Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

Epigenetic theories of homosexuality article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Epigenetic theories of homosexuality#What about Epigenetic theories of heterosexuality ?. It concerns the lack of a heterosexual comparison, what to title the article, and the fact that better sources should be used for the biomedical information (unless there is a WP:MEDDATE aspect preventing better sources). See this comment I made. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

civil partnerships to marriage conversions - Getting the date right!

In England, from 2005 to 2014, same sex couples could enter into civil partnerships but not marriages. The law was then passed allowing same sex marriages. For those already into a civil partnership, they can convert, and the date in their marriage certificate states the date of marriage as that in which the civil partnership took place . However, people keep getting the dates of marriages wrong (they write as if the marriaged happened in the day of the conversion to marriage, rather than the civil partnership ceremony).

An example is the wikipedia page for Actress Heather Peace. The date of her marriage is correctly stated in other sources as 2013. I have seen the date change from the correct 2013 to the incorrect (conversion date) 2014 several times in the infobox.

Could someone make sure these data are correct in the biographic-style wikipedia pages?

Thank you,

89 Lyl (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Elagabalus

On the Elagabalus talk page, I've been attempting to get her pronouns corrected to feminine. I feel this is relevant to this group, so I'm going to leave this here if anyone wants to leave their comment on the RfC there. Irockz (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT for Drag Queens?

I was looking at Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants and was wondering if there was any guidance that anyone had on the proper sorting. Unlike most stagenames that I've seen, it is sometimes unclear how much of the drag name is intended as the First Name, whether there is a middle name, and how much should be viewed as a Last Name. Examples of Queens who have been RuPaul's Drag Race constestants where it is unclear to me include

• Alaska Thunderfuck 5000
• Shangela Laquifa Wadley
• Madame LaQueer
• Monica Beverly Hillz
• Mrs. Kasha Davis
• Jaidynn Diore Fierce

Not all of these have pages, and also,I don't know how to treat Sahara and Kennedy Davenport since Davenport is a House name rather than a Last Name.Naraht (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

At the moment, I have no answers, but I think this may be my favorite question ever on Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)th

Barring anyone with any more experience posting input, I'm going to suggest the possibilities that we view these not as human names, but as the names of acts. Marvin Lee Aday, when he performs, is Meat Loaf, but we would not alphabetize that as Loaf, Meat.

Having said that, I see enormous complexity particularly in the first name. If we treat it just as an act name, it's "Alaska Thunderfuck 5000". If we treat it as a human name, then Thunderfuck may be a middle name, so it alphabetizes as "5000, Alaska Thunderfuck"; it may be that "Thunderfuck 5000" is a last name, so it's "Thunderfuck 5000, Alaska", or it may be that the 5000 is a generational suffix, a la Jr., VI, etc., in which case I believe that the proper sort is on "Thunderfuck, Alaska 5000".

So I'm pretty sure I've not helped. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it may indeed make sense to sort these as-is, i.e. sort "Alaska Thunderfuck 5000" as "Alaska Thunderfuck 5000". If, however, they are to be sorted by last name, I would say: "Wadley, Shangela Laquifa", "LaQueer, Madame" (noting that we sort Madame Roland under "Roland, Madame"), "Davis, Mrs. Kasha" (same logic), and "Fierce, Jaidynn Diore". -sche (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is definitely a trickier question than most. I'd suggest that either we should treat them all as an "act name", as Nat Gertler suggested, or we should use a split (closer to what's currently done in that category, although some people might need adjustment) in which a name that functionally serves as a Firstname Lastname is sorted as such, while one-namers like BenDeLaCreme and arbitrary guesswork cases like Alaska get treated as act names. I think I'd prefer to go with the former, to be honest, because if we go with the latter there are still going to be some cases (e.g. Detox or Honey Mahogany) that land right on the dividing line, where it could be interpreted either way and we'd have to have a separate debate about each individual case (which, just ugh). Plus some of the queens were just referred to in the show's internal universe by a first name rather than their actual full drag name (e.g. Alaska, Detox, Katya and Shangela) for either "dirty word" or "who wants to actually try to pronounce that?" reasons, with the result that some readers may not even actually know the full name and thus would get lost trying to find them in a lastname-sorted list. I definitely wouldn't expect to find Meat Loaf alphabetized under L either. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

OP here, I forgot to add the page to my watchlist when I added the question. :( One of the new articles seems to fit right on the line, and I'd like some advice: Katya Zamolodchikova , currently sorted under Z, but I think she was just Katya for most of the time on RPDR. So, which of these three choices: 1) Sort by Z all the time, Z on Category:American Drag Queens and K on the RPDR category, or 3) K all the time?Naraht (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Mary Hamilton (transvestite)

I just created a new section on Talk:Mary Hamilton (transvestite). The short version of that section is there is some question about the gender and sexuality of Hamilton and inconsistency in the article itself. After posting my comment I noticed from the article edit history that changes in gender identification of Hamilton were the result of two edits made just a couple of weeks ago. The editor who was responsible for expanding and doing a lot of work on the article in the spring of 2015 died last summer, so I'm not sure anyone has been paying much attention to the article recently. Its a small article and not really a high priority issue, but I would invite anyone who has some time to take a look at my talk page comment and the article to see what can be done to improve the article. 99.192.92.178 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has even commented. I guess this project is a bit of a ghost town. Too bad. I will go and remove the recently changed male pronouns so at least the article is consistent, but the issue of gender and whether or not the article title should refer to her as a transvestite is still worth looking at. 99.192.69.211 (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.178)

