Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Cult classic has been proposed for deletion at AfD. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm developing a

• Oh, also, does anyone know what the coding is so that the header bar would be a nice lavender color?
  talk
  ) 21:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In HTML, CC99FF is good. In Wiki markup there's probably a name for it. Rivertorch (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ooh, pretty!
  talk
  ) 22:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

-- Banjeboi

00:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Found the Compton's one. Not convinced that the CRH press conference should be included as from everything I've seen there wasn't any LGBT involvement in the press conference itself. Perhaps it should be added to the intro?
  talk
  ) 19:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were at the CRH ball and wrote about it in Lesbian/Woman. Randy Shilts also wrote about it in Mayor of Castro Street. --Moni3 (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've read about the CRH event. The material I've seen doesn't indicate any sort of protest or demonstration (other than one of the lawyers demanding to see a cop's invitation, who was ignored).
  talk
  ) 21:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• There's much more than that but until we have a source that spells it out ... it may have to wait.
  -- Banjeboi
  00:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I pulled this out of the speedy deletion firepit and tidied it up, but I can't find any solid sources. Hopefully someone can find something. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While I'm here ...

Glambert just talked about his sexuality (take a guess) for a Rolling Stone interview today, but I see his page isn't tagged for LGBT ... too soon? - Dank (push to talk

) 03:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagged.

talk

) 05:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The above article has been tagged as NPOV. I obviously completely disagree with that assessment and a very preliminary

Well, I avoided this article as long as I could, I guess. But I think it's time we need to shit or get off the pot.

Either this should be written so that it can be understood, or we should merge or initiate an AfD. I lack a background in TS issues, which is why I'm bringing this here, hoping others more knowledgeable in TS sources and experts can assist.

1. Is this an actual concept? I mean, I can go to the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality (or similar) and look up concepts like gay, lesbian, transsexual, transvestite, homophobia, bisexuality and there are articles on these that summarize the body of literature written on these topics. Could I go to a similar tome about gender identity or TS issues and find an article or section on the concept of "homosexual transsexual"?
2. If it is an actual concept as opposed to the joining of two separate concepts, is there an RS that clearly defines what it is? I'm searching and it appears I keep going hunting for another source. I searched the LGBT Life in full text database to find 4 articles. One mentioned "homosexual transsexual" in the title, referring to Korean men, then said that the homosexual transsexual has been "well-established", referring to two other articles. In searching for the first, that article refers to another article written in the International Journal of Psychiatry by Money & Gaskin in 1970 (not used in the Wikipedia article). I don't have access to this article from 1970. However, this article also stated that there are two types of transsexuals: fetishistic and homosexual. Would these issues be better presented in the article about transsexualism?
3. After multiple GA nominations, it appears that the main contributor to this article is fatigued. Either we need to assist this editor with improving the coherence of the article, or we should disabuse the editor of the notion that this article should exist in the way it does. I'm proposing to make this the Collaboration of the (Time Period) to reach some kind of resolution.

Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's - how to put it this - a way of categorising trans people. It emerged to some extent in the 1970s, got mostly discredited, and re-emerged around the 1990s as part of a fringe theory of transsexuality - the

Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory

). In short, these three believe that trans people (specifically trans women, really) can be seperated into groupings according to sexuality, and have formed drastically different conclusions about each group; "homosexual transsexual" being one of these.

If it's to be kept, it all needs to be tied down a lot more - specifically much more focused on a) its initial emergence, which led to it at one point being included in the DSM, b) how it died out, and c) it's re-emergence under Bailey et al. The downside of doing this, though, is that it's going to start looking very similar to the article on the theory itself. I'm not sure how the article could be cleaned up on present lines; much of it seems to be trying to make a case for it being distinct from the article on the theory, which I suspect is why it's so incoherent - it's essentially a list of Bailey, Blanchard and Lawrence's assertions about the groups they've defined, while any of the context needed to actually understand what they're talking about is in the article on the theory.

