Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 40 ← Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 → Archive 50

Category:GLAAD Media Award winners

Category:GLAAD Media Award winners has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Kawczynski

Daniel Kawczynski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Got a bit of a conundrum here: the article, by following the sources, states that Kawczynski is the first MP to come out as bisexual, in 2013, which is only technically correct; Ron Davies came out in 2003 after stepping down as an MP in 2001 (and while stepping down as an AM) and Simon Hughes was outed and subsequently came out in 2006. The problem is, I can't find sources saying that either Davies or Hughes were the first bisexual MPs. So we've got a situation where the sources imply something that is factually wrong. Sceptre (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC on pronouns throughout life

Hello everyone - you are all invited to participate in an RfC on whether or not to use the current preferred pronouns of a transgender person throughout that person's life. As editors interested in and knowledgeable about LGBT topics, I would appreciate your feedback. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Shepard

FYI, a discussion regarding the inclusion of claims made in a forthcoming book is underway at Talk:Matthew Shepard#The Book of Matt. Rivertorch (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Other opinions sought for GA review of female genital mutilation

This article is more about sexuality than specifically LGBT studies, but since I feel that persons interested in LGBT studies might also be interested to give feedback on this highly controversial topic. The article is female genital mutilation and the review - which is already quite thorough - is at Talk:Female_genital_mutilation/GA1. Even a brief comment in a single section would be welcome. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Chirlane McCray

Hello folks. I'm just asking you to keep an eye on Chirlane McCray. She formerly labeled herself as a lesbian, and is now married to a man, leading IPs to edit in that she's a "former lesbian", and adding that redirect to Ex-gay movement, of which she is no part. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request‎

Greetings! In accordance with the conditions set forth in the previous discussion of the Bradley Manning/Chelsea Manning title dispute, a new move request has been filed and is now underway. bd2412 T 00:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Trolls hijack [Croatian] Wikipedia to turn articles against gays

Trolls hijack Wikipedia to turn articles against gays --Ecelan (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Saw it, still waiting for an official response from Wikipedia or Wikimedia to hit the news. If anyone sees it first then let me know. I'll otherwise assume it was ignored by Wikimedia and Croatian Wikipedia. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't make much sense of it myself, but it's been all over Jimbo's talk page: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_143#Croatian_Wikipedia_controversy User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive 144#Gathering_information_about_alleged_irregularities_on_Croatian_Wikipedia Siawase (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
It certainly makes for interesting reading! Satisfied now! Thanks a lot Siawase ツ Jenova20 (email) 20:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Need some help

I recently created the article Is Homosexuality a Menace?, which is about a book published in 1957. It has been suggested that the book is not notable, and there has been some discussion about this on the article's talk page. If members of this project could comment on the issue and give their views on whether the book is notable or not, that would be helpful. I would be perfectly happy to see the article deleted if the book is not notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Idea for New Article: Queer Migration

As part of a Rice University sociology course, I plan to create a Wikipedia article on “Queer Migration” as well as add to the existing “Refugee” article regarding queer refugees. The topic of queer migration has only recently been researched, analyzed, and discussed just as queer studies has only recently emerged as a field of academic research in the past few decades. This newness ensures an inadequate coverage of the topic online as can be seen on Wikipedia. Particularly relevant in the changing climate of queer politics currently in America, queer migration can be looked at to understand global treatments of queers. It can also bring insight into how nations treat petitions for asylum from queers, and further elucidate the conditions of life for queers in a modern world.

A preliminary outline of my article is as follows:

Intro: Queer migration is…

1. History 1.1 Historical locations of discrimination 1.2 Historical locations of tolerance 1.3 Past trends of queer migration

2 Global stances on queer 2.1 Law (regions) 2.2 Cultures (regions) 2.3 Religions (regions) 2.4 De facto (regions)

3 Current trends 3.1 Where are they leaving? (countries, cities, why?) 3.2 Where are they going? (countries, cities, why?) 3.3 Traveling as singles, couples 3.4 Seeking asylum (obstacles)

4 After the move 4.1 Status as immigrant 4.2 Finding a job 4.3 Finding a partner (marriage)

5 Queer studies

6 Bibliography 7 See also 8 Notes 9 External links


Although my main planned contribution is an entirely new article, I will try to make a minor improvement in the “Refugee” article by adding a section to “reasons for refugee crises” regarding gender discrimination and persecution. This will link to my main article on queer migration. I am also considering adding a section to the “Migrant Worker” page to make my article even more accessible.

I'm open to any feedback, criticisms, or concerns, so let me know what you think!

Cebrown721 (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

First and foremost, make sure that you are mirroring what reliable sources have written about the topic, and not drawing in disparate sources to create a topic of your own. Writing a Wikipedia article is different from writing a research paper for school: in the latter, you are encouraged to analyze sources yourself, whereas in the former you are not permitted to do so. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
When I did a quick search I see - Lionel_Cantú#.E2.80.9CQueer_Migrations:_Sexuality.2C_U.S._Citizenship.2C_and_Border_Crossings..E2.80.9D. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to add LGBT section to an education article

I'm currently enrolled in a class on Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities. I want to expand the article Achievement gap in the United States by adding an LGBT section (and reorganizing the article as a whole). I want to talk about: evidence, causes, implications, and alleviation efforts of the achievement gap. If anyone has any suggestions or sources relevant to this topic, please let me know. Santatijay (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding to the "LGBT sex education" article

I am also enrolled in the Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities class at Rice University. I would like to edit the LGBT sex education article. I'm planning to reorganize a bit and add sections on exactly what advocates for LGBT sex education in schools are asking for and what LGBT sex education is like in a selection of different countries. I'm also going to add more information to the existing sections and find more resources, because the page is very low on citations right now. The resources I have at the moment are mostly articles from journals such as Journal of Adolescence, Sex Education, and Social Work. I'm also looking at book resources.

I would be grateful for any feedback or suggestions! If anyone has any resources that might help please let me know.

Thanks, Saira Weinzimmer (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

List of Films about Hate Crimes

User:Rainbowofpeace has thought of creating a list of hate crime murders called List of Films about Hate Crimes. Does anyone have some films to chuck in? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Transgender Science

(I don't want to create a conflict of interest because these are my press releases, this is a starter post for others to work on)

Transgenderism opens the door to Quantum Gravity

MONTREAL, Sept. 18, 2013 /PRNewswire-iReach/ -- The Zallo institute of Montreal has published an e-treatise entitled, The Science of Transgenderism. Gianni Marricco is a male to female transexual author and experimentalist. For the last 15 years she has journeyed between experiment and theory to provide an understanding of transgenderism and its pertinence to quantum gravity theory. The genesis of the discovery comes from the Dave Dravecky Barbara Walters interview on 20/20 of the (abc) network. " I remembered that interview and synthesized the idea of desired genetalia from phantom limb phenomenon." Marricco goes on to explain that she has made models of the desired genetalia, from as far back as 1999. The paper discusses extra and hidden dimensions as a part of our everyday world. "When one can sift through the UV/IR noise by looking at ovaries becoming testicles and vice versa, we become aware of a complete and measurable quantum gravity system, the desired genetalia has within itself the compactified tensors, we are looking for in hidden dimensions." These models she is talking about are called Area.Mass.Density.Time models, examples of which can be found in the e-paper. The paper is available on amazon.com,itunes, etc

http://www.amazon.ca/The-Science-of-Transgenderism-ebook/dp/B00CFPFX6O

https://itunes.apple.com/ca/book/science-transgenderism/id638611189?mt=11

http://thescienceoftransgenderism.com

Hidden Dimensions in Transgenderism

Added: (Wed Sep 18 2013)

Pressbox (Press Release) - Transexuality has now entered the domain of high energy physics. Hailing from Montreal Canada, Gianni Marricco a male to female transsexual has published, an e treatise called, The Science of Transgenderism under the banner of the Zallo institute. Her work has taken the better part of 15 years from start to completion, and she hardly believes it to be complete. "I believe there is still a lot of work to do in order to get experimentalists like myself to work together with theorists. She believes that hidden within the desired phantom genitals are the gravity fluxes that give rise to genitals that are hidden in a quote un quote, extra dimensions. She discusses Area. Mass .Density. time models that are created by the gravity flux that sustains the desired phantom genitals. "The area and mass of the quantity can be described by the density of the object. We are basically looking to bring the desired genetalia into a tangible frame work. Since we know the desired phantom genetalia is connected to the present genetalia, we seek to figure out how much time would be required for full gender transformation. It is like uncovering a fossil both from the future/present and from a hidden dimension." The e-book is available on amazon iTunes and a host of online providers.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GianniMarricco (talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Before a Wikipedia article is created this work would have to be covered in WP:RS. At present it is interesting, but not yet notable, surely? Do you have coverage in reliable sources? Fiddle Faddle 08:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Simpler userbox

This user is a member of WikiProject LGBT studies.

I wasn't a fan of all the links in the userbox linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies#Recognition, so I created my own in user space. Feel free to use it, and if folk like it I'll look at moving it to template space.

If you want to use it, the code you need is {{User:me_and/Userboxen/LGBT}}.

