Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies
|
None of us have met in person?
182 members? Doesn't that seem ... wrong?
So is anyone up for a Northeastern US WikiMeet? I know there's another NH person, and David, you're in NY. And Fireplace, you're in Cambridge, MA, right?. Anyone else in the northeast? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd be up for a NE Meet. I'll photograph it. --David Shankbone 21:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Shame I can't go to the Manchester wikimeet, or I could have met WJBscribe... Anyone else here in England who could go to the Manchester one? Dev920, aka 82.34.242.138 21:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is there a date for the Manchester one? This may sound odd, given that I'm in Oklahoma, but... it would probably be easier for me to get to one in the UK than one in NE USA, given that I'm spending a good bit of time in the UK this summer. Philippe 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- June 8 has been decided, so far as I know. I got us in the Signpost as well, woo! DevAlt 15:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is there a date for the Manchester one? This may sound odd, given that I'm in Oklahoma, but... it would probably be easier for me to get to one in the UK than one in NE USA, given that I'm spending a good bit of time in the UK this summer. Philippe 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I should have known that was Dev by the Jake Gyllenhaal edits! --David Shankbone 01:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Lol, I suppose that does make it kinda obvious. DevAlt 15:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm actually in NY for the summer. I'd be into it. Fireplace 23:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Are there any others in Australia? --AliceJMarkham 13:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm in Albany, New York. Bearian 03:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- We are (sorta) having one in Madrid, Spain (actually, members of the Spanish project will be getting together for the Europride event hosted in Madrid this June). If you wish to drop by... ;-D Raystorm 10:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
California, anyone? — Emiellaiendiay 05:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Homophobia
Hey guys. :-) Seems there's a rising wave of Homophobia going through Eastern Europe right now. In Moscow, gays have been insulted and bashed for trying to give a letter to the mayor so he would allow the gay pride march (which is now prohibited). Well, the police not only didn't protect them, but in fact detained them. In Poland, authorities want to investigate if the teletubbies promote homosexuality. The European Comission was against it, and the polish authorities have backed down (for now). Do we have Homophobia in... articles? Should we add this kind of info to the Homophobia article itself (as they do in es:wiki, but, for some reason, not here)? What do you think? We could even create a Homophobia taskforce. I have a few interesting references about this phenomenom but (alas!) they're in Spanish. Cheers Raystorm 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Homophobia is hardly new and with increased visability comes increased violence - in word, deed or both. An article about homophobia in Eastern Europe might make sense but I caution against calling it a wave as that can be harder to prove and more subject, one person sees it clearly, another not so much. Benjiboi 17:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- LGBT rights in... would probably be the best place - see LGBT rights in Poland for example. And a taskforce is a great proposal, even if our track record with them so far has not been brilliant. :) DevAlt 06:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I was using the words the media here have given these recent actions. :-) I'm more neutral than that (I think. I hope!). But there really has been a rise of Homophobia lately in Eastern Europe (Rusia, Latvia, Ukraine, Poland...). An article about it might not be amiss. At this point, I only want to know if people would be interested in creating a taskforce to coordinate and record all the info, in such an article or LGBT rights in... articles. :-) Raystorm 10:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest simply starting the most accurately titled article and adding to it as appropriate. Once it's created you might find other editors interested in the subject, and you can always re-post here for guidance or support if needed. Benjiboi 02:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Homosexual activity was de-criminalized in Russia in the '90's. What we're seeing isn't a rise in homophobia (ie, an increase in the number of people opposing gay-rights) but rather a vocal and violent backlash to homosexuals who are publicly asserting their legal rights. If homophobia in Russia were actually increasing, we'd see the Duma reestablishing anti-sodomy laws (etc), increasing enforcement efforts, lengthening jail times, and so on. But that's not what we're seeing. My guess is that the press wants Americans to feel all warm and toasty by comparing present day Russia to America when they really should be comparing present day Russia with Russia twenty, forty, and eighty years ago. Rklawton 04:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Um, I am not American and I’m not referring to what the american media says. :-) I am Spanish, and I make reference to european media. And that’s how they are calling it. If you haven’t seen the images coming from Moscow, then, well, the american media is really trying to keep you guys all 'warm and toasty'. I suggest searching for them at youtube. And as I said, the LGBT activists were gay-bashed by on-lookers and then arrested (yes, they went to jail) by the police. And that’s the most recent example. As I said, there are other Eastern Europe countries facing similar problems. Poland has this law against the ‘promotion of homosexuality’, etc... Sorry, but there’s no 'american media' conspiracy here. And I find it curious, to say the least, that you don’t consider 'a vocal and violent backlash to homosexuals' as homophobia. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we are seeing these same images in the media. However, the points I raised above still stand. Those arrested were attending a demonstration (asserting their rights as I noted above) whereas twenty years ago these same people faced arrest at home simply on a tip from an informant. That's a huge difference, one that doesn't mark a "rise" in homophobia. Rklawton 13:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- They were not attending a demostration, they were on their way to see the mayor. But I do not wish to discuss personal opinions about if there is a rise or not: european media consider there is one, and if we want to write an article about it, we have the sources. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 13:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC) PD: You think it's a huge improvement they were bashed and arrested instead of being arrested by a tip? I'd say it's the same, perhaps even worse.
- Rklawton may be right here, Raystorm. Not that it isn't homophobia - but it may not be a rise in homophobia. It may just be more visible homophobia. The US had a similar situation during the 70s - see Anita Bryant. When the community starts advocating equal rights, the backlash is often violent and visible. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I used to live in Moscow, and I actually found it generally less homophobic than people had told me before I went. From what I hear, homophobia has almost certainly decreased since the Soviet era. We're not talking Amsterdam levels of tolerance here, obviously, but I really think that the violence we saw in the news is more to do with the rise of vocal right-wing groups than with a rise in homophobia itself. garik 14:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why is everyone focusing on the word 'rise', anyway? The topic was about Homophobia in Eastern Europe, and if people here wanted to help contributing to such an article, or a taskforce about homophobia. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I dunno. Why did you write this at the start of the thread Seems there's a rising wave of Homophobia going through Eastern Europe right now? I simply wanted to make it clear that this was a false premise. Rklawton 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- False? I have said 'Easten Europe', have I not? And there are sources for what I'm saying. You seem to focus only on Russia. Whatever. I have an answer now. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 10:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should now address the pejorative term "homophobia." In a clash of ideas regarding morality and rights, it's not reasonable or fair to brand one side "phobic" when such a suffix is generally applied to clinically diagnosed psychological maladies. The LGBT community has been subjected do numerous slanders and slurs. However, I'm not at all certain that it's useful to return the favor – at least not in an encyclopedic forum. Rklawton 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- While it's true that the suffix "phobia" is generally applied as you describe, the term "homophobia" is well documented in the context of discrimination, as plainly seen (and cited) in the lead paragraph of Homophobia. If you want to dispute the use of the term, I suggest you start there. HalJor 20:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hey there, RK. Whatever about the correctness of the term, it's extremely common parlance hence the article. We're kinda stuck with it :) It's clear from Phobia that the term is used in more than a clinical sense - Alison ☺ 03:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- The Moscow attacks were front page in San Francisco this week. Also I'm not sure if it has been spelled out but the trend, in America with queer hate-crimes, is that although attacks percentage-wise are down the level of violence within attacks are higher. If you are still looking for a place to document information you might check out Violence against LGBT people. Benjiboi 09:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Rklawton, you aren't listed as a member of this project. Would you like to join it? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 15:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the invite. I don't think I'm a member of any project, actually. Too many folks feel that membership = cabal = COI (and they may have a point). My primary interests are photography, vandalism (fighting), academics, and (of all things) formatting (wiki-gnome type stuff). I've got wiki-friends here, so I pop in from time to time to say hi or see if I can help out with something. Rklawton 05:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Rosie O'Donnell LGBT Portal formatting help
Hi, someone removed the LGBT portal because of formatting issues - it covered over text. if someone can figure out how to avoid this, please help. Benjiboi 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
infobox spouse
what are the policies--if any--regarding the use of spouse within infoboxes to indicate one's sig-other/life-partners etc. there's a mini-revert war going on over at Charles Nelson Reilly, and before i jump in with all fours with my opinion, i'd like to see where the community stands on the issue. --emerson7 | Talk 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm all for it, a la the Chip and Reichen "scandal" when The Amazing Race referred to them as married. However, I'm unaware of any policy or convention that supports it and I'm sure it'd be hard to enforce. Opposers would argue that if we allowed "unmarried" partners, editors would start listing celebrity boy/girlfriends and we'd have to change Wilmer Valderrama's infobox every week. ;) Of course, for gay couples who have officially married in other countries (Armistead Maupin) or are registered legal domestic partners (as in California) I think it's worthy and enforcable to list in infoboxes. TAnthony 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Or they could have been legally married in that other country, Massachusetts ;-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- LOL, forgot to mention that one ... ;) TAnthony 01:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Or they could have been legally married in that other country, Massachusetts ;-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"Spouse" notation on infobox templates
[Copied from User talk:SatyrTN, as it applies here. And, by the way, I agree with the idea to adapt the template to allow a "partner" parameter that would only appear if used. TAnthony 00:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC) ]:
Hi there-- as we have seen with Charles Nelson Reilly and others, the infobox template as it stands is both heterosexist and US-centric. People who wish to diminish the value and legitimacy of LGBT relationships, or promote a DOMA-type definition of "marriage" in general because of a personal belief POV, will make the argument we saw on the Reilly talk page. The issue is not just that article, but the template itself.
