Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 33

I am not tagging Monteagle, Tennessee, but just letting you know that I added a reference for William Alexander Percy's summerhouse with gay professor Hugh Jervey there. Please watch it.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have recently run into an editing issue regarding a LBGT topic. It has to do with the article on the United Methodist Church. I would appreciate help dealing with the issue. A user is trying to keep LGBT issues hidden by accusing me of vandalism or POV.

You can see what is going on by reading the talk page at Talk:United_Methodist_Church#Inclusivity_item.

Wshallwshall (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read this! I've just started to do a bit of editing on here and would appreciate it if someone who knows what there doing could have a look at the stuff that I've been doing! Just want to make sure it's of an acceptable standard. I've been looking the clean up/ rough translations list and have worked on the following article;

• Gerhard Schick
• Bettina Herlitzius
• LGBT rights in Malta
• LGBT rights in Luxembourg
• LGBT rights in Iceland

What do you think? Regards! Orionsbelter (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Orionsbelter, welcome to Wikipedia and WikiProject LGBT studies! I had a quick look at the articles you've ben working on, and it looks like you're doing a great job. One thing I would mention is that we only use the little flag icons for very specific purposes, you can read more about it here:

reliable sources to back up any information that could be challenged. I see that you have added references, so that's great. With the Gerhard Schick article, I see that there is a statement that Schick is openly gay. This needs a reference or could be removed at any time. I realise though that that was added by another user before you edited the article. Keep up the good work and don't be afraid to ask any questions here or anywhere else on Wikipedia.--BelovedFreak

19:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Another small point I just thought of - try to write in prose style rather than list style eg. the Political Career section of the Schick article - (

Manual of style). I am nitpicking now though, so don't worry too much about style details as you're still learning the ropes, just something else to think about!--BelovedFreak

19:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Gay Blue Jeans Day has been nominated for AfD It seems important for editors participating in this project to have a voice in that discussion Anniepoo (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I weighed in, tweaking the search results pops plenty of sources. If the nonsense blows in I'll work on listing possible sources as well.

-- Banjeboi

22:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the

Meanwhile, I removed a link to it from Protests against Proposition 8 supporters on POV grounds.

Thoughts? AV3000 (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, kill it. Hardly a notable term. Zazaban (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homofascism (2nd nomination). --LadyofShalott 20:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a core article. It should be better. Help. Talk:Homosexuality#Rewrite_agenda_2 Phoenix of9 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is bored and looking for things to do to help out the project,

A more up to date selection of articles that are totally unreferenced can be found by doing specific google searches eg. "does not cite" contentious "lgbt people" site:en.wikipedia.org - where "lgbt people" targets likely categories being used. --BelovedFreak 22:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

People interested in the thoughtful treatment of historical subjects should pay close attention to what is being done to this article. Haiduc (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated List of gay and lesbian resource centres in Ireland for deletion here, in case anyone wants to comment. --BelovedFreak 14:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a concern that such a high profile article on a living person is so poorly sourced. It is a matter of priority that statements are sourced. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Quotations from Elton John or any other person must be closely cited, as per Wikipedia:Quotations. If reliable sources cannot be found then all contentious material should be removed - [7]. It is better for us to have no material at all than to have incorrect, misleading or potentially libelous material. SilkTork *^YES! 10:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone need a hnad working on any article? Orionsbelter (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

chat

21:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an

Anyone know anything about

Newman Luke (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Harisu/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I considered posting this to ANI, but in the current wikipolitical climate, I know nothing will happen. So, posting here instead.

User:Tonalone has returned form a long wikibreak to remove the edits of User:Haiduc, after the ban of the latter. Unfortunately Tonalone's actions have been bordering vandalism, and they are certainly pushing a POV, the exact opposite POV of Haiduc (pretty much: pederasty never happened, Byron and many others had no gay affairs with younger men, etc.) Here are some examples:

• Removes a vast amount of sourced contents from a Featured Article.
• Unilaterally removes the Featured status from the article.
• edit wars edit wars based on the assumption that he's entitled to remove anything added by a user banned thereafter
• Removes a large amount of material with a misleading edit summary from another article.
• Similar action in yet another article.
• Removes parent categories of Cat:Pederasty without any explanation
• Removes talk page contents without any explanation.

