 different Wikipedias though — and any change in color scheme would require changes in the legends on this Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia, and 23 non-English Wikipedias. would be great to at least fix the Red/Green problem (this is the most common colorblindness isn't it? (at least according to [7]) but it would be alot more involved than I first realized... will post a note @ commons about it, just so the issue will be known. thanks ged & alynna. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

LGBT rights for each US state?

Is there a page for LGBT rights in each US state, or simply LGBT rights in the United States and then a page for same-sex marriage laws in each state?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We Have all the articles in this category:

Category:Same-sex marriage in the United States and this article: Same-sex marriage in the United States

If you see something missing, please add it! Scarykitty (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So there is nothing on LGBT rights for each state, only on same-sex marriage? I don't think that's great...Zigzig20s (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
There is this too which has 7 or so 2 states plus Puerto Rico, so there's a precedent for what you suggest and lots of gaps. Category:LGBT rights in the United States. Scarykitty (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This series seems worth having... I'm surprised there's not even a table in LGBT rights in the United States. Non-discrimination laws, relationship recognition, hate crimes laws, adoption laws, policies on changing gender on documentation, prison policies, etc. would all be relevant (and available) for each state... --Alynna (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an article LGBT rights in New Hampshire, which is a Start class article and tagged with both our project tag as well as the New Hampshire project. It isn't bad at all. There are also articles on LGBT rights in Utah (which needs help, BTW) and LGBT rights in Puerto Rico, for a total of three that I can find, but there doesn't appear to be any other subnational articles within the US. There are several articles that cover various LGBT issues (Prop 8, Gay Marriage, etc) in California, but not with the exact title LGBT rights in California. We had a bit of discussion on the Talk:Mississippi page about creating a LGBT rights in Mississippi article due to some issues within a long section Talk:Mississippi#Gay Mississippi on whether there should be any mention of gay/LGBT issues in that article at all, but it didn't go anywhere. Currently there is a two paragraph subsection Mississipi#LGBT communities in that article. We should have state LGBT rights articles, I think, with about 48 to go. However, I think having a table in LGBT rights in the United States that cover states and US territories would be a good start. — Becksguy (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sam Adams (Oregon politician)

gay sex scandal - woo woo! I'm a bit woozy at the moment, inaugural balls and all, but would like if someone would check on this. It's a short stub yet the scandal is half the lead and really well documented - sigh. -- Banjeboi 04:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories: Putting More L and G into LGBT.

I've been working on a proposal to correct what I see as a deficiency in organizing the "L" and "G", or specifically lesbian and gay oriented articles. (my proposal goes more in depth on the "L" - I'm hoping someone will jump in on the "G"). The "B" and "T" of LGBT have various topic-specific categories and link straight up to Category:LGBT, while L and G have a little under 20 categories each that are specific, but there's no organizing scheme or link up to LGBT. Some research on the topic and a few proposals are at User:Scarykitty/LGBT Categories. As I've been immersed in LGBT Categories for the past few days, I also think LGBT and politics might need its own section and some better organization (I think someone else mentioned this and in my foragings I concur). Scarykitty (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gotten positive comments from Banjeboi and Moni3 on my talk page and nothing here, so I'm going to get started on this next weekend. See User:Scarykitty/LGBT Categories for proposal and list of categories I propose lumping together and then pages I intend to add a "lesbian" specific category to. Scarykitty (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Heyyyy. I'm not sure what you're doing, and because of that I don't think I have an opinion anyone would care to hear, but I just checked my contribs. I haven't posted to your talk page. I don't know what you're referring to. --Moni3 (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, it was User:Kootenayvolcano who made positive comments on her talk page. Moni3, I noticed you and I edited a lot of the same articles, so I did ask for your feedback [8]. Basically, I'm proposing to take the few "lesbian" and "gay" specific categories and organize them so they link up to Category:LGBT, like a series of bisexual and transgender specific categories do. See User:Scarykitty/LGBT Categories. Scarykitty (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the time to read your whole personal page on it. I suspect I'm not the only one who is not privy to what is going on either.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't take long to read the proposal I wrote, and I don't think it would be right to post it here. Scarykitty (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm doing my darnedest to overhaul the Lesbian article by rewriting it. What's going to be really apparent by reading all the sources I'm using is that much of the arguments made by scholars who have studied female homosexuality is the difficulty of categorizing women as lesbians. You're potentially going to distinguish between lesbians and bisexual women. I don't usually care much about categories, but some editors do, and I can foresee numerous discussions about how a lesbian actor or artist is included in a category, especially if she lived in a time or place that had no distinction between heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual. Just...prepare yourself I guess. --Moni3 (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This is done for the lesbian categories and so far so outcry that I can tell. I went with Category:Lesbians for the people-related articles and Category:Lesbianism for the non-people. I'm ready to work on linking the Gay male categories together the Category:Gay men is easy, but the non people articles/categories are harder Category:Gayness? Category:Gay? Category:Gay male topics? What works best? See User:Scarykitty/LGBT Categories for a list of current Gay male-specific categories. Thanks for any advice! Scarykitty (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