As the least contentious option, I would propose a second line be added to the template right under "spouse =" that says something general enough to cover all serious committed relationships. Reilly and Hughes were together for 27 years. Some heterosexual couples are together for long periods without marrying. Perhaps "companion =" or "life partner =" or "partner ="? I'd prefer something like that over a more sexualized term like "lover =" or something less serious like "boyfriend =" etc. Perhaps once we think on this a bit, we can raise the issue on the template talk page after reaching consensus among the LGBT editorial project team? In a perfect world, any committed relationship would be given at least the same recognition as, say, Britney Spears' 55-hour marriage to Jason Allen Alexander. Jokestress 23:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I just did that: changed infobox actor so there's a line for "partner", & changed the infobox for the Charles Nelson Reilly article so his partner shows as a partner, not a spouse. Other bio infoboxes need a similar change. It was easy to do. --Yksin 00:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Is partner unambiguous enough? Consider Raymond Burr and Robert Benevides: they were indeed life partners, but they were also business partners, owning and managing a vineyard together, information which is contained in the article on Burr. Isn't "partner" in this instance -- presumably there are others like it -- potentially confusing? --Rrburke(talk) 11:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- "life-partner" seems to be the phrase du jour for both queer and straits who aren't married. When in doubt check with a kindergarden teacher - they know everything! Another marriage example not referenced is when a traditional male/female couple is married and one of them transitions gender. Unless legal challenged and judged against the marriage license stands. Benjiboi 13:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that "partner" can be ambiguous between "business partner" & "life partner". And yet I have never once referred to my partner as my "life partner", though we've been together for 14 years. The phrase "life partner" is treacherous, because just as a lot of married people get divorced, so do a lot of "life partners" unpartner themselves, even after lengthy periods of time living together. "Companion" is almost okay... but then, my cat is my companion too -- it really does have a rather pet-like aspect to it.
- There is also the possibility of going back to "spouse" with the argument that "spouse" is not necessarily a legal definition -- which is what the person insisted who had the original problem with the Charles Nelson Reilly infobox.
- Personally, I continue to prefer partner when discussing my partner, or other unmarried partners. Maybe "domestic partner" to differentiate from "business partner" -- but I disagree with "life partner" for the reason I've already given. Let's keep on discussing this until we can come up with a consensus, & then if necessary can go change the actor infobox & other bio infoboxes. --Yksin 17:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, I've never referred to my wife as my "spouse" either, but I don't think I can object to the continued use of the term on those grounds. I think a broader consensus of what common practice is, beyond what individual preference might be, should probably be sought. Are you aware of any sources on the topic -- magazine articles on the naming difficulty, for instance? Maybe the following exercise might offer a useful starting point: what clarifying alternative would you reach for if you introduced your partner as your partner and your interlocutor seemed confused? --Rrburke(talk) 20:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't carry any weight, since it's just an opinion piece, but The Advocate had an article about what word to use. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, I want to add that if we come up with a consensus on a word to add to bio infoboxes, we probably should also bring up discussion with WP:Biography. --Yksin 01:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Gaymer
Someone redirected the page gaymer to gay gaming, being active in the gayming community I never once heard the term "gay gaming" unless it was used in a derogatory manner. Yet, there are a few academic studies out there that does use the term gaymer to describe people who identify as LGBT and play video games. I would suggest that this article be redirected back to its original title. --Pinkkeith 20:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would say that "gaymer" is a more appropriate ___location for the article. I haven't heard the term "gay gaming" either, and usage of "gaymer" is not limited to the community. Carom 02:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Renaming article to Faux Queen help
Greetings, I was interested in creating an article for Faux Queens (female drag queens) but a (one paragraph) article Bio queen exists and is wiktionary linked. I've worked with faux queens for over a decade but never heard of the phrase bio queen, is that in use in other parts of the world? If no one objects how can get the article renamed and how do I address the wikitionary link? All help appreciated. Benjiboi 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Even the article used as a reference says Faux Queen rather than "bio queen", so I'd say you're on pretty solid ground if you just BOLDly rename it. You can do that by clicking the "move" tab at the top of the page. —Celithemis 00:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed. I've moved it and done some associated tidying up. Bio queen now redirects to faux queen. I've also added {{transgender footer}} and {{LGBT-stub}}. If you enlarge the article beyond stub, remove the stub tag. If you make the article big enough that the {{transgender}} right-side template won't dominate, convert from footer to side. It appears that "bio queen" was transwikied to wikitionary, but has since been deleted. I've taken the transwiki tag out of the talk page, so the bot might transwiki faux queen. Hope that helps. :) --AliceJMarkham 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- The Wiktionary entry is still in the holding area for transwikied stuff, at Transwiki:Bio_queen. Someone with an account on Wiktionary could just move it to Faux Queen. I'm not sure if you have to wait four days after signing up to be able to move pages there. —Celithemis 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've created wiktionary:Faux queen now. :) Aleta 01:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- The Wiktionary entry is still in the holding area for transwikied stuff, at Transwiki:Bio_queen. Someone with an account on Wiktionary could just move it to Faux Queen. I'm not sure if you have to wait four days after signing up to be able to move pages there. —Celithemis 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Article is looking somewhat respectable now. I'm not all geeky smart for formatting but welcome any changes to the template or even the first reference which keeps appearing wrong. Any other ideas might be better placed on the talk page. Benjiboi 02:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
New vandal
It seems that a new user, Mrphph (talk · contribs) has been editing some TG articles towards saying that drag queens includes any male who dresses as female in public and that we are "She-male" prostitutes. Could people keep an eye on this user's contributions for a while, please. --AliceJMarkham 03:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
New Article - Gay Teacher; Joe Acanfora
hello all .. I am a first-time article contributor of the "Gay Teachers Fight to Teach - The Case of Joe Acanfora", and clearly admit I am not up to speed on protocols and styles of Wiki articles. I very much welcome your review and comments on the article and ways to improve it. I'm not certain why the article does not appear based upon my searches (??) but hope you can find it here.