He also removes traces of gay affairs from obscure biographies. While Haiduc colored these in this favorite terminology ("pederasty", or course), Tonalone completely removes the sexual aspects. Example [8]. Compare with the source [9], which was (of course) removed as well. More of the same: [10] [11].

There is no entitlement for anyone to remove the edits of banned/blocked user that were made before the administrative action against him. (Should we delete all of Ottava Rima's articles too while he's not around? Obviously not.) Tonalone appears fairly educated. He reminds me of the trolling that Peter Damian has been doing, although it's not necessarily him. There is fat chance in hell any admin will block him, even though the

Another one

Another editor who may be familiar here,

Oy vey, I'll keep an eye on both of those. I suggest this guy be reverted. I won't because I'm too busy to commit to the situation right now. Zazaban (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I know it's 30 days. But the bill was signed December 18, almost two months ago. Are we talking 30 calendar days? Business days? Days Congress is in session? — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 06:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me? — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 23:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's days congress is in session. The projected date now seems to be March 3 [12] MaesterTonberry (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, exactly the info I was looking for! Thank you. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 03:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In the talk page of the Ryan White article[13], an author argues for the use of "homosexual" over "gay" and points out the absence of objection to this by LGBT project members. What do LGBT project members think? 67.100.222.184 (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

To me homosexual sounds too 1980s, so I much prefer gay.

GoUSA

10:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the two references used in the "Ryan White and public perception of AIDS" section, the NY Times article [14] uses the word "gay" many more times than the word "homosexual". I don't have access to And the Band Played On, but the article (which appears well sourced) uses "gay community" rather than "homosexual community". So the sources seem to support a change to "gay" (except in direct quotes using "homosexual" of course), and they certainly don't seem to prohibit the change. Siawase (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual is reserved for scientific/medical fields and more historical figures (like Harvey Milk) who lived when the term was the standard usage to refer to LGBT people. I don't see Ryan White as fitting either of these usages and generally homosexual is pejoratively used in culture war battles.

-- Banjeboi

03:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A user is trying to move the article Homophobia to Anti-Homosexualism. Weigh in

I think this goes under

WP:SNOW. There is no possible way the move is going through. Zazaban (talk

) 03:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not belong to this Wikiproject, but I feel important to notice it that there is a discussion at the AN/I about that. --Cyclopia^talk 13:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is really getting out of hand. Being threatened with blocking for trying to better the encyclopedia is .. almost too much. Bleh. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the status on an RfC for this, or must I initiate an MfD for this project? --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people LadyofShalott 17:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

See

As a editor engaged in dispute from its beginning I'd like to point out to the absurd situation when Czech Wikipedia in article "Curing homosexuality" states "The reason to not include homosexuality to ICD (

Is it appropriate to include homosexuality topic even as historic perspective (40 years old) in Paraphilia article? Or the article should held with real paraphilias and homosexuality theme let be covered in depth in homosexuality? See Talk:Paraphilia#Homosexuality_2 --Destinero (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Femina Potens Art Gallery even notable? My inclination is to post it for AFD, but wanted some outside opinions. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Should his BLP be tagged by the project? In the case of Weir, recording the facts about remarks by commentators about his gender and sexual orientation, and hios response to this, as well as tagging his BLP as part of LGBT studies project was rejected by one admin, and referred to discussion. Cliff Richard has been the subject of speculation for several decades, and now lives in a relationship with another man, although feels what he does in his private life is his business (and I would support this), so like Weir feels no need to state whether he is gay or not. However, he has come out in clear support of civil partnerships, and as a committed Christian has criticised the churches' attitude to gay partnerships and limiting marriage (and thereby love) to people of the opposite sex. On this basis, and not on the basis of any speculation about his domestic arrangements, would this justify tagging his BLP within the project? I appreciate that this whole issue is up for discussion, and would not wish to make matters more difficult, so really this is thrown out as a thought for when the dust has settled on that discussion. Given his role as poster-child for the born-again movement in the UK for over 40 years, I could foresee some opposition to such a tag being placed on his bio, even though it would not be done on the basis of any speculation, but because of public stance on gay unions. Would his bio be the sort of bio we could justify tagging in future?

