Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Same-sex marriage or marriage equality?

Is there any support on the project for renaming the same-sex marriage articles to use the phrase "marriage equality" instead of "same-sex marriage"? "Marriage equality in the United States" would be an example. -->David Shankbone 19:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support — I support it. It's more neutral, I think, and maybe it will help with the title polarization: ie - Supporters/Opposers of same sex/traditional marriage. Maybe they can be merged and therefore provide more balance. — Becksguy (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to politicize the issue. It also blurs the main point, that it really IS a matter involving individuals of the same sex. It is a bit like the anti-abortionists calling themselves "pro-life." It is a polemical weasel. And yes. I know there is a Wikipedia article on the "pro-lifers." Haiduc (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Marriage equality IS a political issue. Same-sex marriage is not. Same-sex marriage ≠ marriage equality. Articles about same-sex marriage should describe religious (and maybe civil) same-sex marriages, and their history and traditions. Articles about marriage equality should describe the political movement. —the Homosexualist (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a decent argument. -->David Shankbone 15:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - "marriage equality" is a POV propaganda term, just like "traditional marriage" is on the other side. "Same-sex marriage" is completely neutral. Otto4711 (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - "traditional marriage" was allowed for a long time on Wikipedia before a long AfD finally killed it. There are much more problems with "traditional marriage" because it's not only a slanted term, it's a historical assertion that can definitely be disproved, but that proponents will never accept, like Archaeology and Mormonism. —the Homosexualist (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Same-sex marriage" is a neutral term for two people of the same sex getting married. "Marriage equality" is a POV term for legal recognition of same-sex marriages. It happens to match my POV, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should use it. Also, we have articles on the Pro-life movement and Pro-choice, but the article on abortion is not named after either of those. --Alynna (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Marriage equality" is not a term for two people of the same-sex getting married. Therefore, replacing "marriage equality" with "same-sex marriage" is not an exact fit, and makes a title inaccurate, and sometimes ungrammatical to bend over backwards for "neutrality". —the Homosexualist (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Hang on, I thought you were arguing for replacing "same-sex marriage" with "marriage equality". I don't know of any title that's currently at "marriage equality" that anyone is proposing moving to "same-sex marriage". You seem to agree with me that they're not interchangeable. So what exactly are you proposing? --Alynna (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose "Same-Sex marriage" is as neutral as it can get. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment an argument is that "Same-sex marriage" excludes transgender, who are a part of the issue. -->David Shankbone 01:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a good point but marriage equality is too broad, maybe LGT marriage? -- Banjeboi 02:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Who uses the term 'LGT marriage'? Switching to that seems problematic since you're not going to find it in reliable sources. The Squicks (talk) 05:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And aren't you missing a letter? Why can't bisexuals get married to same gender partners? The Squicks (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Transgender individuals such as myself are a part of the issue regardless. "Sex" in psychology and sociology refers to one's biological make-up (XX, XY or intersex), while "gender" typically refers to gender identity - so even post sex reassignment surgery a XY transwoman who is married to a man may still be defined as being in a same-sex marriage even if they both identify as straight. That's a lot of grey area we as an encyclopedia cannot define ourselves. We must use proper naming conventions, which in this case as reported by mainstream media is Same-sex marriage or gay marriage. Any ambiguity about the subject, such as where transgender or intersex relationships are legally defined, should be addressed in the article, so long as it is also receiving coverage by reliable sources. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you give any examples of 'marriage equality' being used for anything other than gender-neutral marriage laws? Like, for the legal equality of the sexes in an opposite-sex marriage? While you can describe that as marriage equality, I don't think that term was used then. —the Homosexualist (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - You can't pick the terminology and framing of one side and use it as the basis behind an article that deals with a political controversy. The pro-life/pro-choice framing issue is a good example of neutrality to follow. The Squicks (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The pro-choice/pro-life example is an argument for letting the sides choose their terminology, not using what Wikipedia editors think is "neutral" (which ends up, in this case, making titles and ledes inaccurate and confusing). —the Homosexualist (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The word 'equality' is ORish at this moment: the term racial equality for example is not seriously disputable now, while the same-sex marriage is. Brand[t] 07:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not original research because the term was not invented by Wikipedia. You object to the word 'equality' because you object to gay rights, but you can have an article describing income equality (socialism), for example, while not endorsing it. —the Homosexualist (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• I agree that "same-sex marriage" is a neutral, broadly used term compared to "marriage equality" which, I think, is a POV term at this time. Although it technically may exclude transgender people, as Bookkeeperoftheoccult says, those issues can be (and are) addressed in the article. --BelovedFreak 11:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Same-sex marriage is not equivalent to marriage equality in all contexts, such as the article "Same-sex marriage in the United States". However, the content of that article is so narrow as to exclude anything but the modern political movement to make marriage laws gender neutral, so it can be renamed to that, and would be more accurate if done so. Remember, marriage equality does not "describe same-sex marriage", it describes a goal of a political movement, such as "age of consent equalization". —the Homosexualist (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Same-sex marriage is the standard term, and should be used for all the articles that discuss the provision or lack thereof of marriage for same-sex couples. "Marriage equality" isn't near as often used and is so ambiguous as to be deceptive. If it only used to mean equality in marriage for any gender (rather than number of partners, age, etc) then same-sex marriage is a better descriptor. As one of the arguements against same-sex marriage is explicitly that such an arrangment is not or can never be equal to opposite-sex marriage, claiming it to be "marriage equality" is also NPOV.YobMod 15:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - it used to be against the law--justified for religious reasons, amongst others--for people of different races to marry. Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down so that those couples could have a traditional marriage opportunity like everyone else. At the time, "Interracial marriage" was seen as something separate and "other" than traditional marriage; now we find that laughable. It would seem that previous 'marriage battles' always went along the same lines of reasoning and justifications, when the only thing people want is "marriage", particularly since it is a civil institution (regardless of religious history). -->David Shankbone 15:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

