Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Help (re: Igor Kurchatov)

Some editors try to censor on the Igor Kurchatov article. It was widely reported in the Russian press that he was a closeted gay, unfortunately this fact is not well-liked by some Russian nationalists as they see it as a stain on his biography. Please someone help on this article. Thank you. Kirilovski (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like things are being sorted out OK. -- Banjeboi 13:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality is 120 KB!

I'll send those, who help to trim it, some wiki cookies :P Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What kind? Chocolate chip? Peanut butter?! Caramel?! Zazaban (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
We seem to only have choc chips and choc oreos. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I love chocolate chip! I'm in! Zazaban (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This probably has something to do with the article recently having another large article recently merged into it. Zazaban (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I hacked away about 7k and have therefore earned a cookie! Could mine have actual Girl Scouts in them? -- Banjeboi 10:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

When to include lovers as spouses

I am starting work on a re-write and expansion of Harry Hay. Imagine my surprise to learn he was married to a woman for over a decade! =:-o Anyway, Hay presents something of a problem as to when to include a lover as a spouse. Clearly his wife and his companion of 40 years should be included, but what about Will Geer and Rudi Gernreich, with whom he shared much shorter but, in terms of his personal life and activism, vitally important relationships? There may be a need for a more general guideline on the subject of non-legally recognized spouses so that we're presenting that information in the infobox in a NPOV fashion. Otto4711 (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I say use the Partner parameter, which should follow similar format as the ""Spouse"" one, if that is how they define the relationship. You could also employ a footnote to clarify for anyone who cares. Obviously the main explanation would be in the main article text. As for Geer and Gernreich, if most reasonable people would see these relationship as romantic life partners, or similar then I think it's reasonable to include them. -- Banjeboi 11:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:20, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Clementine Ford again

Clementine Ford sort of came out as unlabeled two months ago[1] and a couple of days ago she came out more definitively in The Advocate.[2]. I think more eyes would be good for the article, particularly re: categories and what to include in the text. I did a pretty drastic rewrite [3] but I'm not sure if policy and consensus would agree. Any input welcome. Siawase (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject South Park participants have started a page at WP:SOUTHPARK/TOPIC to organize featured topic drive collaborations. The primary goal is to improve the quality of articles about South Park episodes, with the ultimate end goal of getting sets of episodes by season to Good Topic or even Featured Topic status. We are starting off by focusing on Season 1, to get it to Good Topic status, see Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive/season 1. Any help is appreciated, and feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive. Cirt (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Music

I was expanding the Flirtations page and I wanted to include links to/from the main LGBT music page. I couldn't find it, so I looked at San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus which wasn't linked to such a page either. I'm starting to suspect that there is no such page! Presumably there should be both an article and a category; I'm happy to start the latter, but don't have enough historical background to start even a stub article, though I noticed a few folks on the signup list mentioned an interest in music and maybe one of them will volunteer. Any suggestions as to appropriate names? LGBT music and Category:LGBT musical orgamizations? Matchups 04:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You may want Category:LGBT musical groups although a history of article would be lovely. -- Banjeboi 07:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Got it, and added to Flirts. I musta missed it on SFGMC because my eyes were only open for "LGBT." Thanks. Matchups 04:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

LGBT business and companies

I was wondering if anyone was interested in adding more info on LGBT companies and shares. I still haven't figured out who owns LPI Media, which apparently owns most gay media in the US. I think it must be PlanetOut Inc., but I'm not sure. The infoboxes with companies returns haven't been updated for a long time. Does a PlanetOut share only really cost $0.10? Pls see here: [4]. All this is compounded by the forthcoming mergers with Here Networks LLC and Regent Entertainment Media, Inc....

Other than that, we need to create more pages about LGBT chambers of commerce - mostly in the US - and perhaps about Echelon Magazine and other business-related info. It's the financial crisis; a fortuitious time to take care of all those things, don't you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I did some work on the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce this afternoon. Not so easy to find lots of secondary sources - archival search on The Advocate.com is null. I was thinking of creating a page on the Gay Financial Network as well.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Regent already owns Out magazine, The Advocate, Here! AlysonBooks and gaywired.com. The Regent Entertainment Media, Inc. page needs to be un-redirected to LPI Media, and fleshed out as the owner, etc. and then LPI Media redirected to Regent. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 19:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification for my own sake: The new company is called Here Media Inc. and is the result of a merger between PlanetOut, Here! and Regent. See here from January. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course, that may have changed or is just hasn't went into effect yet because of this on out.com:

Visit our Websites: Advocate.com | OutTraveler.com | HIVPlusMag.com | mPowrPlus.com| Alyson.com | HereTV.com | GayWired.com | SheWired.com Out.com © 2009 Regent Entertainment Media Inc. All Rights Reserved.

(notice it says copyright Regent and not copyright Here Media Inc.). - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 19:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
But HereTV.com says:
©2009 HERE! Networks L.L.C.
So now I'm done with this because as far as I know, it could be owned by the American Family Association. !! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
We need to get the facts. Don't give up. Frankly if it's only $0.10 a share, we all need to know lol! From what I gathered, until the merger is approved, it will remain PlanetOut for shareholders. Oh, yahoo says it's actually $0.15 now! Quick!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

peer review?

Is anyone watching the peer review department? The list of active reviewers seems to be out of date... --Malkinann (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

New WikiProject on Commons: WikiProject LGBT maps

If any map updaters are interested, there is a new WikiProject on Commons to try to centralize the updating of maps: WikiProject LGBT maps Under the current system, update requests are posted to various file talk pages (here and at Commons), or at various user talk pages (here and at Commons). Even if one of those requests gets read and changed, other maps containing the same country or state may also need to be changed. Hopefully this will help streamline things and centralize requests, making less work for updaters. If you'd like to join the project, there is a members list at the above link. If you are not familiar with editing SVG-format graphic files but would like to jump in and become an SVG map updater, you can find out more at Commons:Help:SVG or Commons:Help:Inkscape (Inkscape is a free SVG editor, available for Windows, Mac, and Linux). If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my user talk, or on the project talk page at Commons:Commons talk:WikiProject LGBT maps. Thx, Wikignome0529 (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Mozambique

Apparently needs a rewrite, it's likely not too long of an article either. -- Banjeboi 02:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Intersex Task Force

I am separating this out from my previous section —Preceding unsigned comment added by MishMich (talk • contribs) 08:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also be interested in hearing how a project which touches on LGBT issues and is currently categorised under sexology can become accommodated as an LGBT project as well (or whether it is better to start a new project using similar terminology in the title). Mish (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this the Intersexuality task force idea? -- Banjeboi 02:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I would appreciate any assistance on how to go about this. Mish (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a joint taskforce under both LGBT and WikiProject Medicine would make sense. Some articles regarding intersexuality are tagged (or should be tagged) by both projects while others by only one or the other. Both projects would have to agree to the concept and then both projects' talkpage banners would be enable to have a parameter like "intersex task force=yes" added. That will enable a category of tagged articles to be created and maintained with its own article alerts. We then look to identifying the many articles that concern intersexuality issues as well as create a taskforce page to organize the efforts. It's all work but also very do-able. -- Banjeboi 12:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

LGBT tag on BLPs

Discussion on the LGBT tag for Lindsay Lohan. --Moni3 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Replacing LGBT rights series box with country-specific infoboxes on country articles?

Wondering if there would be any opposition to replacing the LGBT rights series box ( {{LGBT rights}} ) in the country articles with an infobox (providing an overview of the country's LGBT rights at a glance). Currently, most of the country articles have the series box (which clutters up the right-hand side of the articles, and does not actually include any links specific to that country). I adapted Infobox Holiday to LGBT rights & set up a mockup (using a Uganda map and New Zealand data) at User:Wikignome0529/Sandbox2. (the actual would-be template is located at User:Wikignome0529/Sandbox1 if you want to look under the hood) It would also work for LGBT rights in (US state) articles if implemented. Thoughts..? Outsider80 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is brilliant. I don't think anyone in their right mind would ever oppose this. Good work admiral! Zazaban (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Admiral Zazaban :-D Outsider80 (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Maybe put the navigational template in a collapsible box at the bottom of the page instead (which seems to be routinely done for other types of articles) to still tie the articles together, but in a more out of the way location. Siawase (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
eh.. I'm not a big fan of using navboxes when the article is not listed within them -- but if consensus was for having 1 or the other rather than none, I wouldn't protest it. Maybe instead of moving the sidebar to a navbox, the links could just be moved to hatnotes in the relevent sections? (such as having a See also: Recognition of same-sex unions hatnote at the top of the country's section for that topic) ...and then any left-overs moved to the "See also" section if still needed ? Outsider80 (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I misunderstood, I thought they were included in the sidebar, so nevermind. I still think an infobox sounds more informative than the standard sidebar though. Siawase (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a couple of concerns. Probably the main is upkeep, especially on the volume of articles - one per country right? The alternative, I suppose, is a centralized template for each perceived "right" - adoption, military service, death benefits, employment discrimination, etc. Until every country or state has a specific right then I think it's somewhat helpful to show which countries/states share the status. If we were extremely clever we'd sort a way to update the main template and it would transclude to the article template. My next concern is ensuring we cover the main LGBT rights but I doubt there is much disagreement there. My last concern is stylistic with the presentation - and possibly NPOV - concerns. I'm opposed to including a green checkmark or red cross showing that the right exists or doesn't. That seems POV but I may be wrong. On BLP infoboxes we simply state where they attended college not a red mark if they didn't. I may have more later but how many articles is this? Obviously we'd have the 50 US states as well. -- Banjeboi 03:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
About the checks and x's, I've always seen them as a neutral representation of 'yes' or 'no'. Zazaban (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Banjeboi is wrong, i think it might seem POV if it were red + green, despite not being intentionally POV. It seems wiser to use the most neutral palette (not necessarily absolutely random, but certainly more creative? some queer gay fabulous dykerrific palette?) however i don't understand all of the wikicode for complex graphics, so perhaps it's unfair of me to give a strong opinion if i'm not the person doing the "heavy lifting". Anyway, Banjeboi sounds wise on that concern. Thanks ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 04:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: Banjeboi's concerns (sorry for the length, but tried to address each item)
(1) Upkeep: Honestly, I don't see where this would be much more upkeep than we already have. It basically would just be mirroring the main body text. The only significant additional upkeep I would think would be keeping them in sync & guarding agaisnt vandal edits.
(2) Centralized templates as an alternative: This would actually be more maintenance-heavy than the infobox approach, and add to the number of template clutter on-page :-/ Would rather not see the creation of more cereal boxes (though the SSM topic is well-served by it). Even if you did it as a navbox footer, the upkeep would be quite labor-heavy, as the SSM template is.
(3) Changing LGBT rights template instead: As far as adapting the current LGBT rights template for article use, the much simpler approach would just be to use infoboxes... I like the LGBT rights box, but it's just transcluded on way too many pages. When used on pages not listed within it, it basically only serves the purpose of filler / a glorified "See also" section in template form.
(3) Was mindful to avoid using wording that made the ☒N and checkY look like they were part of a "To do" list of gay rights agenda, but it would be no big deal to remove them. The "No/Yes" or more specific wording is already included, so all that would be needed to be done is to remove {{cross}} and {{tick}}.
Full list of affected articles can be seen at List of LGBT rights articles by region. As far as US-state articles go, there are only a handful presently afaik (and if you remember the LGBT rights in Benin AFD from a month or 2 ago, rolling out US-state articles faster than content is available to fill them might be a bad idea -- that is beside the point of this thread though). Honestly, your opposition to this idea kind of surprised me as much of an inclusionist as you are when it comes to other areas (AFD's), but maybe some common ground can be found? Wikignome0529 (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to it as much as wanting to come as close to getting it as "right" as possible. It may surprise you as well that I don't see myself as a die-hard inclusionist either. I see it wasteful to remove content when it would serve well on another article but also see that articles that are harmful and misleading are also a problem. In essence we're here to serve our readers and need to keep their interests at the forefront. In thinking about it I'm not sure every right can be summed up squarely in a few words but I do support at least trying this out on an article that has many of the parameters in play so we can see better how this works. Instead of the cross and tick I would favor neutral wording only like - Anti-discrimination: Gender protection (1998), Sexuality protection (2002). And I suggest we make great use of the phrase Varies (see below). We are talking a major project here, @ 200 articles by my count with the 50 state articles yet to be rolled out - this discussion will greatly inform that so thanks in advance - so I say come to some basic agreements and pick an article that we can all see it in action on. -- Banjeboi 12:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good... I'm not that picky on the wording, as long as the basic areas are covered (legal status/relationships/military/etc). Tweaked the transclusion example some per your comments... (changed map & header to New Zealand (data was already for NZ) -- if we go for a live example, we can just copy/paste the code (with whatever wording is decided for the text within it) into the NZ article. Also removed the tick/cross graphics, and changed the anti-discrim line to link to the actual human rights act which granted it (similar to how the legalisation field already links to the relevent Act). Not sure if a specific target article exists for Adoption & Military, but tried to reword them to informative-but-neutral. Please feel free (anyone) to further edit the sandbox example transclusion, or the actual template. The example transclusion for New Zealand is at User:Wikignome0529/Sandbox2. I moved the actual template to {{Infobox LGBT rights}} to encourage community tweaking & prepare for a possible live trial if it gets that far. Wikignome0529 (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Since no one has further edited the current (April 3rd) wording (User:Wikignome0529/Sandbox2) of the New Zealand example, any objections to taking it to live trial on LGBT rights in New Zealand? (as suggested above about deciding on wording, then testing on 1 country's article) Wikignome0529 (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks excellent (to me). I'm not any kind of expert at the more technical types of editing involving markup and media beyond standard text, so i don't know what kind of issues crop up with templates and graphics; but the text portions look fine. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 03:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Live trial now up at LGBT rights in New Zealand, feel free to tweak wording if needed. Wikignome0529 (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Dublin Pride

There is a new article that was basically advertising and I speedy deleted it because of that. After a query from the user who started it, I userfied the article, and have helped him a bit in making it less ad-like. However, it really needs third-party sources, and I have not had any luck finding any for it. Does anyone want to help with User:Martin-09-DP/Dublin pride? LadyofShalott Weave 17:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've started fixing it up and added links to sources. Is the user still around? -- Banjeboi 13:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably, he was yesterday. Give him a little time to respond. :) (Thanks for jumping in, Bb!) LadyofShalott Weave 22:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
No prob. -- Banjeboi 22:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

American Psychological Association

The article's only reference to sexual orientation quotes opinions of ex-gays and NARTH. This could use some clean up. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Banjeboi 23:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Arabic wikipedia

Something needs to be done about the article on homosexuality on the arabic wikipedia ( [5] ). Not only is its lead in picture one of an anti-gay protest, it also makes the claim that it is scientifically proven that homosexuality is a choice, that it is a mental illness, and that it is damaging to society. The article is a disgusting farce and a complete violation of neutrality. Of course, the local users see it as being 'pro-gay'. It is a complete and utter violation of NPOV and factual accuracy. Something needs to be done about it. Zazaban (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your call will not go unheeded. I've engaged a professional Arabic translator. -->David Shankbone 13:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Julie Bindel

More eyes please, a bit of mud slinging here. -- Banjeboi 02:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've started an RfC to quell the unique sourcing and writing there. -- Banjeboi 15:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Harry Hay

POV regarding his supporting NAMBLA. More eyes on this one as well. -- Banjeboi 02:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You are gay

I didn't say it. The New York Times did.

Interesting op ed on the use of words in our crazy times. --Moni3 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Its a very sad reality. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a sad commentary on our culture that words can hurt so much. I have one of the books mentioned: Pascoe, C. J. (2007), Dude, You’re a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School. University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-25230-1. [6] [7] [8] [9]. It's a sociological fieldwork study conducted and written by a sociology professor and published by a respected university press, so it's a good RS if anyone needs citations. — Becksguy (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I was very lucky in that I went to a high school which was completely tolerant. One of the most macho guys there is openly bisexual. I find it difficult to comprehend the level of intolerance so many people have to go through every day. It is very sad. Zazaban (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Many here had participated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_18#Category:LGBT-related_television_episodes which ended five months ago with a strong consensus of keep. The subject is up for discussion again at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 18#Category:LGBT-related television episodes, where participants here may want to review the matter at hand and express an opinion on the subject. Alansohn (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeanette Winterson

Can anyone who knows how to undo redirects do it for Written on the Body pls? Also, should anyone be interested in working on Winterson, by all means go ahead. I'll try to add more as I go along in my research.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking? Should Written on the Body go to somewhere else or has this been fixed already? -- Banjeboi 22:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
See the Winterson talkpage. It should lead to a red link, so we can create the page later.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that's an easy one as it's already ready to go. If you click on a link and are redirected ... scroll to the top of the page and you should see a temporary note - (Redirected from Written on the Body). If you click that link it will take you to the Written on the Body page where you start the new page replacing the redirect wikicoding. -- Banjeboi 02:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
How do I replace the redirect wikicoding? By simply removing it and creating text for the page instead?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactamundo! -- Banjeboi 22:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
But if you specifically want a redlink, you should follow Banjeboi's directions, and then nominate the redirect for deletion. But leaving novel titles redirecting to authors is pretty normal.YobMod 11:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hate crime article

Your input is being aske for at Talk:Hate crime#Iran. And why isn't this project banner tagged on that article? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 05:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You could add it... :) LadyofShalott 05:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I know but wasn't sure if there had been a discussion somewhere about removing it. I was gone a long time from the Wiki when my house burned down and am still finding out even now that I've missed some things having changed during that time. :] - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 06:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Eyes

Our conservative friend Ejnogarb (talk · contribs) is back at it removing content. This time at Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, claiming there is a consensus to do so, even though his idea of consensus is him and 1 more other user. Feel free to weigh in on the article's talk page. A consensus should be established and if there is one, I'm all for removing the content. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 23:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A change was proposed about a week ago on the article's talkpage, and after a couple days, the only editor weighing in was in favor of the change. Furthermore, the material deleted had nothing to do with the article and violated Wikipedia policy. User:Allstarecho was wp:hounding me, noticed the change about a week later, and reverted the material without using the talkpage.  EJNOGARB  23:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
As I said in my revert edit summary, a stale 6-day old 2 person thread does not a consensus make. Also as I said above, a consensus should be established and if there is one, I'm all for removing the content. You may feel the content has nothing to do with the article, but others may not agree with your opinion. Personally, I do not. The content shows correlation as it relates to the LDSchurch and its hypocrisy regarding polygamy and homosexuality. Granted, the content could use some shaving - we don't need a timeline on when polygamy laws were implemented - but it is very relevant. Aditionally, if you do not stop accusing me of "stalking" and "hounding", I'll most surely file a report for your personal attacks. Good day. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 23:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the content that was removed, and it seems to me that at most it's only indirectly relevant to the article. Ejnogarb isn't being altogether unreasonable in removing it. The article is about the LDS church's views on homosexuality, after all, not its hypocrisy. Perhaps a separate article could be established for that? Born Gay (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
You should go address it in the section on the article's talk page. As I've said twice now, a consensus should be established and if there is one, I'm all for removing the content. Yes, I have an opinion on the matter but I could care less whether it's included or not.. except when removed without consensus, which is the case here. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 02:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, we're not going to get a bigger consensus on if it should be kept in or not if we just discuss how big a consensus should have been needed in the first place - it makes little difference at the end of the day. Perhaps rather than posting here, editors that haven't already could contribute to the relevant talk page? Seems to me to be a consensus for removal but it's hard to judge when it's split across two talk pages. ~Excesses~ (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Umm, yeah, I said "You should go address it in the section on the article's talk page." I thought that was pretty much self explanatory. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 17:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Without getting all into it Ejnogarb really would find more peace and Wikipedia would likely benefit more if they focussed on articles on subjects which they do approve. Whatever one personally feels about conservatives / liberals yada yada yada it's logical that when one focusses on subjects they don't approve more problems occur than if they focus on subjects they do approve. If you are a cat person then focussing on dog articles seems like a step in the wrong direction. You might check out Suggestbot, based on articles you have been editing it drafts a list of ones that may interest you. You can even set it up for recurring suggestions. -- Banjeboi 07:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lavender linguistics at AfD

Way interesting no matter how you add it up. -- Banjeboi 07:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone up for performing merges?

