Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Knowledgable editors needed ...

Here - the article on "Ssexual Orientation" needs work - couple of editors have recently pointed this out, but the discussion really needs fresh views. Currently the article is strongly biased toards psychology (and debates between psychologists and a fringe group promoted by Christians that claims that homosexuality is a psychological disorder). I have nothing against psychology, but it is only one approach ... the whole idea that sexual orientation may be socially constructed, or take fundamentally different forms in different cultures is missing (because claims that it is not innate and fixed are interpreted as promoting the views of that fringe group that says homosexuality can be remedied). And debates outside of academe are not covered, either. And the article is organized in such a way that it is hard to know even how these other views might be incorporated. In short, it needs attention. I am not looking for one hero to do a complete overhaul of the article; I am hoping that many different editors can work together, each making small changes, that will eventually turn this into something that reflects the full range of major approaches and views and explains differences and debates. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Category for discussion notice: Category:Hate groups

I nominated Category:Hate groups for deletion because consistent consensus has been to delete categories that label people, organizations, media, etc. as "homophobic" and I think the same rationalle should apply to "Hate groups". Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 10#Category:Hate groups .--Kevinkor2 (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with deleting the category Hate Group. This is a revisionist attempted action, based on a personal motives.

Hate Group is definable. Groups in this category are organization whose primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a group of a race, religion, disability, national origin, or sexual orientationn.

This category includes malicious threats, damage to property, defacement of property, and/or physical contact specifically intended to intimidate or harass another person because of the person’s race, color, religion, gender, or national origin

If there are organizations in this category that you can verify should not be there, then they should be removed. --DCX (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Doug, that's an awfully strong statement, and borders on a personal attack - you have no idea the motives behind the nom besides those stated. If you disagree with the nom, as I do, state so on the CfD, but please keep civil. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we don't know why people nom things like this and 'homophobia'. However, it makes me wonder where this will lead eventually. Can't include openly homophobic groups/people in homophobia because it might upset them; then including hate groups under hate groups might upset hate groups? What's next? Not allowed to include neo-fascist groups under neo-fascism? Can't have the KKK under racism because they regard that as a pejorative? However, when you look at the KKK page, you do have to wonder whether they need quite so many categories - when 'hate groups' covers most of it. Mish (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, SatyrTN and I will try to watch it. I have worded my statement on the discussion log page without suspicion of intent.

I find this proposal of Category deletion troubling as it seems to be part of a trend that any group who is involved in activism against LGBT people should not be identified as such. This includes the Westboro Baptists, who are apparently "Anti-Catholic, Anti-Semitic and Anti-Islamic, but if we label them "Homophobic" or even something as politically correct and neutral as "Opposes LGBT Rights", we get attacked for creating a category that is pejorative. The group that is most famous for it's "God Hates Fags" slogan is more anti-catholic than anti-gay? No matter what we do, it will be challenged. Even the phrase "LGBT Rights" which is universally accepted among the established media, government, academia is challenged because a few editors believe that LGBT already have the same rights, but we want "extra rights". (The argument is that Gay men have the right to marry (a woman) same as anyone else). Of course this argument is a Logical Fallacy...--DCX (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

List of LGBT Jews

Hi, one of this projects templated articles List of LGBT Jews has been raised at the BLPN here in regards to uncited names, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who most of those names are that were deleted, however I do know Todd Haynes is definitely Jewish and openly out Gay, so he should not have been deleted. He also writes for LGBT publications and some of his films had gay story lines.

http://www.queertheory.org/histories/h/haynes_todd.htm http://www.nndb.com/people/592/000162106/--DCX (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, never mind about Haynes, I didn't see that he wasn't deleted, there was just a change to the reference.... Adam Lambert is also definitely gay and Jewish. didn't he talk a lot about being Jewish on AI? I think he even sang a song in Hebrew. --DCX (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You're really missing the point. If there is potentially contentious material about living persons, it should be removed immediately until a source can be provided. If you have sources for any of them, please feel free to add them. The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is that sort of a strange list? LadyofShalott 03:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeh. I can't think of anyone in particular where being gay and Jewish was in any way notable. Strikes me as weird. By the way - what in the world is "potentially contentious" about being gay and jewish? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wordsmith, I am also curious as to what you mean by "potentially contentious". As for being gay and Jewish...is it possible you don't understand the significance because you don't have a lot of experience with Jewish people and culture yourself? People who identify as Jewish as a culture, (not just a religion) and influences their identity. The best example I can think of is Chai Feldblum the daughter of a rabbi and Holocaust survivor who wanted to be a rabbi herself, but wasn't allowed and went on to be an Obama appointee on the equal employment opportunity council.--DCX (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

But why would they need to know that to start with? Shouldn't a wikipedia article or list make it clear why it exists? It's not entirely clear to me why this one does. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The "potentially contentious" part is that calling someone gay (or Jewish, for that matter) is still very controversial in most of the world and may result in real harm to the subject. Indeed, it is a potentially libelous assertion. Without very good sourcing, we should not be making such claims. Therefore, I completely agree with the removal of unsourced names, until such time as a source can be found. The Wordsmith^Communicate 13:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously if someone is on that list who shouldn't be there, they should be deleted...I never suggested otherwise, the one person who was deleted that I mentioned, Adam Lambert has several sources in his entry that identify him as both Jewish and Gay, and it is common knowledge. Do you need a source to mention that the Pope happens to be Catholic?

