Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Jane Addams - reference and category deleted by anonymous editors

Apparently the LGBT category and the reference were removed when I was sans the internet. See [1] and possibly [2]. Anonymous editors deleted the info several times. Can anyone please help?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The content has been re-written to cast doubt on it so you have to show that she was definitely a lesbian or that consensus amongst scholars is that she was. As written there now it casts doubt and states it as a controversy. -- Banjeboi 01:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan has left the closet!

Lindsay Lohan: Says she is dating Samantha Ronson - MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

• Calms down. Adjusts hypothetical tie.*

Thought you chaps might like to know. :) Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 14:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say my gaydar was off the charts when I saw The Parent Trap? --Moni3 (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of her. Ivory tower?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wonder if the booze and public crotch shots were part of attempts to muck up having to acknowledge her sexuality. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Claiken and now Lilo? Is hell getting colder? =D Anyone betting on Jodie? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. As if to balance the universe, Tig Notaro decides she's not "publicly" a lesbian. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I'm assuming this post has a Wiki related reason? Such as a category of Category:Lesbian actors, Category:Bisexual actors, Category:LGBT actors...or should we wait till she actually comes out, like good ol' Clay!! *drools a little* CTJF83Talk 00:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Terry Sanderson (writer) - proposed deletion?

Should it stay? What do you guys think? I would tend to think not.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think he should be deleted? It looks like he has a number of books, and is possibly notable CTJF83Talk 00:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people write books, and in this case it looks like they're self-help books. To me, it reads like an advertisement. He may be more prominent than the page makes it sound, though?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... you do have a point there, they aren't really notable books, as far as I can tell...I'd say nom it for deletion CTJF83Talk 00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Which tag is that? I'm not sure I remember how to do that.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No tag, it doesn't qualify for WP:Speedy Deletion but you can nom it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Just follow the instructions, if you have a prob, post it on my talk, and I'll get to it in a few hours, when I come back from a break :) CTJF83Talk 00:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

He became president of the National Secular Society in 2006 and is a long-standing columnist for Gay Times. In addition to his books would certainly suggest that notability threshold has been met. -- Banjeboi 01:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable. Please keep. Haiduc (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Does being a columnist from Gay Times make one notable? Or is it the National Secular Society info that does?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Being a real writer. Who writes books. Seriously, the society is an old and established one, with its own article here (so IT is notable) and the gay mag is a leading UK gay mag. Plus, he writes books. There is so much crap here on video games and sports and other nonsense, that there are years of work deleting fluff before you even come close to articles of this caliber. Haiduc (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That they are an active writer and prominent individual in several respects makes it quite likely to pass if taken to AfD. We have plenty of their own writing to fill out biographical information and then it's a few steps more to show the books have been mentioned, his work with the National Secular Society is noted, etc. -- Banjeboi 11:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Queer: Pink triangle caption confusing

Queer has an image of a pink triangle, accompanied by a caption that I think is confusing. See post at Talk:Queer. Anybody think that this should be / can be improved? -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to address this. Let me know if it still needs work. -- Banjeboi 11:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Reformatted userbox

{{User LGBT Project}}

Per consensus from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Archive_18#Project_box_changes, I have reformatted the project userbox a bit - [3]. Feel free to adjust. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Esfahan

There has been a recent crackdown on gays in this Iranian city, with at least two events hauling in over 100 gay men that has been reported in multiple sources. I put this paragraph under "Modern age":

"On May 10, 2007, Esfahān police arrested 87 people at a birthday party, including 80 suspected gay men, beating and detaining them through the weekend. All but 17 of the men were released; those who remained in custody were believed to have been wearing women's clothing. Photos of the beaten men were released by the Toronto-based Iranian Queer Organization. According to Human Rights Watch, in February 2008 police in Esfhan raided a party in a private home and arrested 30 men, who were held indefinitely without a lawyer on suspicion of homosexuality."

I posit that this paragraph--there are more sources I could add, but I assumed four was enough--belongs on the article about the city. Am I incorrect? --David Shankbone 21:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, unless the heterosexual matrix wants to silence us. (Apparently we don't exist in Iran...) Zigzig20s (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, one of my talk page watchers has removed it, so I guess even though Rodney King is on the Los Angeles article, and 30 Days of Night is included on Barrow, Alaska, and every other city article includes similar information, our persecution doesn't merit inclusion. Sure, multiple crackdowns on gays in Iranian city with those four sources, and with a European Parliament group demanding their release, and these additional sources[4][5][6][7][8][9] means we don't get our news on city articles where we are persecuted, jailed, killed. --David Shankbone 22:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

David, dear, here goes : [10]. Not a fan of cultural relativism here.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to revert an add sources on the article, but look guys, beyond that, I'm out of it. I can't always fight every battle on my own, and I'm kind of a target for people who want to "prove themselves" so, if you think I have an argument in this situation that bears merit, then speak up. If not, then fine. But, I get tired of being the person out in front all the time. I do enough. It's not fun always fighting, especially when so few people step in on your behalf. Try it some time. It gets old. --David Shankbone 07:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not like we did nothing at all. I'm a little busy with grad school atm but I'll help if I can.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Zigzig20s. Many of us are on our own frontlines and, what looks like basic homophobia, IMHO, is not a new phenomena on Wikipedia. I hear your frustration but looking at balancing what was there and then just pasting this in - even with sources - didn't flow very well. Technically encyclopedic but emotionally? Maybe not so much. I've moved the entire chunk into it's own LGBT subheader under "Culture" which will also lessen the impact. Even if the article is greatly rewritten some version of this should carry through. It's on my watchlist but so are about 2,000 other pages. -- Banjeboi 11:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of Woman on top (sex position)

