Talk:COLAGE

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Wuzzy in topic Untitled comments

Untitled comments

edit

Agree that articles should be merged-.Wuzzy 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Totally agreed. How do we merge them? katerw 25, February 2006

I merged the articles into one, and marked the other one for deletion. I trust this is okay. Wuzzy 18:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Discusion carried over from merged article

edit

Category

edit

People who are raised by LGBT people are de facto members of the LGBT community. COLAGE claims to be an LGBT organization, and it is accepted without question by the LGBT community. Dave 06:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree.Wuzzy 10:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

You what? Can you source that? For reasons that should be obvious, Dave, I have to discount what it claims for itself. Clearly, the group is not activist for LGBT issues, nor are its members LGBT. I'd like to see a source before you place this organisation in the category. Grace Note 10:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sources for classifying as LGBT and LGBT rights organization
Don't care what it says about itself.
with other organisations.
a guide to resources in the area, not LGBT orgs.
Can be added by anyone. Not a reputable source.


Hardly shows recognition by the LGBT community though.


Support is not what's disputed.
Can you provide sources that COLAGE isnot an LGBt organization? Wuzzy 14:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
ACLU
Gay and Lesbian Medical Association
QueerList
Also, per Wuzzy above. Dave 19:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
I can refer to most definitions of LGBT. I'll accept your sources despite the frank nonsense of describing it so. The GLMA one was particularly ridiculous when you look at what else is on it. It's a list of organisations that might be expected to include LGBTs but are not exclusive. You can add yourself to Queer List just by asking

Here's a listyou're not on:

[1] You can add a link though, so go for it. That's the good thing about directories. You can call yourself anything so long as the guy at the other end doesn't check too closely.

I wouldn't have had a thing to say, btw, if you had written "LGBT-related organisation", which is clearly NPOV and factually correct.Grace Note 02:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply