Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 12

message: Much of what I've been working on in this project has to do with pre-Stonewall lesbians, and I'm finding much of the resources for the articles I'm working on are related to men's issues. Barbara Gittings (I'm working on) and Frank Kameny (I haven't) worked together, but their articles are quite different, despite the fact that Kameny is alive and well and has his own website (hint, fellows - write to him). The Daughters of Bilitis (working on) and the Mattachine Society (haven't worked on), and The Ladder (working on) and ONE, Inc. (not working on) are also quite different also despite the fact that there seems to be a lot more information on the Mattachine Society than the DOB. Articles are only as good as people who care about them, so if any guys out there who are history buffs want to take me on in a specialized jumpaclass article competition to improve these articles, let me know. I'm working on GA or FA class for mine. I'll point you toward the references I used, assist and whatnot. It's not that I'm a sexist pig or anything - I seriously don't have the time for all the information available on the early homophile movement. My stupid job gets in the way.
So - any takers? Must I resort to insulting your mothers, dance skills, or taste in disco? Must I??? --Moni3 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Dog Dare for the Dudes 

message: Talk:Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) Content dispute if source of content is considered reliable to subject, need outside opinions. Posting to both wikiprojects associated with article. Benjiboi 20:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting out another call for help as article has been locked for nearly a month. Please consider offering a comment it should only take a few minutes. Benjiboi 05:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, I'm reposting as this has gone on six weeks and there doesn't seem to be any movement from either side to change position. Could some other editors please weigh in your wisdom is appreciated! Benjiboi 04:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content dispute RfC on [[Talk:Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)|Chris Crocker]] 

message: Related to the question of these guidelines is how we label people in our LGB lists.  I think an anonymous IP user recently labeled everyone in the A list, which was then reverted.  I confess to sympathising with said IP.  It strikes me as non-NPOV to label specifically only known bisexuals, and not known gays and lesbians.  Aleta (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the revert, Aleta. My reasoning was that if they were on the list, it was obvious if they were gay or lesbian. It was only the bisexuals who needed clarification. I don't see that as POV, just sort of Duh. Jeffpw (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That issue came up on one of the FLC's, too.  It assumes that one can tell who on the list is male (and therefore gay by default) or female (and therefore lesbian).  I'm torn on the issue, but don't really see the need for the "gay" or "lesbian" on the lists. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think by their being on the list, it's obvious they are one of the three (the "duh" aspect), but it seems like by singling out bisexuality for specification, it appears to make it the "odd one".  Aleta (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it sort of is. There's only a few per list, after all, it doesn't seem extraordinary to point them out. Personally, I like to see my own. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Respectfully disagree, there are quite a few folks whose self-labeling changes and others who simply reject any labels. Perhaps the lede should be adjusted accordingly to reflect that individuals may alter from being considered exclusively gay or lesbian to bisexual and vice versa? Benjiboi 06:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really not helpful to people looking at the list though. If their self-labelling changes, then we can change it, and if they refuse to label themselves, we do it for them (admittedly this is a rather harsh view, but you've probably gathered by now that I think insisting you have no defined sexual orientation is daft). We already do for the purposes of categorisation anyway. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I think about this, the more I'm changing my mind.  I wouldn't mind combining the "Notes" column (which is really just for indicating bisexuals) and the "Refs" column.  That way each person listed could have: L37, which would serve the triple purpose of a) removing white-space, b) indicating which of "LGB" each person is, and c) not singling out the Bi-s.  Insert Bingo™ joke here. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this suggestion.  I have no objection to there being labels, just to singling out bisexuals.  Aleta (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds interesting. Could be difficult for those we have noted as being problematic - but then we could just stick that in a secondary footnote to draw people's attention. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related issue for lists

message: This Gay Lib v. University of Missouri should be added to that section . In 1977 William Rehnquist condoned the University of Missouri's refusal to recognise a gay students' organisation. See the Harvard Law Review, volume 98. I don't have time to expand - maybe someone else does? It seems like an interesting case.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gay Lib v. University of Missouri]] 

