Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 2

message: As a start, I've just created the LGBT Current collaboration template.  If it looks okay, I'll give it a couple days and then put it on the Homosexuality article.
As an aside, we probably need some collab guidelines, etc... :)SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created the collaboration page - it's a bit short, so if someone wants to add to it feel free. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What collaboration guidelines do you think we need? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A bit off topic, but I would like to recommend that Gay stereotyping be made a collaberation, possibly in January above the other three. Those three, while in need of improvement, are at least decent; Gay stereotyping is a gigantic mess. Koweja 14:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think further discussion should take place on the Collaboration talk page.  Thanks for suggesting it!SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|LGBT_Current_collaboration}} 

message: I've added my article Lesbian American history to the good articles list on the project page as it was promoted today.  Have a look and let me know what you think. :)  Cheers! Chuchunezumi 16:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations - and good job!!SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article promotion

message: Just wondering what Lincoln is doing among Wilde, Socrates and the rest of the usual suspects in the Core Biographies part of the project page.  I am not particularly familiar with the details of Lincoln's personal life, and a cursory inspection of the Abraham Lincoln article doesn't help, either.--GuillaumeTell 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is alleged to have been bisexual by queer theorists. Apparently whenever his wife was away from home he used to invite this man he knew to share his bed. 18:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abraham Lincoln? 

message: I've just created a template for navigation within the WP:LGBT scope: .  If anyone has any comments or improvements, please feel free.SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made the picture bigger than that, but besides that I have only one issue - do we really need a meet up thing? There's only 21 of us (though presumably not for long, as the rate we're gaining members), and I think we're flung out across the globe, from the Netherlands to Israel. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've seen 500+ member, US-only online groups strive unsuccessfully to hold a meetup. And what would be the purpose of a WikiProject meetup, anyway? Would we all sit around in an internet cafe and edit together? - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was certainly planning to create a Wikipedian editing club in my library as soon as they get wireless... But no, you're right, even if we did meet up, I don't suppose we would actually have anything to say ("Oh, you're gay too? Wow! Let's talk about how oppressed we are for an hour!" or least this is my impression from Jeff's comments. :), so we may as well delete it until someone comes up with a fun trip. Maybe a mass meetup at Big Gay Out or national equivalents when we have enough people. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would that be such a bad idea?  Anyone got a good coffee shop to recommend for this? Okay - so maybe we don't really need that in there.. I'll delete it :)SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|LGBT Navigation}} 

message: I have been invited to join the WikiProject Council to represent us all, so I am now semi-officially your Council delegate. Hope that's OK with y'all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I dunno.  I mean, your userpage says you won't be editing until the 13th. Can we really have a rep that's going to be offline so much <grin>SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Council 

message: After a year of mild involvement with LGBT-related areas of Wikipedia, I have accumulated an intense frustration. I am expressing my concerns here on the WP:LGBT talk page in the hopes that they will aid us in writing NPOV articles and avoiding knee-jerk deletion decisions.
I am a lesbian. I've had my photo on the front page of the paper for Coming Out Day; I've represented "the lesbian perspective" in round-table discussions, interviews, and even once on a radio show. I ordinarily refuse to mention this on Wikipedia because I don't think that my personal idiosyncracies and affiliations should have anything to do with how I edit here. For a long time I have been trying to bite my tonguge when I get accused of homophobia for my edits and deletion decisions.
 I've fumed over the way we could have ten or more pro-gay-marriage, pro-HRC, etc userboxes, but the one userbox promoting heterosexual marriage was immediately deleted by an angry mob. I've stood by with increasing frustration as I've watched editors get accused of homophobia, bigotry, bias, and POV for no other reason than that they nominated some LGBT-related article for deletion.  
 It's time to stop biting my tongue for a moment. I think this is unacceptable behavior and I think that we, as the WikiProject dedicated to LGBT issues, should be on the front lines of the effort to do something about it.
I ask people on this project to please work to discourage the use of ad hominem attacks making unsubstantiated accusations of bias, and to be careful that your personal and political opinions don't lead to knee-jerk editing reactions.  Thanks. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 00:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said, AdelaMae!  In fact, I was thinking earlier today that this project should have some specific guidelines on topics like this.  Thanks for bringing up and un-biting your tongue - doesn't that feel better? :)SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, well said. How would a guideline go? Perhaps any AfDs you see like that should be put on our AfD section, so we can vote and/or support good faith editors accused of homophobia? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well said indeed, however I find that ignoring irritating users to be the best policy :). I think that wikipedia's Civility, Don't be a dick, and Assume good faith more or less cover everything, though being explicit about not accusing others of bigotry just because you can't think of a better counter-argument isn't a bad idea. Also, don't forget that the *fDs are not votes, so people who resort to character attacks and strawman arguments will simply have their opinions discounted.Koweja 20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:LGBT and bias 