regards Ja3ja3 16:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- The full-text search can take a while to update, but you'll find your article at Joe Acanfora. I've moved it back there because Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, uses simple noun titles rather than headlines like a newspaper. —Celithemis 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Opinion on Inge Meysel?
Hi! I've run across Inge Meysel and would like some opinions. I didn't find any references about her bisexuality, but I asked Gilliam for some help and he replied:
- Here's what I read in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung article about Inge Meysel.
- She said in 1992 to Deutsche Presse-Agentur "I was bisexual, I the mother of the nation... I have learned to know bodily love through a woman at 17. But that was the only time."
- She said in 2001 to the magazine Bunte "Who ever is not bisexual is missing the best of course."
- This article from 2000 [1] reports on an interview and the headline is 'Inge Meysel: bisexual and happy'. It claims that Meysel had her first and last sex with a woman.
- A Yahoo search in German [2] produces many results. Gilliam 21:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Given all that, is she bisexual? I mean, one experience, but a couple of statements. What do others think? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Given the perspective of her generation I would say yes. That she used the term at all and said so. Did she ever deny it or was she married? Benjiboi 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I see no ambiguity here. We certainly can't second-guess an out bisexual based on whether or not she had "enough" same-sex partners. —Celithemis 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Based upon what you've cited here, there doesn't seem to be any question. Aleta 01:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Guess I was being overly cautious :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
How to deal with a personal attack?
I reverted an exceedingly inappropriate non-NPOV edit in the hair removal article yesterday. Not only did the user revert back to the inappropriate version, but personally attacked me in the edit summary. I'm not certain what is the best course of action in these circumstances and would welcome suggestions from others. --AliceJMarkham 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Document and take the high road. Looking at that contributors effort for Dumb blond may indicate your not about to win new levels of enlightenment. Benjiboi 23:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NPA says the initial response should be to ignore it. If things escalate, there's a list of options. But do let us know if that gets out of hand! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Having dealt with a personal attack situation that started off tiny and ended up a big mess, I would agree that you "ignore" this initial attack but monitor this user's contributions to see if this sort of abuse is a pattern. The first steps of "official arbitration" basically involve apologies and bygones anyway; if you do see a continued pattern of abuse, you might want to leave a polite message on the person's talk page (or ask me to do it) telling them that their edit summaries etc. may be construed as offensive and should be toned down. Their response (or lack thereof) will probably tell you right away of they just had a bad day or if they're the "crazy type" that cannot possibly be convinced they are wrong. With an obvious pattern of bad behavior and some warnings, an unrepentant user can be blocked, sometimes forever. TAnthony 02:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's not looking like getting out of hand. I had to laugh at his response to my comments on the talk page, though. :) --AliceJMarkham 05:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Has been nominated for speedy deletion. Has anyone got any sources for it? Nick mallory 02:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Although it's always nice to have an editor point out how an article could use help it seems like that editor simply tagged all these for speedy delete, I suggest watching for future activities. Mandate magazine, On Our Backs, Men (magazine), Playguy, Bear Magazine, QX (Swedish magazine), Gay Youth UK, GayRomeo, Gaydar (website), Utopia (website), Gingerbeer (web community), GayOne, DataLounge, AfterElton.com, AfterEllen.com, Manhunt.net, PlanetOut Inc.. Benjiboi 06:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Has been deleted by a newly appointed 18 year old administrator. This site is a pathetic joke. Rubywine 00:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Someone else? (User:Tobbytobby) nominated some sites for speedy deletion last night, without bothering to use the right templates (db-web for some magazine entries) or noticing that previous deletions were overturned or decided as "keep". These sites included: Bound & Gagged (magazine), Blueboy (magazine), Adam4Adam, and OUTeverywhere. One did get deleted, though -- I think it was Big Muscle. HalJor 00:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Has anyone contested Gingerbeer? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am the author of Gingerbeer, and I've commented on Reedy Boy's talk page. If there's somewhere else I can go to contest the issue then let me know. But whatever the outcome, I didn't keep a spare copy of the article. I'm really annoyed about this. Rubywine 08:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Reedy Boy replaced Gingerbeer (web community) pretty immediately after Rubywine's complaint; see also Rubywine's talk page, where Reedy Boy was quite civil and responsive. I can't say that calling Reedy Boy "kiddiewinks" was particularly civil, however. --Yksin 08:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- And I can't say that deleting a decently written article which is tagged as coming under the scope of this project without any thought or discussion is particularly civil either. However, I was happy to accept his apology. Rubywine 09:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- To which I should add that Reedy Boy has come back again to offer help if there are any further problems with the article in future. So he is clearly a good guy, and I have apologised to him for the snarky tone I took before. Rubywine 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything we can do to prevent this sort of thing