Just as a heads-up, I've begun the process of converting List of LGBT writers from a plain format to a table, more like that which has long been in use at the various subpages of List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. So far I've only completed the letters A, E, F, N, O, U and Y — I will continue with this, but would welcome any additional assistance that people are willing to provide, as it's a big job which I'm unlikely to be able to finish in one sitting. For the record, the process should not involve just converting the existing names, as there are a considerable number of people — including some highly notable omissions, like Emma Donoghue and Leslie Feinberg — who aren't on it but should be, and a few who aren't properly referenced. (Of course, it's not strictly necessary to catch every last missing entry in one pass, but if you do notice that a writer you know of is missing, you should add them in the process — and we should make it an active goal of the project to get the list up to more fully comprehensive status in the longer term.) Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
There are some worrying comments on the Homosexuality talk page. It seems that there will be consideration by some to add biblical reasoning for why homosexuality should be warned against due to AIDS. The community should weigh in. Sean Egan (talk)18:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion's last post was by a very experianced and well meaning editor who I believe might add information from Catholic or Lutheran sources which I feel could lead to similar references from Mormon sources and further religious references. While the editor has mentioned he may not get back to this it is better to keep an eye open on this. I think the editor has good intentions but I am concerned that they feel such sources "do not have a clear inherent bias (such as, for instance, the Lutheran Cyclopedia or Catholic Encyclopedia" That just didn't ring accurate to me. Being both gay and a recovering Catholic...I feel that much of what the church has and does write has little value on that article.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Well isn't WP:WEIGHT saying that anything religious is fringe on this topic against scientific information? Seems like a herbal medicine situation to me - mention herbal medicine a bit, counter with mainstream view. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)12:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you misinterpreted the references to the Lutheran and Catholic encyclopedias - he said "I can try to check the various highly regarded reference works on this topic which do not have a clear inherent bias (such as, for instance, the Lutheran Cyclopedia or Catholic Encyclopedia, both of which pretty clearly indicate from their titles that they have a certain POV)" - given the reference to their having a "certain POV" I think it's clear that he meant that they are examples of reference works that do have a clear inherent bias. - htonl (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I cannot speak for the editor. But claiming to not have a bias and claiming the title shows they have a point of view doesn't seem to be the same thing. But I like this editor a lot and am very confused by the whole thing.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding John's words, Amad. BTW, he came to the conversation at my request; I thought he might speak the IP's language better than either of us in explaining why that Bible verse did not belong in the article. LadyofShalott15:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I think I may not be expressing myself well. I don't think John has a bias(I can attest to this), I don't agree that the Catholic sources don't have a bias.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Either way, thanks for the help, guys/gals. I appreciate the attention to my concerns. Sean Egan (talk)19:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Problematic editor
User:Govgovgov (Special:Contributions/Govgovgov) seems to be moving around from article to article pushing an anti-LGBT POV on whatever article he can find, not to mention blatant launching personal attacks as well ([1]). And I swear that his edits are very similar to those of a blocked editor, but I can't remember the name. Since these articles are all related to this project, I thought I'd best leave a note here. --Scientiom (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I've had to follow your edits ever since we clashed at the UN article. Your POV is ridiculous and it's disrupting many articles. Govgovgov (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, MrX, as you are well-versed in procedure I request that you please do whatever must be done with this case. I'm also starting to feel very intimidated and uncomfortable at the harassment by this editor. --Scientiom (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Whether the user is AM or not, he is making a valid point. Your use of scare quotes is inappropriate as a violation of the MOS as you try to serve your POV. Why cant you craft text in a neutral manner? As I told you before your "break", stop making problematic edits and you won't have any issues. littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer22:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I have that article on my watchlist, and you've BOTH been edit warring. Scientiom, Little Green Rosetta is spot on in his assessment of your edits. Incivility in another editor doesn't excuse you from your obligation to follow NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Come on guys. Remember that the use of quotes has to have been used by the source. We have been discussing this on a lengthy RFC lately, and give LGR a break. They are an experienced editor and I think they know the policies and procedures pretty good.