Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 213.239.200.200 (talk) at 12:05, 9 July 2008 (→Template:Baldwin). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Template:LGBT Navigation

Wider variation

  • NOTE: To reply you must do so here, this talk is mirrored onto many talkpages and is designed to be concurrent with all.

Is there an article that has a wider variation that is not exclusively for Lesbians, Gays, Bi(s), and Transgenders. I am looking for a word or article that is on the lines of "everything not heterosexual" and would include Asexuality, Autosexuality, Pansexuality, Paraphilia, Pomosexual, Zoophilia and, like i said, anything not "straight". I ask because i feel that people who aren't "straight" are usually grouped into that one social group and stereotype, one common stereotype (for men) that is prevalent is femininity (Effeminacy) if they are not "straight". --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queer/Queer Studies would probably be what you're looking for. though I doubt there is a single catch all phrase that means everything not heterosexual.The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Queer means non-heteronormative political striving. It does not necessarily refer to what you are looking for. I don't think there would be such a thing within the realm of language, to be honest. Diachresis.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. I do not believe there will be a phrase meaning everything not heterosexual except - non-heterosexual. For the sake of usage, LGBT is much better than queer in reflecting the homo/bi/trans/inter community. goodone (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could take a page from Orwell and let 'everything not straight' be known henceforth as "unstraight". Who's with me? Obietom (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is non-heterosexuals. Also, I must admit I'm curious to see where this goes. Banjeboi 02:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I say that if you're aiming for a word defining a group by who they're not, non-heterosexuals would be a fair choice -- it communicates exactly what you intend: a catch-all "non-typical sexuality" type. (My intuition says most people, straight or otherwise, won't bat an eyelash at the word's "... perceived heteronormativity.") hithereimdan (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion page

I was wondering if there might be interest in creating a deletion page similar to what the Wikiproject Video Games does here. I have noticed a fair amount of LGBT related articles coming up for deletion over time and it might be a good idea to have a place to house the discussions of them. --Pinkkeith (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please! Banjeboi 15:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started it up here. --Pinkkeith (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! Is there a way to add prodded articles? I just saved Transgender Law Center yesterday but were it not on my watchlist not sure if it would have been noticed. Banjeboi 16:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could add it to the bottom of the page as another section. --Pinkkeith (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unable to add a TfD, why? :-( It's this one. Snif snif, help? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can not figure it out either. It might be best to add {{tfdlinks|Same-sex marriage footer}} instead and have the reviewer click on the "edit" link to join the discussion. The way templates are organized and kept are different from other deletion discussions. --Pinkkeith (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking around for an answer to this question and found User:Ceyockey/Notifying WikiProjects of Deletion Proposals. It is a good list of other WikiProjects that use deletion notifications. --Pinkkeith (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the list I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender. Is what I set up a duplication? --Pinkkeith (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a duplicate as the same articles don't seems to be in both. It may be good to tie the two to each other. Also if you have the interest it would be nice to post an update to this list with each new article, item listed in case we forget to check up on that page. Banjeboi 16:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put it on the navigation template for the project. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question

does anybody know of a website that takes all the common arguments against homo/bisexuality and rebuts them in as much detail as possible? because I'm always repeating the same old stuff to people (and would prefer not to have to make such a website myself!) :)

p.s. sorry to post this here when its not related to wiki stuff. I didn't know where else to ask —Preceding unsigned comment added by P.MML (talk • contribs) 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the original but this is one of my favorites. Banjeboi 22:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12 Reasons why gay people should not be allowed to marry!

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer life-spans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Not knowing what information you're actually looking for you may also have luck with Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. Banjeboi 21:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things

I'm writing July's newsletter here. Let me know if you have any input.

As I was adding our new members to the welcome list, it occurred to me that we should be taking advantage of these fresh sides of meat fine people. Since it looks like we get maybe one person adding their name to the member list a week, what if we had someone add a welcome message to their talk pages and direct them to where we need assistance? Basically be an usher, delivering this (or something prettier, if you're good at graphics).

The WikiProject LGBT Studies welcome wagon
Welcome to our Wikiproject! Here are the places you can help out / people you can contact for help.
Please join our talk page for the discussion. Other messages go here...

