Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard/Archive 4

Same-sex marriage in Estonia
This is probably not the best place to post this, but just to let you know that there is currently a public debate on same-sex marriage in Estonia and an international petition campaign to write to Estonian politicians urging them to legalise same-sex unions. The campaign can be found here. It would be great if as many LGBT people and their supporters write as possible. Thanks! Ronline ✉ 10:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Our fellow Wikipedians
Moved from project page --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Posted to my personal email by User:Aidan Work: "Adam, as seen as you had the cheek to make a personal attack on me,I will be putting your name at the top of the 'Bigoted Wikipedians' list. As far as I can see,you're a low-life scumbag! Do you know why? Firstly, because you've admitted to being a Commie,a republican pig who supports Sinn Fein/I.R.A. terrorism,&,of course,you've admitted to being a pro-faggot,which in itself means that you will burn up in the Lake of Fire in Hell along with the Nazi Pope of Rome! There is one good faggot - a dead one! One which has either been shot or blown up!" Adam 01:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposition
Hey all, I'd like to propose a project for anyone who is interested, to last maybe a month or so, and that is to get some work going on the various Gay rights in... articles. It looks like many of these articles were written by our friends from non-English wikis, and could use some grammatical touchups, and most of them could probably be fleshed out a little more. There's plenty to go around, so if anyone is interested, take a peek in Category:Gay rights by country and pick an article! -Seth Mahoney 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Relevant user conduct disputes

 * (Moved from project page)


 * - seems to be systematically removing historical material not to his liking from various articles without proper debate or consensus, making a host of ad hominem accusations against me specifically, targeting articles that I have contributed to in an apparently systematic fashion, and leaving comments such as "(rm speculative meme; another article created by Haiduc to push his agenda)". Haiduc 16:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This user seems to have a history of abusive behavior, for which he has already been banned once, and his present actions seem to amount to wikistalking - neither have been supported nor are they (largely) defensible. Haiduc 17:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not me vs the articles; it's you vs the Wikipedia with the articles. Your insertions and transposition of allegation into fact, is clearly evident of your NPOV problems...especially on the articles you write. You don't see me doing this with others, because they are not guilty of this wrongdoing. It doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is, just your actions here. You are here, still trying to make allegations into facts. Several other people have disagreed with your additions to the Wikipedia; it is well known from the article talk pages where you frequently find yourself in opposition. 68.110.9.62 16:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This user has doubly claimed an allegation as fact, but he has been the first to suggest I was ever blocked for abuse. This only serves to confirm his own repertoire of vandalism and denial of it. I wasn't the first to make the claims; I repeat that I merely am supporting other disputes with this user, for which he has tried to get revenge in my persistent clamour for rule-abiding. 68.110.9.62 18:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

While you try to divert attention back onto me from your own problems, I admit that I would pursue justice for the Wikipedia with whomever messes with it. Just because you have done so, does not mean you are the only one to have done wrong and I do not in any way mean to suggest that you are a flawed individual amongst others without error. I merely noticed many contentious things and they all led back to you, but you don't carry all the blame for it. There are a few other editors doing what you wish to defend, but they are not being adamant about it from what I can see. 68.110.9.62 18:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you discuss the articles and not the editor, people might take you more seriously. Oh - and you might actually be able to avoid getting blocked from editing. Corax 04:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Overnight I was wondering that 68.110.9.62's contributions are in some ways similar to the permabanned user Aidan Work. Should we go for a checkuser? David | Talk 09:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Innocent curiosity
Why is there so much on Wiki about Pederasty, while a google search for the term turn up little? The Britannica doesn't contain a single entry devoted to pederasty, and where it is mentioned, it is in reference to "sexual contacts between adult males and young boys". Yet Wiki disagrees and devotes no fewer than 4 seperate articles to the phenomenon. What gives? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.83.176.64 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC).


 * Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~ at the end. -Seth Mahoney 04:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this points out one of the strengths of Wikipedia. It contains comprehensive articles on articles that are not even mentioned in Britannica.  The question shouldn't be why there is so much about pederasty in Wikipedia, but why there is nothing in Britannica. -- Samuel Wantman 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be nice.
Can we please at least try to be neutral and civil in listing disputes on this page? That is, rather than describing disputes by saying, "Editor Q is on a rampage changing all Xs to Ys to further his agenda," can we please say something more like, "Editor Q is changing Xs to Ys and I disagree for the reasons I listed on the talk page," or, "There is disagreement over whether the article should use X or Y"? This page is supposed to be a place for people to call attention to these disputes, not extend them. Thanks. - AdelaMa e (talk - contribs) 07:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You do realize some of the people you addressing are 100% fabulous gay men who would rather check out than check their razor tongues? That said, I agree with you fully. - Davodd 08:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Davodd: Erm, what on earth do you mean? I can't decide whether I'm meant to be amused or insulted. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant it to be amusing. Apparently I failed. - Davodd 16:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Media question
Hi y'all...quick question. I've been considering creating a new Category:LGBT media subcategory for LGBT radio stations, but apart from Joy Melbourne, SIRIUS OutQ and Proud FM, I'm not entirely sure there are enough potential articles to warrant creation at this time (since a category with only three entries isn't overly likely to survive a CFD nomination.) So I wanted to ask: does anybody know of other radio stations that could potentially be included in a radio category, or are those three all there are? Bearcat 23:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've found one more, Radio FG, that already had a Wikipedia article, and some indication that there are others, so I've gone ahead and created the category. If you know of anything else that can be added to it, please go ahead...or write it up if you know of one that doesn't have an article yet. Bearcat 23:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sexual identity
Hi there! I just stubled over that one, and it thoroughly confused me, because I am only familiar with a very different definition of it. On the other hand I am not a native speaker, so I figured this might be a good place to bring this up (since I did not want to potentially embarras myself elsewhere). The article says: Laymen tend to use sexual identity and sexual preference interchangeably, but this encyclopedia distinguishes between the two concepts: the latter refers to the object of one's sexual attractions, rather than one's self-concept.

I too know those two concepts as different, but in a different was: The usage I am familiar with is
 * Sexual preference is, well, what you prefer sexualy
 * Sexual identity is an identity you have because of your sexual preferences, i.e. identifying "gay man", "lesbian woman", or "trannyfag" or whatnot. (As opposed to, say, a technically bisexual man who identifies as "straight", or a homosexual man who does not feel he belongs to some "gay community" and similar.)
 * "Ones self-concept" I only know as gender identity.

The article however seems to claim an almangate of slightly different meanings:
 * "The term sexual identity is used by psychologists and some recent writers in the general area of sexology to describe the gender or sex with which a person identifies, or is identified."
 * Then it goes into intersex development which however leads hardly to a "sexual identity"
 * Homosexuality is also mentioned, if only in a short discussion of the "gay gene".

Now I wonder, is what I know plainly wrong, or is it the article which is wrong, or are we both not quite correct, or where is the problem? Other pages seem to be equaly confused:
 * "However, sex, gender identity, and sexual identity refer to different aspects of oneself. Therefore, one may be any combination of sex (male/female), gender (masculine/feminine), and sexual identity (straight, bisexual, lesbian/gay.)" and "Sexual identity refers to how one thinks of oneself in terms of whom one is sexually and romantically attracted to, specifically whether one is attracted to members of the same gender as one's own or the other gender than one's own."
 * "Sexual identity is the degree to which we identify with the social and biological aspects of being a man or a woman. Many men and women identify primarily with their biological sex but transgendered people identify more with the biological and social characteristics of the other gender. An integral part of sexual identity is sexual orientation, which essentially is defined by who we are emotionally and/or physically attracted to."

