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.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

I unfortunately do nto have the time to devote to WP as I used to. But after searchign the article, I have noticed it has a 99 positive spin, with zero little mention of his behavioral problems and his often Homophobic coments. Thought I would bring it to the projects attentiona dn see if anyone wants to run with it. 74.62.46.90 ( talk) 00:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that these comments are notable? It doesn't seem too shocking the an American footballer would have said some things but they need to rise to a level they are reported. Banjeboi 02:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The following was in an email sent to several gay writers and newspapers, written by a man named Billy Glover. I got hold of it by magic. Though he seems a bit cranky, he does have some points. I think it has food for thought. Discuss? -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking at journalists and the media since about 1960. And I have yet to find the journalists as a group or individually doing even a minimally good job of covering most aspects of homosexuality. As they have done about Britney, or gay marriage and now seem to be doing on trans issues, as to compensate for failure to attack HRC etc because of shouting by a small segment of the population, they mostly have ignored the major issues we have faced. They ignored Don Slater, continue to never mention ONE, which was the largest organization, and for some time the only publication, because of two things-ONE did not fit the popular stereotype of "gay," and we were not young and cute and they didn't agree with our positions.

Hal Call was attacked for going into porn, but we got no support for NOT going into porn. We picketed the Los Angeles Times and were ignored-except that the paper then changed its policy which is what we wanted. Our Motorcade, even though for once the New York Times actually did a good article-written by Peter Bart, now in Hollywood at Variety I think-but no one else did, not even the gay media.

Don Slater was doing the military issue long before anyone else, he was in court, won cases, even though the policy didn't change, but his work was ignored, except for a brief mention, mostly in error, in Randy Shilts book. I was on Regis Philbin's tv talk show on the issue, and he was rude and there was no coverage of this in the media, as there was no coverage of Harry Hay and John Burnside's appearance on other tv shows.

There has been silence on the few books that actually try to cover our history, such as the book Vern Bullough edited, of short bios of pioneers, Before Stonewall, and Paul Cain's interviews in Leading The Parade. Most other books are East Coast oriented.

Show me one article in any g/l publication, by any g/l journalist on the g/l libraries/archives.

As I understand it, one of the two men whose legal case got rid of the sodomy laws ( Lawrence vs Texas) died in Houston, ignored and unhonored. Now I want g/l publications to sell. But how many covers and long articles can we have on non-gay celebrities while we ignore the people who have DONE the work that changed this nation for homosexual citizens?

Do young homosexual men and women ever hear of actual homosexuals who have worked for change? Instead they are given as "inspirationals" young, cute, girls and boys who know nothing on the subject, do nothing for the cause, but look good.

Who is working to try to get academia to use homosexual educators who KNOW the subject and should be teaching classes instead of some hacks who just are handed the course to fill a pc duty to say they have "done" the gay thing? Why are universities allowed to give their students less than the best education on this subject?

I gather there is a convention of g/l journalists meeting as I write. Who are they hearing from? Is Frank Kameny being heard? Who is speaking for our cause? What we will hear are attacks on HRC by trans people who came out of the closet, if they have, a year or so ago and have done nothing on their own but want to become leaders and take over existing g/l organizations instead of taking time to learn about life.

Or we will hear from Ellen and Elton. As if they can give much insight as to how to live as an average homosexual. And as if they actually did much work to change laws and attitudes.

I wait to hear some coverage of people and groups in our community/movement that are daily working yet are never heard from yet are the ones who actually are making the changes.

There is what could be a major event in New Orleans on Sep. 3d, (manystoriesonevoice.org) of religious homosexuals. Has any media covered this? Has any publication ever covered a meeting of the Seventh Day Adventist Kinship (g/l) group? How are the g/l Front Runner groups doing? Maybe somewhere on a website I don't know about there are listings that young people can find of groups they might want to know about, but do they know about them?

Just listing a name and phone number of some groups iknsmall print in the back of a g/l newspaperis not "serving" the community/movement. And why do we need g/l journalists if most of the articles we see are in general publications. As I've said many times before-I see the same travel news in g/l publications I see in general travel publications-so homosexual travelers have no need to buy a "gay" travel magazine that hs the samelistings-museums, Broadway plays, etc.

It seems that gay bars are not growing in number, yet that is the major coverage many g/l papers give us. And page of reviews of movies with no gay content.

And i the midst of all he fawning over gay marriage-with a brief mention of divorce-such as the two women who are filing for divorce 3 days after they married-is there any article on the g/l community that is NOT interested in marriage-such as the Alternative to Marriage Project?

One or two major g/l publications have very little gay news but lots of ads for million dollar homes and $40,000 cars and expensive clothes, which means the average homosexual, or average American will ave no interest in the publication.

And when was the last time you saw a ""quote" in the columns of someone who is NOT a celebrity, mostly non-gay celebrities are quoted, with silly hings such as,"Oh, Ilike my gay fans." Howinsulting. Is that what our community is desperate for, approval of celebrities?