I must say I am offended that you think being labeled Jewish or gay is potentially offensive...--DCX (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Be offended all you like. Gays are routinely executed, beaten and harassed in some parts of the world, so I think i'd be more able to live with offending you than causing harm to some poor BLP subject. Also, we only have to look back 70 years to see how Jews have been treated based on very little evidence. I'm not saying its right, but that's unfortunately the world we live in. We need to err on the side of caution when calling someone gay or Jewish or anything else. The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Gays are routinely executed, etc" has nothing to do with this situation, so don't create a logical fallacy. Again, I never said don't delete someone who is miscategorized or unverified I only pointed out that one person who was deleted has several verifications for both being Jewish and Gay, so I am still unclear as to why you said I am missing the point.--DCX (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have references, then don't hesitate to add them back. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the article is currently being discussed at AfD. LadyofShalott 17:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing LGBT topics

I've updated my page about missing LGBT topics - Skysmith (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"LGBT rights opposition" category added, need help

I am adding "LGBT rights opposition" category links to articles that relate to this topic, but need help creating the category page, can someone please advise? thnx! I think this is really important, especially in lieu of recent attempts by Jesse Helms estate to rewrite him as some sort of LGBT rights defender.--DCX (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to use only sourced additions per WP:BLP. Just go ahead and create Category:LGBT rights opposition CTJF83 chat 18:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ctjf83!--DCX (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this category listing would be for groups whose self expressed function is to eliminate or control LGBT rights, not for individuals or Bios--DCX (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Such as the lovely westboro church? CTJF83 chat 01:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am being challenged that this category violates Wiki policy. I would appreciate any help to support the existance of this category--DCX (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

Is it possible for a group to be anti-gay and not be a hate group?

I appreciate the article, 'A Mighty Army', from the Southern Poverty Law Center. On the first page of the article, they list a dozen anti-gay groups including Focus on the Family. These groups, I believe, legitimately belong in Category:LGBT rights opposition. However, only three of these groups are marked with an asterisk* as hate groups. If you click on the blue link for each anti-gay group, you see the reason why the group was included in the list. According to me, (this is original research and therefore cannot be included in an article) the thing that distinguishes the hate groups from the ordinary anti-gay groups is that the hate groups advocate death for homosexuals: (I've added emphasis in the following quotes.)

American Vision:

While DeMar insists that homosexuals wouldn't be rounded up and systematically executed under a "reconstructed" government, he does believe that the occasional execution of "sodomites" would serve society well, because "the law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back into the closet."

Chalcedon Foundation:

[F]undamentalist Christians must take control of governments and impose strict biblical law on America and the world. That would mean the death penalty for "practicing homosexuals," among many other "abominators."

Family Research Institute:

He told the 1985 Conservative Political Action Committee conference that "extermination of homosexuals" might be needed in the next three to four years.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kevinkor2,

The category LGBT rights opposition is not the same as "anti-gay" and both are different than being a Hate Group.

I appreciate your good faith in researching those groups which you see as both a Hate Group and anti-gay / LGBT rights opposition.

Is there an article that was labeled as a Hate Group that you feel does not fit there? --DCX (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the Hate groups category from The Society For Truth And Light, Concerned Christians, The Good Citizen, and Order of United American Mechanics. In those four changes, in my edit summary, I suggest that a group being classified as a hate group should have a mention of being a hate group in the body of the article.

I've added a reference to 'A Mighty Army' to Chalcedon Foundation, Family Research Institute, and American Vision. I've also started watching those articles.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again Kevinkor2 for your good faith work. I agree with your statement about including a summary with support in the article, not just a "Hate group" label. Although regardless of how much support given, some editors still dispute it.

• The Society For Truth And Light I do know about them and I do understand the Hong Kong situation as I work in Hong Kong and China for part of the year for many years now. They are controversial and anti-gay, but labeling them a "Hate group" does not seem accurate not only because of their modus operandi but may be applying western value sets to non-western entities in a pejorative way. Let me clarify that by explaining that in many Asian cultures, descriptives that we may find offensive are not seen as such as the intent behind them may seem tactless it is generally without malice, (see gweilo).

• Concerned Christians - I have only recently been made aware of them and they seem to be more of an "Extremist group" rather than a "Hate group", but wouldn't categorize at this point as either.

• The Good Citizen and Order of United American Mechanics were wrongly categorized.--DCX (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel it is important to be clear what is 'genuinely' a group that campaigns against LGBT rights as distinct from an 'hate group', and that there needs to be a category for both. Otherwise, a more charitable group (i.e., one that believes it is helping gay people according to its own internal logic) could be categorised alongside a group that sets out to seek (or encourage) harm. This would not be accurate, regardless of whether one might think both are misguided - and weakens the way we deal with both groups. If they are oppositional, but not hateful, they should be categorised as such - while those who are hateful should not be presented as oppositional, as that is misleading, but as hate groups.Mish (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Joint project cooperation

Hi all. The article USS Iowa turret explosion is up on the main page today in the anniversary section, being as how the USN initially blamed an alleged homosexual sailor for the accident I thought I would drop by and ask if this projects would be interested in lending a few extra eyes to make sure the articles stay stable. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 04:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

need a help

Hello everybody i am new to this site and i need ur help but before that i want to know if i am taking advice from a right person or not . i need ur help if u r helping lesbians in our society .if u read my message pls leave ur test message for me so that i can continue with my talk . so pls help me if ur helping lesbians in our society . looking forward to ur reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupamara (talk • contribs) 07:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you be more clear? Zazaban (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality in women's sports