Party and play

The Party and play article needs attention to increase the use of reliable sources throughout. There is currently no shortage of reporting on this; note that while the list of references looks sufficient, a lot of them are the same paper cited more than once. -- The Anome (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Emilia Andersson

Emilia Andersson Joeykai (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

What about her? It would help immensely if you'd explain what you actually want anybody here to do. Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

John Allan Wyeth (artist)

New article. "He was almost certainly homosexual."Zigzig20s (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:ITNC#Slovenian same-sex marriage referendum, 2015

The article Slovenian same-sex marriage referendum, 2015 is nominated for ITN. I invite you to the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion notification

New RfC discussion started at Talk:LGBT in Islam please contribute. GregKaye 10:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Wording at Rastafari

An editor changed "However, in terms of sexual behavior, there are many in the Rastafari movement (like most other biblical religions) who consider homosexual acts to be a Babylon-promoted sin against the Creator (see LGBT rights in Jamaica), and therefore question organized homosexual activists' demands for their lifestyle to enjoy equality with more traditional, reproductive lifestyles." to "However, in terms of sexual behavior, there are many in the Rastafari movement (like most other biblical religions) who consider homosexual acts to be a Babylon-promoted sin against the Creator (see LGBT rights in Jamaica), and therefore may not support LGBT rights movements." It was reverted by an IP with the edit summary "sorry but this is not"homosexual pov-pedia". Your efforts here are unwelcome&will meet maximal resistance. Find another article or website to burden)". I thought the revised wording reasonable and the IP's reason for changing it, um, less than optimal to be polite, but was again reverted by a different IP with the edit summary "restoring previous explanatory wording to explain why we reject homosexuality. We have a right to be heard regardless of whether you can handle it". Is this worth my pursuing or not? Doug Weller talk 16:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I am the editor who changed it and see what you are doing here quite visibly. Should I let my fellow Rastafari bredren know you are discussing us in the movemant here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.185.227 (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not discussing the movement, I'm discussing the wording. You don't have a right to prescribe the wording. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

No, but I will actively protest and call attention to the Luciferian presentation of our doctrines by Luciferians, sodomites as enforced by one Mr Doug Weller — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.185.227 (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing "Luciferian" about the revised wording whatsoever. Wikipedia does, however, have a responsibility to maintain a neutral point of view on its topics — we can't and won't portray Rastafarianism in a negative way, but we can't and won't portray LGBT issues in a negative way either: we have to maintain a neutral and unbiased and objective presentation of both topics. The revised wording does that, while the original wording does not. And I want to be very clear about something: objectivity and neutrality do not mean "agrees with my own biases on the subject" — wording which attacks LGBT people is not "neutral" or "objective" just because you agree with it. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Please explain in detail your objection to the original wording. Your running to the toolbox to lock in your favored pov is also being noted. 172.58.185.227 (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't answer that until after you've explained your objection to the revised wording, so that we have something to discuss. Until then, all I can say is what I've already said: the revised text is neutral, in accordance with WP:NPOV, while your preferred text is not — if you disagree with that, then you're the one who has to explain why. And I have no "favoured POV" here: the revised text reflectts a neutral POV, not a bias on anybody's part. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

But you said there is something objectionable about the explanation previously included mista gay admin and settled the dispute with your admin tools. Surely you can explain why some special snowflakes feewings got hurt? I'm sure you can make it a good one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.185.227 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned about why this issue was raised at a noticeboard for a WikiProject that does not claim control over the article in question, and the issue was not raised at any of the noticeboards for WikiProjects which do claim that control. Elizium23 (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2015 (UT

The content in question is about a specific issue that falls within the purview of this WikiProject, even if the overall subject of the article is one that normally would not. That's simply the normal functioning of Wikipedia. WikiProjects do not "control" articles, either — see WP:OWN. Anybody on Wikipedia is allowed to participate in any discussion on any topic happening anywhere in Wikipedia — there is no requirement that only the WikiProjects that have already had their banners placed on the talk page in advance are allowed to weigh in at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The specific issue also falls within the purview of WP:NPOVN and was not raised there. In fact it wasn't even raised at the article's talk page! This is an out-of-process attempt to WP:CANVASS opinion and effect a predetermined outcome based on the inherent bias of this WikiProject. Elizium23 (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

And yet, oddly enough, there has yet to be any explanation given whatsoever of how the revised text violates NPOV, or how the original text doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The revised text means exactly the same thing as your preferred text, but is phrased in a less abrasive and more neutral way. I've already explained that several times; you're the one who has so far failed to provide any explanation of why you see the revised text as biased and your preferred text as neutral, so there's nothing more to discuss until you provide that explanation so we can discuss it. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It IS claiming control over the article now, per what bearcat said about "compliant" lol

Compliant with Wikipedia policy around WP:NPOV, not with any special bias on this WikiProject's part. No Wikiproject ever gets to claim any special "ownership" right to violate NPOV on its own special subset of articles; all articles on Wikipedia must always be compliant with NPOV. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I think some special snowflakes feewings get inexplicably hurt by any discussion of traditional reproductive lifestyles when that is the correct explanation, so then the homosexual admins swoop down and lock the article without it with no further ado. Where will this end?

