Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 5

message: Article titles such as Homosexuality and religion, Homosexuality and Wicca, Homosexuality and Christianity, etc.  are starting really to bother me as they imply only the LG of LGBT(QI...).  I'd like us to consider revising the names, and where needed, the content to match, to something along the order of "Sexual orientation and...", "Sexuality and...", or similar.  I raise the issue in reference to the religion articles because those are the ones that started bugging me, but I don't mean it to be exclusive to those.  In some cases, e.g. Homosexuality and Wicca, the title is quite a misnomer given the amount of discussion of, in that case bisexuality.  In others, the title may more accurately reflect the content that is there, but not necessarily where we need it to go to be inclusive of all LGBT.  What do you all think?  --Aleta 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sexual orientation and..." sounds right.  "Sexuality and..." would probably unnecessarily expand the scope of the articles to include things like masturbation, fertility, puberty, birth control, etc. Fireplace 02:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with Fireplace. Sexual orientation and... broadens the term enough to be inclusive without making the scope of the articles too large. Koweja 04:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that leave out the "T"?  -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles don't cover the T. I suggest "Transexuality and religion" be separate as a lot of those articles are long enough already WjBscribe 11:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the Homosexuality and Christianity article doesn't specifically cover T, there are verses in the bible that are often considered to apply to T, discussion of those verses could be added.  The only problem though is that such discussion could be considered POV, just as it is POV that the bible condemns homosexuality. --CC Proctor 13:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As I pointed out initially, it's not true in all of these articles that only the same-sex aspect is addressed; bisexuality is discussed in at least one of them.  Also, while it may be usually true (?), it is not always the case that behavior only is at issue.  The orientation itself may be at issue (whether in approving or disapproving fashion). Aleta 04:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's necessary to wholesale change article names.  Where it's appropriate like the mentioned Homosexuality and Wicca, I say go for it. I haven't combed through them recently but Homosexuality and religion, Homosexuality and Christianity look pretty specific in their scope. If they start addressing the rest of the LGBT community then we should discuss it then.  Just my $.02 --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 07:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Homosexuality and ..." articles 

message: A while back, I suggested we create a Getting Involved page similar to the one that WP:COMICS has. Well, I finally finished it, here it is. I've tried to pitch it to someone who has a vague notion of what Wikipedia is about (as well as shamelessly plagiarised WP:COMICS]] but not much more. Thoughts? Anyone is welcome to edit it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's brilliant, by the way. If I think of anything I'll add it to the page. — coelacan talk — 21:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting Involved page 

message: The newsletter will be going out in approximately ten minutes. Can I congratulate us all on another good month - we've beaten our recuitment record for the fourth time in a row, elected a coordinator, built another department, designed a recruitment poster etc. Can I ask next month that we get a few more FAs in? They've slacked off a bit recently. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...And there is no way I am ever sending out that newsletter by hand again. *flops into bed* Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps SatyrBot can be recruited in future...? WjBscribe 00:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the great work Dev920! --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 07:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, thanks Dev! :-) And I can't believe you sent all those newsletters manually... Raystorm 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both. I like to catch up with what everyone's up to, but I think that's just too impractical now, regrettably. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter 

message: Yksin has been doing a great job with the Steve Stanton article. I'm posting here because I'd like to get more eyes and fingers on it right now. CNN Headline News is covering this story every half hour today, confirming that he is being fired for being trans. It's probably safe to expect that the article will be getting some hits. There might be a "Did You Know" in there somewhere, too. — coelacan talk — 18:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current events - Trans city manager being fired 

message: I know this isn't the place, and I have no problem with somebody removing this message, but I was allowed to stand with the obnoxious paparazzi ("Who do you photograph for?"  "Wikipedia."  "Oh, Wikipedia...do you have some kind of card or anything?"  "Not really...."  "Okay, sure, go ahead.") and photograph Angela Bassett and her husband Courtney Vance - I am pretty happy about the results, and had to share them.  Check out their pages.  Dave  --DavidShankBone 01:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great pics, David! You are just a gem, the way you go around taking pics and automatically sharing them on Wikipedia. You have so improved the encyclopedia with your numerous photographic contributions. A great big thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jeffpw 06:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a little self-tooting my horn 

message: ... are on the main page this morning in the DYK section. They're a prime target for vandalism so please add to your watchlist! - Alison<talk> 16:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Classification of transsexuals]] and [[Gender identity disorder]] 

message: If anyone's interested, there's a list of ~1,400 non-tagged articles available.  These are articles that are under an LGBT category but do not yet have the  banner.
If you go through the list and find articles tha belong to the category correctly, but don't need the banner (for instance Zoophilia), simply make a note next to the entry on the list, but leave it on the list until I can mark it in my database.
If you work off the list, remove entries as you add the banner.  I'll be working off the list, so if you don't remove an article, I'll do it.
Thanks!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, why does Zoophilia belong in an LGBT category!?! WjBscribe 15:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Sexual orientation and identity, I would imagine. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, OK. hadn't thought of that as an LGBT category. WjBscribe 15:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be inclined to hand it over to WikiProject Sexology, but there's too much gay stuff in there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, we could work together with WPSexology... nothing says these have to be either/or things. :) Aleta 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that the category is one that both groups can work on, I don't think the article Zoophilia is anywhere near our scope :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: When using this list, watch out for category vandalism. some people aren't supposed to be in these categories in the first place and their articles should not be tagged. — coelacan — 18:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And indirect categorization, such as Washington Square Park which is in :Category:Greenwich Village which is in :Category:Gay villages, so it ended up in the list, but shouldn't automatically be tagged imho. — coelacan — 18:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been manually reviewing all the articles on the untagged list to a) make sure they're in the right categories and b) tag them or not as appropriate. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of non-tagged articles 

message: I have created a resources list for people wanting to write LGBT articles - I would be grateful is everyone could add to it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a great idea! We really need to make this work, it'd be terribly helpful to have a good resources list. If every one of us adds just one link, we'll have 100+ resources! :-) Come on people! Raystorm 16:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to the project navbar. -- Beland 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources list 

message: This is the largest LGBT community chorus in the world; I was surprised that the LGBT portal was not already on it. --Allyn 13:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That article was a word-for-word copy violation. It even said at the bottom: "Taken from the Seattle Men's Chorus Homepage http://www.flyinghouse.org/about". If this is an important article, maybe someone would like to start it again from scratch? WjBscribe 13:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Seattle Men's Choruses' claim to be the largest LGBT community chorus in the world is erroneous, as there are several others (e.g. San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus and Turtle Creek Chorale) with at least as many members. MusicMen 17:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added LGBT Portal to [[Seattle Men's Chorus]] 

message: Evidently, Dev's not too keen on "within the scope of" for the project banner.  As I recall it sets off her synesthesia.  Do we reopen the discussion on the wording of the banner?  Or is the explanation on the NAMBLA banner enough for those concerned? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On further review, we voted 6 to 1 for the phrase "within the scope of". -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also the problem that many of the articles tagged are not supported by this WikiProject. By that I mean they've been tagged, but not edited significantly or even cleaned up. I tag a lot of talk pages without touching the articles themselves (shame on me, but I'm lazy like that). WjB pointed out that "within the scope of" avoids any appearance of taking credit for other editors' work. Appearing to take credit for no work at all is undesirable too. (League of Sloppyeditors?) — coelacan — 23:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "within the scope of" remains the best wording at this point; I'd really like to hear what others think, including other suggestions. Perhaps, now that there are significantly more members, another list of options should be entertained and another vote needs to be held? ZueJay (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion can't hurt. I favoured "within the scope" at the time of the last discussion and still do. In my view "supported by" implies an approval of the topic and commitment to maintain the article. The former we simply should not do. The latter we we cannot commit to given the shear number of articles with this project's scope. However, our membership has expanded considerably since the discussion last December and it may be a good idea to revisit the matter. WjBscribe 01:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to see that I think it's ridiculous that you want to change the wording of the banner for the sake of one sodding article. This also goes back to my attitude towards tagging articles like Buffy and V for Vendetta - if we aren't going to at least plan to support them we shouldn't tag them. However, 6-1 is a fairly definitive ratio, so if you all decide to go with that I only ask that you chnage "scope" to "remit", because my eyes are starting to water. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How are we changing the banner for one article? The discussion in Dec was way before the recent probs with the NAMBLA article. Surely we should now discuss what the banner should read for all articles, rather than having disclaimers on some articles but not others, which I find problematic. Either we disavow approval on all articles or none- otherwise a subjective judgment will creep in as to which articles need the disclaimer. By the way, can I ask why you prefer the word "remit" to "scope"? WjBscribe 01:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the banner 'just for this one article' by expanding the macro and editing the result.  (Currently "This article falls under the scope of", but feel free to change it.) There is no need to change the overall banner just because of one article, if we don't want to.  Regards, Ben Aveling 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better. Please, feel free to contribute to this conver., too. ZueJay (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That should help prevent any revert warring and calm people down, though it is just a temporary solution. Banners need to be transcluded templates rather than substituted because it makes it harder to maintain the banner, makes a mess of the talk page, and besides, we should have a uniform statement. If we have separate messages for subjects we don't like we haven't solved the problem at all. Koweja 05:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: With synesthesia, certain combinations of letters can cause unpleasant sensations, if I learned anything from the Discovery Channel (and others can be pretty awesome). Anyway, thesaurus.com suggests bounds, breadth, field, purview, range, span, sphere, stage, and ... purlieus. I remember the discussion that Satyr linked; I don't remember how it changed after that. But, whatever. I'm partial to "breadth", myself. Makes me think of warm loaves. — coelacan — 03:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying synesthesia; I must have read the first few sentences at least three times and still wasn't certain how it applied here. So Dev920, let us know which words trip your troubles and which don't; as you are Coordinator, we can certainly come up with a reasonable alternative to the dreadful sko-p-e. Also found: gamut, spectrum, domain (from Merriam-Webster). ZueJay (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't just for one article. There was already a minor issue at Homer's Phobia because someone thought that "supported by" meant we were claiming credit for it reaching GA status. I thought supported would be an acceptable alternative, but apparently not. An alternative to skope (does it help if we misspell it?) would be fine but we have to be careful that we don't imply that we a)own in whole or part, b)are actively involved with the development of, or c)agree with the subject of the article. Koweja 02:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Breadth" always means "wide" to me.  I think I'd prefer sphere, domain, or spectrum (which implies rainbows!) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Domain" sounds too territorial and royal to me. "Spectrum" and "sphere" are okay. Also "bounds". — coelacan — 07:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spectrum work well, especially with the Rainbow flag as part of our Project's symbol. I don't particularly like sphere because it makes me think of sphere of influence. Bounds works well too. Koweja 15:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with remit? :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regional, IMHO :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the sense that I am using it, it seems also to be limited to the judiciary. Maybe not. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! I could not figure out remit - no wonder! ;) ZueJay (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I also like purview "within the purview of." Or would too many have to check it in the dictionary? Might need a proposal of all and multiple vote cycles to narrow down. ZueJay (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love purview.  Completely missed that when it was mentioned above.  I would be happy with breadth as well. Although a part of me would like to see, "This article falls under the ever-vigilant and restless eye of WikiProject LGBT studies! Be afraid, be very afraid." but maybe that's just me. :-) --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 06:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Note: I didn't add scope because the word aggravates Dev920's synesthesia and many of us were looking for a work-around. However, if you think it's the only workable option, I (or anyone else) can add it anyway. I wanted to make this caveat clear first though. Shall I add it? — coelacan — 06:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Scope is used by many other Wikiprojects and is far preferable to anything else here, IMO.  If Dev's synaesthesia is really the only issue, it would be easy enough to set her up with a custom stylesheet that causes the word to be blacked out for her. (Or just black out the letter "o", or whatever is sufficient.) —Celithemis 12:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *It's not the only workable option, but it's the most clear and non-pretentious, which are important to keep the project legitimate and respectable.  HalJor 15:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Okay, well obviously it should be in the list, if five people chose it while I was sleeping. — coelacan — 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a thought. If we wrap the words in a div tag with an id, Dev can just add a line to her CSS file to hide it. That way we can still have it say scope but she won't have to see it all day. Koweja 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  Very simple. —Celithemis 23:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording of project banner 

message: So... anybody like "breadth"? — coelacan — 06:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Breadth" always means "wide" to me.  I think I'd prefer sphere, domain, or spectrum (which implies rainbows!) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Domain" sounds too territorial and royal to me. "Spectrum" and "sphere" are okay. Also "bounds". — coelacan — 07:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spectrum work well, especially with the Rainbow flag as part of our Project's symbol. I don't particularly like sphere because it makes me think of sphere of influence. Bounds works well too. Koweja 15:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with remit? :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regional, IMHO :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the sense that I am using it, it seems also to be limited to the judiciary. Maybe not. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! I could not figure out remit - no wonder! ;) ZueJay (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I also like purview "within the purview of." Or would too many have to check it in the dictionary? Might need a proposal of all and multiple vote cycles to narrow down. ZueJay (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love purview.  Completely missed that when it was mentioned above.  I would be happy with breadth as well. Although a part of me would like to see, "This article falls under the ever-vigilant and restless eye of WikiProject LGBT studies! Be afraid, be very afraid." but maybe that's just me. :-) --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 06:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: crickets

