Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Noticeboard/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Missing Categories

Should the list in Missing Categories be called LGBT historians? tdempsey 03:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

what belongs here

This is a notice board where editors can list topics that they feel need to be discussed at those topics' respective talk pages. It's not the politically correct lgbt notice board, and there's no notice board for wider topics relating to sexual orientation issues. The fact that a particular topic may seem distasteful to a particular editor does not merit its deletion from the notice board. Deletion of pederasty-related topics is partisan, and you need to re-check the NPOV policy and guidelines before you (Mistress Selina Kyle, I'm looking at you) continue to remove these topics.

Thanks

Dave 01:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed links to Paedophilia articles or votes about articles. All added unilaterally by User:Haiduc, no one else.

He (probably he, after all pederasty is specifically old male to underage male)/she may be supportive, interested or active in paedophilia, but this is not LGBT relevant: The fact is that comments arguing in support of rape do not belong here and paint a very negative picture of the community to people looking in from the outside - this kind of crap only adds ammunition for the kind of bigots who go around saying "all gays are paedophiles".

Happy Christmas to all kids out there who have been abused by members of paedophilia networks. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

There's actually a lot of things to be said about pederasty and pædophilia that can belong in an encyclopedia. This is where changes to LGBT articles and subject matter are discussed. Homosexual pædophilia is still homosexual behavior, and it belongs here. Partisan edits are not welcome at Wikipedia, no matter how politically correct. As distasteful as pædophilia is, it belongs here, and members who watch this notice board are probably the most likely to be able to edit those articles without anti-gay bias. If you're so worried about protecting the queer community, try thinking a little more broadly so that you don't take possible attacks from under our watch. Dave 03:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Very well put. The only purpose of this notice board is to post what is happening. ALL editors at Wikipedia are supposed to make edits that are NPOV. Posting something here does not necessarily mean that the person is in favor or against the topic. It should only mean that those of us interested in the topic might want to know about the topic. Someone might very well want to know about articles about pedarasty to make certain that they do not encourage or condone abuse. That said, those of us who are LGBT are all too aware of the biases -- often unspoken and unchallanged -- in the straight world; so most of the posting here will tend to reflect that fact. But that shouldn't be confused with the notion that posting here will mean that we are all in agreement with the person posting. In this case, the posting by User:Haiduc on this page may have elicited as many negative as positive responses at WP:CFD. I for one, do not see a problem with posting ANYTHING on this board, as long as it has some connection, even tenuous, with the LGBT community. -- Samuel Wantman 03:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the "compliments," and thank you for the understanding. It is not my intention to "sell" anything here. In the process of documenting pederasty I have come up with some pretty awful stuff. I have also come up with some pretty positive stuff. It is really none of my business, it all goes into the mix.
As for the concern with child abuse, there is no more overlap between pederasty and pedophilia than there is between heterosexuality and pedophilia. This kind of attack only serves to create an unnecessary schism between wikipedia editors.
Talking about unnecessary schisms, I am more than a little bit concerned about the list of homophobic editors. I think it creates another unnecessary schism, potentially a dangerous one as it polarizes "us" against "them." Let's face it, there is an ENORMOUS amount of homophobia among wikipedia editors. I run into it every day, and a lot of my work is to counter that homophobia. But the last thing we need is to solidify this sorry state of affairs, making it appear that we are "blacklisting" people, which will only raise hackles, incite paranoia and further aggression, and cause people to dig in their heels and band against us even more than they already have. Please, all of you, reconsider what you are doing. Haiduc 04:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. You should absolutely remove that list. Be bold. Dave 04:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Might be the wrong tag, but I wanted to emphasise that I think it is a mistake to take this tack. See my comments above. Haiduc 23:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. We should remove the entire section. Let's focus on the content, not the contributors. However, it may be appropriate to have a place to list editor-RfCs or ArbCom cases which significantly involve LGBT articles. -Willmcw 23:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps have a notable editors and disputes section, rather than just a list of homophobic editors. I think that would be a bit less one sided and probably more useful. Tom 12:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tom and others who are urging a more nuetral way to phrase a section about editors and disputes which are of concern with regard to a NPOV. Nuetrality is a value across Wikipedia. I tried a different wording, which I don't think is perfect, but an improvement. I'd encourage more discussion and editing of the wording, but I don't think the old wording should be reverted to. Jonathunder 14:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am appending the two entries deleted from the "contentious section" below. They are not disputes, they are instances of individuals with views at odds with those held by some or all of the editors in our little subgroup (as if we all agreed on everything!). The strongest argument against singling these people out is that even knowing that they are antagonistic to glbt issues still in no way changes anything we would do or say. It gains nothing, and only makes it seem that we are setting people up to be pilloried (see Vere Street Coterie). I, for one, am not interested in being "forewarned." I'll deal with attacks when and if they come, and hopefully will reach an understanding with people who are after all, people. We do not need to make them into symbols. Or "martyrs", fer gawd's sake.

• 69.22.98.162 (talk · contribs) - persistently adding homophobic POV to articles about historical people who may have been LGBT. Also adding homophobic disinformation to articles on pederasty and Ancient Greece. —Guanaco 02:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• WritersCramp (talk · contribs) - "I am a proud homophobic!" See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WritersCramp —Guanaco 23:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I added those users because they were pushing POV and factually invalid claims in articles. I agree that we should remove the section; the RfCs can be listed with the others at Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board#Requests_for_comment. —Guanaco 19:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

WritersCramp has been blocked and has not edited in over a month, so we don't need to worry about him now. Aidan Work's RfC is mainly about his other (non-homophobic) biases. I've removed it from the notice board. —Guanaco 20:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed Adam Carr reverted the removal of this section and went back to the old wording. I do not want to revert war over it, but I share the concerns raised here on talk. Jonathunder 22:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think the best solution would be to head it "Relevant user conduct issues". Nicely neutral and allows the raising of issues which have not yet got to RFC stage. David | Talk 23:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do we have to be "nicely neutral" on this subject? I am not "neutral" about homophobia, and I don't see why this page should be censored to conform to your views of "niceness." This a notice board, not an article, and doesn't have to meet any standards of NPOV. It is for LGBT Wikipedians to post news and comment relevant to Wikipedia. The fact that certain Users are self-declared homophobes is relevant to this page and LGBT ediors are entitled to know who they are. Homophobia should be called by its name and not euphemised. I have not personally attacked anyone, merely quoted them. Other users of this page have no right to delete such material. Adam 07:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyone at Wikipedia should be "nicely neutral" about everything written on every page. Also, there are "no personal attacks", but there is the ability to protect the truth from bigotry and hate. So let us fight the product of the homophobia while just keeping an eye on the homophobe, while being nice. Being nice also helps win allies. -- Samuel Wantman

Your first point is plainly wrong - Talk pages and notice boards exist for the purpose of stating different points of view and arguing about them. This shold be done civilly, but civility is not the same as neutrality. Your final point is also wrong, as you will discover if you read the history of the gay and lesbian rights movement. Adam 07:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Adam: Please, Wikipedia is not a battleground for LGBT rights (hey, perhaps they should add that one to WP:NOT) - remember we're here to write an encyclopaedia, not seek action against contributors who we believe to be homophobic. The history of the LGBT movement is entirely non-sequitur; likewise, notice boards do not exist as mechanisms to foment POV activity. I would like to ask you to please take it down a notch and try to keep focused at what we are doing here - building an encyclopaedia - rather than getting caught up with militant ideas of removing homophobia from Wikipedia. If any incidents do occur, they should be taken via Wikipedia:Dispute resolution at the first instance. Remember, despite the fact that we may find a dislike of LGBT individuals to be abhorrent, we must learn to tolerate a panaple of different beliefs and views here on Wikipedia. On the other hand, should abuse occur, I am certain the arbcom would deal with it correctly. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Adam, talk pages and notice boards exist fot the purpose of stating different points of view and discussing them civilly. However, the thing being discussed is the writing in the articles and not the subject matter itself. For example, the talk page about Pederasty is not there to discuss and argue about whether pederasty is a good thing or abhorant. The talk pages of the articles about political ideologies are not there for everyone to argue over which ideology makes the most sense and should be followed. The purpose of all these pages is to discuss whether the ideas and rhetoric in the article correctly represent the subject. Wikipedia is not part of the gay and lesbian rights movement any more than it is a part of the family values movement, or any other political movement. If your responses on this page were not nice, I wouldn't have bothered responding to them. I feel the same about anyone else at wikipedia, and expect the same from everyone else. -- Samuel Wantman 08:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What it amounts to in my view is this: associations of Wikipedians by POV are bad, while associations of Wikipedians by interest are not. The notice board is for Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues, and not for those who support LGBT rights. I agree that a section for user conduct disputes is reasonable as part of the notice board because editors who make homophobic edits are ipso facto violating NPOV. David | Talk 09:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

