Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard/Archive 4

message: This is probably not the best place to post this, but just to let you know that there is currently a public debate on same-sex marriage in Estonia and an international petition campaign to write to Estonian politicians urging them to legalise same-sex unions. The campaign can be found here. It would be great if as many LGBT people and their supporters write as possible. Thanks!  Ronline ✉ 10:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Same-sex marriage in Estonia]] 

message: Moved from project page --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our fellow Wikipedians 

message: Hey all, I'd like to propose a project for anyone who is interested, to last maybe a month or so, and that is to get some work going on the various Gay rights in... articles.  It looks like many of these articles were written by our friends from non-English wikis, and could use some grammatical touchups, and most of them could probably be fleshed out a little more.  There's plenty to go around, so if anyone is interested, take a peek in :Category:Gay rights by country and pick an article!  -Seth Mahoney 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposition 

message: :(Moved from project page)
*  - seems to be systematically removing historical material not to his liking from various articles without proper debate or consensus, making a host of ad hominem accusations against me specifically, targeting articles that I have contributed to in an apparently systematic fashion, and leaving comments such as "(rm speculative meme; another article created by Haiduc to push his agenda)". Haiduc 16:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you discuss the articles and not the editor, people might take you more seriously.  Oh - and you might actually be able to avoid getting blocked from editing. Corax 04:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Overnight I was wondering that 68.110.9.62's contributions are in some ways similar to the permabanned user Aidan Work. Should we go for a checkuser? David | Talk 09:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant user conduct disputes 

message: Why is there so much on Wiki about Pederasty, while a google search for the term turn up little? The Britannica doesn't contain a single entry devoted to pederasty, and where it is mentioned, it is in reference to  "sexual contacts between adult males and young boys". Yet Wiki disagrees and 
devotes no fewer than 4 seperate articles to the phenomenon. What gives? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.83.176.64 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.  -Seth Mahoney 04:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this points out one of the strengths of Wikipedia.  It contains comprehensive articles on articles that are not even mentioned in Britannica.  The question shouldn't be why there is so much about pederasty in Wikipedia, but why there is nothing in Britannica. -- Samuel Wantman 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innocent curiosity 

message: Can we please at least try to be neutral and civil in listing disputes on this page?  That is, rather than describing disputes by saying, "Editor Q is on a rampage changing all Xs to Ys to further his agenda," can we please say something more like, "Editor Q is changing Xs to Ys and I disagree for the reasons I listed on the talk page," or, "There is disagreement over whether the article should use X or Y"?  This page is supposed to be a place for people to call attention to these disputes, not extend them.  Thanks. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 07:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize some of the people you addressing are 100% fabulous gay men who would rather check out than check their razor tongues? That said, I agree with you fully. - Davodd 08:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Davodd: Erm, what on earth do you mean? I can't decide whether I'm meant to be amused or insulted. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant it to be amusing. Apparently I failed. - Davodd 16:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please be nice. 

message: Hi y'all...quick question. I've been considering creating a new :Category:LGBT media subcategory for LGBT radio stations, but apart from Joy Melbourne, SIRIUS OutQ and Proud FM, I'm not entirely sure there are enough potential articles to warrant creation at this time (since a category with only three entries isn't overly likely to survive a CFD nomination.) So I wanted to ask: does anybody know of other radio stations that could potentially be included in a radio category, or are those three all there are? Bearcat 23:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've found one more, Radio FG, that already had a Wikipedia article, and some indication that there are others, so I've gone ahead and created the category. If you know of anything else that can be added to it, please go ahead...or write it up if you know of one that doesn't have an article yet. Bearcat 23:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Media question

message: Didn't there used to be a manual of style for sexuality-related topics?  Anyone know where it is?  I can't seem to find it.  Exploding Boy 02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you looking for Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)?  Those are the only ones that I know of. -Smahoney 04:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Manual of style?

message: I was mentioning on the WikiProject Comics talk page that I wanted to have something like this notice board for our project. I hope you don't mind my borrowing the format completely, doing very little original work of my own, and garnering much praise as if I had slaved over a hot wiki for hours. --Chris Griswold 19:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Borrowing is what makes Wikis work.  Go right ahead. -- Samuel Wantman 19:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know; I just wanted to let you fine people know that the work you have done is helping even more people. By the way: Funny to see where our projects intersect: I'm glad we're not the only one dealing with the daily deletion on Batman. --Chris Griswold 20:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh, "slaved over a hot wiki for hours" - mind if I borrow that one?  -Smahoney 01:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Borrowing is what makes Wikis work. Go right ahead. --Chris Griswold 03:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mind if I steal the idea? 