from happening? — Emiellaiendiay 05:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. (1) Write articles that besides asserting notabilty of the articles' subject, also proves it by with good, verifiable sourcing. Too many articles have little or no sourcing at all. If an article is worth starting at all, start it with good reliable info, even if its only stub length. (2) Keep articles on your watchlist & check your watchlist often in case batch-deletion homophobes or anyone else marks it for speedy delete or AfD. (3) If it is marked for deletion, advocate for it with intelligence & civility & facts. If the person who marked it for deletion is a "bad guy," get help by discussing the situation with others here &/or with an administrator you trust. --Yksin 08:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- This was the second (attempted) deletion within two days of an article which clearly asserts its significance. The article has good, verifiable sourcing, in that it points directly to Gingerbeer and its forum statistics, and anyone spending a minute there can verify that the site is highly active. What more do you expect? Even the most popular and significant of UK sites for LGBT women is highly unlikely to have received any attention from scholars or the mainstream press. The gay press is not archived on-line. We are a small social minority, with all that that entails. Rubywine 09:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Rubywine. I don't know if we've met, but I'm glad to see you here. =) I've been involved with the LGBT Wikiproject for a few months now and I've become an admin in the meantime, so I see things from both perspectives. I've seen articles I wanted kept be deleted, and vice versa. There are some abusive users here, but we do our best to stay on top of them and minimize the damage. That said, there will be some articles that get deleted, for which you or someone knows they are notable, but others cannot verify that notability. WP:N is a guideline and open to interpretation, but WP:V is non-negotiable for all articles. If we can't verify something, then we can't print it, and if we can't verify anything about a subject, then we just can't have an article about it. Sources, of course, do not have to be online. A lot of people expect that they do, since this is an online encyclopedia, but actually an article can be entirely sourced by offline citations if that's necessary, as long as the citations are to reliable sources that fulfill WP:RS.
- If ever you find that an article is deleted that should not have been, there are always options for undeletion. You've been here for a while, so this is a more general note to any newer users reading: there's help at Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?#What you can do about it. One of the most important things, though, is not to assume bad faith on the part of the deleting administrator. WP:RFA is pretty good at screening out jerks; almost all of Wikipedia's administrators are decent folks who want what's best for the project, and who only want to enforce our policies like WP:NPOV and WP:V. So if you feel like yelling at an admin, check my talk page for examples and try to use an appropriately enraged section header, like user talk:coelacan#What did you do that for?!?!?! Or, preferably, take a short break from the computer, fix a snack or walk the dog, and leave a cheery note on the admin's talk page asking what was the problem and how can it be fixed. A lot of admins are LGBT, many more are friendly, and this Wikiproject maintains good relations with the administrators in general. If there is one biased admin who's up to no good, the pattern will become evident and we have ways of dealing with that, but it's never advised to jump to that conclusion. And of course, every admin makes mistakes, every day, just like anyone else.
- If ever anyone here feels that you need an admin advocate, you have my talk page and my email. I won't violate policy, but I will do whatever seems sane to help you out. And as a side note: from my observations, bias exists on Wikipedia, but this Wikiproject is not feeling much of the heat. ··coelacan 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Coelacan has put this very well. I am also an administrator, willing to step in when needed. Due to the nature of a Wiki, there will be all sorts of people, from first time users to seasoned administrators, all behaving according to their own interpretation of the policies and guidelines. There is no set standard way of interpreting things, and no centralized administration involved in day to day decision making. The closest we have to a central administration only steps in when the normal channels of solving disagreements fails. This means that people need to be civil and discuss their differences. It also implies that mistakes will be made, but they can be corrected. People who behave rashly or who take extreme positions end up loosing the trust of the community. Eventually they either calm down, leave the project, or get banned. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 05:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
BAYSWAN tagged for speedy delete
Hey all. I added BAYSWAN to add context to another article about activist Carol Leigh and it's been tagged for speedy deletion - The given reason is: notability of the organisation is not suggested, WP is not Yellow Pages. BAYSWAN is widely quoted throughout WP and academia and I think I've fluffed the article to a decent stubby level but would like someone else to look at it as I'm bleary eyed for now. All suggestions appreciated. Benjiboi 03:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- You've done a good job of getting the article to a good place. About the only thing I could suggest that would keep it from getting deleted for sure is to find a reliable source specifically about the organization. Not an easy task, given the subject, but if you can find one, you'll be free and clear. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, a damn good job of work on this article, Benjiboi. However, while no longer in danger of speedy delete, it's been put on AfD -- see AfD discussion here. After reading the AfD nomination I went & found some articles through NewsBank -- a subscription news archive service that I have access to -- three of which document the early history of BAYSWAN as it was happening (1997). I've emailed them to myself, & will add info from them tomorrow when I get a chance. Too late in the night for it now.