The correct explanation is one that is neutral to both sides of the issue — the article has to describe both Rastafarians and LGBTs in a neutral way, and cannot use loaded or biased language in either direction. And this isn't about the "personal feelings" of any "special snowflake"; it's about Wikipedia's WP:NPOV rules. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think thatneed to insult people ("special snowflakes feewings got hurt", "Mr gay admin" - evidently me although I made it clear I'm straight) is typical of Rastafarians, it's discussed here.[1] As for how it will end, that's up to the IP. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP is actually addressing me with the "mr gay admin" part, rather than you. They clearly also assumed (wrongly) that you're gay as well, but that particular comment is attacking me rather than you. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

But that fails to explain why any rational persons feewings would get hurt by language like traditional reproductive lifestyles, or why it is such a sore spot for them that they lock the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.185.227 (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobody's personal "feewings" had anything to do with this — and the fact that you're deliberately spelling "feelings" in a way that invokes the tone stereotypically used to address an overly sensitive 7-year-old crybaby, rather than recognizing that we're all mature adults, betrays that you're letting a personal POV get in the way here. And there's no personal "sore spot" here on my part, either — as a Wikipedia administrator, part of my job on here is to enforce the rules of the place, inclusive of acting to shut down POV disputes that are taking place in the article rather than on the talk page where such matters belong. My personal feelings have nothing to do with it — if the shoe was on the other foot, so that the original text had displayed a pro-LGBT and anti-Rastafarian bias instead of the reverse, I would still have acted exactly the same way to ensure that WP:NPOV was being followed. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I happen to think anyone who acts butt hurt by language like traditional reproductive lifestyles and calls it abrasive, is acting exactly like a 7 year old crybaby and not a mature adult by any stretch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.185.227 (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The only person acting "butt hurt" in this discussion is you. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The only person using admin tools to enforce your explanation but are shy about explaini g why traditional reproductive is wrong, is you. Now that's butt hurt. I ve never done anything to make my butt hurt, so that I suspect is wishful thinking perhaps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.185.227 (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I've already explained this, but here goes again: NPOV does not allow you to use loaded or biased language to present the issue as if the Rastafarians are inherently on the correct side of the issue, or that LGBT people are inherently on the wrong side of it. That is the position that the original text was designed to express — it was not a neutral summary of the issue, but was intentionally phrased to denigrate LGBT people. We have to be neutral to both sides of the issue, by phrasing the content in a neutral way that attacks neither side — but you have yet to explain how you see the revised text as biased at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

You still seem kind of shy about explaining exactly what is so "denigrating" "abrasive" and "offensive" about saying traditional reproductive lifestyles, etc. Is it simply "denigrating" because you say it is? If you could really explain, then I might be able to understand your logic and reasoning for what you are doing and why you are doing this to the Rastafari article 172.58.185.227 (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Folks, there's no point in carrying on this discussion. There's no way anyone is going to convince the IP, as the insults make clear. And we're giving the IP a forum. Doug Weller talk 21:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I want you to think about the following statements, all of which are natural corollaries that flow directly from the original wording of the disputed section:

1. Something traditional is always inherently superior to something new or different. Tradition for the sake of tradition is always its own inarguable virtue, and there's never any legitimate reason why a tradition might need to evolve or to accommodate any form of social or cultural change.
2. LGBT people are always inherently opposed to all traditions, and are trying to actively undermine the basic foundations of society.
3. LGBT people cannot reproduce, so LGBT "lifestyles" cannot be "reproductive" ones. All heterosexual "lifestyles", conversely, are always "reproductive" ones, even if one of the partners is infertile or post-menopausal or using birth control to prevent pregnancy. Thus, reproductive capacity is the standard by which the legitimacy or illegitimacy of an LGBT relationship should be judged, even though it's not actually the standard by which the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a heterosexual relationship is determined.
4. LGBT people all lead exactly the same monolithic lifestyle, defined solely by their sexual orientation and not by any other factors outside of their sex lives. LGBT people have "lifestyles", while heterosexual people get to just have normal everyday lives instead of having every aspect of their entire being analyzed exclusively through the prism of their sexuality.
5. Being LGBT is a choice that a person can make or unmake at will.
6. LGBT people have an obligation to settle for second-class citizenship because their difference makes some other people uncomfortable.

The question, thus, is how many of the above are neutral and unbiased statements of purely objective fact, and how many of them are subjective beliefs on which a reasonable person might have a legitimately different opinion which also needs to be factored into ensuring that the debate is presented in an NPOV manner? (I'll give you a hint: the correct answer to one part of that question is "none of them", and the correct answer to the other part is "all of them".)