Thoughts?

Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Please mention the new deletion page that was set up and because of it I've noticed that Satyrbot is likely no longer adding LGBT tags to articles so there are articles being added about GLBT subjects but never flagged to this project. Banjeboi 22:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have the member's list on my watchlist, and would happily welcome new members. Can you perhaps help me to create a little message directing people to the areas most critically in need of help? Glad to be back collaborating! Jeffpw (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume that most new members are also new to Wikipedia, and its policies and codes. Though code isn't too difficult to learn, policy sometimes is. Up in the box at the top of the page are links to articles that need wikification, cleanup, expert attention, etc. Right now, my best suggestion would be to link to those lists, with a disclaimer that if they're interested in something else they can ask established members of the group how to do what they want to do. Thanks for volunteering, by the way! --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fun, stress-free project, and I'll start on it with each new member!!!! Jeffpw (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we've had Template:LGBT Welcome, which produces

Hi, WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, welcome to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies!

We are a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to improving articles regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, aromantic, asexual and agender people. LGBTQ+ studies covers people, culture, history, rights, and related subjects concerning sexual identity and gender identity - this covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

  • Joining the discussion at WT:LGBTQ+ is a great way to get started.
  • At LGBTQ+/Collaboration, you can find a list of WP:LGBTQ+ participants and task groups.
  • Visit LGBTQ+/Editing for tools to help create, assess, and improve articles on LGBTQ+ topics.
  • LGBTQ+/Resources has style guides, external links, templates, and other tools that support researching and writing articles on LGBTQ+ topics.
for ages, and often one member or another would take it upon him/herself to put it on the pages of new members. I guess we've fallen down on that lately. Aleta Sing 03:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opera queen

Please see Opera queen. They have a point, though the Koestenbaum book theorises the construct.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update, article merged to queen (gay slang). Banjeboi 10:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New navigation box for LGBT/gay slang

heads up for other LGBT topics editors... there is a new navbox live at Template:LGBT-slang for English LGBT slang terms (with links at the bottom to Japanese and Singapore terms). If you would like to check it out and make any corrections or additions, it is at Template:LGBT-slang. The other day I added copy-to-wiktionary tags to a few slang entries (Acault, BGM (slang), Bean queen, Fag stag, Opera queen, Potato Queen) that had not advanced past the definition stage in a year or more. If anyone wants to try to salvage or merge them, the links are still in the navbox (just uncomment them out and remove the copy-to-wiktionary template from the article itself). peace.. --User0529 (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this! Banjeboi 09:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no prob..... i didn't want to tell them it was your idea in the earlier post in case you didn't like it or the mob attacked me lol. someone removed the copy-to-wiktionary tag from bean queen. Do you guys think it would be a good idea to just merge all of the ____ queen articles into the main article for queen? (some of them haven't advanced past the stub definition phase in over a year) --User0529 (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support merging them to form a Queen (gay slang) article. It would seem to be a fun project. Here's potential candidates...
  • Queen, princess and variations
    • Bean queen (also Taco queen or Salsa queen), gay men attracted to Hispanic gay men
    • Chicken queen, older gay men interested in younger or younger appearing men.
    • Curry queen, gay men attracted to Asian gay men
    • Dinge queen, gay men attracted to black gay men. Offensive use of 'dinge' meaning black
    • Drag queen, gay men into fashion or cross-dressing
    • Drama queen, gay men given to melodramatics
    • Gym queen, gay men given to athletic development
    • Pissy queen, gay men perceived as fussy, not to be confused with piss queen which can be a gay man into urine-play
    • Rice queen, gay men into Asian gay men
    • Rim queen, gay men into anal-oral sex
    • Scat queen, gay men into coprophilia
Also would you be willing to add list of terms for gay in different languages and terminology of homosexuality as "see also" links on the template? I think they might help those looking for list of terms or for ones not listed in the template itself. Banjeboi 23:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
replaced the Singapore and Japan links (which were only to sections within larger articles) with the List article you suggested.... wasn't sure if the other one fit into the slang template, but added reciprocal hat notes to both the List and Terminology articles pointing to each other. (feel free to add it to the template if you want tho) --User0529 (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NAMBLA

So I'm looking at the NAMBLA page and on the talkpage is this project's header - and it states that:

Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBT studies: The WikiProject banner on this article does not imply acceptance or endorsement of NAMBLA as an organization or the beliefs and practices of NAMBLA members by the LGBT WikiProject.