- Another thing which might be done for this article is to see if there are other articles which relevant to this one which might link to it. --Yksin 07:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestions, I've added a bunch of items through reverse research (finding research papers then tracing their research to find buried and misnamed articles.) Thanks SatyrTN for the one posted to the talk page. The subject's website is also "special" in its organization so that didn't help at all plus the different sex-worker organizations share research duties and don't always push for name recognition. (I think this comment was left by Benjiboi -- Yksin.)
- Just did a whole buncha work, with further sources. Thank goodness also for the Internet Archive, because that helped track down some stuff about what BAYSWAN was originally founded to do, & what organizations collaborated in its creation. --Yksin 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Result of AfD discussion was speedy keep, so this article is now safe. --Yksin 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Core Topics
The Core Topics list is now at 203, round about the number we said we would evaluate at. What does everyone think of the list? Is it ok? Is it broad and unbiased enough? DevAlt 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- New to the whole core topic idea but ... I would hesitate to put a cap and opt instead to choose a few from each category listed after getting the categories more well-rounded. Then looking at a historical and geo-political perspectives to ensure that the group of favored articles would be broad and inclusive and start from there whether it's 150-300 start with a round that's do-able. I probably wouldn't do too much as i have the attention span of a long commercial break so I imagine there are others who are in a like state. For categories I suggest adding Transman and Gender outlaws, I would change drag queen to just drag; I would remove Exodus Intl and Focus on The Family as I don't see either as having LASTING contributions that outweigh loads of other groups like MCC or the Radical Faeries. I would add Ellen and Rosie and Queer Eye for the Strait Guy. I also didn't see a LGBT / politics category but might have missed it. Benjiboi 15:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- The list looks really good. I don't mind having a cap, as having a relatively short list inspires people to dive in and start pushing articles toward GA/FA status (it had that effect on me). But I also don't like the idea of a fixed, definitive list... maybe just let people make additions/subtractions (on a 1-1 ratio) as they see fit. It's sufficiently buried within the LGBT project that I don't think it'll attract edit warriors. Fireplace 15:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- First I even knew that the list even existed. Rather surprised cross-dressing didn't make the list. I sorta see it as fundamental. :) --AliceJMarkham 15:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Which reminds me , Sumptuary law would fit in that same category, the laws were used to separate classes and gender but once you make a leap of drag the rest is easy! Benjiboi 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- What about Unitarian Universalism and LGBTQ persons? UUism has been strongly supportive of the LGBTQ community and of SSM. Aleta 16:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Are either of those (Sumptuary law & UU) really core? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think so, but I admit to being biased. I think UU is at least as important as Falun Gong, which is in the list. I'll go along with whatever others think though. Aleta 23:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sumptuary law is drag 101 and should be put in the drag category and le whoever does the work decide if it's important, the article itself is pretty extensive. Benjiboi 23:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
A Separate Wiki for LGBT studies?