I have proposed that this page be renamed, to be more gay friendly. The discussion can be found here CTJF83Talk 18:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Theban pederasty

More breast beating from "well meaning" types. Haiduc (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly will it take for the community of editors involved in LGBT topics to react to the systematic destruction of articles on the history of the subject? How close to the central articles of this topic does thuggery and homophobia have to reach before people take notice that a number of rogue editors are acting in concert with the aim to suppress LGBT history? Which articles shall we consider disposable and jettison to appease bigotry, in the hope that the censors will lick their chops and leave alone "more important articles"? Haiduc (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, from reading the talkpage, it would seem that Geogre is making the very good point that you're claiming various historical figures to have been in pederastic relationships despite not knowing their ages simply because they came from Greek culture which contained elements of pederasty. This is obviously unencyclopedic. I can't exactly defend you on that one, can I? Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 15:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone is going to assert that a person identified in the literature as an eromenos is NOT in a pederastic relationship, then they should not edit articles on GLBT topics. Now I will grant you the benefit of the doubt that you are not aware that at this article that determination HAS been made, and I will follow Moni3's good advice to quote in full the respective source. As far as Greek lovers not qualifying as pederastic because we can not examine their birth certificates, or we do not know in which bodily orifice which partner inserted which bodily appendage, that is all rampant nonsense. And I too miss Jeff, he was a bridge between the different branches of the LGBT field, and understood full well that pederasty is integral to the topic. Haiduc (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I do wish you would stop being so patronising, Haiduc. You've been claiming I don't know what I'm talking about for years now and every time you get proved wrong. When will you stop assuming that every comment not fully in favour of your one man battle to add sex with adolescents to every conceivable related article is somehow an attack on pederasty? I am entirely in favour of writing accurately and appropriately about pederasty, it was and is an important part of gay and classical culture. But I am fed up of being berated by you because I am not supportive of your attempts to make everything and everyone about pederasty. I have enough activist guilt as it is. Please desist.

Getting to the subject at hand, if a pair of lovers are clearly identified in historical literature as erastes and eromenos, then that's fine, case closed. My "rampant nonsense" that maybe assuming an identified but not age specified couple to be pederastic without any evidence whatsoever is possibly not encyclopedic I think stands for itself. As Moni has said below, you have to provide actual sources to support these allegations, not just come here and complain about editors quite rightly calling you on your assumptions. Maybe every gay couple mentioned in classical sources was pederastic, but as an encyclopedia we not only do not have the right to just decide for ourselves whether they were or not, we have the duty to prevent factual information rather than what we think happened. Now if you can go back to that debate and, like I've said, like Moni has said, pull out the necessary sources to prove that all these Thebans you have mentioned in the article were in pederastic relationships as opposed to just homosexual ones, I will back you to the hilt. If you can't, please acknowledge this and go back to writing about documented instances of pederasty. You obviously bring much passion to the subject and there seems little point battling it out over unsourced allegations rather than the wealth of available information on historical and contemporary pederasty. There is so much to do, use yourself efficiently. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 22:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Love, you are just spinning your wheels. The beloveds are identified as eromenoi. What more do you want???

And is it my "one man battle to add sex with adolescents," or is it a gay community effort, fanned along by self-interested lesbians struggling for social elbow room, to sweep pederasty under the rug, in order to pull the wool over the eyes of the man in the street about the real nature of homosexuality, in which the older adolescent has always been a player, and now is legal to boot? Or have you forgotten about all the gay mags from before Stonewall??? The aptly named Stonewall, since stonewall is what the gay community does now, when it comes to the boys. And do not for a second imagine that this campaign of denial comes at no cost. It comes at the cost of leaving the boys unacknowledged and thus unprotected, with the result that they are the ones most victimzed now by the epidemic(s), and by men who really are abusive. It would be a lot easier to not patronize you if you did not resort to this kind of kneejerk accusation, and if you examined the topic with a bit more attention. It does not suit you well to pay lip service to our friend Jeff, if you then turn around and trample underfoot a topic that was important to him, and that he treated in a responsible manner. Haiduc (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, from me at least, it will take your dedication to shoring up all your citations and providing notes and citations bordering on the extreme. The questions these editors are bringing to the pederasty articles are questions that can be asked of any article. That articles about pederasty are being targeted should not be a surprise to you. They may even be singling out your articles, but I think that's a combination of their narrow view of pederasty, their rightful skepticism, and the lack of clarity and evidence of reliable sourcing in these articles. So pederasty articles are held to a higher standard of proving their claims. I am neither surprised nor offended by that. Lots of controversial articles have to cite their claims exceptionally well. All articles should.

I've stated it before on Talk:Historical pederastic couples that you need to make these concepts much clearer by your use of notes and citations. Define what pederasty was according to reliable sources, define all these Greek terms I see on the talk page that go right over my head. Use historians' views in quotes. Instead of providing these as preventive maintenance, you're battling with these editors time and again. So much stress would be avoided if you placed in the article what the references say about these relationships. Because this has not been done after so much resistance: an AfD, an ANI thread, vandal after vandal, so many contentious discussions on talk pages, makes me suspicious you don't have access to these sources or you enjoy arguing with the same people over and over.