message: This article was created today. She wrote the first book to be considered a lesbian pulp fiction novel. She was not gay, and even though her book sold an astounding 4.5 million copies between 1950 and 1952 and launched the genre of fiction that is so near and dear to my heart, she was quite astonished that her book got so much attention. She thought the salacious attention it got was unwarranted, and I read an interview with her a while back that implied she wasn't too happy to be the ringer-in of the new genre either. The book is not a first person account of a lesbian experience, but the narrator's description of all of the women who were in her barracks in WWII. Two just happened to be lesbian. Should it be tagged? --Moni3 (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Women's Barracks, right? I'd say tag the book, but I'm not too sure about the author herself. My first instinct was to say no. What do others think? Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tereska Torres in more than one interview stated that she was surprised at the reception the book got in the US, as she considered it not that raunchy compared to other French books at the time. Furthermore I'm against tagging the author as this is the only lesbian themed book she wrote and she did not write it purposely as a lesbian novel, but as a fictionalized account of her experiences while serving in the Free French Forces. --noclador (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: My thought is no, definitely do not tag the author, as it just isn't warranted by what I've read here and in the article on her. If there was an article specifically on Women's Barracks, I would lean toward tagging the book.  Not because it was intended to be a lesbian novel—since apparently it wasn't—but because it was adopted as the first of a genre. — Becksguy (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: tag any future article about the book (which it sounds like we should have!), but not her bio. Aleta (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno.  Her book was published by The Feminist Press, there's a significant section of her article on its reception, and she's the first author of Lesbian pulp fiction.  Seems significant to our community to me. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tereska Torres]] 

message: Are all editors allowed to add items to the "Open Tasks" list?  Or is it decided by the community which are considered "tasks"?  Hormone replacement therapy (female-to-male) and Hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female) are in serious need of verification.  The former only has ONE reference!  Photouploaded (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles needing verification 

message: Why is Whoopi under this project's scope? there's no explanation for it in the article. -Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 16:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SatyrBot did it on January 28, 2007. Not sure why. I'll leave that for User:SatyrTN since it's his bot to figure out. -- ALLSTARecho 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does say she is a strong supporter of the LGBT community, and that she has received a GLAAD award for her efforts. Isn't that enough for the article to fall under our interest? Raystorm   (¿Sí?) 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. They don't have to be gay to be tagged. Look at Fred Phelps. Jeffpw (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other GLAAD Vanguard award winners are not under the scope (except for Cher and Charlize Theron). The LGTB has a bizillion of supporters, should they all indiscriminately be under the project's scope? And is Whoopi really that strong a supporter? i saw "the view" the other day, and when the other black girl said that she didn't want her son's to be gay Whoopi wasn't THAT outraged, she just wanted to change the topic. I'm just saying, that tag can be misleading. -Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 18:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: She was considered a gay icon and likely still is and actually has been pro-LGBT issues on the view although certainly as not as much as Rosie O'Donnell was. Benjiboi 21:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure she belongs in the :Category:LGBT rights activists from the United States, but she definitely is within our scope.  The article could use some work to expand that, though.  And why do you think the tag is misleading? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because as there's no info on her being an active activist or gay in the article, by being within the project's scope soemthing is being implied, but like, what? If she really is a gay icon that should really be expanded, i'll do a google search now, see what i can find. Cheeriooo- Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 23:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Whoopi Goldberg]] 

message: Sometime ago we contextualised the sentence that equals homosexuality to an ailment, and that was recently removed. I have put it back. Just thought I'd bring this to everyone's attention.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I appreciate what you did there, I wonder if that section in parenthesis is necessary. Even today, declaring yourself homosexual would keep you out of the military. I'm inferring from the edit that you feel including the term "homosexual" alongside "insanity and other illnesses" gives the reader the impression that homosexuality is an illness. I don't think it does, myself. Jeffpw (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We discussed that before, the thing in parenthesis was someone's suggestion. I really do think that it needs contextualisation, otherwise it sounds like it equals homosexuality to an illness - which it did at the time, but pyschiatry has come a long way.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Big Wednesday]] 