I'm starting come to the conclusion that a topic under this name mightn't be the most useful means of approaching this area. It's not really possible to have an article on "homosexual transsexual" without explaining to the lay reader what that is - and to do that, you're just going to wind up rehashing the theory article with a few changes. It might make more sense, if people were interested in explaining all of this more clearly, to merge this back into the theory article, improve the theory article (which is itself pretty awful at present), and then break out summary sections from that where necessary. This, I think, would be more useful than trying to make something useful come out of this. Rebecca (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because I spent the morning trying to find anything that described the concept behind homosexual transsexual that I found the first part of Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence theory to be clearer than anything in the Homosexual transsexual article. I honestly cannot say if merging is the best idea mainly because I am unfamiliar with the sources. However, if there really is no central source to define exactly what a Homosexual transsexual is, we should consider merging it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is a central source - the Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence theory, which brings us back to square one. I think it's just not a very sensible break-out of that article; while it would be quite possible to break out summary-style articles from that topic, should it become large enough, trying to have a "Homosexual transsexual" article structures it in such a way that, to make any sense, it more or less has to mimic the main article. Writing a future "Categories of the Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence theory" article might cover similar subject matter without running into the issues had here. Rebecca (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

At 13kb of readable prose in BBL theory, I am not seeing a reason why a summary article was made of Homosexual transsexual. I think we should wait a couple days to see if a few others pitch in this topic and if we come back to the same square, a discussion for the merge of articles should be initiated. --Moni3 (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have avoided this article too, because a certain sexologist is lurking in the background, and the main editor is a pet HSTS who I have crossed swords with elsewhere.

First and foremost, an article must be able to be understood by lay readers. I defy anyone to glean any understanding from the article the way it is now. It simply does not discuss what in the world the concept of a homosexual transsexual is. If they can, and they can explain it, they should rewrite it. Without coherence, the article is a series of unrelated and poorly constructed sentences that are joined in what appear to be paragraphs. --Moni3 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mish, please refrain from personal attacks and incivility. Calling someone a "pet HSTS" isn't acceptable. Born Gay (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes it's a mess, yes, likely merging back to the parent makes the most sense (and be ready to protect the redirect). Yes, this is part of an ongoing dispute across many articles by a handful of editors, some very POV with others likely also with agendas countering them. Yes, this had gone to some mediation but even a small step into the morass is like no other sleeping pill imaginable with piles of even more confusing writing which just mucks up any article in the process. I admire the tenacity but many times simply reverting back to the last good version is the way to go. If we had a good article and after a death of a thousand cuts it's a POV mess then rolling way back might be the way to go. In this case merging may make the most sense.
  -- Banjeboi
  00:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Without making statements against particular editors (and I really am clueless sometimes), is there an effort ongoing by multiple editors to represent the research of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence? to be more prominent or legitimately accepted than what is actually the case? Should there be a reason to get official intervention here? --Moni3 (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally yes and yes. A look at the BLP of

-- Banjeboi

01:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's Blanchard et al themselves, or at least that's not my understanding. I think Wikipedia's just landed one person with a very determined POV, and views that are uh, unique. Rebecca (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not Blanchard or Bailey, no way. Benji knows, and so do a couple of others by the looks of things. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I take back my above comment - a quick Google search on some of the involved parties here, and it's pretty clear we're actually dealing with a fairly concerted astroturfing campaign from a couple of very involved people. Surprised I didn't pick it earlier. Rebecca (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. It appears there are quite a few articles involving TS issues that have the hand of an editor or two greatly influenced or associated with this research trio, violating WP:COI, WP:Weight, WP:RS, WP:V, and the English language. I sense some tip toeing around the issue here, and I don't know the backstory or anything, which makes me neutral and stupid. But a suite of related articles in our content area is filled with gibberish, which counters the reason we are on Wikipedia. Most of us, I guess.

So, we can go about this several ways. We can rewrite the articles that deserve full articles with the best reliable sources possible and guard them against further COI violations, then AfD the ones that don't deserve their own articles. I would prefer this method though it is time consuming, since my foundations on TS issues are weak and this would strengthen them. We could begin nominating articles that don't deserve full articles and are incoherent and embattled, for AfD. Either way, I don't think it will be pretty and we may end up at ArbCom over this. We can also ignore it and hope it will go away, which it will not, while articles continue to confuse the hell out of readers and misinform people who are honestly trying to read up on issues they care about.