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Then we're all in agreement, then. The last thing any contentious topic needs is POV warriors who may or may not be socks trying to advance their agendas rather than equitably describe things in accordance with NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Commemt Scientom, I'm posting this here since you would just delete this from your talk page, but creating this section here is an obvious attempt to canvass for support. Your recent post at BlackKite's talk page appears to be admin shopping. If you have issues with another editor and can't work it out with them, try a notice board instead of a project or what you perceive to be an admin "friendly" to your plight. littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer01:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the idea that a project or an admin would be partial is an accusation too far, they are administrators for a reason afterall. --Scientiom (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Both Scientom and Govgovgov are edit warring. Govgovgov has admitted to hounding. Scientom did solicit input from a number of admins, but it appears to be to be innocent of canvassing - asking an admin to look at a situation is fundamentally different from asking an editor (whether admin or not) to !vote on a discussion. Govgovgov, you need to stop following Scientom around. Both of you should read WP:EW and WP:DR. Scientom, in the future, try taking issues to ANI so as to solicit input from a wide range of admins without the possible appearance of picking and choosing. I don't think there is anything for an admin to do here unless Govgovgov continues to follow Scientom around (hint: don't do that.) KillerChihuahua11:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, edit warring is occurring. But G isn't hounding in my estimation, nor would I think the community think so either should it be put to a !vote. Hounding is targeting an editor in regardless of the edits, which I don't think is occurring here. As far as canvassing, asking here in the manner Scientom did was clearly innaprorotate. I'm not asking for an action other than for Scientom to ponder this. Asking admins for advice/action/whatever is not canvassing, but the manner of the phrasing used was a wink/nudge. Not that I'm concerned about this as I don't think BK of any admin would rise to the bait. I would also suggest Scientom use other boards such as the NPOV board, 3rd opinion before seeking ANI assistance. littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer16:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. There is a dynamic IP that keeps erasing and blanking without comment all GLBT mention in Edgewater, Chicago even though there are several references. However, perhaps there is a subject matter expert that can take a look and see if there is anything to be done there. Not sure how one communicates with a Dynamic IP (Generally from the Milwaukee area according to the traker). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a subject matter expert on Chicago or the gay community therein, so I'll just do the admin thing. I've put the page under pending changes protection for six months. If they want to have a discussion, they can do so on the talk page. If they don't, I'm happy to up the protection further to protect against vandalism (which removing sourced material without explanation is). I've left the latest IP a warning. If they persist, feel free to ping me or another admin to either block or change protection. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
North American Old Catholic Church
I fixed the multiple issues at North American Old Catholic Church, but it may help to add it to a few personal watch lists in view of the page's history. -- Jreferee (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Workgroup
Just to keep everybody updated, I've started a new workgroup, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/LGBT in Canada work group, for LGBT issues and personalities in Canada. This new page is principally a subgroup of WikiProject LGBT studies, not a distinct WikiProject in its own right, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada is a secondary parent as well. It exists so that interested editors can more actively coordinate and organize coverage relating to LGBT topics in Canada, where a lot of relevant stuff has typically fallen through the cracks due to the relatively limited number of editors actively working on them. Anyone who's interested in helping out is welcome. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) changes its name
Just in case anyone here at the project doesn't already know this, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has announced that it will now only go by the name GLAAD, which used to be its acronym. The reason for name change is to accurately reflect its support of the LGBT community in its entirety. Its Wikipedia article was changed to reflect this.[2][3][4]
Presumably, most or all of you who know of the organization simply called it "GLAAD" already. But Wikipedia articles that use the old name, as "Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation" or "Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)" are now inaccurate on that matter, unless referring to the type of historical aspects that are covered in the History section of the GLAAD article. So in case any of you want to change such articles accordingly, that is the other reason for informing this project of the name change. Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings - the previous IRC channel for this WikiProject - #wikipedia-en-lgbt - has not been used for several months (it has been a bot and me hanging out alone for some time now) in favor of #wikimedia-lgbtconnect - as a result the WikiProject channel has been forwarded to #wikimedia-lgbtconnect - which generally has about 7-10 users a day. I will be updating various wikipages to reflect the change. The most obvious reason is that anyone needing help with enWP LGBT content would only find maybe a bot and I to answer their questions - whereas with the channel they will now find - there are typically at least half a dozen people around to answer a question. I welcome you all to join everyone hanging out on IRC at #wikimedia-lgbtconnect - good times are had by all. Thank you to the WM IRC Ops for doing the actual work. --Varnent (talk)(COI)19:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It should be noted that this is not a marriage symbol but rather a modified version of the Human Rights Campaign logo - which is also trademarked. They put this logo out there as a promotional tool - other LGBT organizations have put similar images out there using the icons from their logo. --Varnent (talk)(COI)22:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It should be corrected that this specific version is indeed a "Marriage Equality" graphic. All trademarks are promotional tools. So what. trademark, by the way, does not enjoy the same protections as copyright.