message: *I've noticed a discontinuity between the LGBT Project's template banner and others:  e.g. -  vs. .  Also, the Importance parameter isn't supported in this one. I looked at the code for the two examples and can probably fix the LGBT template, but I have no idea what to do after that. Is there a specific process or place?  Also, shouldn't the  name be changed to  or  to use the same canonical format as the other projects I've seen? Or at least support both template invocations (using the same template code)?  If anyone is sufficiently experienced in Wiki template design and usage to answer, I would appreciate it. Even if just to know why it is, or is not, a good idea and where to find extensive information on template design. It's something that's looks interesting, and potentially useful, based on my programing background. Thanks — Becksguy (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure  already points to the current template, so feel free to use that one if you'd like.  At one point we discussed adding importance and decided against it, though I'm pretty sure that discussion was a while ago. If you have any questions about templates or design, I've done a few :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it better to avoid redirects when we can?  Also, I know that we aren't the only project to deviate from the "Wikiproject X" style - for instance, . Eh, I just don't see it as that important, frankly. Aleta (Sing) 02:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right, it isn't that important. It's my anal retentative tendencies speaking and a strong curiosity about how templates (as well as other things) work. And since the Importance issue was already decided, I'm dropping the whole subject (except to learn more about templates). There is enough here to keep all of us busy without that. Thanks for responding, both of you.   — Becksguy (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And seriously - if you have any questions, lemme know. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template question 

message: I know it seems repetitive, but James I of England could use some input from others - I'm getting frustrated. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the talk page...I also recently read the talk page of Muhammed, where there is a hot argument over providing images of the prophet. In both, it's just clear that nothing will get resolved on a talk page. I'm trying to determine if 1. my involvement would help., 2. if I would spend the energy you, Jeffpw, and Allstarecho have in arguing with critics of the category LGBT royals. Way back in my former life as a teacher, arguing with students about *why* they couldn't throw pencils at each other just got shortened to me blurting "Rules," and the argument was over. Can you devise a formally worded statement that expresses what it needs to express and just use that (historians have written about James I's relationships with men. That qualifies him, in modern terms, as bisexual. He is thus included within the category of LGBT royalty.)? Then post it every time someone decides to argue, yet again, with the existence of the category, because quite honestly, that's as far as I would go in time and energy in an endeavor that seems so fruitless in this context. Maybe you could even keep count, as in: This point has been brought up xx times. Post the rules, then the consequences. Sorry if I'm not more helpful here, but I think more people arguing with the critics of the category aren't going to persuade them to leave it alone. --Moni3 (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  James I 

message: Five sections were just moved from Homosexuality to Gay.  Please look at the changes and at the start of a discussion here and comment as appropriate. — Becksguy (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving sections from [[Homosexuality]] to [[Gay]] 

message: Happy New Year to you all. I recently went through all our Jumpaclasses and tallied them up, and 2007's winner is  with 12 points! As her prize, she has chosen LGBT symbols as this month's Collaboration. Can we make an extra special effort on this as a thankyou? ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats Fluffball70! and excellent choice, I've fluffed the lede a bit and will be happy to take a try at reffing some items after others have had a go at it. Benjiboi 14:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy new year and Collaboration 

message: What happened to her was horrible, but does anyone else think this POV article needs to be cleaned up?
The opening paragraph includes "Nicholas Gutierrez had resented her questioning his gay lifestyle choices." Most of the sources are from Conservative Christian websites, with the titles of the articles being stuff like "Man Raped and Murdered Woman because she Vocally Opposed Gay Lifestyle says Defense Lawyer" and "'Gay' Reaction to Mrs. Stachowicz’s Murder: Silence to Applause." --Silvestris (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, definitely needs cleanup. Could do with some more mainstream sources. (edit: which I'm struggling to find...) --BelovedFreak 21:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if they qualify as mainstream, but here are some articles. --Silvestris (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least they come from a different angle, but it's a pity there doesn't seem to be any coverage from major news sources.--BelovedFreak 22:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well done, Moni, that helps a lot. I've removed the neutrality tag as I think it's much better now. One thing I'm not sure of is the sentence in the lead that says "what has been labeled a hate crime". It's hard for me to tell from the article & the sources I've found online, but was it widely labelled as a hate-crime? Or just by some conservative/Catholic groups. If it was widely called a hate-crime by all kinds of people, then fair enough, but if it was just those groups, or just a few people calling it that, then maybe it's best  to make that a bit more clear. But, as I say, it's not really clear to me, maybe you could help having seen the Sun-Times articles.--BelovedFreak 00:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't even read the Catholic sources, but The Washington Times labeled it a hate crime. So, widely? I don't know. I suppose it would be accurate to say it was labeled a hate crime by conservative groups. --Moni3 (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mary Stachowicz]] 