Your turn now — how is the revised text violating WP:NPOV at all? Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

That is very clever word play, however it is merely a strawman being offered up as a pretext for your egregious, authoritarian and uncompromising behaviour in locking the article as if to "prove your point". At least a strawman is better than the Doug Weller approach of "we don't owe anyone any explanation, we simply enforce what we please and any left confused by all the talk of putatively "derogatory language" in "traditional reproductive lifestyles" can suffer the consequences of our glorious admin tools"... So I guess a language authority who could be cited explaining how anyone thinks that derogatory, is out of the question then? Who needs that when weve got experts on everything they decide to find offensive and just start lo king down articles to "correct" I find this arrogant and totally representative of homosexual activist techniques. 172.58.185.227 (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Persecution of homosexuals in Islam

I have recently created: Category:Persecution of homosexuals in Islam to act as a parallel to Category:Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust here. In what ways could links to this of a similarly named category be developed? There may potentially be a great number of prejudicial events including executions that can be reported.

GregKaye 10:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Henry Symes Lehr#Time Magazine 1944

I found, searching for an other project, a source for his homosexuality. In the Wiki-article it is only described, that he refused to sleep with his wife. In the Time it states from her book: "to marry only after she offered him $25,000 a year and expenses". My English is not good enough to write this. And you know better which categories eventually are good for the article. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 13:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Sherbourne Health Centre

Not sure if this is the right place to give a headsup, but Sherbourne Health Centre was newly created today, about a health care facility in Toronto, Canada, which provides healthcare and services with a focus on the LGBT community, especially youth, among other things. A trigger-happy editor has twice nominated the article for deletion while its creator is still applying better sources, and it's now at AFD. Am hoping that by bringing this here, someone could possibly help or point in the right direction for categorizing the article appropriately and improving it. Admittedly, the article needs work, but deleting it outright shouldn't be the answer. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not just delete it? 172.56.35.90 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't meet the speedy delete criteria. I'll comment to the AFD tomorrow.Naraht (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in the interim the article's creator appears to have panicked in trying to save the article, and has been blocked for sockpuppetry, which certainly doesn't help their cause. It is certainly a worthwhile organization but establishing notability may prove to be difficult. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Worthwhile to what and how exactly? This is surely why encyclopedic notability is difficult to establish! 172.56.35.90 (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Executive Order 13672

Hey, I'm not normally a Wikipedia contributor at all, and I have no idea if I'm doing this right. If I'm not, i apologize. I thought there were normally Talk pages behind articles, but when I looked for one on this page, it just showed some related projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13672

This seemed like the most relevant project, so I'm posting here.

Anyway, the page has a "Reactions" section that consists almost wholly of religious conservatives attacking the order and sometimes attacking trans people as well. Obviously, this didn't strike me as neutral.

I hope this is helpful to someone. Thanks.

Hi - you can add content to the relevant talk page by clicking "New Section" in the tab at the top. Funcrunch (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Support sought

I've just added a section on Sexuality to David Thoreau's page because there was absolutely nothing in the article, which I found astounding -- unless of course it was deleted some time ago. Ditto for the article on Thomas Eakins: also incredible given that his sexuality is Topic A in Eakins scholarship. I'm reasonably happy with the Eakins entry now. But you may want to keep on eye on both.

Main reason for posting is: a few months ago I wanted to add a wee mention in the article on Gary Cooper that he had shared an apartment with the flamboyant homosexual Anderson Lawler who played a significant role in introducing him to Hollywood society. There was no way I could get it in without it being deleted: if you want a wry laugh, and have the time, you can read the entire sorry saga on the article's Talk page.

Another problem I had was trying to get a proper good page up for Scotty Bowers. The current one defaults to the book, and it's poor. I wrote a terrific entry but it was deleted. Again, the entire saga is on the article's Talk page.

Does anyone want to provide some support to turn these pages around? Engleham (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand you correctly.

• You are a homosexual Wikipedia editor
• This is the page homosexual Wikipedia editors can come to, whenever their insistence on reflecting the homosexual pov meets with any resistance, and here they can canvass and recruit other homosexual editors in order to go back into "the battle" with, at least, the appearance of a popular majority
• Is that pretty much it?

208.54.37.225 (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, this page is open to all, and includes people who are interested in issues surrounding homosexuality, regardless of their orientation or beliefs. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:CANVASS for guidelines on neutrally requesting input on an issue from a wikiproject.--Trystan (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you. Not that I thought urine tests were necessary. OK. On the Talk page of the entry for Gary Cooper you'll see I've added a new section Adding Anderson Lawler. It would help if one or two people could reply "Excellent 'effing idea!" to provide some support, or whatever, or respond positively in some form to any subsequent negative replies that appear. Engleham (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC) What exactly is that supposed to"help" with - Your psychological morale? 172.56.34.26 (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Rowan Blanchard

Rowan Blanchard, a 14yo actress, has made somewhat ambiguous statements about her sexuality and reliable sources have picked this up. There is an edit discussion about what or if that should be included in the article at Talk:Rowan Blanchard#Concerning edits about Blanchard's sexual preference. Also how to categorize the article. This could use some more input by people more knowledgeable about how to handle this type of issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Molly house at WP:PR

• Molly house at WP:PR Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Support vs Distortion

I asked up-thread for some Watch support in my attempt to ensure a few articles were balanced. This included adding the Anderson Lawler to the Gary Cooper article - this time in an innocuous way, without any reference that something something sexual may have occurred between them. As you can see on the Talk Page for the article, even this is being rejected. So, by posting here I hoped that a few people who viewed the change positively would go across and support the new inclusion.