message: Contrary to my own expectations, I've today created the infobox . It is a fairly quick and rough creation and I have every reason to expect that others will find changes that need to be made. I will point out, however, that the term transvestite has been deliberately omitted in favour of cross-dressing because 'transvestite' is now fairly widely considered to be insulting and derogatory --AliceJMarkham 01:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I said that it was quick and rough. :) I would have preferred one of the other TG symbols such as :Image:A TransGender-Symbol Plain3.svg but chose to go with the flag for consistency. Yes, I admit that I copied some formatting from the Bi template rather than reinventing the wheel. :) --AliceJMarkham 22:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not add a new image imposing the symbol over the flag? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Transgender sidebar}} 

message: There has been some discussion at Talk: List of bisexual people, as to what counts as "bisexual". To prevent repeated debates, we figured that it would be best to develop a guideline for the whole Wikiproject to use, so your comments and input there would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bisexuality guideline 

message: There is some rancor on this page about Dev's (appropriate) rating of this article as "B". In fact, they have removed the rating and tried to remove the tag, which I reinstated. Perhaps some of our members could go there, read the article, and give some constructive feedback. Jeffpw 17:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom]]

message: Let's vote on if we should change it to "This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies" since that seems to be the most agreed upon term. If you want a different phrase, please oppose and we will resume the discussion. I think this would be easier that "vote for one of 20 different things" type straw polls. I just want to make sure this is the consensus before changing the template.
Support
* Koweja 23:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote 

message: This article has become the source of some disgreement amongst members of the project. It has now been looked at by Dev920, Jeffpw and myself and we have come to different conclusions,  would be useful if other members could have a look at it and express an opinion on the following points:
#Should this article be covered by project LGBT at all?
#:Jeffpw and myself think not.
#:Dev920 thinks it should.
#What rating on the project's assessment scale should the article have?
#:I think it merits 'B' for now but is a strong contender for GA (and have nominated it).
#:Jeffpw thinks it is 'B' class only.
#:Dev920 thinks it is 'A' class.
Thanks for your help... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 16:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the first point is part of a larger question of whether biographies of people who are rumored to have been gay/bisexual should be a part of the project. (e.g. Abraham Lincoln). My opinion is no, they shouldn't, because the gay rumors are such a small part of the information on them, and not really important to the GLBT information on Wikipedia. Cabbers 02:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about this, too, Cabbers, and I'm torn.  Especially with biographies of people who lived before 1900.  On the one hand, a rumor isn't enough to say "Oh yeah - they're part of the LGBT community/history/herstory/whatever".  On the other, a) "homosexuality" (as such) didn't exist as we know it, and b) the person may have been a raging queen (my words, no offense intended), and a rumor is all we have.  So I guess I recommend a case-by-case basis?SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only determining factor is whether the matter is discussed in the literature or not. We are not charged to determine matters of fact, but to report on the work of historians and other academics. And in most of these cases there will not be any "absolute proof" but rather a constellation of circumstances which will lead one or more scholars to identify an individual as having had an erotic attraction, consummated or not, towards other males. At that point that person becomes automatically part of LGBT history. Haiduc 04:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, that was  eloquent , Haiduc!  I nominate that paragraph for our first "Guideline" to be put on the project page!SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which leads us back to the question at hand: Should this subject be included? My answer is no. The only reference supporting it is a quote from a biography of Sarah Bernhardt (taken from a usenet post, no less), that mentions in passing (less than one sentence) that there were rumors he liked young men. That does not meet WP:V as far as I am concerned. For this reason, I think that the article should not be part of the LGBT project, and that the sentence in question should be deleted until a better reference can be found. Jeffpw 07:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, a page number is "essential where possible". At the moment, it is not possible because neither of us have reference to the book. Simply referencing the book is fine - WP:REF. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A usenet post is not a valid encyclopedic source. Anyone can write anything. That is why the information has to be verified before it can be used. It might be different if it came from some official academic website. Haiduc 11:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as Dev has undertaken to obtain a copy of the book we shall prob soon have more information upon which to base the inclusion point. As things stand Jeffpw is in my opinion clearly correct. The rating issue might be settled by the outcome of the GA nom (though I wonder what the reviewer will make of the arguments on the talk page). - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 13:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jacques Damala]]