This is the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia. Information isn't here and free because Moni3 or Haiduc says it's true. It's here and free because reliable sources have published about it, and it is a remarkably convenient (and hopefully accurate) repository of information. Once there are no questions about what all of the terms and concepts in your articles mean, I will gladly back you up in the face of tendentious vandals and editors who refuse to believe what sources say. But I can't argue about things I know nothing about, and I depend on you, the main contributor, to provide this sourced material. --Moni3 (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have dealt with skeptical and civilized contributors, and I have seen gang bangs. I am sure so have you. And I am sure we can both tell the difference between the two. I will do as you suggest, and I will request you to keep an eye on things - the topic draws more than its share of obstructionism, and one editor alone can do nothing. Haiduc (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your cooperation. Use a notes system similar to Stonewall_riots#Notes, and a bibliography and citations system similar in the same article. Paraphrase and extrapolate the content in the article, and back up claims by using specific quotes in the notes section (such as Note 1). If historians disagree about the nature of relationships, ages, etc., present multiple sides of their arguments. Go one by one, adding to articles that seem to be the most embattled, then the ones that are the least. Mind you - this may change as editors see that they can't complain about one, then they move on to another. If you have some kind of plan to address each article depending upon which sources you have handiest, let me know and I'll add them to my watchlist. I would also suggest you respond to terse comments from skeptics with irrefutable evidence from sources instead of terse responses. --Moni3 (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. At this point it would be best to focus on the Theban article - the accusations are particularly feeble and the evidence quite clear. I agree too about not sinking to the level of the opposition, but when blatant facts are ignored it is hard to not call a spade a spade. Haiduc (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Ina Fried

Resolved

 – AfD closed as no consensus — Becksguy (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on about the deletion of Ina's article. Personally - I think that's a bad idea. However, I was curious what folks in this effort thought about it. I encourage you to weigh in on the discussion taking place about it. I'm a little concerned that this out trans journalist may lose the article simply because she hasn't won enough major awards...which in my opinion may be partly because she's an out trans journalist. Varnent (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ina Fried was closed as no consensus, which, of course, defaults to keep. — Becksguy (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for LGBT

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is our list of core topics? I think it would be good to square this up a bit and ensure against erasure of subjects of particular interest to bisexual, transgender and intersex people. -- Banjeboi 01:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Here. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 20:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! As many other, hopefully all well-intended efforts, will take place to clean-up all articles slated for the DVD I think we should be watchful for deletions and do our own clean-up on LGBT articles as well as amend the list to include subjects to more fully represent the diversity of our communities. I wonder too if creating categories for our core topics and a cat for the Wikipedia 0.7 articles would also help direct efforts. Maybe a big sortable table would also work just as well. -- Banjeboi 00:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still thinking we need to address this but it does seem daunting. Perhaps a category would make sense since the same articles are likely to be used in repeat editions. -- Banjeboi 09:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I think we should review our Core LGBT topics and possibly categorize them as such. Then work to include any in the Wikipedia 0.7 effort. These DVDs will be stand alone introduction to the encyclopedia to those who may never see the actual website. As such I think it's important we ensure more balanced representation of all our communities. -- Banjeboi 23:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Has there been problems with sockpuppets censoring LGBT articles?

Hi,

I've noticed two recent attempts to censor the references to pederasty in Troilus. They have both been carried out by contributors who've hardly written anything else. See [11] whose only other activity has been to censor reference to pederasty in a Carvaggio-related article, and [12] which also includes the removal of a reference to "ass". Now there might be two newish editors only interested in the story of Troilus and I really should WP:AGF, but my suspicions are sufficiently aroused to come over here to see whether it fits a known pattern. Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, Yes the edits do fit a pattern of censorship and nitpicking to death a large number or articles discussing pederasty. The campaign began earlier this year, and has had echoes off site in the Wikipedia Review and who knows where else. It is not a series of random events, that is for sure. See discussion above, on Theban pederasty. Haiduc (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Not everyone seems to be agreeing with you in that thread and I haven't the time to go into the details of the argument. In this case, they've removed references to Servius, Graves, Gantz, Boitani and Sommerstein all considering the pederastic motivation for Achilles' interaction with Troilus. So there are no arguments that this is a matter of censorship of well-referenced material. The reason I was asking about the issue here was to find out whether the matter should be taken to one of the admin noticeboards. The two editors who censored Troilus have such a whiff of sockpuppetry that if you are familiar with other ones active in this area, you might want to ask for a checkuser on them all.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been a long series of problems with some editors who see themselves as fighting an "anti-paedophile" war and who repeatedly attempt to censor articles using a variety of sockpuppets and spectacular sophistry. Sometimes their claims of their anti-paedophile mission clearly cover straightforward homophobia. At others it is sheer ignorance of history. At in yet other cases it's a desire to "protect" children from reading about subjects that the editors believe will create ideas that may be harmful to them and which in their mind justify sockpuppetry and censorship for this noble purpose. There have been many sockpuppets used by banned editors on sexuality articles. With some figures from ancient history the situation seems to be different. There are some male editors who clearly emotionally identify with heroes like Achilles and Alexander the Great, and are insulted on their behalf at any suggestion that these heroes might be "gay". This crops up on talk pages on and off. Typically its male adolescents who like to imagine themelves as these warrior heroes - generally a different group from the "child protector" faction. There are also some Greek nationalists who get insulted on behalf of their national heroes. So there can be a very mixed bunch of potential motivations. Paul B (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his edits, I don't think he's a sockpuppet, just a bit prudish and inclined to sanitise mythological tales. His lack of understanding of wikification conventions suggests he's a new editor. Paul B (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It doesn't look then that I can report him for tryign to de-sex Troilus, so to speak. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