LGBT rights source alerts

I have raised an issue about {{LGBT rights source alerts}} at the Administrator's noticeboard. Please see WP:ANI#LGBT rights source alerts.-gadfium 04:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

author blanked template & put up for speedy. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Push for FL on TV list

I'm in the midst of rewriting List of American television episodes with LGBT themes in hopes of getting it to FL status. I would appreciate any general feedback and also specific feedback on the ever-longer lists of individual pre-Ellen episodes. I didn't realize there were so many episodes (and more to come) so I'm wondering about the best way to break them down. The two possibilities I see are be decade or pre- and post-Stonewall. The decade division is a bit more usual I think while the pre- and post-Stonewall method would serve as something of a marker as to when LGBT people started getting active about TV portrayals. Otto4711 (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The pre- and post- Stonewall division might better fit into the concept of a sea change in LGBT cultural attitudes marked by Stonewall. It did in terms of gay literature, for example, where it is used as a marker. I think decades are very arbitrary, as decade related cultural issues don't fit neatly into numerical decades. For example, the Sixties really didn't start in 1960, and certainly didn't end in 1969 (more like the early 1970s). Of course, the advantage in using decades is having more categories with less shows contained in each. That's my 2 cents anyway. — Becksguy (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Without seeing this comment, I went ahead and broke out the giant list (closing on 130 Kb) into several smaller lists. They are for the most part based on decades but I believe the literature supports such a division. The lists are all categorized in Category:LGBT-related television episodes and I believe the introductions make the case, for lack of a better term, for the current split. Otto4711 (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks good, Otto. Nice job. They are more manageable now and mostly make sense. The post-Ellen one I particularly like. — Becksguy (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Benin test case

An editor has expressed interest in deleting many of the LGBT rights by countries articles, if this one is rescued they might rethink the plan. -- Banjeboi 21:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't we just remove the deletion tag? It's not like we're writing about plastic spoons in a hamlet.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
All I'm finding is information about high rates of HIV/AIDS among men who have sex with men in Benin. I don' think that information per se belongs in this article. I'll keep looking. Any French readers out there, because I have found some sources that are in French. Scarykitty (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Give us those links, sweetie.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Emergency rescue (while not unwelcome) should not be needed for each of these articles. They are stubs about notable real-world topics. They are notable. If nominator feels they are non-notable vanity pages, he should pray he doesn't reincarnate as a lisping gay boy living under Sharia law next life. :-P Thanks for letting us know about this, benjiboi. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree this one should survive AfD without emergency rescue. The state of the articles is decent, in that recent gay news out of Africa was included in most articles (e.g. jailing of 9 gay men in Senegal and Burundi's recent (Nov 2008) declaration (or re-declaration) that homosexuality is illegal. But other stuff was missing, like this growing Christian/Anglican/Episcopal movement that included a recent conference etc. But on Benin itself some fascinating tidbits. When it was called Dahomey, Audre Lorde traveled there with her partner and kids and loved it! (per Warrior Poet). There is also a study I'm trying to track down from the 30s that documented two-women and even sometimes polygamous marriages. There is also a famous all female fighting troupe the Dahomey Amazons - that article doesn't have any lesbian intimation to it, but some of the scholarly work does. Fascinating! As for the French sources, I came across them in Westlaw, not the interweb, but I think the relevant English language stuff is in there now. Scarykitty (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It probably borders on original research, but Outsider has raised some contradictions in the published information on Benin. Any folks with French better than mine who want to wade through original texts of laws (not codified, it appears) at Texts of Benin Laws, please do. Scarykitty (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah.. sorry, didn't mean to call into question the article's legal status. I had viewed an asylum info packet on another country before and it was interesting seeing a scan of the letter from the country's ambassador to the gay/lesbian human rights commision. (ran across this particular packet in a google search on homosexuality/benin) The ambassador's letter was in 1996 (saying no laws against), but the May 2008 ILGA report says illegal. probably is a case similar to Comoros (not specifically mentioned in law, but 'against nature' laws exist). Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
additional cmt: I just checked the ILGA report (PDF page 10, URL is in footnotes of the article) & the 1996 statue does specifically mention same-sex. (maybe the ambassador was wrong, or the letter was from earlier in 1996). anyhow. just had put that on the article talk in case someone else wanted to use it -- didn't put it in the external links since the contradiction might be confusing. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The AfD deletion discussion for this article was closed as Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW on January 22, 2009 — Becksguy (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

Resolved
 – Listing restored with additional Reliable Sources added as inline cites, and to list talk page discussion, by Gonzonoir.