message: - See Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. To address Cabbers's point. I think Lincoln is a very different case. The speculation about Lincoln's orientation is based on actual letters he sent which survive until this day and comments he is recorded to have made in public. Ultimately the article concludes (to paraphrase) that Lincoln seems to have had much stronger emotional relationship with men but there is little evidence of a sexual relationship. I think that is a sensitive treatment of the issue- it reports speculations that have arisen widely, refers to the evidence in support of the speculation and relates the conclusions that have been come to. The reader can develop an informed opinion from it.
- I think with historical figures it should be enough that there has been extensive speculation, based on ascertainable fact, that the person may be LGB. I don't think its necessary for it to have been proved that they were beyond all reasonable doubt. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Abraham Lincoln]]

message: I've created a new section under articles called Articles recently tagged as related to LGBT. This is designed for articles that while old, have just been added to the project (as in {{[[:Template:LGBTProject|}} was just added to the talk page). I did this since even though they are not new, they may have been over looked by members. I've also noted things that require attention about that specific article. Koweja 22:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some reservations about doing this. I'm just about to start rating and tagging the Transgender articles that seem to have so far been overlooked by others. There are a lot to be done and I'm not sure that I want to add all of them to a list here. I'd suggest that regularly reviewing the categories on Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment might be more productive. --AliceJMarkham 03:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should just limit them to recently tagged articles that need attention of some kind? I mean specific attention such as a lack of citations, not just general improvements & expansions to get it to FA. Koweja 04:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new Articles recently tagged as related to LGBT section 

message: I suggest that Camille Paglia, while also under the scope of Wikiproject:Biography, be added to this Wikiproject as well.  Any thoughts why this shouldn't happen?  If not, let's do it!  It's a great article and though I had to fail it for GA status, with *very minimal* help, I would pass it upon resubmission.  In order to reserve that right, I won't edit it myself, but would suggest that this project could might consider the minimal revisions it requires.  Any takers?  Cheers!  Chuchunezumi 01:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested addition

message: Hi everyone. We'd appreciate some feedback and reviews on the article same-sex marriage in Spain, how it can be improved and what it lacks, if anything, and so on. Just nominated it for Good Article status, but we really could use all the help we can get to improve it (we're aiming for FA one day!). I thought someone here (with experience in these kind of articles) could give us a hand. :) Thanks in advance and cheers! Raystorm 16:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help! 