message: Someone has deleted my bit on his take on homosexuality . It was referenced from the Journal of Homosexuality. The person who deleted it explained why on the talkpage . I think it should be reverted it back again (it had already been deleted and I'd put it back) because it's not like I had written an overkill long passage on it, and it feels like that person is simply deleting valid info. For the record, they also added another bit  which is not referenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Referenced information, in my view, trumps reverts from anonymous editors who can't say why they're reverting other than not important enough. Single editors don't make that determination. It was important enough for the guy to talk about it. --Moni3 (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I reverted, replied and added note to anon's page. Benjiboi 00:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you - glad we agree.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Yeshayahu Leibowitz]] 

message: If all goes well Judy Garland as gay icon should be the lead (with photo) at DYK, which runs on the mainpage. I got the nom in pretty much at the last minute so it's not terribly zingy but congrats to Otto for a stellar article and keep an eye out for those who may want to give ol' Judy some special attention. Benjiboi 00:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Judy Garland as gay icon]] on [[DYK]] 

message: FYI... January is Bisexual Awareness Month in Utah. See Utah Pride Center. Aleta (Sing) 03:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Why is *Utah*, of all places, holding a big bi party and didn't bother to inform any of the rest of us? I want to play. :( Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure they'd be happy to have you join them!  :) Aleta (Sing) 20:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Bisexual Awareness Month? I had no idea! ;-) --Tyrfing (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yayy!!! Wheeeee .... I'd no idea. How on earth does one celebrate? - Alison ❤ 04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bisexual Awareness Month 

message: I know nothing about this colonial adventurer, but came across the article at James Brooke and discovered that although he won a kingdom, he had no legitimate issue to pass it on to, his closest relationships being with adolescent boys.  Is it worth adding him to a LGBT category? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would do it. Thanks for the heads up. I tagged him. --Moni3 (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!BrainyBabe (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: There is already opposition to his addition to this category.  BrainyBabe (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible addition -- James Brooke 

message: :Oh, David!  Thank you!  I love me some Ms Peru!  And I'd been wondering where you were... Hippo Gnu Deer! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How odd is it that my eyes went to Ms. Peru's bosom? Then to the rings, thinking, "How can she get anything done with all that?" --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I was in Israel, hanging with Shi-Pe, better known as President Shimon Peres.  I had been meaning to upload Coco Peru photos since November.  I also have an interview still to publish with Peru - and it's an interesting one about Ugly Betty stealing a storyline.  --David Shankbone 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shout out to the Homeys 

message: Are former actors who appeared in gay pornography really considered in the scope of the LGBT Wikiproject? Avruchtalk 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  :) Aleta (Sing) 20:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Matt Sanchez]] 

message: A bit drained from a few of my special admirers; could someone else check on some of the redlinks on ? 11:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone more versed in the WP LGBT Studies project needs to look over the 6 edits made by User:Fokion today. From what I can tell, they all appear to be valid but the template sure did go through an overhaul. -- ALLSTARecho 15:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  redlinks on template 

message: He was gay apparently . It would be good to find more references perhaps - this is bound to create some controversy.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we need more references? The book itself seems to cite three references - my only fear is that it is a bit succinct.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While the article has been around since 2003, it has almost no sources on it.  It's woefully POV-written. So *anything* you add in the way of referenced material will be an improvement in my book :)  Go back to the three sources if you get the chance, just to see if there's more material for a "Private life" section in the article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, I have heard of this man since I was a little boy, and I have never - ever - heard that he was gay before. Then again this could be a perfect example of the 'shaming of gender' (Judith Butler) or homophobia-driven ignorance/silence (Eve Sedgwick).Zigzig20s (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After a bunch of Google searching, I'd have to agree that this is probably a red herring. The "Who's Who" book is the only source I've found, though it's repeated on a couple sites (glbtq.com, knittingcircle.org).  If you want to be sure, I'd find those original three sources and see what they say.  The French probably won't be an issue for you, so go for it! :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not on google books...What do you reckon?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's this place called a "library".... :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha - unfortunately I am not in the country of wine and cheese at the moment. The local library - here in the adopted homeland of Henry James and Madonna - doesn't seem to have ever heard of the regional hero of my youth.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pierre André de Suffren]] 

message: It's red. See Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. Is there a similar, more widely-used category?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try :Category:LGBT rights activists from the United States =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:LGBT rights activists the United States 

