Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 29

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.

I'm quite surprised to find that WP apparently has no category for LGBT rights demonstrations. Some LGBT articles are in

Sounds like a useful addition to me. I can think of more than a few examples we'd have articles on. Rebecca (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Let me know if you need help. I inter-linked all the marches on Washington sometime ago, and the category could probably use some global additions as well. Scarykitty (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• I set up
  talk
  ) 18:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Did I miss a notice that a new Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Newsletter was being worked on? No sooner did I notice this and added content to it, was it delivered to my talk page a few minutes later by Xenobot. So how many were delivered before I added content to it and those people didn't get the content I added? My addition of content to the newsletter was at 11:51 and Xenobot's first delivery of the newsletter was at 12:06. Quite close. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 17:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say good job on the newsletter guys! twas a nice surprise. (^_^)b Siawase (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was extra bold and meant to do a whole party with music and barn dance but it ended up throwing down or not having one in time to prod for the DYK Stonewall push. And really we should have a Pride issue. I'm glad you got the IRC bit in there!

-- Banjeboi

00:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I may not be seeing this] edit objectively. It seems a bit

It seems fairly irrelevant. What does Thomas Sowell have to do with the case? Nothing I can see, and in the article quoted, published in an online magazine, he refers to things like "the homosexual lobby's political agenda." I agree, it seems soapy. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be appropriate for a general article on hate crime legislation (in a section explaining opposition to such laws). Too peripeheral for the Shepard article: Shepard is mentioned only as a convenient example, while the thesis could apply to any victim of a bias crime. Rivertorch (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I reverted it. That particular editor has been popping up a bit lately so I wanted to see it not as being from them but only as did it heplp the article.

-- Banjeboi

10:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to comment at Talk:Matthew Shepard, when I took another look at Benjiboi's comment "I asked some other people", and poked around and found this here. While Grundle is doing a lot of things I disagree with, I'm uncomfortable with how this was handled, and actually think this does belong in the Matthew Shepard article. Grundle added it to Hate crime, and was promptly reverted by Benjiboi and told to take it to Matthew Shepard. He did so, Benjiboi brought it here, where "consensus" is to remove it, based on:

• It being "
  WP:Soapboxy
  ". That's a comment about the motivation of the contributor, not a comment about the appropriateness of the material.
• A comment "What does Thomas Sowell have to do with this case". Well, probably as much as Melissa Etheridge, Tori Amos, Elton John and Janis Ian, and the bands Trivium, Thursday, and Protest the Hero do, and they're all in there.
• A comment that "It might be appropriate for a general article on hate crime legislation". I assume if he took that advice, he'd be reverted and told to go back to Matthew Shepard?

So I guess my feeling is: The section is titled "public reaction". This is a public reaction by a notable commentator, which is not (unlike the morons from Westboro, who get a prominent mention in the section) a fringe opinion, and which is not mentioned elsewhere in the section. I don't understand how it is soapboxy, or inappropriate; it adds balance to the section. It also seems appropriate for

It seems pretty clear that if Matthew Shepard had been "not gay and . . . murdered for his insurance," the notoriety surrounding his murder would have died down pretty quickly. But that wasn't the case. He was murdered because of who he was—and tortured first. (How many murder-for-insurance killings involve burning the victims with lit cigarettes and tying them to fences?) Sowell's comment was completely dismissive of the motive that led to the crime, and therefore actually does seem fringy in this context. The larger point he seemed to be trying to make does have some relevance to the topic of hate crimes legislation, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose its placement in that article. (I might oppose it, especially if someone more notable than Sowell communicated the same idea more eloquently.) As for Westboro, it doesn't take pickets and epithets to be a moron. Even if it did, moron status is in no way incompatible with media attention and WP notability. Rivertorch (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not defending Sowell's POV, and I'm not saying we should include Sowell's opinion because he's right. I'm saying we should consider including it because its a public reaction to Shepard's murder, by a notable commentator, and the section is titled "Public reaction and the aftermath". And if it is, indeed, notable, we should not exclude it because we think he's wrong. We seem to agree on whether it might belong in Hate crime. If I had to choose just one, it probably would go there instead of Matthew Shepard, but I'm not sure we should just choose one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Two things, first the chain of events was Grundle, who has now been topic-banned for similar actions on political articles, added the same bit on both articles and I caught the one on