But UK Civil partnerships differ from marriages essentially only in the religious component (then cannot be performed by clergy or in churches). The sources and wikipedia differentiate this from marriage, and i think mst LGBT people do to, hence the religious importance cannot simply be disregarded.YobMod 16:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that religion's role in marriage can't be disregarded as an academic topic. However, in the United States marriage is both a religious and civil institution. It is accorded civil benefits and rights, and the question you raise is more framed in the light of semantics. Once a government uses a term to bestow rights upon its citizens, that term is what is used to describe that set of benefits. So the argument is whether there will be equal rights under the law as it regards "marriage" as a civil institution. Most people who are are against LGBT marriages are also against LGBT civil unions, so the semantic argument breaks down at that point and usually shows this to be a political equality issue for rights. TheHomosexualist makes this argument above. -->David Shankbone 16:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, there is still an article on the definition/meaning of Interracial marriage, just as there is an article on Same-sex marriage and also one on Group marriage. The articles address specific social constructs - not broad ideological concepts. As an encyclopedia you can have an article on all three without ever mentioning the phrase "marriage quality" but you can't do it the other way around. The concept of "marriage equality" can be within these articles but cannot replace their core linguistic definitions. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Same-sex still seems like the best choice for now. "Marriage equality" has a lot of connotations, just ask those who fought for marriage equality for mixed-race couples and seek similar equal marriage rights for binational couples or for people who are mentally challenged who seek to marry. No, "marriage equality", is a broader concept applied to all sorts of people who are not part of the current same-sex marriage issues and debates. -- Banjeboi 19:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Marriage equality", while accurate in my point of view, is quite weighted; it's not even pejorative in the way "reparative therapy" and "gay agenda" article titles are. Same-sex marriage is a factual and NPOV title.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Category for LGBT companies, products or marketing

As a serial categorizer, I've noticed a need for a category on LGBT businesses, but not sure what to call it. To follow other structures, there would be Category:LGBT Economy and then other stuff under it LGBT Companies etc. The media companies like The Advocate have a place in LGBT related media, but I've found others that could use an LGBT business category like:

• Olivia Cruises - lesbian/women's cruises
• Gay Fuel - drink marketed to gay community
• TigerHeat - nightclub promotion company in L.A.

For some past discussions on the topic see this discussion of improving coverage of LGBT businesses and companies

Possibilities are: Category:LGBT companies Category:LGBT products and services

Of course the criteria would also be that it had to be a company that targeted the LGBT audiences and not a company that merely had LGBT ownership (thought that could be a different category.

Thoughts, please! Scarykitty (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Other stuff to be put together:

• LGBT marketing (which only has a category of Sexual orientation and society!
• Out Now Consulting - no LGBT categories (but yes a tag)
• Witeck-Combs Communications, Inc. - only one category
• most Category:LGBT tourism listings are companies that have no LGBT-company related category to them. Scarykitty (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's another Dykedolls - dolls the represent alternative lifestyles

Ok I'm starting a user page on this. Come on over and see what's out there and help me come up with a good category structure. User:Scarykitty/LGBT Business Categories Scarykitty (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards starting with Category:LGBT and the economy. There really aren't any analogies of economy and "minority" topics - surprisingly - there isn't even an article on African American owned businesses, it's hardly even mentioned in articles on Marcus Garvey, Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Dubois. There is Category:Women-owned businesses, but that is rather buried and underpopulated. There are a series of categories on the environment and the economy that came closest, but the all linked up to energy economics or something like that. Scarykitty (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy (again...)

Can we have some eyes on Conversion therapy please. I know its a pain, but it is necessary. Mish (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I second this call. There is a series of ongoing disputes at this article. Discussion on the talk page is not resulting on agreement or consensus about any of them. It would be helpful if editors not involved in the disputes could comment on the talk page. Born Gay (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Pat Rocco

Hi, sorry if I am posting here when there would be a better place for it, but I just wanted to ask if anyone was up to creating an article for Pat Rocco. He is a gay filmmaker (already mentioned in our article on gay pornography) and a political activist. He was also apparently prominent in gay history during the 1970s and 1980s in California. I have been contacted by Mr. Rocco who requested an article be added about him. There seem to be numerous sources available on Google News and Google Web. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's do it. Zazaban (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Template discussion

A template that is in my opinion of importance to the LGBT wikiproject is in need of attention from editors of this particular subject matter. Your opinion can add value to the resolution of the discussion here Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence

This article needs checking over because of the recent revelations that one of the editors working on it has a serious COI. I'll take a look now but more eyes are needed --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. Zazaban (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Despite the witch-hunt those remain accusations and insinuations, not revelations. Please don't confuse Wikipedia Review with reality. -- Banjeboi