There are probably gay artists, musicians, actors,that I have ever heard of, because all I read about in the g/ papers are the current non-gay people. Perhaps if they are "popular" in the gay clubs that is because they are the ones "celebrated" n the gay press. The general media keeps telling us that they give us what we want, and that ratings confirm this-I don't believe it-we have to take what they give us.

But a new day is coming, with internet, blogs, etc so that they will no longer be the deciders. Perhaps they will give us a column of good blog sites, gay websites-such as the new outhistory.org, which will give balanced information and resources and news.

That's quite a rant. I think we (WP:LGBT) attempt to show more gay history coverage, though of course we could do better... :) -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 20:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I know. I thought about telling him to check out Wikipedia ( Ann Bannon, Jose Sarria, the updated Stonewall riots article, Barbara Gittings, James Robert Baker, Black Cat Bar, etc.), but William J. Crankyman would probably try to rain fire and brimstone over the volunteer editors of WP:LGBT. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He does have a point but Americans, generally, are not big on learning history as much as creating it. Banjeboi 22:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I just declined a speedy delete on this. Is this a notable book company? If not, let me know, I'll delete it. Thanks! Keeper ǀ 76 19:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In 15 minutes, I searched Lexis Nexis, and Lambda Book Report (magazine for LGBT writers) for news of Bold Strokes, and found very minimal information. Not more than the site itself has for information. No 3rd party news. The information may be incorporated into Radclyffe's article. But in comparison to a more groundbreaking company such as Naiad Press, I can't see how newsworthy the company is. Though some may argue that any publishing company dedicated to LGBT titles is newsworthy. -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I really do love the name of the company. Other than that though, I think you might be right. I'll look at the more general WP:BOOK and WP:COMPANY guidelines. Keeper ǀ 76 19:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There's really not much out there on this (relatively new) publisher. I redirected the article to Radclyffe, per your suggestion, in lieu of deletion. The article text is in the redirect's page history, found here, if it can be spun back out with reliable sources. Sounds promising, but maybe not quite at Wikipedia level yet. Keeper ǀ 76 20:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, I was rewriting the article for you -- I found stuff. I was going to post it when we had an EC. Can you redirect it back, please? Ecoleetage ( talk) 20:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, scratch the last request -- I got bold and did it myself. :) Ecoleetage ( talk) 20:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful. Still a bit borderline, but certainly a valid stub. I was doing the same thing elsewhere, but my topic was dreadfully less interesting. Keeper ǀ 76 20:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

More stuff was just added. We may (we?) have to dig around in the web sites devoted to LGBT issues -- many of them are not hooked to Google. And your topic isn't so bad -- there are plenty of sexy people in the insurance field, no? :) Ecoleetage ( talk) 20:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

After Keeper's wonderful diplomatic work, one of the editors who had previously objected to the project tag on Charlie Crist and Larry Craig re-added the tag to Charlie Crist. Another editor, who looking at the tag page seems now to be clearly in the consensus minority, objected and remove the tag under the reasons of Delete LGBT project tag because (1) tag included no reason for why this article is relevant to the project; (2) unclear whether the Project ever made the decision to tag the article. While reason #1 has been talked to death. I think reason #2 can be dispelled quite clearly if some of the folks from LGBT who are interested in maintaining accuracy and standards in the Charlie Crist came over to the talk page and note that interest. It still seems like an uphill battle with the LGBT needing to explain every little step and not having the freedom to be treated like other Wiki-projects, but it looks like progress is being made-one baby step at a time. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 18:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me know what you think. Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 21:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that our slang pages could use a bit of standardizing...

Would anyone object if we changed the following pages to be along the lines of "Word (slang)"? That would fall in line with some of the other slang terms on Wikipedia, and would satisfy my need for organization :) Furthermore, the "gay" in the title is unnecessary - none of these are found in other types of slang.

• Bear (gay slang)
• Chaser (gay slang)
• Chicken (gay slang)
• Chickenhawk (sexuality)
• Chub (gay slang)
• Down-low (MSM)
• Glory hole (sexual)
• Queen (gay slang)
• Trade (gay slang)
• Troll (gay slang)
• Twink (gay slang)

Thoughts? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I object. Many of these are gay slang. When I rewrote fruit (slang), for instance, the sources showed that fruit had been used as slang but that most uses now refer to LGBT people, however the article addresses all uses of fruit as slang and allows for more to be added. Most of these articles are only about the gay slang aspects. For instance, I know bear has been used as slang outside of gay cultures but the article really is about just the gay context. If bird was notable as Italian slang, for instance, I would support bird (Italian slang). Part of LGBT history is we have entire languages, codes and signs as a means of survival. I don't think there is a clean solution to all of these. Glory hole is sexual slang not just slang and not just gay slang. Down-low is about MSM and also isn't just slang or gay slang. Banjeboi 22:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally hear what you're saying, Benji. But please take a look at Wikipedia's Naming conventions, specifically the section on qualifiers. Basically it says only disambiguate when necessary, and only as much as necessary. There's only one Dane Iorg, who's a baseball player. There's a Doug Henry (baseball) and a Doug Henry (motocross). And there's Chris Jones (1980s outfielder) and Chris Jones (1990s outfielder). The dabs get more descriptive as necessary.

In our case, there are no other articles an "bear" as a slang term, though there are other articles about bears. No others about "chasers" at all. No other articles about "chicken" as a slang term. Etc.

So I don't mean to diminish the history and meaning of our slang, but for naming articles, let's follow WP conventions? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 02:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

On the surface that sounds logical, the problem comes when bear (gay slang) becomes just bear (slang) and the article morphs into every slang use of bear - per the title. In the case of bear (gay slang) it really is specialized enough to warrant that gay bonus tag. I previously cited fruit (slang) which, I think, is more of an exception. Sources showed that usages nearly universally became used for LGBT people so the article encompasses all slang uses. That's not going to be true with all these articles. And some of those words do have other slang articles already so it's not going to be neat and clean:

These to me should remain as gay slang, there are non-LGBT slang uses that, IMHO, would compromise the article(s) without the gay tag:

• Bear (gay slang)
• Chaser (gay slang)
• Chicken (gay slang)
• Queen (gay slang)
• Trade (gay slang)
• Troll (gay slang)
• Twink (gay slang)

This one I'm unsure as it's about gainers and various folks who are in teh chub community and i haven't looked into what the sources support:

• Chub (gay slang)

This one I'm unsure as I haven't looked into what the sources support:

• Chickenhawk (sexuality)

This one I think could stay as down-low (MSM) as it's a well-known slang term but the article was high-jacked and sliced up and I left it in disgust so it's only about MSM:

• Down-low (MSM)

This one I think should stay as Glory hole (sexual) as it's the sexual slang term as opposed to the many other terms which are cited in part of the history section:

• Glory hole (sexual)

Hope that helps. Banjeboi 01:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm very uncomfortable leaving all those articles as "(gay slang)" on the off chance that someone creates "Abcde (Mafia slang)" or something that requires the more specific disambiguation. In fact, WP:DAB#NAME is pretty clear that the more general DAB (slang) should be used until and unless a more specific DAB (gay slang) is needed. I recognize that a couple of the articles may be open to someone adding information that isn't gay slang, but if and when that happens, I'll be happy to split them into separate articles. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 01:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious how adding non-gay-context information to an article on slang "compromises" the article and/or makes it not "neat and clean"? That's why we edit, right? To make articles neat, clean and comprehensive? Zue Jay ( talk) 02:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To address SatyrTN, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) would seem to suggest there is some wiggle room here, in essence we should be precise in titling an article. An article about bear as gay slang is quite different than an article about bear as slang (all usages). Although your offer to police and start new articles when non-gay usage starts to creep in sounds like a great idea my experience is that, more likely, the article will get rewritten, perhaps slowly, and it will be a long time until the non-gay content becomes large enough, if ever, to become its own article thus being deleted or re-merged putting us back to step one.

Zuejay, it's similar to what I write above, an article about bear as gay slang is quite different than an article about bear as slang (all usages). I am advocating that we work to make the gay slang articles neat, clean and comprehensive to being about the gay slang usages. If someone wants to build an article about all the slang usages of those words and link a section to the specific gay slang article within them then fine. I feel that each of these articles has plenty of potential without delving into all the other slang uses of those terms - handled on a case by case basis there is certainly room to adapt. When I was rewriting fruit (slang) that was a question - is there a need, material for "fruit (slang)" and "fruit (gay slang)". In that case fruit as slang all pointed towards gay men/LGBT people so it was a non-issue. Twink for instance has several slang usages and were the article not "(gay slang)" and just "(slang)" there's little reason the flood of online gamers wouldn't start infiltrating to ensure their usage of twink as slang was well represented - that is what I meant by "compromise the article". In practice we have a deluxe hatnote on twink (gay slang) just to help address this.

Frankly if "bear (gay slang)" is renamed to "bear (slang)" why wouldn't the article completely change focus about every slang usage of bear rather than focusing on the LGBT bear subculture? I couldn't defend it if that's what the article is called. Banjeboi 05:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bring this back up, but I'm still concerned we're not following Wikipedia guidelines, and we're sidelining ourselves in the process. For instance, I have no clue what another slang meaning of "bear" might be. There is nothing relevant on Bear (disambiguation) (and ours isn't there either). By sticking with the dab "gay slang", we're marginalizing ourselves unnecessarily. By changing it to "slang", the article will be taking a more prominent role in Wikipedia, and will be following WP guidelines.

Similarly, "chaser" may have another definition, but there's no other slang term that I know of, and certainly no other article.