Homosexuality in women's sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, this article has been brought to the WP:BLPN here. I had a quick look and it appears uncited and there is a mention that perhaps do we really need it, any comments at the noticeboard or improvements to the article are welcomed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sent to AFD for discussion, here Off2riorob (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Feminists Fighting Pornography

Hi, this article is in need of a lot of help and has been mentioned at ANI, Feminists Fighting Pornography it seems overly sourced to one publication and a bit opinionated and in need of an expert on the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream gay

Strikes me that this title is a WP:neologism, the article itself mostly WP:OR, and is more of an opinion piece which breaches WP:NPOV and is primarily an anti-gay WP:SOAPBOX. Would appreciate other eyes on this to see whether it needs pushing for deletion. Mish (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would call it a neologism, but I wouldn't call it anti-gay. I don't see how it could possibly be constructed as anti-gay. It's gay shame stuff, which is radically pro-gay, but anti-commercial. Zazaban (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The gay shame section is sourced to a blog - is that a WP:RS for the concept? I don't think so. Thing is, where I have come across this before, it is all bound up with fairly homophobic sites about the gay mafia and stuff like that. And the sources were mostly networks of blogs and personal web-sites venting opinions about how crap the gay and lesbian community is because of its attitudes to trans people. Now, whether that is a valid criticism or not, it seemed little different qualitatively from other sites dealing with things like the homosexual agenda and gay mafia, etc. The sources are hardly adequate to support an article which is essentially an opinion piece. I'm personally clear that much of the gay and lesbian community (but not all) are phobic about a range of trans, bi, queer & BDSM stuff, but if we have an article about it, it should not be promoting a neologism, nor doing WP:OR, and should be sourced to reliable sources rather than blogs and websites. I would have thought we would be seeking the same standards for this article as we would negative articles covering the more usual criticisms of the LGBT community, and which critics seem to demand of more positive articles about LGBT issues? Mish (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, while I actually do agree with some of this stuff, I don't buy the article's fundamental thesis. Do racism, sexism, looksism, classism, shallow consumerism, etc., exist in the gay community? Of course they do. But are they features unique to the gay community? Not in the least — mainstream straight culture can be awfully full of racism, sexism, looksism, classism, shallow consumerism, etc., too. These problems are endemic to Western culture in general, not just to us queers — and while they are certainly important issues for us to discuss, the discourse around them can sometimes lapse into homophobia when it forgets that the fundamental issue is with Western values in general, not just LGBT community values in isolation.

So while there certainly is a valid article that can be written on this topic, this article ain't it — as written, it reads more like a whine list than a real encyclopedia article. And you're right, we can't source stuff to a blog, either. Bearcat (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have sent the article in question to AFD. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a link for that? I cannot find it.Mish (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't find it either. What's up with that? Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainstream gay The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Luxuria

On the subject Vladimir Luxuria is going on a inter-wiki edit-war about the simple fact: Wikipedia uses the pronouns that a person uses to refer to themselves as a matter of policy. So sorry, no cigar. Rebecca (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2010 (cit.). Some users don't accept this wikipedia's guideline both on en-wiki and on it-wiki.--Demostene119 (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Happens at Brandon Teena a lot, as well... Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Categorization question

There's been a lot of confusion about a couple of categories, namely Category:Lesbians and Category:Gay men, so I'd like to solicit some feedback from the WikiProject.

For clarity's sake, the categories were first created as containers for those occupational subcategories for which we've subdivided "LGBT occupation" into four distinct L, G, B and T subcategories instead of keeping all people in the combined parent, and as far as I know were not originally intended to be directly applied to individual lesbians or individual gay men. That said, a relatively small number of users have used the categories in that way for a few individual people — but they've never been used that way comprehensively; neither category has ever had more than seven or eight people in it. That said, Category:Bisexual people has been a bit more widely used (31 people at present) than its L and G siblings have, but still not in a truly thorough way.

So my question is, how does this project want to use the categories? Do we want them to directly list individual gay men, individual lesbians and individual bisexuals who aren't already in the occupational subcategories, or do we want them to remain as containers which would stay depopulated of individual people?

Further, if we do want to include individual people directly in the categories, then we need to start adding it comprehensively — there's no real value in having a Category:Lesbians that only includes Kitty Genovese, for example. And if we don't want to use the categories that way, then we need volunteers to start monitoring them and removing people who do get added.

For the record, I have no personal preference here — but I've seen enough confusion about this in recent weeks that I think we should shoot for some sort of consensus regarding how the Wikiproject actually wants to use them. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should follow the conventions elsewhere on Wikipedia. E.g. Category:Futurists contains futurists. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There isn't anywhere on Wikipedia where there's any convention requiring any individual category to directly contain every single article that could be added to it. For instance, we don't file individual musicians directly in Category:Musicians; we subcategorize them by the country they're from, the genre of music they work in, the instrument they play, etc. And we don't file individual politicians directly in Category:Politicians; we subcategorize them by what country they work in, what office they held, and on and so forth. And we don't file individual people directly in Category:Men or Category:Women, either. In other words, some categories only contain subcategories and not individual entries, while some contain all the appropriate individual entries and some contain a mix of both. They're all valid approaches in different circumstances — but we need to be consistent about it and apply them to all the appropriate articles, if that's what we want to do. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I lean towards using only Category:LGBT people, or whatever one you are referring to. The others breaking down the LGBT to more specifics I don't think are necessary for individuals. CTJF83 chat 21:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A consensus was established a long time ago that using only Category:LGBT people, with no subcategorization of any kind, was making the category too large to be useful. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, either way, I don't think the more specifics should be used for people. CTJF83 chat 21:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to then? CTJF83 chat 21:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Keeley Hawes

