Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard/Archive 1

Please do not allow this page to become a forum for the advancement of LGBT politics. If it is to exist it should be a forum for improving Wikipedia's coverage of LGBT issues in a NPOV way, jguk 08:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get some sort of open tasks list together, per the other noticeboards? This is quite handy, but it'd be markedly more useful with that. Ambi 08:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Name?
Shouldn't the board be called Wikipedia:LGBT Wikipedians noticeboard? --Spinboy 16:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * How open do people here want to be to people who don't identify as LGBT interested in contributing about LGBT-related topics? (This includes me - I mean, I can go, no problem, but...) Quite a few of the regional notice boards are named x-related topics rather than x-ian wikipedians'; and even there, there would be less of a sense of incursion if you're from outside Australia going to an Australian notice board than if you're not LGBT and going to an LGBT notice board. So LGBT Wikipedians' would suggest it were something of a closed community in that way. (And "LGBT-related topics" would just be clumsy, I think.) Samaritan 17:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmm..... --Spinboy 19:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I had this conversation in my head when I created the page. I did not want to call it "LGBT Wikipedians" because this page is for issues related to LGBT articles and not necessarily LGBT Wikipedians.  Many wikipedians of all sexual identities may be interested in LGBT issues.  I did not want the title of the page to give the message that they are not wanted here.  I've just changed the list of "LGBT wikipedians" to "wikipedians concerned with LGBT issues" for the same reason.  -- Samuel Wantman 20:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not call it "LGBT Issues Notice Board"? --Spinboy 20:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd agree - if I want to meet LGBT people, there are somewhat more personal places for that; this page should about the articles on WP. And it's not "issues" either - political groups have issues, we have articles.
 * Another thing, though - if transgender people are to be truly included, and not just supposed to be a fashionable token letter in the heading, a note: Sexual identity does not usually cover transgender, which is a matter of gender identity. Only groups who think it's cool to add the T*, but are annoyed when they are asked what they actually do for transpeople insist that "sexual identity" covers transgender - transgender people rarely ever use that one, since they happen to have both a sexual identity and a (trans)gender identity. -- AlexR 20:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point. --Spinboy 21:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Samaritan. The name is fine the way it is for the reasons stated. Keep it as broad as possible. Moncrief 21:22, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for having everyone included here, but is there a place on Wikipedia where I can be proud of being a gay wikipedian? --Spinboy 04:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You can visit my home page anytime, Spinboy. Adam 06:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What do you have in mind that you cannot do on your talk page or here? -- Samuel Wantman 06:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have anything in mind really. --Spinboy 06:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should reinstate the "Active LGBT Wikipedians" list on the main project page, maybe with another list for friends of the notice board who were not or not necessarily identifying? Samaritan 15:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject?
Should we call this a Wikiproject? If so, Wikipedia:Wikiproject what? --Samuel Wantman 10:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

From the description at Regional notice boards compared to WikiProjects, we sound more like a regional notice board; notice boards are also sort of a subset of WikiProjects, at least in that Category:Regional wikipedian notice boards is a subcat of Category:WikiProjects... Samaritan 15:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

LGBT, queer and definition
Do we really want the rather ugly expression LGBT (which means nothing to most people) to be used in article titles? I certainly don't. Adam 10:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What nomenclature would you prefer Adam? Megan1967 11:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no universally acceptable alternative, but I think "gay," "lesbian" or "gay and lesbian" will cover most cases. Adam 12:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I much prefer queer. Exclusivism sucks. Ambi 12:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * But did it ever blow? :) Megan1967 04:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree; one of the reasons I and other people were moving away from "gay and lesbian" and toward "LGBT" in the first place is that "gay and lesbian" doesn't include bisexual and transgendered people. I personally prefer "queer", too, but I really don't think we can use it as it's not universally accepted (or universally recognized as being a positive label.) Bearcat 16:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

"Queer" is not a neutral descriptive term, it is a political statement. Many, probably most, gay men and lesbians, do not chose to identify as queer. Adam 13:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing in the world ugly about LGBT as a term. I applaud ambi's reclamation of queer, but Adam has a point, and even more I think it wouldn't clearly include many ts/tg/is. Anybody reading an encyclopedia is going to encounter expressions they don't know that mean nothing to them; I don't see topic titles in physics or chemistry being edited down for mass appeal. 1.93 million Google web hits for LGBT. (1.31 for GLBT, though I could swear I've come across LGBT over GLBT by an even greater margin.) Samaritan 13:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

LGBT and GLTB etc are not specialist terms in physics, they are political contrivances, as is queer. The only neutral descriptive terms are gay, lesbian and bisexual, and they should be used, alone or in combination, as is appropriate for the article in question. Adam 13:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * They're also patently exclusive of a significant portion of people within the queer community. I see your point about using LGBT, and also why you mightn't want to use the term queer, but I strongly take offense at excluding bisexuals, transpeople, those who lack a distinctive sexuality, and other such groups. Using "gay and lesbian" is hardly neutral - it's taking a very clear stance to exclude a significant number of people. Ambi 13:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