I am genuinely shocked that the BAYSWAN article was even considered for deletion - especially when you consider all the trivial crud that goes unchallenged. Having to defend socially useful, decently written articles against all the so-called Deletionists seems a total waste of time and effort. I am seriously beginning to question whether I want to spend any more time at all supporting Wikipedia. Wouldn't it be more efficient and productive - and helpful for the global LGBT community - to set up a separate Wiki for LGBT Studies? Please discuss. Rubywine 17:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration, but no, I do not think it would be helpful. The benefit of Wikipedia is that our history is integrated with global history. I disagree with balkanization in this regard. It is up to us to defend notability, and we all have let-downs as to what is not considered notable. If something is of particular note and interest to the LGBT community, then e-mailing members and letting them know an important article is in danger of being deleted is one tool we have. It's up to each member to review the notability and make a decision. There are, however, problems. For instance, one thing that came out of my recent trolling problem is over drag queens. I'm not "into" drag queens, but they may interesting subjects to photograph. My troll went on to Miss Understood and kept trying to get the article deleted for lack of notability. Drag queens are typical not the source of news stories and discourse in the MSM, so finding mainstream sources that evidence notability can be challenging, and it was in this case. One of the sources is an erotica magazine (but also the NY Times). Drag queens have played a vital role in our community since Stonewall, like 'em or not. But they aren't the topics of mainstream coverage, usually. Here in New York, *I* know Miss Understood is a notable drag queen, and so do many others here, but finding mainstream sources that confirm it can be difficult. --David Shankbone 18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ideally, perhaps, but Wikipedia is such a well-known, much-used source of information that it seems like our best interest would be served by focusing our attention here. And as far as BAYSWAN, the article was a new, tiny stub when it was tagged, and the editor who did so seems to patrol new articles and mark them for notability, etc, which is something I do myself at times. Of course, I don't agree that he should be nominating everything for speedy deletion. But hey, his annoying tag did get the article up to decent status! TAnthony 18:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
There are really three issues with that:
- Unnecessary duplication of resources - all the infrastructure, process, sources of help etc, are already here. To try and build that all up on a separate website would not make sense.
- Fall in visibility - people constantly visit Wikipedia, it's the ninth most popular site in the world. That means we have a massive captive audience to feed neutral, factual LGBT information to. Remember, we're working to bring knowledge to straight people as well as gay. Startinga separate wiki would immediately reduce our traffic, and also cuts off potential new recruits to the project. Additionally, all the publcity material I have created and have planned advertises here. :)
- Loss of manpower A lot of the people who work on our articles are only minorly involved in our project - they see themselves as part of Wikipedia, not WP:LGBT. To move to an entirely separate website would be to lose these casual users. On top of that, many of our regulars also edit widely outside of the LGBT purview - I personally only fell into editing LGBT through Jeffpw, if I hadn't met him through the LGBT Barnstar proposal; I also help with films, Jake Gyllenhaal-related articles, and general maintenence, and would be more involved in the politics articles if I didn't work here. Moving to another site to focus exclusively on LGBT would be a massive hassle for me, as I'm sure it would other people here. Concurrently with this, many of our top editors are now admins, and thus they have a vested interest in remaining here.
In conclusion, it's simply not, in the end cost-benefit analysis, worth moving. We'd gain ownership of our process, true, but we would also lose our resources, manpower and most importantly, our audience. If you want to strengthen our position here, try strengthening the project - we only know LGBT articles are up for deletion if they are tagged with our banner and listed on our tasks template, so you might want to check our potential new articles list to see if any need tagging. Try cross referencing our lists to find entries that haven't been tagged. If we don't know we oversee an article, we can't improve it,a nd we certainly can't save it. A lot of our articles are unsourced, so many people mistakely AfD them without realising their notability. And finally, the more editors we have, the more eyeballs look over all our articles, so recruit, recruit, recruit. :) DevAlt 18:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well said, Dev! Aleta 21:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree. Moving away from wikipedia would be counter productive and would, in my opinion, be giving in to those who oppose our very existence. --AliceJMarkham 22:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'd rather stick it out here & advocate for good representation here. I seriously believe that the recent rash of speedy delete attempts was the work of one or two particularly homophobic vandal-types, which unfortunately in a couple of cases resulted in less-experienced admins making errors -- thankfully fixed in at least one case. But overall I think the LGBT studies stuff on Wikipedia is only getting better & healthier, and so with articles dealing with sexuality. BTW, BAYSWAN still has four days to go under AfD. Besides the nomination, three votes so far, all of them to keep. The article itself has undergone a huge amount of work -- no longer a stub, & I think notability is pretty darn clear. --Yksin 23:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
From experience, there are 2 techniques for article creation that tend to avoid deletion. The first is good practice, the second is very dubious to the extent that I'm hesitant to mention it.
- Instead of creating a stub, aim to create the article at start class, complete with at least 6 solid refs. I don't know what implications that would have for jump-a-class.
- Create a redirect that makes sense. Wait several days before upgrading it to an article.
As I said, I see the 2nd method as dubious behaviour and would much rather see the first one. --AliceJMarkham 00:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Another set of eyes...
Could I get someone to take a look at The Dresden Dolls? Are they Category:LGBT musical groups? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- According to the last bit of Trivia (which is cited), I would have to say "yes". I didn't read the source, though. HalJor 22:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- (ec) Mmmm. They're seen as, by many. I cannot comment as to the sexuality nor identity of the members, but the lyrics ... well, the lyrics are certainly LGBT-themed - Alison ☺ 22:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently, Amanda Palmer = bi - Alison ☺ 22:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Right - so Amanda has Category:LGBT musicians from the United States. Does that make The Dresden Dolls an "LGBT musical group"? Doesn't that mean the group is LGBT? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently, Amanda Palmer = bi - Alison ☺ 22:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with this article. --Allyn 04:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Seeking input into Newsletter
Does anyone have any input for the Newsletter? It's looking really sparse :) But I'd like to get it out in the next day or two, since it's already the 4th... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to propose that we consider a recruitment drive to find folks interested in LGBT issues who perhaps have limited experience with wikipedia but who might be willing to help research or even just read over articles checking for grammar, typos and accuracy. As the place is open 24 hours were pretty flexible schedule-wise! I envision reaching out to students and other folks in the education industries who have a vested interest in good research resources. Benjiboi 02:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
And we can have a summer theme like "knowledge is hot!" Benjiboi 02:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Question on the use of pictures
Folks:
For a while, I had a picture of myself in the Radical Faerie article showing an example of a Radical Faerie in full drag.