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Unless it is added to the HRC article, or mentioned in the context of several of these appearing, it seems odd to pick one organization's essentially Internet Meme over the dozen or so other organizations doing the same thing with their logo this week. It should definitely not be mentioned as some universally adopted symbol of marriage equality. Also, based on their reputation for sending cease-and-desist letters for use of their logo or variations of it, I think we can safely assess they enforce their trademark and copyright over at least the yellow and blue version (not sure that necessarily matters - but since the copyright issue was mentioned). I was more pointed out originally that this should be mentioned as a logo variant - not indicating there's a copyright issue to consider. --Varnent (talk)(COI)02:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "trademark copyright". They can do whatever they have a right to under the law, but if this is indeed a trademark, we can upload it as encyclopedic value without it being used in any article.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay - but again - that's not the point. Someone requested this be placed in an article - I was addressing that - let's not get off topic over wording. :) --Varnent (talk)(COI)03:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
NB - the HRC logo, while recognizably their logo, may be too simple to qualify for copyright, as it's made of simple geometric shapes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Varnent, first you claimed the symbol was not one of marriage equality, which it is, then you claimed it to be protected by a "trademark copyright", which it isn't, and stated "their reputation for sending cease-and-desist letters for use of their logo or variations of it, I think we can safely assess they enforce their trademark and copyright over at least the yellow and blue version", which is a non argument for our free use of the trademark symbol in any article (which could be percieved to be something of a borderline legal threat...not that you were making it) and outright said should not be used anywhere but on the FRC article, which is a matter of consensus. Te request was to incorporate it into an article. Not that we ignore our referencing standards. Lets all take a breath and remember there is no rush, but there is also no brick wall here. There are indeed a good deal of reliable sources for the symbol and we cannot stop time or the real world situations that make it encyclopedic in nature and value.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Amadscientist - I think you have misunderstood me. I never said "trademark copyright" - I said "trademark and copyright" - but I also said that remark was in reference to my pointing out to some of the original posters that it was a logo - I never said it should not be used for copyright reasons. I have not made a fair use argument here nor have I nominated it for deletion anywhere - I simply said "this is not a marriage symbol but rather a modified version of the Human Rights Campaign logo - which is also trademarked". Not "which is also trademarked - so we better not use it for that reason" - just that we should mark it as trademarked since we have a template marker for that. And you are correct that the request was to put it in an article, as I said, I think if we do that, it should be in the HRC article or in reference to this being a trend that many organizations embraced. I am not sure why you feel we need to take a breath or that a brick wall has been hit - I suppose I can understand why you jumped to the conclusion that I was saying is in fact what you inferred and not what I meant - but I think you are assuming poor faith on my part. I am simply suggesting that we not label it as "THE" symbol of marriage equality (which some members of the media have mistakenly done) - as there are obviously many people around the world that would argue with that. Referencing it as an image that came up during the online debate over the Supreme Court cases, along with many other images, seems logical to me. I apologize if you misunderstood what I was trying to convey before. I work for a LGBT rights organization that also helped promote this image today and I know the people behind it - I am obviously not against it - but I want Wikipedia to use and reference it correctly. --Varnent (talk)(COI)04:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me be clear. A trademark cannot be copyrighted or treated in the same manner as a copyright. The HRC may take any action they wish but we do not raise that issue here in a warning against its use. It isn't that I was not assuming good faith, but that you made statements that contradicted each other. There is no limit to which article this symbol is used on only that it be accompanied by a reliable, secondary source and that it have relevance where it is placed. Again, consensus will determine if such use is appropriate. The fact is...we are pretty much arguing the same point about this symbol. We both want Wikipedia to use and reference it correctly.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me be clear - it is unlikely that I could possibly care less about the copyright and/or trademark status of this graphic - this comment marks the peak of my interest in the topic - and it is very low. :) I only care about how it is referenced. My trademark comment had zero to do with its usage or deletion/not deletion. With that said - I want to get conversation back on track. Where and how could this be used? Is anyone willing to write about these memes in the context of today's events around the Supreme Court in the USA or add it to HRC's article about their response to marriage equality events? Is there another context I am overlooking that there are citations to support? Does anyone disagree and feel that this does represent a new universal symbol for marriage equality? I think we have clarified what no one was disputing - that if we so desire - we could legally use this graphic. Now, should we use it and in what context? --Varnent (talk)(COI)05:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