If there are articles specific to bisexuals and transgendered persons, then they can be titled appropriately. Adam 14:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course you are free to have categories or lists or portals or whatever titles "lesbian and gay" - only you should really, really not include anything in there that is not plainly lesbian or gay. That means you could not include Bisexual, not Transgender, nor tons of other stuff. If, OTOH, you want to include that other stuff, you will have to include those into the title, too. After all, you would hardly advocate putting, say, Chuck Berry into a Category:White Americans, with an extra-disclaimer that well, he ain't white, but he's American. Although even that would be better, because you can be transgender, for example, without ever having been or ever plaining to be gay or lesbian; and lots of bi people also don't identify as either. So it's either in or out, but kindly no cat and then articles in there which don't quite belong -- AlexR 14:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * And they already are, as are articles that actually have exclusive significance to gay men or lesbians. The point is, articles that aren't uniquely specific to one of the four groups, but equally applicable to all of them, cannot be titled as if they were uniquely specific to one of the four groups. Bearcat 18:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

You can get a degree major or minor in Sexual Diversity Studies (yep, I see that it redirects to queer studies) at the University of Toronto, and sexual diversity studies seems to be a popular term in academic libraries, which would be an appropriate enough precedent for Wikipedia to use sexual diversity, sexually diverse, or sexual diversity studies. Just throwing these into the mix... Samaritan 14:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I hate to tell you this, but the academic elite who think up all these terms are not particularly representative of anyone but themselves. The great majority of gay men and lesbians continue to identify as gay men and lesbians, and the fact that those terms are specific to some people and not to others may be unfortunate but cannot be helped. Objecting to those terms on those grounds is like objecting to the term "dog" because it is exclusive of cats. I don't think that in the real world gay men and lesbians share an identity with bisexuals or transgendered people (most of whom identify as heterosexual), and that is why there is no one term that subsumes all those people into one category. There is certainly no consensus on this in the gay and lesbian community, so these terms cannot be imposed on articles dealing with matters specific to that community. Adam 14:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's not like objecting to "dog" because it's exclusive of cats; it's more like objecting to someone imposing "dog" as the sole umbrella term for all domestic quadrupeds without regard to whether they're actually dogs or cats. Unfortunately, it's not up to you to decide that bisexuals and transgendered people aren't allowed to play in the gay and lesbian treehouse; they're already playing in it. So maybe we should consistently have separate categories for "lesbian", "gay", "bisexual" and "transgender" topics, and only use the umbrella term at the very top of the category tree. It's either that, or one umbrella term that includes all four groups. It is not, and will not be, "gay and lesbian" to the exclusion of the other two. Bearcat 16:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, Adam, you have something wrong there: The majority of transpeople does not identify as straight (hetero- (and homo-)sexual are problematic anyway; see Homosexuality and transgender). A rule of thumb you'll get when you ask around in trans*-groups is usually "About a third straigth, a third gay or lesbian, a third bi-, omni-, pan-, or asexual, or undecided". And that's not even counting those who identified as gay or lesbian before transitioning, and who chose not to leave those communities when transitioning. A survey a few years ago among the English transmen brought up 43 % who identified as straight - more than one third, but still less than a majority. -- AlexR 21:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

(Edit: Flushed my comments far left so they don't appear to be a response to Bearcat) Oh dear. This debate again. This is a serious encyclopedia, or at least that's the goal. "Queer" is a politicized word, used among a minority of GLBT people, and has no place as a general term for GLBT in this encyclopedia (though it's great that we've reclaimed it yada yada). I understand that "gay and lesbian" excludes bisexuals and transgendered people. Frankly, in many articles in which "gay and lesbian" appears, the subject matter is exclusively about gay and lesbian people and not about transgendered or bisexual people - and, often, an article has an even more specific focus: and lesbian or gay can be used alone. (I wouldn't, for example, call Midnight Cowboy or The Boys in the Band movies with "queer" themes. They are specifically movies with gay male themes. )   Granted, there are many instances when a more inclusive term is needed. I'm afraid, though, in a serious encyclopedia, we can't use the still-marginal word "queer" as a general, neutral descriptive term. LGBT is relatively awkward (but then again our lives are filled with acronyms, so it isn't that awkward), but with a definition of the term where needed, it's all right, imo. Moncrief 19:06, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I already agreed that "queer" can't be the term we use; this was in response to someone who suggested that "gay and lesbian" should always suffice over even "LGBT". Bearcat 19:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry. My comments weren't meant to be directed to you. I just read through the comments and thought it best to put my comments at the end of the line.  I guess the placement is off though.  Moncrief 19:17, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Major media: The article pride parade begins: Then the second paragraph uses gay community as if interchangable with LGBT. Samaritan 16:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The Advocate, national magazine of record in the United States: "Advocate.com | The Award-Winning GLBT News Site"
 * OUTtv, national cable television channel in Canada: "an exclusive lifestyle GLBT channel"
 * A pride parade is part of a festival or ceremony held by the LGBT community of a city...