Thought I'd bring this here before being bold, because I know this is a touchy subject. What does anyone think about removing the project tag from Keeley Hawes? It seems that at some point she was either misquoted or misguidedly said that she was bisexual and more recently says she is not, so is there any need to have the project tag?--BelovedFreak 10:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't make a big deal of it, and I don't see any sexuality-related vandalism. I don't see much of an argument against removing it, so it would probably be alright. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed it.--BelovedFreak 21:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

thirteen (House)'s GAR

The link can be found here. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

New article added

I hope nobody minds since I'm not a member of the project, but I added the bio on Chely Wright to your project with a banner on the talk page. Reliable sources are covering her planned coming out as a lesbian, terming it as the first time a major country music artist has done so. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is fine, thank you for assisting us. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Henry James for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Which phrase is less problematic?

Which phrase is less problematic: "gays and lesbians" or "gay men and women"? Kaldari (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It probably depends on the context, but I generally prefer "gay men and lesbians" as the least ambiguous. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Wordsmith. CTJF83 chat 16:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but I tend to use 'gay and lesbian people'. Mish (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused

How is Jane Wiedlin part of this wikiproject? She isn't lesbian or bisexual. None of her songs are about gay or lesbian subjects. I'm kinda confused. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have done some research that doesn't answer your question, Jack, but that does provide some historical context:

Jane Wiedlin was added to this project on 13:03, 28 December 2006 by this edit.

At that time, the Jane Wiedlin article was part of several LGBT categories: Bisexual American actors | Bisexual musicians | LGBT musicians from the United States. However, there was no support in the article itself for these categories. Under today's WP:BLP guidelines, the categories would be removed from the article.

The first LGBT category was added to the article on 00:22, 13 July 2005. Again, there was no support in the article itself for this category.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like some personal information to that effect was removed here in 2009. Rightly so in my opinion as she declines to label herself as bisexual in that source.--BelovedFreak 10:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Sexual content

The above policy has been rewritten unilaterally by Jimmy Wales. Apparently this is anticipation of policy that will be announced by the Wikimedia Foundation in the next few days designed to make the Wiki projects more inclusive of and acceptable to societies that aren't in to Western liberalism. Alongside this Wales has urged admins to speedily delete "pornography" from the Commons, guaranteeing immunity for those admins considered to be abusing their power and threatening to block any who reverse the deletions. This policy is supposed to include material currently in use, though admins seem to be backing off here in the face of outrage (but not from Jimbo!). One picture from the Portal:Sexuality/Featured picture/Archive was deleted (but restored by the same admin) it is File:Kaalos g locked-in.jpg (worth checking if you want to see what "pornography" might mean). Discussions are happening at the Commons:Village pump and at Commons:User talk:Jimbo Wales, though they seem academic as the decisions have supposedly already been taken. As the Wikimedia Commons is our image library this affects any and all media we use. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there some risk in this that at some point articles dealing with LGBT issues may become targeted for deletion if the content is considered undesirable in some countries/cultures? Or is this only going to affect 'hardcore' pornographic images? Mish (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any clear guidelines at this point, it's up to the admin's discretion to decide what is appropriate and what is not. What disturbs me about this, is that it is encouraged to be done without discussion. Zazaban (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

At the moment the process seems to have stalled with a lot of anger directed at Jimbo. It always concerned media not articles. However, when in full flow just about everything was being made a target: anything explicit photo drawing or artwork and absolutely anything BDSM related including public stuff photographed on the street. The deletions we've seen were to be the start and each definition of pornography was wider than the last with previous exceptions ignored. Please people, take an interest: a load of the most liberal Wikimedians just left in disgust. Most of those left have been trying to limit the damage, but Jimbo's new rules which he both attributed to the Foundation and ignored himself still seem intact. Everybody was stunned and nobody seems to have the confidence to just chuck out what he's done. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Why I find this worrying is because I have seen a pattern of editorial comment emerging from sex/gender fundamentalists cropping up in some LGBT-related articles that run along the lines of 'this is only a Western perspective', the implication being that other cultures do not accept LGBT rights, etc., so articles that take them as 'read' are biased. Of course, this tends to be a point made by Xtian fundamentalists, who are not renowned for their tolerance of other cultures - but what concerns me is that this is a thin-end-of-the-wedge. I cannot get excited about pornographic content in the commons myself (although images of fellatio are really circumscribed, which makes generating an article on gay sex which wants an image of fellatio quite difficult - but I don't see such an image as pornographic per se), because I am opposed to pornography, as I see it as exploitative. Mish (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Very little, if any, of the material affected is actually porn. There's old artwork and there's new material (artwork and photos) created to illustrate the Wikipedia. Even the "low quality amateur porn" that originally helped justify this is annoying exhibitionism posted to the commons. I haven't seen any stuff deleted that's a product of the sex industry (the commons doesn't have much because of copyright problems). Porn is just a label that's being used - like witch !! --Simon Speed (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, this is my concern, that this is the beginning of a witch-hunt to root out material that might be unacceptable in countries that deny rights to sexual minorities. From what you are saying, it could be. I do not aprticularly relish the idea of purging LGBT articles to make them acceptible in Saudi Arabia or Uganda. Mish (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm basing the foreign country pressure interpretation on some of the justifying statements made by Jimbo and supporters. It has emerged since that this may have kicked off so suddenly because of some reporting and lobbying of the Foundation's donors by the Fox news organization. Understanding something so fundamentally irrational has been hard: at the start people were openly speculating that Jimbo's account had been hacked by some nut. It's all been very confused, totally destructive and demoralizing and a fair few admins have just gone from the Commons. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Saudi Arabia theory has just had a boost. Jimbo is talking of "Images of Muhammad" as examples of "potentially offensive content". See the discussion at the end of Commons:User talk:Jimbo Wales. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added an image thumbnail to my userpage that I feel expresses the absurdity of this policy, without being overtly nasty. I feel the group opposing it needs some kind of representative symbol, so I'd like to nominate this. Perhaps the text could explain more. Anyone who wants to use it, feel free. Zazaban (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. Not allowed on userpages. Oh well. It was frivolous. Zazaban (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Images from the Wikimedia Commons are free to use. I think the picture of Cartman was a bit obscure, but any involvement from supporters of free speech is useful. When this started it was very much presented as a done deal and permanent official policy. That caused a lot of good people to just leave. Now the process has stalled, but not stopped and there's some attempt to build consensus with discussion by the Foundation Board. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see Commons:News regarding the sexual content purge. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Quagmire's Dad