—me_and 09:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

+1 ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Bisexuality in the Arab world is in danger of deletion

Even if it survives it requires substantial attention and referencing. Any takers? Fiddle Faddle 07:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Pleasingly, this has scraped through an AfD, but now it really does need some attention. Fiddle Faddle 23:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:WikiLeaks

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:WikiLeaks. {{#if:Neutral assistance requested. At issue is whether the template for wikileaks should show "Chelsea Manning" or "Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning" or some other formulation.|Neutral assistance requested. At issue is whether the template for wikileaks should show "Chelsea Manning" or "Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning" or some other formulation. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 31#File:Ellengay.jpg

I should have alerted this project to this matter earlier, but the Ellen image, also currently seen in the article The Puppy Episode, is up for deletion again (second nomination; I also alerted the project with regard to that first nomination). Flyer22 (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The Independent on Sunday's Pink List 2013

The Independent on Sunday, a British newspaper, has published its Pink List 2013. Wikipedia articles may already exist for some of the people on the list, but most of the rest are probably notable by Wikipedia standards as well. Editors, particularly those in the UK, may want to create or expand articles on the people on the list. People on the Pink Lists of previous years are also probably worth writing about. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Working on it! I've already created Paris Lees. —me_and 09:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Paris Lees was on Question Time on BBC One last night. She talked a lot of sense. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT

Wikimedia LGBT is a proposed thematic organization that seeks to promote the development of content on Wikimedia projects which is of interest to LGBT communities. Proposed activities include outreach at LGBT events, Wikimania and other Wikimedia events, an international campaign called Wiki Loves Pride, and work on safe space policies, among other collaborations and interwiki projects. Active Wikimedians are welcome to join this cause! Please consider adding your name as a participant/supporter. Current tasks include translating pages, building a strong framework at Meta, and achieving user group status (with the eventual goal of becoming a thematic organization). Your feedback is welcome on the discussion page.

Thank you for your consideration. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Request to create a lemma about Pride Photo Award

As project manager for Pride Photo Award I would like to ask the WikiProject LGBT Studies community if one of you is interested in creating a page about Pride Photo Award. I am sure that the guidelines prevent me from doing so myself as I am an interested party. Pride Photo Award is an international photo contest for photos about sexual and gender diversity. The first exhibition was in 2010 in Amsterdam. The jury and the winners come from all over the world: in 2013 for instance the Award was won by a photographer from the Philippines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeri Kempen (talk • contribs) 14:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Having just checked, seems to meet WP:GNG; some sources from a quick Google:
@Joeri Kempen: Welcome to Wikipedia! There's no firm rule that you can't create such an article yourself, but it is strongly discouraged. There's some useful information you might want to read at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations, although you seem to be doing just fine so far. If there are good third-party sources you know of, it may be useful to list them. You could also try putting in a request for the article at Wikipedia:Articles for Creation.
—me_and 16:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
@Me and: Many thanks. I found the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest page and fully understand that for the credibility of Wikipedia it is preferable if a third party writes the article. I will gladly follow your recommendation for Wikipedia:Articles for Creation. Joeri Kempen (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

adoption

The adoption article and maps need some serious attention. Some important refs are dated or dead. I've been trying to fix the maps, but half of it is guesswork. For instance, we note that joint adoption is legal in Guam, but the ref is a passing mention in a list of "countries" in an article that could easily have gotten it wrong. (For most US states, we have a date of legalization with a backing ref, though we're missing some.) For years the maps have shown joint adoption as legal in Cambodia and the Philippines. I removed those countries when no-one even replied to my request for sources, but what do I know? I'm shooting blind here. Also, what does it mean to be "illegal"? That you have to adopt individually, or that LGBT are forbidden from adoption at all, as in the old Florida law? — kwami (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the map, File:World same-sex adoption laws.svg, and added a color for where laws specifically allow LGBT individuals to adopt. I suspect that there are many more states which do that than what I show, however. — kwami (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Discusion about scope of Bisexuality in the Arab world

Please visit the article's talk page where a discussion is taking place about broadening the scope of the very short article beyond bisexuality, but remaining within the bounds of the Arab world. Your opinions are valuable and are needed there You are the experts! Fiddle Faddle 10:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why

The article Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why has been the focus of a recent editing dispute mainly between me and Beauvy, a new user who is unfamiliar with how Wikipedia operates and has edit warred to restore inappropriate material. Comment from project members would be helpful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

please read wp:canvass especially the section about neutral notifications, which the above is clearly not. Consider yourself to have been

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

'd and please don't canvass like that again.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope. That did not violate WP:Canvass as posting to the projects is acceptable. The editor did not request any specific support. Just comments. Anyone is welcome to comment in any fashion. So a