Can somebody please help out here, and let me know wheter it is worth and appropriate to bring this up on the talk page? -- AlexR 23:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Examples that agree with your usage:
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12567166&dopt=Abstract
 * http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00018791.htm
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15210018&dopt=Abstract
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6639327&dopt=Abstract
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10563729&dopt=Abstract
 * Examples that agree with the article's usage:
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14736925&dopt=Abstract
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16042322&dopt=Abstract
 * Unclear:
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6677692&dopt=Abstract
 * So it seems to be a fairly confused term. I would suggest avoiding it all together where possible, and clarifying carefully where it's needed. -Harmil 00:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm ... seems a reworking of the article is in order, especially since it claims to describe the only correct usage. Which means there is probably somebody there who insists on that ... Oh well, gotta get through that then. As for avoiding it completely, well, I have no problem avoiding their meaning, since it does not make any sense to me, but as for the one I know, I am not aware of an alternative term for it. Sexual orientation or preference is not quite the same thing. Hopefully one comes up - or this "you are what your genitals look like"-crap disappears. And thanks for the links. Very usefull, I had not thought about searching PubMed -- AlexR 03:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the way I understand it: my sexual identity is that I'm gay, because I'm attracted primarily to people of my own gender. My sexual preference refers to, when I am having sex with someone, whether I like anal sex, oral sex, etc., whether I like being the top or the bottom, whether I'm into BDSM or other fetishes, etc. Other people's mileage may vary, but that's mine. Bearcat 03:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Makes a lot of sense to me. — Nathan 03:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Manual of style?
Didn't there used to be a manual of style for sexuality-related topics? Anyone know where it is? I can't seem to find it. Exploding Boy 02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you looking for Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality or Naming conventions (identity)? Those are the only ones that I know of. -Smahoney 04:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was sure there was an actual manual of style but... perhaps not. Thanks. Exploding Boy 04:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mind if I steal the idea?
I was mentioning on the WikiProject Comics talk page that I wanted to have something like this notice board for our project. I hope you don't mind my borrowing the format completely, doing very little original work of my own, and garnering much praise as if I had slaved over a hot wiki for hours. --Chris Griswold 19:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Borrowing is what makes Wikis work. Go right ahead. -- Samuel Wantman 19:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I know; I just wanted to let you fine people know that the work you have done is helping even more people. By the way: Funny to see where our projects intersect: I'm glad we're not the only one dealing with the daily deletion on Batman. --Chris Griswold 20:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, "slaved over a hot wiki for hours" - mind if I borrow that one? -Smahoney 01:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Borrowing is what makes Wikis work. Go right ahead. --Chris Griswold 03:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Page move
As part of the discussion about deleting this notice board, there has also been mention of renaming it. One proposed name is LGBT topics notice board. I'd like to propose moving this page to WikiProject LGBT studies/Notice board. Any other possibilities, comments, etc...? -- Samuel Wantman 01:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems appropriate given the evolution of expertise in LGBT articles here and it would reinforce the academic-style/NPOV image of this very useful tool. Davodd 01:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Are people willing to put in the effort to create a WikiProject? If so, a better name would be WikiProject:LGBT. Exploding Boy 01:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean like this one: Wikiproject LGBT studies? And I like the idea of merging this noticeboard with the project. — Mi r  a  02:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I renamed the project to be WikiProject LGBT studies in keeping with othe WikiProjects. -- Samuel Wantman 06:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So is there consensus to move the notice board to be a sub-page of the WikiProject? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any objection. We can always move it back if there is. -- Samuel Wantman 08:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of Straight topics
This noticeboard should be renamed to include straight topics since there is no straight notice board. I could create a straight notice board, but somebody will probably accuse me of bias again. --Facto 06:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to be accused of bias if you create the board in a NPOV way. My question in general is what is the purpose of a "straight" notice board?  There is no such article, category or WikiProject in Wikipedia.  I would suggest that you name your notice board after a category. For example, you could call it the "Human Sexuality noticeboard". --Samuel Wantman 07:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The straight and heterosexuality articles both exist. I'm sure there are more articles related to straight topics but they have not been connected yet like the LGBT topics, which are more organized. See the search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=heterosexual&fulltext=Search --Facto 08:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Facto, your logic is flawed. I also think you are having trouble distinguishing the difference between bias and a non-neutral point of view. To keep its focus, it will deal with issues with LGBT themes. The argument that it needs renamed in order to include "straight" issues is unneeded (especially since the sexuality-term "straight" would not exist without a distinction of LGBT populations). Furthermore, many LGBT notice board monitored topics primarily focus on straight folk or anti-LGBT populations and cultural norms and their interaction with LGBTs, see the following articles: Anti-gay slogan, Aversion therapy, Beard (female companion), Biology and sexual orientation, Buggery Act, Choice and sexual orientation, Demographics of sexual orientation, Effeminacy, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Ex-gay, Exodus (organization), Gay-for-pay, Gay panic defense, Heteronormativity, Heterosexism, History of gays in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, Homophobia, Homophobic hate speech, Homosexual panic, Homosexuality laws of the world, International Healing Foundation, National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, Religion and sexual orientation, Same-sex attachment disorder, Sexuality and gender identity-based cultures, Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, Sodomy law, Westboro Baptist Church. - Davodd 07:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Repeated homophobic vandalism
Hope this is the right place to post this request... I'd like to ask folk to add the Belgrade article to their watchlists. Someone seems intent on removing the paragraph under "Night life" relating to the LGBT scene - I guess they are trying to deny its existence. I revert this whenever I spot it, but if I'm not able to check all the time it's possible they could succeed in their mission. Thanks! Jenny Wong 14:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Manchester Pride
I've been looking around Wikipedia for an article on the Pride festival and events in Manchester, UK, but I can't seem to find one anywhere. There are articles for various other pride events, (see Pride London, GayFest, Birmingham Pride, Europride etc), so it's only fair that there should be one for Manchester too. I'm not good at starting articles, so I was wondering if anyone would like to make a start on this, which I would be more than happy to contribute to once it's got going. Manchester Pride is in a few weeks so it's possible people might be looking it up on here, like I did, so it'd be good timing to get an article started if anyone is interested in doing so. Thanks! Ilphin (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Is there an LGBT barnstar? Should there be one? Dev920 (Tory?) 17:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, thankyou all very much for replying to that. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL - there certainly was a resounding response, wasn't there? Actually, I kinda think it would be neat :)  Got any ideas?  Want some help? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you could make it, I'd be grateful. I was thinking rainbow coloured barnstar, and that was largely as far as I got. We can't use anything else because none of them (like the triangles, or the flags) are really inclusive enough. Possibly a rainbow/pink "LGBT" on a rainbow coloured barnstar? Your thoughts? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Barnstar has been created and proposed here Thankyou Ouro. Dev920 (Please vote here) 21:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter Ackroyd
Could someone please edit Peter Ackroyd using this to reflect his sexuality, which informed much of his work and only merits a mention that I put in in the beginning. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