So what happens? Trystan posts a link to WP:CANVASS, and then, with stunning rudeness, shuts down the thread, as if no one might wish to further comment. Well, golly gee: oddly enough, I at least do. The Canvas page states: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. There's a fundamental problem here with the wording. EVERYONE brings a personal agenda to Wikipedia - it's what drives motivation, and seeking support for an edit on a gay WikpediaProject page, or Christian WikipediaProject page or whatever, implicitly means you want people attitudinally skewed in that direction to influence the outcome. Yes, ideally for the purposes of arriving at a more balanced article. On the Cooper article presently, what I believe is happening is a consensus of bigots. So, some gay skew to drag that consensus into more more neutral territory is needed. That's why I requested some supporting comments "in some form" if you agreed with the suggestion. Is this unreasonable? Or is this project page being white-anted by straights with an agenda, and the anonymous poster who earlier queried my Gay Card credentials is rightly suspicious of posters here? To the unsigned user who snarkingly queried 'is for my morale': try posting without a sock. Engleham (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, actually, what you did was off. If you came here and asked us to voice our opinion on the matter, that would be appropriate... but you came here and asked us to voice your opinion. That falls under the canvassing concern. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry if my desire was misinterpreted. I simply sought input from a gay perspective regarding my proposed edit on the Cooper Talk Page. Given the edit, it would be reasonable to assume that such gay perspective opinion would be likely to be in agreement with the edit *in some form* at least. If not, fine. But at least there would be some alternative opinions. I phrased the request in a casual manner and presumed people would make reasonable assumptions, and not be pedantic, but clearly not. Finally, I note User: Trystan who sought to shut down the discussion isn't even listed as a member on the Project Page, and the other unsigned replies have only ever posted once. So I'm beginning to think that this is a Project that's under Watch, but not by gay people or their sympathisers. That goddam Gay Agenda: it's like the Trump Campaign with better hair. Engleham (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You're still here? Well if you don't like us non-gay editors being able to read this page and freely comment maybe it's you who are in the wrong place? 172.56.34.26 (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Engleham. Sorry if my hatting of that portion of the above thread came across as a bit brusque. I did deliberately limit the hatting to a portion of the conversation only, so that the rest of the thread could continue. Canvassing is something that gets taken quite seriously on Wikipedia; I wouldn't disagree that sometimes it is taken too seriously. But I think the general principle, that invitations to provide input to a discussion should be neutral and not presuppose support for a particular position, is a good one.--Trystan (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do go on. Because minorities always adore those from the majority who invite themselves in, and inform the untermenschen of their opinions. Policing them? That's even better. Because it's not like you would have anywhere else to go. Engleham (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have some confusion about what this page is; this isn't some sort of "gay editors discussion spot", it's for people who are involved in editing LGBT-related articles, something that Trystan definitely qualifies as. I have no idea whether he would qualify for the other, and I suspect that you don't either; trying to snark him away from conversation on the basis of your assumption of his sexuality is wrong in multiple ways. He is welcome here, and has been participating on this talk page for years. Did he squash a canvassing attempt? Yes, because that's the appropriate thing to do under our guidelines, whether those guidelines are convenient to your goals or not. Yes, he's not listed as a member of the project... and neither are you. "Membership" is not required to participate on this talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Engleham: your comment white-anted by straights with an agenda is rather out of line. This project is (1) not just for LGBT people and (2) not just for gay people. Those last two letters exist for a reason. Any project will have its followers who disagree with it (e.g., WP:XX has plenty). But accusing editors who disagree with you of being "straights with an agenda" is out of line. If you have a dispute with one editor, go to WP:DNR. If you have an issue on an article, start an RFC. If people still disagree with you, you just have to go with it. That's how it works here, for better or worse. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"your comment white-anted by straights with an agenda is rather out of line." Everyone has an agenda - whether aware of it or not. "this isn't some sort of "gay editors discussion spot" Well there clearly needs to be one. Because minorities only drive genuine change when they unite in anger. ACTUP proved that forever. Handholding overly-inclusive care groups of trigger-sensitive flowers get nowhere. Including on a team-built Wiki where it only takes two or three bigots to stonewall a positive change. And more than 36 hours has past and not one outsider has contributed a comment to a Gary Cooper Talk page on a simple edit that one would reasonably expect gay people with a passion for bringing balance to articles would have contributed to – in whatever form the original request for support was phrased. Engleham (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've had a read through of the discussion on the Cooper talk page. The good thing is that the sources were explored and relevant quotes examined, so none of that gets lost if anyone wants to refer back to it. The unfortunate truth about people's love lives before the 1980s, is that it gets incredibly hard to find sources for LGBT relationships unless the subject spelt it out in a later autobiography, or were accused either in court or in the press of a gay sex scandal. Mentions in other people's biographies or accounts would have to be much more than hearsay to make it into a good quality article on Wikipedia. One unfortunate aspect to the Cooper discussion is that Cooper's love life was quickly marginalized as controversial, meaning that it then became almost impossible to use the quotes from the sources unless there was overwhelming proof. For a biography of dead person, there is more tolerance for information about their love life, rather than sticking to standards that are more relevant to biographies of living people, this point could have been made more strongly.

