Talk:Timeline of LGBT history/Archive 2

Recent additions
I appreciate the recent ancient history additions, but I'm not sure they, or anything else before the 19th century, properly belong in a timeline of gay rights. Any other thoughts? -Seth Mahoney 22:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with it. They are about negative gay rights, I guess. Similarly, several of the articles entitled "Gay rights in" are about countries where there are practically no gay rights, and that is also the case for several of the "Human rights in..." articles. Wuzzy 22:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My problem, I guess, is that they predate both the concepts of 'gay' and 'rights' in any contemporary sense, and certainly predate anything even remotely resembling a gay rights movement, so they seem a bit anachronistic. -Seth Mahoney 22:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe this article is evolving beyond a U.S.-centric view and growing into something more encyclopedic and more inclusive of general civil rights of LGBT folks in history, which is not a bad thing - especially if we start adding Asian and African historic events. Maybe I'm naive, but I truly can see this article morphing into - or being an outline for an article such as History of LGBT civil rights. - Davodd 05:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, but L, G, B, or T identities didn't exist as they do now before the 19th century (20th, for some), and the idea of human rights certainly didn't exist in Rome. -Seth Mahoney 06:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. WP articles are written to be read by an audience of the 21st century. Therefore, we should use 21st century terms to talk about historic events in order to be clear to our audience. - Davodd 09:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that we revert to using archaic language, or that we have to talk in ancient Greek when speaking about ancient Greece, but suggesting that we shouldn't project identities onto cultures, historical or present, where they may not have existed. This includes both 'gay/lesbian/trans' identities, and those oriented around a concept of 'rights', civil or human, that may not have existed in various cultures.  One way we could do that is to change the title, scope, and context of the article to reflect one way of looking at a historical progression that doesn't rely on either of those concepts.  Another would be to move pre-19th century stuff to its own space.  -Seth Mahoney 22:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What would the new title, and scope be?Wuzzy 23:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A couple possibilities would be to generalize it to History of sexualities timeline (which might be too general), or History of same-sex movements timeline (which would mean getting rid of some of the info here), or something similar. -Seth Mahoney 23:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "History of Sexualities" is too big and vague, and "movements" is a bit too limiting. Overall, I prefer the existing scope, though "LGBT rights timeline" would be a more accurate title. I think it is still sensible to talk of rights, rights abuses, homosexual, transsexuals, etc with respect to historical times when (or countries today where) the concepts were unknown, provided today's reader interested in the topic would get an accurate understanding of the facts. This might mean replacing "homosexual" and "gay" with same-sex for pre-20th century, if and when possible, and having a short explanation of the anachronisms. Wuzzy 01:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the contents of the article currently go way beyond the existing scope. If pre-19th century topics are included in the article as part of some LGBT rights narrative, 'gay', 'lesbian', 'homosexual', 'transsexual', 'heterosexual', etc. can never be used.  Same-sex may be appropriate in some cases, but I'd say the more detailed the better: 'pederastic', 'non-exclusive same-sex', etc. are all terms that may be more appropriate than even 'same-sex'.
 * But it also worries me that, as the article is currently laid out, it is as if some narrative is being constructed that includes, say, Nero's marriage of two men as some sort of precursor to contemporary same-sex marriage debates. If there is some relationship that we're trying to point out, we need to be explicit.  If there is no relationship, the entry does not belong here.  -Seth Mahoney 01:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, this is an timeline, not a history. The point is to show the historical firsts, the order of events, the synchronicities, simply because they are interesting or maybe to quickly find an exact date and link. I don't think someone who reads a timeline expects to get an explanation of history. In any case, it would be impossible to do as this will always be a work in progress, as the past keeps getting uncovered, and new events happen, and new editors join in. If the two men married by Nero are the earliest known same-sex marriage, that's fine to include (or even it wasn't the first, since it begs the question about when the practice stopped.) On the earlier point, if the terms "homosexual" etc can never be used before the 19th or 20th century, that would falsely imply that homosexuals, transsexuals etc came into being only when the terms were created. Wuzzy 05:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sometimes its just easier to use a numbered outline:
 * 1. On the contrary, a timeline is a type of history.  It involves the building of a narrative just like any other history.
 * 2. I'm fine with your explanation of the inclusion of Nero here.  But I think it should be similarly explained there.
 * 3. I don't think that refraining from using terms implies (falsely or not) that the objects those terms refer to don't exist before a certain date.  What the practice does, instead, is to help keep us from projecting our values, beliefs, and practices too far into other cultures.  So refraining from using, say, 'homosexual' or 'gay' before the 19th century isn't intended to make the claim that, say, sodomites aren't anything like the mentally damaged sexual invert or the contemporary gay man respectively, but to say that they aren't exactly like either of those groups.  -Seth Mahoney 17:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK - I did the 'be bold thing. - Davodd 23:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word "gay"
The use of the word gay in most of this article is anachronistic and incorrect. You simply cannot claim that ancient Romans "outlawed gay marriage" or had "gay relationships." "Gay" is not a meaningful term until the 1960s at the very earliest. Exploding Boy 05:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. That's exactly the point I was trying (and failing) to make above.  Thanks for putting it more clearly.  -Seth Mahoney 06:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You have valid points. But, I do not see any benefit to the reader in using arcane terminology if it has little meaning or relevance to an audience of the 21st century. If we use outdated terminology, it should be adequately defined in today's terms so as not to confuse today's readers. May I suggest as an example how Tuberculosis handled the explanation of changing of terminology and concepts over time. - Davodd 09:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there could be a short (since this is supposed to be an outline, and it's likely going to get a lot bigger) explanation of the history of the terminology at the begining, just so readers are not misled to think that the terms and concepts were prevalent before the 19th and 20th. On the other hand, little known historical terms should be avoided. Wuzzy 13:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry. This is meant to be a scholarly article. There is absolutely no justification for using inappropriate terms or for using terms in ways that their meanings do not allow. It is simply incorrect to describe ancient peoples as "gay." It is incorrect to use the term "gay" to to describe the relationships, sexual behaviours, desires, and identities of people before the 1960s, and even that's stretching it. And misusing the term this way obscures its actual meaning and the ways in which it is really used. We don't have to use "arcane" or "little-known historical" terminology, simply terminology that is appropriate. For example, where it says that some Roman emperor outlawed "gay marriage," a simple change to "marriages between men" (I presume that marriages between women were not dealt with in the law) would be more accurate, more descriptive, and in the end, much more useful.