Am I wrong about this? A user has removed Leonardo da Vinci from List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: L a couple times. Before I violate 3RR, can I get someone to review his article, and Leonardo da Vinci's personal life, and tell me if he belongs on the list? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of a vexed subject, from what I remember; perhaps the most famous scholarship on the subject's an essay by Freud asserting that Leonardo obviously wasn't sexually interested in women, but that his relationships with a series of beautiful men were more likely 'affectionate' than sexual (see page 51 of this). Maybe I should just stick that in the article. OTOH I'm sure there's been subsequent critique of that particular part of Freud (there has been of every other bit, eheh) - this looks like a particularly full-blooded deconstruction. Unfortunately I haven't got access to it :( Perhaps someone else here does? Gonzonoir (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
He is routinely included in works on the history of homosexuality. Claims that "scholarship is divided" do not preclude tagging the article. We are not looking for purity or unanimity here or anywhere else in Wikipedia. Haiduc (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
No, sure, but recording some specifics on which commentators have said what would surely be a good idea. If we can list in the articles some of those works in which he's routinely included, we're in a stronger position to show that Leonardo should be on the list than if we just say it's obvious. Can we use this opportunity to get some cited assertions into the articles? Can you think of any titles off the top of your head?Gonzonoir (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to the library tomorrow morning; I'll try to get this and this and this, all of which come up from a search for "leonardo" and "homosexuality". Will add refs to the articles as appropriate. Gonzonoir (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The two articles here seem kind of thin on his personal life in terms of his sexuality, so I'm not restoring the listing yet. We don't need unanimous agreement that he had a relationship with his students. I'll do some NYPL online searches later also. — Becksguy (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

How abut this ref [9] from the GayHeroes.com website. It has what appear to be reliable references (not Gay Heroes, but the referenced books) and quotes from them, especially from the First Scientist by White, which Gonzonoir mentions above. I think that these are sufficient: Michael White, Michael Rocke, Serge Bramly, and Kenneth Clark. — Becksguy (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey - back from the library; I've just done a fairly thorough edit at Leonardo da Vinci's personal life, incorporating stuff from Bramly, Clark, Freud, White, Abbott, Vasari, and Friedman. Who all (w the possible exception of Vasari, who is fairly gnomic) think he was gay, and just disagree on whether he did anything about it :) I wanted to check out that the GayHeroes site refs were correct, which they are. Would be great if someone could give this section a look over and see if I've made any mistakes. I'd def support readding him to the list now. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks solid now. I second the re-addition. I suggest you do the honors of adding Leonardo back into the list (with good refs), since you did the work. — Becksguy (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Heheh, lucky me :) All right, let's give it a go. Gonzonoir (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
gnomic? What do you mean by that? — With these good refs, I believe the listing is on solid ground. — Becksguy (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Just that it's pretty hard to be sure of Vasari's implications and nuances when he says something like Salai was Leonardo's "beloved". Dude was writing five hundred years ago in a different language, so the translation's always going to shed a certain amount of context and subtlety. But it's good enough for me :) Gonzonoir (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch, Satyr. Hell, Gonzonoir, we can't even fully agree on what gay as a sexual orientation means here in this time, and in this language. Never mind in a culture where sodomy and heresy resulted in death sentences. See bromance, gay for pay, bisexuality, as well as polymorphic sexuality, Polymorphous perversity, metrosexual, among others. Anyway, I think we are done here, unless drama erupts. I have the Leo related articles on watch. — Becksguy (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I just say that this is *exactly* how WikiProjects should work? We rock! :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes we do, and yes it is! — Becksguy (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Population numbers

In rewriting the Lesbian article, I thought it necessary to include relevant population estimates. I have two: percentage of homosexual women in the U.S., and total number of homosexuals in the U.S. I would like to know if similar numbers are available in Canada, UK, Australia, and anywhere else that keeps this kind of information. The first I got from the NYT almanac. I contacted the HRC for the document that estimated total number of GLB people in the U.S. I don't know who to contact for this other info. Anyone have any ideas?