transgendered pronouns

The point has been raised that this is silly: "Jane Emily Smith was born January 1, 2001, in Hoboken New York. He attended the St. Mary's School for Girls, and..." I'm always in favor of as few special rules as possible, and the usual rule of "follow what the sources say" should work in general for pronouns, but there are some special considerations here. Thoughts? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What article is this from? --Ged UK (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Identity_dispute_.28redux.29 Paul B (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see why this is considered so confusing. If I were going to write a biography of myself, it might begin, "Tim Chevalier was born on December 18, 1980. He attended Wellesley College, a private single-sex institution, before he began identifying as male..." If your example is confusing (and I don't find it confusing), it could be clarified by leading with an explanation of Jane's gender identity. If you don't feel it is appropriate to lead the article with that, you would be right. So why not defer the part about the girls' school until later in the article? SparsityProblem (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the great flaw in the lead given is not that the pronouns are confusing but that it fails entirely to specify why this person is notable. If it specified that it would be simply to slip in a quick reference to that's person gender change, ie "Jane Emily Smith is a transgender lawyer in New York...". All gender issues solved. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 21:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, I wouldn't think that was an appropriate lead-in unless Jane Emily Smith was primarily notable for being trans. I don't think it's appropriate to over-emphasize the gender identity of people who are notable for other reasons and happen to be gender-variant, any more than we should write things like "George W. Bush is a male president of the United States..." SparsityProblem (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

[Yes, I know, I'm arguing some of the same things in two different places at once. Normally I get all huffy when people do this, but in cases where some sensitivity is required, I think it's okay. Some of you guys may feel like WT:MOS is "foreign turf", and in particular, my turf, so if there's anything you'd rather argue here, please feel free.] Maybe not entirely solved, Dev, I see three issues. The first is that we're making the style guidelines shorter all over the place, in the hopes of getting more people to actually read the damn things. There have been lots of things in style guidelines that really don't concern style; they concern policy, the interpretation of particular words, etc. So, understand that we're all in "seek and destroy" mode over there. The guidelines that are dodgiest give 10% of the benefit and are 90% of the problem of getting people to feel comfortable with the style guidelines. Second, this looks like asking for an exception to the policy at WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source to me. In a large majority of cases, over 95% I would guess, I think that policy would support consistently using the transgendered person's pronoun of choice. But Sparsity and others are asking for more than that; they're asking for blanket permission to ignore what the sources say, even to ignore what the subject themselves may have said earlier in their life, and to go with whatever they say now. I could be wrong, but that sounds like an exception to current policy to me, and if so, it's not a pronouncement that WP:MOS can make, because WP:MOS is only a guideline (and a style guideline at that, which many argue is less than a guideline). It has to be argued at WT:BLP. And then there's the third problem. I copied the first half of Renée Richards over at WT:MOS (look either place; I copied it word for word). How do you guys want to reword that? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see what's wrong with disregarding what somebody said in the past. In the past, mathematicians believed that there was no consistent theory of geometry in which parallel lines could meet, but we can still write the Non-euclidean geometry article without hurting their feelings.

"Ignoring what sources said in the past" is fine when the sources aren't accurate. If a newspaper published an article that said Jimbo Wales was born on the planet Saturn and had three noses, we would have no obligation to incorporate that into his biographical article, even if the newspaper made that claim in good faith. People make inaccurate statements about themselves, too -- again, often in good faith -- that they later take back. I might have said at one point in my life that I was a woman, but I was never one, and I'm not the only trans person who uses that kind of account of themself. To maintain a consistent standard, we have to either (a) risk denying the identity of a person who believes they have always had a single gender identity, or (b) risk denying one identity of a person who believes they have had different gender identities at different times in their life. I think it is far more preferable to go with option (b). (a) has the potential to hurt people a lot more. And I'm all for ignoring all rules when it comes to human dignity. SparsityProblem (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely get that you might have said one thing, but that you consider that wrong, because your brain is and always was male. I could easily support using the pronoun of choice in 95% of articles on transgendered people. However, there are cases where the story could get complicated; what are we going to do with Renée Richards? In these cases, IAR won't help; WP:IAR is for the sole purpose of improving the encyclopedia, not for contributing to human dignity. Policy says that WP articles should be no more and no less enlightened than reliable sources are ... although of course, we can stack the deck a bit both by defining what a reliable source is, and by choosing the sources we want for articles. I've asked around a bit for people who know everything about BLP issues; I think that's the key. We might easily solve this problem by changing WP:BLP, but to do that, we have to build a case and pay attention to the boundary cases. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