message: An anonymous user at Category talk:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality has suggested that Alan Turing rightfully ought to be in that category, and I agree that since he was forced to choose between imprisonment and hormones, he fits into the spirit of the category. He doesn't fit the letter of the category though. So I think it ought to be nominated for renaming, however, I'd like to get feedback on what would be the best naming proposal, to be neither under- nor over-inclusive. Any suggestions? — coelacan talk16:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:People persecuted for homosexuality, perhaps? I don't think that labeling them as persecuted would be considered POV or original reaserch. Even without renaming I don't see how he doesn't qualify since he was almost sent to prison. Koweja 17:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Think presecuted will be perceived as POV. Might I suggest :Category:Victims of anti-homosexuality laws? That may also serve to include those who were forced to change their lifestyles to avoid prison/death.... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 17:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thinking so far. "Persecution" probably would survive a charge of POV, in my opinion. But it might be too over-inclusive. It would include Matthew Shepard, for instance, who is already in :Category:Hate crimes against LGBT people, but the category as it is currently named deals only with persecution under legalistic pretenses (usually state-enforced), and I think we would do well to maintain that scope. :Category:Victims of anti-homosexuality laws is closer to the current scope. It made me consider also :Category:People convicted, imprisoned, or executed for homosexuality. And are there namings we could use that don't erase bisexuality? — coelacan talk17:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well anti-homosexuality laws seems to me to cover bisexuals- they outlaw same-sex sexual conduct, and there's never been a defence of "I also have sex with people of the opposite gender.- WJBscribe (WJB talk) 17:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't consider labeling them as victims to be POV, but you never know. Category:People convicted, imprisoned, or executed for homosexuality is good, but a complex name (not against policy, just my personal preference). How about :Category:People convicted under anti-homosexuality laws? This would limit it to state persecution and include bisexuals (since they generally aren't charged with being bisexual - they are charged with homosexual activity). Koweja 17:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like :Category:People convicted under anti-homosexuality laws as the most neutral option. Part of me feels that we should go with victim- OK, it is POV because it implies anti-homosexual laws are bad- but that part of me thinks we should take that as a given and dare people to argue the contrary. Still Wikipedia is not the forum for my pro-gay activism, so I guess we should go for :Category:People convicted under anti-homosexuality laws. It covers the topic area fully and cannot be criticised for bias. A very strong option. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 18:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Koweja that "Persecuted is the better option, simply because it is more inclusive. For instance, Matthew Shepard would not fall under the "convicted" category, but would fall under "persecuted". Gwen Araujo and Brandon Teena are more examples. In short, where are you going to put all the victims of homophobia who were not State victims? Is their persecution less notable just because it was done on a personal level and not a governmental one? Jeffpw 22:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jeffpw. Matthew was neither "imprisoned" nor "executed", he was murdered. The former terms are legalisms, and that's what this category deals with. Matthew is in :Category:Hate crimes against LGBT people, and :Category:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality is already a subcategory of that one (which I think is in proper order). If the other people you're mentioning aren't already in :Category:Hate crimes against LGBT people, please add them. Actually, I'll go check and make sure right now. — coelacan talk22:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, they're already in. So they have their own proper category, no worries. — coelacan talk22:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And would everybody who's already voted please come back to give an opinion regarding prosecuted vs. convicted? — coelacan talk00:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need suggestions for category renaming 

message: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 16#Category:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality — coelacan talk22:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And would everybody who's already voted please come back to give an opinion regarding prosecuted vs. convicted? — coelacan talk00:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And we have a cfr. Thanks, everyone!

message: Could someone involved in this project please have a look at the discussion at Talk:Gay bar#Notable gay nightclubs? The Gay bar article contains a list of "notable" gay nightclubs that are probably not all notable. In my opinion, this list serves only as a magnet for linkspam. Mike Dillon 23:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this: If the club (or DJ for that matter) has an article on wikipedia, it is obviously notable. Therefore get rid of everything on that list that doesn't have an article. That would be the fast way, plus create a very strong standard for what goes on the list. If nothing else convert the external links into internal links to non-existent articles. Koweja 00:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't plan on getting too involved in the eventual decision, since this isn't my area of interest. That's why all I did was point out the relevant policies on Talk:Gay bar and brought it to the attention of the LGBT project. Somebody else had already tagged the section as spam and you can see that the discussion goes back more than a year. Your comments and/or attention would probably be most helpful at the article itself or its talk page. Thanks. Mike Dillon 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, have edited the list per Koweja's point, which is undeniably correct. Have suggested future inclusions should either be their own Wikipedia article, or have an independent reference asserting notability to support inclusion. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 13:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gay bar]] linkspam 