The article as it stands looks ridiculous with all those references to the supposed "gayness" of people in past millennia. A short message explaining that we're using the word "gay" incorrectly would not suffice either. There's no excuse for purposely misusing terms except laziness. What we could do, is explain that words like "gay" and "homosexual" are inappropriate in historical contexts. There are some good paragraphs in some of the other homosexuality articles that could be adapted for use here. Exploding Boy 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What would you use to replace "gay" and "homosexual"?Wuzzy 15:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that "homosexual" might be alright in some contexts. In other contexts it would be much more useful to be specific about what we're talking about, for example, in the entry on marriage in ancient Rome, is it marriage between males only?  Or does it include marriage between females also?  We also have to bear in mind the specific connotations of the words we're using.  "Homosexual," for example, wasn't even invented until, what, the 1800s?  And it suggests an exclusive desire for and sexual behaviour with persons of the same sex.  For many historical figures sex with one sex didn't preclude sex with the other.


 * I'd also just like to add that scholars have been criticized for using terms like "homosexual" and "gay" in historical contexts. For example, Gary Leupp was widely criticized for using the term "homosexual" in his study on Edo-era same-sexuality, and Paul Gordon Schalow was criticized for his use of the word "gay" to describe classical literature.  Exploding Boy 20:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How would you translate "These scapegoats include most notably gays and Jews." Wuzzy 21:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Where? Exploding Boy 01:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 7th century.Wuzzy 05:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Gays --> homosexuals. Exploding Boy 05:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ETA: Are we talking about men only, or men and women? This could be clearer. Exploding Boy 05:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ypu seem to be contradicting what you said earlier. Are you conceding that there is no way to avoid using the term homosexual? And how is that different from using gay? Wuzzy 05:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, my main concern with this article was always the anachronistic use of the word "gay." I think "homosexual" might be ok in some instances (this is exactly what I've been saying all along; reread my posts).  I don't think there's no way to avoid using either term, in fact.  But let's say what we mean (anther thing I've been saying all along).  What do we mean in the example you gave?  Exploding Boy 15:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is incorrect to use the term "gay" to to describe the relationships, sexual behaviours, desires, and identities of people before the 1960s,