With a case like Richards, the best thing to do is to tell the story in a way that's as grounded in sources as it could possibly be. There are sources that tell us that Richards was assigned male at birth, transitioned to female, and recanted certain aspects of that choice later in her life. So we can cite them. Most trans people don't have as twisty a life story: they are assigned one sex at birth, come to identify as a different gender, and don't go back. Usually, we do not have an explicit statement from everybody along the lines of "I would like you to use male pronouns for any references to me from before 1990 and female pronouns after," and I agree we ought to be add as little as possible on top of existing reliable sources. The question is, how to we deal with the fact that the English language forces us to make a choice that, at times, cannot be supported either way by reliable sources? I think the safe bet is what I already suggested. SparsityProblem (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a clean-up wand to the Richards article to try to address this. I agree that notable accomplishments as the former gender are trickier and generally we should avoid the usage of gender-specific words when someone no longer identifies as that gender. In Richards' case, removing and rewording to mitigate her former maleness - so take out any extra he and his. Many folks who transition change their entire lives to distance themselves from what may be loosely termed a difficult period. Similar to LGB people, however, their gender identity may or may not play a significant role. I would treat similar to LGB people that we avoid putting "_____ is a lesbian actress" as the lede sentence. Instead "____ is a British actress" and put the information in the lede (or elsewhere) according to due weight. -- Banjeboi 03:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's quite simple

Let's look at some basic facts about the english language...

1) The word "transgendered" means someone who has become or who has been made transgender. Transgender is the noun, not transgendered.

2) Gender pronouns are used in accordance with the subjects gender. As such, if someone is gendered female, it's "she", and if someone is gendered male, it's "he". Transgender is a social construct that is sometimes said to be an unbrella term that includes transsexual people (there's a difference between the two terms) - however, not all transsexual people agree with the term transgender as defined by a definition that includes them - as a social construct, the term has no real authority, and as such, those that chose not to belong under the "transgender" have the right to be refered to by their preferred definitive term (ie, a term with a solid and authritative definition, such as transsexual, which comes with a medical context)

3) The term transsexual literally refers to being "across sexes". How a transsexual person defines their gender identity is indeed the correct gender for that person, and always will be.

4) The basics of the English language don't change because a wikipedia article may seem a bit more complicated than usual if it's used correctly.

All that said, there are some BLP, legal, notability and privacy issues here...

1) Unless they are particularly notable for it, the information that somebody is transsexual doesn't belong anywhere near the lead of an article.

2) A persons status as transsexual is a medical matter, and making a big deal of a persons medical history (or an element of it) without seriously good just cause can well be considered a gross invasion of privacy.

3) Referring to somebody as something other than who they are or who they last were (my deed or by pronoun) can be considered defamatory and/or libellous.

4) In some US states, and in many nations outside of the US, a transsexual person can (and may well have done so) obtain legal recognition of his or her status as a woman (Female to male) or a man (male to female). Refering to that person in any official capacity (including the athoritative nature of an encyclopedia) is therefor both illegal and discriminatory. (Transsexual is an adjective by the way, not a noun - it's only a noun in a medical context.)

5) To use the UK's Gender Recognition Act as an example, how that person is reffered to is marked in statute, and any information gained about that persons transsexual status in an official capacity (such as an editor of an encyclopedia) cannot be disclosed (it's illegal to do so). For example, The Act indicates that when referring to a person presently or in the future, the correct (current) gender pronoun should be used, including in a retrospective manner (gender history should be reinterpreted as such), though actions or events previous to recognition can not be re-interpreted... or in other words, it would be illegal to say of such a woman that "he fathered a child", but the correct and legal usage would be that "she fathered a child"... such problems can of course be overcome by the use of "she had a child", which is the relevant fact plain and simple.

6) I don't know about anywhere else on this one, but regarding the press, the editor's code of practice comittee ammended the code] to include gender (point 12). As applied to wikipedia, this would indicate that no reference should even be made to a persons transsexual status/gender reassignment/transition unless it was of significant importance to the article - and if of particular importance, it should be made properly and without prejudice (If a person wishes not to be refered to as a gender other than their own, to do so would be doing so with prejudice.)

A few things to consider I think. Crimsone (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's quite simple, part 2:

• I'll repeat: I am sympathetic to the needs of most transgendered people not to have to have this issue shoved in their face, whenever Wikipedia policy will allow us to be gentle and non-intrusive. We're not talking about whether k. d. lang gets to see her name in lowercase because she wants it that way, we're talking about fundamental human dignity, and the laws and attitudes mentioned above do reflect a growing worldwide awareness that foisting our ideas of what someone's gender is onto that person is highly intrusive, offensive, and unhelpful. On the other hand, I'm confident enough in the WPian community that I think we can respect all of the current processes and policies and get to a solution that makes everyone happy. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• User:Mike Godwin, the WMF general counsel, is available to answer all questions about what Wikipedia should do to avoid liability. IANAL (but my partner is), and Wikipedia does not give legal advice.
• There are many laws and attitudes in the world governing what Wikipedia is and isn't supposed to say. As long as Mike Godwin says we're okay, we ignore all of them, because Wikipedia is not censored. Instead, we write what the reliable sources write, with the caveat that WP:SELFPUB (the text is in both WP:V and WP:BLP) says that what people have written about themselves can be considered reliable in certain specific cases.
• The thrust of Crimsone's argument is: the world has changed, and reliable sources don't tend to be jerks any more about disputing gender identity. That solves our problem right there; we don't in general mention people in Wikipedia unless there's some mention of them in reliable sources, so just use the gender mentioned in reliable sources. If there's no mention of their gender in reliable sources, but they have mentioned their own gender in a blog, WP:SELFPUB gives us broad discretion to take their word for it.
• I think where I'm coming out on this is that portability and neutrality are the most important considerations. Information in Wikipedia gets chopped up and redistributed all over the place; a sentence that says "Mary and Larry had a child, and she later went on to..." where "she" is referring to transgender Larry, might make sense in the context of one particular article, but sentences are constantly getting yanked out and moved somewhere else in or outside of Wikipedia, in which case the sentence would make no sense at all. Concerning neutrality, saying that a girl "really was" a boy, even in cases where we're all agreed that that's appropriate thinking and not POV, comes across as POV, which means it would be a good idea to avoid implying that if possible. What would be wrong with a policy that says never to use pronouns to refer to a person during any period of their life over which there is a reasonable chance of misunderstanding their gender? That is, don't say "Walter Carlos did this, then she did this", say "Walter Carlos did this, then Carlos did this". As soon as we're talking about the part of Carlos's life where reliable sources agree that "she" is the appropriate gender, "she" would be fine. This point in time could of course come before the name change, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that we'd have to wait until surgery before calling Wendy "she"; I'm pretty sure we would all find that offensive. Other than the slight grammatical discomfort at using too many nouns, what harm would be done by this? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"The thrust of Crimsone's argument is: the world has changed, and reliable sources don't tend to be jerks any more about disputing gender identity. That solves our problem right there; we don't in general mention people in Wikipedia unless there's some mention of them in reliable sources, so just use the gender mentioned in reliable sources. If there's no mention of their gender in reliable sources, but they have mentioned their own gender in a blog, WP:SELFPUB gives us broad discretion to take their word for it."

Actually, not quite. Even if the source is reliable, if it is from or refers to a transsexual person prior to his or her "transition" any gender pronoun should be corrected to reflect the subjects gender (ie, she if male to female, or he if female to male.) It's not just common courtesy, but actually a legal issue in some places... and if a citizen where it is a legal issue is regarded as appropriate as he or she under the law of that country would take issue with the wrong pronoun, then it is the law of that country that has juridiction on whether the person concerned is he or she, even if it is the law of another country (eg, the US) under which a libel challenge would be made... ie: the US might consider whether it's libellous or not, but the nation of which the person is a citizen decides on the persons sexual identity under law. Perhaps you could point this out to Mike Godwin.

Incidentally, in most cases, unless the subject of an article is notable for something gender specific or notable for it by reknown name prior to transition, there is no reason to state that persons previous name in the article, and to do so is a further offensive intrusion into privacy... just as mentioning that somebody is transsexual is a needless and offensive (and sometimes illegal) intrusion of privacy unless they are particularly notable for that fact.

I state once again however, that not all transsexual people are transgender. There is no confusion or variance as to what their gender really is. Crimsone (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been using "transgender" because the MWOS definition of "transsexual" includes "...especially by undergoing surgery and hormone therapy". I'm leery of setting some arbritrary bar that a person has to cross for consideration here. I'll continue to use "transgender", but I know that we're largely talking about transsexuals.

Thanks for bringing up the point that in a large majority of cases, we shouldn't be mentioning the person's former name or gender ... I don't know if no one else brought that up because it's obvious, or because we're all just spacing out, but ... of course. For living persons, both because of legal liability and because of half the stuff at WP:BLP, we shouldn't mention the person's birth name unless either they're on record making this information available or there is notability in reliable sources under that name (in which case, there's certainly no liability in the U.S.; you can't be sued in the U.S. for divulging information that's easy to come by, in general). In this entire discussion, I have only been thinking about the case where we have to discuss the previous life because there's notability.

I'll point Mike Godwin to this subsection. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but there is no one solid definition, not even the MWOSdefinition. However, even wikipedia's own article on the term Transgender has this to say... "People who have transitioned, who do not necessarily identify as transgender or transsexual any longer; they identify as simply a man or a woman. Those that continue identifying as transsexual don't want to ignore their pre-transition life and may continue strong ties with other trans people and raising social consciousness"

I would argue though that someone who chooses to "raise social consciousness" isn't thus transgender either, just as a non-transsexual person who chooses to raise that same social consciousness isn't so. The fact is, not every transsexual person is transgender. One can even state that they are transsexual without identifying as transsexual - just because someone has a medical history, those medical notes are not a definition of their identity. Crimsone (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike Godwin had a look at the UK law, his response was: "If the general question is whether Wikimedia Foundation is under any constraint to adopt changes because of the United Kingdom's Gender Recognition Act, the answer is no." If there are other legal questions for Mike, please let me know so I can forward them on while this is fresh on his mind.