message: There's an important policy discussion relevant to this project at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Religous Beliefs and Sexual Orientation. It has to do with when sexual orientation (and religious beliefs) used for category tags or mentioned at all in articles about living people. Aleta (Sing) 20:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy discussion 

message: I mean the article on Ken Hutcherson, not the man himself (although you know what they say about vociferous homophobes....) 
I rolled back some POV edits made yesterday. While trying to work out how to put his notability as an internationally known bigot back into the lede, I realized that the reference citations are total mess. I won't be able to tackle him until late tonight, so if anyone else wants to take a stab at him -- I mean at fixing the article -- feel free. TechBear (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks to Aleta for her efforts. I see that the article was much more of a mess than I had thought, and she is doing a bang-up job cleaning it up. TechBear (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it's a mess.  :) I'm taking a break on it for now, so it won't hurt my feelings if you want to jump back in (or anyone). :D Aleta (Sing) 20:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At best it will be latter tonight, after I get home from work. TechBear (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done more, but there's still fun for everyone! <grin> Aleta (Sing) 04:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ken Hutcherson]] needs some lovin' 

message: I'm having trouble with an editor on a smear campaign against Alfred Kinsey. Many of his edits and suggestions are not in line with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:BIO and other policies. I've been trying to reign him in, but he is very persistent and confrontational. If other editors could weigh in on the discussions, it would be most appreciated. Kaldari (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some info for you..don't know if that makes it better or worse... --Moni3 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV pushing at [[Alfred Kinsey]] 

message: Could anyone else please check up on this bio of gay Brazilian asylum actvist Flavio Alves? The article seems to be under a bit of an unwelcome overhaul and this may have to do with his work for Hillary Clinton. Primary author accused of autobiography, which may be true but they also seem to just be a very new editor. Benjiboi 23:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem to exist. That's the first probelm I guess... --Tyrfing (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted, wrongly, in my opinion, by an admin who was able and felt justified in doing so. I hope it is restored but I don't have the energy myself to deal with it. Benjiboi 03:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Flavio Alves]] 

message: Emily Dickinson is up for peer review in the big peer review, but you guys are a talented crew. Can some of you take a look at it? The primary author is working on FA, already having passed GA. Here's LGBT peer review. --Moni3 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be any mention of her sexuality (beyond the fact that she was married) why is it LGBT related? --Tyrfing (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I wrote something on the main peer review page, not realizing there was also an LGBT page. William P. Coleman (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dickinson had a tumultuous relationship with her sister-in-law with whom she wrote over 300 letters and several poems to/about. That information is included in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ctrl + F, not always your friend. --Tyrfing (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maiden of Amherst needs your love 

message: List of animals displaying homosexual behavior is up for AfD. Benjiboi 17:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of animals displaying homosexual behavior]] AfD 

message: Don't you think this should be split into two pages, with another page for the Alice B Toklas Democratic Club?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on expanding this page quite a bit right now, in my sandbox. Not sure that it should be split, but I think the Alice B Toklas Democratic Club should get its own page. --Moni3 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alice B Toklas Democratic Club definitely should get its own page, (two SF-based LGBT website/papers are at www.sfbaytimes.com and ebar.com). Under normal circumstatnces i would agree that maybe Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon should be split but they do seem to operate and function as a couple in everything they do and are always spoken of together. Benjiboi 23:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon]] 

message: SatyrTN has decided she was not a bisexual, and I'm not sure why. I added a reference from an academic history book, and there is no reference to prove that she was not a bisexual. The reference seems serious enough to me - again, it is a published and fairly popular academic history book. What is more, Lillian Faderman says that Luhan acknowledges her bisexuality in her very memoirs - how can this be disproved? Maybe SatyrTN wants the reference from the memoirs - I have not read them, nor do I have the time atm. I am confused with regards to this politics of silence concerning this bisexual. Not to be too queeny about it - and after all why not? - but I am disappointed in SatyrTN.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replied on your talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mabel Dodge Luhan]] 

message: Brad Renfro was found dead today. One of my homo crushes is now gone. :[ ALLSTARecho 07:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sad 

message: List of LGBT couples at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_16#16_January_2008 cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRV 

message: Please see Talk:Unity II.  Whenever I see a project tag on the talk of a speedy candidate, I remove the tag to at least give the interested project members a shot at the article before deletion.  This article is neglected (no edits since July 07).  Happy editing,  Keeper  |  76 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Unity II]] 