By the way, this document HRC sent me is a 25-page breakdown of the cities, states, and regions with the most GLB people. It's quite extensive. Let me know if you want it and I can email it to you. --Moni3 (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The British govenrment conducted a survey back in 2005 to determine likely take up of civil partnerships - 6% of people said they were gay, 2% said they were bi. Most people are still using those stats, those of course they only consider people who are out and proud. The report should be in the refs for one of the gay UK articles (and if it isn't it should be), but I will try to track it down as well. But tomorrow! I have an exam in 18 hours... (Oh, and I am 20 today. No more snarky comments about teenage editors!) Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 20:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I am totally 20 too. Yep. 20 years old. Me. See my youthful glow? 20. --Moni3 (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yaay Aquarians! My birthday was Inauguration day, and my partner's was yesterday. Hippo Birdie 2 Ewe! And good luck on the exam! SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Try Stonewall's website when it comes back up, i seem to remember they have some broad stats/estimates on UK population. Oh, and happy birthday :) --Ged UK (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Stonewall.org was helpful, but they reference government estimates. Can I find those government estimates online? What branch of the UK government keeps those estimates? And the Canadian census is driving me nuts here. Here's a statement from a gay Canadian marketing firm that says the census puts gays around 5.7% in 2001, but damned if I can figure anything out from the Canadian census website. Anyone good with stats or something (like reading the freakin' census)? It should be under same-sex households. --Moni3 (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The UK government's never asked about sexual orientation in a census, and I believe there's pretty strong opposition to their doing so, but you might find something at the Office of National Statistics. You could try this project; though results aren't due til this year their may be some pointers to existing data in the material on that site. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Firsts" needs more global perspective

List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender firsts by year is currently very USA-centric. I should think that if we want to have an article of this nature that it would be very easy to add similar "firsts" from other countries. Anybody from outside the USA have anything to add to this? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sufficient to categorize as gay?

Regarding T. C. Jones. I have a source that describes him as a "wildly gay entertainer" but doesn't offer anything in support of it. A TIME magazine article mentions his marriage to a woman, but she's described there as a former champion fencer and elsewhere as having "pinched features and no glamour whatsoever" (so obviously a lesbian...kidding!). I can't find anything else that discusses his sexuality, but we are talking about the 1950s and 60s here. Is the first reference sufficient to categorize him as gay? Otto4711 (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Alan Hollinghurst - reference requested for Gay Writer Category

The Gay Writer Category has been removed as the article does not say word for word that he is gay. I think I remember reading an academic paper saying he is, with a reference from this book [10]. I don't have the page number though. If anyone has enough time, it'd be good to reference the Wikipedia page and add the category back.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I can do this today - I've got some interviews with him, which I'll add. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, done - four cited interviews added to the article, and the categories restored. When The Advocate comes back online I could add more. The article generally's stubbier than I expected; may have a crack at expansion. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dani Campbell

went up for AfD and survived. Though it's marked with this project, though I specifically rescued it from a prior deletion etc. none of that got noticed, but it survived anyway. Dani Campbell. Scarykitty (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick Warren

I've just created a RFC for this article. Some editors claim that Warren's views on LGBT people is not notable and shouldnt be included in the article. Please comment:

Talk:Rick_Warren#More_details_in_the_article_including_his_position_on_homosexuality.3F Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is some very entertaining edit-warring going on here for those interested plus some actual discussion. -- Banjeboi 02:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Homosexual orientation

There seems to be lots of problems about the seperation of those 2 articles. Eg:

These are only 2 examples. It seems that the seperation isnt reflected accurately everywhere on Wikipedia Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Corrected the 2nd but there may be other issues, just letting people know... Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It hurt my feeble brain reading Homosexual orientation which is a split off the main. It seems a mess and could use with some bold redecorating if anyone is up for it. -- Banjeboi 02:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual orientation Merged Into Homosexuality ?

This is really stupid. There are two articles Homosexuality and Homosexual orientation. This creates problems. First of all, I bet many people dont even realize this. It took me some time to realize it. Second of all, there is a Wikipedia wide problem. Some references to homosexuality goes to Homosexual orientation while some references to the orientation goes to Homosexuality. In the sexual orientations template, the link is mentioned as Homosexuality but goes to Homosexual orientation. Yes, homosexual acts do not necessarily imply a homosexual orientation but those two issues are strongly correlated even if not fully correlated. And some issues that are relevant to both articles are not present in each article due to division. For example, Homosexual_orientation#Theories_of_causality is an important piece of information but is not present in this article. Instead of having two seperate articles, lets merge them and then explain "Homosexuality refers to sexual behavior or attraction between people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation." But..(gasp)...it's already explained in this article. So let this article reflect that and discuss both aspects of this issue. Instead of having 2 seperate articles, we can merge them and then we can make each section whithin this article more concise. And finally we do not have a Bisexual orientation and a Heterosexual orientation article neither.