As a random aside, there is zero evidence this logo has any particular use outside the United States. It certainly is not tied into historical marriage equality debates in Spain. I have never seen it used in marriage equality debates in Australia. If there is an argument for using it, the use needs to be very specifically tailored to the United States and articles about marriage equality in that country. --LauraHale (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah...uhm Laura...this is a reference to something that is happening in the US. I have no idea what Spain has to do with the discussion. No offense to Spain. But this is an issue involving California's Proposition 8 constitutional amendment and the US Governments DOMA law being addressed by the US Supreme Court this week. But I get your point in reference (I believe) to Allrounder's original request. But I think we are pretty much preaching to the choir.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I think Laura's point is that we shouldn't say make reference to this on the main marriage equality article as it has nothing to do with the topic outside the US. It should only be used on articles or sections which specifically reference this issue in the US, Prop 8, HRC, Supreme Court, etc. This did not seem that confusing to me to understand.. --Varnent (talk)(COI)05:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure...and like I said in my reply to you, this is a US issue and I get your point. I am not going to support using the symbol on all articles relating to Marriage Equality but only were it has relevance. I did actually say that in no uncertain terms and that I understood that this must be about the original request. I am not going to support its use else where just because it is pretty (although read and pink together is a bit much...even though blue and yellow really clash. LOL!).--Amadscientist (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Pope Joan is currently in Category:LGBT history prior to the 19th century and Category:Transgender topics and religion. I almost unilaterally removed both of these, but I thought it best to clarify the issue first. Though almost certainly just a legendary figure, Joan was a woman who dressed as a man and was named pope. None of this says anything about her sexuality. I was always under the impression that transvestism and transgender were separate categories (even if some individuals could fall under both), but now I'm hesitant since the former is discussed in the latter's article. Now, Pope Joan isn't actually tagged as of interest to this project, and I think that's appropriate (Women's history is a much better fit), but again, I wanted to ask. Is a transvestite always transgender? Apologies, this must have been asked before. Maybe there should be a FAQ. --BDD (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Transgender is an umbrella term that includes cross-dressing, gender-bending, as well as implicit sexuality issues. The LGBT project covers sexuality and gender issues, sometimes they overlap but not always. Those categories seem accurate to me. Insomesia (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The figure does not qualify as self identified by any standard although it is possible to list under transgender without self identification I suppose.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, "self-identification" is not an invariable core requirement for a dead person. It's a requirement for living people, obviously, but not for historical figures — because (a) they're dead and you can't ask them how they identify anyway, and (b) it's really only quite recently (mostly within my own lifetime, and I'm only 41) that most people have typically felt safe openly self-identifying as anything other than straight (as opposed to publicly claiming to be straight but then behaving differently off the record), so a consensus of reliable sources confirming a dead person's sexuality can override the lack of a public statement of self-identification. And that's just for people who actually exist — how on earth do you presume to ask a mythical figure to identify herself? At any rate, nobody's proposing that she be added to LGBT people categories — the question is about LGBT-related subject categories. Bearcat (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that Women's History would be a much better fit. There are no indications that she dressed as a man for sexual reasons; the more logical inference is that she dressed as a man because women are not allowed to be ordained in the Roman Catholic Church.
70.113.67.75 (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
"Transgender" encompasses all forms of gender-variant behaviour, inclusive of "dressing as a man because women are not allowed to be ordained in the Roman Catholic Church." The story clearly isn't transsexual in nature, but it is transgender. Bearcat (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that heterosexual and cisgender people are the majority groups in those cases, and while men aren't a majority on strictly numerical grounds, pretty much right up until the 20th century they were by far the majority of the people who actually got to do the kind of stuff that would get them into an encyclopedia. Such categories would consequently be entirely unmaintainable, because they would have to directly contain by far the majority of all articles about people that we have on Wikipedia — and thus would be (a) entirely non-navigable groupings populated in the hundreds of thousands, or even thousands of thousands, each, and (b) absolutely impossible to monitor for vandalism or misuse. This is exactly the same reason why we don't have categories for Category:White people. It's not a question of normality vs. abnormality; it's entirely a question of point vs. pointlessness.