An editor has been disputing the edits I've made to Quagmire's Dad and has suggested that it should never have been tagged to this project. I'm concerned, given the controversy the episode has generated, that he'll continue to assert ownership to the detriment of neutral and accurate information on transgenderism. It's also a potential vandalism target so more eyes would be good. Thanks. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be a serious LGBT-related problem just yet, but i'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverting your edits based on broken sentence structure, and choppy paragraphs has nothing to do with "the detriment of neutral and accurate information on transgenderism." I've not done anything whatsoever to do so. I was the one who added the project tag to the talk page in the first place, I expressed my regret due to your own issues with believing you own the article. Gage (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I own the article. I do however know I'm a better writer than you are and supported that knowledge with several examples on the talk page. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of image challenge, rationale

I guess this echoes my concerns expressed in the earlier discussion about sexual images.

I have had the use of, what to me, seemed a fairly innocuous image here: Talk:Homophobia#Blood splattered flag

The rationale being that if the image is not linked to topic in a mainstream source, then it cannot be used in the article. I am thinking that there must be lots of images used from Commons that have no mainstream source linking them to the article subject, yet are used because they illustrate something about the topic.Mish (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you only have approximately 48 articles to be referenced, a 2.0% reduction from last week. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Alfred Kinsey

The biography is becoming the focus of some aggressive editing that has deleted well-sourced material about his work and replaced this with material about the controvery surrounding his work instead, thus turning it into a WP:ATTACK which WP:SOAP-boxes focusing mainly on criticisms that arose many years after his life. Mish (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Heteronormativity, categories and other help needed

There is currently a discussion on the Heteronormativity article, on several topics, and the editors involved (myself included) have exceeded our expertise to judge the correct edits. Firstly, the question is the difference between Heteronormativity and Heterosexism, as the terms seem to be used interchangibly. Are they the same, or different? Are they suitably similar that a merge is possible? On a scale from permissive to disciminatory, would Heteronormativity be more permissive with Heterosexism being more discriminatory, or simply would Heteronormativity be more passive with Heterosexism more active? This leads to the next question: if Heteronormativity is less active in its effects, does it make sense to label Heteronormativity as simply a prejudice, which leads to discrimination that is better labeled as Heterosexism? If so, Heteronormativity should be removed from discrimination categories. In any case, it seems these two articles need a big hand from someone who is educated in the subjects, since as it is everything is somewhat ambiguous (I've read the article several times and still don't know what's going on ;) ). Thanks in advance! Bakkster Man (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This is why you rely on reliable sources - it is what it says in reliable sources. I know what I think it is, but that doesn't mean anything unless I can come up with sources to verify this as far as the encyclopedia is concerned. Heterosexism is not the same as heteronormativity, in my book, it is closer to homophobia. heteronormativity is more along the lines that everybody is straight until it is discovered people aren't. People are expected to be straight, as that is the norm (heteronormativity); straight is superior to gay, people should be straight (heterosexism); people should be straight, hating gay people, fear of gay people (homophobia). At one extreme there is a bias or preference, which moves through to prejudice and discrimination, to violence and killing.Mish (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and unfortunately those watching this article don't have the background to find improved sources in order to make the article more clear. As you said, I know what the term heteronormativity sounds like, but I don't know its common use. Hence, the call out to the more knowledgeable people of this project. Bakkster Man (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Transgender sexuality article

This article, aside from having some issues of poor writing in general (and multiple NPOV complaints on the talk page), seems to have some elements in it that come across as (at the very least) insensitive, if not outright disrespectful, of transgendered individuals:

• It's debatable whether the article should exist at all, considering that it implies transgender sexuality is necessarily different from regular sexuality (even though the article itself states that "Transgender people exhibit the full range of possible sexual orientations and interests").
• The 4 "Trans A attracted to B" sections all seem to say the same thing ("In the 20th century, trans A attracted to B struggled to demonstrate the existence and legitimacy of their identity."), but force a perception of a gender binary due to the implicit omission of anything not strictly a man or a woman.
• The section on Hjira states that they do not consider themselves to be male nor female, but earlier on specifically refers to them as trans women.
• The section on Travesti states that they often do not consider themselves real women, but still refers to them as trans women.