New requested move

Please read Wikipedia:LGBT notice board#Requested moves and please please help anyone: there is no reason why language should be given priority over the sexuality. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved the discussion below. Since "User bi" was already being used by people for a different reason, just pick a different name, like "User Bisexual" if it is available. Priority is given to whoever comes first unless it creates confusion. If you want the name "User bi", discuss it with the people who are already using it. It doesn't seem worth the effort if you can just pick a different name. -- Samuel Wantman 00:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Samuel is correct. It's not fundamentally an issue of whether language is being prioritized over sexuality or not. The bottom line is that the bi=bislama template already existed long before you created bi=bisexual, and it's not really for one person to decide that a pre-existing user template has to move just because you want the title. Wikipedia namespace is not article namespace; "one is more notable than the other" doesn't hold water as an argument when you're talking about categories and templates that will both never be applied anywhere other than user pages. Bearcat 18:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User bi template

• Template talk:User bi — {{User bis}} to overwrite the current position of {{User bi}} just so it can be at it's "iso" code: There is no reason why languages should have a higher priority to be at their "proper" name than any other template. In fact if anything, language templates are also largely irrelevant anyway, except on Meta - this is the English Wikipedia, and those who speak other languages aren't always active on their equivalent language Wikipedias anyway: And if they are, they often have different usernames too.

This shouldn't be moved in the name of code pedantry. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You displaced the bloody language userbox by moving it from Template:User bi, without consensus. And you absolutely failed to notify anyone of doing so, leaving a few speakers of Bislama with a userbox on their user page saying they're bi, which may or may not be the case. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

I will be archiving this page and the notice board. I'm removing all postings that are over a few weeks old. Please repost if issues are still current. Happy New Year to all. -- Samuel Wantman 09:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

LGBT interest user box

Please feel free to putting this on your userpage by adding {{User LGBT interest}}. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 00:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

How pathetic. Why can't we have a plain and open "LGBT Wikipedian" userbox? Adam 09:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see discussion on Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes, and the surrounding conflagration. (Also check out Template talk:User LGBT interest.) Also, note the wide variety of userboxes available at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexual orientation, gender and status, although given that many of these userboxes violate the policy mentioned above, they are liable to be deleted should that policy gain consensus support. Also, note that not everyone who is interested in editing articles on LGBT-related topics identifies as LGBT... there are people on the list below who do not. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 09:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see nothing at that policy page that rules out a box that says "LGBT Wikipedian." In fact I don't see a policy there at all, only a discussion about a policy.
• None of the boxes at that page are what I proposed: the rainbow flag, with the tag "LGBT Wikipedian." The pink triangle is a bit 70s for my taste.
• Friends-of-LGBTs can use the "interested" tag as proposed. But there is a distinction between us and our friends.