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

back at Obiwankenobi.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone seems to have missed the point of WP:Canvass: "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." It's meant for AfDs and similar situations, such as requests for adminship. Those are discussions. The whole point here is that there was no "discussion" - there was disruptive editing at an article, something entirely different. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The notification was not neutral; I haven't followed the actual discussion, but stating as fact that inappropriate material was being restored, and biasing the reader against this user because they are new, are examples of non-neutral notifications. This applies even if it's not an AFD. I don't want to get into a trout-war, but I still stand by my statement that this violated canvass because the notification was clearly not neutral.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if we're not just a little too hung up on procedure sometimes. A user acts extremely disruptively, edit warring to add fringe viewpoints to an article and slinging unwarranted accusations around on a talk page, and another user asks for help. If this had been a simple content dispute, I'd agree with you, but it was far from that. While FKC's wording may not have been optimal, it seems unlikely that any attempt was made to violate the spirit of WP:CANVASS and it is even unlikelier that the wording used did any harm. We're people here, not machines, and if sometimes our good-faith responses to situations don't fit neatly within the parameters of best practice, that's hardly worthy of a dressing-down. No minnows, let alone trout, required. Rivertorch (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
If it's purely a user-conduct issue, then ANI is the appropriate board, or another forum. Coming here in the middle of a content dispute and posting a non-neutral message - no matter how "right" you happen to be - is nonetheless a form of canvassing. To take the example further, imagine that the other user had posted the following at the Wikiproject:conservativism board: "The article at XX has been the focus of a recent dispute between me and Freeknowledgecreator, a user who is using their higher edit count to claim that they have a better understanding of policy (even though I've been editing as an IP for years); FKC has also edit warred to delete material which is sourced to reliable sources. Comments from project members would be helpful". Do we really want messages like that - calling different sides of the debate to arms and biasing them before they even arrive at the scene? There isn't an exception to WP:CANVASS that says "If you are on the right side of a content dispute, feel free to disparage the actions of the other user when posting elsewhere". I agree, we're people here, and many people are dragged to ANI for violations of WP:CANVASS; I proposed no such thing, and offered a trout, which is at the end of the day a rather minor slap on the wrist. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. And I think the slap was unnecessary. If you really feel strongly about something like this, how about having a quiet word on the user's talk page instead? If we're going to be rigid about following proper procedure, that's where user conduct discussions are supposed to begin (not to mention fish, large and small). But procedure exists to facilitate building and maintaining the encyclopedia, not to chide one another over when we fail to follow it and nothing bad happens. At least I hope that's still true; it used to be. Rivertorch (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough; next time I may administer the trout or minnow on the userpage itself. I just see many violations of wp:canvass and it starts to irritate me... I don't think it facilitates, I think it makes things worse. Notify neutrally, or don't notify at all, that's my feeling.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The article I mentioned is within the scope of this project, and it ought to be possible to report obviously disruptive behavior there without someone complaining that I'm not being "neutral." What next, complaints that reports at WP:AIV aren't "neutral" toward the vandals? I stand by my point that Obi-Wan has misunderstood the purpose of the guideline he cited; it's simply not intended for this kind of situation. It's for discussions, and disruption or vandalism at an article is not a discussion. On the contrary, part of the problem was that actual discussion wasn't happening. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Then you should have reported it to ANI, and notified Beauvy of said notification, so that everyone gets an equal hearing. Your posting here was intended to rally troops to your side - which IS the thing WP:CANVASS is intended to prevent. ANI is a neutral board, populated by all sorts, while this board is not necessarily so, which is why there is the suggestion to have a neutral notification. If you disagree, please cite me the specific section of that guideline that defends your posting. I will ask @Beauvy: to comment here, as to whether they feel your message fairly represented the discussion. Again, there is no issue with notifying this notice board of a dispute at an article within it's scope - it's the non-neutrality of your message that was the problem, no matter how 'obvious' it seemed to you.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Ack, Beauvy is blocked. Oh well. Anyway, I don't think this is worth pursuing further. It looks like you won the day.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
ANI is always bogged down because people report content disuputes they have with other users there. Most of those disputes simply don't belong on that page, and there have therefore been active attempts to discourage people from positng them there. So your advice was awful. WP:CANVASS is intended mainly to prevent people from sending multiple discussions about the same discussion - which I didn't do. So I didn't violate the guideline, even if it had been relevant here, which it is not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Then, going to dispute resolution, or in this case, reporting the user for edit-warring violations (which you were also close to surpassing it seems) would be an option. Also, posting here about a content dispute would have been fine, e.g. "The article Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why has been the focus of a recent content dispute between myself and Beauvy. Comment from project members would be helpful." Do you notice how it's neutral, instead of saying that the material from Beauvy was inappropriate, and that Beauvy doesn't know the rules? Even if you are right, and I think in this case, you are, that doesn't excuse you from following policy. I don't see why you're being so defensive about this. I do apologize for sploshing you here, but I would trout you again for the same thing, just on your user page. And no, avoiding multiple discussions is not what WP:CANVASS is about; WP:CANVASS is about unfairly biasing a discussion by bringing partisan voices to it, and influencing the new arrivals before they get there by framing the issue in a non-neutral way. E.g. "I'm in the middle of an edit war with an inexperienced user who thinks gay people are stupid" - that would instantly rile a lot of dragons to your side who would come in guns blazing even if the real story was a bit more complex - and that's exactly the sort of message WP:CANVASS is intended to discourage.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Referendum in Croatia