Please comment in Talk:Homosexuality#Merger_proposal Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Not sure as to whether this is the right place, I would tentatively suggest a lack of NPOV going on in respect of the article and discussion re Mohammad Amin al-Husayni; there appears to be an element of homophobia there but before I mention it at that discussion page I should appreciate the view of others here please.Tanbycroft (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a long article, any particular section? -- Banjeboi 02:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it concerns deletions under the section "Mufti of Jerusalem" where his appointment was described as being helped significantly by his sexual relationship with another man. The deletions have taken place at the end of the first paragraph in that section (ending, "life tenure"). If you view the history of that section you will see the various deletions; the discussion under "Homosexual" also gives a flavor of the lack of NPOV.Tanbycroft (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, the talk page is simply abuzz with this. There does seem to be some issues of homophobia, sadly, this is not unsurprising. My suggestion, given the discussion currently taking place, is to compile the relevant content and strongest sourcing to see what can be used. If the issue is reliable sourcing then ask for guidance on the reliable sources noticeboard, do so neutrally as well - these are the sources, what content can be reported here? - and see what the consensus is. -- Banjeboi 03:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes but I can't do it on my own: could folk please help? Tanbycroft (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually the talkpage has just had a discussion started along these lines. The best thing to do is find reliable sources. -- Banjeboi 03:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mark R. Dybul

There's a real problem with this page. I keep having to remove unreferenced blurb.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You might leave a note at Ann Garrison (talk · contribs), though that seems to be a single-purpose account. But maybe pointing out WP:NPOV will help him/her? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

More eyes on template discussion please

Hi, we need a return visit to Template:Sexual orientation. As templates are a bit more visible of a group of articles wider community input is helpful. There is disagreement on whether or not Perceived sexual orientation is a good candidate for inclusion. Relevant discussion here. -- Banjeboi 01:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stu Rasmussen

Stu Rasmussen is identified as transgender, appearing in categories and the lists, etc. I looked at the sources, and despite the headlines and first paragraphs calling him transgender, there are quotes where he always states that he identifies as a heterosexual male who likes to appear like a woman. He's had breast implants and always dresses and styles himself like a woman, but retains his male name, pronouns, and most importantly identity of a male heterosexual. The writers of the sources don't understand what transgender means, apparently. And isn't it a violation of BLP to classify him against his stated self-identification? -- AvatarMN (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Transgender includes a variety of gender variant people including cross-dressers and people who are any stage of transitioning. Being heterosexual does not mean they can't also be transgender. One is sexuality, the other is gender identity. -- Banjeboi 11:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'm the one who doesn't know what transgender means, then... I thought the bottom line was identifying as the opposite sex from the physical characteristics you were born with. I emphasized heterosexuality because then if he was not trans, he wasn't any part of LGBT. -- AvatarMN (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Evidently, there is a bit of discussion regarding the definition of transgender. My understanding, as well, was that there had to be an element of self-identity *as* transgender, but that doesn't seem to always be the case. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
It's a sticky area for us, I think. Whether anyone else argues there doesn't have to be an element of self-identifying... don't we need to stick to the rule of self-identification? Or not? -- AvatarMN (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I just found that and was about to bring it up. In apparent contradiction to other comments in the other sources in the article. “I am a dude,” he says simply. ... "I identify mostly as a heterosexual male," Rasmussen said. "But I just like to look like a female." -- AvatarMN (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

First openly gay head of government!

Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir has just been elected Prime Minister of Iceland. She has been in a ciivl union with her partner since 2002 and has three adult children. With her election she becomes the first openly gay leader of a country in modern history. And she's a woman at that! HURRAH! Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 05:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The overwhelming usage of LGBT on Wikipedia, and its annoying effects on the psyche of man

"LGBT" is irritating. Its political. Its pushy and ridiculously abstruse, and an offense to the eye, and the ear. Do people say, in real life, when asked about their sexual orientation, "I'm LGBT" (IPA:aɪm ɛldʒiːbiːtʰiː), or aɪm əldʒb'tʰ. Do they? Really?

No they don't. They say "I'm gay" (aɪm ɡeɪ). G--A--Y. Do lesbians even say "I'm lesbian" (aɪm lɛzbiːən)? Sometimes. But they also say "I'm gay." Sometimes they say it capitalized, as in "I'm Gay" (aɪm Geɪ). G-A-Y. Yay. Bisexual? They say something clever like "I occasionally work for the man," or "I like the dark side... sometimes." Or they just say "I'm bi" (aɪm baɪ). Or.. (wait for it..) they say.. "I'm gay" (aɪm ɡeɪ).

Gay, maybe.

