Jump to content

Talk:LGBT retirement issues in the United States

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DCirillo14. Peer reviewers: Mduno, Abergin13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History undeletion

[edit]

Since the article has been recreated, and the DRV result was to overturn, I've undeleted the history. However, the original version of the article was an essay, and it should not be restored outright. --Coredesat 00:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, whatever. We're in process of rewriting and referencing it all anyway so any essay concerns were being dealt with when the AfD was prematurely (and apparently wrongfully) closed. Benjiboi 00:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was just making sure. --Coredesat 02:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It was quite frustrating to have the rug pulled out from under our efforts and stalled when it was fairly obvious the article was going to be here. Benjiboi 03:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

[edit]

I suggest article be renamed Retirement Issues for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex People - it may seem a bit clunky but we're doing an encyclopedia here and articles sometimes have clunky but inclusive titles. Any thoughts, objections? Benjiboi 00:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's significant coverage of intersex-related issues to warrant that title. LGBT is the standard moniker on wikipedia... LGBT retirement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireplace (talk • contribs) 01:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. This is a rising concern with intersex people that they are not transgender even if they are commonly referred to as such and many of the issues overlap. Progressive organizations now list both transgender and intersex as the issue speaks to both medical rights and legal recognition. It costs us little to do so and frankly we'll be addressing their concerns anyway. Right to self-expression, self-identity, etc. Benjiboi 02:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what about LGBTI or LGBTQI - i think we are evolving in that direction. Scarykitty 23:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name would cover LGBTI, Q for either questioning or queer would be considered covered under the LGBTI issues; also queer is still not appreciated by those who are actually retirement age so is in much less use in conjunction with older generations. Benjiboi 00:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would however completely support explaining the "Q" in the lede; do you think it should be in the title? Benjiboi 19:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename addendum. This article deals with the United States only it seems. Therefore, the article title could include a "name-of-article (United States)" or "name-of-article in the United States" or something completely different that conveys the same point. Andrewprest (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple sources

[edit]

Someone might want to incorporate these... [1] [2]. Fireplace (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another source

[edit]

Jane and Jane magazine runs Over 50 articles. Benjiboi 19:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

possible source

[edit]

Bay Area gay senior housing closer to reality by Judy Richter, San Francisco Chronicle, 30 March [[2008]. Banjeboi 03:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious and biased claims

[edit]

"There are many problems facing elderly LGBT individuals.[7] They tend to have less money, worse health and they are much more likely to be alone in comparison to heterosexual people. There are several reasons for this but the main one is discrimination in the form of shunning from family, friends, and/or coworkers." Saying that the "main" reason for LGBT individuals being alone is "discrimination in the form of shunning" is an opinion, and a dubious one at that. Might the reason they are alone, instead of being "shunned" by family, be that they are much more likely not to be married or have children? How is the biological impossibility of gay reproduction the result of "discrimination?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.173.212 (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Possible Edits

[edit]

I have decided to work on “LGBT Retirement Issues”, however changing it to “LGBT Retirement Issues in the United States”. LGBT issues in retirement are becoming a larger issue with the first real generation of out people beginning to retire, often without the same support systems or acceptance of heterosexual counterparts (especially in the specified age range). The article is very lacking and a stub in quantity, with most of the information being personalized stories in the introduction. I would like to revamp this article in general to be broken down with more specified issues facing the community and the issues that affecting this community, specifically through history, behavior, and policy. I believe I can narrow this article in focus while expanding in content, and therefore provide needed information on a disenfranchised subsection of an already disenfranchised class of people.

For a list of reasonings, as well as citations and planned changes, here is a link to a google doc with a fully outlined proposal: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_fyYt58rWq5Qm12aUFnZjU4Ync/view?usp=sharing

DCirillo14 (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)DCirillo14[reply]

Peer Review

[edit]

Good start. Obviously more expansion is needed for most sections, but very comprehensive for an initial contribution and a good improvement upon the previous article. Would perhaps be good to add a section on LGBT+ specific accommodations? Or perhaps on things that could be done to address the specific needs of the LGBT+ community? No obvious sourcing issues. Good number of sources, especially for the length of the article. Overall the neutrality seems to be good, and I can't find any obvious violations of NPOV. There are some unnecessary commas and better phrasing (“twice as likely” instead of “double as likely” for example.) There are also some issues with issues with consistency of use of LGBT, LGBT+, LGB, etc.. Though they all have different meanings, some clarification might be helpful when you’re using them to refer to different populations. Overall good though. The article is slightly top-heavy because the lead is so long in comparison to the rest of the article. There's only one image so maybe some images of any facilities or something like that if applicable? The biggest area that needs to be improved is the content particularly in regards to comprehensiveness. Right now it’s set up to be a good, final article but every section still needs to be expanded. It would also be good to review the lead section and see what could potentially be moved down because the lead section currently appears to be longer than the rest of the article. Abergin13 (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I think that you already included a lot of very important and interesting information. My main suggestion from here would be to include more information on male sex workers and movements to rectify this problem that are not legalizing sex work. Perhaps it would also be beneficial to include more information about the difference in treatment of sex workers between countries that have legalized it and those who have. Mduno (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great job expanding this article! You included a lot of really important, relevant topics. I do think you could simplify your language and provide some more explanations of the quotes that you include so that the information is easier to read and digest. I also think it would be really great if you could add how the term “queer” has changed in its use over time and how that relates the aging LGBT population to the younger population. I also think you should cover HIV/AIDS and how it affects the aging LGBT population in particular. Keep up the good work! Dmaldonado08 (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good job DCirillo14! Make sure you source everything especially things that could come off as opinions. Some expansion of the Transgender-specific section would be good. I think Dmaldonado08 also offers some really good suggestions. Overall you've done a great job improving this article.Abergin13 (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DCirillo14! You've done an excellent job of expanding this article. Your contributions have been very informative and you did a good job of providing detailed information that gives a comprehensive overview of the topic for people who are perhaps not as familiar with it. Moving forward, I would suggest making sure that all of your ideas are properly sourced, as this would help to keep a more neutral point of view, and work on simplifying some of your sentences to make it easier to read. Good work! Courtwang (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments

[edit]

This is an impressive contribution. However, there are a few areas for improvement.
- The introduction could be more focused. As it stands now, the introduction draws in a variety of content which could be more appropriately organized into subsections. For example, the quote from Joel Ginsberg is medical-specific, and would make more sense in the medical section. Similarly, while the Stonewall riots were important, they are not specifically relevant to retirement issues. That kind of contextual information makes more sense to include in a subsection rather than the introduction.
- Some sections include citations to newspaper articles for statistics. In these cases, it is better to cite the specific study which the newspaper article quotes from, rather than just the newspaper article.
- Many of the citations are missing information or incorrectly formatted.
- The modern history section is essentially one long block quote. This section could be expanded or perhaps reworded.

Please let me know if you have any questions or would like help with anything. GavinCross (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT retirement issues in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LGBT retirement issues in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on LGBT retirement issues in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBT_retirement_issues_in_the_United_States&oldid=1260037871"