M.

My opinion is not to tag the article. First, there's almost no content in it to support him being "of interest" to this project - one small "personal life" section in a huge article. Second, I'm leery of getting into another BLP drama without strong reasons. In Richard's case, we have some speculation and his support of LGBT causes, weighed against his denials. And just about everyone is supportive these days (George Bush excepted), so I don't think that carries much weight. That's just my opinion, though :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

SatyrTN removed our Project tag from William Allain's talkpage. While it's not been proven that he is gay, there is strong suspicion. My approach was to add a tag (mostly to protect the referenced info I added), and of course I didn't categorise him as LGBT. Any thoughts?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The project tag is suitable for articles of clear LGBT interest. Where the project tag is on a BLP article there is no automatic presumption that the article is about someone gay. For example I recently tagged

Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill

. If the reason that the article is of interest to this project needs spelling out, then I suggest that this is either added in the the "explanation= " paramenter of the LGBTproject template or, if you wish to be spotlessly super-civil, you start a section on the article talk page in order to reach a consensus for tagging the article first.

I am uncomfortable that, with the recent fuss made over tagging for this project, we may have started self-censoring tagging on BLPs. Effectively pre-empting any policy decision which should apply across all projects, not this one as a special case just because some folks appear to presume that readers are unable to distinguish an LGBT project tag on a talk page from a claim that the subject is a homosexual. Ash (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's no proof that he's not gay, too.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position, speculation that someone might be gay would almost never be a reason to tag as LGBT interest. Rare counter-examples may be where a well-known lawsuit for defamation was on the basis of such speculation or where the person was demonstrably notable for the perception that they might be gay even where they have not self-identified as such (e.g. Kenneth Williams). Ash (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe there was a lawsuit here; both parties had to testify with a lie detector, etc. John Howard suggests that Gov Allain went through with the lie detector because of the way the questions were asked, e.g. he did not identify as a homosexual, the men were transvestites, etc. I think we should add the tag again.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If that is the sole basis of interest then I suggest a talk page discussion first so the rationale for being of LGBT interest can be clearly laid out. Ash (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My reasons for removing the banner are:

1. He's a BLP
2. He's consistently denied being LGBT
3. The people who initially labeled him as gay later retracted their statements
4. I have concerns that the one paragraph devoted to the issue (out of four in the article) seems
   WP:UNDUE
   - it's a smear campaign run by his opponents in an election - hardly a major part of his life
5. There's no other LGBT-related info in the article - his voting record for or against issues, any sort of participation in LGBT-related events, nothing.

I agree that we shouldn't self-censor based on the recent BLP discussions, but I honestly don't believe this person is of much interest to the project - a single event of a smear campaign isn't significant enough to warrant interest by our project. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I disagree for mostly the above reasons. This is exactly the case where spelling out on the talkpage why there are no categories but to watch over the article to ensure to content remains NPOV. I could see it going either way but really it should be on a watchlist and the banner is the only one we have. Perhaps we should consider a way to flag our banner for BLP watching. Not every BLP needs flagging but certainly a sizeable number do.

-- Banjeboi

22:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Since there is an article for

Ugh! Please merge them and trim off any nonsense. If nothing else condense it into several paragraphs rather than numerous stubby articles simply begging for every pornstar who wants to be listed as a top, bottom or versatile to hop in.

-- Banjeboi

22:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL, we probably should merge Vers into the 3 together article.

chat

05:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Mish (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance in the above two instances. TBH, if Cliff is not a suitable candidate for the project banner, I cannot see how Weir can be either - there has been far more interest in Cliff's sexual orientation (in this country, anyway) for much longer than there has been Weir's. In the case cited above I cannot see any justification.

Perhaps we need to establish some clear guidelines within the project for tagging BLPs? So, a clear connection with LGBT issues, self-identity, and so on. Then we float the intention to tag the BLP first, seeking consensus, depositing a rationale for the tag; if it is agreed, once tagged, challenges to the project banner can be referred to the rationale and consensus.

If we were to agree to this internally, then it could be proposed in the appropriate discussion as a possible way forward. Mish (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm. An internal guideline would be good, in my opinion.