Per Talk:Androphilia and gynephilia#Multi Merge discussion four mini articles should be digested and merged into transgender sexuality. I'll give a puppy* to anyone who does it. 02:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual

It would be helpful if more editors chimed in on Homosexual transsexual which is listed as a GAN. The article is apparently focusing on the controversies surrounding the use of this term. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How is this on it's 3rd GA renom in like 2 months and while an RfC is churning? The pain! Make the pain stop, eeeeeeeh! Warning for anyone new to homosexual transsexual you will have to devote a fair time digging through voluminous posts. -- Banjeboi 07:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it was nominated for the third time only a day after failing the second nomination. Is that a record, I wonder? LadyofShalott 01:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it allowed? It's a different article every time I read it. -- Banjeboi 02:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A Push and a Shove: A Novel by Christopher Kelly

So I've finished A Push and a Shove: A Novel by Christopher Kelly, which was the 2007 Lambda Literary Award winner for Gay Debut Fiction. I could add a plot summary, but I was hoping to find reviews and that's not easy. Can anyone help? Or should we just give up on trying to create pages for Lammy winners?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we should not give up at all! Coverage of LGBT writers is scant enough, or they are pidgeon-holed (this came up in my interview with Edmund White). I think it's important to have coverage of the Lammies - it's one of the few ways we indicate our important writers. -->David Shankbone 14:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeh, can anyone help me find some references/reviews from the gay press perhaps? I could just create a page with a plot summary and perhaps a character list, but that wouldn't look too good imo.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If you start a user draft page I'll help look for sources. -- Banjeboi 07:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I created it today, with the help of Benjiboi.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axios (organization)

Possibly POV nomination, please help rescue this one. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick has died

Sedgwick's Wikipedia portrait.

Hey guys - one of the foremost writers in queer theory died either yesterday or this morning of cancer. No announcement has been made, but after seeing three different IP edits to her article, I called the department at her university and they confirmed it was true. --David Shankbone 16:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for an official confirmation so I can e-mail people about it.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added a reference from Tetu; more to come I'm sure.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added two more references. I hope GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies does a special issue on her, as they did with Monique Wittig in 2007.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The NYTimes really insists on her husband...Didn't you say she loved with a lesbian lover, David? I read what you wrote on her talkpage (with ur use of the fuzzy term "partner").Zigzig20s (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
To her, terminology was important because she found it confining. So she called herself queer and she referred to Hal as her partner. They had an interesting relationship, I sensed. -->David Shankbone 01:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh I see, Hal was her husband apparently.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is her page suddenly "not neutral"? It sounds fairly neutral to me. Perhaps I would move the 'later years' section back into a biography section, then there'd be short summaries of her books, and then a 'bibliography' section. Can we just delete the inappropriate tags if they seem unnecessary? I've deleted one as there were two...Zigzig20s (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, apparently someone thinks that the book summaries are POV. Does everyone else agree? I don't; it's useful to know what her books were about...Just as plot summaries for novels don't require references, I'm not sure that summaries for Theory books require references either.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ester Goldberg deleted?

Just heard that Ester Goldberg's Wikipedia page was deleted. As I understand it - the page was been up for some time. From the notes looks like they felt it was self promotion and not a notable enough person. Not sure I agree with that assessment - but in all fairness the discussion was in January. Any interest in resurrecting? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ester_Goldberg Varnent (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the sourcing to back it up? -- Banjeboi 02:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what was in the original article - but a Google of "Ester Goldberg" provides plenty of news, interview and other sites for sources. Varnent (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There was only one source for the deleted article. LadyofShalott 05:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Useful project banner tagging script

FYI, User:Drilnoth/assessortags.js/doc. This is a very useful script for tagging Wikiproject banners on article talk pages. I have requested, and it has been implemented, that this project be added to the script. So give it a try. If you're like me, it's hard to remember all those {{what the hell is the name of this project banner template}} thingies and this is definitely a time saver. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 21:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Nifty! Thanks ASE! LadyofShalott 22:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Gay icon

Are we still doing collaborations of the month? Even if not, I'd like to suggest a group effort on the gay icon article. I gave it a massive overhaul last year, but its still a long ways away from being perfect...or even GA. Admittedly, I think I may have peacocked a number of stars without relevence to the subject. In addition, I'd just like a fresh pair of eyes (numerous actually) to see if the layout can be better organized. Right now its organized by time period and by profession. There are current suggestions on the talk page and in one of the most recent archives. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC on name in lede of Gene Robinson

Talk: Gene Robinson#RfC: Is adding Robinson's legal name of Vicky Gene instead of V. Gene approprite for the lede of this BLP?