Plus, since the LGBT categories can only be applied to a living person on the basis of their own public self-identification as LGBT, "heterosexual" or "cisgendered" equivalents could in many cases only ever be applied on the basis of the fact that the person hasn't explicitly "come out" as something other than heterosexual or cisgendered — meaning that in a not-inconsequential number of cases they would get applied incorrectly to people who are actually in the closet. And as I've pointed out downpage, there are still to this day people who jump up and down and swear on a stack of bibles that Liberace was straight, so even he would end up getting editwarred back and forth between the gay and straight category trees.
And even if it were a good idea — which believe me it ain't — the LGBT WikiProject isn't the place to go about trying to make it happen. Bearcat (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
There seems to have been a bit of a situation brewing at Liberace; over the past several months, there's been a slow-motion edit war consisting of anonymous IPs removing LGBT-related categories from the article on the grounds that denying it during his lifetime somehow "proves" that he wasn't, followed by a signed-in Wikipedia editor later readding them, followed by another anonymous IP removing them again, lather, rinse, repeat.
Obviously this isn't acceptable, so I need to ask for some additional eyes to watchlist the article in case this crops up again. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Please see above two related deletion discussions, and if you wish to do so, comment at the ongoing discussions and/or help with sourcing and quality improvement at the respective article pages. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Mission: America
There been some recent COI editing at Mission: America, mostly removing sourced content. It would be helpful if others could watchlist this article to help ensure that it remains neutral. Thank you - MrX22:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. Could some of you please help me expand Robert Harling (writer)'s page? He is openly gay as the article I added from The Advocate shows, and there is probably a lot more to say about his career. He wasn't tagged as gay until I did (and also added LGBT categories), so perhaps you hadn't noticed his page. Please do reference everything you add to the page. It would be wonderful to find a picture as well, if there is one in the public domain. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
A few months back Nick Griffin tweeted the address of a gay couple and encouraged protests and made a vague threat of violence towards them after they won a discrimination lawsuit against a hotel/B&B owner. I'm trying to add a section on this to the article but have run into a problem. I've been told that mentioning any content of the tweets or what the sources say they did is a copyvio (They were removed as "copyedit"). I had this recently on a different article where the consensus was to add details of the controversy and i believe this to be the same. Can someone who knows about this kind of thing take a look so i don't have to go to ANI. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)11:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Are LGBT people being treated with less dignity?
Folks on this project might want to weigh in at this discussion: Talk:Suicide_of_Kelly_Yeomans#Requested_move_2_.28second_request.29. I noticed that all the articles in this move request are now titled "suicide of..." AND are 100% about either women/girls or boys alleged to be gay. On the surface, the discussion is over WP:AT, but IMHO, the discussion is really about if they deserve the dignity of having an article titled with simply their name, or if the "suicide of" title is because that's the "only" thing they are "notable" for. I know I'm inserting my own bias in this comment, but when I made the argument there that everyone notable enough for a WP article deserves, in basic human dignity, to have it titled Their name and not Sensationalistic thing about their death, I hadn't noticed that there was also the anti-female and anti-gay slant. Anyway, whether I'm right or wrong, I see a pattern and y'all may want to take a look and comment. Montanabw(talk)19:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Props for recognizing that you're inserting your own bias in your comment. It's probably better just to provide a link to the discussion, along with a brief, neutral description of what it's about. Since that didn't happen, I'll go ahead and note what your less-than-neutral post failed to reveal: according to various editors whose views conflict with your own on this matter, the articles in question are about events, not individuals. The discussion on this point has ranged over several different venues this weekend, and I hope this one won't be added to this list. Still, I feel the need to say that as a proud member of the LGBT community, a feminist, and a longtime off-wiki supporter of human rights and equality for all people, I would be among the first to object if I believed that there were an anti-female or anti-gay slant to our titling of articles. I could be wrong, but I really don't think that's the case here. Rivertorch (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I am open about my views, and was deliberately so for that very reason. Posting even just the link is also "canvassing" if people want to interpret "canvassing" as "alerting people who might have a point of view different from the status quo that there is an issue relevant to them in some obscure place they normally don't watchlist". (smiles). Montanabw(talk)22:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
If it is canvassing, I wouldn't worry about it too much given that the talk page thread seems to be pretty near unanimous in opposition. Instead, let's assume good faith on the part of Montanabw and let a discussion play out about whether or not policies like WP:ONEEVENT unfairly represent LGBT people and other minorities. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with their being LGBT: it's just how Wikipedia handles these class of articles. Same with articles about murder victims like Murder of Meredith Kercher etc. It's to be compliant with policy. With all due respect to, say, Tyler Clementi, his notability stems from the events that led to his death and the reaction to his death. Cold-hearted as it is to say this, if Clementi hadn't been the victim of the events that happened to him—or Kercher the victim of whoever killed her—nobody would ever be discussing them. That's the reason the articles are titled thusly under policy. The subject of the article isn't Tyler Clementi, it's the event of him killing himself in response to the bullying he got (etc. etc.)