message: Okay, these are the wordings supported by two or more editors here. Add others if I've overlooked them. This is simple approval voting, so choose any and all that you like. I suggest this run three days, as I expect five days is unnecessary, but if anyone disagrees, we'll make it five. — coelacan — 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Note: I didn't add scope because the word aggravates Dev920's synesthesia and many of us were looking for a work-around. However, if you think it's the only workable option, I (or anyone else) can add it anyway. I wanted to make this caveat clear first though. Shall I add it? — coelacan — 06:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Scope is used by many other Wikiprojects and is far preferable to anything else here, IMO.  If Dev's synaesthesia is really the only issue, it would be easy enough to set her up with a custom stylesheet that causes the word to be blacked out for her. (Or just black out the letter "o", or whatever is sufficient.) —Celithemis 12:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *It's not the only workable option, but it's the most clear and non-pretentious, which are important to keep the project legitimate and respectable.  HalJor 15:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Okay, well obviously it should be in the list, if five people chose it while I was sleeping. — coelacan — 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a thought. If we wrap the words in a div tag with an id, Dev can just add a line to her CSS file to hide it. That way we can still have it say scope but she won't have to see it all day. Koweja 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  Very simple. —Celithemis 23:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|LGBTProject}} : let's pick one/some

message: Is it just me, or are we getting a lot of main page articles?  I mean, Classification of transsexuals and Gender identity disorder as DYK's yesterday, and I see that Same-sex marriage in Spain will be Featured on the 14th, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer on the 10th.  I think that speaks very well of our project! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye! It's pretty sweet. Help me squeeze a DYK out of Steve Stanton! The article's approaching 36 hours now. Is there a tidbit there? "Did you know that Steve Stanton was fired by jerks?" That doesn't seem to work. — coelacan — 03:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you know that successful city manager of Largo, Florida — Steve Stanton — has been fired for pursuing sex reassignment? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Satyr, that inspired me to be just NPOV enough. =) We'll see how it goes. — coelacan — 06:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick note - make sure the sex reassignment link is disambig. Perhaps sex reassignment therapy with the "therapy" hidden. ZueJay (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, because I anticipated that the redirect would change soon. Thanks for making the disambiguation page. — coelacan — 06:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK 

message: If any stubs need expanding, feel free to let me know, I'll try and wikify them where possible. Good work so far with this project! --sunstar nettalk 14:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we have 2000 of them here, edit any that takes your fancy. :) Oh and if you join WP:LGBT, enter our Jumpaclass competition too! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiya! Some help with Same-sex marriage in Italy would be quite welcome. :-) The first merge threat has been issued, and I don't want that to happen if I can help it! Cheers Raystorm 16:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubs 

message: I've always understood that he was bisexual ("every woman's man and every man's woman" or something like that), but I see that the WP article has a section entitled Julius_Caesar#Political_rivals_and_slanders_of_homosexual_activity and the Talk page has multiple Project tags but not one from these parts.  "Slanders", eh?  At the very least, I'd have expected "rumours" rather than "slanders" - just because some or most of the stories were apparently put about by his enemies doesn't mean that there might not have been some truth in them.  Anyway, I have absolutely no expertise in Roman history and don't feel like disturbing the certainties of the editors of the Caesar page just now, but I thought I'd flag this up here for everyone to think about, consult their reference-books, tag the article, start an edit war over there or what you will. Best to all. --GuillaumeTell 22:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've always thought that if Suetonius saw fit to add in the rumour, it must have been big. Having read the Twelve Caesars (*shuffled off to find copy*), my translation says "When Thermus sent Caesar to raise a fleet in Bithynia, he wasted so much time at King Nicomedes' court that a homosexual relationship between them was suspected, and suspicion gave place to scandal when, soon after his return to headquarters, he revisted Bithynia". Oh and Cicero apparently wrote " Caesar was led by Nicomedes' attendants to the royal bedchamber, where he lay on a golden couch, dressed in a purple shift... So this descendant of Venus lost his virginity in Bithynia". Apparently the rumours dogged him all his life and he was dubbed "the Queen of Bithynia". So even if it's not true, it's big enough to be worth including, I reckon. Strange how the most successful people always turn out to be bisexual, huh? :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it hard to believe that the term "slanders" has been accepted. It is glaringly pov. "Rumors" or "insinuations" or "accusations" are certainly better choices. Haiduc 05:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I altered it to "rumours" last night {which means that the link above doesn't work properly) and no-one has objected so far.  "insinuations" and "accusations" aren't as bad as "slanders", but still make it sound as if there's something wrong with homosexual activity, or that's how it seems to me. --GuillaumeTell 18:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julius Caesar 

message: I see people here have been doing a wonderful job of assessing articles by quality.  I was looking over the results to see if there were any "important" articles that were in a bad state, but there are so many lower-quality articles, it can be hard to get a handle on the situation.  I was wondering if it would be useful to also assign an important level to all LGBT articles, using the standard importance scale like the Math project. -- Beland 19:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Importance ratings for articles are a sticky barrel of worms, IMHO. To rate an article's quality can have a degree of subjectivity, but importance? I can only imagine the arguments over that. Maybe I'm over-worrying, but whenever I do article assessments, I never rate importance, only quality. My two cents, for what it's worth. --Ebyabe 20:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Importance is really something that has to be determined by the Project, not an individual, which makes it difficult (judging quality is hard enough, which is why I avoided it at first). Obviously articles on LGBT, Homosexuality, Bisexuality, etc are high importance, but there are thousands of articles tagged. Perhaps we could elect a committee of Project members to evaluate the importance of the articles? Koweja 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To tell you the truth, since we have ~6,000 articles (rather than ~221,000 that WP:WPBIO has, or ~31,000 that WP:MILHIST has), I'd rather spend my time increasing the quality of articles than worrying about their "importance".  Just my $US0.02. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, yes that should of course be everyone's goal. However if we want "our" articles to make into the Wikipedia release then we need to allocate our time so we focus on getting the most important LGBT articles ready. Koweja 02:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a strong argument either way. It wouldn't hurt to at least get the High-priority articles put into a category. There's probably less than 100 of those (possibly way less). I've seen templates that take both class and priority parameters, but only give a visual of class, and just drop a category for priority. That way nobody has to feel guilty about not using the priority, because those pesky ???'s don't get displayed. If this is adopted, I would suggest "priority" instead of "importance", as  has done. — coelacan — 06:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It does. I suggest as core articles every letter of L G B T, plus same-sex marriage, queer theory and history of homosexuality. :-) Raystorm 16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment of importance 