I'm not sure where the best place to bring this up is, but here at least seemed semi-relevant; if anyone has a suggestion of a better place then feel free to suggest it. The issues I listed above aren't by far the only issues; a lot of the wording and writing style is rather poor, and while the article has many references, it's rather lacking in other departments (the See Also section has a single link, to Transgender youth, for instance). In some sense, it seems like the entire article could use a rewrite, but in another sense it might just be better to just condense it into subsections on other pages such as Transgender. 76.174.63.94 (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a poor article, more of an opinion piece backed up with some selected quotes. I don't see any point of this, as it could be covered within Transgender.Mish (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the article Transsexualism adds to the general confusion to the issue:

• Transsexualism is defined (in the wp article) as "Transsexualism in which an individual identifies with a physical sex that is different from their biological one" (that the phrase has a grammar issue is beside the major point)
• Transgender is defined (in the wp article) as the state of one's "gender identity" (self-identification as woman, man, neither or both) not matching one's "assigned sex". (an additional issue is the usage of "quotes")

At the first glance both definitions basically say the same. I see the following possibilities:

• The notions are the same
• In some contexts a distinction is drawn
• People (including wikipedians) are confused what means which.

In any case, I agree that the three (and possibly more) articles: Transgender, Transsexualism, Transgender sexuality, must be heavily reshuffled, not simply merged (total megre is bad, since the articles are already long). A.A.Graff (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd opt for merging anything worth saving in transgender sexuality into trangender and leaving transsexualism alone. Mish (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, "transgender" is an umbrella term encompassing several identities, including "transsexual". Those should definitely stay separate articles, but the distinction should be made clearer in the articles. Transgender sexuality is a worthwhile topic -- I'm sure people have studied and written about the sexuality of trans people -- but the article needs a complete rewrite. --Alynna (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and work on the transgender sexuality article in the next few days. --Alynna (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Off-project

Just want to let you guys know that somebody seems to be after my blood following some edits I tried to make on the iPad, and is threatening to block me. Quite funny really, I thought we had to put up with some difficult POV issues here - but never expected to upset people over a gadget; would be ironic if I did get blocked for editing off-project, and about something I couldn't care less about (isn't that the advice we get? Edit something you have no interest in...). Anyway, just in case, so long and thanks for all the fish. Mish (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Co-motherhood

Hello, I am new as a contributor and added a short article on co-motherhood which was immediately suggested for deletion after the same person suggested I change my username, which I did. Here is the discussion on the deletion:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Co-motherhood

As you can see, the article was deleted and re-directed to LGBT parenting as some users suggested, but still there is no mention of the term co-motherhood in the article it was re-directed to. As a new contributor I would not wish to edit other peoples articles but I understand you are participating in a group to improve the LGBT parenting article. Please feel free to use my article in editing your article, if you wish:

Co-motherhood From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When a married heterosexual couple have a child by the use of assisted reproductive technology, the spouse of the new mother will legally and morally be considered the father of the child, although he may not be the biological father. In the same way, homosexual lesbian couples can have children. The role and status of the non-biological mother or co-mother, is called co-motherhood. In some countries, such as the Netherlands and Australia, there is an approximation towards equal legal rights for all parents, regardless of sexual orientation. This includes the right to co-maternity leave and many other rights, responsibilities and obligations assumed by fathers.

[edit] See also LGBT parenting

[edit] External Links http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2009/11/10/lesbian-parents-win-recognition/18148 [1] http://www.ru.nl/vox/archief/zoek_op_nummer/nummers_%28index/jaargang_4/inhoudsopgave_5/scriptie_piekerende/ [2] http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/qc_civil_unions.htm [3] "The papers and TV here are full of "civil union" and stories of lesbian co-motherhood. The people who appeared at the Commission hearings in Québec said..."

[edit] References [1] [2] [3]

[4] 1. ^ Karla Mason Bergen, Elizabeth A. Suter, Karen L. Daas (July 2006). "About as Solid as a Fish Net": Symbolic Construction of a Legitimate Parental Identity for Nonbiological Lesbian Mothers". 'Journal of Family Communication, Volume 6, Issue 3. pp. 201 - 220. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a785035755&db=all. "Nonbiological lesbian mothers lack not only biological ties to their children, but have no legal ties..." 2. ^ Machteld Vonk, Molengraaff Institute for Private Law, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands (2004). "One, Two or Three Parents? Lesbian Co-Mothers and a Known Donor with ‘Family Life’ under Dutch Law". 'Oxford Journals, Int. Jnl. of Law, Policy and the Family,Volume 18, Number 1. pp. 103-117. http://lawfam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/1/103. "In recent years much attention has been paid to the equal treatment of same-sex couples in the Netherlands." 3. ^ Erin Hadley, M.A. and Jennifer Stuart, Ph.D. (2010). "The Expression of Parental Identifications in Lesbian Mothers' Work and Family Arrangements". 'Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing.. http://pep.gvpi.net/document.php?id=ppsy.026.0042a. "We also find a range of experience in reactions to biological motherhood and co-motherhood." 4. ^ Queensland Government (17 August 2009). "Same-Sex Model Review". Department of Justice and Attorney. http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/21633/same-sex-model-review-17-aug-2009.pdf. ""...there is no justification for excluding co-mothers from the Status of Children Act 1996"" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-motherhood"