If anyone wants to get to work on what proposal to present at WT:BLP, that would be a good thing. My reading of the comments in this thread at WP:MOS is that we want to give you guys some time to debate things at WP:BLP and change policy, but reasonably soon, the paragraph on transgender pronouns at WP:MOS needs to go; there doesn't seem to be any support for it, and everything I've heard so far sounds like a policy issue to me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. My two cents for the best way to proceed would be simply to edit articles with BLP material where there are gender issues, and talk about the results; that would be a good way to find our own consensus, and also a good way to prove our points at WT:BLP. I picked Renée Richards as a hard example, but we could start with something easier. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

tweet tweet - everyone out of the pool

OK, we're well past TLDR here and my coffee hasn't kicked in. If there is some concise actionable items to be addressed here or some outstanding issue that you need brainstorming then great - otherwise it may may sense to move this to a particular policy page and send up a flare when consensus is needed to enact a change. -- Banjeboi 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Various gender-issue articles

How about Jan Morris, a great travel writer; any suggestions for edits to that article? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked a bit - does that help? -- Banjeboi 23:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper

The perpetual removal of any reference to Cooper's sexuality is under way again. Other opinions on the matter are appreciated. -- Banjeboi 17:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is here - all the oldie but goodies, being gay isn't notable, speculation isn't notable, we must write conservatively (about being gay), etc. -- Banjeboi 23:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

anti-porn sockpuppet

i noticed today the account: HollyHuntaway (talk · contribs) was created apparently for the sole purpose of having articles related to porn deleted. granted, some of the articles are barely worthy, but i smell a rat. --emerson7 20:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So do I. At the very least it's an SPA account and that is a red flag for potential sockpuppetry. Should be investigated. — Becksguy (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

References

I am looking for a reliable and independent source that cites a performing artist's sexual orientation. Specifically, will this [13] work? Bearian (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so. That list is clearly user-submitted content; there is no information about the site's fact-checking policies; and there are some contradictory statements in the text, like "If an artist states they are of the GLBTI community or show public support of the GLBTI community and artists they are eligible for OutVoice Top 40 inclusion." Maralia (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know....it looks just like a random persons website? We don't know who made it, or where they get information from, so I'd probably say no on reliable. CTJF83Talk 23:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You might use StoneWall Society Pride In The Arts Awards 2007 Music Art Award Vote Ballot which he links to on his website (blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=18076143). -- Banjeboi 00:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

LGBT = ????

Resolved

 – Fixed by Ctjf83 — Becksguy (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that every wikipedia page that has "LGBT" in its title have a small box at the top right that defines what that means. For example, I found myself at LGBT rights in Iran and no where could I find a definition for what those four letters stood for. Perhaps the definition of those four letters could be added to the template that is at the top right on that page. I would add it myself, but I only have a guess as to the meaning of the four letters and do not know for sure. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you for real? LOL! Zigzig20s (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Now be nice Zig...It means Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered. I don't think we should add what it means to the top, but we could link LGBT at the top of the page, to the article. CTJF83Talk 17:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a valid concern. Not everyone knows what LGBT stands for. Maybe LGBT could be wikilinked in the template? I just looked through the article and LGBT itself is not wikilinked until the 5th section. Kolindigo (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Two people wanting it (including me) is enough for me to link it! CTJF83Talk 17:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Any article that uses an acronym or initialism, be it LGBT or NASA, should spell out what that acronym or initialism stands for the first time it is used. This should be done in the text, not merely in a sidebox. Aleta ^Sing 20:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Aleta. Needs to be spelled out immediately in the introduction. Just double checked an article I worked on to make sure I was following my own guidelines. Passed that test - wheh! ZueJay (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Holly Hughes (performance artist)

I was wondering if there was a category for lesbian performance artists or which category we could use here. By the way, Holly Hughes redirects to a Republican politician - could someone create a disambiguation please?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done I moved the original page to politican, and made a disambig page Holly Hughes (disambiguation). I searched for lesbian and lgbt performance artists, and couldn't find either CTJF83Talk 18:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I do think there should be more categories. Tim Miller (performance artist) may give us some ideas.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at this [14], as he is categorised as a Gay Artist... Anyway, what's with 'Lesbian by occupation'? I think someone meant lesbian feminists, but shouldn't we just delete the category from this page? It doesn't even exist apparently.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83Talk 20:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Preparing for future discussion at WT:BLP

We've been batting some issues around at Talk:Jan Morris, talking about articles for people who have gender-transitioned. I've been reading WP:BLP and other pages to try to identify which of the many good arguments would carry the most weight in a policy discussion. I think I've got it.

The key is to take a global perspective. It's not a big deal (usually, these days) to say that someone in the U.S. is gay, or used to be a woman, or is a member of a religious or racial minority. Any of these things can be deeply embarrassing, and even life-threatening, in many Asian and African countries, and even if someone lives in the U.S. at the moment, we certainly can't guarantee that they'll never travel, and of course information in Wikipedia travels all over the world. Just identifying where someone used to live or what name they used to go by can be enough to make these connections (think of the Muslim kid who's adopted by a family in a country with religious and racial violence, or the street kid who turns tricks to survive, or ... the topic of the moment, gender transition). Unfortunately, a lot of people love to write titillating gossip, and all 4 of those things (gender, sexual behavior or perceived behavior, religion and ethnicity) are exactly the things that people tend to find titillating, including in repressive countries. WP:BLP says several times to avoid titillating details, but doesn't say what to watch out for; maybe it should. Here's the most relevant text I could find at WP:BLP:

Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth. ... From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other undesirable information from these articles as far as possible. ... When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced to good quality sources, neutral, and on-topic.