Finally, Benji, even if someone comes along and adds some non-gay slang to, say, Twink (gay slang), I can almost guarantee it won't be as extensive and well done as all your work! :) -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 03:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't you or I, IMHO, but the myriad of knuckleheads who already add nonsense into articles. Now instead of saying no this article is about "gay slang" it instead becomes a discussion of adding incremental bits in context of WP:DUE. And really you've never heard of " "a bear of a man"? I'm sure there are other slang uses for all the term but I'm not terribly interested in those. Twink is also slang in the gaming community and it was worked out that they used twinking instead. If you make it Twink (slang) these articles could then be combined to detriment of both articles. Sorry I just don't see the strong need but if it does go through I'll likely just stop editing those articles. Banjeboi 23:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose changing the slangs from gay slang to slang. In fact, some of them should be LGBT slang...the opening sentence is Bear says "a subculture in the gay/bisexual male communities". All the ones that apply to gay men, would also apply to bi men, I'm pretty sure. Why can't a twink refer to a bi man? It does in my book, therefore they should be changed to LGBT slang. Ctjf83 Talk 23:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem leaving certain articles with the "gay slang" dab, if there's a good reason. My goal is just to corral the four different slang dabs presented here (gay slang, sexuality, sexual, and MSM) to be as close as possible to Wikipedia's standards. If Twink, for instance, has at the top a {{ seealso}} for twinking, then there is absolutely no reason the name can't be changed to be in line with WP guidelines. Any errant additions related to that article can be legitimately moved to it.

Since there doesn't seem to be overwhelming support (or in fact any) for moving them wholesale, I'll check with individual articles. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 01:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but what about changing the ones that already have "gay slang" to "LGBT slang"? To be more inclusive. I'm not sure if there is any lesbian slang, anyone know if they have terms?...well I mean besides lipstick and bull dyke, etc Ctjf83 Talk 03:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of lesbian and transgender slang terms as well but I do agree with SatyrTN that trying to be more cohesive is probably a good idea. I gave up on down-low (MSM) which has been muddled and incorrectly split, IMHO, and should be just "down-low" as the MSM slang, as it's now incorrectly stating actually originated from black and youth cultures. And the MSM is just amongst the most well-known usage for some groups. It's still used in many contexts and MSM is just one. To Ctjf83, my hunch is we should either move all or none and I would favor none as these all chiefly have been gay usages and have been more adopted by other groups within and outside LGBT communities. I would support "sexual slang" for both Gloryhole and Chickenhawk. Banjeboi 00:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've boldly moved "down-low" and "glory hole" to (sexual slang) and "chickenhawk" to (gay slang). I think this eliminates (MSM) (sexuality) and (sexual). Banjeboi 22:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/News and notes In case anyone missed it. Banjeboi 00:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yo,

I just created an article on Minority Sexual and Gender Identity, or MSGI, which is the next acronym on from LGBT. I'm having problems finding academic references to it though - it seems to be in semi-common usage around LGBT politics (especially queer politics), but I can't find any written references. Help/use of journal subscriptions would be appreciated. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 12:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Does it have to be that phrase exactly? If you break the terms in half, you can make one article that incorporates sexual minority (a stub) and, maybe, gender variance (a stub). You could look at gender identity and sexual identity for additional info that could be worked in, but those look like pretty solid articles by themselves. Also, consider taking a look at Minority#Gender_and_sexual_minorities. Is this, baisically, a culturally-inspired term? It didn't take long (less than 1/2 hour) for someone to nail this new article with a delete tag based on a lack of Google hits. Zue Jay ( talk) 14:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to AfD Gaysploitation, unless anyone can provide some sort of references? The "refs" currently in the article are either alleged examples or barely mention the term. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 17:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it certainly doesn't cite anything. I can't tell if it refers to society exploiting homosexuality similar to the Lesbian until graduation, or if it refers to gays milking homophobia in order to reap the benefits of some lavender Affirmative Action. Is the author responding? Can he provide better sources or quotes? -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The author hasn't edited since March. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 17:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks very deletable. I think it probably is a neologism at best, perhaps a transwiki to wiktionary as a WP:DICDEF? Without an RS that is about the word (instead of the three or for refs that just say "they used this word once"), it shouldn't be in wikipedia. Keeper ǀ 76 18:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've found several Google refs in books and one in News. I would say it has at least stubby promise. Banjeboi 23:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Benji, but I just don't see anything worthwhile yet as it appears to be a neologism. The book refs seem to be more about using the term in passing, so I have to go with Keeper on this. It was put up for prod in January 2007, so it would have to go to AfD. Transwiki as a dicdef, I think. — Becksguy ( talk) 04:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ran across another term that needs some serious work - or needs to be deleted. Homonormativity has self-referential links, needs wikification, needs actual refs. Does anyone know if this is even notable? Or should it just be transwikied to wiktionary? Or deleted? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 04:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge to heteronormativity? Banjeboi 00:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