-- Banjeboi

23:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a look, and my reaction was that it is not very good - I don't know who the guy is, but it has been stated better than the way it was. If it has been stated already in the article, then there's no point re-stating it poorly - if not, then it would be preferable to find a better source for this view. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that makes a lot of sense, thank you. It's the viewpoint that should probably be included, not this particular statement of it. I've heard of this guy before, and think he's probably notable, but it's a debatable point, and even if I'm right, there has to be, as you say, a "better source for this view" somewhere. I might poke around a little and see if I can find something acceptable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please drop in at Talk:Herodotus#RfC and express an opinion. 20:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The United States article (now a FAC) has unreferenced sentences on same-sex marriage:

"Same-sex marriage is contentious. Several states permit civil unions in lieu of marriage. Since 2003, four state supreme courts have ruled bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, while voters in more than a dozen states approved constitutional bans on the practice. In 2009, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire became the first states to permit same-sex marriage through legislative action."

Could anyone please help me fully reference these claims, since I know very little about LGBT studies? GeometryGirl (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the bit at United States#Culture:

if that's acceptable let me know and we can add refs to support each point.

-- Banjeboi

23:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this new version is very much superior. Please add refs to support each point. GeometryGirl (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"

New Hampshire became the first states to permit same-sex marriage through legislative action." As someone not overly familiar with American legislation, these three sentences juxtaposed are a bit confusing. The first sentence mentions six states while the next sentence mentions seven (four plus three) states. And are Vermont, Maine, and New Hamshire the states that are mentioned as "three others" in the second sentence? Sorry if it seems nitpicky, but it genuinly confused me. Siawase (talk

) 16:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks for the heads up. *tiptoes away* Siawase (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol! Yes, FAC can be tense so I see little use in sussing something out if someone is just going to revert it. Once they decide what they want I'm happy to revisit.

-- Banjeboi

22:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

To mark June 28, the day of the Stonewall riots, several articles will be appearing throughout the day on Wikipedia's main page - on the 28th and remember that days on Wikipedia begin with UTC time so see the clock above to know when it's the 28th on Wikipedia. I suggest everyone add the following articles to your watchlist for "vandalism watch"

• Stonewall riots - will be "Today's featured article" for June 28th

• One Iowa - will be a "Did you know..." entry; related articles also included in the DYK: LGBT rights by country or territory - Varnum v. Brien - Same-sex marriage
• Randy Wicker - will be a "Did you know..." entry
• William Dickey (poet) - will be a "Did you know..." entry
• Heinz Heger - will be a "Did you know..." entry; related article also included in the DYK: Pink triangle
• Stonewall Nation - will be a "Did you know..." entry; related article also included in the DYK: Gay Liberation Front
• Lisa Ben - will be a "Did you know..." entry; related articles also included in the DYK: The Ladder (magazine) - Lesbian
• Satan's Harvest Home - will be a "Did you know..." entry; related article also included in the DYK: Effeminacy
• Gay Liberation - Barbara Gittings
• Veterans Benevolent Association - will be a "Did you know..." entry; related article also included in the DYK: Blue discharge

• Gay - will be a "On this day..." entry related to Stonewall riots
• Transgender - will be a "On this day..." entry related to Stonewall riots
• LGBT social movements
  - will be a "On this day..." entry related to Stonewall riots

• T:TDYK

*

And of course many thanks to the different editors who have contributed to this process..

Anyone know if this new sub-stub is legitimate? Or is it vandalism we need to be deleting right away? LadyofShalott 04:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Rebecca (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No source for it. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my god, kill it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I redirected it to

-- Banjeboi

20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a search, and there is nothing out there apart from other wikis and facebook and blogs etc. While doing that, somebody changed the page into a redirect to Bromance. What is the logic behind that? Mish (just an editor) (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a few sources but really little useful enough to build a good article. What little is availabel can grow in the Bromance article.

-- Banjeboi

23:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys - if anyone is interested, I blogged today about Jim McGreevey and his ministry for former prisoners. First time photos of his new life have been available. -->David Shankbone 17:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I welcome comments and your views on recent development in

Hey my dear LGBTQSACDEFHIJKMNOPRTUVWXYZ friends and family! I wanted to remind you about Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Quilt. Feel free to update yourself or add yourself. Many don't know this page exists. Now you do. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I dug up a porn boy for you since tha last one was nuked. Feel free to modify as needed, unfortunately all the fun spurting penis ones are blocked.