Your input is welcome. -- Banjeboi 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Gay Icon Bea Arthur dies

I want to cry, but I can't. She was too magnificent for tears. The Golden Girls was particularly groundbreaking for queer themes in television as the show had openly gay and lesbian characters, with frank, open discussion about sexuality and same-sex marriage. How I will miss Ms. Bae! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Aww. Never heard of her though.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
OMG, she was the bees knees of camp. A big gal with a snappy personality and just alook would shoot fire through one's soul. I'm sure YouTube has a few gems. -- Banjeboi 02:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Other LGBT themed eps include "Strange Bedfellows" (Blanche is caught up in a scandal with a politician who used to be a woman); "Scared Straight" (Blanche's younger brother Clayton comes out); and "Goodbye, Mr. Gordon" (Blanche and Dorothy are mistaken for a couple on a talk show). And of course the pilot episoce had a gay cook/houseboy character, Coco, who didn't make it into the series. If anyone's interested Jonny McGovern, a huge GG fan, is doing some sort of tribute to Bea on his next podcast, which will be available next Tuesday through his website and iTunes. Otto4711 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently gay sex is immature

The article on coitus reservatus, amongst some other odd statements, claims that

However, for Karezza to be successful requires the maturity of a heterosexual couple.

(Karezza being apparently a term for coitus reservatus.) This doesn't appear to be quoted text. Thoughts? The Wednesday Island (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

They must be thinking of gay men. Gay women don't need to practice coitus reservatus, since we can just keep going until someone gets bored and wanders away. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Clearly homophobic statement. Kill it. Zazaban (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I killed that sentence. I also made another change that seemed non-NPOV. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 21:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm, huh?

A user made this edit to Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity), then created the Gender Confused Male "article" - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 21:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's awesome. Let's make a category of Confused people and apply it to everyone, biographies and users alike. --Moni3 (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The whimsical side of my wants to say yes. My whimsical side usually wins. So yes, we should. At least for users.Zazaban (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I deleted Gender Confused Male and then added a friendly note to that user's talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Intersexuality incorporation as LGBT project

This page is currently listed as WP:SEX and WP:MED. Because there are social and identity aspects to intersex as well, I am looking to propose that this be included as WP:SOCIOLOGY and WP:LGBT as well, so that the relevant aspects can be addressed from those projects, and should RfC's be necessary, they can be broadened beyond the medical perspective. I would appreciate feedback on how this should be managed, as I am relatively new to wikipedia. I have asked whether there are any strong objections, and the two responses so far have been positive. Mish (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MishMich (talk • contribs)

Include in both immediately, per WP:SNOW. Zazaban (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. Get this: "SatyrBot ignore this article for LGBT project - please don't change" Mish (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added the sociology & LGBT project tags to the page, and would appreciate if somebody gets the chance some time to review it and grade it by class and importance. It has been under medicine and sexology/sexuality, but it is evolving towards two sections, one for sociology/LGBT aspects, and one for medical/sexology aspects. I have left a comment on the SatyrBot page, and removed the comment. Mish (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggested change to template

Cooljuno411 has suggested a change at Template talk:Sexual orientation. Since more folks watch this page, I'm mentioning it here (but discussion should happen over there). LadyofShalott 04:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox LGBT rights - ready to roll out to rest of country/state articles?

{{Infobox LGBT rights}} has been on live trial at LGBT rights in New Zealand for 2 weeks (see original thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 25#Replacing LGBT rights series box with country-specific infoboxes on country articles?). Does anyone think the wording needs more refinement, or is the current wording good enough to roll out to the rest of the LGBT rights in country/state articles? Thx, Wikignome0529 (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The infobox may need elaboration on transgender-specific issues which may not be relevant to same-sex relationships as trans people have a variety of orientations depending on attraction and gender identity. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I adjusted the Discrimination protections field on the NZ example to specify sexual orientation & gender ID (the New Zealand anti-discrim act covers both), and added a "Gender identity/expression" field which could cover other legal aspects of gender ID/expression -- though I left it blank on the NZ article due to lack of info (according to the 2008 ILGA report (page 48), NZ passed leglislation on gender reassignment in 1995, but haven't found any more specific info to put in the infobox). Feel free to tweak it any further. Wikignome0529 (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It appears good to me. I think its ok to use on other articles. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's time to roll it out. Good job. — Becksguy (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Carrie Prejean

There is some controversy developing over the "Miss USA 2009 controversy" section in this article. It would be helpful to have a few more editors watching this. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

There has been some conflict about adding LGBT musicians from the United States , Bisexual musicians and Bisexual people categories to the page, those who actually did reply to the issue on her talk page were divided but I guess it needs more editors to help decide. She has stated in interviews that she was not lesbian, but bisexual. Raintheone (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