An anon IP just posted that she died. I checked CNN and SFgate.com, with no news. -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, someone at WP:ANI just requested page protection. Didn't get it, as there hasn't been any vandalism yet. I would suggest that as many of us watch this as possible over the next few days just in case it gets vandalised. I'll hunt out some sources if possible. -- Ged UK ( talk) 19:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source, via AP. [1]. -- Ged UK ( talk) 19:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Interested editors may wish to participate in a discussion on the Talk:E.O. Green School shooting page regarding a NPOV tag recently placed on the article. Exploding Boy ( talk) 20:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should list Coquille Indian Tribe (Oregon) as a place where marriage is legal. It is not a state, unless this is some huge tribe, that I know nothing about, and is prominent. Ctjf83 Talk 02:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was huge news as it contradicted the vote in Oregon itself. If you are referring to the "Coquille" being listed on Template:Same-sex unions, I generally support it but that template has an active talk page and you might get a more thoughtful response there. Banjeboi 03:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll post a link from the page to this one, since it has been started here, and responded by you, Benji

conversation here Ctjf83 Talk 03:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys - there has been some recent image vandalism on LGBT articles. Can you guys please watch these pages:

--David Shankbone 15:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, for new editors to the project, you can view a "watchlist" of all articles in the project by viewing Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Articles. Or there's a nifty userbox you can put on your user page - see {{ LGBTWatchall}}. Though, come to think of it, I'm not sure diving is part of our project... :) -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 16:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's those skimpy Speedos, Satyr. And Greg Louganis, Mark Spitz, Michael Phelps, &.... ;-) — Becksguy ( talk) 11:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The 72.76 vandal seems to be back and now targeting Davids other photos. If you notice images disappearing this may be why. Banjeboi 12:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The "current" one is the one we picked for January. Are we doing this at all? Is it dead in the water? Have we just run out of what we want to do on that one and need to pick a new one? Or do we want to abandon the CotM idea altogether? Thoughts? Aleta ^Sing 18:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask what on the face seems a pretty stupid question? What happens during a collaboration of the month? What's the goal? Who works on the article or list? -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In theory, we'd gang up on it and redecorate. Banjeboi 23:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL! Exactly :) -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 00:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh. I've never heard -redecorate as the ending for the word gang-... and certainly not in a gay context ;)

All that aside, should we maybe pull our collective finger out (yes, I know, bottoms everywhere will complain) and come up with a September Collaboration? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Well, I suggest E.O. Green School shooting since some vague accusations of POV are being leveled on the talk page. The sources are mixed between reliable and not at all. The writing in the article is sketchy, and it could do with updates and a lot more detail. -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, Moni. Aleta ^Sing 16:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue what to do with Transgender Rights in Tamil Nadu. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 05:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be more broad than 'rights'. Perhaps a move to 'Transgender people in Tamil Nadu' would be more appropriate? A lot of claims in the lead need to be cited, too. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 05:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What about Male homosexual and gay poetry - anyone want to take a crack. At it? The title is way problematic (un-encyclopedic at best), and I'm not sure if it's trying to be a list or an article. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 04:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to clean-up this gem --> Gay_community#Criticisms. Banjeboi 23:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Heya. A newsletter should have been sent out by now for August, obviously. I think this is part of my reaction to Jeffpw's passing. I thought it had to be addressed in the next issue, and I am unable to advance farther than that. Every time I think about the newsletter I enter a mental void that has me contently staring at a blank wall instead of turning around to confront sadness or anger. So - I'm not slacking... I'm avoiding. If someone who is better emotionally equipped than I would like to do the next one, please feel free. Maybe just to kick start me. -- Moni3 ( talk) 16:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I keep thinking to myself, "Ooh, this reminds me of Jeff, I should message- oh, yeah..." *cries a bit*. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 23:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We definitely need to put something in the next newsletter about Jeff. I suppose it could be as short as "The LGBT project misses Miss Julie", or we could try to talk about some of what Jeff accomplished here on WP in general... I don't know. What do y'all think? Aleta ^Sing 17:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My issue here is that I can't think of what else to put in because my brain would rather do less stressful things. I need ideas and tips. If someone wants to write about Jeff, please feel free to do so... -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed three category upmerges:

• Category:Gay villages in Texas up to Category:Gay villages in the United States
• Category:Female wartime crossdressers in the American Civil War up to Category:Female wartime crossdressers
• Category:Transgender and transsexual actors from the United States up to Category:Transgender and transsexual actors

Please comment at: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 10. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 00:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And renames