message: A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned.  This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts.  Please be alert for suspicious activity.  Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. DurovaCharge! 16:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community ban of the [[Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Joan_of_Arc_vandal|Joan of Arc vandal]] 

message: Discuss here. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 04:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think the list should be deleted. It allows for brief biographical info on each person, which a category would not. Not sure it meets the category requirements anyway. But there is a massive problem with sources. I'd noticed it but was busy sorting sources for other similar lists. Dev920 kindly provided me withn some refs for A-E Jews but the rest is a shambles.- WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of LGBT Jews]] nominated for Deletion/Categorization 

message: Howdy folks, glad to be here, great idea for a collaborative group.  I'll pitch in when and where I can.
Question:  this may not be the best place to ask for help on this, but I've cobbled together a couple of original userboxes on my User page--one admiring Canada, and one to show interest in gay history.  But the latter won't display the image; I've tried several times.  Any idea how to fix that?  Feel free to copy these if you like. Textorus 02:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. You had forgotten the "Image:" prefix. =) — coelacan talk03:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New userboxes--help? 

message: These two articles appear to be so closely related I'm having trouble seeing how they've existed side-by-side for over 3 years! Should these be merged? --AliceJMarkham 06:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Androgyny]] and [[Androgyne]] ? 

message: I have a Latter Days FAC going through here, but, for whatever reason, only two people have voted in three days. I would appreciate if y'all would take a look and vote then, in case I fail through apathy rather than sucking. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dev, I think the lead up to Christmas was prob a bad time given the number of people with reduced Wikipedia contributions at that time. I for one am stuck with only limited dial-up internet access for a while. That being said, I promise to try and make some comments in the next few days. I'll do it the old-fashioned way: print off a copy, read it, write some comments, and post 'em on Wikipedia when I'm next online. Best luck with the FA nom though- looks like you've put a lot of work in. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 11:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Christmas isn't really something that takes a big part in my life, so I guess I forgot about that. :) Maybe Raul will go away at the same time and my FAc will be extended. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latter Days FAC 

message: Interested editors should see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 20#Category:Fictional intersexuals. — coelacan talk05:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  noticed a relevant Category for Deletion nomination 

message: "This project is not a global project to advance the tolerance of others." Isn´t that hypocrisy? A.Z. 21:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? — coelacan talk22:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That beings up the point that "tolerance" is utterly inappropriate. Do we "tolerate" Jews? Do we "tolerate" black people? Suggested rephrasing: "This project is not intended to promote equal treatment of people with different sexual preferences from one's own." Haiduc 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, "This project is not intended to promote equality."? — coelacan talk22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like any of the options so far.  How about just leaving it at #2 "This project is not intended to promote any particular point of view."Samuel Wantman 22:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could just remove the point altogether... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm down with that. #2 already seems to cover it. — coelacan talk22:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the point about the word tolerance but Haiduc's proposed wording doesn't work, since transgender is not about sexual orientation. I like Samuel Wantman's suggestion or complete removal. --AliceJMarkham 23:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either is fine by me. Haiduc 23:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting is fine.  SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tolerance 

message: Recently, List of gay pride events was renamed to List of LGBT events.  Is there any call to separate out the Pride events?  Or should they stay within the larger LGBT events page?SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The more inclusive category seems sufficient. Haiduc 23:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of LGBT events]] 