Slut Night up again for AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slut Night (2nd nomination). From the history, it looks like Banjiboi did a ton of work to get it up to encyclopedic standards, so not sure if something has changed in the article. Scarykitty (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone went through all the sources and found some problems in a good article reassessment and that is why it's being listed for AfD. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Slut Night/1. Scarykitty (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources are shit and the only decent ones are used to provided contextual background information about queer concepts and say nothing about the subject of the article. The pattern of editing by certain departed editors is becoming sadly very clear, we have a raft of articles that has been superficially sourced with crap, on (what appears to me) the grounds that most people will simply look at the number and the names and never check what they actually say. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The butchandfemme.com site was leaned on too much as an authority but there's nothing to suggest the information is false in any way. I still think a merge is the best way to go there but hysteria must have it's day. -- Banjeboi

Need help arguing against a PROD for Rev. Cindi Love

Please take a look at the recent edits and call for deletion of former MCC executive Rev. Dr. Cindi Love. I suspect that the edits and the call for deletion were not made in good faith and that they reflect some anti-gay bias on the editor's part. I have tried to address the legitimate need for more references on the site and I have removed the PROD tag, but I'd like to have more people looking over the edits and weighing in on the Talk page. Thanks. Aristophanes68 (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources are their official page and their blog - fails WP:BIO by a mile currently, are there no better sources? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on that. The woman spent the past several years as basically the 2nd-in-command of an international denomination, so it may be hard to find info on her outside of the church's materials. Anyway, the editor has put up Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cindi_Love. I wonder how plausible the claim is that this particular editor has some problem with GLBTs -- her/his edits come off as disrespectful of the community, as though s/he is not editing in good faith. So I have a leg to stand on, either that Love has been a significant figure and/or that the call for deletion is on suspicious grounds? Aristophanes68 (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Give me ten minutes to look for sources... --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

New editor just posted his User Page -- it's a link to Theopedia! Am I over-reacting to suspect that the editor is in fact removing this article more out of an religious agenda than out of sincere concern for Wikipedic quality? (How many folks propose articles for deletion on their first day as a user? Or could this editor have been editing anonymously for a long time?) Aristophanes68 (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is this - regardless of his motivations, the nom is actually good. I cannot find any decent sources for this person (anyone?). Regardless of their motivation, at it currently stands the article should be deleted. I'm not going to vote in the AFD but have added the article canvass squad notice, they will likely come and mass-vote keep. I suggest you concentrate on finding reliable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Will you come and look at her/his edits and see which ones can reasonably be reverted -- he's blanking whole paragraphs because they are sourced from the church's website! And s/he has posted several ominous comments on my User Page. Aristophanes68 (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

His comments are (if I am being charitable) strange, if I'm being less charitable... I'll take a look at the paragraphs. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment While I agree with OP's positions about the article, isn't everything that they've said here an explicit violation of WP:CANVASS? The Squicks (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

How? Canvass is going to individual pages and asking for support? I can't see how coming to a wikiproject that the article falls under and asking for help in finding sources is covered by that? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cameron Scott. Requesting help to find sources, or in improving an article, or asking for additional eyes in a neutral way at the relevant wikiproject is clearly not canvassing. Inappropriate canvassing would be asking for votes to support one side or the other, however it's done. Also, please lets assume good faith about ARS voting. — Becksguy (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Question: Given the somewhat reasonable argument that the Cindi Love article didn't have enough sources, how many of the MCC articles linked at Metropolitan Community Church#Notable clergy would have the same problem? And without breaking the Canvassing rule, what's the best way to get help in boosting them up? Thanks. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Triple DYK LGBT nom

If anyone would care to cast an eye here (scroll down a bit) to try to formulate a DYK hook for the triple nomination I made a couple of days ago, please do. My proposed hook, dealing as it does with three fictional characters, has engendered accusations that it possibly implicates WP:BLP (as statements about those who are neither real nor persons so often do). Since I'm also being accused of making personal attacks (by the person who, er, personally attacked me) I've lost interest. Otto4711 (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

This is arguably this project's most important article, and by far the biggest civil rights issue facing the LGBT community in all but a handful of places, yet there is a ridiculous revert war going on at Same-sex marriage. There seems to be a couple of editors who do not want "homophobia" as a reason why people would be against gay marriage. I know it sounds like a real stretch that not liking gay people might be the reason one opposes them having equal rights, but apparently it has been written about a great deal. This small group of editors put a CITE tag in the intro after “homophobia” so I spent thirty seconds of digging and found these five sources:

1. The New York Times editorial board, October 28, 2006:

   All this is, as everyone knows, just a show for rousing the base. If the last month has taught us anything about the Republican Party, it is that homophobia is campaign strategy, not conviction. Congressmen who trust their careers to gay staffers vote for laws to enshrine second-class citizenship for gays in the Constitution. Gay appointees and their partners are treated as married people at official ceremonies and social gatherings. Then whenever an election rolls around, the whole team pretends it’s on a mission to save America from gay marriage.

2. Salon.com – An African-American lesbian talks about homophobia, Proposition 8 and African Americans, October 28, 2008:

   As an African-American lesbian who has been in a loving relationship for over two decades, I have been made well aware of the black community's discomfort with things gay. Our long and courageous history in the forefront of the struggle for civil rights notwithstanding, the leadership of black America -- politicians, ministers, business leaders -- has not been as outspoken as it could be and should be on the issue of gay rights. Homophobia and traditional religious teachings play a role in our silence. But the roots of our discomfort, I think, go deeper. Sadly, some African-Americans believe that it is only we who should benefit from the gains achieved by the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s. They fear that to allow the gay community to enter the doors of opportunity opened by our struggle, to permit gays and lesbians to share in the fruits of that movement, will diminish those benefits for the black community. Truth is, there is more than enough to go around.