I suggest you leave Cooper unless you find new sources to discuss. Consider looking at improving other articles where sources for LGBT material are a lot stronger. There's plenty to do without having to overturn entrenched views.

Take care to avoid using any language that might be read by others as an allegation of homophobic motivation, this always gets jumped on and makes further collegiate discussion impossible. It may be worth you dropping by our m:LGBT user group to keep an eye open for collaborative projects over the summer. --Fæ (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Fæ for actually commenting on what I asked. Appreciated. As you may have seen, I've given up suggesting anything sexual between Lawler and Cooper, but now wish to post a line stating that there was housesharing and best friendship between them, appropriately referenced. I'd welcome your opinion on Talk:Gary_Cooper on whether you think the suggested sentences I've provided should be included, or any other thoughts you may have. Yes, will keep on eye on other stuff. Hollywood stars aren't really my thing, but this entry just seemed wanting. Oh, and naturally I welcome anyone else commenting on the Cooper entry on its talk page. For gaining consensus it would be helpful if you could precede your comments with the words INCLUDE or EXCLUDE. Engleham (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"Well there clearly needs to be one. Because minorities only drive genuine change when they unite in anger." I would strongly disagree with those assertions of 'genuine change', perhaps we ought to reiterate what the NPOV policy actually means, and explicate to what extent Wikipedia's goals coincide or should be perceived to coincide with your "anger" which as Mr Spock would say is highly illogical 172.56.34.26 (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Permit me to quote you. As you so charmingly phrased it up-thread, in your entitled "non-gay editor" mindset: "You're still here?" Engleham (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Your comments are bordering on WP:HARASS. Stop addressing people's identities outside of the issue of POV. Should the voices of LGBTQ folks be considered a bit more thoughtfully here? Yes as they have experiences and knowledges on the topic that non-LGBTQ folks do not necessarily have. However, this project is not about or for gay users or LGBTQ users either... please stop ignoring the rest of us... much more than just "gay". It's about LGBT Studies and articles related to it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"Stop addressing people's identities...please stop ignoring the rest of us... much more than just "gay". Bless. Engleham (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Mary Rozet Smith

I recently created an article on Mary Rozet Smith. I did not categorize her nor tag her for this project, though possibly that should be done in light of her 30+ year relationship with Jane Addams. My concern is that while we have Jane's voice on what their relationship was to her, we do not have Mary's that I have been able to find. Anyone have a perspective on how historic people should be treated in this situation? Thanks! SusunW (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure about categories, as the test for those can be quite strict, but I would definitely go ahead and tag the article for this wiki project. The test for that is only whether or not the topic would be of interest to this project's participants, and I think it easily qualifies.--Trystan (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Trystan. That sounds logical. SusunW (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Victoria A. Dooling

Of possible interest to some of you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Reliable source for Tate Taylor?

Can someone please add a reliable reference saying that he is gay? I can't find one on google. If we can't find a reference, the LGBT categories should be removed. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any WP:RS for this either. Categories removed, per policy. -- The Anome (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DataLounge

There is currently a deletion discussion of the article DataLounge at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DataLounge. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Featured list candidate

More input is needed on this FLC. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

"GBT men" in military

I made a comment over at Sexual orientation and military sources regarding on the description of this file two weeks ago, with no response. I think it's a pretty awkward issue and would like some input. ~Mable (chat) 20:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Guydykes and Girlfags

I've encountered these neologisms and learned their meanings only recently, but the concept (paradoxical as it seems) does seem to be notable in gender and LGBT studies. Guydykes and girlfags, by definition, do not identify as transgender, but eventually they may come to do so, or come to identify as genderqueer instead. There is certainly an element of gender or gender-role transgression in there. Girlfags may also enjoy performing femininity in an exaggerated drag queen style, i. e., like a faux queen. Can anyone help? I wasn't the one who wrote the article, but I just found it and I think Wikipedia should cover the concept in some form. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I've known of these terms for some time. I don't believe they are currently notable enough to merit a separate article. It would make more sense to possibly add them to one of the existing pages on gender. Funcrunch (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The usual notability criteria apply here. Do you have suitable cites from multiple reliable sources to hand to demonstrate the notability of these terms? -- The Anome (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Funcrunch gets it. I said "cover the concept in some form". I neither insist on these exact terms (but there do not seem to be any better-known ones) nor on the necessity of a separate article. But the phenomenon exists, is interesting, has been commented on and that's why I think Wikipedia should mention it. The only reliable source in English I'm aware of is Janet Hardy's article in The Fair Observer. However, the German Wikipedia has an article with more citations, as I've found just now. I'm not very up to date on LGBT media such as magazines and books, so I'm not the best person for this job, but for example "Bijou", No. 29 (June 2014), a German magazine, has an article on p. 24 – there is even an English-language version available here, but I don't know if Bijou magazine counts as a RS. From reading this non-RS, mentions of the phenomenon go back to Magnus Hirschfeld, and it appears to me that "girlfags" (unlike "fag hags") and "guydykes" are definitely best thought of as some kind of genderqueer or gender variant ("transgender" in a broad sense), as most do not identify as fully cisgender. Maybe they could therefore be mentioned in the Genderqueer article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

