Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

LGBT demonstrations category

I'm quite surprised to find that WP apparently has no category for LGBT rights demonstrations. Some LGBT articles are in Category:Civil rights protests (which I have nominated for renaming to "demonstrations"). Should that category be used for LGBT articles or should there be Category:LGBT rights demonstrations as a subcat of Category:LGBT rights and the civil rights category? Otto4711 (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a useful addition to me. I can think of more than a few examples we'd have articles on. Rebecca (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Let me know if you need help. I inter-linked all the marches on Washington sometime ago, and the category could probably use some global additions as well. Scarykitty (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• I set up Category:LGBT civil rights demonstrations so it's ready to be filled up. Otto4711 (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter

Did I miss a notice that a new Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Newsletter was being worked on? No sooner did I notice this and added content to it, was it delivered to my talk page a few minutes later by Xenobot. So how many were delivered before I added content to it and those people didn't get the content I added? My addition of content to the newsletter was at 11:51 and Xenobot's first delivery of the newsletter was at 12:06. Quite close. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 17:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say good job on the newsletter guys! twas a nice surprise. (^_^)b Siawase (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was extra bold and meant to do a whole party with music and barn dance but it ended up throwing down or not having one in time to prod for the DYK Stonewall push. And really we should have a Pride issue. I'm glad you got the IRC bit in there! -- Banjeboi 00:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Shepard

I may not be seeing this] edit objectively. It seems a bit WP:Soapboxy to me. Could someone else have a look? I removed a similar, identical?, edit from LGBT Social movements. -- Banjeboi 01:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems fairly irrelevant. What does Thomas Sowell have to do with the case? Nothing I can see, and in the article quoted, published in an online magazine, he refers to things like "the homosexual lobby's political agenda." I agree, it seems soapy. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be appropriate for a general article on hate crime legislation (in a section explaining opposition to such laws). Too peripeheral for the Shepard article: Shepard is mentioned only as a convenient example, while the thesis could apply to any victim of a bias crime. Rivertorch (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I reverted it. That particular editor has been popping up a bit lately so I wanted to see it not as being from them but only as did it heplp the article. -- Banjeboi 10:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to comment at Talk:Matthew Shepard, when I took another look at Benjiboi's comment "I asked some other people", and poked around and found this here. While Grundle is doing a lot of things I disagree with, I'm uncomfortable with how this was handled, and actually think this does belong in the Matthew Shepard article. Grundle added it to Hate crime, and was promptly reverted by Benjiboi and told to take it to Matthew Shepard. He did so, Benjiboi brought it here, where "consensus" is to remove it, based on:

• It being "WP:Soapboxy". That's a comment about the motivation of the contributor, not a comment about the appropriateness of the material.
• A comment "What does Thomas Sowell have to do with this case". Well, probably as much as Melissa Etheridge, Tori Amos, Elton John and Janis Ian, and the bands Trivium, Thursday, and Protest the Hero do, and they're all in there.
• A comment that "It might be appropriate for a general article on hate crime legislation". I assume if he took that advice, he'd be reverted and told to go back to Matthew Shepard?

So I guess my feeling is: The section is titled "public reaction". This is a public reaction by a notable commentator, which is not (unlike the morons from Westboro, who get a prominent mention in the section) a fringe opinion, and which is not mentioned elsewhere in the section. I don't understand how it is soapboxy, or inappropriate; it adds balance to the section. It also seems appropriate for Hate crime, although I have not looked at that article to see if a similar opinion from someone else is already in there, and if so, there's no reason to double up. I agree it doesn't belong in LGBT social movements, but I don't think Grundle ever tried to add it there? --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that if Matthew Shepard had been "not gay and . . . murdered for his insurance," the notoriety surrounding his murder would have died down pretty quickly. But that wasn't the case. He was murdered because of who he was—and tortured first. (How many murder-for-insurance killings involve burning the victims with lit cigarettes and tying them to fences?) Sowell's comment was completely dismissive of the motive that led to the crime, and therefore actually does seem fringy in this context. The larger point he seemed to be trying to make does have some relevance to the topic of hate crimes legislation, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose its placement in that article. (I might oppose it, especially if someone more notable than Sowell communicated the same idea more eloquently.) As for Westboro, it doesn't take pickets and epithets to be a moron. Even if it did, moron status is in no way incompatible with media attention and WP notability. Rivertorch (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not defending Sowell's POV, and I'm not saying we should include Sowell's opinion because he's right. I'm saying we should consider including it because its a public reaction to Shepard's murder, by a notable commentator, and the section is titled "Public reaction and the aftermath". And if it is, indeed, notable, we should not exclude it because we think he's wrong. We seem to agree on whether it might belong in Hate crime. If I had to choose just one, it probably would go there instead of Matthew Shepard, but I'm not sure we should just choose one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Two things, first the chain of events was Grundle, who has now been topic-banned for similar actions on political articles, added the same bit on both articles and I caught the one on hate crimes and asked for other eyes here to see if my take seemed accurate for the other. This still doesn't seem terribly notable - at all - everyone has commented on this murder et al. We're not going to go down the list and add every notable commentator/politician and celebrity's comments. Further the subject of the quote is also rather unnotable no matter who said it. It smells like propping up Sowell's POV. Take them out of it and you have an POV that is already expressed NPOV in both articles ergo unneeded and seemingly WP:Soapboxy which is exactly the concern from the beginning. -- Banjeboi 23:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a look, and my reaction was that it is not very good - I don't know who the guy is, but it has been stated better than the way it was. If it has been stated already in the article, then there's no point re-stating it poorly - if not, then it would be preferable to find a better source for this view. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that makes a lot of sense, thank you. It's the viewpoint that should probably be included, not this particular statement of it. I've heard of this guy before, and think he's probably notable, but it's a debatable point, and even if I'm right, there has to be, as you say, a "better source for this view" somewhere. I might poke around a little and see if I can find something acceptable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC announcement - Herodotus