Does Cliff Richard have multiple reliable sources discussing his sexuality and how his sexuality reflects on and influences his career? If so, there's more of a reason for the project to be interested. I'm thinking of this NPR article, for example.

BTW, the "process" you've outlined above makes perfect sense, and is exactly what happened with Weir, though the "seeking consensus" part got bogged down in a loop of RfCs. Perhaps another round on Richard's talk page is in order? The last time his sexuality was brought up was in 2008 - perhaps there's more available now? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the interest in finding more peaceful ways to deal with rather drama-filled dust-ups over ... a project tag but I'm opposed to enacting our own extra step which may or may not make any difference in every case that has been blown out of portion, IMHO. I do see that benefit in adding to our general default page about standards used to add content/categories vs. the project tag. Each has it's own standard presently which I generally agree with. But a new process, I'm opposed to that. It may also make sense to have a suggested "steps to take" if a dispute arises.

-- Banjeboi

01:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to include in this category not only songs that deal with LGBT lyrically but also songs that are lgbt-related through music videos like for example Beyonce&GaGa's "Telephone". A Man from Poland (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest asking Otto4711 or Bearian, they do a lot of category work and may understand if there is a way to do this or if not why we don't.

-- Banjeboi

23:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone care to weigh in on the discussion of describing "homo" as pejorative at Talk:Homo (disambiguation)#abbreviation_for_homosexual ? Thanks. AV3000 (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Somebody keeps trying to replace sourced material on the origins of the term with unsourced material & circular linked material that "bigs up" a particular individual. I don't want to end up edit warring to retain the previous version, but there seems to be a tag-team of one user and and one anon-IP doing the reversion/insertion supposedly at the request of the individual concerned. I have already had to go to Oversight because they tried to stick the guy's phone number in an edit heading. I have told them to tell the guy to write in if he has a problem. Mish (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please comment. See: Talk:HIV#HIV_Risk_Table Phoenix of9 00:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (

Here is an example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket_articles/Unreferenced_BLPs

The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Unreferenced BLPs.

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 08:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Okip! I've added our project to the list. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome ;) good to see you again. If your project is ever interested in tagging more articles with a bot, please see: Category talk:WikiProject tagging bots Okip 05:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 22:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

OMG!!! I couldnt believe this. Not only this guy is calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours", he is also comparing them to drug use. And wait, here's the "best" part. This guy is an admin. See: [15] Also see HIV, it seems like it is infested with heterosexism. Phoenix of9 06:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

He's not saying it himself; it's a frequently asked question, which is asked by other people, which is answered in a collapsable box. I see no issue with it. And even if there were, there's absolutely no warrant to embark on a moral crusade like you've done. Zazaban (talk) 07:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This FAQ could have been constructed without the word 'immoral' quite easily, without losing anything apart from its appeal to certain POV. Whether people do ask this precisely worded question or not, or if it is homophobic to construct the FAQ this way - I have no opinion. Mish (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Reading that with an eye to your perfectly valid concerns, I apologize for my wording. I am openly bi and intended that FAQ question to address the problem of people bringing their prejudices to that page. The point is that neither HIV nor any other encyclopedia article should be describing anything as immoral. I see that that FAQ has received some work today, might I suggest Talk:HIV as the best forum for improving wording? - 2/0 (cont.) 13:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your homophobia is unacceptable, I cant believe you are an admin (Copied from User Talk:2over0 )

Not only you are calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours" here [16], you are also comparing them to drug use. I cant actually believe you can be so openly homophobic. Stop spreading such BS in Wikipedia. Phoenix of9 07:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is being discussed also at: User talk:Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies Phoenix of9 08:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, I'm not seeing anything of the sort in that diff. Cla68 (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I quote: "Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?" Phoenix of9 07:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cla, have you tried reading the page? 'Q3: Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?'. The depiction of homosexuality as immoral is certainly displaying a particulat point of view, one that could easily be called homophobia.