message: It seems to me that in our coverage of the topic we should be guided by what individual cultures have adopted as legitimate LGBT expression, as defined in the legal codes of the countries people live in, rather than the opinions of individual Wikipedia editors. But if that is a self-evident truism, the following guideline is inappropriate: "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical impact of transgender status or same-sex romantic relationships among adults and reactions to same-sex romantic relationships among adults." We are not here to impose modern moral codes on history, thus the injection of the term "adult" into the discussion is pov. What we should specify is that: "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of transgender status or same-sex romantic relationships, and related societal reactions." Haiduc 20:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the project Haiduc.  I like the wording you suggest.  I don't think we need to either constrain or expand what LGBT studies or Queer studies covers in academic settings.  I would be interested in how it is defined elsewhere.  I also wonder if the B in LGBT is sufficiently covered by either statement.Samuel Wantman 20:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no exclusivity implied in the phrasing, so I think that if anything it is the G that is underrepresented. But not enough to bother with. I'll implement the change since no one else has raised any objections. Haiduc 02:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, stop bitching about being included, we're all marginalised individuals in society under an oppressive regime of overpowering heterosexuality, leave it at that. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, individuals. If you really are an individual you will be marginalized. What did you expect??? Haiduc 08:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean I'm being marginalised within the project now for being transgendered but heterosexual? :p Try explaining that to a teenage bi niece who's recovering from a suicide attempt! --AliceJMarkham 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So you're excluding bi and TG? Who's marginalising who now? :) --AliceJMarkham 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody's excluding you, Alice.  Pull up a chair and have a beer. :-)  --Textorus 06:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descriptive, not prescriptive 

message: Interested editors should see Talk:Marriage#This Article is an Embarrassment to Wikipedia. I've had Marriage fully protected to halt a revert war; the current version is less than ideal but now is the time for talks. The issue may have to go to WP:RFC or WP:M soon but it would help to get a few more perspectives weighing in since this is still day one of page protection. Note the article's recent edit history to get a feel for the debate (as though you couldn't already imagine it... but I mean the specific versions in play). Hope to see a few of you over on the talk page. — coelacan talk15:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Canadians for Equal Marriage and scroll down to the ads at the bottom of the page; may give you some ideas. --Textorus 19:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the poster for "Homosexual Agenda" - were you creating one for same-sex marriage?  Let me know - I can convert it for you.SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was meant to be on Same sex marriage, but I realised it wouldn't have much meaning for my target audience, so I've changed it. I would be deeply grateful if you could convert for me. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your source for the percentages?  I've yet to find a definitive answer to the "how many" question; maybe you should include a source footnote on your poster. --Textorus 19:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The British government did an extensive survey asking people their sexuality, and that was the result. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My initial feeling on reading that page is that everyone is willing to work through their differences with the exception of Nkras, who kinda gave away her agenda when she tried to claim that same sex marriage didn't exist. I think you need to report this to ANI. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion on protected page [[Marriage]] 

message: I present the latest edition of the Newsletter for your criticism here. Any news I have missed, please let me know. I'll be sending it out on January 1. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not being pessimistic, it just hasn't gone either way yet. Raul will probably pass or fail it before January 1, so I can adjust the text accordingly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has now passed, so I'll change it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new newsletter 

message: I have tagged Sexuality and gender identity-based cultures to be restructured. There are multiple "External links" and "See also" sections within the body of the article that should come at the end.
Twas Now 23:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of problems with that article, and I've added other tags too.  I almost added a POV tag; I did delete one obvious POV phrase.  Needs a lot of cleanup, but not sure I really want to tackle that long, sprawling article myself.--Textorus 00:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not planning on doing anything about it. Just giving a shout out to the 'mos. In fact, most people visiting this page in good faith should not be allowed to edit it, as per Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles − Twas Now 00:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay - that made me laugh!  Thanks, Twas Now :)SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup 