The policy is not intended to be homophobic or sexist, although one may argue that because of the increased likelihood of LGBT people to be the subject of violence, it inherently is so. That argument can be made if you wish to. An argument can be mounted that we ought to change policy, but I don't see how they aren't currently within policy. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:oneevent? If person A is only notable for being murdered by person B, then the article is highly likely to be titled in such a way as to encompass that. I agree completely with what others before me have said on this, Tom especially. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)15:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Meredith Kercher further proves my point, a woman and a person of color, once again, people in a minority, thus, in Wikiworld, apparently are also not deserving an article with simply their own name. Either a person is going to pass WP:NOTABILITY or not. IF not, they are included in a list (as are teh Columbine victims) or incorporated into an article about a bigger event. Here, the "event" is the life of a single human being, that's the difference. I am concerned that WP:BIO1E is either being misapplied or is simply dead wrong. Seriously, give me the list of straight white males with articles titled with variants of "sensationalistic death of" and maybe we can talk. To me, if the person is WP:NOTABLE enough to have an article about them standing alone, then it should be given their name and just their name. Anything less is dehumanizing. Perhaps the policy itself could be changed, but as far as "one event" goes, I find it interesting that the murderers and villains notable for one event get their own articles, people who do idiotic things one time, like Lawnchair Larry, get their own articles, but the victims and the bullied are, too often, "not notable." The policy is also inconsistently applied. If someone at Columbine High School massacre was not notable for a standalone article, they can be mentioned in the article on Columbine, but Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold get their own article (though I note there is a merge discussion underway on that). Montanabw(talk)22:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I just created a new stub on Alan Gendreau, the first openly gay football player. Please take a look at it and edit where you can, especially for readability and citations needed. Bearian (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I had some concerns regarding a new section in the article on Homosexuality and Roman Catholic priests. Some of the material removed may have a place in the article, or possibly in related articles but not, I would say, in the form it had been presented or with such prominence in the article. Those involved in this project may have a view. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Preferred wording?
Is there a consensus either way for a preferred wording for a gay male relationship?
The Nick Griffin article previously mentioned a supposed "homosexual" relationship, as well as an actual same-sex relationship. I changed the one to "same-sex couple" but what's preferred:
There does seem to be a slight bit of weirdness there: when Griffin is alleged to have had a relationship with a man, it is referred to with the coldly clinical "homosexual" while the couple is referred to as "same-sex". In general, we should prefer to use the terms that neutral, reliable sources use and reflect the legal reality of a person's relationship (so, "husband" or "wife" if they are legally married; "civil partner" if they are in a civil partnership; "partner" if not) without having to preface it with being "same-sex" or "gay" or "homosexual". The Griffin article seems not to be too much of a problem though. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
In the case of the Griffin article, as I have pointed out there, it is obvious that they are both men so it could simply say "a sexual relationship". To respond to your general suggestion, where possible I think we should also consider the couple's own choice of terminology without always hewing strictly to the legal term. So, where a couple are civilly partnered but refer to each other as "husbands" or "wives", we should follow that; and conversely where a couple are legally married but refer to themselves as "partners" we should similarly follow that. - htonl (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
In the absence of a definite guideline from the Manual of Style - and if there is one I've overlooked, I'd be grateful if anyone could point me to it - then it comes down to the sound of the words and their suitability in a particular case, IMO. "Homosexual" to my ears unavoidably puts an emphasis on "sex": thus, where it is used in the Nick Griffin article, apparently referring to a furtive, casual affair between the two men, "homosexual relationship" sounds appropriate to me. On the other hand, it would sound very inappropriate if used to describe two men who had been in a long-term, committed relationship; "same-sex partners" would be my choice in that instance, if it had to be spelled out at all. "Homosexual" originated as a psycho-medico term, and still sounds a bit clinical; "gay relationship" would be a bit slangy for an encyclopedia, I think. But there's my 2 cents, I'm sure there are different opinions to be heard on this. I just think the phrase is fine as it stands at this time in that particular article, no change needed. Textorus (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Jason Collins: Public figures being "out" versus "publicly out"
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jason_Collins#Glenn_Burke. There is a discussion over the terminology for publicly figures who are openly out only to those around them versus those where the media has published to the general public that they are out. —Bagumba (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
VisualEditor is coming
The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.