List of gay pride events
I was wondering what makes a certain pride festival notable. I don't think that each is encyclopedia worthy so...--User:Ashadeofgrey (talk • contribs) 12:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say if a very large number of people attended, if it had unusual press coverage, or if it was controversial in some way (say, it was almost cancelled by the authorities, or it was disrupted by homophobic incidents). A standard gay pride event in a generally liberal area doesn't really seem notable enough to have its own article. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 18:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it's not about own article. It's just a list. Not that big, btw. -- tasc wordsdeeds 19:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, I missed that. In which case I would say: put in every pride parade ever. :) Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that "every pride parade ever" should be in the list, but there will innevitably be stub articles of Pride parades which I think should be avoided so I think there should be some consensus as to which deserve articles--User:Ashadeofgrey (talk • contribs) 19:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the answer to that is to convert the entire list to a table, and only link the ones that have articles. It'll have to become a table if it's ever to become featured anyway, so you may as well now while the list is still reasonably short. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 19:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll change it into a table soon, but I still think people will make articles because they don't know about WP's notability guidelines--User:Ashadeofgrey (talk • contribs) 19:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The table is a bad idea. It's hardly readable by editors, hard to edit and doesn't help readers. Please, don't add table to the list. None of the list is created in the form of table. tasc wordsdeeds 20:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your editing style is like, Tasc, but I always edit pages with a view to eventually nominating them for Featured Status. Every single list on Featured Lists is in a table format. Thus, List of Gay Pride Events will, someday, be forced to convert to tables. I maintain that time should be now, to save someone else a great deal of time later. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 21:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that not all Pride parades necessarily deserve their own articles, but they certainly all merit inclusion in a straight list article. It can wikilink to the more notable ones and just list the less notable ones. I don't see a problem. The problem I do see, however, is that there are several things listed there which aren't Pride festivals per se — Montreal's Black and Blue is a circuit party; Toronto's Folsom North is a fetish fair; there are several film festivals listed; etc. The list should be for Pride qua Pride; film festivals and circuit parties and such should be listed separately and not conflated with Pride events since they're not the same thing. Bearcat 09:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Animal homosexuality

 * The category Category:Animal homosexuality has just been deleted despite its crystal-clear relevance and utility, on an utterly spurious rationale. (See Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 21) I would like to know whether any other users here are interested in co-operating in order to repair the damage. Haiduc 00:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. Yonmei 11:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The CfD says there is already an article with a list of all animals that display homosexual behavior. Why does there need to be a category, too?  What does this accomplish?  Do we put every article about an animal that exhibits homosexual behavior - which is a lot of them, right? - into this category of articles about animal homosexuality?  I agree with the nominator that this makes the category about as useful as a category for animals that are brown. In any case, it went through CfD and I don't see any pressing new information that would contradict what was said there. - AdelaMa e  (talk - contribs) 23:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There must be hundreds of articles about animals in the WP and I challenge you to come up with more than a dozen or so which specifically address the homosexual behaviors of that particular species. So the "brown animals" analogy fails. Why should a reader interested in animal homosexuality not have a category grouping those animals which have been thus documented?! As for the CfD, it snuck through without any notice to myself and others interested in this aspect of animal behavior. Does not mean that it is right, just because only one person challenged the poorly reasoned action. Haiduc 23:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The reader so interested already has a list. Look how long that list is.  I only made a rough count, but I believe there are over 200 animals listed just under "mammals".  If someone is interested in finding out about this, they'll type in "animal homosexuality" or something and end up at animal sexuality, which links to the above list.  If they find a section about homosexual behavior in the article on a specific animal, that section will link to the list, or should.  As to the question of process, the CfD did not "sneak through", but was put through the proper channel for such things.  Deletion protocol does not require that you be notified before any homosexuality-related item is deleted. - AdelaMa e  (talk - contribs) 21:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed the deletion protocol doesn't require it. But that doesn't mean the category was not valid and should not be reinstated, either. For the record, I support the recreation of this category. — OwenBlacker 13:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)