When asked if she is bisexual Lohan replied "Maybe. Yeah." and "I don't want to classify myself."[10] hence the conflict. If she had actually stated flat out that she is bisexual, there wouldn't be much to discuss. Siawase (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I know this sounds bad as we know sexuality really isn't a personal choice, would it be fair to just put the category on her page. As she has actually had the relationship, so that is LGBT atleast, obviously she can still decide she is straight afterall and put it down to experimenting. Raintheone (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This issue is marked resolved. The catergorey is not to be included. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Another thing that made the debate so messy is that people on the Lohan talk missed or ignored earlier threads about the issue and just started new ones. There were two more threads started earlier where debate has been (slowly) ongoing. Siawase (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Content review

This edit needs review and if relevant and reliable, could use counterpoint content. I'm assuming good faith here, but it's just so hard... - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 01:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder if the suicide rate has anything to do with the idiots who discriminate? And if the lower life expectancy has anything to do with hate murders? Gee, I wonder. Zazaban (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I can probably get the articles tomorrow and read them, but my question is why health information is in the article about LGBT rights opposition. Poor people have many more health issues. What is the point? --Moni3 (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree the section shouldn't even be in the article.. but the "dark side" thinks it's relevant to opposing rights for LGBT people.. "they spread disease and are crazy.. they don't need rights, they need purging".. something along those lines I imagine. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 01:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Which individuals or organizations actually use health issues as a basis for opposition? Naming them will clear up that "Some opponents of gay rights argue" beginning (weasel), but I want to know, for encyclopedic content, which people actually try to explain that gay people should not have job protection or, (frejeajfekjfsjf) health insurance because they have health issues, assuming the information is accurate. Should segregation come back because blacks are more prone to sickle cell anemia? Speaking of anal cancer, I can only image the damage done to one's rectum by pulling this one out. --Moni3 (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Replied on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Suggest this article be nominated for deletion. Such material should feature in an 'opposition to LGBT rights' section under LGBT social movements and/or homophobia. Note that Anti Semitism is dealt with as a separate topic, but not in this way.Mish (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Material is important and meaningful and should be kept, but not in this article and minus the polemic slant. Haiduc (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree, needs POV dealing with and merging - I begun inserting and rewording away from polemic content. Mish (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tamsin Wilton

I am interested in creating an article for the late Tamsin Wilton, Professor of Sexuality at University of West of England. She was my external PhD supervisors for two years, and published on a range of LGBT issues including sexuality, lesbianism, AIDS and transsexualism. Although she could be located within sexology or sociology of medicine, she was primarily concerned with LGBT health issues. She is notable, being the only person (as far as I am aware) to be appointed as Professor of Sexuality in the UK. I have made a few contributions to Wikipedia since 2006, and now I have submitted my thesis intend to do more editing, but would appreciate any advice people could give in creating an LGBT project. Mish (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, i would check out WP:PROF. I'm not sure if being the only Prof of a subject makes on notable enough (as it could apply to lots of fringe studies), so you need to decide if she meets the other notability requirments listed. It's not a certain defence against such an article being deleted (people can still disagree), but it quite widely applied. My PhD supervisor had a few books published, but imo is not wikinotable, as he was never a Dean or somesuch and is not particularly highly cited for the field.YobMod 11:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand, Professor in the UK is different from the USA - it is a formal position within a school as well as a formal title. So, most usually schools have only one professor in any subject department, and that person being awarded their professorship after many years. Professorship is usually assessed in relation to publication. In that respect, while of lower 'rank' than a Dean, it is of higher 'rank' than a post-doctoral researcher or lecturer - as it can take ten to twenty years of work before being invited to become a professor. After she died an award was made in her name, and she published books and papers on lesbian and gay health (in the UK), many of which are referred to by others. Thanks for the reply, so I can clarify this. Mish (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I studied in the UK too. My school for example had 4 current profs (Organic-, Inorganic-, Physical-, biochemical-chemistry) and many emeriti-profs, but i still doubt any were truly wiki-notable. But having an award named after her would seem to make this one in a different league. Mentioning the award in the lead would almost certainly stop a premature deletion, as it is an implicit claim of notability. Good luck!YobMod 15:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I have pulled together a first draft in my user area, and will get the format right as per MoS for biographies, and ensure appropriate citations are included as well as a bibliography, and then get it set up as an article. Mish (talk)

The page is constructed (go gently on me, it is my first). Mish (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

section on Long John Baldry's sexuality added to his biography

As he was one of the first public figures in the UK entertainment industry to live openly as a gay man, I have highlighted this in his biography: Long_John_Baldry#Sexuality Mish (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Systematic sabotage of homosexual topics needs attention