I invite all interested editors to contribute in article Croatian constitutional referendum, 2013.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:MOS-TRANS up for TfD

I have nominated this template for deletion on the grounds that it is redundant to the more widely used Template:MOS-TW and Template:MOS-TM templates. Please share your opinions here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Gay people in the Syrian war

Here is an article on gay people suffering in the Syrian war.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Error in template:MOS-TW

Hi, I think there is an error in the template {{MOS-TW}}. Please see Template talk:MOS-TW#Suggest "names" → "nouns". Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"Mother" as a term for trans women

We know that trans women should be referred to with nouns that match the fact that they are women throughout their lives. I have no difficulty using the term girl, sister, or daughter for a trans woman. But mother can be a problem because trans women cannot give birth. Adopted mother is a perfectly okay term, but mother is kind of tough. Specifically for a trans woman who is a biological parent of a child, who she became a parent of before her surgery operation. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit I don't see how 'mother' is any more problematic than 'sister' or 'daughter'. If the text also mentions the child's other mother, I would use 'parent', or otherwise rephrase the whole thing to avoid confusion. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Parent. It's an everyday word, which is both acceptable to and understood by the lay public; and it's also gender-neutral. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Mother should be fine. After all, we're perfectly fine with saying "Heather has two mommies", aren't we? Sceptre (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
'Parent' works just fine - Alison ❤ 00:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Sister and daughter can easily fit a trans woman the same way they can fit any woman because these terms relate the woman to other people through her ancestry, which is not affected by the fact that she is a trans woman. Mother is relatively problematic for a trans woman for the reason I mentioned above. Georgia guy (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I suppose I don't see giving birth as a requirement to the title 'mother'. Anyway, 'parent' or rephrasing are alternatives if you don't want to use 'mother'. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh Indeed! - I just had to mention that. Also, the Wikipedia definition of mother states, "A mother (or mum/mom/mam) is a woman who has raised a child, given birth to a child, and/or supplied the egg which in union with a sperm grew into a child." I'm not caring either way, just pointing that out - Alison ❤ 01:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Georgia Guy, Regarding the case that you are asking about, "a trans woman who is a biological parent of a child" — If you need more info from this discussion, maybe it would help if you gave a hypothetical or real example of text where this is a problem, and ask the editors here how to rephrase it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Supposed a (pre-operative) trans woman had become a parent at the age of 28, but then 4 years later her body is corrected to become a woman's body. Georgia guy (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
A friend of mine once made an introduction as follows: "This is Susan; she's my father". Susan (not her real name) had been born male, married, had children; then identified as female, sought counselling and treatment, transitioned, got divorced (as required under UK law), and is now legally female. That didn't change the fact that she is a parent. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

CFD: sub-categories of Category:LGBT state legislators of the United States

Category:LGBT state legislators in Arizona‎ and 33 other sub-categories of Category:LGBT state legislators of the United States, all of which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for merger to their parent categories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality in sports in the United States

I think dagreco (talk · contribs), aka Dominic Greco, needs our or your help. He is a college student studying gender and sexuality. Perhaps more editing and cleanup on this article are needed. This topic is interesting to the Project, and it's a good read. --George Ho (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Bullying RFC

An RFC on Template:Bullying is taking place at Template talk:Bullying#RfC: Template links. Input from project members would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:LGBT controversies needed?

I was surprised to find we don't have such a category, at least I am not seeing anything relevant Category:Controversies. I wanted to add it to my new article Tęcza (Warsaw). BTW, if anyone would like to copyedit it, please go ahead, it will be a DYK in the near future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Redirect discussion of interest to this WikiProject

Hello, just informing members that there is an RfD that may be of interest to project members; Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 22#Wikipedia:QUEER. Tarc (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Members and others ought also to see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 21#Wikipedia:Fag and to consider whether comments are appropriate on that discussion as well. Fiddle Faddle 22:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Image discussion taking place on Jimbo's talk page

[1]. This requires some attention as it seems this may be the only discussion of the removal of the image and I am not at all sure it is being done in a neutral manner.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This has blown up guys. An editor was blocked and then another admin unblocked them. AN is now discussing the situation here. I request as many eyes to this discussion as possible from our project. To say more would be less than neutral and would violate our canvassing guidelines. please...look into the discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Absolutely disgusting situation, worthy of Conservapedia. Thanks for bringing it up ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I have never felt so much shame and embarrassment in my life....by being linked to Wikipedia at this very moment.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Califia, child sexuality connection to pedophile group NAMBLA concern

Hi, I need some more experienced eyes on this BLP. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Maria Bello

She recently made her same-sex relationship public without identifying with any particular sexual orientation, and now there is the usual debate over categories. Discussion at Talk:Maria Bello#Lesbian Actress? Siawase (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Moving the Homosexual behavior in animals article

Opinions are needed from this WikiProject on this matter: Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals#Requested move. Flyer22 (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Croatian constitutional referendum, 2013

There is a dispute (and edit war) regarding certain parts of that article. Ron 1987 (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

Editors may wish to review recent additions to this article. Rivertorch (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Container categories only?