message: As part of the discussion about deleting this notice board, there has also been mention of renaming it.  One proposed name is Wikipedia:LGBT topics notice board.  I'd like to propose moving this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Notice board.  Any other possibilities, comments, etc...? -- Samuel Wantman 01:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems appropriate given the evolution of expertise in LGBT articles here and it would reinforce the academic-style/NPOV image of this very useful tool. Davodd 01:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean like this one: Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies? And I like the idea of merging this noticeboard with the project. —Mira 02:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So is there consensus to move the notice board to be a sub-page of the WikiProject? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any objection.  We can always move it back if there is. -- Samuel Wantman 08:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: This noticeboard should be renamed to include straight topics since there is no straight notice board. I could create a straight notice board, but somebody will probably accuse me of bias again. --Facto 06:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to be accused of bias if you create the board in a NPOV way.  My question in general is what is the purpose of a "straight" notice board?  There is no such article, category or WikiProject in Wikipedia.  I would suggest that you name your notice board after a category. For example, you could call it the "Human Sexuality noticeboard". --Samuel Wantman 07:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The straight and heterosexuality articles both exist. I'm sure there are more articles related to straight topics but they have not been connected yet like the LGBT topics, which are more organized. See the search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=heterosexual&fulltext=Search --Facto 08:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Facto, your logic is flawed. I also think you are having trouble distinguishing the difference between bias and a non-neutral point of view. To keep its focus, it will deal with issues with LGBT themes. The argument that it needs renamed in order to include "straight" issues is unneeded (especially since the sexuality-term "straight" would not exist without a distinction of LGBT populations). Furthermore, many LGBT notice board monitored topics primarily focus on straight folk or anti-LGBT populations and cultural norms and their interaction with LGBTs, see the following articles: Anti-gay slogan, Aversion therapy, Beard (female companion), Biology and sexual orientation, Buggery Act, Choice and sexual orientation, Demographics of sexual orientation, Effeminacy, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Ex-gay, Exodus (organization), Gay-for-pay, Gay panic defense, Heteronormativity, Heterosexism, History of gays in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, Homophobia, Homophobic hate speech, Homosexual panic, Homosexuality laws of the world, International Healing Foundation, National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, Religion and sexual orientation, Same-sex attachment disorder, Sexuality and gender identity-based cultures, Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, Sodomy law, Westboro Baptist Church. - Davodd 07:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Straight topics 

message: Hope this is the right place to post this request... I'd like to ask folk to add the Belgrade article to their watchlists. Someone seems intent on removing the paragraph under "Night life" relating to the LGBT scene - I guess they are trying to deny its existence. I revert this whenever I spot it, but if I'm not able to check all the time it's possible they could succeed in their mission. Thanks! Jenny Wong 14:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated homophobic vandalism 

message: I've been looking around Wikipedia for an article on the Pride festival and events in Manchester, UK, but I can't seem to find one anywhere.  There are articles for various other pride events, (see Pride London, GayFest, Birmingham Pride, Europride etc), so it's only fair that there should be one for Manchester too.  I'm not good at starting articles, so I was wondering if anyone would like to make a start on this, which I would be more than happy to contribute to once it's got going.  Manchester Pride is in a few weeks so it's possible people might be looking it up on here, like I did, so it'd be good timing to get an article started if anyone is interested in doing so.  Thanks!  Ilphin (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester Pride 

message: Is there an LGBT barnstar? Should there be one? Dev920 (Tory?) 17:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, thankyou all very much for replying to that. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL - there certainly was a resounding response, wasn't there?  Actually, I kinda think it would be neat :)  Got any ideas?  Want some help? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if you could make it, I'd be grateful. I was thinking rainbow coloured barnstar, and that was largely as far as I got. We can't use anything else because none of them (like the triangles, or the flags) are really inclusive enough. Possibly a rainbow/pink "LGBT" on a rainbow coloured barnstar? Your thoughts? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Barnstar has been created and proposed here Thankyou Ouro. Dev920 (Please vote here) 21:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnstar 