3. Southern Voice: Al Sharpton and other black leaders specifically citing homophobia as a reason for African-American opposition to gay marriage.
4. "Homophobia damaging lives across Europe-EU study" - Reuters – A European Union study specifically citing homophobia as part of the reason more European countries haven’t adopted gay marriage:

   The report, which brought together research from 27 countries, said over half of EU citizens thought discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation was widespread in their country. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Poland and Romania were singled out for being hostile towards "gay pride" rallies and people from countries in the region were generally less comfortable with having a homosexual as a neighbour, for example. Only three EU states -- Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain -- gave full marriage rights to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transsexuals and transgender people, while most of the other countries do not award any rights at all. In the Netherlands 82 percent were in favour of same-sex marriage versus 11 percent in Romania and 12 percent in Latvia.

5. Barney Frank on CNN citing Scalia’s homophobia as why it would be bad for gay marriage to go before the Supreme Court, with examples (such as Scalia comparing gays to murderers):

   A few years ago, the state of Texas tried to send to prison two men who had private, consenting sex in their own bedroom. And the majority on the court said, "That's unconstitutional. That's an invasion of privacy." Justice (Clarence) Thomas said, "Well, I think it's a silly law. I would have voted against it, but I don't think the Constitution prohibits it." Justice Scalia wrote a long, angry dissent in which he made it very clear he thought it was a perfectly good law and that, in fact, homosexuals, as he refers to us, are bad people, and the notion that there ought to be any kind of legal protections is a mistake. In an earlier case in Colorado, in which he again vigorously denounced the majority in the court for finding that it was unconstitutional to discriminate against people, again, not in marriage but a basis of their political rights, he said, "Well, of course, we disapprove this. We often disapprove of things like murder." I mean, literally, when he was looking for comparisons to the public disapproval of homosexuality, the first thing he said was murder. So unlike many people who have different legitimate views on this, I urge people to read those two opinions in the Colorado case, the Romer case and the Lawrence case. And, again, there is just no question about his absolute view that ... homosexuals are bad people that shouldn't be treated equally.

There’s many, many more, yet I keep getting reverted so that the CITE tag remains, which hurts the encyclopedia when there are plenty of citations out there (particularly after Proposition 8), but someone has a POV and wants to deny that homophobia is one reason why people are against gay marriage. The above five citations, whether we agree with them or not, are perfectly in line with WP:V and WP:RS. -->David Shankbone 20:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Claim of WP:SYNTH on The Surprise of a Knight

A contributor has made the claim that an "Assessment" section in the article The Surprise of a Knight constitutes a violation of WP:SYNTH. I disagree, as noted on the article's Talk page. I fail to see how synthesis can occur, when a published article's claims are simply restated on the page. No conclusion is drawn by me; conclusions are those of the cited authors, not this contributor. Nontheless, I would appreciate someone else taking a look at the section. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I added my opinion on (the lack of) synthesis and undue weight. I also added to the assesment section of the article, which will hopefully curtail further disagreement about relying too much on the Augh source.YobMod 16:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Whittaker_Chambers#Personal_life

Apparently, some sources have alleged a homosexual relationship between him and Hiss. Other sources have quoted him as saying that he did have numerous relationships with men while he was in the communist underground.

The former allegation is not in the article but the latter is. I'm wondering what other editors think about the issue. The Squicks (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything stated by a reliable source should be there if it meets due weight. If necessary, it can be qualified as being only the view of the source. We shouldn't be stating things as fact if it's not clear, but neither should we exclude views from reliable sources from the article without a good reason. BG 05:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I could find no problem concerning his LGBT status on the talk page. What is the issue here? The article makes non-sensationalist mention of his admited same-sex encounters, and i the same paragraph mentions his opposite-sex affairs, and elsewhere in the section that he gave up all homosexual activity and married. Seems factual and balanced, and no-one is disagreeing. No good reason has been given why one particular affair should be discussed in more detail.YobMod 17:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

no-one is disagreeing My understanding is that there was some prior disagreement among editors there (which was not recent, but a while ago), and I thusly wanted to get a fresh, outsider perspective. The Squicks (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, but i couldn't find it by scanning the talk page or by searching "gay" or "homo*". There are no archives, so if there was any disagreement, no-one bothered to discuss it. I would suggest starting a discussion on the talk page, with an example of what you think should be included, as the editors there will be more knowledgable.YobMod 18:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you for your comments and for your advice, all the same. The Squicks (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

New LGB youth study

I found a study published in PEDIATRICS about the effect of parental rejection on health of LGB adolescents. I've inserted it into the appropriate section of Homosexuality, but if you guys can think of anywhere else it would be a good addition, feel free to use it:

A 2008 study showed a correlation between the degree of rejecting behavior by parents of LGB adolescents and negative health problems in the teenagers studied:

Higher rates of family rejection were significantly associated with poorer health outcomes. On the basis of odds ratios, lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults who reported higher levels of family rejection during adolescence were 8.4 times more likely to report having attempted suicide, 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression, 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs, and 3.4 times more likely to report having engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse compared with peers from families that reported no or low levels of family rejection.