Someone took the picture off of the article, saying that I was too prominent in the picture, violating Wikipedia policy.
I looked through the policies and I could not find anything regarding having pictures of yourself in Wikipedia article, as long as you were not trying to sell anything in the picture or the article.
Do any of you know of anything prohibiting or discouraging pictures of oneself in Wikipedial articles? I would like to have some input before I decide whether or not to replace the picture.
Thank you for your help.
Cleara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allyn (talk • contribs)
- In looking at your talk page, it appears that they had a lot to say - including citing the relevant policies.[3] The main issue I see is that the images are relatively low quality - and that may detract from the article. However, I'd recommend leaving the images up until someone (yourself perhaps) can replace them with higher quality images. In short: leave the images up - they're no big deal. Rklawton 04:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointint that out; I forgot to mention that I had removed the link to my web site from my page here (someone had added it back and I removed it again. Also, at the time, I changed my own web site to indicate that I am not accepting commisions any more due to time limitations. I had hoped that these efforts would eliminate any suggestion of spam (as I am no longer in the business). However I have been having pictures (including the one in Radical Faerie) removed after my removing my link and clearly indicating that I am not taking commissions. As far as the quality of these pictures, I am saving up for a better digital SLR; the one that I have (Canon eos30d) is not a full size frame. The full frame camera (eos5d) is probably the one that I need for decent low light level work for the lighted clothing. That is in my plans for later this year. --Allyn 12:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- The 30D is a nice camera. However, to improve your photos, I recommend a less busy background, longer exposure times, and patience. The model will have to hold very still, but that's where the patience comes in. Alternatively, you might consider a manikin to model your garments. In that way, you can use much longer exposures. The 5D performs a little better in low light conditions, but since you are shooting still-life, you really don't need it. I'd much rather shoot a still-life at ISO 100 with a 5 second exposure than pay an extra couple of thousand dollars to shoot at ISO 6400 with a 1/80 second exposure. Rklawton 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
1972 Gay Rights Platform
1972 Gay Rights Platform is only sourced from rather dubious websites. But isn't it in some 1970s book too? Is this a legitimate document? If so, should it be moved to WikiSource? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
List of gay and bisexual people in modern written fiction
I have only just discovered this article exists. Can we clean it up a bit? It would be a great article to have if it were comprehensive. DevAlt 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comprehensivity is a pretty tall order! At first, though, I thought, well, I could at least add characters that I know of, & so could other people. But then I thought, well, no, I don't really find much use to this list, at least not in the way its organized now. To me a better organization would be to order it by author and book title, & then the characters within the book. That would seem much more useful for, for example, readers who was looking for good books that had LGBT characters. So... I doubt I will be contributing to this list in its present organization. But if consensus was that it be reorganized according to my suggestion, I'd be glad to contribute to it. --Yksin 01:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I may be wrong, but I believe there's a set of wikitools for creating a table that can be sorted by any column. That way it could be sorted by book, or by author, or by character. Should I look in to that? Or does anyone have a ref handy for that? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, that would be great if we can do it. I've made a suggestion about renaming the page on its talk page. Aleta 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- See Help:Sorting.
- There must be tens of thousands of gay and bisexual characters in books, though. It's not like TV or comic books where you can hope to be reasonably comprehensive. Limiting it to books with their own articles might help. —Celithemis 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Living Memory LGBT History Timeline from Trans perspective
Transgender Aging Network has launched a project - Living Memory LGBT History Timeline to assist with aging LGBT folks "It is impossible to tell without asking someone precisely which public events shaped their lives, but knowing what was likely reported in newspapers and discussed at dinner parties during a person’s lifetime may help you understand how their worldview was shaped. To offer insight into the concerns, lifestyles, and belief sets of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people who are now 50 and older, the Transgender Aging Network has constructed the following timeline showing how old they would have been when there were critical events or changes in the lives of LGBT people." Starting with the 1920s the events list can be cross-referenced with current GLBT timelines and used as a possible stepping stone to aid Trans projects and awareness. The PDF version is here [4] Html via Google is here [5] Benjiboi 04:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, great link. What a cool project, thank you. Joie de Vivre 06:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)