message: I'm trying to get consensus about usage the adjective "lesbian" and the noun "lesbianism" in the article Lesbianism in erotica and potentially head off an edit war between myself and User:Joie de Vivre. Basically, this user insists on very narrow usage of the words "lesbian" and "lesbianism" no matter what the context, restricting only to descriptions of self-identified "lesbians". It is my belief that "ordinary language" use of the word lesbian allows this term as a broad description of same-sex activity between women and that the phrase "lesbian sex" can be reasonably used to describe sex between bisexual women. I feel very strongly that English usage in Wikipedia should reflect generally accepted usage of the English language by the larger public and not usage that may be confined to a particular subculture.
Based on this, JdV had changed the title to "Sex between women in erotica" and rewrote the article to expunge nearly every instance of the word "lesbian". I think the results of JdV's edits were largely tendentious and clunky and have reverted them (though I've incorporated some of JdV's edits after reverting).
If you have an opinion on this, please weigh in at Talk: Lesbianism_in_erotica: Renaming_article. Iamcuriousblue 00:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lesbianism in erotica]] 

message: Hi all. I have been working on a number of articles related to crossgender impersonators in Japanese performance. In Kabuki, as in Shakespearean theatre and other forms, all the roles are played by men, and some men play only women's roles. Similarly, the Takarazuka Revue features all-female troupes and casts, in which some women specialize in only male roles. This phenomenon extends beyond just these two forms, and beyond just Japan, of course. But I can't seem to find any extensive articles on the subject (just a small section under Transvestism), and no categories for actors who professionally specialize in impersonating the opposite sex.
You all likely know as well as I do that people who crossdress professionally in this way are not necessarily gay. So I apologize somewhat for bringing this somewhat out-of-scope topic up here. Any thoughts or suggestions - if you know where to find these articles & categories, and I'm just looking in the wrong places - would be most appreciated. Thanks. LordAmeth 13:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, LordAmeth!  I ran in to a couple of similar situations when reviewing the articles in :Category:Drag kings and :Category:Drag queens.  Some of the articles in those cats (though not many) aren't LGBT.  Though some might argue that drag in general falls under "T".  I don't believe there's a category for :Category:Performers who cross-dress, which might include Eddie Murphy and Robin Williams.  But equating Kabuki players with Drag queens does seem out of place. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think I should create something? :Category:Female impersonators and :Category:Male impersonators, or something like that? A man like Taichi Saotome (not a kabuki actor) or Tamasaburo (who is), playing the role of a woman in a play is not the same as Eddie Izzard playing himself - a man - in drag. Though I do see your point about Robin Williams, Eddie Murphy, Monty Python actually playing women's roles. LordAmeth 15:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think those categories would be a good idea. I'm passing over tagging Vesta Tilley right now. She's currently in :Category:Drag kings but it appears :Category:Male impersonators would be more approrpriate. — coelacan — 05:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossgender impersonators in film/theatre 

message: Many people use current FAs as a template for other poetntial ones. Certainly, I do. I noticed that, while we have FAs on gay films, gay people, gay books, gay marriage etc., there are some areas where we could do with some people out there breaking new ground, so to speak. So, here is a list of areas that I think we could do with addressing:
* A newspaper (probably The Washington Blade, if jtowns has anything to do with it)
* A gay rights in...
* A homosexuality in...
* An LGBT rights organisation
* A transgender organisation
* An article on a religion and homosexuality
* An LGBT term
* An article on a gay hate crime victim
* An LGBT event
Anyone interested in developing articles in any of these areas, please, do go ahead. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I plan on working on the Paul Broussard stub who was a gay hate crime victim. I'll certainly use a current FA as a template.--ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 15:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAs needed 

message: This is not encyclopedic, but I thought I'd spread the news here. I'm not sure who has heard, but John Inman, who played the famous (if not infamous) Mr. Humphries on the British sitcom Are You Being Served, died today. For those of you not familiar with the show, Mr. Humphries was among the first gay characters on TV. Inman played the character stereotypically with a kind of mincing flair that he stated he took from some of the young men who worked in London retail shops. Inman, himself gay, died from a Hepatitis A infection. He is survived by his partner. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Humphries was never actually confirmed as gay (just checked the article), though I must admit it's hard to imagine a straight man coming to do decorating in pink dungarees! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shame.  He always seemed such a sweet man.  Although he was never confirmed as gay, the subtext was barely kept sub.  All those constant references to "friends" he had in other departments.  Not to mention the episode when the word "poof" is mentioned and he assumes it's in reference to him.  Still, my mother (a woman of her era) often  uses the word, with no sense of animosity, as a synonym for "camp man" regardless of sexual preference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garik (talk • contribs) 15:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilberforce Claybourne Humphries 

message: Can someone give me an opinion on Kirk Talley?  Does he belong in :Category:LGBT people from the United States?  Does he also belong in :Category:Ex-gay people?  The article is almost totally unsourced and is giving me a headache. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phew. Get a ref confirming that story (the struggles and 'pulled together' quote), and I'll say he belongs to ex-gay too. Raystorm 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay and Ex-gay? 

message: Hey guys - on the article for the John Waters page for his film Multiple Maniacs I included the photograph I took of John Waters.  I feel his vision (and writing, and directing) is integral to his movies, and I also think it draws people to the John Waters article.  A user on there doesn't want it on, has disparaged the photo, says it clutters the page, etc.  The arguments are on the Talk page.  Whether for or against the photo being on the page, can you guys weigh in with your thoughts so that I can move on?  If the photo is removed from this work, it will likely be removed from all his work by the challenging user and only be included on the Waters article page.  --DavidShankBone 17:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Multiple Maniacs]] 

message: I'm curious as to why one is within our spectrum while the other isn't.  Maybe I don't understand the words, but could someone tell me what the difference is? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *That can be the case. Sometimes a person is born with no outward indication of intersexuality, but as they age their body does not react to its own hormones in the usual way. Androgen insensitivity, for example, can display late. And for reasons related to infant sex assignment, some people do not know they are intersex. Erik Schinegger and Cheryl Chase come to mind. — coelacan — 10:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, there are further complications such as those. I was just trying to provide as simple a distinction as possible. --AliceJMarkham 23:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transgender vs Intersexual 

message: A new image was added to Template:LGBT sidebar, that probably needs some feedback. Anyone who's interested, chime in at Template talk:LGBT#New Image? (try to keep it centralized there, as I've also posted this at WP:VPM for general feedback). — coelacan — 04:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  need template feedback 

message: There was some interest expressed above in starting an LGBT Core Topics. I personally think this is a marvellous idea, it will give people something to work on if they feel bored and perhaps, some time in the future, we can produce our own CD for LGBT organisations? Definitely a few wikireaders. It could compose of the top 200 most important LGBT articles. What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already said somewhere above I'm all for this idea. How should we pick the articles? Via a poll? Raystorm 12:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is a great idea. Should we all submit lists, say our top ten and then the ten artcles that cross over the most get chosen? --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 15:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should limit it to a specific number just yet. Koweja 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are too many choices to be made to require multiple people to nominate up front, or take a poll.  I would think just designating a page to start a list should be sufficient - let people add to it as they will, and if anyone disagrees with a particular nomination, it can be discussed.  Though actually I think it would be better  to just tag the "core" topics as being of high importance to the project.  If people don't want to bother classifying the importance of non-core topics, that can be left undone.  But using the existing category mechanisms I think will be easier to maintain (as articles are renamed and deleted they will automatically get updated in the category) and it will be more likely that whoever spins a CD or does a print version will actually find the articles if they are in a standard category rather than a custom list. -- Beland 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, well, the list has already been created here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT Core Topics 