Thanks, The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 15:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I found a few articles where it could be added, but I don't have time to do so myself right now: Suicide among LGBT youth and maybe Teenage suicide in the United States#LGBT youth, possibly also Homophobia#Internalized homophobia. Siawase (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice

hey this is User:BigPadresDUDEs Wife after learning of WP:NOSHARE i registered my own account and have joined i wont be on all the time but when i am on i will contribute KristinaPadres (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah its my BIRTHDAY i can drink beer now YEAH KristinaPadres (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I do tip my hat to you upon this day. Zazaban (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's my birthday too! But my partner bought the beer for himself, since I don't touch the stuff. Anyway, happy mutual birthday! Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fudgie Frottage

Can someone take a look at the IP complaints about this article on the talkpage, I've had a quick look and they seem to have merit, however me dealing with them is likely to be counter-productive. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What's an IP complaint? Intellectual property? Internet protocol? Which section on the Talk page? Specifically want do you want reviewed? --Tiger Marc^ROAR! 19:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

IP = IP Editor, you know the people who edit without an account - it's the bottom section on the talkpage, they have a list of problem with the sources , I checked one of them and the complaint was correct(as I have noted on the page and in my edit summary)), I wanted people to have a look at their specific problems and see if they are correct. I can do it if nobody has the time or the will. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This is yet another personal jab at me based on the ongoing harassment campaign that tried to reveal my identity and now is manifested as an anon - most likely a sock of User:Peter Damian or one of his enablers at Wikipedia Review. Ignore unless you have a shovel for all the bad faith accusations throw in my general direction. -- Banjeboi 12:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

They could be rogering puppies with a rhinestone dildo for all I care - since nobody else wants to take a look, I'll deal with it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Your keen attention to "fixing" LGBT articles has been noticed many times now, that you are enabling a sock seems to simply make you a meat puppet and that you care not about improving any of the many LGBT articles but simply targeting material to delete from them suggests your interest is not abut building an encyclopedia but about eliminating LGBT culture from it. -- Banjeboi 12:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah whatever, we can't all be engaged in constant self-promotion and adding worthless sources to articles to give them the superficial look of being well referenced. I think LGBT articles make up about 5% of my edits - wow what a self-hating member of the community I am. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop all personal attacks. They violate our civility policies and you have been warned about this. -- Banjeboi 12:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What a laugh, don't lecture me about civility when in your previous post you accuse me (out of the side of your mouth) of being a homophobe. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No lecturing was intended, our civility policies are non-negotiable. Your actions on LGBT articles has been mentioned to you directly many times. That you are able to step within the letter of wiki rules does not negate that your track record shows a disappointing and consistent degradation of LGBT articles you come in contact with. -- Banjeboi 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The commentary directed at Cameron Scott is unnecessary. I would have thought it a cause-and-effect relationship that once you deliberately obfuscate information, such as the separation of a single entity into two articles that withholds information linking two subjects as the same person, that your previous and further edits are called into question. This is not an issue of homophobia, but dealing with the consequences of your actions. --Moni3 (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. We don't pillory and harass anyone; we act civilly and focus on content. When it was originally suggested that the DJ and Catalyst were the same person - mind you, not the topic of this thread - I looked to see what if any reliable, and even some wobbly sourcing had to say on it. It was weaker then and certainly nothing that would hold up for our purposes at all. This is rather beside the point as has been pointed out a few times. I wrote two poor articles three years ago and they have now been deleted, one rightly so, the other not so much. The article mentioned above is one of about thirty being claimed as problematic for no reason except that I touched them at some point. The claims are generally laughable but go ahead and encourage the villagers to chase a monster that never existed. Shoveling bad faith at other editors is forbidden not only because it's a form of harassment but because it deteriorates the consensus-building we use to build quality content. Moni3 I very much appreciate the articles you write but even with the higher level of writing and sourcing you still see the level of generalized homophobia and other nonsense. My only experiences with Cameron Scott on LGBT articles has been them deleting and arguing to delete content no matter the level of notability and sourcing. Your experience with them may differ. I have been publicly harassed and editors such as Cameron Scott have gone out of their way to ensure a wide audience is alerted to their "concern" despite any COI concerns with the article content itself. The most telling cases of this, IMHO, are Sister Roma which was re-written top-down from another anon's spurious deletion attempts and Pink Saturday which has been "cleaned" so it's now one sentence. But of course that sentence must also be COI, right? You tend to focus on a few articles and systematically build them up. I have roughly 3000 on my watchlist and simply try to keep the nonsense to a low roar; people assume they know my identity, my gender, my sexuality - whatever. It's actually none of their business. I hope you remember this next time you see someone harassed for simply working on wikipedia. Good lord, if someone thinks I was actually promoting any of those subjects they weren't reading very well. I gave up on re-writing the Sisters group article because it was a culture-war magnet.

What it comes down to - do you want to encourage on-wiki harassment based on offsite accusations, by banned users no less? Or do you want to see issues civilly addressed in a manner befitting an encyclopedia? It's your community, you decide how you want editors treated. The anon who'se stirring drama and Cameron Scott is now acting in concert with is likely User:Peter Damian or one of his Wikipedia Review enablers. When they first started harassing me on another article a quick look at their edit history was obviously filled with socking and harassment of other editors. But whatever you feel is the best way forward will have to carry the day here. -- Banjeboi 11:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