Someone else nominated several categories for renaming, mostly along the lines of "Rename 'LGBT music' to 'LGBT-related music'". See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 9#Category:LGBT media for more info. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 15:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the Category:LGBT Democrats (United States)(   talk  links  history). On the one hand, it's the rule, not the exception. In other words, it's *much* more notable that someone is a part of the Republican party and LGBT. Also, why is it notable what party affiliation someone LGBT has? And finally, I haven't researched it, but party affiliation is probably a bit difficult to determine with a reliable source unless they're a politician, in which case they're already covered by Category:LGBT politicians. Thoughts? CfD? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 15:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I created Category:LGBT Democrats (United States) because there was also a Category:LGBT Republicans (United States) and that way there would be a category for both. It didn't have anything to do with the party's stance of LGBTs. WillowGrove ( talk) 17:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else think this category should be kept? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 17:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I say nom both for CfD. Ctjf83 Talk 17:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think splitting LGBT politicans by party is necessary, but Category:Log Cabin Republicans might not be a bad idea in terms of LGBT Republicans. Kolindigo ( talk) 21:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, no. List of members of the Log Cabin Republicans is better off in that article, if anywhere. Three of the members listed there right now aren't even sourced. Kolindigo ( talk) 21:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Splitting LGBT politicians by party is thoroughly unneccessary. One category, something like LGBT U.S. politician makes more sense. David in DC ( talk) 00:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The creator of this questionable category was just blocked as a sock puppet of a banned editor, FWIW. David in DC ( talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell if some of the editors activities were good or not. Is there an easy way to undo this particular category? Or should it just be done manually? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 17:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with ctjf83 David in DC ( talk) 19:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have the book "The Life of Langston Hughes"? There are no references I can find about Gilbert Price, though I've read a couple places that Langston Hughes was in love with Price. If anyone has the book, could you find a relevant passage that says that Price was gay - or not? Thanks! -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be spending some hours in the library this weekend. It has two books titled The Life of Langston Hughes. One from 1986 and one from 1941. Which do you need? -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No clue. Whichever one says that Price is gay, I guess. :) :) -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You should all be warned that the banned “ Gay Pornography vandal” (ban date: March 6, 2008) is back on Wikipedia on a different IP range. Although he still has access to his old IP range, he has begun using multiple IP ranges. Commons has been wrestling with the issue for awhile.

Aside from death threats and his usual boogedy-boogedy, he is also back to working on the porn articles, specifically, his vendetta with Michael Lucas, which spread to me. It also spurred the creation of new meta tools to deal with cyberstalking.

This is the range he is working in currently. Can someone please softprotect that article ( Michael Lucas (director)) for a month. There is a long, voluminous, and threat-laden history to this page and its talk page. I suggest the longer soft-protect, the better.

As everyone remembers, this person's boundless anger quickly transfers to other people, and disrupts the incident board endlessly with complaints from multiple editors. I will cross-post this on a few former targets to give them a heads up. --David Shankbone 16:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, sounds like lots of fun! Can you give us that are unfamiliar with the vandal, more details? Is Lucas all he vandals, or does he do a lot of gay porn star articles? Can you also give us a few, or all of the IPs he has used to vandalize? Ctjf83 Talk 16:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

See User:David Shankbone/72.76 for more (dry) info; this is also a good place to 1. Log any that are likely this user and 2. refer admins when filing reports. They mask deletion and addition of slanderous content as meaningful edits. You may remember numerous reports of supposed concern on this page. "I'm worried about David Shankbone ... he seems to be ______" - followed by endless character maligning and tabloid-rich detail. They also have made an effort to delete images for a variety of reasons and engage in blather on talk pages. Invoking revert, block, ignore, as they are a banned editor, seems to work best. -- Banjeboi 17:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• They also perplexingly spam my blog in edit summaries, driving readership to it. They don't just stick to gay porn, although for a good year before I met up with him he was working on the pornography articles, with a focus on Lucas, his films, and anyone who has been in his films. Now I'm included in this focus because, through his trolling of Lucas, we struck up a friendship. --David Shankbone 18:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we by chance have any admins, due to the circumstances, to block the IPs for long (3 months plus) periods of time right off the bat? Ctjf83 Talk 19:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I got the page protected for a week...not long enough in my opinion, but we can revisit it after then. Ctjf83 Talk 20:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Gay porn vandal target: Michael Lucas (director)

Currently creating BLP violations, and removing a professional photo Lucas released GFDL for a lesser photo (mine). --David Shankbone 19:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose we change our project box, adding on a link to the talk page, recent changes, and stubs, like is done on the Simpsons project box Template:User WikiProject The Simpsons and the Oregon project Template:User WikiProject Oregon Ctjf83 Talk 16:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Template at {{ User LGBT Project}}. -- Banjeboi 17:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What now? Are you saying post it there, with no other talk page entries? Ctjf83 Talk 17:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean add the links for recent changes, stubs, and talk to the userbox itself? Sounds like a good idea to me. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 17:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, SatyrnTN...more convenient and such. Ctjf83 Talk 18:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ctjf83, I was just posting the link to the template you were referring. -- Banjeboi 18:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