Adam 07:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I still don't quite understand what the problem is. This is a wiki. If you want an LGBT Wikipedians userbox, go ahead and make one. My making an interest userbox in no way interferes with your ability to make one for orientation. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 07:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"But there is a distinction between us and our friends." Forgive me, Adam, but what distinction would that be aside from one of sexual preference? Incidentally, that shouldn't have much to do with what we do here on WP. The basic issues of freedom of sexual orientation are identical regardless of one's own sexuality. We are not in an "elite" group on Wikipedia which should be treated differently to anyone else who wishes to advocate LGBT rights. (Incidentally, that is why I placed myself under the main Category:LGBT Wikipedians rather than the Category:Gay Wikipedians subcategory). We might even do well to replace it with Category:Wikipedians who support LGBT issues since it is more germane to article editing. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What a bizzare conversation to be having at the "LGBT notice board". Of course the distinction between us and our friends is sexual preference. Sexual preference is the basis of LGBT identity (or at least the LGB part). Or putting it the other way, LGBT identity, the foundation of LGBT politics, depends entirely on a belief in the importance of that distinction. If you don't think so, that is of course your prerogative, but it raises the question of what you are doing here. "Issues of freedom of sexual orientation are identical regardless of one's own sexuality." Oh really? That's not what I recall from the 35 year history of the gay rights movement. (Maybe things are different on your planet.) Again, you are entitled to hold this view if you like, but if you do hold that view, what is an "LGBT notice board" for? Why do you bother coming here? Adam 10:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas brings up an interesting facet of the polemic - yes, issues of love-freedom are of interest to everyone, not only because it is good to look after others' freedom that you may not lose your own, but because in particular the freedom to love has been stolen from all, that's why we are now herded into "gay" and "straight" camps. GLBT historians, if anyone, should know that. But here political issues translate into issues of accuracy and intellectual integrity, which is the whole magic of this project/game and the reason why we can even make headway at all, and find common ground with opposing viewpoints. An LGBT identity is valuable - very valuable - but mainly because it sensitizes you to issues that go beyond the personal. And why are we bothering about little boxes when there is so much work to be done?! Haiduc 12:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the question I have is, how are these differences relevant to our editing of Wikipedia? In an ideal world, the LGBT-related edits of LGBT people and straight people, whatever their personal politics, would be indistinguishable because we are all striving for WP:NPOV. I know this isn't an ideal world, but seriously - if the purpose of this noticeboard is to encourage people to edit Wikipedia as LGBT people/supporters rather than as Wikipedians interested in improving our coverage of issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, NPOV has just gone out the window. Also, your comments ignore the fact that there are those who don't buy into that sort of identity politics. That anti-essentialist theory, whether you agree with it or not, is one that needs to be represented in Wikipedia's treatment of these issues. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a subtle but fundamental misunderstanding going on here. This is the LGBT notice board for Wikipedians. It is not the notice board for LGBT Wikipedians. As it says on the notice board, it's for "Wikipedians interested in articles related to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender topics". Not surprisingly most of those who are interested in LGBT issues are LGBT themselves, but not all. Another important fact to note is that the noticeboard is open to anyone who is interested in LGBT issues, whatever their POV happens to be. David | Talk 19:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Queer and LGBT wikipedians

Category:Queer Wikipedians has been moved from being a subcategory of Category:LGBT Wikipedians to being a separate category with the the comment "Queer is not a subset of LGBT". I don't understand the practicality of this. LGBT has become the term of choice for Wikipedia not because it is precise, but because it is the best we could come up with for now. It seems impractical to rename ourselves FABGLITTER or something more inclusive, and in my view and others, Queer is not an improvement. So while it might be technically true that there are queer people who are not LGBT, would it be so terrible to put it back as a sub-category. Having it separate seems to make it look like the community is divided, and it is confusing. Also making the change after people have already put themselves in the category removes them from LGBT without their approval or knowledge. Perhaps we could call ourselves "LGBT+" or "LGBT...". The separation bothers me more than what the name is, and would like to here other opinions. -- Samuel Wantman 10:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

How about merging everything under a Category:Non-straight Wikipedians? Having said that, I am not sure that any of this really will make that much difference, one way or another. Not from the point of differentiating ones from others, nor from the point of what gets written and how. Haiduc 14:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the difference ultimately boils down to an issue of nomenclature rather than definition; that is, many people don't like the term "queer" (myself included, since in my very British mind "strange" is the meaning which occurs to me first). Likewise, I think perhaps people consider the "LGBT" acronym to offer insufficient identity as compared to "queer"; also, LGBT is probably inclusive of a much wider range of people since there are people who will fall under the umbrella term who couldn't really be considered "queer". "Non-straight Wikipedians" sounds somewhat clumsy, I think, so I probably expect we will just end up having the two semi-synonymous categories side-by-side. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternately, to some LGBT offers entirely too strictly defined an identity. Some take 'queer' to imply a sexuality without identity as such. -Seth Mahoney 01:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hence the giggle fit I am holding back at the irony of the motivation of the act that sparked this conversation. - Davodd 08:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)