Please drop in at Talk:Herodotus#RfC and express an opinion. 20:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

US article

The United States article (now a FAC) has unreferenced sentences on same-sex marriage:

"Same-sex marriage is contentious. Several states permit civil unions in lieu of marriage. Since 2003, four state supreme courts have ruled bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, while voters in more than a dozen states approved constitutional bans on the practice. In 2009, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire became the first states to permit same-sex marriage through legislative action."

Could anyone please help me fully reference these claims, since I know very little about LGBT studies? GeometryGirl (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the bit at United States#Culture:

“ Same-sex marriage has been legalized in six of the 50 states but remains politically divisive in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. The federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage, and is prohibited from doing so by the Defense of Marriage Act. Since 2003, four states have legalized same-sex marriage as a result of a court ruling, while three others have done so through a vote in their respective state legislatures. Concurrently voters in more than a dozen states approved constitutional bans on the practice. Several states permit civil unions in lieu of marriage. In 2009, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire became the first states to permit same-sex marriage through legislative action. ”

if that's acceptable let me know and we can add refs to support each point. -- Banjeboi 23:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this new version is very much superior. Please add refs to support each point. GeometryGirl (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"Same-sex marriage has been legalized in six of the 50 states"; "four states have legalized same-sex marriage as a result of a court ruling, while three others have done so through a vote in their respective state legislatures"; "In 2009, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire became the first states to permit same-sex marriage through legislative action." As someone not overly familiar with American legislation, these three sentences juxtaposed are a bit confusing. The first sentence mentions six states while the next sentence mentions seven (four plus three) states. And are Vermont, Maine, and New Hamshire the states that are mentioned as "three others" in the second sentence? Sorry if it seems nitpicky, but it genuinly confused me. Siawase (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree to a point but FWIW there is already edit-warring so I left a note on that talkpage that they can sort out the language and once consensus is reached I'll look to sourcing anything. -- Banjeboi 17:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks for the heads up. *tiptoes away* Siawase (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol! Yes, FAC can be tense so I see little use in sussing something out if someone is just going to revert it. Once they decide what they want I'm happy to revisit. -- Banjeboi 22:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Stonewall

To mark June 28, the day of the Stonewall riots, several articles will be appearing throughout the day on Wikipedia's main page - on the 28th and remember that days on Wikipedia begin with UTC time so see the clock above to know when it's the 28th on Wikipedia. I suggest everyone add the following articles to your watchlist for "vandalism watch"

• Stonewall riots - will be "Today's featured article" for June 28th

• One Iowa - will be a "Did you know..." entry; related articles also included in the DYK: LGBT rights by country or territory - Varnum v. Brien - Same-sex marriage
• Randy Wicker - will be a "Did you know..." entry
• William Dickey (poet) - will be a "Did you know..." entry
• Heinz Heger - will be a "Did you know..." entry; related article also included in the DYK: Pink triangle
• Stonewall Nation - will be a "Did you know..." entry; related article also included in the DYK: Gay Liberation Front
• Lisa Ben - will be a "Did you know..." entry; related articles also included in the DYK: The Ladder (magazine) - Lesbian
• Satan's Harvest Home - will be a "Did you know..." entry; related article also included in the DYK: Effeminacy
• List of pre-Stonewall LGBT actions in the United States - will be a "Did you know..." entry; related articles also included in the DYK: Gay Liberation - Barbara Gittings
• Veterans Benevolent Association - will be a "Did you know..." entry; related article also included in the DYK: Blue discharge

• Gay - will be a "On this day..." entry related to Stonewall riots
• Transgender - will be a "On this day..." entry related to Stonewall riots
• LGBT social movements - will be a "On this day..." entry related to Stonewall riots

• Tabu Homosexualität - Possible "Did you know..."; still being discussed at T:TDYK

*Veterans Benevolent Association - Possible "Did you know..."; still being discussed at T:TDYK Cleared, moved up above.