I think this is important as there are new regulations, official application forms and standardized procedures to apply for co-motherhood in different European countries, so it is not a term which should be left totally unmentioned in an encyclopedia. Please, could you forward this to the LGBT group project? OKjustchange (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised that this was deleted on the basis that the article was unwarranted, although looking at the text it seems it was little more than a stub, so that may have been the reason. Given this applies to heterosexual as well as lesbian couples, I don't see how this could be covered under LGBT parenting per se. There are articles on Assisted reproductive technology, Artificial insemination and Surrogacy, but these are either mostly focused on medical-technical aspects or inappropriate. It strikes me that the legal and social arrangements, particularly around parenting, would be appropriate, and I am surprised if there isn't an article about this. The text you constructed deals with fatherhood and motherhood, lesbian as well as heterosexual - so the naming doesn't seem entirely adequate. You can edit any article, and nobody 'owns' these - just as if you were to construct such an article, then you would not own it, and anybody could contribute to it. If you need help with this, let me know. I am thinking that you might want to look at the other projects mentioned on the pages I have linked above, as well as the LGBT parenting page to see if any of those can point you in the right direction or offer advice. For example WP:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force. Mish (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There are also articles for Coparenting, Othermother, Alloparenting, and Platonic parenting (the last is in pretty bad shape.) Siawase (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your opinions, Mish and Siawase OKjustchange (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't obviously LGBT (falls more under AIDS), but...

There's a Star Trek: Enterprise episode that deals with the issue of AIDS (through allegory) and prejudices against those with AIDS. However, the section dealing with that is pitifully short, only two lines long. I'd post this under the AIDS WikiProject, but it seems to be defunct. The allegory they used for AIDS was a Vulcan illness, Pa'nar Syndrome, and the Syndrome and persecution of those suffering from was the main focus of the episode, which also drew parallels between a Vulcan "subculture" and today's gay community. The metaphors used in the episode deserve more than two sentences, but I don't know of any sourced material that I could use when editing the article. I don't want to include unsourced material, for fear of provoking controversy. That said, watching the episode, it's painfully obvious that it's an allegory for AIDS. Below is the message I posted on the episode's talk page:

“ I feel like the section talking about how the prejudice of the Vulcans is an allegory for common prejudices and misconceptions regarding AIDS really needs expansion. For instance, the "subculture" of Vulcans who can mind-meld can be seen as a reference to the gay community, because AIDS is commonly thought of as a "gay disease," even though anyone can contract it. The episode uses T'Pol as an example of that, because she is not of the supposed "subculture," yet she still contracts it. Also the High Command's recall of T'Pol can be seen as either a reference to "Don't ask, don't tell" or to the many employers who have fired workers because they contracted AIDS and/or were gay. Additionally, the Vulcans' assumptions that (a) mind-melding is "dirty" and (b) everyone who mind-melds is going to contract the Syndrome can be seen as the common assumptions that homosexuality is evil and that all gay people will contract AIDS. The Vulcan High Command's concealing of the fact that anyone can meld and that anyone can contract Pa'nar Syndrome (revealed in a later episode, can't remember which one) is also significant.

I really think that some, if not all of this belongs in the article, the topics of AIDS and homosexuality are highly controversial, though, and I don't want to just add in information without sources and discussion. I'm also going to post this on WikiProject LGBT (WP:AIDS is defunct, so WikiProject:LGBT is the next-closest thing) to see if anyone there knows of any sources we can use, etc. cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 18:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC) ”

Should WP air allegations and denials of homosexuality

There is a robust discussion here. Tony (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Are You The Cow Of Pain?

Can someone look over the contributions of this editor? I'm not sure what's going on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not a member of this Wikiproject and they have no more role overseeing my edits than does any other editor. If you have a problem with my editing style, I suggest you take it up with me instead of Wiki-stalking and kneejerk reverting my edits without comment. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Any editor on Wikipedia can look over the edits of any other editor to see if there is a continuing problem with them. I have looked over some of your edits and found a number of them problematic. Since you often edit in the LGBT area, I thought the members of this project, of which I am also not a member, might also want to take a look and evaluate whether there was a systemic problem with your editing, since I was unable to determine that myself. Transparency is an essential part of Wikipedia, so please dial back the rhetoric a bit and quit talking about "Wiki-stalking", which has not occured. You also seem to be editing with a certain amount of anger, as seen in your edit summaries, which is really not the best way to approach working on a collaborative project, my friend. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not your friend and have no desire to be, so please refrain from such obviously phony attempts to present yourself as being of good will and good cheer. "Wiki-stalking" is a perfectly adequate term to define your activities. And I'll repeat; if you have some problem with my editing, then talk to me about it. Slapping bogus edit war tags on my talk page (rather than making any effort at all to address my concerns with the material I'm removing) and complaining about me on talk pages of projects with which I have no affiliation do not constitute talking to me about it. Did it occur to you that maybe I had some valid reason for removing the material? Or did you just make a series of unfounded and unwarranted assumptions? Try knocking off this passive aggressive approach and maybe you might find out. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Went and had a look, but don't understand what the problem is, why the edits are problematic, nor why this is so heated. I don't understand why this is being raised here, either. The image in the lead was wrong, so I removed it and replaced with a more appropriate one. Mish (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop

• Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop

AfD for this article, discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, only just got to this, and the AfD was closed already - would help to post this stuff before the final day. Seems bizarre to have two BLP articles on one person, these need to be merged. Cannot understand why this has not happened. Mish (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

They shouldn't be merged because one article is for the person while the other is for the biography (book). HalJor (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

National Union of Students LGBT Campaign

I was going through the new page patrol, and I came across this article: National Union of Students LGBT Campaign. I added a "refimprove" tag to the article as I find that it is under referenced. On the talk page, I noticed that article had been given a "B" rating by this project. I feel this article may need to be reviewed by a more experienced editor to determine if that rating is appropriate. --Tea with toast (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it is substantial, but needs some inline reliable secondary sources - gave it a "C". Mish (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:LGBT rights activists CFD

Hello, this is a notice for this WikiProject in regards to a current category for discussion. Category:LGBT rights activists is currently nominated to be renamed to Category:Advocates of LGBT rights. Your comments are welcome, and the discussion can be found here. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 22:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Two days left on a relisting, so if anyone is interested in commenting, hurry up. — Becksguy (talk) 06:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on new article - Dean Spade

I am looking for feedback on a new article I created, Dean Spade (transgendar law scholar, civil rights activist, and founder of the Sylvia Rivera Law project). Can anyone help? Hooperstoop (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Dean Spade for first thoughts. — Becksguy (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Cross dressers

What are people's thoughts on cross-dressers being part of this project's scope? I'm not talking about people who identify as being transsexual, transgender or transvestite, or drag artists. I mean people who happen to have worn the clothing of the opposite gender at some point (possibly a one off situation), so who are put into Category:Cross-dressers and subsequently tagged as being part of this project. For example, Yennenga, (see also User talk:Dimadick#Yennenga) a 12th century African Princess who was locked up by her father and disguised herself as a man in order to escape. Does that make her LGBT? I can see that there is a bit of a blurry line somewhere, but I can't see that tagging articles like this would help the article in any way, or would be helpful to members of this project who are looking for articles on LGBT topics.

On a related note, should someone like Sam Walls be tagged for the project? I'm not familiar with him, but reading the article I can see why he might be relevant to the LGBT project but as it's a BLP, shouldn't we be looking for self-identification as LGBT? Just a thought, given recent hoo-ha over the project tag...--BelovedFreak 13:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Yennenga, but from what you've said here, she doesn't belong in Category:Cross-dressers. As for tagging BLPs, we often put the LGBT project tag on the articles of people who are not necessarily LGBT, if the article is relevant to the project. For example, Madonna's talk page has the LGBT project tag, even though noone is asserting that Madonna is LGBT. --Alynna (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I realise that not all people whose articles come under the project's scope are necessarily LGBT. I'm also aware of an awful lot of controversy surrounding the issue as well as possible WP:BLP implications.--BelovedFreak 14:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Lazarus Effect (film)

Hi there,

I think a documentary to raise awareness of AIDS in Africa might fit within your remit? Sorry if I am mistaken there.

The Lazarus Effect (film) - is such an article. There are sources available gnews, etc. -Can anyone help me with developing it?  Chzz  ►  05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent revisions to Homosexuality

An editor has recently been working on reducing the social aspects from this article by hiving off lengthy sections to their own articles. While the aim is not unreasonable, I have pointed out that this needs to be replicated for non-social issues in order to avoid giving undue weight to those issues. I have placed a tag on one of these newer articles Homosexuality in society, that material from Societal attitudes toward homosexuality be merged with it (and tagged that article as well). As they stand, one gives a western perpective, the other a less favourable perspective. Articles that deals with 'attitudes' can be problematic, as often they are used to present a POV as if it is neutral. By mergings these, the two issues should be addressed and balanced. It seems that there should be an article about 'Homosexuality and society', and that social attitudes be part of that. I don't particularly agree with the way this process started, but the article is/was excessive. Mish (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Monsiváis

Carlos Monsiváis, a DYK frontpage item for the next four hours, is an LGBT WP article. I 5x expanded his article upon his death one week ago today. Another editor outted him as being gay on this talkpage with WP:RS posted links. Nothing in the stories I saw mentioned this. I posted on another LGBT page that your WP should take over his article and improve it with those cites. I am not sure I would be able to do it as I've never written an article from the LGBT prospective. I tried to get his article bumped up to yesterday as I saw it was Flag Day but the DYK queues were full. TIA ----moreno oso (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Greetings, everyone at WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies! I am here to inform you that a proposal has been made to modify your barnstar, here. You are invited to participate in the discussion! Thanks for taking time to read this notice. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join discussion about deleting an article "of interest" to the LGBT project

At the moment, the article Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa has been suggested for deletion. It is a Japanese manga about a hermaphrodite, and has a flag that it is "of interest" to the WikiProject LGBT studies group. There is a discussion on the article talk page and on the proposed deletion page as well. If you wish, please join the discussion so that consensus can be reached on this issue. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"...in LGBT rights" articles

I'm confused about the intended scope of these articles. Some seem to be strictly about laws passed, marches held, etc. while some include information on other aspects of LGBT history (first candidates for public office, social history events, etc.). If these are intended to present a broader scope (as suggested by the granddaddy article, Timeline of LGBT history) shouldn't they be named "(Year) in LGBT history"? If they are strictly for civil rights then shouldn't the social history stuff be stripped out? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean the articles like 1970 in LGBT rights? I agree, those should be renamed to "(Year) in LGBT history". --Alynna (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those are the articles I mean. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)