has been them deleting and arguing to delete content no matter the level of notability and sourcing. - yeah, like this. Moni adds well-sourced, well-written content - so I don't touch it, other editors such as Mish-Mash add well-sourced, well-written content, so I don't touch it - in most cases, I don't even read it because after watching a pattern of edits you get a feel for an editor. you tend to write largely rah-rah promotional material using paper-thin laughable sources (and that without getting into your COI) and I stub or delete it as needed because I see a pattern of edits that require careful watching. You start writing to the basic standards that we expect at wikipedia and your edits become untouchable and uninteresting to me. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We all aim to write the best articles possible, and should welcome scrutiny of sourcing. Past mistakes have been made and been admited to, and i think it is time to move on from any finger pointing. Article improvment includes checking articles that may have sourcing problems, and allowing deletion processes to come to consensus, rather than focussing on who has has created the articles or who nominated them for deletion. I'm glad Camaron is looking over articles that other editors have questioned (as they are out of my interest scope), and his initial post here makes no mention specific editors, so should be taken on face value of requesting input. We all have to deal with enough personality clashes on LGBT articles, let's use the project talk page to discuss articles rather than editors. Any stubbing or deletion can easily be reversed if and when sourcing if brought up to scratch according to consensus, so that should be the aim rather than resisting the removal of poorly sourced info, espeically from BLPs.YobMod 10:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, on the surface this seems like an actual concern for some support on a BLP article but it's not. The anon who has been harassing me , and by the looks of things other editors prior, has been told to move on. Cameron Scott however acts as their meatpuppet here while ensuring a little public humiliation is thrown in my general direction. No one was adding anything onto a BLP that in any way was considered defamitory. Instead the anon, now aided by Cameron Scott, was working to remove content that goes to the subject's notability. No worries, it will all be undone and the ongoing harassment will eventually end one way or another. I've been harassed many times before and subsequently every article caught in the crosshairs of this nonsense indeed improves. Let them have their despicable day but don't pretend it's an actual concern that we have false information. Similar to the "citation-needed" bombing on dozens of articles by another of my wikihounders, I've yet to see one item that wasn't easily verifiable. In the end we end up adding sourcing on LGBT articles that need them so even though it's annoying and dubiously motivated the end result is more attention to LGBT articles. -- Banjeboi 07:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's up to YOU to demonstrate the verifiability. If the articles are easy to verify, then why are they not being sourced earlier on in the process? Why not simply head off the problem by including sources from the start? Then the articles are improved AND the harassment should stop (unless the sources are unreliable--but then it wouldn't be harassment). I require my English students to cite their sources, provide quotations and references, etc.--isn't this practice standard for intellectual pursuits, including encyclopedias? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have, at this point, 4,361 pages on my watchlist (excluding talk pages). Some I wrote myself or greatly improved, others I simply rolled back vandalism. If an editor, for whatever reason, wishes to harass another by simply asking for each sentence to have a cite they can do so. It's despicable but only common sense and civility seems to stop most of us from acting in such a way. Several of these editors are treating thses LGBT articles like a battlegroun and that's unfortunate. If your lucky none of your articles will ever be "helped" in this manner. Out of the thousands of articles within the LGBT project very few are GA or FA and I imagine even less have a sourced for every single sentence as they likely don't need that. As I stated, the ones I catch I'm simply adding the sources as I go along. They seem to want to harass me but apparently their plan isn't working, instead one by one they are heading for blocks or bans. -- Banjeboi 01:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought you were being harassed on articles you started. Apologies. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, the COI highlighted there was a problem - this in turn make clearer than you have a practice of adding literally *anything* to an article as a source, a link to a flyer, a press release, literally anything to create a superficial appearance of good sourcing. instead one by one they are heading for blocks or bans. *yawn*, yesterday I was working for wikipedia review, what's it today? The CIA? --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually no COI has been shown, just an unhealthy interest on your part to remove information about a subject; not because it's untrue, presented unduely or otherwise problematic. No worries, it will all be restored by someone who wants to actually improve the article. Your accusations remain as pure as what started this all - a witch-hunt in an effort to harass. You wikihounded me and continue to lob personal attacks at me. But it's all recorded now whereas Wikipedia Review has, apparently, no community standards. If you work for the CIA or anyone else I could care less - but when you harass it becomes everyone's business as you have shown a willingness, nay eagerness to assume bad faith and toss consensus out the door resulting in the degrading of both articles and community consensus processes. -- Banjeboi

um hello should i join im bisexual myself

Im Bisexual myself and had a few Relationships with men i even i had sex with one but im happpily married to my wife kristina and our 3 kids i thought about joining the project as a little hobby since i have first hand experiance with man sex but for some reason i cant i dont know why anything i can do? BigPadresDude 23:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the project! There is always lots to do, depending on your interests. At the top of the page we have the "article alerts" and "articles needing cleanup" links. If you have time to search for sources or even just copyediting or cleanup, we have many bisexuality articles needing a determined input: Bisexuality, Biphobia, Bisexual erasure, Men who have sex with men, Bicurious, Bisexual chic..... They all have lots of relavant sources online from which to write good articles (I prefer google books for source searching, and it causes fewer arguments about source quality, especially for controversial topics). Just get stuck in and leave a note here if you run into problems or disagreements.YobMod 10:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright man ill add my name to the project list i can work on Bisexuality, Biphobia, Bisexual erasure, Men who have sex with men, Bicurious, Bisexual chic all of those and my wife is also a bisexual chic and had sex with a women so we can both help we both share this account kinda so i and my wife will help the project with hand on experiance with having sex with there own sex see ya around BigPadresDude 19:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I hope that this is not interpreted as a insult to any editors and their work, but the article 'Bisexuality' in particular needs severe and drastic clean-up and reorganization. It has had glaring problems for a long time and I find it a bit embarrassing. The Squicks (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