-- Banjeboi

22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed it again today. lol - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 00:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What is this? Oh dear, I feel like I have been away forever.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The LGBT studies project does have its own free

For more information on IRC and a listing of other useful Wikipedia-related channels, see

The project had at one point another channel at #LGBTproject ^connect but as the original people associated with the setting up and administration of that channel have seemed to have disappeared, I've set up this new channel. Plus the new channel is inline with required naming conventions for Wikipedia related IRC channels. So, feel free to use this channel. I'm on IRC often. Such a channel gives opportunity to discuss the latest happening on articles.. or in your life with "wiki-friends" here. You can say things on there you normally wouldn't here on Wikipedia (keeping it civil of course) like talk about the latest hot guy/girl or tell a joke.. you get the point. Anyway, see you there - eventually! - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Satryn and Dev920 both lurk a bit, not sure who else was into that - you may want to do a search for IRC in the archives here.

-- Banjeboi

05:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did the search and found that Raystorm (talk · contribs) was the one that got it setup. The user hasn't been active since December 2008. I left a note at Dev920's talk a couple of days ago as well. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just given it a try. There was no one else on. How come I remember using our WP chatroom but never had to download an IRC client? I'm using the same laptop.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, campaigning began in 1958, the year the

Ulrichs, Edward Carpenter, Havelock Ellis, Magnus Hirschfeld, etc. Mish (just an editor) (talk

) 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the reply.

is your own Personal Jesus

19:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

{{LGBT |culture=yes}}
{{LGBT |rights=yes}}
{{LGBT |social=yes}}
{{LGBT |prejudice=yes}}

{{LGBT |academy=yes}}

Mish (just an editor) (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed this article as part of the GA sweeps process. The article is basically OK, but there are a number of dead links which need fixing. I have put the assessment on hold whilst these are addressed. Comments at Talk:Michael Chabon/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently some articles on the topic use the word "marriage" while others use "unions". Some include the phrase Recognition of (many of which are redirects). There are myriad other variations on the theme. Is there any interest in standardizing a naming format for these articles?

I'm no expert, but isn't legislation on naming different in some places? I mean, what it is legally called - or what you legally call it. Worth considering here, since there are countries that you can't legally call it a "marriage". - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 12:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No you can't do that. For example, in the UK, the law was formulated in a way to ensure that same-sex marriage would not exist - to the extent that trans people who sought gender recognition certificates had to get divorced before they could be registered to ensure that once legally recognised in their reassigned sex/gender they would not then be in a same-sex marriage. Once the certificate was granted, they could then apply for a civil partnership with their former spouse. This was managed through a fast-track system where all three could take place in sequence on the same day, thus ensuring no benefits accruing from the marriage were lost in the transition to partnership. The partnership was specifically designed for gay and lesbian people to ensure that benefits and protections taken for granted by married couples were also available to gay and lesbian people, as it was seen as discriminatory not to, and applies to pensions, inheritance, insurance, adoption and custody, etc. What it does not mean is marriage, it is the partnership that is recognised, and the sexual orientation is only of issue because such partnerships are not available to heterosexuals, who already have the option of civil marriage. There was some discussion that this discriminated against heterosexuals, but that fizzled out. There were reports of people entering into civil partnership who were of the same sex, but not gay or lesbian, because they saw potential financial benefits from this. Again, these seem to have fizzled out.

So, as I understand it, in the USA, you have some places that recognise same-sex marriages, and others that recognise civil unions, while here we have civil-partnerships. I tend to use the latter terms (when perhaps I shouldn't - e.g. in the USA), as this is the term that applies in the UK, legally. I'd suggest that people need to be clear what they are describing, and have this reflect the circumstances in the context. This would be clarified by the sources. If the discussion is about what is established legally, it should reflect that usage, but if it is about discussion on ...XXX... then, the term used in the source cited would be most appropriate. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No article calls a civil partnership or other registered partnership a "marriage", and articles with titles such as "Same-sex marriage in X" do not imply that. The title should accurately describe the scope of the article. For example,

Pacte civil de solidarité

to cover same-sex marriage in France.