The one exception of course are the trannies. I know they're complicated. I know they're supposedly fun to be around and tell great hetero jokes. But trannies don't say "I'm gay," do they? (If they do, well there you go..). An m2f who likes men is.. according to their concept, not "gay" but quite heterosexual. Huh? A f2m who likes men also considers hermself hetero, no? Heterosexuality? In the middle of the LGBT concept? I think so. Sort of. Anyway, if you gay people really wanted to include transexuals, it would be TBLG in order of minority to majority. Now try to pronounce that: t'blgʰ.

"LBGT" is so.. 2002. It's like a weasel term for gay. "Gay," on the other hand is actually rather timeless. But it involves actual acceptance of the word. -Stevertigo 04:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Queer" as in "non-straight" is just as inclusive, but we all know that this will not go anywhere. --Haiduc (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would ask for a refund for the disapointment over your 1794 addition to my watchlist not being some sexually-confused POV warrior rant worthy of popcorn, but the photo makes up for it :-D . Your post reminded me of a quote I ran across when looking for Portal: ɛldʒiːbiːtʰiː quotes: "[W]ithout consulting the rest of us mere mortals, [NGLTF] suddenly rename[d] us 'the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgendered movement' or, as one of NGLTF's leaders recently said in a press release, 'the g/l/b/t community.' Sounds like a sandwich. ... NGLTF's often dated and unrealistic political dogma will be cast off by the gay masses in due time." (Out magazine columnist Michelangelo Signorile) ([12]). The term has its faults, but afaik it's the one with the most traction & the most inclusive. Outsider80 (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
What a waste of time.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Point for point, use of the term "gay" is fairly recent in human history to describe sexual orientation. A word, which in fact, has nothing to do with sexual orientation to begin with. If you want to be anal about labels, the most accurate description would be HB (homosexual/Bisexual) and completely segmenting transgender people since gender identity and sexual orientation are fundamentally different concepts. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Aside from the original post/rant being glib to a point of being mildly offensive, LGBT is the generally accepted acronym and Wikipedia does not attempt to be the ultimate definitional authority on these things. LGBT is inclusive of a spectrum of sexualities about which we write and examine. Not everyone calls themselves gay, as Haiduc pointed out, but many people also don't want to be labeled as "Queer", especially older gays who remember that as an insult before it was co-opted. Whatever your hope was in starting this thread, you frustrated it with your attempt to be witty, which failed. If you wish to start a serious discussion, all the "trannies tell good jokes" and pronunciations are better left in your head and not in the thread. --David Shankbone 17:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Various points, paraphrased: "LGBT is the generally accepted acronym" You need to source this. The source of course cannot be a POV source, pushing a political agenda and so forth. It needs to be a reasoned and academic source which takes into consideration that 'generally accepted' would be inclusive of conversational terms. Is the "acronym" a conversationally used term, like SWAT, or FABGLITTER?[1] "Wikipedia does not attempt to be the ultimate definitional authority" Who does? Is Wikipedia is the business of synchronizing its encyclopedic agenda with the political agenda of "queers?" No, it isn't.

"Gay is [deprecated]." Really? By whom? When did this happen? Was there any opposition at that particuar GLAD meeting? Does this mean that terms like Gay pride, Gay Pride parade, Gay rights, Gay marriage, Gay liberation, and gay pride flag are deprecated, because they by definition are "non-inclusive?" Somebody please tell the media and other speakers of common English, because nobody, not even the queers, use the term "LGBT" in conversation. Its a political front, designed to be politically supportive of fringe, and not the accurate, common term.

"Gay is a recent term." Really? Is it as recent as LGBT, which originated (according to the article) somewhere "in the mid-nineties?" Huh? So, let me get this straight, according to the above arguments, "Gay" (note cap) is deprecated, because its "not inclusive" even though everybody uses it, and besides "its too new," even though its fifty years older than the LGBT term. Do you see the problem here? All that's left is the political argument, made by political action groups and not encyclopedists, that a "more inclusive" term should be used, not because its encyclopedic, but because it "includes" certain people.

Gay.