HAHA, thanks Benjiboi, I should have done that myself ;) Your thoughts on the matter? Ctjf83 Talk 18:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see the icon bigger and all the text seems too small as well - I also support the changes, presuming size is big enough to read. -- Banjeboi 19:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm sure we can adjust the size and such. Ctjf83 Talk 19:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There's another interesting discussion on Talk:Sally Kern about whether she's homophobic enough to be included in Category:Homophobia. That's not actually what's being discussed, but sometimes that category seems to invoke that kind of discussion :)

In any case, I'd love to get a couple more opinions on the discussion. Thanks! -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 19:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Could it be mere coincidence that a series of articles and category pages on the topic of pederasty are all of the sudden being "edited" by brand-new users with no history other than the removal of cited as well as uncited material in a wide range of related articles? Established users are also active in a simultaneous attack, at the main article on Pederasty which they intend to gut and rewrite according to their "consensus." I will certainly not dash myself against the windmills if there is no interest among responsible editors in preserving and expanding this field of information. For a better idea of what is going on I suggest a look at Pederasty in the Middle East and Central Asia and at Reza Abbasi‎, as well as all the other articles these two "editors" have "worked" on. Another fly-by-night is here, regardless of validity of edits: this diff The anon attacks are suggestive of a concerted campaign orchestrated off-site. Is this any way to compile an encyclopedia?! Haiduc ( talk) 00:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the diff you put up is showing removal of material from a talk page from almost exactly a year ago. Archiving is, of course, preferable, but I'm not really seeing how the list is terribly important to the page. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 00:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I do actually. For the very reason posted about. This subject area is targeted continually by vandalism including seemingly useful edits with the sole purpose of erasure. Posting a timestamped list of article that were in the category can be useful for those interested in the subject or ensuring the integrity of the category. It's hardly costing us a thing so I see no reason to delete it. Unfortunately proving there is any concerted effort will be hard to prove so revert, block, ignore may be the limit for now. -- Banjeboi 01:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Should Federación Estatal de Lesbianas, Gays, Transexuales y Bisexuales be moved to National Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals? Or does it stay under the Spanish name? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 02:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should stay under the Spanish name with the English redirected there. Banjeboi 02:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:UE says otherwise - is there a reason to keep the Spanish name? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 17:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Move it, this is the English wiki not Spanish Ctjf83 Talk 17:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have said move it too, people are far less likely to search for an organisation's spanish name on the English WP. --17:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If WP:UE tells you what to do then what's the issue? Banjeboi 00:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I created it at the Spanish name only because that was the suggested title on our Translations page. Since there will still be redirects, it will be findable by the Spanish or English name if moved. -- Alynna ( talk) 22:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty noncontroversial renaming I proposed Category:Gay sportspeople to Category:Gay athletes. Discussion here Ctjf83 Talk 01:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could add Category:Lesbian sportspeople, Category:Bisexual sportspeople, and Category:Transgender and transsexual sportspeople to that discussion? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 01:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm...well right now it looks like the consensus is to oppose the rename, as apparently "athletes" to these people means track and field stars. Ctjf83 Talk 21:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that... I mean, if you've ever watched Darts players doing their thing on British TV, you could hardly call the players athletes Crimsone ( talk) 22:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm back. Anyway, this page I created on Irving Bieber, a homophobic psychoanalyst, has been changed into praising him. The trouble is, things are referenced. I would do with a bit of help to put the record straight. (For instance, citing Charles Socarides, another homophobic psychoanalyst, doesn't seem fair. I can try to find a book of psychoanalytic theory which would be more balanced.) Also, the same editor has deleted a wikilink for a page to be created on Edmund Bergler, another homophobic psychoanalyst of the McCarthy era. I thought the idea was that anyone could create/edit articles on wikipedia as long as they were referenced and balanced/fair? Zigzig20s ( talk) 08:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the same editor has created a page on Bergler. I just read it once and it seemed fine. However the Bieber page sounds a tad biased to me. Plus the mere fact of saying the page on Bergler should only be created by a selected few put me off back when it was written on my talk page. Zigzig20s ( talk) 08:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I could use some help. An editor continues to assert that "boyloving" (his term for pedophilic rape) is the same as being homosexual. The argument is occurring on Jon Schillaci. Stop on by if you have any desire to participate :) -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 18:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That article is a red link. Is there a typo? Aleta ^Sing 18:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I'm a doofus. :) -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 18:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. :) I'll take a look. Aleta ^Sing 18:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice this article is included in the LGBT portal thing. I don't really understand its inclusion. Pope Julius II was a pederast. Surely the link shouldn't be made to homosexuality just because it was same-sex pederasty. If it had been a young girl (which under the Catholic regime wouldn't be possible but just say) would it be marked as a 'heterosexual' relationship? To me, it is troubling to identify a relationship such as this as homosexual, particularly in light of the current pope's witch hunt against so-called 'gay' priests, who are in fact pederasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.155.72 ( talk) 22:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Michel Foucault has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Thanks! Lesgles ( talk) 20:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just delete the 'reviews' section because are we even allowed to insert such long quotations? Also it doesnt seem standard with the WPNovels guidelines. Zigzig20s ( talk) 23:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I would retitle it to "Reception" instead of reviews and trim it down. -- Banjeboi 03:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Summarise the review and if possible link directly to it, otherwise just cite it normally. -- Ged UK ( talk) 09:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the subhead should be 'literary significance and criticism', but anyway I'm not sure we're allowed to cite such long passages. Zigzig20s ( talk) 18:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the advert, moved some parts to the 'literary significance and criticism' section, added a referenced criticism. Zigzig20s ( talk) 19:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to improve the layout for this page; it would be good to find references for a biography section. The French page on Wikipedia says he was a proponent of barebacking and he had a public row with Didier Lestrade because of that. He also started a series of LGBT publications in France, Rayon Gay. But we need references for all that...and google isn't helping with the first hits anyway. I didn't categorise him as gay or anything because we need references. Can anyone please help? Zigzig20s ( talk) 22:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it ok to ask for a project collaboration on the peer review for this article? If things start to work for the article, I'd like to see it get featured by the time the Gus van Sant film come out in late November. Maybe... appear on the main page November 27. The day the film trailer came out, the article recorded 24,000 hits. -- Moni3 ( talk) 02:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest Nov 26 as a back-up to coincide with the full US film release rather than the date Milk was killed, but not strongly opposed to either. Also could we insert more information about suicide cults? - Lol! -- Banjeboi 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hush, you. This is really, really far in the future and more related to the main page requests page, but November 27 is connected in the article (26 is not), and neither the film not the article would be harmed by the back to back dates. -- Moni3 ( talk) 02:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to use:

Kathmandu, Sep 18 (IANS) A 21-year-old lesbian has become the first person in Nepal to be officially recognised as a third gender person under the Maoist-led new government, a move being hailed as a landmark for sexual minorities in a country still dominated by a strong feudal society.

[2] -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 03:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I know this article has been contentious in the past. A new user has (with his/her only edits thus far) removed the LGBT category from the article and the project template from the talk page. I have restored the project template. I do not know enough to get into the article dispute, but thought I'd post something here to call attention about it to those more familiar with the article and past discussions of this issue. Aleta ^Sing 19:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

New article Gay culture in Russia has been created, in case anyone is interested in working on it. ElmerBront ( talk) 03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to verify the origins of the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, specifically who founded the organization. The earliest recorded source that I am aware of is the July 19, 1972 issue of The Advocate ("Christopher Street West SF Gay Parade", page 3). I understand that this issue is available at Northwestern University along with some of Alice's reports, but they don't photocopy/loan items from their special collections. Are there any students, faculty, staff, or nearby residents who would be willing to check on this? See Talk:Harvey Milk#Alice for the whole story. Thanks, Queerudite ( talk) 04:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, there are 172 articles that are within our project's purview as well as within the demesne of WP:ANIME. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 05:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Some interesting new info on the former Idol star. Just a heads up that this project may be interested in making sure the Clay Aiken article is factual and accurate. Cheers! Keeper ǀ 76 23:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tagged. For now. I cannot say I'm stunned. I'm more stunned that it hadn't been tagged before. -- Moni3 ( talk) 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It likely had and been reverted by the Claymates. Sometimes ownership issues aren't the best for articles. -- Banjeboi 01:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perez Hilton is now a reliable source? Kolindigo ( talk) 01:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

People is. Clay himself is. Clay on the cover of People saying "I'm gay" doesn't really leave a lot of question. -- Moni3 ( talk) 01:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but from what I can see, People is playing coy and so the only source right now that Clay Aiken has announced this is a gossip blogger. I hope this is real, but I know how to use photoshop, too. Kolindigo ( talk) 02:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's source is CNN in Aiken's article. The source at the top of this thread is MTV News. -- Moni3 ( talk) 02:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The CNN article is from the AP. The AP says The cover of the latest People magazine shows Aiken holding his infant son, Parker Foster Aiken, with the headline: "Yes, I'm Gay." The cover also has the quote: "I cannot raise a child to lie or hide things." The magazine has an interview with Aiken and confirmed that he was on the cover but refused to release the article until Wednesday.

So, in other words, they saw a picture of the cover. There is nothing on the People.com site about this. Therefore, I assume this comes from the AP blindly sourcing a gossip blog, because they did not get any information on Aiken from People and the cover originated from Perez Hilton. Kolindigo ( talk) 02:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're calling CNN's journalistic integrity into question, you should write to them and start a thread on WP:RS. Otherwise, I am unsure of a clearer case for inclusion that someone being on the cover of a magazine saying "I'm gay". At 7 est tomorrow, the reference will change to People. -- Moni3 ( talk) 02:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)