I hope that 2over0 has some explanation, homophobia seems at odds with the skills needed to be an effective administrator. Weakopedia (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest a different approach, such as asking something like, "What did you mean by how FAQ #3 is phrased? I have NPOV concerns over the use of the word "immoral." Don't you think that might help resolve your concern in a more congenial way? Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. It is FAQ, a list of frequently asked question with answers, and the question worded that way is a frequently asked question, whether or not we find it a repulsive thing to ask. No use dumbing it down when people actually ask it. Zazaban (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Hello??? How about reading things in context? It's a FAQ question. It looks to me like a way of telling the kind of person who would ask this kind of question in this way that they are not particularly welcome. I had a quick look at the archives and couldn't find any question that is openly like that, so if it's a frequently asked question then I guess it's also a frequently deleted one. But I am sure it's a frequently thought question, and I guess it motivates at least some of the people who start unconstructive discussions on the talk page. Hans Adler 07:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec but agree with above) This concern was also brought to Jimbo's talk page, and I had a go at answering it here. I'm pretty inclined to assume that, given that we are talking about an FAQ, "Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?" is indeed a rough approximation of a type of Frequently Asked Question on that page. Several other editors also worked on the FAQ and did not take issue with this wording, and unfortunately it's hardly surprising that lots of people would ask this question (which is, of course, wildly homophobic). Remember that the whole point of FAQs is to answer questions, including ridiculous ones coming from a place of deep ignorance. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, you 2 are being quite silly. Do you really think we need a FAQ in

Untermenschen?? Do we really have to include racist, sexist, homophobic questions in FAQ sections while retaining their offensive wording? Phoenix of9

07:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If people frequently ask them, yes we do. Zazaban (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, Phoenix, a more serious issue here, IMO, than your disagreement with the wording of the question is your approach to resolving your concern. Why do you feel that the correct approach is to immediately throw accusations of homophobia and intolerance here and on Jimbo's talk page without even trying to await a response from 2/0 first? Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Zazaban, if that is your opinion, I see no need in discussing anything further with you. Cla68, if you think that my response is more serious, you are too biased for me to take you seriously. Phoenix of9 08:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Please. For everyone's sake including yours, for you will not last long here if you continue to jump the gun so dramatically. Zazaban (talk

) 08:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Weakopedia put it best: "Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article...People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic.". Your defense of homophobia is disappointing, Zazaban. Phoenix of9 08:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is written the way a homophobic person might write such a question. It is not answered from the perspective of a homophobic person though. If anything, it's potentially inflammatory toward homophobes due to the assumptions about how they'd phrase such a question. It was not written by a homophobic person and the intent was not to promote homophobia. Reach Out to the Truth 22:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Copied from User Talk:Jimbo Wales

Referring to this: calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours" and comparing it to drug use. [17] What is the procedure here?

LOL, why does this even belong on this talk page? (It doesn't) JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a good example of why the

assume good faith policy is so important. The page (and edit) to which you are referring is a Frequently Asked Questions page about HIV. The point of any FAQ is to answer questions that people might ask on article talk pages, even ridiculous ones, and even ones that exhibit intolerance in one form or another. For example on the Barack Obama talk page one of the FAQ questions is "Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?" It's there because many people have showed up on the talk page in the past shouting, "how come you're hiding the fact that Obama is a Muslim?" These individuals can quickly be referred to the FAQ which saves time. With respect to the HIV FAQ, my assumption would be that the talk page has received a lot of "how come you don't discuss the fact that the disease is always spread by homosexual sinners?" type comments. So the administrator to whom you refer almost certainly was not endorsing those kind of comments/questions (which are indeed very homophobic to my mind), but rather creating an FAQ to that would preempt them and hopefully keep some of them off the talk page, or at least not force people to answer them for the hundredth time. It would have been helpful for you to read more closely, or at least to wait for a reply from the admin in question before running over to Jimbo's talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs

07:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, you could have asked him nicely about what he meant in that diff. Instead you make severe accusations on his talk page then immediately bring it up here on Jimbo's page. Do you honestly think that this is the best way to handle it when you have a disagreement with another editor? Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That the FAQ should reflect commonly asked questions is a good thing - that FAQ question would have been equally well served by the stating 'Q3: Why does the article omit that AIDS results from homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?'. That would have answered any question on the subject. Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article. Many people will come to the article who have heard that homosexuality causes AIDS. A smaller portion of those will identify with the 'immoral' statement. People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic. Weakopedia (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that this person is an admin, I honestly dont see anything wrong in bringing that here. Do you really think we need a FAQ in