Youv'e probably heard the argument before. How inclusive? Forget what your PAC (hey, another real-world acronym) tells you. Note that the sexuality and gender identity-based cultures concept, the concept which the LGBT concept, as stated in the article, is fundamentally based, refers to not just Gay concepts. LGBT states "in modern usage, the term LGBT" (as opposed to that ancient 19th century usage) "is intended to emphasize a diversity of "sexuality and gender identity‐based cultures" and is *sometimes used to refer to anyone who is non‐heterosexual instead of exclusively to people who are homosexual, bisexual, or transgender."* Is it? Aside from needing a fact tag, as a great number of LGBT articles seem to be in need of, it also seems to assert that anything non-homosexual qualifies. The "sexuality and gender-based.." article seems to confirm this, as it includes non gay topics such as polyamory, "fetish culture," and even those other concepts that fall under the term "paraphilias." Hey, I know what that term means. Following (from what they articles collectively assert), a pig****er and a ****eater are in fact, according to the "inclusive" definition, as asserted by the term and the various articles 'authoritatively' claiming its usage, are card-carrying members of the "LGBT" community. Go Gay rights. -Stevertigo 19:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't think many people feel the need to address this because it's a big waste of our time (and yours). --David Shankbone 19:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree w/ Shankbone that this doubtfully will go anywhere. Your objection to using LGBT instead of "Gay" is kind of moot on one level because when referring specifically to homosexual men, gay is used. When referring to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered people, "LGBT" is used to include all parties (with "LGBT" explained on first mention, in keeping with Wikipedia standards) -- and further mentions within an article use the short "LGBT" for brevity. FWIW, you will not find any term that pleases everyone -- so a meaningless-at-face-value (yet functional, since it refers to the 4 main categories of homosexual/bisexual/transgender people) term such as LGBT serves a purpose. On that note, any further arguments or proposals you would like to make about this might be better suited at a Manual of Style talk page (but you would have to come up w/ a better case & still then I doubt it would get anywhere). Note: any further lengthy discussion on this thread will probably be shut down by another editor or admin for clogging up the talk page. This is not a threat, just an expectation. Outsider80 (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ditto Outsider80. BTW, your original post was *more* than "mildly" offensive. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I understand. You've been offended. Moving on, I think its really an NPOV issue, as it relates to how the encyclopedia handles terminology; it merits discussion if that terminology is actually NPOV, encyclopedic, or (as it ostensibly appears to be), a political term, and unnecessarily neologistic. -Stevertigo 06:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree. In addition to your posts being incredibly offensive, a simple google search shows "lgbt" is both political and NPOV, as it is commonly used in academia. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is offensive or just plain stupid or an attempt at humour but can we just archive this and give no more attention? Phoenix of9 (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Archive this turd. --David Shankbone 07:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Clinton Kelly, again

Anyone want to weigh in at Talk:Clinton Kelly (TV personality)#Sexual orientation redux? Aleta Sing 21:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added content and refs, hope it helps. -- Banjeboi 09:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Bboi! Interesting that there's been no response from the person who was opposing the content. I even posted on his talk page about the section I started on the article talk. Aleta Sing 21:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
(striking line because his contributions indicate he hasn't been on WP since I started that section) Aleta Sing 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Go Shane!

OK, not really suppose to encourage vandalism but this actually was funny. -- Banjeboi 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Wanna taste the rainbow?" is hilarious. Good catch. I vaguely remember that there once was a page that collected funny or memorable vandalism lines. Was it deleted on the basis of don't feed the trolls, or is it still around? — Becksguy (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Clementine Ford

Another unlabeled coming out?[13][14] This could probably do with a few more eyes, only anons working on it right now. Siawase (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just added a ref with a quote from the article itself (as reported in Pink News); Ford said she wasn't "technically" coming out with her statement, so I've tried to cover the ambiguity. What do you think? Gonzonoir (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick! Looks like a great improvement to me. Siawase (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I happened to have read the Diva piece anyway, so I knew where to look. The tragic part is that I typed out the cite news template manually. *g* Gonzonoir (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Even though she is all but saying it, I don't think we can categorize her has lesbian or even LGBT (as it looks to me like she's bi not les) since she is, for now, currently denying any category labels herself. I did tag the talk page for this project though. Aleta Sing 18:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Alleged police entrapment in NYC sex venues