I've never taken anything on this large. I foresee it quickly devolving into name-calling and multiple ANI threads unless we can organize ourselves and get educated before we start. However, I hold out some hope that if a group of editors with the same goals of having well-written coherent articles on TS issues works together, it may not turn to shit, and some folks may not end up topic banned or blocked. So...opinions? --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be great, if you're up for it, to take on the task of cleaning this mess up. I think if a few people pitch in and make these work, these could be cleaned up significantly hopefully without it winding up with too much drama. These sort of rewrites AREN'T really my area in terms of article-writing, but I'm happy to give some advice along the way. Rebecca (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As a passive observer, the above summary sounds accurate to me. I probably won't be able to put in a lot of time on research or rewrite, but I'll try to pitch in where I can. Trailing off from

WP:FRINGE, WP:Civil POV pushing seems to have some good advice. Siawase (talk

) 13:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to go nuts gung-ho on this knowing what a headache it will produce, but I'm not sure how to proceed from this point on. It seems the wise thing to do would be to list the articles with coherence problems that seem to be edited by people with COI problems. We should assess their eventual trajectory based on the weight of reliable sources. For instance, listing Homosexual transsexual with a suggestion to merge or delete the article. If there is a central forum where the most editors will see this, such as the talk page of Transsexual or some other article, we should make clear what our mission is in the interest of transparency. That is, if we (plural) have one, agreed by many users in this project. --Moni3 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the way to go. Get the articles that need work together, and then we can work out the most appropriate way of organising them. Rebecca (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

TS articles with COI problems

Start here:

Or start here:

• Classification of transsexuals#Ray Blanchard
• Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation
• Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders#Criticism 2
• Chronophilia
• Transgender#Autogynephilia
• DSM-V
  Sexual & Gender Identity Disorders Work Group has been controversial
• Susan Bradley Canadian psychiatrist also works with Zucker,
• Joseph Nicolosi, past-president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) *bing, bing, alarm*, who helps connects the dots between gender identity issues and reparative/conversion therapy
• International Academy of Sex Research ([1])
• J. Michael Bailey
• Gender identity disorder in children
• Stephen B. Levine, American psychiatrist, also connected to Zucker

There's been a few user name changes and at least two mediation cabal cases. Looking through these there are some quite involved folks on all sides. It might be helpful to send in uninvolved BLP specialists to shovel out those in particular per

I notice there's been nothing new here in a couple of days - where are we going to proceed on this? Rebecca (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm still trying to think how to proceed with this. The table I started there I believe should be filled in. We should be specific with the faults of the articles. To be extraordinarily specific, which this may lead to, we may have to take a line-by-line or source-by-source deconstruction of the most egregious articles to prove that sources are being misused and the concepts misrepresented. I'm far behind the rest of the editors here who seem to be familiar with this dispute, not only in experience with these editors but I'm deficient in the research. Our first action should be to post the list of articles in a central location with their deficiencies, notifying the editors who are most responsible for the content. But we should be very well prepared when that happens because the reaction may lead to further mediation and ANI issues.

I feel like I need to go to the library and start fresh with an overview of the best literature on TS issues and gender theory. I can do it, but as I'm sure you can imagine, it would take a while to get familiar with everything. It took me a month to construct the Lesbian article even though I am very familiar with most of the issues in the article, and I'm still working on it. So maybe I'm not the best person to lead this charge. --Moni3 (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It is important that neutral eyes are seen to be on this. I am happy to support, but I have other commitments that take priority. I will keep in touch with this, and offer any help or information I can, but because these matters seem to need pro-active hands-on work (from what I have seen) from experienced editors, I cannot afford to either become too involved and distracted from other matters, or to become involved and find I am distracted by other matters at critical points in the process. I hope you can understand this. I do think it is important that this is sorted out, but right now I can only offer limited commitment. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude, seriously. WTF is going on in this case? No, I'm serious. I just got hold of an article that discusses some serious COI violations off-wiki by Andrea James, Lynn Conway, and Dierdre McCloskey. I found the Lynn Conway mediation saying this article from the Archives of Sexual Behavior cannot be treated as a reliable source. A significant number of the citations used in Homosexual transsexual are from Archives of Sexual Behavior. Where is the other mediation? Can someone explain what.the.fuck. is going on here? Email me if you have to and explain it to me like I'm freakin' 3 years old. --Moni3 (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're referring to - I haven't had anything to do with the articles in this area in the past, so I'm afraid you'll have to fill me in on any history here. I've shot you an email - perhaps if you can fill me in on what you've run into I might be able to give some context. Rebecca (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The central figures in this debate, Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence, have espoused what is apparently a very controversial theory. I do not understand why it is controversial yet. They have upset several TS activists who also appear to be Wikipedians. Three of them have been accused by an Intersex academic of harassing J. Michael Bailey and attempting to ruin his professional career off-Wiki, from 2003 to 2005. I just found The New York Times has covered this story. So there are two sides: those who are professionally related to Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence, who are writing these incoherent articles that try to summarize these theories, and the activists who vehemently oppose these theories. --Moni3 (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