i read that article and its a insult to bisexuals everywhere which lead me to the project i would be happy to work on it with anyone and make it a ga but lets do it on the weekends when i have more time

and are most members here gay/lesbian? BigPadresDude 20:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• We're very happy to have bisexuals join the project - welcome! You don't need to work on bisexuality topics if you don't wish to do so. Simply having a 'bisexual voice' in discussions will be very good for us, so I'm glad you're joining. -->David Shankbone 20:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• yeah thanks man i didnt even know about the project till i looked at the talk page of Bisexuality the article it self is horrible and needs alot of work

me as a bisexual it sickens me that the Gay And Lesbian articles are awesome (good work btw guys) and us bisexuals get left out in the cold Im Sick of people who questions us gays bisexuals lesbians for wanting our own sex what do they have aganist us? do they think it breaks the cycle of nature? my self have had sex with man mutilple times but that is before i met my kristina who by the way edits on my account some times and is ok herself and my wife is bisexual herself to and has had sex with a women and her -->Parents grounded her for having sex with a women cause it breaks the cycle of nature but we both seddeld down she even cheated on me with women sometimes but we got over it so she is gonna help edit some here to not just me but its mostly me BigPadresDude 20:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting history. Unfortunately, even though much of humanity is likely bisexual on some level, male bisexuals are often the most discriminated against, seen as only good for a lay (by gay men) and to be avoided (by straight women). It's a sad state of affairs; glad that you found what sounds like your place in the world. -->David Shankbone 20:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, you don't even have to be LGBT to work on this project. We don't exclude people on the basis of sexual orientation. But, you are right about the articles. There are huge gaps when it comes to bisexuality, but that entails people willing to work on those aspects. Unfortunately, the encyclopedia is reflective of the 'real world' in this respect. In academia (psychology for example) bisexuality is often a footnote to a footnote about homosexuality, and even in LGBT studies it is often neglected. But, that is changing, and we need to work on what information is available. Welcome. Mish (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the project!! Please try and check spelling grammar before posting, however. It makes everyone's life easier.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not a very welcoming thing to say. -->David Shankbone 11:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Link problem

An editor has approached me asking why a number of pages I am involved with (including my own page) link to this article: Bourne-Morton Canal on the links to the left of the article: [1]. It may be because the word 'dyke' appears in it; 'Bette Bourne' appears in a couple of articles I edited/created (and in a sandbox). Is there anything that can be done about this? Mish (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's listed in the "New articles with LGBT keywords" list that appears in the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/LGBT article alerts}} thing, which explains why so many user pages link to it. It seems like the inclusion of dyke would be the trigger. Esrever ^(klaT) 19:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So how do we get this article off that list? Can I simply edit the raw list to remove it? Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The article will eventually fall of the list as other new articles appear (tomorrow is the full week). I would not advise removing it manually - the list is for the projects use, and it does not seem to be of any benefit to remove articles from the list. Many article appear there that have little or no LGBT content, but they still need to be checked as to why they are using the keywords.YobMod 15:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Mish (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the editor who runs the bot, and he's taken the link off the page. Is it still showing up on the "what links here" page? Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no point. The links had already gone, as they only last one week.YobMod 14:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Trans category under discussion

Proposal here to redistribute content from one trans-category into three others. Otto4711 (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite for Homosexuality

Is it about time to rewrite this article to conform to MOS and concentrate on accuracy, neutrality, comprehensiveness, and the best quality sources? Is it possible in an article of such controversy? I tend to hope a rewrite can be accomplished without the fuss of ArbCom, possibly as a model for Wikipedians working together from vastly different approaches.

I have been approached to rewrite the article by myself, but I do not wish to do that. I already wrote the Lesbian article and several other high-profile LGBT articles. I do not wish to write the core article on LGBT issues using my perceptions of what should be in this one. Wikipedia is a community effort, and there is no reason why this article cannot be constructed by many of us with the same goals in mind.

Please see: Talk:Homosexuality#Rewrite_agenda. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

After Wednesday, I will have a hella of a more time on my hands due to the completion of a major project. however, I am a lousy writer :-(, I am however a pretty good researcher :-), so if people want to tap me up to find sources for sections, I'll be happy to act as a research assistant or provide feedback and copy-editing of sections. I have access to various academic databases via my university work so can also assist in that way. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You mention accuracy, neutrality, and comprehensiveness, so i'm betting you want to push it to FA. If so, I'm willing to collaborate with you on the article. The article is far too important not to be an FA. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 21:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Even GA would be an improrovment at this stage!YobMod 12:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we get this to be the focus of a (hopefully soon coming?) LGBT newsletter? Or just use the project member list for a more penetrative advert? or even add something to the project banner for a short time, like other projects have done for elections etc? Who deals with these things generally?YobMod 11:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Violence against LGBT people

I'm in and out this evening but the discussion at the part of the talkpage caught my eye. There are some (AGF) em.. "interesting" suggestions for changes to the article that need some more eyes and input. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it, but it really doesn't seem worth commenting there. Anti-non-LGBT violence is a different topic altogether, and i strongly doubt the suggester would ever actually put in the work in to source and write anything, whether for section in this article or for another page. Unless sources appear, it is a non-issue. However, i think other improvments are urgently needed there, such as widening the scope to cover other forms of violence, and subarticling the long list. So input there would be good to.YobMod 11:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guerilla Gay Bar

What do you think? I'm not sure. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly notable but the article was poorly written and sourced, could you userfy to me? -- Banjeboi 00:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Tamara Bach proposed for deletion, LGBT tagged.