But there are myriad advantages to standardization. Users can type "same-sex marriage in X" or "Recognition of same-sex unions X" to find the situation in a jurisdiction, and under a sufficiently broad title, they can get information about all legislative and societal action on same-sex unions, not just a specific scheme like Pacte civil de solidarité or Civil Partnerships. I support standardization in the form that new articles have been standardized defacto, and the reform of the old British and French articles to support that standard. Niew (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality in India will be needing a huge facelift now. Zazaban (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality was not just legalized in India. The relevant ruling from the Delhi High Court is only binding in the metropolis of Delhi. Plus, their ruling could be overruled by the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the government, which has an opaque position, must repeal the law for it to apply everywhere else.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niew (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a massive amount of homophobia going on at Talk:The Hardy Boys - the article has been purged of all sources that discuss the issue b/c homophobe-editors say the issue is "fringe". Any help would be appreciated! Ricardiana (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur, there does seem to be a scrubbing of "uncomfortable material" aka "the gay stuff" out of the lede altogether and mitigated in the main text. I suggest contacting Moni3 and the cabal at

-- Banjeboi

18:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I will contact Moni3 and I'll see about contacting WP:GA as well. I can't believe the homophobia here.... Ricardiana (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reassessed this article and found issues with the referencing which need to be addressed if the article is to retain GA status. The reassessment comments are at Talk:Andrea Dworkin/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that our articles on religions are not consistantly named. This is by itself not a problem, (but is annoying), but in considering the recent post here about ignoring trangender issues, i wanted to suggest that we rename them all to something more inclusive.

We have

As this will affect a large number of articles (and tempates), i would prefer a strong consensus before going ahead, to avoid WP:Drama. Thanks!YobMod 14:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Send all to LGBT issues and ___ please. I'll help.

-- Banjeboi

14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, including religion and homosexuality. LBGT issues and religion?

Also support move to "LGBT issues and...". Gonzonoir (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We might be jumping the gun here...

talk

) 18:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

But every "homosexuality and ..." article also covers bisexuality by implication (even if only denying it to exist). Should we be marginalising Bi issues? We could make articles for that too, but almost all the opinions on homosexuality apply to bisexuality also, which seems redundant. Having major articles on each (so keeping homosexuality and religion) may be warranted, as there will be lots to say even in summary, but gaving 3 articles for each religion seems a lot (or 4? Lebians are often not treated the same in religious traditions either).YobMod 18:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The titles should reflect the contents of the articles. I have not liked the "homosexuality and..." titles for the specific reason that they exclude bisxuality, and sometimes even transgender when that is included in the article contents. For example

Unitarian Universalism and LGBTQ persons. It was renamed for the sake of consistency, but ignores some of the article content. [Note that I am explicitly opposed to ignoring bisexuality in terms of titles or contents.] LadyofShalott

18:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The religious views on transgender people could be incorporated into LGBT issues and religion - this would make sense, but it needs to be discussed with editors of the trans page to establish how they feel about this. There would be some sense in this, as the Catholic church (for example) is now reframing trans along the lines laid out by Blanchard and Bailey - that it is in different individuals either a form of homosexuality or paraphilia which is embodied and facilitated through surgery and hormones. That means that, increasingly, Christian critiques of trans rely on the critique of homosexuality. Bisexuality is not well treated anywhere, so I'm not surprised this is reflected in articles not specific to that issue - it needs somebody who is interested to address that, and find whatever sources are available to do so. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not too fussed either way here. What you've said here is pretty sensible; at the same time, a religion like Islam (or at least some parts of it) treats trans people and gay and lesbian people drastically differently, which might warrant the seperate articles. Either is fine by me. Rebecca (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Me neither. Individual religions could be dealt with as LGBT, generally, Religion and homosexuality already hives off to individual religions, so there is no reason why we couldn't have this as Religion and LGBT which hives off to more detailed articles on Religion and trans and Religion and homosexuality as well. That way, if necessary, trans and homosexuality could each be dealt with in more detail through general articles, in a way that would not be necessary for articles of each religion? Perhaps the way to facilitate this would be to create this as a new article 'LGBT in relation to religion', and draw from the 'religion and homosexuality' and 'trans' articles, establishing the links to individual religions in LGBT, then tackle consistency in the individual religions one-by-one (starting from the bottom of those listed on the current homosexuality - as these are smaller - and working up to the larger ones at the top)? Whoever feels moved to do that...Mish (just an editor) (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality and seems like should be deprecated in most cases; with "Religious views on transgender people" the counterpart would be "Religious views on LGB people" with links to