From the sound of this, I think you're probably right about this being a valid subtopic for genderqueer. -- The Anome (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that the phenomenon that a female-assigned person feels that their desire for men is like that of a gay man and may even fantasise about being a gay man having sex with other men, but at the same time identifies not as transgender but as a (cisgender) woman, and is quite happy being a woman – and conversely in a male-assigned person –, could mean that the person's gender identity could be described as something like bigender (or multi-gender) specifically. It does seem from the Girlfags website, especially the survey mentioned there, like most "girlfags"/"guyduykes" do accept that they could be described as some kind of genderqueer (if not outright transsexual/transgender) and many do identify as such. The cis/trans distinction is certainly muddled by such experiences. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon

You are invited...
	Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Sponsor: Art+Feminism 1 to 31 March 2016

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Ipigott (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ipigott: Would you like us to add more referenced content about lesbians? I am sure many notable lesbians must have been written out of history books, and we could try to create more articles on them. I could try to help.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, Zigzig. We would certainly welcome more biographies in connection with Women activists, Women artists and Feminists. See the lists of red links on the project page from the blue link on the invitation for background and guidance.--Ipigott (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ipigott: I think we would only be interested in lesbians.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: I realize that. That's why I included you in the invitations. There are of course many lesbians who deserve coverage in these areas. Maybe you would like to include specific references to them in the lists of red links or - even better - add new names with at least one source. I'm pretty sure a considerable number of names could be picked up from the wikis in other languages. Maybe @Megalibrarygirl:, who has done a lot of work on these lists, can help you along? As far as I can see, you have not created your own lists of red links.--Ipigott (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Bisexual and transgender women would also fall under the LGBT studies project... Funcrunch (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I can make such a list... Look for LBT Women... unless you can think of a better name to call it... :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: That looks like a great start. I hope others will join in to help.--Ipigott (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

New meaning of LGBT

LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender... But there's a more wide spread of justifying feeling`s than this desciption why is the no mentioning of those ? Is there a blocking for certain kinds of people? LGBT in my opinion is to short, whe should think more global and international for a good suplementing word. (signed by  Retrorick wikipedia  talk  15:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC))

Request review of HIV posters in Commons

example poster which is not copyrightable due to containing only simple text and shapes

Currently there is a deletion review in Wikimedia Commons of 2600 educational posters from the 1980s-90s giving HIV/AIDS information. I am posting to request that anyone please go into Commons, browse through the posters, and if you see one that does not contain copyrighted art, then please make a post that it should not be deleted. The issue is lack of copyright. However, if a poster contains only text and geometric shapes, then it is considered to be in the public domain.

• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AIDS Poster from Wellcome Images (check needed)

More discussion about this is at the Commons page or English WikiProject Medicine at "Request review of HIV posters in Commons". Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Merging agender and other non-binary articles

Per the re-merging of the Agender article, I would like to start a new discussion on this topic. Flyer22 Reborn, per your edit summary that reads "We have enough of these articles. We do not need another one." I want to explain how that sounds to me, an agender person (who is also queer - in terms of sexual orientation, not gender - and black). To me, that sounds like a white person merging an article on black people to a larger article on "people of color" with the reasoning that all non-white people fit under the same category.

I feel that at this time, more individual non-binary gender identities have established enough notability to merit separate articles. The new attempt at the agender article (which I did not start, but did a substantial amount of grammar editing and polishing to) was working on gathering those sources. For people who are not members of dominant groups (white, male, straight, cisgender, binary, dyadic, etc.), establishing notability on Wikipedia is an uphill battle because we do not have equal representation in publications that Wikipedia currently considers "notable".

Now, I assume you're going to wikilawyer me and quote policies on righting great wrongs and soapboxing and "political correctness". I can't stop you. But that attitude has made contributing to this project demoralizing at times to be honest. Funcrunch (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been waiting to see someone re-make the agender article with sufficient sources to indicate separate notability. I wonder if agender currently meets GNG. There being "enough of these articles" is of course not a reason for a merger, though as long as agender can be sufficiently described in the genderqueer article without giving it undue weight, the two topics should probably share an article. To reach notability guidelines, an identity doesn't need "equal representation": it simply needs enough representation. ~Mable (chat) 15:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I merged the article per reasons I and others gave at Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 1#Merge proposal and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agender about having multiple articles on the same topic or similar topics when, per WP:Content fork, WP:Spinout, WP:No split, WP:Neologism or WP:Notability, it is not needed or should not be done. Funcrunch, as you no doubt remember, you took part in the AfD for Agender (though you clearly wanted to keep that article). In the case of this latest Agender article, it was mostly redundant to what is already in the Genderqueer article, used poor sources, was somewhat off-topic, somewhat unsourced, and not much bigger than a stub. On top of that, the term is a neologism. I saw no valid reason that it should remain a Wikipedia article. This is not personal, and has not a thing to do with me being a certain sexual orientation, gender, binary, "race"/ethnicity, or something similar to those categories. A number of editors assume certain things about me based on what or how I edit; these things include: "Flyer is a lesbian," "Flyer is bisexual," "Flyer is heterosexual," "Flyer is asexual," "Flyer is a LGBT POV-pusher," "Flyer is heterosexist," Flyer is not genderqueer; so Flyer couldn't possibly understand," "Flyer likes that sexual act," "Flyer supports that mental view." No doubt people are also quick to think "Flyer is white." All of that has been thrown my way for years, given the topics I edit. And I sometimes smirk at the presumptuousness, presumptuousness that is also understandable since most of Wikipedia is edited by white men. But all that the vast majority of Wikipedia editors really know about me (besides what I have revealed on my user page or talk page) is that I am female. I do what I can to remain objective on Wikipedia, and your above post shows why I should. When I argue cases like these, it is about what is best for Wikipedia. I've done the same regarding the Asexuality article and those wanting an article for each asexual sub-identity. Someone finally created a Gray asexuality article, which better houses the asexual sub-identities. As seen at Talk:Gray asexuality, even though I initially wanted that article merged, I soon accepted it as a standalone article (for now anyway).