Tamara Bach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. The books don't appear to be notable and while nominated for an award, no major awards have been won. Lara 03:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree, please join the discussion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-gay propaganda

This has been deleted now: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 23#Category:Anti-gay propaganda Is there any value in creating something else to tag such articles? Anti-gay misinformation or Homosexual conspiracy theories or something? from the increase in discussion on Category:Homophobia since the discussion for the deleted category ended, my guess is that will be the next target. There was an article created at the same time called Homosexual propaganda, on which was placed a speedy delete tag, and it was to Promotion of homosexuality by the proposer, and then changed to redirect to Homosexual agenda. These would have all fallen under the now deleted category, and I doubt they can be sustained simply under the Category:Homophobia unless there are WP:RS. Homintern is a similar article that would have fallen under this category, and I am sure there must be a few others around (hard to know, without the category anymore). This stuff is clearly POV pushing misinformation that there is some conspiracy, yet needs to be documented, and established within a clear category, rather than being some kind of truth - i.e. that there is (or has been) such a conspiracy. Maybe if there is no definitive category, it can all be cleansed as WP:FRINGE or something? Mish (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How about "Category: Urban Legends"? Haiduc (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Gerhard Schick and Bettina Herlitzius

Two more new LGBT articles from Germany. both persons are MP in German Bundestag GLGermann (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

and here are two more openly homosexual MP in German Bundestag: Jörg van Essen and Kai Gehring. GLGermann (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Jennings

Another highly placed Obama appointee being smeared by some rather unreliable sources. I've gone through the two "scandals" and cleaned up the whole article. More eyes appreciated as the anti-LGBT rhetoric seems rather heavily spread. -- Banjeboi 09:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD of possible interest

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spermophagia -LadyofShalott 18:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia

More eyes here would be appreciated. A perennially controversial category that has survived multiple CfDs, it's currently being attacked from every imaginable angle (and some I couldn't have imagined). Rivertorch (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

sexual maturation disorder

Oh boy, yet another unique and interesting term. Note that the title states it's a disorder and the content disputes this. Anyone want to untangle this and the 100+ articles linked to it? -- Banjeboi 06:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This strikes me as possibly being more appropriate for a dictionary entry. I may be wrong, but the article looks as though it is padded with sources that aren't strictly relevant to its main topic. BG talk 21:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the Contradition tag (though I'm not seeing the contradiction) and the LGBT stub. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a controdiction either. Anything in the ICD should have more than enough sources about it to write an article, as they don't just get added on a whim. Expansion with such sources would be an improvment, but it is no more a problem than for all other stubs.YobMod 10:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Clean Up Of Bisexuality

i can help with this but i need some help with it to

anyone wanna help me clean up this article?

i mostly do typos and rephraseing so you can do the rest BigPadresDude 17:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

LGBT themes in Hindu mythology

This article has been nominated for GA. Please comment on the GA review page [here. Thanks. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This article has been passed as a GA. Please review your article rating -- it is currently listed as "C-Class". This should probably be changed. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the list of LGBT stubs?

I went to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/List_of_stubs to find the LGBT stubs, but couldn't find them under any of the categories that I thought would make sense. Are they not on that page? If they aren't on that page, should they be added? (I finally found them at the Category:LGBT_stubs page.) Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That page is broken into sections because it's so large. LGBT stubs are listed under Culture: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Culture#Other culture --Alynna (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh! I even looked under the culture link and didn't see it -- but now I do. Thanks! (Should it be moved someplace easier to find?) Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it could be moved. In any case, that decision would be made by WP:WSS, not WP:LGBT. --Alynna (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sexual orientation change efforts

Another in a series of interesting articles. Merge discussion with conversion therapy as a possible target is underway. -- Banjeboi 09:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource work "Children's Development of Social Competence Across Family Types"

Hello, I recently finished transcribing this Canadian research paper, a scientific literature review of studies comparing the children of same-sex marriages with the children of heterosexual marriages. I'm posting about it here because I thought it might serve as a useful source for Wikipedia articles relating to this Wikiproject.

Also, in case anyone ends up reading through the paper, it needs to be proofread (which has to be done by a user other than me) if you'd like to help out with that.

Wikisource proofreading is done page-by-page. To do it you would start here, click on a page number that has a pink background, and proofread the page you end up at. (At least I think they're pink, I'm partially colorblind so I can't quite tell for sure.) After reading through it edit the page, fix any errors, and then there's a Wikisource-custom button you can click to mark the page as proofread. Thanks! --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Malcom X

I was reading this and then went to our article and can't find any mention of him being bi or any indication, this project has been working on it. Anyone familiar with those claims? Can they sourced to RS? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't do any research on this, but i would be wary of accepting anything Tatchell writes at face value, or using it without corroborating sources. Tatchell does some great work for LGBT rights, but his expertise is in getting attention on issues that need debating, not necessarily on NPOV historical analysis. If he writes it, i am sure there are sources discussing it, but we should be very careful before adding anything to an article (even if not a living person).YobMod 20:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick check, and Tatchell refers to the biography Malcolm – The Life of a Man Who Changed Black America by Bruce Perry, which is already used extensively as a source at Malcolm X, which is a featured article. So if Tatchell's description of its contents is accurate, it shouldn't be an issue of the facts per se, but even Tatchell describes the coverage of his sexuality as "a very minor aspect", so it may be a weight issue for the article here. Siawase (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)