New York Times, April 21, 2007 last paragraph: But that, say supporters of Dr. Bailey, is precisely the problem: Who defines responsible? And at what cost is that definition violated? It is perhaps fitting that the history of this conflict, which caught fire online, is being written and revised continually in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which is compiled and corrected by users. The reference site provides a lengthy entry on Dr. Bailey, but a section titled "Research Misconduct," which posts some of the accusations Dr. Dreger reviewed, includes a prominent warning. It reads: The neutrality of this section is disputed. --Moni3 (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In a very short nutshell, Bailey, Blanchard and Lawrence's theories attempt to divide all trans women into two categories, one which they view as homosexual men who went too far, and the other as heterosexual perverts fulfilling a fetish. It shouldn't be too surprising that this is going to be seen as, well, rather transphobic.

Andrea James, Lynn Conway and Deirdre McCloskey are three prominent trans activists who've dedicated a lot of time to criticising Bailey et al and opposing their influence. Bailey and his supporters have continually retaliated against them, and it's a feud that's taken on some large personal dimensions. This has spilled onto Wikipedia; one of those three, and someone who appears to be a personal friend of Bailey's, have been the two main protaganists here.

The Archives of Sexual Behaviour, which published the article you read about, is a journal heavily associated with and run by Bailey's supporters. Both Richard Green, its first editor, and Kenneth Zucker, its current editor, are heavily affiliated with Bailey, Blanchard and Lawrence; beyond those three, they're probably the theory's most notable and active proponents. I wouldn't say it isn't a reliable source (at least for their views), but it's fairly obviously a partisan source.

This is where we come to Alice Dreger, who wrote the article you read. Dreger is a fairly controversial activist on intersex issues. I've seen her referred to as the Bailey of intersex issues; she's promoted some pretty fringe theories there, and she's personally and professionally associated with him. I'm not sure if she herself is intersex - I understood she was cissexual, but I might be wrong. Anyway, the article she put out made some vitriolic attacks on James and Conway; the journal did actually publish a response from Julia Serano, a respected trans writer; that might be a good place to start if you're looking for a more academic response.

Any clearer now? Rebecca (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A bit. Is there any reliable source, such as a textbook that is centrally acknowledged to be a defining body of work, that discusses transsexualism? Is there a majority view, so to speak, where the majority of sexologists believe in a certain theory? If Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence's categorizations of transsexuals is a minority view, are they all minority views? An article dedicated to Homosexual transsexual indicates that this term is a recognized term among sexologists, yet several sources used in the article indicate that it is not an acceptable term, making it applicable to WP:Fringe. I swear to God this is like trying to call customer service at Amazon. --Moni3 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Short answer, no. There's a real lack of good, overarching material in this area, beyond the accepted international standards themselves in the form of the WPATH Standards of Care and the relevant sections of the DSM-IV. Rebecca (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree. Two general books that cover transgender as well as transex worth looking at are Whittle & Stryker's Trangender Reader [2], or Ekins & Kings The Transgender Phenomeonon [3], or Male Femaling [4]. Drescher & Karajic's review of GID in DSM [5] is more geared to diagnostics. WPATH's International Journal of Transgenderism is a good source of information on contemporary and historic papers on transsexualism and transgenderism. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I have access to these books as well as a startling array of texts on human sexuality. Who knew people were so obsessed with...oh, nevermind. I need to do some reading, and I am asking for guidance from someone I hope can give it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot the link to WPATH's IJT, but type it into Google and you will find it. If you need anything, ask, as I will either have it or have a good idea where to find it. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree we need to strategize effectively but also think bringing Moni3 up to being a T-Girl expert would be a huge deal! Woo-hoo! Of all the articles mentioned in the prior section some are minor and, of course, some may be missing. The BLPs should be handled on their own track a bit as they are a holy grail of sorts. The Archives of Sexual Behaviour is a good case where it would seem an obvious RS until one realizes the researchers just maybe are compromised a bit. This will easily be one for the annals of the project.