Untermenschen?? Do we really have to include racist, sexist, homophobic questions in FAQ sections while retaining their offensive wording? Phoenix of9

07:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on. Even so, there's no evidence that this person is openly homophobic. Honestly, I don't understand these people who need to find Fred Phelps around every corner and behind every bush. Zazaban (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in USA, these things are more common. Being in Canada, I am honestly surprised. Phoenix of9 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I happen to be Canadian as well so please don't automatically assume I'm American, thank you. Zazaban (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't you give 2/0 some time to respond before coming here? And why did you automatically assume some foul agenda was at play without waiting for a response first? Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How can I not assume "some foul agenda" was not "at play"? The wording and comparison is pretty clear. Phoenix of9 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no it is not clear at all, it's fairly obviously the opposite, actually. Zazaban (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

<sarcasm>

The first steps of the procedure to follow when you notice that an administrator is openly homophobic are as follows:

• Make sure not to check the facts. Homophobia is one of those crimes that are so egregious that the presumed perpetrator is not worthy of a presumption of innocence.
• Leave a message on the admin's talk page. This is required for purely formal reasons, but this step should not be left out as it will give you an advantage later on in case other homophobes try to defend the criminal.
• To avoid giving the culprit any chance of defending themselves, start the escalation immediately afterwards by posting an inflammatory message to a high-profile page. Don't risk that the admin comes up with twisted arguments that somehow convince the secretly homophobic majority of editors that the crime was a mere misunderstanding.

Here is a good example of how it works in practice. </sarcasm> Hans Adler 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful Phoenix of9 07:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Cla68's questions are valid ones, but probably it's best if this gets taken away from Jimbo's talk page, because it never belonged here in the first place. There's already a discussion happening at 2over0's talk page (though ironically that editor has not even had the chance to say anything), so probably this should continue there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If Jimbo Wales would not be interested at this specific case (User:2over0), he might be interested at:

1) Question of offensive FAQ's in general. Looking at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, this question could be relevant.
2) What to do with homophobic admins in general.Phoenix of9 07:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We should not be mincing FAQ questions just because we don't like how they are usually worded by the people asking. Real people are often nasty my friend. Zazaban (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Weakopedia put it best: "Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article...People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic.". Your defense of homophobia is disappointing, Zazaban. Phoenix of9 08:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering that I'm openly gay myself, I doubt that I'm defending homophobia. And I suppose that could work, but the specific wording really isn't the issue more than your aggressive manner of handling it. Zazaban (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I know you are gay, thats why I said your defense is disappointing. Given that this person is an admin, I'm much more concerned about this than I would be if it was written by a regular editor. Phoenix of9 08:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has happened. It's phrased the way the average homophobe would word it, and is refuted in nearly the same breath. Zazaban (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, maybe you might want to sleep on it - then if you feel the same in the morning, take it from there. If youre really Canadian like us, What are you doing up? I'm going to bed. Have fun Zazaban. Outback the koala (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I should be writing a book right now, but now my focus has been pulled, and it's after one in the morning. Maybe I should go to bed too. I can see this isn't going anywhere anyway. Zazaban (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Outback the koala, given that you have an anti-gay userbox in your page, I dont think you are neutral here. Phoenix of9 08:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me.. Note to others; Don't feed the trolls. Good night. Outback the koala (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

All he said was that we should go to bed; I don't see what being pro or anti gay has to do with it, that's good advice at this early in the morning. Incidentally, I don't approve of the institution of marriage for any sexual orientation. Zazaban (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you think it is appropriate for this project talk page to move copies of entire conversations from other people's user talk pages and dump them here? Did you get permission from these users to recycle their discussion? I collapsed the above text to avoid overly disrupting this talk page, that was a compromise as it is hard to understand why this blanket cut & paste should not just be deleted. Ash (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea was that this is needed to understand what is going on, and the conversation should be here anyway. Somebody at Jimbo Wales' talk suggested that it should be moved somewhere else, so it was. It seems to be over with now, so I would say collapsing them would be fine. I just felt that when they were still active, they should be open. I wouldn't have reverted a second time. Zazaban (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)