Only problem is - the first bit doesn't go with the second part - the first part promises an explanation, the second part is actually a disclaimer - those are not the same thing. --Allemandtando (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why that article is tagged for this project, other than the fact that the organization has been ostracized from LGBT coalitions farther than any other group of people. I don't have a problem with that. You are correct that that is disclaimer and not an explanation. I don't know what the explanation would be, and I would be up for de-tagging it. Others whose memories are longer than mine will probably remember why it was tagged. It may have caused a big discussion here. I don't know. --Moni3 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any homophobe with an axe to grind will be certain to namedrop NAMBLA at some point. Simply for that reason, I think this project has an interest in keeping an eye on the article to make sure it remains factually based. However, the shiny rainbow sticker at the top of the page does look, at first glance, a little like a Big Gay Seal of Approval -- perhaps the article could be monitored in partnership with WP:PAW rather than as part of the main project. Dybryd (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK - but what's it to be - is the project going to provide a disclaimer or an explanation or both? --Allemandtando (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The disclaimer was a compromise made after many well meaning but not too critically thinking people kept removing the LGBT tag. It was decidedd that the tag should remain, but that something weasily should be added so everybody would know that the LGBT Project was shocked and horrified that we are forced to include this obviously related article in our scope of coverage. Any reader of the article can see the obvious reasons why the tag needs to be on the article (though not the explanation). In various archives here and on that talk page you can see the debate and the consensus to have the tag remain. I'll try to reword it today.....<sigh> must we get into another discussion about NAMBLA and how it actually is part of LGBT history? It was tiresome the firs time, and I am certain that particular horse is now decomposed. No need to beat the poor thing any more. Jeffpw (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed my point - I'm not bothered about the tag, I'm bothered about accuracy - that tag is incorrect. So does someone want to change the tag so it reads disclaimer? --Allemandtando (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you seem to have missed the part of my post where I said I would reword it. I hope it now meets with your approval. Jeffpw (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's dealt with it. Banjeboi 09:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The changes take care of the problem so I think the problem is solved? --Allemandtando (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the current disclaimer violate WP:NPOV? Stating the project does not condone or support the organization (in bold red print no less) gives the impression the project has taken a moral/political stance on the issue. Shouldn't the disclaimer simply read "This article has been tagged as an aspect of LGBT history." I think the article itself presents enough prof most LGBT organization did not support the organization. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the archive btw, but I'm bringing this up again simply because wikipedia is not censored. I don't believe we can prevent any individual from assuming all LGBT people are child molestors and/or pedo-whatever- thats just the way of ignorance. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been called worse! Explanation trimmed. Banjeboi 10:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well...um...not resolved yet as the tag has been removed because it "attacks LGBT". sigh ZueJay (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gave it a go with different text...? ZueJay (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As a project, we feel..."

Please never say this. About anything.

Dybryd (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. We are not exactly monolithic. :) Aleta Sing 18:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no cabal. Banjeboi 04:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli LBGT organisation

Could people here have a look at Aguda and confirm whether I've got the "Israeli national LGBT organisation" bit correct? Thanks. Also, any Hebrew speakers could check whether I've got the "union" or "organisation" bit right for the Hebrew definition. Carcharoth (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on David Shankbone

See this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removed stalkish attack post which relates to this WikiProject and a few of its members. — Becksguy (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read this, along with David's article in The Brooklyn Rail. Though admittedly I don't know the entire story, it seems pretty messed up. --Moni3 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. The guy who is willing to be the bigger lunatic on the internet wins at Wikipedia again. David Shankbone is a real loss to the project. Dybryd (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:David Shankbone/72.76 has more of the story. Banjeboi 04:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities and gay rumours