I'd probably also add to the above list Zucker and Green (from the Archives of Sexual Behaviour), and the

Clarke Institute, the rather notorious clinic that most of these people have used to gain access to actual trans patients. Rebecca (talk

) 10:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Could probably do with more eyes in light of this: [6]. Siawase (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has already been moved to

manual of style indicate changing the pronouns all the way back, or simply starting to use 'he' for new information? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 00:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing the pronouns all the way back. Rebecca (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is some wiggle room to make sense so as to keep context, for instance if Bono taked about dating boys and that needed to stay in it should likely make sense that they were still identified as a girl then. In many cases simply going gender neutral language and fixing items to not dwell on the gender is the most NPOV.

-- Banjeboi

00:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Two points. This is early days, he has started to transition. Second point. He was notable before transition as a lesbian activist, so some reference could be made to the details of transition & former name in the text to help make sense of his coming out as a lesbian, etc. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about this article. I haven't been involved in it. But I reverted an uncited edit, and looking at the history brought this recent edit, putting significant weight on NAMBLA. Is anyone paying attention to the content here? --Moni3 (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching it but have scaled back a bit lately, more eyes are always welcome. The NAMBLA bits should be trimmed back per undue in this case.

-- Banjeboi

23:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am curious about how the

At first glance, I thought this was about the Proposition 8 vote in California that caused suspicion that LGBT extremists had threatened Mormon churches or some such. But naw. I can't figure out why this article is tagged. I asked User:Amadscientist about it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not interested in starting a conflict and I have no problem marking articles that relate to specific Wikiprojects, but this seemed...strange; I just did not see how it fit into the scope. Again, I could be missing something. Thank you for your kind assistance.

I did think of the Prop 8 issue, but that did not apply. The LDS Church falls within the LGBT wikiproject and is marked as such, but I find a relationship there whereas here I don't. --^StormRider 22:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find it is tied to Proposition 8, because Mormons who hold hands in public are routinely attacked - not! But also linked to

-- Banjeboi

23:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the tag from

Talk:Mormon violence that several of us do not feel that article fits within the project's scope. LadyofShalott

00:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The way the articles are now there is nothing LGBT in them. There needs to be something in the article that relates it to this project. LadyofShalott 02:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with the principle that an article must actually make mention of homosexuality to qualify for inclusion in this project, it wasn't that hard to add it with full references. Usually we don't rush these things, but let them grow naturally in this open source medium. I am always encouraged to move slowly and not rush edits. However in this instance I felt that I was squarely being challenged with what I feel is an obvious connection and was compelled to add the section "Violence against LGBT People", with links to two main articles. I really feel that some have assumed bad faith on my part to quickly. I have also returned the information that was deleted as redundant at

Platonic love needs attention. Haiduc (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

German and gay, can anyone add a source to confirm sexuality?

Caden's back seen here removing sourced and stable content from the lede, as well as a sock of someone, more eyes on this please.

Benji, as to your question on that article about the photo being removed, you may want to look over this diff and you'll see who did it and may find other content removed that shouldn't have been. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 02:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, they seemed to hav moved it but my feeble brain missed that. I find targeting LGBT murder-victim articles as our recent drama on

-- Banjeboi

01:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is one of two "typed" subcategories of Category:Fashion designers — the only other is currently Category:Jewish fashion designers. The latter seems to be going down in flames:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 8#Category:Jewish fashion designers

I nominated this for deletion, thinking (as a formerly active PFLAG and HRC family member) that this stereotypical category would not be well received:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 9#Category:LGBT fashion designers

If folks really want to keep it, there should be a main article of the same name. What say you all?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a main page should be either created or an existing article used as the hub. I am somewhat bothered, however, that many gay artist are not listed in the first category because they are listed in the second category. Adrian (costume designer) is listed in the Jewish Fashion design category but not the LGBT category. Can they be in both or does adding it to one cancel the other?