About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).
The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.
Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.
If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Can we add project template and/or category to Maria Konopnicka?
I found a few sources which speculate about her being a lesbian, through this is a fringe POV. I think the sources are reliable enough to merit a cautious, qualified mention, but how about a project tag on the talk or a category? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Any article of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies can have this project's tag on the talk page. Tags are for this project's interest in the article, not the attributes of the subject of the article. Feel free to tag it if you think it is appropriate. Blue Rasberry (talk)13:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Could anyone help with improving this article? There are plenty of English-language sources, given that such a large and violent homophob protest is rare. Nestrabonk (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
In light of the recently enacted community ban of a longtime contributor who is alleged to have pursued an on-wiki vendetta against the subjects of certain articles, I am prompted to ask experienced editors who can spare any time to examine this article to ensure it complies with basic policies and to determine whether its maintenance tags should remain in place. A more detailed version of this request is on the article's talk page. Thank you. Rivertorch (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: I have revised the section heading here to reflect what the RfC title is and modified the link to create a Wikilink. – S. Rich (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Categorisation: Transgender and transsexual people
I suppose this is fallout from the recent brouhaha about categorization by gender. (Briefly, a New York Times article pointed out that female novelists were being removed from Category:American novelists into Category:American women novelists, so that the parent category ended up being populated only by men.) As a result it was reiterated that, according to WP:CAT/EGRS, gender-based categories should in most cases be non-diffusing - that is, articles that are in gender-specific category should also be directly included in the non-gendered parent category. It does seem to me that this might be an exception, since there is a corresponding Category:Transgender and transsexual men, and gender is quite specifically relevant in the case of trans people. I would suggest we shouldn't revert without at least getting clearance at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. - htonl (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be an exception made, in cases where you are fully diffusing by gender. In this case, since these category are *only* about gender identity (as opposed to identity + job), I don't think there is any harm in fully diffusing - it's a different case than the American novelists one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps this WikiProject and its members may be interested in contributing to this discussion, and/or a quality improvement project for this list page. — Cirt (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I prepared an Article titled Thomas Smith (author) that was almost instantly subjected to a Deletion Discussion. Based on my the comments I reduced the references. The article that I wrote is supported by non-mainstream references, Lavendar magazine in Minneapolis, MN, THE WORD, Indianapolis, IN, and The Leather Journal, Los Angeles, CA. The comments in the Deletion Discussion appear that the references are being considered as 'nonreliable' based on the gay or leather nature of the publications. This is based on my review of the comments and your opinion may differ. Additionally, support includes Leather Archives & Museum Timeline, Chicago and Pantheon of Leather Awards. The LA&M is a recognized library and the Pantheon Awards are selected by an independent panel and has been existence for many years. The subject of the article is in non-mainstream categories (Gay Writers) (BDSM writer) and BDSM Activist) commensurate with the references. See http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Thomas_Smith_%28author%29 for article and it has the link to the discussion.
I would be interested to know how non-mainstream references are typically treated; I see other articles that are similar to the subject of this article with similar references and they have not been subject of a deletion discussion. Perhaps this WikiProject and its members may be interested in contributing to this discussion.WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you.