message: I've been thinking about a) the discussion above about bias, and b) a discussion I originally saw on the Talk:Patrick Califia page (see a very recent question and a Jun 2004 discussion).  I think we need to discuss and hopefully consense (sp?) on some guidelines.  Would it be best to create a Guidelines page and discuss those two and/or others on its talk page?SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should simply create the guidelines and stick them on the front page. That's what MILHIST does, and sides,  who would visit a separate page is they were simply glancing through? Also, we ought to develop that guideline about  a working deifnition of bisexuality - see Talk:List of bisexual people. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess what I'm thinking is we need a page to discuss the guidelines before (and after) we post them.  The page itself can just be templated in to the main project page, we don't really need a separate one.  But it'd be nice to have a separate space for the discussions.SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with having a discussion here? In theory, everyone should have this page on their watchlist, so they will be able to participate more. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when did "don't do that" mean "Please, by all means go and do that seconds after being asked not to"? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow - I totally didn't see your comments until after I'd already created the page, gone for a cigarette, and come back.  Please don't hate me :)  I guess my main concerns about having the discussion(s) here are a) this page is already getting sooo long sooo quickly (we're chatty cathys and charleses here...) and b) not all of us will be interested in coming up with guidelines.  If the Guidelines subpage should be deleted, I'll do that, but I personally favor having the separate discussion.SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *sigh* Ok. A separate page it is. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines 

message: I was just looking through other WikiProjects, and noticed some interesting ideas that we might like to consider in the future:
* Photography - I saw this on WikiProject Australia. Potentially, having pictures of famous LGBT places and or events could be quite helpful. Do we have anyone here involved with the photography side of Wikipedia to give us some input as to how this works? Or anyone who would be interested in taking this further?
* Vandalism - I saw this on WikiProject Biography. Given the amount of vandalism we get from friends of gays, this could potentially be quite a good idea.
* portal upkeep - I have tried to encourage people to update the portal when they can, but no-one really is. Might it be a good idea to put out a rota on the talkpage so everyone knows what to do and when?
Just chucking some ideas out there for your perusal. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and how cool is this? We should totally set something like this up at some point. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ideas? 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 17:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Can I please alert everyone to the absolutely dreadful state of every "Gay Rights in..." article, which all need severe cleanup, NPOVing, referencing, copyediting, etc. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay rights 

message: ..And I had to get out of bed at 4:25am to tell you all.
We have, potentially, a lot of processes to cover high quality articles - peer reviews, GAs, FACs etc., but not a lot for the lower quality articles; Stubs, starts and Bs. This is a shame because a stub is tranformed into a start fairly easily, and so are starts to Bs. So, what I propose is a new department  - Jumpaclass. Basically, you choose an article from the LGBT articles by quality, and you list it on the page and put your name next to it. Then you have seven days to improve that article, when it will be checked to see if it deserves a higher class or not. If it does, you get a point for improving it: 1 point for each class jumped. We can have a cool leadership board, and it'll act as a fun incentive for people to edit, and dramatically improve the quality of our articles, which at the moment is all over the place. What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the points thing, I thought we might reset it every year (so users who come in with a flurry of editing and then go offline don't sit on the leadership board forever) and offer the winner
the choice of any article for the Collaboration of the Month (of the fortnight by the time we get to that point hopefully). You see how it's all about the editing? No MfDs for us! I'll get on with creating that then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Page created at Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Jumpaclass. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just had this totally cool idea... 

message: . . . for earning FA status for Latter Days, a great article on a wonderful film.  Hooray!  :-)  --Textorus 18:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Tex. Latter Days is my most favourite film ever, and it's a delight to see it be all that it can be. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Awesome! congrats! --Tiger MarcROAR! 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me add my voice to the congratulations, Dev!!! I have the thankless task of adding {{FACfailed} tags to articles that didn't make the cut, and was hoping I wouldn't have to do that to Latter Days. Happy New Year! Jeffpw 21:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats. Impressive article. Now I must get round to seeing the film... WJBscribe (WJB talk) 06:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congrats to Dev920 . . .  

message: We haven't really cleared this one up, so I figured I'd start a discussion on it. What are we calling the Assessments, Collaboration, Jumpaclass etc. ? I've used the terms Departments, Projects, Tasks and Activities so far, but I think we need to come up with one name. What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Departments seems a good word to me. Jeffpw 21:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Departments?