message: Could someone please edit Peter Ackroyd using this to reflect his sexuality, which informed much of his work and only merits a mention that I put in in the beginning. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Peter Ackroyd]] 

message: I was wondering what makes a certain pride festival notable. I don't think that each is encyclopedia worthy so...--Ashadeofgrey (talk • contribs) 12:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say if a very large number of people attended, if it had unusual press coverage, or if it was controversial in some way (say, it was almost cancelled by the authorities, or it was disrupted by homophobic incidents). A standard gay pride event in a generally liberal area doesn't really seem notable enough to have its own article. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 18:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's not about own article. It's just a list. Not that big, btw. -- tasc wordsdeeds 19:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, right, I missed that. In which case I would say: put in every pride parade ever. :) Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "every pride parade ever" should be in the list, but there will innevitably be stub articles of Pride parades which I think should be avoided so I think there should be some consensus as to which deserve articles--Ashadeofgrey (talk • contribs) 19:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the answer to that is to convert the entire list to a table, and only link the ones that have articles. It'll have to become a table if it's ever to become featured anyway, so you may as well now while the list is still reasonably short. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 19:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll change it into a table soon, but I still think people will make articles because they don't know about WP's notability guidelines--Ashadeofgrey (talk • contribs) 19:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The table is a bad idea. It's hardly readable by editors, hard to edit and doesn't help readers. Please, don't add table to the list. None of the list is created in the form of table.  tasc wordsdeeds 20:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what your editing style is like, Tasc, but I always edit pages with a view to eventually nominating them for Featured Status. Every single list on Featured Lists is in a table format. Thus, List of Gay Pride Events will, someday, be forced to convert to tables. I maintain that time should be now, to save someone else a great deal of time later. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 21:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that not all Pride parades necessarily deserve their own articles, but they certainly all merit inclusion in a straight list article. It can wikilink to the more notable ones and just list the less notable ones. I don't see a problem. The problem I do see, however, is that there are several things listed there which aren't Pride festivals per se — Montreal's Black and Blue is a circuit party; Toronto's Folsom North is a fetish fair; there are several film festivals listed; etc. The list should be for Pride qua Pride; film festivals and circuit parties and such should be listed separately and not conflated with Pride events since they're not the same thing. Bearcat 09:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of gay pride events 

message: * The category :Category:Animal homosexuality has just been deleted despite its crystal-clear relevance and utility, on an utterly spurious rationale. (See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 21) I would like to know whether any other users here are interested in co-operating in order to repair the damage. Haiduc 00:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, certainly. Yonmei 11:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The CfD says there is already an article with a list of all animals that display homosexual behavior.  Why does there need to be a category, too?  What does this accomplish?  Do we put every article about an animal that exhibits homosexual behavior - which is a lot of them, right? - into this category of articles about animal homosexuality?  I agree with the nominator that this makes the category about as useful as a category for animals that are brown. In any case, it went through CfD and I don't see any pressing new information that would contradict what was said there. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 23:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be hundreds of articles about animals in the WP and I challenge you to come up with more than a dozen or so which specifically address the homosexual behaviors of that particular species. So the "brown animals" analogy fails. Why should a reader interested in animal homosexuality not have a category grouping those animals which have been thus documented?! As for the CfD, it snuck through without any notice to myself and others interested in this aspect of animal behavior. Does not mean that it is right, just because only one person challenged the poorly reasoned action. Haiduc 23:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reader so interested already has a list.  Look how long that list is.  I only made a rough count, but I believe there are over 200 animals listed just under "mammals".  If someone is interested in finding out about this, they'll type in "animal homosexuality" or something and end up at animal sexuality, which links to the above list.  If they find a section about homosexual behavior in the article on a specific animal, that section will link to the list, or should.  As to the question of process, the CfD did not "sneak through", but was put through the proper channel for such things.  Deletion protocol does not require that you be notified before any homosexuality-related item is deleted. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 21:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed the deletion protocol doesn't require it. But that doesn't mean the category was not valid and should not be reinstated, either. For the record, I support the recreation of this category. — OwenBlacker 13:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal homosexuality