This statement is demonstrably false. There are quotations for the homosexual sense of gay dating back to at least the 1930s. Check the OED. Nohat 04:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not in the modern sense. See the article Gay: "The subcultural usage started to become mainstream in the 1960s, when gay became the term predominantly preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. Gay was the preferred term since other terms, such as "queer" were felt to be derogatory. "Homosexual" was perceived as excessively clinical: especially since homosexuality was at that time designated as a mental illness, and "homosexual" was used by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) to denote men affected by this 'mental illness.'"  Exploding Boy 05:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely you're not using the contents of another Wikipedia article as some kind of authoritative source. The sense of gay meaning "homosexual" has been positively antedated to at least 1934. That is to say, people in the 1930s used the word gay to mean "homosexual", and therefore the claim that use of the word gay is somehow "incorrect" if applied to people in that time cannot be supported by historical principles because there is evidence that people used the word at that time to mean exactly that. Not to mention fundamental problems with labeling any usage regularly used by native speakers as "incorrect". Nohat 06:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a consensus can be reached here in regard to generic terms and phrases that are "big picture" descriptive and accurate regardless of the time period. I suggest these could include: "homosexual," "same-sex relationship," "homoerotic" and "transgender." - Davodd 08:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've said above, I think we need to be specific. Let's say what we mean.  I'd be fine with limiting the use of the word gay at least to the 20th century, but it really doesn't belong before that.  There are many other terms we can use, including historical ones where appropriate (such as paederast, for example), or descriptive ones.  But I don't think we should be reading back modern behaviours and identities onto historical people.  Exploding Boy 15:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We should only use antiquated terms if they are defined properly for our 21st century audience. The goal is to be accurate without confusing the audience with unnecessary jargon or obscure words that are ill-defined. Some words - like "paederast" are so pregnant with negative modern connotation, that the use of them may spark POV edit wars and be seen as trolling by some. I suggest we be very selective and forthright with such move and err on the side of clarity and over explanation when deciding to use words that are uncommon or possibly offensive to the reader, whether it is the anachronistic use of a newer term in a historic section, or the use of an anachronistic term to readers of a 21st century online encyclopedia. Davodd 17:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ETA: this may vary on a case-by-case basis. For example, in the example of the Roman emperor who outlawed same-sex marriages (currently given as "gay marriage" in the article), what specifically are we talking about?  If it is marriages between men (only), then that's what we should say.  If the law dealt with both marriages between men and marriages between women, then same-sex marriages would still be better than "gay marriage," which a problematic term anyway, even without the anachronistic use of the term "gay."  Exploding Boy 15:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Previous discussion at Talk:Same-sex marriage shows a consensus that "gay marriage" not be used. We should eliminate it from this article for the sake of accuracy and clarity. - Davodd 17:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
I'm going to propose that we start a temporary article where we can work on bringing this up to standard. How about Timeline of LGBT history/Temp. Exploding Boy 19:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. -Seth Mahoney 22:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. We need to differentiate it from List of years in gay rights - and should probably merge in some/much of LGBT movements as well as info from History of the Gay Community (which also needs renamed). Davodd 23:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the intro in the temp article and started Talk:Timeline of LGBT history/Temp. -Seth Mahoney 02:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that an article that would merge LGBT movements would remain a timeline. Nor should similar articles like Gay liberation or Homophile be merged into it. Otherwise, it would become a history and would lose the utility of a timeline. The point of a timeline is to show the historical firsts, the order of events, the synchronicities, simply because they are interesting or maybe to quickly find an exact date and link. To remain a timeline, it should remain a list of events, not an analysis or narrative. The events mentioned in LGBT movements could be asded to the timeline, but LGBT movements should remain as a separate article.Wuzzy 13:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. I meant to merge relevant content only. - Davodd 10:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

From the 1960s on, each year entry begins with the bold "year in gay rights" link, then a dash followed by what happened in that year. It implies that this is a timeline of "gay rights", not "LBGT history" as the article name suggests, and discourages editors from adding stuff relating to transgender and bisexuality. I agree with Davodd above that this list needs to differentiated from the list of years in gay rights, and suggest that the "year in gay rights" heading is removed from each year in this article. Any objections? ntennis 02:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary start point
I fail to see why this timeline starts with the first century CE. There are eminent examples of such relationships before that time, all the more so when the single reference for that section is Halsall's article on Ancient Greece(!). Haiduc 02:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By all means be bold and fix it. - Davodd 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Transgender
This page is heavily weightd towards Homosexual rights and contains very little and in some cases nil information regarding transgender rights. Things such as the gender recognition act in the uk is not mentioned.--Lucy-marie 10:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization...
Someone's gone through and capitalized a whole bunch of words. Is there a rationale behind this? Comments? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The title
This article is about LGBY history in the West. Wikipedia isn't the site to propagate the view that the world history is whatever relevant to the West. The title of this article should be renamed accordingly until acceptable level of inclusion of LGBT history from non Western sources. . Vapour


 * You're quite right! There earliest non-western information is regarding Japan in 1882. Rather than going through the lengthy renaming process (twice), could you either add some non-western information or point to some sources so others can review and add? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"Pending" laws
There are a few "pending" laws listed, notably for 2007. I kinda feel these shouldn't be listed here, as that's more "news" than "encyclopedic information". Anyone disagree with me removing them? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I must say I do agree. I'm not sure what a pending bill actually is and think the terminology might mean something different in different countries (eg Bill formally intoriduced into the Legislature, or awaiting Assent, entry into force etc) Becasue of this think that pending can confuse and that we probably ought to standardise around bills being either introduced or enacted (preferably the latter).


 * In addition to which each item does, I'm afraid require a source or it could become confusing as to what it is that we're referring to and this is particularly important when referring to smaller states such as Jersey and Guernsey where web documentation is much harder to find. Cpnlsn88 20:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible split
About half this page is just the current decade. Can we either:


 * Cut out material that is not of strong historical interest
 * Develop individual year/decade articles and move most of the content into them
 * Cut this page into several discrete pages

Or more than one of those, obviously? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Given the huge page size, I have split out each of the 19th, 20th and 21st century sections into their own articles. The latter probably has enough material for an article for each year; likewise for each of the decades 1970s, 80s and 90s. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)