It's come to my attention that "... many activists now consider a pattern of police entrapment and false arrests of gay men as a strategy to shutter Manhattan porn shops." [15] [16] [17] [18]. This story was broken in the Gay City News and seems to be gaining some traction locally as well as engendering a gay community panel discussion at the gay center in NYC. I'm starting to put together references and content for an article, or a section in an article. I'm wondering if anyone has any knowledge of this and where this might be placed. Although there are articles on LGBT rights in New Hampshire as well as Puerto Rico and Utah, there is no LGBT Rights article for either New York City or NY State. Any thoughts or suggestions? — Becksguy (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think LGBT rights per state/country are pretty much accepted as article topics, and get snowball keeps at AfD. So i think a LGBT rights in New York State article would be good to have. If there is little beyond the legal status and this news story above, that is still enough for a start class imo. May look a little undue weight if that is the only content, but that shouldn't be a reason to not create articles - just place a "please expand" tag on it.Yobmod (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If you press on with this, you might find useful information in The Trouble With Normal by Michael Warner. He has a chapter about the policing of urban space to control queer communities, especially in NYC, and talks a lot about the impact of zoning under Giuliani. There's coverage in there too of radio and TV show 'investigative' entrapment of porn shop customers on the waterfront. I keep meaning to write an article about the book itself. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed inline refs in initial sentence by changing them into html links. I agree that there should not be any problem creating a LGBT rights in New York State article; in fact we should have one regardless. There is precedent and there are enough NYS related LGBT rights articles to have several summary sections, such as Same-sex marriage in New York, several Stonewall related articles, and so forth. However, this particular subject is more NYC related. Should we also have a LGBT rights in New York City article in addition? It would be ground breaking as we don't have any city level LGBT rights articles yet. Or we could start with the state level article first, and split out if necessary. Or should this be a standalone article? The Michael Warner book looks promising, thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

LGBT stubs

I noticed that Category:LGBT stubs has over 800 articles. I made {{LGBT-film-stub}} and {{LGBT-rights-stub}} in an attempt to make it a little more manageable. I haven't moved all articles there. We might want to think of other LGBT stubs that could be placed in their own category. I tried to make these sub-stubs based off of the categories we already have under Category:LGBT. --Pinkkeith (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... as announced on this page about five weeks back, there is a stub split in progress. Thankfully one of your new types is identical to one of the accepted proposals awaiting creation. The other one, though, cuts right across two of the other types approved. You'd have been told about this if you'd followed the instructions at WP:STUB and proposed these new types first! Grutness...wha? 01:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
uhm, perhaps it was too bold a move (with the stub-split already in place), but let's not run off contributors from WP for not being aware of archived discussion threads (or specific policies). btw, when the new stub types are implemented (they aren't yet, right?) pls drop a note here so that any of us who want to stub-sort can sort away... it definitely will help w/ the massive stub pile.. thx :-) (crawls back into his wikignome hole...) Outsider80 (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It's next on my list of things to be done, after finishing sorting a group of paleontology stubs. As for running off contributors, almost everything related to stubs on Wikipedia has big notices on it saying to check with WP:WSS first before creating stubs. Pinkkeith even added such a notice to the top of one of the new categories he created, so he couldn't have been unaware of the instructions. It surely isn't asking too much for him to have done what the note he himself had added said to do. If he had, he'd have been told There was a split in process. Grutness...wha? 04:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
PS - until they are made (hopefully in the next couple of days), anyone who does want to help out with stub sorting could replace {{LGBT-stub}} with {{LGBT-activist-stub}} on the articles on some of the articles about rights activists currently helping to swell the main category. That should get it well below the 800 mark, to start with :) Cheers, Grutness...wha? 04:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I appologize, I didn't realize that there was a stub sorting Wikiproject out there, or that there was discussion out there on this already. Is there any reason why the stubs have not been created since it has been already been approved? Also, that addition I made was a cut and paste from the already established {{LGBT-activist-stub}} --Pinkkeith (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sadly - there are 150 members of WP:WSS, and several thousand different stub types, so the workload is pretty horrendous. There's a backlog of several months-worth of new creations. We're getting through it as quickly as possible, but it's a hell of a lot of work. As I said, this one's right at the top of my "to do" list, so hopefully it'll be done later today. Grutness...wha? 23:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but WikiProject Stub sorting placed {{LGBT-stub}} under the category elections and politics. Personally, I find it boarder line offensive that identifying myself as a gay man is a politial identity rather then a social identity. Yet, it is a minor complaint. --Pinkkeith (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you note that that is only one of two places on the page that we list it - it's also under the culture and social section. As such, it indicates that LGBT stubs contains stubs relating to both social and political subjects. Given that over half the stubs are to do with LGBT rights or LGBT activists, it makes perfect sense for it to be listed to be under politics as well as under culture. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Update

Seems like Pegship beat me to the punch by creating the other three templates and I've added a couple of categories. There are now four new stub types (including the film one, which was coincidentally part of the planned split):

I'm also going to propose an upmerged {{LGBT-mag-stub}} at WP:WSS/P, since it looks like there's quite a lot of magazines in the main Category:LGBT stubs. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe even {{LGBT-periodical-stub}} instead? That way it would also include newspapers (historic and contemporary) and any stubs for historical newspapers/newsletters from earlier days of the gay rights movement. Outsider80 (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Two separate templates (the other being {{LGBT-newspaper-stub}}) would probably fit in better with the usual stub types. I'll propose that too. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6198394?source=rss
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBTQ+_studies/Archive_22&oldid=1249344976"