message: The List of LGBT-related topics is a complete mess. Either we need to delete it, or use an automated process to add all our currently assessed articles. I'm torn between those options. What do you think? And could people start replying to my posts? I'm starting to feel kinda alone... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh. It's really off-putting. If you can do the automated process thingy to improve it, great. If not, I'd say delete. (Yeah that was a great help huh?) ;-) Raystorm 12:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this list do? Key topics are listed at :Template:LGBT topics, which should be kept up to date. Is having that info in list form as well useful to navigation? I think it would be unmanageable if we listed all LGBT-related topics... WjBscribe 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are too many choices to make all of them by poll; just designating a page for people to assemble the list should be sufficient.  Others will need to review the list as articles are proposed, as well as any guidelines proposed.  The easiest collection technique might be to start at the top of the LGBT category tree. -- Beland 13:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beland, is it possible you meant to reply to the above discussion of LGBT core topics? Because it looks as a reply for my question there. :-) If not, sorry for the confusion. Cheers Raystorm 17:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm onboard with having it automated, just doessn't seem worth keeping if we don't.--ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 15:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, yes, I replied to the wrong section. -- Beland 18:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you were going to embark upon the task of compiling this list properly then using the categories would indeed be best - just go through them all and copy and paste, and then alphabetize. But the article wold be enormous, and what possible good would it do, being so generalized? Might as well compile a list of heterosexuality-related articles. Haiduc 16:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As people have discovered, the categories that have been grouped under LGBT do not necessarily have links to LGBT. BDSM, for example, is not an exclusively gay thing but is in our category system. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:List guideline#Purpose of lists, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, Wikipedia:Categories vs lists. Excuse my laziness. =) — coelacan — 00:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of LGBT-related topics 

message: The Mail on Sunday carried an article about Wikipedia today. Peter Tatchell was featured complaining that his article is rubbish and "gayist". We may want to go and improve it... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'be found a copyright free photo of him and uploaded it to Commons to get the ball rolling... WjBscribe 14:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Peter Tatchell]] 

message: Ok, all you artistic people out here, here's a challenge. I'm continuing my planning for the gay history text book (I'm going to leave transgender out - we can do a separate book on them afterwards) and I'm looking for cover art. It needs to be high enough quality to fit a 7 inch by 9 inch cover, be non-controversial (so no Nazar ill'al-murd images please), and preferably be historical, though not necessarily so (if any of those waving rainbow flags were high enough quality...). So, your suggestions? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover art 

message: So sorry if this has been discussed before, but I've been noticing that in a fair amount of articles, so-and-so "revealed" or so-and-so "admitted" he or she was homosexual or otherwise. This may just be me, but that seems to be rather rude. Perhaps it would be better if those statements were changed to "stated", "confirmed" or "said" he or she was homosexual or otherwise, or something along those lines. Just a thought. Thanks for the input-HornandsoccerTalk 01:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a fair point. Can't say I've noticed this issue myself, but words like "revealed" or "admitted" should be avoided (perhaps an exception would be where the person had long denied it) to maintain WP:NPOV. WjBscribe 01:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or use "came out" and link coming out. "Stated" sounds almost skeptical, as if we're bending over backwards not to treat it as true. —Celithemis 01:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, will do-HornandsoccerTalk 03:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admitted/Stated? 

message: I've noticed there are a lot of Homosexuality by country pages (Homosexuality in New Zealand, Homosexuality in Japan, Homosexuality in China, Homosexuality in Singapore etc), but no associated template or category. Most seem to be slotted into gay rights categories, even though most cover topics far broader than just rights, and most countries have specific gay rights pages. I was thinking about creating a Homosexuality by country category and possibly template, but since this is a big project with a lot of people involved (and I haven't been one of them) I thought I would float the idea here first. --Helenalex 22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea to me. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing this has exposed a whole lot of inconsistency. Five countries (Australia, Canada, Norway, UK and US) have LGBT culture categories which encompass all gay stuff, four further countries (Iraq, Romania, Mexico and Scotland) have gay rights categories only, Germany has a LGBT history category, NZ has a LGBT category, Singapore has a homosexuality category, and 3 modern and 2 ancient countries have Homosexuality in... pages that aren't in wider LGBT country categories. All of this makes things difficult to find and prevents cross-country comparison on anything other than gay rights. I have no idea what can be done about this, but I thought I should bring it to people's attention. --Helenalex 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *sigh*. The problem is, patriotic people (ie, whoever keeps creating all that Canada related stuff) keep creating these categories willy nilly and putting them in the strangest of places, and then we have to deal with the resulting mess. Unfortunately all attempts to fix them have failed miserably thus far. Maybe people should just start sorting and CfDing on their own initiative and let's see what happens. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another issue, which should probably be dealt with at the same time, is naming. All the general overview pages that I've been able to find are called Homosexuality in (country), but this doesn't realy reflect usage in a lot of countries, doesn't cover all the LGBT community, and IMO makes it sound like a disease, or at least a problem. There is discussion of this on Talk:Homosexuality in New Zealand#Name. I'm reluctant to make the NZ page the odd one out, and am also reluctant to jump in and rename all the other Homosexuality in... pages. In some cases they might reflect usage in those countries. I suspect people sorting this out on their own initiative is more likely to make things worse than anything else... if some kind of consensus can be reached, then whatever changes are made are more likely to stick if they are something a number of people have agreed on, rather than what one person thinks should happen. Also, I still have no idea what the answer is to this. --Helenalex 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: This article is today's Main Page Featured Article, congrats to everyone who worked on it. Its likely to see high levels of vandalism whilst on the main page so it would be great if people could add it their watchlists and help revert vandalism... WjBscribe 00:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Same-sex marriage in Spain]] 

message: Is there a LGBT images category anywhere? --Helenalex 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as far as I know on Wikipedia itself. However there is such a category on Commons- see :Commons:Category:LGBT and its sub-categories. WjBscribe 04:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: How does one go about finding a definition of what makes an 'LGBT musical group'? There's a lot of ambiguous middle ground. I think the main category page should explain what an LGBT musical group is. While Frankie Goes to Hollywood is an obvious LGBT musical group, debate would surround whether Hüsker Dü (two gay members but lyrics rarely touch on LGBT themes) and The Smiths (singer widely thought to be gay and has become an LGBT icon) are LGBT musical groups.
See the comments on the talk page for the category.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "LGBT musical groups" category - a question 

