Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard/Archive 1

message: Please do not allow this page to become a forum for the advancement of LGBT politics. If it is to exist it should be a forum for improving Wikipedia's coverage of LGBT issues in a NPOV way, jguk 08:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

message: Should we call this a Wikiproject?  If so, Wikipedia:Wikiproject what? --Samuel Wantman 10:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject?

message: Do we really want the rather ugly expression LGBT (which means nothing to most people) to be used in article titles? I certainly don't. Adam 10:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What nomenclature would you prefer Adam? Megan1967 11:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no universally acceptable alternative, but I think "gay," "lesbian" or "gay and lesbian" will cover most cases. Adam 12:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I much prefer queer. Exclusivism sucks. Ambi 12:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But did it ever blow? :) Megan1967 04:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I have to disagree; one of the reasons I and other people were moving away from "gay and lesbian" and toward "LGBT" in the first place is that "gay and lesbian" doesn't include bisexual and transgendered people. I personally prefer "queer", too, but I really don't think we can use it as it's not universally accepted (or universally recognized as being a positive label.) Bearcat 16:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

text: They're also patently exclusive of a significant portion of people within the queer community. I see your point about using LGBT, and also why you mightn't want to use the term queer, but I strongly take offense at excluding bisexuals, transpeople, those who lack a distinctive sexuality, and other such groups. Using "gay and lesbian" is hardly neutral - it's taking a very clear stance to exclude a significant number of people. Ambi 13:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course you are free to have categories or lists or portals or whatever titles "lesbian and gay" - only you should really, really not include anything in there that is not plainly lesbian or gay. That means you could not include Bisexual, not Transgender, nor tons of other stuff. If, OTOH, you want to include that other stuff, you will have to include those into the title, too. After all, you would hardly advocate putting, say, Chuck Berry into a Category:White Americans, with an extra-disclaimer that well, he ain't white, but he's American. Although even that would be better, because you can be transgender, for example, without ever having been or ever plaining to be gay or lesbian; and lots of bi people also don't identify as either. So it's either in or out, but kindly no cat and then articles in there which don't quite belong -- AlexR 14:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

text: And they already are, as are articles that actually have exclusive significance to gay men or lesbians. The point is, articles that aren't uniquely specific to one of the four groups, but equally applicable to all of them, cannot be titled as if they were uniquely specific to one of the four groups. Bearcat 18:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

text: No, it's not like objecting to "dog" because it's exclusive of cats; it's more like objecting to someone imposing "dog" as the sole umbrella term for all domestic quadrupeds without regard to whether they're actually dogs or cats. Unfortunately, it's not up to you to decide that bisexuals and transgendered people aren't allowed to play in the gay and lesbian treehouse; they're already playing in it. So maybe we should consistently have separate categories for "lesbian", "gay", "bisexual" and "transgender" topics, and only use the umbrella term at the very top of the category tree. It's either that, or one umbrella term that includes all four groups. It is not, and will not be, "gay and lesbian" to the exclusion of the other two. Bearcat 16:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, Adam, you have something wrong there: The majority of transpeople does not identify as straight (hetero- (and homo-)sexual are problematic anyway; see Homosexuality and transgender). A rule of thumb you'll get when you ask around in trans*-groups is usually "About a third straigth, a third gay or lesbian, a third bi-, omni-, pan-, or asexual, or undecided". And that's not even counting those who identified as gay or lesbian before transitioning, and who chose not to leave those communities when transitioning. A survey a few years ago among the English transmen brought up 43 % who identified as straight - more than one third, but still less than a majority. -- AlexR 21:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I already agreed that "queer" can't be the term we use; this was in response to someone who suggested that "gay and lesbian" should always suffice over even "LGBT". Bearcat 19:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry.  My comments weren't meant to be directed to you. I just read through the comments and thought it best to put my comments at the end of the line.  I guess the placement is off though.  Moncrief 19:17, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Major media:
*The Advocate, national magazine of record in the United States: "Advocate.com | The Award-Winning GLBT News Site"
*OUTtv, national cable television channel in Canada: "an exclusive lifestyle GLBT channel"
The article pride parade begins:
*A pride parade is part of a festival or ceremony held by the LGBT community of a city...
Then the second paragraph uses gay community as if interchangable with LGBT. Samaritan 16:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT, queer and definition 

message: While we're discussing names and terminology, I though I'd point out that there is an ongoing discussion on the topic on Oscar Wilde's discussion page. There has been some controversy as to whether to describe Wilde as "gay" or "homosexual." Ganymead 00:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oscar Wilde and homosexuality

message: After the recent VFD on Homosexuality and morality, I noticed that redundant articles in this area seem to be sprouting up like weeds.  Little tidbits of information are getting dispersed into several pages, and it's getting hard to find all the content relevant to a subtopic of interest.  I propose the following changes:
* Religion and heterosexuality -> Merge with Religion and sexual orientation and Religion and sexuality.
* Religion and homosexuality -> Merge with Religion and sexual orientation
* Sexual morality -> Move to Religion and sexuality, which is a much more self-descriptive title.
* Anti-gay slogan -> Merge with Societal attitudes towards homosexuality.
-- Beland 03:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad to see some progress has been made merging all the various "...view of homosexuality" articles into more neutral pages. Especially now that "Christian view of homosexuality" has been moved to the more NPOV "Christianity and Homosexuality" page. Efforts should be made to do this for all such pages. When people say morality in the above, they typically mean Christian morality so it would be more neutral to explicitly define this, rather than make a vague allusions to some kind of morality. I agree with all of the above. Good work making this notice board, BTW! --Axon 09:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for dealing with this obvious problem. All the mergers seem fine to me, but I would request that the list of accusations and their rebuttals from Anti-gay slogans be kept whole. These arguments are among the principal weapons in the arsenals of both camps, and the tradition of gathering them for the purpose of comparison goes back to antiquity. They make the most sense as a group. Haiduc 10:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergers and renames 

message: :Is this really deserving of an article? I would say not; it seems like the author tried REALLY hard to come up with enough info to make it look detailed but it really seems useless to me. If anything it should be merged into a seperate GLBT related article. Pacian 08:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - I think it's VFDable. Ambi 08:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could probably be incorporated into LGBT - Google says it's not exactly common, either. The author also inserted it whereever possible, but give the Google count, I think mentioning it in LGBT and redir and removing several of the references would be the better option. -- AlexR 12:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be my guest to merge if you'd like. -- Samuel Wantman 19:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur with the merging...never heard of it myself, but hey, that doesn't mean much. Ganymead 02:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure this happened because I mentioned it on Talk:LGBT a couple of days ago, but I also said right up front that while I love it as an acronym, I don't really think it's actually usable for Wikipedia's purposes. Too granular or something. Bearcat 02:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a neologism. Merging into LGBT isn't a bad idea, but I wouldn't give it too much space. Ambi 02:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I've merged it with LGBT.  --Samuel Wantman 09:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[FABGLITTER]] 

message: Two-Spirit was either previously Berdache or merged with it or something - the article still can't decided what term it is about. Fixed at least first paragraph, but still not good. Maybe somebody with personal knowledge can help out here. -- AlexR 12:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Two-Spirit]]