In the case of agender, it is one of many genderqueer identities, and, like I just noted, I do not see how it is best that it exists as a separate article. While some genderqueer identities are distinct in their definition, a number of them are also essentially the same thing in their definition, and are treated as such in sources. In what way do we need an article for each of the bullet point aspects currently seen at that the top of the Genderqueer article? That is needless article forking, causing our readers to unnecessarily go to more than one article when they can easily read about it in the umbrella article, which is far from being a big article and should be expanded before we even contemplate giving any and every genderqueer identity its own article. Covering all of these identities in one article, considering the lack of literature on them, is not depriving genderqueer people of representation. There is also the fact that people are still coming up with more genderqueer identities, such as aporagender (an article that was twice deleted), which I noted when making the merge. We really need an Aporagender article too? Wikipedia is not the place for every new identity originating from Tumblr.

At Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 1#Merge proposal, No such user stated the matter quite well, relaying the following: "The opposers would do better to actually explain how pangender actually differs from genderqueer, and preferably expand that article with references to that effect, than to assert 'they are not synonymous' and then walk away. The one-sentence article at Pangender does not do any service to the reader. Actually, none of the articles (Bigender and Trigender) quoted by April Arcus does not do any job in explaining the concept and how it differs from related ones. Furthermore, we're dealing with subtle issues of human feelings and senses, which cannot be simply put into boxes: 'J. is a genderqueer' -- 'No, she's rather a bigender' -- 'you mean xe? Nah, xe's pangenderous' . The readers would be better served with one more comprehensive article dealing with terminology, than with scattered stubs. That is to say, I support the merge."

I will not wikilawyer you since I am not misusing or misinterpreting Wikipedia's rues. In this case, I will not quote essays or policies on righting great wrongs and soapboxing and political correctness to you since you already know how Wikipedia is supposed to work. And, indeed, I was disappointed but not surprised that you went along with the existence of the new Agender article. But for more opinions on this, I will alert Talk:Genderqueer. If the Agender article is restored, I will send it to AfD, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Intervention in entry that has been targeted by edit warring

I'd like to solicit Project members to weigh in on the entry Biology and sexual orientation, which has been the target of arbitrary content removal by User:Flyer22 Reborn (though she'd argue it's I who's edit warring. These are the sections of the entry she insists on removing, all of which, as can be seen by anyone, are properly sourced to peer reviewed sources but which for some reason she considers biased (see Talk Page). Her justification for the continuing removal of the sections for 3 months is the need to establish consensus (she along with two other users want to keep it removed; me and another user have expressed the desire to have it re-inserted). I think both she and I said everything we could in this regard, so please, give us YOUR opinion and help debate advance and true consensus be built. Rafe87 (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that the above comment, though posted from my login, is not mine; I moved it here because it was initially posted on the main project page. Funcrunch (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to know why I and others keep removing Rafe87's poorly sourced material can see this section. And it was already explained to him that peer review by itself is not the same thing as literature review or systematic review; WP:MEDRS prefers the latter two. Primary sources like the ones he's adding are discouraged for very good reasons, noted at WP:Primary sources and WP:MEDRS. The next stop is WP:ANI if he continues to edit war. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Under your argument, most of that entry - in fact, of most entries on Wikipedia - would be deleted since most don't consist of "systemic reviews". You're policy shopping to keep out content you dislike. Rafe87 (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what you assume about me (which is dead wrong, I assure you), if the content was well-sourced, I wouldn't mind it. It's already been explained to you that bad or otherwise poor sourcing in an article is not a license for more bad or otherwise poor sourcing. I do not like the current state of the Biology and sexual orientation article at all, but I am just one person working on, or looking after, these types of articles; there are not enough others doing this kind of work, and I do not have the amount of time or enthusiasm I once had for Wikipedia. It's also already been explained to you to that this type of content needs better sourcing. Most of the other material on Wikipedia does not need this type of better sourcing for reasons that should be obvious; South Park, for example, is an entirely different ball of wax. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd tend to lean toward Flyer22's reasoning in this debate. Use of primary sources for scientific issues that are so hotly debated and treating the subject matter as fact is misleading. PureRED (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Bette Davis

I have nominated Bette Davis 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)