message: Came to my attention through a recent FAC:  It appears that there are some extensive WP:BLP violations that need to be dealt with quickly on the series of articles beginning with List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E.  Biographies of living persons require high quality reliable sources, and a number of the sources used there aren't even reliable sources, much less the highest-quality sources.  As one example, 
http://www.andpop.com/celebrity/krista-allen/3?PHPSESSID=154e933bf65caeeb21c956691175018c is a Wiki !  (There are many more examples.)  This is a pretty serious issue on Wiki, so I hope Project members will get on it right away; otherwise help can be requested at the BLP violations board.  Ah, heck, I think policy now requires that I must delete that example, since I've highlighted it.  I hope Project members will get on this prontissimo; I'd offer to help, but I'm going to be traveling.  Consult with WP:BLPN if help is needed.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assure you we take these issues very seriously. My understanding was that all unsourced and poorly sourced entries had been removed from that list. Obviously this is not the case, I will review them immediately. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. WjBscribe 04:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at A-E (don't have time to check the others until I'm next online). I've removed a couple of others and improved the source for one but most seem properly sourced. The key question IMO is the reliability of andrejkoymasky.com. WjBscribe 04:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]] 

message: Looking at this website, I really don't think it meets WP:RS and have grave doubts about using it to source the lists, especially entries about living people. I've removed all entries sourced from this site pending a discussion of the merits of this site as a reliable source. Please comment at Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E#andrejkoymasky.com. Thanks, WjBscribe 04:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: andrejkoymasky.com

message: I've changed the format of the Articles recently tagged as related to LGBT section to be a list of articles tagged in the last seven days instead of the last 25 articles. This was discussed last month with some support, but not a lot of discussion, unfortunately. Let's see how this works - we can always switch it back. Koweja 05:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently tagged articles 

message: Added portal on article on Peter Pace, in the section about his comments on gays —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allyn (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The portal is not a bad idea, however, you added the infobox on LGBTQ series. I changed it to the portal which is less intrusive on an article that is predominantly not about LGBT, only has a section. ZueJay (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for catching me on this. This is the first time I attempted this. --Allyn 02:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. It's a great idea. First time I've tried the portal (not the template) too. Maybe Coelacan can take a look and check that it's all right (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink). Keep up the good work all! ZueJay (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Never in the mainspace. It's an internal mechanism that acts as a gateway to the mainspace, not the other way round. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by mainspace? The article? Should it maybe be on the talkpage then - just the portal not any other tags, etc.? Or should we just leave it be? ZueJay (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dev, are you sure?  Take a look at where the portal currently is - almost all of them are in main space... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I was going to make a comment along the same lines, Satyr - most other portals seem to place links in the article space, usually in the "see also" or "references" section (see Portal:World War I and Portal:Biotechnology, for example). Obviously, not all portals have to operate in the same way, but that seems to be the common practice. Carom 01:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those little portal boxes are designed to be placed on articles, but Wikipedia:Portal suggests they belong in the "see also" section.  My view is that they should only be added when the portal subject is of central importance to the main subject of the article -- articles like Homosexuality, Lesbian, etc.  (Several biographical articles I've worked on contain sections about the subject's time as an expatriate in Paris, but if Wikiproject France tried to add a portal box on that basis, it would be annoying.) —Celithemis 01:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, quite right. Carom 01:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thought about this a bit more; have plunked around the Wikipedia portal pages a bit, mostly here and its associated pages. The most informative line I can find is: “The idea of a portal is to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas through pages similar to the Main Page. In essence, portals are useful entry-points to Wikipedia content.” Which makes me think the unobtrusive LGBT portal would be an excellent inclusion in the “See also” section of articles that contain the LGBT banner on their talk page but not neccessarily any infoboxes alongside the article. Articles encompassed by this idea might include biographies of LGBT individuals and activists. However, it would make sense NOT to add it to articles not primarily concerned with LGBT. Recall that the portal code is . ZueJay (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now I've read that policy, let me slightly amend my statement: never link to the portal at the top of an article in place of an infobox. This is what I was thinking of, it didn't occur to me that people put it in the see also section. I still find that odd, but I can understand the reason why. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added LGBT Portal to Peter Pace's comment on Gays 

message: You know, it's really disheartening when this project is used to *remove* the category from people who are gay and forcing us to *cite* every instance.  Do heteros cite every hetero?  Of course they don't have a category, are we supposed to portray everything hetero-normative?  That doesn't make for a very welcoming project.  We certainly don't need to be policing ourselves do we?  There are *plenty* of others who will police us you know. Wjhonson 08:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policy requires all information to be sourced. So if an editor wishes to state that someone is gay, a reliable source must be included to back up that information. Also, this project is not meant to push any agenda other than that of improving this encyclopedia. —Mira 08:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Believe me, this project is much better off policing itself than waiting for others to do so. Things run a lot smoother that way. And WP:V applies to everyone. Lists maintained by this project are only able to survive AFD on the merits of their reliable sources. And on a related note, if some article says that some person is heterosexual, there's better be a reliable citation for that statement or it comes down. — coelacan — 09:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the LGBT cat from an article doesn't say the subject is straight, it doesn't even say that it isn't LGBT. It just says the article as written doesn't include information supporting the claim that the subject is LGBT-related. To be honest, the heteronormative part of this is the assumption that they're straight if they aren't labeled with the LGBT cat. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: When is it ever explicitly pointed out that people are straight? If it was it would probably need to be cited as well. And as Coelacan said, it's better for the LGBT project to remove categories than for the entire article/list be deleted for violating WP:BLP. Koweja 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT Category 

message: Does anyone have an estimate for how often the LGBT barnstar used for vandalizing userpages?  I just saw two different IPs (almost certainly the same person) place it on dozens of user pages. —dgiestc 05:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that's a new and innovative form of vandalism! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just...weird. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ha. Going to school in a homophobic enviroment, I can see why some idiots would do that.Nukleoptra 17:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnstar vandalism? 