Edit- Correction. He is listed on the LGBT catagory. Nevermind. However he is listed as a costume designer and it is not even mentioned that many of his designs were actualy sold in the public market and were very popular. This defines him for purposes here as a fashion designer, but the information is lacking and I see why it was not listed.--

• I agree there should be a lead article on the subject, but per
  talk
  ) 19:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as...we are in no immediate hurry and will take some time to research a little and bring this backup in the future if there is any questions or problems. I was, at one point, going to attempt an re-organization of the articles within the scope of "Costume and fashion design", but never got around to it. There were some problems with the article costume design, that needed some attention. After that I kind of wandered away. I will eventually get back to it but it is good to know that there are others with similar concerns and interest in these areas.--

• No rush -- Better to concentrate on upcoming Stonewall articles. Since multiple active folks here want to keep the category, and have an interest in writing an encyclopedic article about it, then would you like me to withdraw the nomination?
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• officially kept.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As part of the GA Sweeps project I have reviewed this article and reluctantly concluded that it should be delisted until concerns over referencing and the lack of broad scope are addressed. Comments have been left at Talk:Ian McKellen/GA1 suggesting ways in which the article can be improved. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That should make Bette Bourne happy - he had some very scathing things to say about him in the

Please take a moment to weigh in on this discussion

The editor appears to be a newly registered user who did not understanding the user page, talk page etc or Wiki etiquette or policy and made edits due to the use of the word "sublimated" that were mentioned in his edit summeries. In looking into the references I was only scanning to make sure the citations used the word properly. I reverted those edits.

In discussing on the users talk page about the issue with the editor, I was attempting to guide the user through just a few basic aspects of editing and references. I was supplying the links to the two citations from the statements when I noticed that the key issue of removing the words "man-boy" were in fact justified, while not for the exact reasons the editor was making them.

He was actually correct about the use of the word sublimated and it's definition of replacing something for an acceptable form. It was not being used as they authors in the citations were. There was also no mention by either references to "man-boy".

I have copy edited the lede to reflect what the authors intended.--

I have put up a proposal at the talk page of Template:LGBT to split queer studies content to its own template(s). While LGBT & queer studies have a lot of overlap, some topics (like polyamory and BDSM) are not very LGBT-specific and look odd in a mostly-LGBT template. Polyamory itself has been added and removed twice. Having a separate template would allow more room to expand on queer studies topics without making the LGBT templates look like a free-for-all catch-all area for everything viewed as odd/strange by "straight" society. Input welcome at talk page:

Nevermind, apparently BDSM/poly are

What about a queer theory template then? Mish (just an editor) (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Sheila Jeffreys page has had attacks and insults added to it repeatedly over the last several days. I have had to remove them three times over now. Other editors, please take a look at the history of this page and remove the attacks, as they are likely to be added again and again. The IP has varied, but it is probably the same person behind all the attacks. Guuao (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly what you'd call "attacks and insults". I wouldn't agree with the wording the IP is using, but the point is something that ought to be better represented in the article - she's an immensely controversial figure. Rebecca (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but material like that does not belong in a BLP. More reasoned critique without recourse to epithets is what would be preferable, with reliable sources to substantiate them. She is controversial, and that requires some detail on the matters provoke these sorts of comments. I have a copy of Unpacking Queer Politics, when I have time I can pull something out of there. She had something to say about transmen in there somewhere that wasn't well received as I recall. BLP rules are clear - unsourced, unreliable, inaccurate or unverifiable material, when challenged, should be removed immediately and only inserted when it has been agreed to have been sourced properly. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Not well received" is an understatement - she's second only to Janice Raymond in terms of famous transphobes, and roughly in about the same spot for oh, sex workers, the BDSM community, and rather a long list of groups. But yes, apart from this I agree entirely - it was more a matter of "the anon's concerns should actually be better represented here" than in any way "that text should stay". Rebecca (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added something on her writing on marriage and sex work (needs more work, including critique) and BDSM, and will look at trans. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Following discussion on

• Unlabeled sexual orientation
• Pomosexual
• Polyamory

I would think

I don't much care about whether the template is on those articles; just that they're a bit tangential to actually be in any LGBT template (and Pomosexual still really needs to be deleted or merged). Rebecca (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If the article itself has LGBT-specific content within it, then I guess project-tagging is reasonable. Most people who practice BDSM or anal sex probably do not identify as LGBT -- thus they are as much hetero topics as LGBT topics. This is the main reason the project-tags have been challenged in good faith by users like myself and others -- also, you must realize that if you tag something because of a "negative association with LGBT", then another LGBT editor may come along andremove the tag for the very same reason :-). If tons of Simpsons and South Park episode articles are project-tagged because of any LGBT content in the episode (though the shows are not "LGBT" shows), then I guess it's not unreasonable to tag BDSM, poly, anal sex, etc. for having LGBT-specific content within the article itself (even though the articles are not LGBT-specific articles). I hope the advocates for tagging do realize how odd it looks though, to have sex acts tagged. :-/

talk

) 19:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not bothered by how it looks to anyone as long as when somone needs our help we are easy to find and if the page is slated for deletion we'd hear about it. And

-- Banjeboi

02:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is proposed that Pederasty is now also removed from the template. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Link to discussion?