Why are gay rumours more critically censored on WP:BLP pages than rumours which allege straight relationships? Controversy as a factor, is one I can only interpret as a cover for a heteronormative slant amongst Wiki editors and consequently, Wiki policy. Should this project actively work to include sections citing more reliable sources for relationships such as Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson, or work the other way and just as ruthlessly cull rumours of whichever ladyfriend Hayden Christensen is supposedly courting? I can't help but feel that the consensus interpretation of Wikipedia's stance on biographies equates mention of homosexuality with defamation of character, unless said party has already come out.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we are not some shitrag gossip magazine - regardless of sex, cull that crap on sight. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a less passionate response is that we have to adhere to WP:BLP, particularly about issues that are image-harming. Unfortunately, that includes sexual orientation. It may not ruin Hayden Christensen's career to know he has a new lady-friend. However, Tom Cruise has sued over accusations that he's gay. Wikipedia can be a target. --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have found it's harder to successfully cull mentions of Christian Haydensen allegedly dating Rachel Bilson than it been for editors to say, completely eradicate all New York Times-level speculation about say, Anderson Cooper. That was the point I was making.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree but have a different take. We have to ref our articles to a higher standard but it does make them better in the long run. Personally I sometimes enjoy the researching challenge and after we've done our work sometimes someone notices that or little referenced section is the only references in the entire article! In any case I see it only adding stress to point out the double standards. If you see something about ___ dating ___ then throw a {{fact}} tag on it if it seems appropriate. In our own little way we're helping realign the heteronormative blinders but realistically change takes time. If you want the subject might be a good wikipedia essay. Banjeboi 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors on WP:BLP regarding personal relationship should not be allowed whatsoever regardless of sexual orientation. Honestly, who gives a damn what celebrity is dating who? This is an encyclopedia - not a tabloid you pick up at the grocery store. Most "Personal Life" sections of BLP articles are nothing but a collection of tabloid rumors, or last person he/she was photographed holding hands with. If rumors regarding a person's sexual orientation or love life gain enough coverage to make the headlines of CNN, then maybe we should consider adding it to their biography- otherwise stick to what the person is best known for: their career. If there is a bias against homosexual relations, we should work to make sure heterosexual relations are equally disregarded and forcible removed, not the other way around. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT slang

I noticed this article was changed to gay slang, but I moved it to LGBT slang. I know there was a project to change many articles into LGBT. I figured this one was too with {{LGBT-slang}} template headed as LGBT slang. I believe there are some lesbian, bisexual, transgender slang out there that isn't part of gay slang. Until this article is larger I don't see a reason to narrow it to just gay slang. --Pinkkeith (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if you are just posting here to announce that you moved it, why is your edit summary for the move "Per consensus at WP:LGBT"? Kolindigo (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I second guessed myself. I was positive at the time of moving the article, but now I want to check if I was correct. Also, I added an index for the WP:LGBT talk page in order to easily find such discussion. --Pinkkeith (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

California Proposition 8 (2008) POV Tag

I POV tagged the page "California Proposition 8 (2008)" because of differences in opinion over a legal challenge detailing the technical difference between "amending" and "revising" the CA constitution. I'm hoping that members of the LGBT project will get involved and voice opinions on the issues. This is not a request for a specific view point, just a high level of involvement. Netbenefit (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baldwin

Please see Template:Baldwin. Little Man Little Man: A Story of Childhood is a collaboration; it is a children's book and Cazac did the drawings while Baldwin did the writing...It is not a novel...I have reverted the template about two or three times. (The book is not necessarily LGBT, though Nicholas Boggs has sounded out some in-depth queer seeds. The author was a major gay author anyway.)Zigzig20s (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article of Little Man Little Man: A Story of Childhood as that might be where the problem is. If that article calls it a novel you may have to add sourcing to show it's actually something else. Banjeboi 22:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, as Benjiboi says, the article calls it a novel, and it is part of the Novels Wikiproject. You said it is a children's book, but not a novel. How do you think it should be classified? (I see you have it in the template as a collaboration, but of course, that and novel are not mutually exclusive categories.) Aleta Sing 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should Arthur C. Clarke be included in the project?

or not??— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBTQ%2B_studies&oldid=224558254"