message: Following the endless brouhaha over WP:BLP, I am announcing a new editing drive. SatyrTN has kindly compiled a list of people who are in LGBT categories but are not on our LGBT lists. The list is here. All people on this list needs to be either added to our LGBT lists with reliable sources or else have their LGBT categories removed. 
Once we have accomplished this, WP:BLP will never be much of a problem again, as we will have reliable sources for everyone currently categorised as LGBT.
In this spirit, I ask everyone to pitch in and help out with this. Just looking at one person's article a day and spending a few minutes sourcing them would reduce the backlog in 20 days. That's just one article a day. Please, please, please, commit to this small request. Thank you, Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do we do if we can't find a reliable reference?  I've just searched all over for Ebine Yamaji and, while she's almost definitely a lesbian, I'm unable to find a good ref. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Similarly with Abha Dawesar. Any thoughts on what should be done? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems an inevitable, predictable, unavoidable conundrum in the LGBT community. To use the most stringent definition of a credible source, we will not find many of the known LGBT folks in these sources as "credible" media will not make LGBT a primary aspect of their pantheon. Credible media also tends to contradict itself, a prime example being with regards to the gender identity of Brandon Teena.I don't have any great suggestion though; Err on the side of caution and remove them from the cats but perhaps leave the project tag on their page until we can come up with a more concrete solution? ZueJay (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe :Category:Unsourced LGBT people ? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That kinda leaves us with the same problem, tho' with a different name. Tagging folks with the LGBT label when they may well not be - Alison☺ 00:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think we can do that.  Since sourcing is a fundamental precept to Wikipedia (even if it's often not done), I don't think we can have an unsourced class. Aleta 01:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe for now we could move the names to a separate section at the end of the "to be sorted" list for further research.  I imagine that for many of these there are good sources that just aren't easily findable online.  (I'd be interested to see how many of them actually fail verification, anyway.) —Celithemis 01:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What if the source is the person's own autobiography? Aaron Fricke's autobiography, Confessions of a Rock Lobster, is mentioned in his article, and he definitely comes out in the text. Is that sufficient to consider him "sourced"? --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 19:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, IMHO.  Even if he came out his own blog, I would think that would be considered sourced. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, as well.  If he wrote it, that's sufficient! Aleta 20:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New editing drive 

message: Was working on an article listed at :Category:LGBT rights activists and ended up posing a question on the cat's name at Category talk:LGBT rights activists#Activists and supporters?. Since the cat doesn't seem to see a lot of activity, wanted to post a note here to generate response. Thanks, ZueJay (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:LGBT rights activists question 

message: It has been proposed that this article be renamed List of transgender people. Those with a view on this may want to comment at Talk:List of transgendered people#Requested move. WjBscribe 07:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of transgendered people]] 

message: I think this article tell not good what Gay Pride is. History and some Critics is good. The first sentenses are not. "no shame", proud, etc. In not good in english to make it self. The italien Artikle is shorter, bt a little better in this point. The first version of Gay Pride here was with a "see also" to reparative therapy. :-) --Fg68at de:Disk 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gay Pride]] 

message: Probably guilty of lack of confidence here, but I wanted to verify a couple of things related to the George Takei article. Firstly, the article is categorised as LGBT Asian Americans, but not listed in "our" list of LGBT people, nor in the 'to be sorted' list. So should this article be tagged with the  tag in its talk page, and should Takei be put on that list? I would have thought so. Just surprised that it has been missed.
Secondly, would this article be rated Start or B-class? I can't decide, though I like to err on the side of Start. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mentality (talk • contribs) 07:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the article's talkpage was tagged on 9 January 2007 and rated 'B' . He is listed at List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/P-T  (which apparently I added him to myself on 8 December 2006). Which explains why his article isn't in the "To be sorted" list... WjBscribe 13:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, I don't know why or how I missed that. Bizarre, I could have sworn.... oh I was probably drunk! Thanks though :-) Mentality 12:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Takei 

message: An editor has tagged Homosexuality and Scientology and Homosexuality in Norse paganism with notability tags and declared them trivial.  Someone else suggested that he tag all the "homosexuality and religion" articles similarly!  Folks may want to comment on and/or beef-up those articles.  -Aleta 22:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Homosexuality and Scientology? That really only needs two words: *** ******. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tut tut tut... ;-) WjBscribe 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Tsk, tsk. Scurrilous rumour, that :-D - Alison☺ 23:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else agrees :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL!! Awesome :) - Alison☺ 00:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think its time this guy decided to Put up or shut up. Either he AfDs them or he gets on with doing something productive... WjBscribe 23:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of "Homosexuality and religion" articles 

message: Eastern Orthodox view of sin. Title would suggest it's rather general. Guess what the half the subject matter is? — coelacan — 18:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, indeed.  I've tagged it. Aleta 19:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However I'm not sure about inclusion of that article in Template:Religion and homosexuality. That template already has Homosexuality and Christianity. There are also Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Homosexuality and Presbyterianism (just tagged), Quaker views of homosexuality, Anglican views of homosexuality, and maybe others. Someone had an idea at some point to use Template:Homosexuality and Christianity for Christian denominations. We could merge. That would make Template:Religion and homosexuality a little Christian-heavy though. Any objections to expanding the titles of thes abbreviated templates, by the way? And is isn't it strange that there's Homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood but not Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism? — coelacan — 19:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  here's an interesting article 

message: A well meaning Wikipedian who is not a project member has twice now changed the rating of our project tag from this article from Start to B class, in spite of both SatyrTN and myself evaluating it (independently of one another) as start. I note that the article about the film is longer and also rated start, so we are at least consistent. Maybe somebody could take a look at it and give a third opinion. Jeffpw 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me it seems obviously a 'Start' article. It could be improved in a number of ways, for starters a large portion of the article is dominated by explanations of the characters and a very short summary of their profiles, whereas if this were a true B class such things might have their own section. Hardly any of the article is devoted to the true meaning/plot of the story and it's short in length (which admittedly isn't always relevant, but it is here). Mentality 21:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll copy this comment over to Talk:The Boys in the Band (play) for the benefit of the other editor there. — coelacan — 21:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Boys in the Band (play)]] 

message: Michael Dillon, the first female to male transsexual at least in one sense of the word, see .  Book title is "The First Man-Made Man."  Not really my area but I notice there is no article on this individual or the other key individuals mentioned.  --70.51.231.230 23:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of possible interest? 

message: This made me laugh - "The German capital is considered to many lesbians, gays and Transgendern from all world as center of a pulsating Homoszene" :)
But if anyone can tell me what the actual event is called, I'd be grateful :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They seem to run a football tournament called the Come Together Cup.  It's probably not quite as much of a pulsating homoscene as the name would suggest, though. —Celithemis 07:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: '*lol* :-) Berlin is in the European community certainly a very important city. I think also for the World. So i.e. after San Francisco and New York and London. elledorado gather Money for different events and activities. i.e. the biggest :de:Teddy Award :fr:Teddy Award, the LGBT-Film-Award on the Berlinale, a lesbian film festival, and a soccer-cup. The other Money goes to different groups and persons in the categories arts, music, theater, film or sports. per year they gather 10.000 Euro. There is no actual event. --Fg68at de:Disk 13:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So they are more of an LGBT organization and probably don't belong on the List of LGBT events? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Fixed it. There are 3 Charity-Games in 3 cities. They all firm under "Come Together Cup". Köln is organized by a own Team, Essen by the local AIDS-help organisation and Berlin by elledorado. Köln has a Subsite, Essen has its own Website and Berlin has a Subsite at sonntags-club. --Fg68at de:Disk 14:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fun with Babelfish 