-- Banjeboi

02:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:LGBT#Pederasty?

I had assumed from the above that this was about the project template - but (some of) it is not. The LGBT navbox should only be for the most important, most broad articles, as an inital navigation aid. As such i agree with all the removals mentioned here. All of the removed articles should be reachable by a single click from the higher heirachy articles. A navbox on the whole subject of LGBT cannot go into detail about every aspect; sub-topics and somewhat related things should have the more specific navboxen in place. So template:LGBT should be on "lesbian", but not on "Lesbians in fiction" or "dildo" or "second-wave feminism" - even if these topics are associated with lesbianism, they are too specific too tangential for the extremely limited space in the navbox.

As to the talk page project template, let reliable sources decide. A source lining BDSM to LGBT issues or studies is trivial to find, so if the articles include discussion of such things, may as well leave the template. The project talkpage template is to help project members find articles that an LGBT perspective may be particularly helpful on, which includes BDSM imo, and pederasty and most any sexual orientation. I'm sure members of this project have read a lot more than most on sexuality and gender issues, even if not precisely LGBT.

I've suggested task-forces / sub-projects before, so maybe a "Queer theory" one would allow us to be both more inclusive of these topics, while not necessarily claiming them to be especially LGBT? For now we have the banner option to add a rationale - can we decide maybe on some standard wordings (btw, does everyone know how to use it?)

• "This article falls under the LGBT studies project's perview as reliable sources show it to be an important topic in Queer theory"
• "This BLP article falls under the LGBT studies project's perview as reliable sources call the subject a gay icon"
• "This BLP article falls under the LGBT studies project's perview as reliable sources show the subject to have notable opinions on
  LGBT rights
  "

I really think if we started using this feature more, a lot of talk page conflict would be averted. YobMod 14:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this is really helpful. Is there, or do we need, a how-to page that could be referred to guide through this? Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, not this again. I'll say this again. Queer theory is an academic discipline, and a sub-discipline of critical theory. BDSM is not "an important topic in queer theory. I really wish this particular meme, that queer theory is some sort of catch-all category we can chuck stuff in, would hurry up and die. Rebecca (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not 'again' - the discussion was that this should be discussed here, not the template page - so I brought it here three days ago. As for your BDSM comment - Foucault might disagree with you on that one, if he was alive, for him it was quite significant, both in theory and practice, because it was about power relations. The same sort of power relations that makes some issues unimportant within a framework where some issues take on greater significance than others. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, last time we got into the whole banner rationale thing I think teh holy "we" concluded we shouldn't have to add rationales even though we could and frankly if someone wants to get into it a rationale likely wouldn't make a difference and they'd wikilawyer about that too. So just add it and if someone acts the fool have the discussion and if they can't abide by consensus to have it there then maybe they hould edit that talkpage. I do think we should have a Trans/Intersex sub working group only to organize those articles a bit better, eventually it may be it's own thing but there is so much overlap I think it would help things especially in the vandalism world where the gnip-gnobs who call us fags don't really know/care if we are LGBTI or most of the above. For the Queer theory stuff I wonder if developing a portal might help? It may anchor the template and have an associated article and category structure. It could also cause even more problems.

Without a rationale, its a bit confusing. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem with using Queer theory as an organising principle is that it is simply not designed for that. Queer Theory can be applied to any area of social or artistic discourse. I have read many books on queer theories application to science fiction for example, but wouldn't consider SF to be a topic of QT.