This came up with particular reference to Category:LGBT actors, but applies to all LGBT categories. Posting discussion from Category talk:LGBT actors.--ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a discrepancy between the "container category only" description of this category and the way it is being used in practice. The current usage would appear to be supported by discussion elsewhere, so perhaps {{container category}} should be removed?--ukexpat (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

See here for what Ukexpat means. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest this discussion be moved to the LGBT wikiproject, as it applies to all LGBT categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It looks like the categories should just be categories and not "container" categories. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd say that if someone is clearly LGBT, but hasn't specified which particular category they are, they should be in a LGBT category. If they have specified which category they are, put them in that specific category. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep as container This is a tricky one. We have many categories that only are LGBT, e.g. Category:LGBT_dancers, Category:LGBT_magicians,Category:LGBT_producers, Category:LGBT_judges, etc, so there is precedent for categorizing as LGBT without dividing into what @Bearcat: calls the quadrants. That said, putting someone into any of these categories, if they themselves haven't personally identified as queer, lesbian, gay, or bisexual, is potentially problematic per WP:EGRS. For example, we may have proof that male politician X was sleeping with male Y, but that would only make him a MSM, so it would be problematic to categorize them as LGBT because this isn't necessarily something they identify with. If you have an actress who admits to having dated people of both genders, but doesn't identify as bi or queer, it is also problematic to put them in LGBT categories for the same reason. As such, I think when we do have divisions by quadrant, the LGBT container should be kept as a container, because we want to ensure that someone fits into one of the five (gay, lesbian, bi, queer, trans). In the same vein, someone shouldn't be in Category:LGBT judges if they haven't specifically identified with one of the LGBT identities. I suppose the one exception could be someone who identifies as LGBT or makes some other explicit statement that they identify with the LGBT spectrum, in which case an exception to the container-category rule could be invoked for a particular actress if she identifies as LGBT w/o getting more specific.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The main problem to me about this is that when subjects don't self-identify, editors end up making a judgment call based on behavior, but per WP:BLPCAT sexual orientation categories are strictly self-identification categories, not behavior-based categories (surely this goes for the generic LGBT categories too?) If a subject has reached some undefined threshold of same-sex behavior, the editorial judgment often seems to be that they inevitably "have" to belong to one of the LGBT categories. Usually it's same-sex long term relationships. But it happens that even people who have same-sex long term relationships identify as heterosexual, so it's not a given that these behavior-based judgment calls are accurate, as per BLP policy.
(I also agree with Obi-Wan Kenobi above that those who self-identify as "LGBT" in some manner are an exception. For example, for a time the most recent self-identification by Michael Urie was "a member of the LGBT community" and he was put in categories accordingly.) Siawase (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I concur. Self-identification gives us a bright-line rule to put people in these cats. Short of that, it becomes OR or some arbitrary threshhold of behvaior (but she's been with a woman for 10 years, we have pics of them kissing!) - LGBT is a package of identities but there is a wide range of sexual behavior outside of that package and there are people, as noted by Siawase, who never identify with that package. Men who have sex with men is one very good example, but there are others.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I sense that my original question perhaps wasn't clear. There is a discrepancy between the "container cat only" designation (which means that it should contain only relevant sub-cats, and not itself be used to categorise articles) and the consensus practice to follow "subject self-identification", which in practice means ignoring "container only" for those individuals who haven't self-identified sufficiently to fall into one of the subcats. I really don't care either way, but from a wikignome's POV, the discrepancy needs to resolved.--ukexpat (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Heterophobia RfD

A discussion that may be of interest to members of this project is taking place at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 9#Heterophobia. - MrX 00:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Is ABilly Jones notable enough for an article?

Hi.

My dear friend, ABilly Jones-Hennin, has been a mover and shaker in the DC LGBT community for decades. He was a 2007 awardee of the Community Pioneers awards given by the Rainbow History Project. You can read about him here. Obviously, I can't write about him for Wikipedia, as I doubt I could maintain a NPOV on him. But I thought I would suggest it to you.

Billy helped found the DC Coalition, along with Darlene Garner and others, and is mentioned and pictured in this article, which is the first reference in the article on Ms. Garner.