You... you just refuse to listen to anything, don't you? FYI for anyone else reading this, multiple editors--self included--have been trying to get this guy to understand. We have apparently had no luck. The sources are unreliable NOT, for the last time, NOT because they're gay/leather publications, but because they are small, non-notable, not known for fact-checking. For god's sake. — The Potato Hose15:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
FYI, the content of the AfC was a blatant copyright violation as a copy/paste from another website on the subject. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Since Leonard Matlovich is buried at Congressional Cemetery in Washington DC there is something of a movement for LGBT folks (especially military folks) to have their graves near his. I'm not sure this is of national or even city-wide importance, but it is of importance in a cemetery-wide context. I'm writing up the cemetery in detail, with lots of photos, and even QRpedia codes.
One of the issues is that not all the graves are occupied yet (one partner only) - is it cool to show somebody's grave on Wikipedia if they are still alive? (I'd go to BLPn on this - which could make for an interesting section name but you may be able to help with other questions as well). Another question has to do with terminology - please read the inscription carefully in the photo and let me know what you think.
Also wondering what you think about the name of the Commons category "Gay graves at Congressional Cemetery"
Sorry, I think this is a really bad idea. Graves aren't "gay". We should have a bit more respect for the dead, and not further subcategorize their graves based on the sexual preferences of their owners. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not too involved with the Benvenuto Cellini article, having stumbled across it today, but I'm asking for help from this project with regard to it. The issue is whether or not to categorize this historical figure as bisexual and/or place him in LGBT categories. See here, here, here and here for some of what I mean. Currently, a WP:Edit war is going on at that article with regard to the aforementioned categorization matter, and there is an old discussion on the talk page about categorizing Benvenuto Cellini as homosexual or bisexual (or maybe neither): Talk:Benvenuto Cellini#Private life. There has been concern expressed from this project before about placing historical figures in any LGBT category; see, for example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Suggested guidelines for gay and homosexual.
I'll comment in that Private life discussion section that I have asked the WP:LGBT project to weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Tiko Kerr
Can someone help me with Tiko Kerr? Right now it's an orphaned article. He's a prominent figure in Canada in creating awareness for HIV/AIDS experimental drugs and is a leading artist in Vancouver.
I am fearful that they might site the article for deletion if people don't help out and edit it to a more acceptable format. I am a novice (at best) in doing this. Thanks.
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tiko_Kerr
(talk) 19:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
New article on gender studies lecturer Nicholas Chare
Some of us have been working for some time on the LGBT History Project. This is a Wiki devoted specifically to LGBT history in the United Kingdom. We use similar approaches to Wikipedia, the main difference being that we have a much more relaxed standard of notability. In general, if there's information recorded about a UK LGBT-related subject we would seek to have an article for it. This of course means that we are often obliged to rely on less reliable sources than would be appropriate for Wikipedia. Part of the aim, as our "time capsule" logo suggests, is to capture information about LGBT organisations and venues before it disappears, and a number of our articles rely on archived versions of obsolete websites. Of course we also harvest information from Wikipedia for better-known subjects. Apologies if all this is seen as severely off-topic, but if any editors with an interest in British LGBT matters would be interested in contributing to a rather different project we'd be happy to hear from you. --rossb (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I pulled a somewhat essayish draft out of AfC for Ernestine Eckstein, who seems notable and interesting, but whipping the article into a neutral encyclopedic state is going to take a little more work. Anyone who wants to lend a hand is invited to. Thanks. --j⚛e deckertalk23:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I think members of this project should be aware of a situation that has arisen at the Aesthetic Realism article. The article concerns a movement that is notorious for once having attempted to convert gay men and lesbians to heterosexuality. It contained the following unsourced, obviously controversial assertion: "Some men who began to study to change from homosexuality discontinued their study. Others, who at one time stated they had changed, later decided to live a gay lifestyle. Still others indicate that the change from homosexuality they first experienced in the 1970s and 80s is authentic and continues to the present day." Since that had no source, and seems to violate WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV, I removed it. Unfortunately, another editor restored that text (and in fact reverted all my edits to the article) simply because I didn't discuss my changes on talk first.
I consider restoring unsourced, controversial material about efforts to change sexual orientation to be highly inappropriate. Could project members please take a look at this situation and comment on the article's talk page? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Demographics of Asian Americans#Sexuality. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Resolved