Please look in on these article, as I am being followed around by another editor who is systematically interfering with routine edits. Hasdrubal the Fair‎
Pederasty
Historical pederastic relationships‎
Nicolò Giraud‎
Haiduc (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you could provide a little more information, it might be easier to respond to this. What exactly is the nature of the dispute, and why do you think your changes are being reverted? I see that Nandesuka wants to remove a lot of content from articles that you want to include there - I'm not sure about the pros and cons of this, but if you could say what this editor's problems are with the material that would help. Born Gay (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I cannot speak for this fellow and his motives, though they are transparent enough. Maybe you should ask him. However, following other editors around and deleting material arbitrarily and without proper explanation is blatantly unacceptable. That on its face is not appropriate Wikipedia behavior, and should be a disciplinary matter for the authorities here, but I am not versed in the system and do not want to be. I come here to write not to prosecute. If a few people can approach the matter rationally maybe we can develop a consensus and resolve matters intelligently rather than through the judicial system. But you have to look at the pros and cons, otherwise this can't work. Haiduc (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't really recommend anything here, except persuing normal dispute resolution. Ask for third opinions or discuss the matter on the relevant talk pages. If you feel that Nandesuka is behaving unacceptably, then you might try starting a discussion on an administrator's noticeboard. Genuine cases of administrator misbehavior should be dealt with appropriately. And remember that it helps to remain civil - implying that someone may have unpleasant motivations but not saying what you believe they are does not really help matters. Where the content is concerned, some of the dispute (eg, at Pederasty) looks to be over relatively minor changes to wording. I wouldn't say that this was worth fighting over. Born Gay (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Born Gay - I restored that article to its current status. All information there is provided by me. It was originally up for AfD and I brought sources to it. I have taken sources from those who see Byron as homosexual and have incorporated -every- opinion by critics on the relationship. The current reversions is from Haiduc moving biographical -fact- into a section devoted to critical -speculation- by people who did not witness if there was an actual relationship or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
There is one addition that is worth while - Hobhouse's comments on Moore, but a primary source would be more appropriate in the situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
These are matters to be discussed on that article's talk page, not here, but yours is the correct way to proceed, not the arbitrary deletions of that other editor. So we have gained something by airing these issues. But that still leaves the damage to three other articles to be addressed.
As for Born Gay's comments, I was not looking for recommendations. I was looking for individuals with intellectual integrity and an interest in the honest presentation of homosexual history. A kind of RfC, if you would. The behavior of other editors is their problem, not mine. These are matters that can be resolved academically. That is how you avoid a fight, not by caving in to edits that damage Wikipedia. Haiduc (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Haiduc, I asked Moni3 to look over the situation as an objective observer. My intentions are to get the page to GA/FA level. Moni3 knows about FA class LGBT pages. I am concerned heavily with presentation and yes, Giraud is notable because he had a serious relationship with Byron that has sparked quite a bit of speculation of various degrees. The poem written about Giraud ensures that there is a heavy sexual slant towards interpretations. However, we need to be sure to present factual things in a simple chronology, discuss critical interpretation in their own chronology, and not to be anachronistic. The best thing we can do is let scholars speak for themselves and let readers decide. Now, I would really like for the will to be moved back to the biography section as that is one of the few factual biographical details that we have and we need to have the citations repaired. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your courteous response. Let's discuss this further at the article page. And I will repeat here that while the Nicolo Giraud issues are likely now to be resolved in a civilized manner, the other three articles remain damaged, some heavily. Haiduc (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we can separate Giraud from the others, no? Now, for the only other biography, Hasdrubal the Fair, the issue seems to be the heavy use of primary sources. Primary sources can be used but should be stated as primary. What you need to do is include critical works that discuss the sources in order to put the context. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the article is only a stub right now, there is more that can be added. I would love to have you join in! Haiduc (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Haiduc, your comments concerned a dispute you were having with another user. The focus was on behavior. You didn't specifically refer to content issues. I thought my comments were reasonable - especially the part about remaining civil. Your comments above ("I was looking for individuals with intellectual integrity", etc) may come across as rather less civil than you intend them to. Born Gay (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I do not see this as a "dispute." I see this as blatant, objective damage to Wikipedia. As for civility, I don't think it is a good use of our time to lecture each other on what we think that is and is not. My only interest in this forum is to work on building an accurate encyclopedia. Haiduc (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The page is a battleground, so there will be incivility on each side. As such, it is probably best to push that aside, as it is minor rudeness and nothing worth bothering about. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at this one - Historical pederastic relationships‎ - because I wanted to see what was said about Byron and about Lawrence, but these seem to be subject to the edit warring. I'm not sure what the problem with these two is, and the only way I can make sense of it would be to revert back to your edit. This is not a topic beyond that I am that interested in, so I am reluctant to get involved - however, I did notice the comment from the reverter is to take your changes (i.e. edits) to the talk page. You have not done this. I am going to revert the edit, and kick off the discussion. You can take it from there. Mish (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I had a look at that one article, and reverted back to the edit which inserted material so I could a sense of what it was like, and I cannot see what the problem with it might be unless the reverter has another agenda. The bits I am familiar with are hardly news, and they are properly sourced. I think expecting discussion on a board that has had little for months is odd when the person suggesting discussion has not attempted to discuss their reverts either. So, I have opened up a section for discussion, point out the reason for my reverts (so I can actually read what is there - novel concept, but believe it or not some people do come to Wikipedia for that reason!), said how it seems fairly unproblematic to me, and requested the edit be allowed to stand (as it is not news and the people are dead), and that if there are any issues with what has been inserted, each is discussed one-by-one on the talk page rather than reverting the whole lot. I don't know if that is Wikiteque or not, but it seems to make more sense than what is happening at the moment. I won't be visiting the other pages. Mish (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBTQ%2B_studies/Archive_25&oldid=1249344983"