From the Rainbow History Project page: "Billy Jones founded the first political organization, local and national, to represent the views and interests of African-American gay men and lesbians. For over thirty years, he has ensured inclusion and representation of people of color in gay community organizations and politics."

They have a list of 50 or so LGBT pioneers here. There may be others in the list worth writing articles about. Paulmlieberman (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability is determined more by the amount of third-party media coverage a person gets and less about what the person actually did. This person has accomplished enough to meet inclusion criteria, but the other factor is collecting media sources about the person. It is my opinion that while the two sources you present are good, it would take ideally 2 more to make an article on this person definitely in compliance with Wikipedia policy. If you can provide two more sources then I think you would have a better argument for making an article. Present the best ones you can find. If you want to start the article then you can. If you have good sources and start it as 3-4 sentences, then at least it would be established and if you are short, there will be no bias and perhaps someone else can expand it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Blue! I'll take your advice on that. Actually, I've just discovered that somebody in 2010, citing copyright issues, gutted the article on the National Coalition of Black Lesbians and Gays, leaving it with a sentence starting "Jones served as logistical director of the organizing committee for the march" without any mention of who 'Jones' was. I will try to rebuild that article, with good sources, and in the process, see what I can find on Billy. Paulmlieberman (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Indian Supreme Court recriminalises homosexuality

[2]; could do with someone with more time than me at the moment to update it. Sceptre (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I have done a little including an ill-received nomination at ITN, but Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi also needs updating.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

transgender category

i dont know what the community consensus here is, but on 2013 in LGBT rights#December I put a tag to clarify what term to use. Could someone fill that out?(Lihaas (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)).

The answer is, surely, the pronoun that the subject chooses. Fiddle Faddle 17:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 Done I have looked at the reference, which uses female terminology Fiddle Faddle 17:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
But isnt there an objective version?(Lihaas (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)).
I amended to trans woman. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Dubro

More eyes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Dubro please. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Image "dump"

I am in the process of an image dump. Meaning, I am in the process of uploading a large amount of previously unreleased images under the categories of "Gay Pride in Sacramento" (a new Wikimedia Commons category) and all images I have from the California Prop 8 protest at the Ca. State capitol under the category of "Demonstrations and protests against California Proposition 8 (2008)". Just a notice in case any of the images have relevance to any articles currently in need of images. If there are other such images that others have pertaining to our project and would like to upload...feel free!--Mark Miller (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Arg! This is why I haven't done this. I have so many images that doing it one by one is hard enough, but now the upload wizard is acting up again and I have to use the old form. If anyone can help me understand a better way to do this...shoot me a message on my talk page!--Mark Miller (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
When I have lots of closely-related images to upload, I upload the first one in the long-winded way. Then I open its file description page in a new browser tab, and click "edit", this shows the Wiki markup for the file description page - there should be an {{Information}} template, one or more license templates, and (hopefully) some categories. Back at the first browser tab, I go to the old Commons:Upload screen, in which there is a link to the basic upload form.
Using that, you can significantly cut down the number of form items that you need to complete, since only two are mandatory: the destination filename (which should get filled automatically when you select a file using Browse... in the "Source file" box) and the "Summary" box. In that, delete whatever's already there, and then paste in the whole of the Wiki markup from the file description page that you have in the other browser tab - you just need to amend the description, and check that the other items are correct. Assuming that the Wiki markup that you just pasted contains at least one licensing tag and at least one category, you can safely ignore the "Licensing" form item and the "Categories", and go straight to Upload file. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
One thing that I forgot: if there is a [[Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard]], it's best to remove that when copypasting for the sake of accuracy. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Mark Miller. Some others have discussed doing this for every pride everywhere in the world every year. Discussion is at meta:Wiki Loves Pride. Have you seen that? Whatever you do and whatever you discover, could you please document it? If you are unable to document it, could you contact me by voice sometime through an appointment made by email and I will type what you say while you talk? If you want advice about setting up categories, I think that Another Believer would have put the most thought into how they should be set up. I really appreciate your taking initiative in doing this and I hope that every LGBT community organization in the world follows your lead to archive this history. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
@Mark Miller: I've just found commons:Commons:FAQ#I have a lot of files. Can I do a batch upload, rather than one at a time?. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual

Are there any guidelines on whether to use "gay"/"lesbian" vs. "homosexual"? Not looking for a flame war, just a simple yes or no answer. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. BLP guidelines state that we use the language that the subject identifies with.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that "homosexual" is used when discussing some medical issues as the definitions don't always translate. The other time is to use it in historical cases when that was the terminology at that time. Many words are archaic so it may help to state how this would be termed in today's time. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Kaldari is referring to this edit I made, after she made this edit, at the Rape by gender article. As seen in that edit by me, I pointed to the following extensive 2012 discussion about this matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual. There have been similar discussions at this WikiProject about this matter as well, but the aforementioned one is the most extensive one thus far. Flyer22 (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yep, you did the right thing there. What Sportsfan5000 says is more accurate here, as this is not a descripter of a persons own identification and is more of a term of clarification. Homosexual would not be quite as accurate in this case.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The discussion that Flyer22 pointed to was more of an argument than a consensus. And the BLP policy doesn't apply to articles unrelated to BLPs. It appears to me that there are currently no consensus guidelines on this issue. If the editors here feel that there should be, I would encourage you to formulate a proposal for an actual guideline that other editors can refer to. Kaldari (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The consensus in that discussion is pretty clear, from what I can see; I'm certain that most others at this WikiProject would attest to that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. I had stopped reading it after the first 5 or 6 pages of discussion and never saw the actual proposal at the end. You guys should really make it easier to refer to! Regarding the guideline itself, it seems to only address using "homosexual" as a noun. Is there any consensus for its use as an adjective? Kaldari (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
It looks like this is getting handled, but I do feel inclined to mention (regardless of whether this issue is even related) but BLP policy relates to all space within Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Kaldari, I'm talking about more than just the proposal at the end, since WP:Consensus is about more than polling, but the weight of the arguments as well; a significant majority in that discussion felt that using "gay" or "lesbian" is preferable to using "homosexual" in the examples mentioned...and most of those arguments are strong. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, I forgot that Mark Miller is Amadscientist (I just find out a few weeks ago); he took part in that discussion as well, though he arrived to it late, and also made valid arguments (for example; I don't think that it's too accurate to compare the sometimes-offensive term homosexual to the almost-always-offensive term nigger either). Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
@Flyer22: The impression that I get from that discussion is that homosexual is offensive when used as a noun, but not when used as an adjective. See the relevant comments from Kevin, Rivertorch, and Trystan, for example. Kaldari (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Basically, as I have always understood it, gay is always preferred, except when clarity is absolutely key (e.g. the sentence "men who identify as homosexual but not men who identify as bisexual").Zythe (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for entering the discussion late, but I wanted to add my two cents to the pot. I tend to avoid using the noun position for describing sexuality or gender, including the use of homosexual and gay (as the terms describe but do not define a person; so I wouldn't simply state that "x is a homosexual" just as I wouldn't state "x is a gay"). With regards to 'homosexual' versus 'gay'/'lesbian', I would agree with Zythe and others above that 'homosexual' is used specifically for describing sexual activity, but 'gay'/'lesbian' is used for individuals in broader contexts. Probably a good example is the text I used in the Background section for Bronski Beat album The Age of Consent:

I hope this adds to the discussion. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Bronski Beat's The Age of Consent

Hi! I am currently working to improve the article for Bronski Beat album The Age of Consent, and a couple of things I'm looking to really expand on is the state of LGBT discrimination in the UK at the time, as well as the legacy of the album in the LGBT community. I would really appreciate any sources or text that people can provide. Thank you — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Gay men in American history

This article needs improvements, like name changing. Also, the I predict that we would see 2020s, 2030s, etc. --George Ho (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If the article is still around many years from now, sections on later decades would presumably need to be added. I can think of arguments for and against a name change. Why do you think it should be changed? You might consider opening a discussion at Talk:Gay men in American history and expand on what you've said so that people who see this thread will have somewhere to comment after they check out the article. Rivertorch (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The talk page there is deadbeat. I figured that I start here. If the decades can be mentioned separately, perhaps what can we do about the list of "notable" gay men there? Is it appropriate or not? In fact, I'm thinking about splitting up the article into two. --George Ho (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd recommend at least starting a thread there, so that people who go there will have something to see (and so that there is a record for future editors of any reasons or consensus for changes made). With regards to the article, I'd recommend potentially creating a list article of 'notable gay men in American history' (with inclusion by the usual criterion of self-identification), and perhaps re-ordering the 'Gay men in American history' article based not around decades, but significant events in the US such as the Stonewall riots and DOMA, especially when gay men were primary agents or targets of change. I'd potentially also recommend using the naming convention of 'United States' instead of 'American'. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm bad at bringing issues adequately. You can do it better than I can. George Ho (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Kiva (organisation)

There's a request for editing on the Kiva_(organization) article, specifically under section "controversy over transgender loan recipients". There are some concerns about how the article refers to transgender people on the talk page. I'm not sure how to reword this so could someone who knows more please take a look? Cheers Acb314 (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Kiva (organization). Rivertorch (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks for your help. Acb314 (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Controversies concerning GLAAD

Why aren't there any controversial issues listed underneath the GLAAD wiki? The GLAAD wiki appears to be issue free despite what has been on the news media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1580:ED4:613F:668E:CD74:9987 (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Why should there be? Teammm talk
email 22:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Archive_46"