message: See . Where in the article should I add a reference as to her bisexuality and her lesbian relationship with Lorena Hickok? I'm tempted to put it in 'marriage and family life', but maybe I'm being too antinormative - then again...Zigzig20s (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I would go with someplace in #Personal life - maybe in "Franklin's affair"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See new edit by skeptical user . He also removed them here . I yet have to add something about it on her page - the user used the fact that there is nothing there to buttress his politics of silence - but this is bound to create many infelicitous edits by "skeptical" users I think. It would be nice if more people could give me a hand.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to use my reference more in line with what Lillian Faderman says , but I think the other user's quote is too long by comparison, and I probably sound too lenient. Humph.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a nuanced and reference part on Eleanor Roosevelt's page. I'm quite busy though, I hope other people can help if need be.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Skeptics on talkpage, despite the nuance and the references...Sigh.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Eleanor Roosevelt]] 

message: "I would consider this for deletion
"It's gender-studies cruft. How can an article about this term be much more than a bare-bones stub? Feel free to prove me wrong...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's just about a neologism wouldn't it be better in Wiktionary? --Tyrfing (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posted at [[Talk:Non-heterosexuals]] 

message: FYI- It has been suggested for several months that Sexual Minorities in Japan be merged into LGBT rights in Japan. Seems like a good idea to me. Other opinions? Queerudite (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Queer Japan articles? 

message: I recently enlisted Bradford LGBT to help out with our LGB people lists - they mean well, bless them , but they're not Wikipedians, so if you see any IP addresses contributing but making a bit of a mess, do clean up after the dears if you spot it. Ta, Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGB people monitoring 

message: List of LGBT couples is up for deletion and a few of us are trying to reference the outstanding list or removed unverifiable ones to the talk page. We only have 88 couples left to confirm, if each of you would do fifty or so that would be so super! Thanks! Benjiboi 01:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Update. All the living folks have been reffed just the historical ones remain. Benjiboi 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of LGBT couples]] AfD, and ref help needed 

message: Níð has been on our peer review page since August with no comments.  (I'm as guilty as anyone!)  The main author very much would like some feedback.  I've just made a few comments.  If anyone else would care to look at it, and comment, I think TlatoSMD would greatly appreciate it. Aleta (Sing) 03:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a bit. If others could look at it to help ensure the lede makes sense if nothing else would be helpful. The article seems quite amazing. Benjiboi 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Níð]] 