And of course, BLP also suggests strongly that if you see any BLP information that isn't specifically sourced that you think has a reasonable chance of causing a problem, instead of discussing it or asking for a cite, you should rip it out, then talk about it. Thoughts? Does this help get resolution in the current debate? We don't want to frighten people and say "OMG don't admit that, it could get you killed in 50 countries"; but we do want to have a policy that will work well no matter what the issue is, where the people live, or where they travel. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying that we should put anything in BLP talking about these dangers. I'm suggesting that we talk about this at WT:BLP as one very good reason among many to protect certain private matters when the subject desires that, especially since it's a reason that many "sheltered" editors are not aware of. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My personal reasoning is that if I know I may run of risk of getting buried alive in Afghanistan, then I won't go there. I won't just stay in the closet - or go back to it - just so I can travel to Afghanistan. It annoys me a little bit more with places like Egypt or India, where gays sometimes go even though there is a risk - one that I don't want to take. Anyway...I don't think all this is very encyclopedic.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Another place for some ongoing BLP talk page discussion related to being labeled gay is at Talk:Anderson Cooper. — Becksguy (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:800px-Samesex marriage in USA.png

Can I get some comments on the color scheme of this image, here CTJF83Talk 21:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New Category Creation

I was thinking of adding a category called Category:LGBT related television episodes, any input? I could see it possibly being a problem with people adding a few seconds of an lgbt person, or something lgbt related to the category. My thoughts are a full episode focusing on lgbt themes, such as The Simpsons episodes, "Homer's Phobia", "Three Gays of the Condo", "There's Something About Marrying" and the Family Guy episode, "You May Now Kiss the... Uh... Guy Who Receives". Thoughts? CTJF83Talk 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Add some restrictions on the category page - I would support "the episode deals significantly with LGBT issues - sexual and gender minorities or LGBT rights - or is the the episode in the series that is known to have the most coverage of these issues." This last part covers more conservative programming where LGBT issues were almost never addressed but did finally arise. I also remember an episode of The Unit which i think is pretty pro-military and mainstream that had a surprise gay reveal in the last few minutes. It was the major storyline of a romance but the found love letters was to the veteran's army buddy and not the wife. -- Banjeboi 23:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, on that note, what do you guys and girls think we should list for inclusion of this category on an episode. CTJF83Talk 23:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Banje - a good description of the category is essential in cases like this. Sounds pretty good - go for it :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so what kind of guidelines? Obviously every Queer as Folk episode doesn't need a tag, if they had a page for every episode, so let's discuss guidelines. CTJF83Talk 21:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way by which we can avoid it being flooded with just about every episode of South Park to date? Crimsone (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well we are always going to have IPs and new users adding it to episodes it doesn't need to be added to. I haven't seen any SP lately, but as far as I know the only episodes it would be on, would be, Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride, Cripple Fight, South Park Is Gay!, and Follow That Egg! CTJF83Talk 22:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention of course Mr. Garrison's Fancy New Vagina (and every subsequent episode involving Mrs Garrison), and just about every episode where Mr Garrison being gay is a feature of the episode (most of them). Cartman Sucks would be a fairly important one of course. Rationale would be "episode deals significantly with sexual and gender minorities"... which in all fairness, gay rights especially, is one of the main recurring themes of south park. I can't think off hand of another show to cite of this sort, but I wouldn't mind betting there are one or two. Crimsone (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that every episode involving Garrison automatically qualifies to be under this category. The only reason we would add it, would be if his "gayness" or being a transsexual actually plays an important role in the plot of the episode. Obviously I didn't think of this category to add to every episode with an LGBT character in it. CTJF83Talk 22:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't be "a transsexual." you can only be "a transsexual person"... it's an adjective not a noun... and indeed, the number of episodes where Mr (or Mrs) Garrison being either gay or a transsexual woman plays a significant part comprises of a fair proportion of the show. If the show makes satirical or pejorative remarks with regards to LGBT people, which happens rather often it must be said, even if they don't relate to the plot then that episode deals with a sexual minority and/or an LGBT issue and would thus warrant inclusion. The above stated restrictions say so. As such, to avoid it happening, the restrictions would need to be more, erm, restrictive. Crimsone (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I definitely opposing adding an episode because of a "satirical or pejorative remarks with regards to LGBT people". There would be far too many episodes, nearly every Family Guy and Southpark episode would be listed. I mean episodes that focus on LGBT themes for the whole episode, not just a few second remark about and LGBT issue. CTJF83Talk 22:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Coming out needs your help

Anybody care to improve Coming out? Parts of it read like a personal reflection or essay (I've just tagged it as such.) Article has also been tagged "needs additional citations for verification" since Nov 2007 (I assume over the same issues.) Thanks. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The usual suspects . . .

Nicolò Giraud Haiduc (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Alan Keyes's daughter

Would anyone mind touching up the part of Alan Keyes's article that talks about his daughter Maya, whose gay? It uses sources like WorldNetDaily. --Silvestris (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Milk at FAC has not received many responses

Hey, kids. Just to let you know: Harvey Milk is at FAC. If you think it deserves to be promoted, please respond on that FAC page. If you think something should be changed or fixed in the article, please respond on that FAC page. There have been fewer FAC reviewers lately. I am concerned that the article will go unnoticed for the most part and archived for lack of response. It will probably stay at FAC for another week. I'm going to leave similar messages at other WikiProjects. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)