-- Banjeboi

03:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Leaving the T off has its own problems, but I agree, that if trans is to be dealt with independently, then there needs to be a way of dealing with LGB people without using 'homosexuality'. Could this be dealt with as 'lesbian and gay' people? In religious terms, bisexuality would be approached with differently, although I'm not aware of much discussion about this. In the context of long-term committed relationship, bisexuals would either be in a heterosexual or a gay/lesbian relationship, and thus covered anyway - where people engage in more than one (or casual) relationship(s), this would correspond to religion and monogamy/promiscuity and/or homosexuality. But, without specific sources we cannot say much anyway because it would be

WP:OR. Having a top-level article LGBT in relation to religion, allows for inclusion of B in that article in a non-problematic way; this could then link to LGBT and individual religions, as well as Lesbian and gay people and religion and Transgender people and religion. Mish (just an editor) (talk

) 08:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's not a bad solution. I dare say it'll probably suffice to cover the issue in most cases; Islam might be the only one that winds up needing a separate trans sub-article, if that. Rebecca (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Let's keep the full 'LGBT' tag, and add more info on all actors of our community as much as we can. We need to be united.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there for discussion, but from a lay perspective, how many people outside of the LGBT community will have any clue as to what LGBT stands for? If I were scrolling through a list of articles and stumbled accross "LGBT issues in Hinduism" I would have zero idea of what the article is about. Acronymns are only useful insofar as they have context. On this page, it has context. In the broader world, it has some context, but that context is not ever present. I mean, this may be aging me some, but I remember when GLBT was the first introduced at my college. *I* would associate GLBT with the subject quicker than I would LGBT. I mean LGBT looks like a Myers-Briggs personality type ;-) In short, as a person who won't think first of the LGBT community, I don't like the use of it in article names.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• note: We could also say same-gender sex and (insert religion here) and gender identity and (insert religion here). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 14:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Balloonman. This is not a problem, we can have redirects from GLBT and religion to LGBT and religion, as well as others like homosexuality and religion if we want to. As long as it get you where you want to go... Mish (just an editor) (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

men screwing men and religion would be more palatable than same-gender sex and religion, TBH. GI & religion is pretty problematic, because it is a concept that is also used in feminism, then some gay & lesbian people can have GO issues as much as trans peple, and in relation to GID it has certain pathological overtones, on top of which it is not the GI that is at issue in religion, but what people do about their GI.Mish (just an editor) (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

How about Queers and religion? That should give people a clue what its about.Mish (just an editor) (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Could we have "LGBT and..." as the article titles, and a full set of "Homosexuality and..." "Trans and..." "Bisexuality and..." and "Lesbianism and..." etc. redirects for each article? Then article editors can type in whatever seems most comprehensible and context-appropriate to them. Confused readers happening upon "LGBT and..." can just, y'know, click on it to find out what it means :) Gonzonoir (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As this is an encyclopedia, I truly believe we should keep using LGBT. It is the most standard/neutral/mainstream term we have. Even Obama's speechwriters use it.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an easy alternative, just wanted to point out that without context, many of the people who see it won't know what it references. As for Obama's speechwriters...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but people get along with our article on Hemiptera when the word that's familiar to them is bugs... Let's just supply a full complement of redirects, so article creators and editors can supply whatever seems intuitive enough in context. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being a bit facetious in the beginning of my last response. I agree, LGBT and... makes sense, with some separate articles for sub-sections that would be too long (like trans, gay, lesbian, and religion-specific topics) and redirects for commonly used terms, which will guide the lost, feed the curious, and stop people starting up their own versions independently. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Balloonman you are correct but the zinger is provided by yourself - without context - the lede of all wonky titles articles should provide exactly that context and spell out what

-- Banjeboi

00:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Damn, and there was me thinking I was bisexual - I guess I must be a lesbian. I can hear my partner now ('I told you so!')...Mish (just an editor) (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

They're everywhere - watching you - while you sleep.

-- Banjeboi

12:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Jumping into this discussion late - yes, definitely we should rename all the religion-specific articles to "LGBT issues and _". I tried to get that done a while ago, but it never happened... I'm neutral on whether we rename

What I'm suggesting wouldn't merge the

-- Banjeboi

12:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So, i made a small start on this, renaming the religion articles that already mention trans issues. The plan is:

1) Rename the less developed articles to "LGBT issues and...." (this is the majority), defining LGBT in the lead.

2) Leave the largest, most developed articles where they are and create a new parent article at "LGBT issues...." (possibly this only applies to Christianity, due to it having multiple sub-articles)

3) Create an LGBT issues and religion article, with sections for L G B and T (using the leads from Homosexuality and religion and Religious views on transgender people)

4) Create many redirects for "GLBT issues" and other likely search terms.