To paraphrase Marjorie Garber, 'Queer' is not, finally and fundamentally, an easy political term. I'm against its use in general articles. Exploding Boy 22:04, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Moncrief's sensible comments above. How we title articles should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Adam 00:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde and homosexuality
While we're discussing names and terminology, I though I'd point out that there is an ongoing discussion on the topic on Oscar Wilde's discussion page. There has been some controversy as to whether to describe Wilde as "gay" or "homosexual." Ganymead 00:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Mergers and renames
After the recent VFD on Homosexuality and morality, I noticed that redundant articles in this area seem to be sprouting up like weeds. Little tidbits of information are getting dispersed into several pages, and it's getting hard to find all the content relevant to a subtopic of interest. I propose the following changes:

-- Beland 03:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Religion and heterosexuality -> Merge with Religion and sexual orientation and Religion and sexuality.
 * Religion and homosexuality -> Merge with Religion and sexual orientation
 * Sexual morality -> Move to Religion and sexuality, which is a much more self-descriptive title.
 * Anti-gay slogan -> Merge with Societal attitudes towards homosexuality.


 * I'm glad to see some progress has been made merging all the various "...view of homosexuality" articles into more neutral pages. Especially now that "Christian view of homosexuality" has been moved to the more NPOV "Christianity and Homosexuality" page. Efforts should be made to do this for all such pages. When people say morality in the above, they typically mean Christian morality so it would be more neutral to explicitly define this, rather than make a vague allusions to some kind of morality. I agree with all of the above. Good work making this notice board, BTW! --Axon 09:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for dealing with this obvious problem. All the mergers seem fine to me, but I would request that the list of accusations and their rebuttals from Anti-gay slogans be kept whole. These arguments are among the principal weapons in the arsenals of both camps, and the tradition of gathering them for the purpose of comparison goes back to antiquity. They make the most sense as a group. Haiduc 10:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, added to the front-page todo list. -- Beland 03:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

FABGLITTER

 * Is this really deserving of an article? I would say not; it seems like the author tried REALLY hard to come up with enough info to make it look detailed but it really seems useless to me. If anything it should be merged into a seperate GLBT related article. Pacian 08:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree - I think it's VFDable. Ambi 08:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Could probably be incorporated into LGBT - Google says it's not exactly common, either. The author also inserted it whereever possible, but give the Google count, I think mentioning it in LGBT and redir and removing several of the references would be the better option. -- AlexR 12:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Be my guest to merge if you'd like. -- Samuel Wantman 19:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur with the merging...never heard of it myself, but hey, that doesn't mean much. Ganymead 02:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this happened because I mentioned it on Talk:LGBT a couple of days ago, but I also said right up front that while I love it as an acronym, I don't really think it's actually usable for Wikipedia's purposes. Too granular or something. Bearcat 02:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's just a neologism. Merging into LGBT isn't a bad idea, but I wouldn't give it too much space. Ambi 02:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've merged it with LGBT. --Samuel Wantman 09:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Two-Spirit
Two-Spirit was either previously Berdache or merged with it or something - the article still can't decided what term it is about. Fixed at least first paragraph, but still not good. Maybe somebody with personal knowledge can help out here. -- AlexR 12:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * AlexR, are you familiar with the Walter Williams book? I seem to recall that he mentions examples of greater gender flexibility than would be covered by your first paragraph. I know you encouraged me to work things over, but I have been swamped lately. Haiduc 17:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no - My access to English books on such topics is somewhat limited. At any rate, it is quite possible that the article still is not quite correct yet; it was in pretty bad shape to begin with. -- AlexR 18:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Reinstated categories
The category vote was to reinstate the LGBT people subcategories. Whose responsibility is it to reinstate them? TreyHarris 06:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that it is anyone's responsibility in particular, but there are people who watch the CfD pages and make such changes as necessary. They should reappear soon.  -Seth Mahoney 06:46, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks like the categories were recreated but not repopulated. I hope they don't have to be repopulated by hand. CDThieme 04:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I could be totally wrong, but User:Bearcat has a bot, I think. Maybe I'm thinking of someone else.  Anyhow, we might ask if he can do it.  Then again, maybe we should pick out those categories that are going to be removed and put them up on CfD.  We can then wait until after the CfD process to repopulate (which should also give time for others to try to put all the categories on CfD, which I expect will happen).  -Seth Mahoney 18:38, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have contacted User:Jdforrester. His bot originally depopulated the categories.  He had said previously that they could be easily repopulated if a reinstate decision was made.  It has been so requested, so hopefully it will happen soon.  My dismay when this first happened has been replaced with pride that we could all work together in making this notice board.  I am amazed how quickly it all happened! -- Samuel Wantman 08:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)