But the underlying problem remains. Much of the discussion we get here are about adding/removing project templates. If adding a rationale prevents many of these wars, by making it clear what the project considers under its scope, i don't see how it cannot help. I have certainly removed our banner from various pop singers before - a rationale stating that they are included due to being gay icons would have stopped me (were there was no mention of there gay iconicity in the articles). The people wanting to remove banners in this section are certainly not doing it because they don't like us, but becaue the link from the article to the project is unclear.YobMod 13:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey all. Would someone mind drawing up a few suitable inclusion criteria? Presumably, only musicians whose sexuality affects their music should be listed. Anyhow, it might help quell some of the "guessing" that appears on some of the talk pages. Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 17:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Musicians who have campaigned on LGBT issues (Tom Robinson), were notable for coming out during their careers (Elton John), or notable for change in orientation (George Melley)? Mish (just an editor) (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think this is another bit that we should be more inclusionistic. But Otto, Satryn and Bearian do way more category work and would be better to consult. It's rather OR for any editor to determine how the aspect of being LGBT impacts their musicality and career, etc. All the writings I've seen that dwell on the subject include all who are LGBT musicians and then delve into if they are/were open; did they overtly include LGBT context in their work - as far as anyone can tell, usually limited to lyrics and work titles, album art, etc - were/are they seen as LGBT icons, etc. There is a lot of grey areas here.

-- Banjeboi

04:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I also think that if they have had an impact as musicians on LGBT consciousness, that would be important as well, although I guess that will also be reflected in their music. (Sommerville, Mercury, etc.) Mish (just an editor) (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• It strikes me that the inclusion criteria are "LGBT" and "musician". The relevant guideline is
  talk
  ) 18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me if this topic is already highlighted, I´m new at en:WP. But I felt I had to say something about the total lack of transinclusion in LGBT rights by country or territory.

I can understand it harder, for many GLB-people at least, to know that much about transgendered rights. And that the LGB-population on en:WP probably are in majority over the transgendered population. But, can´t we at least be honest and don´t try to say this article says anything about transgendered rights? Because it doesn´t, actually. Not at all. So, please, someone, rename the article to LGB-rights. If the T is silent, we shouldn´t try to pretend it´s not.

Or, even better, do make it transinclusive. I´m not familiar with en:WP, and definitly not to advanced editing in tables, so I shouldn´t do the work. But, if you can relay on it,

I'm going through Category:LGBT rights and moving the quite numerous U.S. articles to Category:LGBT rights in the United States and may move other country specific things too. Just wanted to give a heads up so people didn't think their fave articles were removed from LGBT rights. I think this category got populated when the project didn't have as much of a global focus as it does now. Scarykitty (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots on June 28, we are trying to gather enough DYKs for that particular section on the main page. If interested, this list may help in selecting an article to create. The official rules for DYKs can be found here. Once you have expanded an article 5-fold or created an article with at least 1,500 characters of prose, place your DYK thread here. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you point where those handy tools are that count the 1,500 characters of prose are?

-- Banjeboi

04:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers!

-- Banjeboi

04:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm working right now on a Heinz Heger article. I was planning to use the Italian Wikipedia version as a layout guide, and to translate some of the material straight over from there, though it'll differ in other respects. Obviously I'll attribute this on the talk page, but anyone know whether that would make it ineligible for DYK? Gonzonoir (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be acceptable. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on the

Sounds like a good idea - I've got a couple of ideas for things I could whip up. Rebecca (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest giving the DYK folk a heads up, in the past holiday subjects,

-- Banjeboi

01:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• There's already a
  talk
  ) 04:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• We are down to the last few days for hooks to be submitted for June 28. DYK editors need five days from the event to review them so they need to be in no later than June 23, earlier if possible.
  talk
  ) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• There are a total of seven hooks submitted for the day. Assuming all are accepted, that should make for two hooks for three of the four expected updates and one for the fourth. Wish there was one more for two per update but oh well.
  talk
  ) 21:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ack, didn't realise there was such a gap required. I had still been planning to do an article or two for this - guess it's a bit late. Rebecca (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • DYK noms yesterday, is also all about the evils of those dreadful sodomites and as such kinda within scope. The hook is about how the 18th-century author thought the Italians and French were turning nice British gentlemen gay. I didn't add it to the Stonewall holding area, assuming that a hook about a pamphlet described as "blatant, vituperative homophobia"^[1] isn't really how we'd want to commemorate Stonewall, but I can move it there if you guys would be happy with it. I'm hoping to go to GA with this one. Gonzonoir (talk
      ) 08:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)