5)Update the navbox.

Sounds good. --

talk

) 13:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The

Template:Religion and LGBT issues is titled 'Religion and LGBT issues', can we re-title it 'LGBT issues and Religion'? Mish (talk

) 14:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Either is fine by me. I only used "LGBT issues and ..." because Hinduism and Wicca were already at those titles.YobMod 09:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really, LGBT is the main focus on the article, not the religion itself, only the religion's views on LGBT (only minimal reference to heterosexuality as being the only 'correct' sexuality, for example). The religious views are political - people argue (for instance) that their religious views are justified because of the religious history. The views are about LGBT, so the only reason the articles exist is because it is about LGBT people - LGBT is treated as sin, crime, mental disorder, or non-problematic from a religious perspective - religion is not treated as a sin, crime, mental disorder, or non-problematic from an LGBT perspective. LGBT is the dominant theme across all these articles - and only those aspects of religions that are believed to relate to LGBT. Mish (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed a problem. LGBT is not a noun, so "Religionname views on LGBT" sounds ungrammatical. If it would need to be "Religionname views on LGBT people and behaviours" or somesuch, i think it is too long.YobMod 11:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How about just 'LGBT and religion', 'LGBT and Christianity', 'LGBT and Islam', LGBT and Judaism', LGBT and Buddhism', 'LGBT and Hinduism', 'LGBT and the Church of Latter Day Saints', 'LGBT and Jehovah's Witnesses', 'LGBT and Scientology', 'LGBT and the Hare Krishna Movement', 'LGBT and paganism', 'LGBT and Ba'hai', 'LGBT and satanism', 'LGBT and New Age religion', 'LGBT and shamanism', 'LGBT and Sikhism', 'LGBT and Parsi', 'LGBT and Jainism', 'LGBT and tribal religions', and so on. Mish (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That would also seem ungrammatical but I don't have an elegant solution to offer instead. Maybe quiz Moni3's talkpage? She has a bunch of language geeks and lurkers who may be able to offer insight.

-- Banjeboi

01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed Romaine Brooks for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found an image issue, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. The issue should not be too difficult to address. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a very short stub that may be better to grow as a section in

How many reliable sources can you find for that word? It sounds like a

neologism. Of the two sources in the article, one explains it as it is mentioned, and another mentions the term as something 'bisexual activists coined'—in passing. Niew (talk

) 18:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Would't that support merging? Anyway there certainly are reliable sources and a good article can be built, I just see the current paragraph as being a good subsection in

-- Banjeboi

01:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging to a section in bisexual erasure and/or monosexual sounds good. I think this is a neologism that is only ever used in context of comparison with bisexuality, and cannot currently stand on its own as an article.YobMod 09:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I merged to Biphobia, as they seem to be very similar if not identical.YobMod 13:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to a couple of interesting finds by another editor of Macedonian relationships between adolescent boys I have created this new article and would like to invite contributions. As this is not a mere list, a little background for each couple would be ideal, a couple of sentences or a paragraph or two would be ok. Thanks, Haiduc (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This would make the {{

Is there a mock-up by chance?

-- Banjeboi

18:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The sandbox version is located at

talk

) 21:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this, but we need to get the centering figured out properly, so that the heading, groups and footer are all aligned. One way of doing this would be to have another image of the same dimensions (such as the existing Flag) on both sides of the box, left and right. Mish (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Another possible way to deal with it would be remove the side graphics completely (the rainbow flag could be replaced with something like

talk

) 22:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thnk you for working on this; I would get rid of the left side flag altogether and centering is not that big of an issue.

-- Banjeboi

12:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have commented out the LHS flag, and I have to say I think you are wrong. The mis-alignment looks poor. Mish (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well these are aesthetical and formatting issues. For instance I think it should be tweaked so that if a section is expanded the section title - in this case LGBT Rights · Legal issues - would be left justified with the list on the right. Regardless two flags is unhelpful. Also I'm concerned about what seems to be weighting of article's importance relative to each other. I think I preferred alphabetical order.