message: (First, though, my thanks to the LGBT group, especially AllstarEcho, for being the only ones at Wikipedia to make my brief, unhappy stay here brighter, nicer, more literate, and more humane.)
*Another phenomenally flaming keep . . . although you should ignore anything I write because this is my last WP edit before I sign off on my user page and delete all but one of the messages on my talk page, asking that no further messages be left there.  So don't bother reading this.  And don't bother replying because I won't be here.
** Why am I leaving WP? . . . A major reason is the fact that you're even having this discussion at all -- about a category for we LGBT people to define ourselves  as such.  Some of you speak here in a rational tone of voice and even feel aggrieved and saddened that LGBT's are getting emotional and accusing others of bias.  But -- if you possibly can -- try to step back and get some perspective.  Do you really imagine that it's okay for the majority to vote on -- or attempt to reach consensus on -- whether a minority that's persecuted in society should be allowed to identify themselves as such?  Where exactly do you get your nerve?
** Why is it relevant to WP collaboration to have a category for LGBT Wikipedians?  . . . Because it's inherent in the nature of LGBT oppression in society that we're asked to hide.  It's fundamental to the mechanism: the majority in society thinks it's okay to persecute, discriminate against, or even jail LGBTs because they're comfortable with the idea that we're a small advocacy fringe with an antisocial agenda.  Meanwhile, the truth is that we're a relatively large minority (probably between 6 and 10%) that routinely goes about our business participating in and making contributions to society, just like everyone else.  Except we're pressured to be invisible -- so our daily lives don't count like everyone else's -- and therefore it's okay to dismiss us.  . . . And now, you at Wikipedia, by denying us a category, are explicitly requiring us to do the same -- and to cooperate in the very mechanism that oppresses us.  You're perfectly happy to accept the contributions our expertise and work can make to ten thousand topics on WP, but you won't let us identify ourselves (even within the basic anonymity and collaborativeness of WP editing) as LGBT and so create even very limited recognition noticing that we're citizens here too.  And how, exactly is that supposed to affect our morale?  Are we supposed to feel happy in our work?  Is it supposed to be "collaborative" when we LGBTs know that we're second-class, only here on condition that we don't break our pretense of "normality."
** Why are we insisting now on the insulting, derogatory term, "gayass?"  . . . The simple answer is that we tried nicely to get several polite synonyms recognized -- and you turned us down on all of them.  Society already makes us feel like a bunch of "faggots," "dykes," and "gayasses," so our best hope in the face of the politely phrased, legalistic insult that WP has offered us is to turn around a less polite term for the same attitude and wear it as a badge of pride.  Any questions?
** Am I leaving WP solely because it won't recognize the contributions of LBGTs as such? . . . Well, I do think that would be a good reason by itself.  Why should I work as a volunteer in a place where I'm unmentionable? . . . But, actually, I think that this "debate" is symptomatic of my larger disappointment with WP.  The process and rules and policies have run away with it -- the vast majority of topics here are nearly unpopulated with editors, while most of the discussions I've happened on (including this one) are obsessively legalistic and lacking in perspective and common sense.  This system allows editors with agendas to act arbitrarily while seeming to quote the rules.  A good example is the very editor Avruchtalk who is responsible for nominating :Category:Gayass Wikipedians for deletion. Coincidentally, he happens, as the result of a different discussion, to also be immediately responsible for my decision to leave. 
** Aren't I supposed to assume good faith? . . . Yes.  That's precisely the problem.  If I were to stay here, then assuming good faith would have to be a cornerstone.  But, I just can't do that.  A lot of you do have good faith.  But too many of you, like Avruchtalk, have faith only in their own wishes, opinions, and dogma -- and are perfectly willing to game the system to get their way.  I have too much evidence to the contrary to be able to make other people's good faith an automatic assumption -- and I refuse to work in that atmosphere.  I have too many other non-WP projects where I can be constructive and effective.
** Am I being insulting? . . . Perhaps. . . . But I don't think I created this situation.  I came to WP with the best hope in the world of being a civic-minded member of the community and making a constructive contribution.
** Will Avruchtalk -- or someone else -- unilaterally decide (as he did last night in a different discussion) that my comments here are too long and (according to his private interpretation) too off-topic, and therefore need to be deleted, archived, or moved to someplace safely irrelevant? . . . Very possibly.
** William P. Coleman (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Important point - removing the category does not, and is of course not intended to, remove the editors. I resent strongly the implication of anti-gay bias on my part that Coleman has left in a number of places today. Additionally, I am disappointed that no one has troubled to refute the clearly unfounded and out of line accusation. Its facile reasoning, in my mind: I nominated a single category for deletion (and have taken essentially no other action related to LGBT articles) and because Coleman is insulted I must be part of a Wiki-conspiracy to discriminate against gay people. Simply not the case. I tried to be conciliatory and explain my actions to Coleman on his talk page, but to no avail apparently. The messages are in his history - I notice he doesn't leave them up for others to judge. Avruchtalk 23:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't followed all of the conversation, but I don't think everyone thinks you are part of some anti-LGBT conspiracy, or even just yourself are anti-LGBT just because you nominated that category for deletion.  I certainly don't.  Moni  says below that she never intended it as a serious suggestion.  I use user categories, but can't get too worked up about whether a given one exists or not, or if one should exist or not.  I think folks on both sides (of any user category dispute, not only this one) can worry a little too much about it.  There are other things to do on WP. Aleta (Sing) 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We do sometime get LGBT editors who can't see the woods for all the flaming gayass trees, and this is pretty much what has happened here. Just write it off. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I love the image of "flaming gayass trees"! :D Aleta (Sing) 01:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, do not write it off. Aside from the points he made about Avruch, the rest of his concerns are quite valid. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, I certainly never intended for my category idea to be serious or longstanding. I thought it a lark that it was actually turned into a category. Fun for a very few people. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I can do gayass -- and I can do math -- but the rest, I don't even know what you're talking about. (signed) a northern boy from a previous generation William P. Coleman (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments I made at [[Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Gayass Wikipedians]] and that could get moved/deleted after I sign off 

message: Members of this project might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Anglin.   PKT (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Anglin 