message: Qxz has started and advertising banner, and he's welcoming WikiProject ads. I'd like us to have one, but shall we put in it? Three slides seems to be the norm (hook, follow up, lasting image), and I thought it would be quite amusing to have the final one have our rainbow flag with pen to the left and our name with "Absolutely no agenda. Except that gay one." underneath it. Your thoughts? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nooooo!  This looks like it has the potential to be horribly annoying, not to mention hard on those of us with slow connections. -Aleta 04:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a purely optional extra on userpages, and if this is going to take off, we ought to get in on it, no? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anh, I suppose it's probably inevitable, but I don't like it. Aleta 04:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love it! I'm already starting to think of a catchy ad campaign for us. I do agree, however, that they should stay confined to userpages, and not on articles (but maybe talk pages related to the subject of the ad). Jeffpw 09:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Qxz has made it very clear that these will not be used outside of userspace. WjBscribe 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ads 

message: I submitted Andrew Van De Kamp as a start to Jumpaclass and the seven days are up - and Andrew is currently on FAC with 87% support. So, my question is, how the hell do we rate this? It never even saw GA. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we're going to be strict about it, then I guess it counts as a 'B-class' :-P. Though I guess a jump to FA is possible if it is granted FA status with no further edits to it after the 7 days were up. But it would seem a shame to endanger the FA bit for jumpaclass status... WjBscribe 23:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could agree time extension for any article that is on GA or FA review by the end of the days...? WjBscribe 23:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's going to pass on the strength of what I did to it during the set time period. Every edit since has been implementing minor suggestions. Do I get extra points for jumping it four classes instead of two? :-) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting conundrum. 

message: I'm patrolling LGBT cats for the (very few) articles that don't have our project banner.  Once again, V for Vendetta has come up.  Upon reviewing the article, I'm considering whether or not it belongs in the project.  I would have agreed that "a few minor gay characters does not a gay theme make" (as Jeffpw pointed out in an edit summary), but further review shows things like a quote "one of the most pro-gay ever" and "conservative Christian groups were critical of the film's negative portrayal of Christianity and sympathetic portrayal of homosexuality and Islam".  Any thoughts pro or con? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well at risk of speaking to myself (I think I've said this three times now) I believe it is well within our scope. Not because of minor gay characters but because it deals with a totalitarian regime that persecutes homosexuals. The point that everyone should be allowed to love each other regardless of gender is made strongly (there is an entire segment of the film dedicated to the lives of a lesbian and her lovers) and implicitly accepted by the major (non-gay) characters. The film deals with the politics of gay oppression as well as the personal sexuality of minor characters. WjBscribe 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: WJBscribe seems to say it all. Most importantly there is a fairly predominant part of the film, almost a sub-story, which revolves around a lesbian couple. It repeatedly mentions homosexuality as a target group of the regime that is in power within the film...and I don't think it's a coincidence Stephen Fry was picked to play a gay character. It's a very "gay friendly" film which has controversial elements of homosexuality as a running theme, it seems obvious it should have an LGBT tag. Mentality 15:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, my views on the subject of articles that aren't on predominantly gay themes have been as oft repeated as WJBscribe's. As this is an issue that will only keep rearing its head, maybe it's time to better define our scope - if necessary, by vote. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine that is not the sort of thing that can be decided by vote. There are too many subtleties of opinion. I could be wrong though. — coelacan — 17:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this is one of those gray areas where we leave it up to individual editors and/or individual articles? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That only leads to edit wars over tags, as we had over Buffy, remember? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but we followed the "correct" procedure and a) talked it over and b) brought it before both the article's editors and the project.  That would seem like good process. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an editor thinks it should fall under our purview and is willing (even if the only one) to support it as such, why not include it?  Aleta 18:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it renders our assessment system meaningless. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? No it doesn't.  That should not affect the assessment of quality at all. (I am assuming *some* valid reason for for including it in the purview of the preoject, even if not everyone would agree it is enough I'm not implying that any random article be included.) -Aleta 03:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It very much falls under the category. It's practically a gay film. Maybe not even because of the characters (like Valerie and Gordon) but because it's a massive theme throughout. Buffy, too, as much as Torchwood.21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Although it does very much fall under the category, at the moment the article has almost no content relating to the persecution of homosexuals. It would need to have that added and referenced (and preserved long enough) before any talk of categorising it is useful. That goes for both V for vendetta and V for vendetta (film). Cheers! Lauren♫/∆ 02:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisit [[V for Vendetta]] 

message: Don Dunstan (an Australian state premier who pioneered gay rights legislation in Australia) was tagged as being LGBT related but a small group of people keep removing the tags. The people who claim thet "wrote" the article keep removing all gay references from the article with comments such as "take your activism elsewhere". This article may need a closer watch as it won't turn up on the watchlist if the tags are removed. 150.203.2.85 03:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be an idea if a fresh pair of eyes took a look at this article. Its the usual problem with lack of strong verifiable sources for someone who was pretty widely known to be gay (at least towards the end of his life). I think there should be a bit more about the likelihood that he was gay (I mean he lived with a man and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia has said so -though not in a judicial capacity ;-) ) but never publicly came out. The issue is one of care over sourcing rather than anything more sinister. I think an overcautious line has been taken but can understand why. I suspect a well-sourced paragraph detailing the controversy may be the best way to go- not sure adding LGBT people category tags is a brilliant idea though. See discussion at Talk:Don Dunstan. WjBscribe 03:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I filled his entry in long, loooooong ago, but I found this reference for it. I have no idea how I found it : Spoehr, John (2000). Don Dunstan: Politics and Passion. Bookends Books. . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Don Dunstan]] 

message: I slightly improved this article some time ago, but I would like a picture up and some sort of bio table on the page. There's a black and white one of him that would be a good likeness of the Matthew Shepherd article. The scare-mongering of "Upload a copyrighted picture and face your ACCOUNT BEING DELETED" mantra has put me off understanding the ins and outs of copyright bureaucracy, so I'm sure it's my own Wiki-ineptitude that's preventing me from finding one. Can someone who's more knowledgeable than me find a pic of him? I put this on the article's talk page, along with a request for anyone who knows how to find out his D.O.B, but to no avail. Mentality 11:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Image added. Please check licensing, somebody. Jeffpw 12:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoo, thank you :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mentality (talk • contribs) 12:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is and I raised it. You've done a hell of a lot of work improving it. Thanks, Mentality! Jeffpw 12:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jody Dobrowski]] 

message: I just had breakfast with Evan Wolfson this morning.  He knows about 95% of gay leaders, is friends or friendly with them.  He offered to get in touch with them for me to do photo shoots with them for WP.  I simply don't have the time to do an exhaustive search for who we need, or want updated, photographs of.  So, if you know, or have a goal, now is the time to ask. --David Shankbone 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos, photos, photos - PART DEUX