-- Banjeboi

14:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Within the groups, they are alpha sorted, the way the groups themselves are sorted is historic (Group 1 being first, Group 8 being last) - this probably works, but it could be reordered (hopefully Wikignome doesn't mind me fiddling with the template in his sandbox). The left justify thing would be OK, except the group title and the group list don't left justify in alignment - which looks odd. I'll play with it. Mish (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Couple weren't - I've redone as alphasort for both titles and groups. Mish (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind @ all, tweaking is welcomed to help come to a version everyone likes. I made a couple of changes to try out the flag icon solution: Removed right-hand flag photo, replaced with flag icon in title bar (and restored align=center to headers since centering is no longer a problem) . However, this makes the template look kinda of barren (not having a RH graphic), so I added the flag photo back to group6 as an example (each group could have a topical graphic, which would help break up the text-only appearance of the template).

talk

) 18:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It looked better the way I done it after Benji made the suggestion of left justifying the group detail, and right justifying the group title, and leaving the full flag on the RHS. It looks a bit odd, but it looks better than wonky centering, and with either two or zero flags. Dat's wot oi tink, anywayz. Mish (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, I misunderstood Benji's suggestion when I first read it (though it was referring to only left-aligning auto-opened sections). I restored the former version, but is there a way to do this without right-aligning the headers? Either left-aligning (even though it indents them & does not match the left-aligned group contents), or center-aligning (even though it does not center-align with the navbox title bar)

talk

) 19:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Try it now - both left justified. Mish (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we have to have 'unlabelled sexuality' in Sexuality - not sure neologisms are appropriate in the navbox. Also, Bisexuality is in Sexual identies and Sexual Orientation - do we need to duplicate items in different sections?Mish (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice, big improvement -- as far as Bi goes, I'd list that in both since it is both an identity & an orientation? No opinion as far as unlabeled goes - support having this as a topic (people who don't ID by an orientation), but article has not developed much since AfD. btw, moved the sandbox out of user namespace to

talk

) 22:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed Unlabelled. I guess as 'Homosexuality' is there, Bisexuality should be there in that context, as it is an orientation, unlike gay and lesbian. This section seems to cover medical/psychological approaches - if we pinned that down more, then intersexuality and trans would fit in there as well. Wondering whether the section should be split into 'Sexual orientation' + LGBT issues in biology/medicine/psychology'? or relabel section 'LGBT issues in biology/medicine/psychology and Sexual Orientation'. Just thinking, because issues around Intersex are as much to do with medical approaches as identity (fewer intersex people identify specifically as intersex rather than LGBT or Q, while more probably identify simply as heterosexual men and women) Mish (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Ok I have more challenges; under, likely all, sections I think it would help clarify with further subsections of some sort. "History" I think it would be helpful to have main overarching history and then clarify insome way that Holocaust was 1942, ergo a chapter in the big picture. "Community · Culture" could subdivide to show which are which, etc. If I figure out who has the templates, maybe the Milhist project?, that does all the wonky layout I tried to describe I'll post a link.

-- Banjeboi

01:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why 1942, and not 1938-1944? Or why not just call it 'Homocaust'? Mish (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Separated out history into two lines: general history/timeline, and specific items - not sure how to split list between community and culture, as it all looks like culture to me (do we need 'community' part of heading?). Mish (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I added in {{

talk

) 23:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am using SeaMonkey on ubuntu at 75%, and it looks OK. I can test it out in different resolutions & on firefox on ubuntu & vista, icemonkey on debian, and explorer on vista - but doubt I'll get time before Wednesday. I reverted the segregation of identities for pragmatic reasons - intersex will not fit anywhere when separating out sexual orientation and gender/sexual identities (it is neither a sexual nor a gender identity) - but by separating sexual identity and gender identity and adding a third sub-group for non-heterosexual identities, this allows for the placement of intersex there. It also means that queer, two spirit and third-sex/gender can go there as well. Two-spirit has elements of gender and sexual identity, and third-sex was originally formulated by Carpenter as a gay identity, but has become increasingly associated as third-gender - queer does not belong in gender identities by any stroke of the imagination, but neither can it be contained within sexual identities alone. This still leaves room for homosexuality and bisexuality as distinct sexual orientations - and possibly 'inversion' and 'contrary sexual feeling' ought to be in there as well? Mish (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's really shaping up nicely IMHO, I think "Prejudice · Violence" should be folded into "Social attitudes"; possibly renamed, and then sub-divided like some of the other sections.

-- Banjeboi

01:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This is so cool...Mish (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

merged sections per above suggestion, tested @ higher resolution than 1024x768 & the gif still works. In the top, it has no effect in Firefox at all at any resolution.

talk

) 03:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)