message: As you know, it is coming up to LGBT History month here in sunny England, and in recognition of that I have been working extra hard on our LGB people list (although admittedly I've mostly been removing straight people - still knocked 50 people off though). Today, my friend Josh and I are even having a special trip to the library to work on it. Come join us! We're down to just 800 people (from 2000) now - we might well get it done in time if we just keep at it. Please... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work on the LGB list 

message: The scope of List of LGBT couples is not entirely clear to me.  I would appreciate your help with this question.  Thanks!  Photouploaded (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion about scope of [[List of LGBT couples]] 

message: English is fun and to hell with the MOS! If you don't like the word, change it! Or is this some kind of joke?  --Moni3 (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ... Taz hate PC. I mean what is the point? Does anyone find the word Lesbian to be derogatory. Also what on earth is "positive language"? --Tyrfing (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And "MOS"...? :? --Tyrfing (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS is the Manual of Style WP:MOS, the infinite list of rules for punctuation and grammar for articles here - ones you never learned in school, for some reason. It's the primary cause of my shouting "Christ almighty!" when folks oppose my FACs. --Moni3 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a joke? No, wait. What is this? 

message: Is this page a bit sleepy lately?
I placed Barbara Gittings up for peer review here at LGBT and at WP:Biography just to see what kind of feedback I can get before putting it up for GA. I recently read a compelling FAC request claiming anyone who didn't read his article and comment was a lazy fart. He even put it in bold, too. I'm not sure how when he did it it was funny, and when I try it just seems annoying. --Moni3 (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another hot lesbo up for peer review 

message: In the page of "History of same-sex unions", I've found the name "Diocletianus", but it must be a mistake.
Therefore, I've changed his name to "Elagabalus".
And also  "Poppea" into "Poppaea".
I am Japanese and have many data on historical pederastic couples in Japanese history. And I've found so many famous couples were lacking in the "Historical pederastic couples". (e.g.) Oda Nobunaga and Maeda Toshiie. Maeda Toshiie was one of the most renowned beloved boy of Oda Nobunaga. Of course there were so many other beloved pageboys of Oda Nobunaga. And Tokugawa Ieyasu's most beloved boy Ii Manchiyo was Ii Naomasa(his adult name). (talk:Hadrianvs et antinovs|talk]])a.k.a."sebastianvs").
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadrianvs et antinovs (talk • contribs) 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mistakes:]] on the Lists of "History of same-sex unions" 

message: There is a deletion review which can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_21#Category:Queer_Wikipedians. DuncanHill (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started a discussion of the recent uproar here. I'm inviting all  the other gayasses to join in and see if we can't work toward some unified position to present at the discussion - maybe a move to "Queer" or "LGBT"? Hope you'll look it over. Thanks! --Phyesalis (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was incredibly offended however months ago to find my "Bisexual Wikipedians" category removed by some bot due to an out-of-process and blatantly heterosexist ("what does gay have to do with Wikipedia?") argument which got it deleted. While I don't feel I am necessarily equipped to argue this in the DRV, I really hope there is a complete overturn.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Despite the arguments advanced, the :category:Queer Wikipedians deletion review has been closed as deletion endorsed.  No attempt was made by the closing admin to acknowledge or address the policy issues raised.  Even the comments of DGG were ignored.  However, there is some good news.  Avruch has created a :category:LGBT Wikipedians and include a well considered and appropriate explanatory note, which you may want to read.  DuncanHill and I have both commented on Avruch's talk page, expressing appreciation for his action. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oops, I didn't notice the discussion further down - will scroll down next time! Jay*Jay (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Queer Wikipedians 

message: Per the recent drama on the Rosie O'Donnell article, folks deleting first then discussing when compelled, I have rewritten, resourced and refocused Rosie O'Donnell#Accusations of anti-Catholicism and would appreciate others keeping an eye on it since the article just came off protection. Benjiboi 17:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosie rewrite revert-watch 

message: Why on earth is that in this project?  I see that Satyr added it, which is only reason I didn't delete our tag immediately. Is there something I'm missing? Aleta (Sing) 22:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine it was because of  this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, that would explain it.  I guess I should have looked in the history.  Thanks, Dev.  Well, if it survives the AfD (and maybe while it's still an open question), either that tidbit needs replacing or it should go out of the project - right now there is nothing in the article to indicate that association. Aleta (Sing) 00:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Harlequin (color)]]