And of course many thanks to the different editors who have contributed to this process.. Otto4711 (talk · contribs), William S. Saturn (talk · contribs), Gonzonoir (talk · contribs), Offenbach (talk · contribs) - others I'm sure, if I missed you please accept my apologies and add your name to this list. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 14:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• The VBA article is a go for DYK, with included article Blue discharge. Otto4711 (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• I know it's already three hours into the day but Trans March is live and I put in a now at DYK with fingers crossed for luck. -- Banjeboi 03:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How funny is it to see Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism right under Today's featured article, Stonewall riots? Quite indeed. lol - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche's views on AIDS and gays

Pernennial US Presidential candidate is widely known for his efforts to get a universal HIV testing and quarantine law passed in California in the 1980s. The effort was seen as anti-gay and his direct statements tended to confirm that. Every history of the US gay rights movement of the 1980s includes material on Prop. 64, the "LaRouche Initiative", backed by "PANIC", ("Prevent AIDS Now Initiative Committee"), which claimed that HIV could be spread like the common cold and that carriers must be identified and isolated. While we have an article on the initiative alone, the general matter of LaRouche's views on AIDS and gays is currently covered in Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Gays and AIDS, and a major revision is at Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Gays & AIDS. I believe that the draft is much more comprehensive than the current text. Though it may not show, there are dozens and dozens of sources for this topic, both newspaper articles and books. Any expert views on this topic would be appreciated. There's a rambling discussion at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Misrepresentation in Gays and Aids section.   Will Beback  talk  09:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured list removal

I have nominated List of defense of marriage amendments to U.S. state constitutions by type for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hekerui (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Bromosexual

Anyone know if this new sub-stub is legitimate? Or is it vandalism we need to be deleting right away? LadyofShalott 04:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Rebecca (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No source for it. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my god, kill it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I redirected it to Bromance. They can duke it out there. Bromosexual is a valid but non-notable neologism apparently used in the 2008 movie Pineapple Express. -- Banjeboi 20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a search, and there is nothing out there apart from other wikis and facebook and blogs etc. While doing that, somebody changed the page into a redirect to Bromance. What is the logic behind that? Mish (just an editor) (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a few sources but really little useful enough to build a good article. What little is availabel can grow in the Bromance article. -- Banjeboi 23:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Jim McGreevey and his prison ministry

Hey guys - if anyone is interested, I blogged today about Jim McGreevey and his ministry for former prisoners. First time photos of his new life have been available. -->David Shankbone 17:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

LGBT Parenting

I welcome comments and your views on recent development in LGBT parenting and Homosexuality here on better on their respective Talk pages. I was shocked how much biased, undue-weighted and on unreliable sources relied were these articles several days ago before my edits. Thank you. --Destinero (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Quilt

Hey my dear LGBTQSACDEFHIJKMNOPRTUVWXYZ friends and family! I wanted to remind you about Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Quilt. Feel free to update yourself or add yourself. Many don't know this page exists. Now you do. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I dug up a porn boy for you since tha last one was nuked. Feel free to modify as needed, unfortunately all the fun spurting penis ones are blocked. -- Banjeboi 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed it again today. lol - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 00:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What is this? Oh dear, I feel like I have been away forever.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Internet Relay Chat (IRC)

The LGBT studies project does have its own free Internet Relay Chat channel, #wikipedia-en-lgbt ^connect, for coordination, collaboration and socializing. This channel is hosted on Freenode and can be accessed in one of two ways: If you already have an IRC client, click the link to the left. If you do not have an IRC client, you'll need to get one installed on your computer first. Once you've done this, then click on the link to the left.

For more information on IRC and a listing of other useful Wikipedia-related channels, see Wikipedia:IRC channels.

The project had at one point another channel at #LGBTproject ^connect but as the original people associated with the setting up and administration of that channel have seemed to have disappeared, I've set up this new channel. Plus the new channel is inline with required naming conventions for Wikipedia related IRC channels. So, feel free to use this channel. I'm on IRC often. Such a channel gives opportunity to discuss the latest happening on articles.. or in your life with "wiki-friends" here. You can say things on there you normally wouldn't here on Wikipedia (keeping it civil of course) like talk about the latest hot guy/girl or tell a joke.. you get the point. Anyway, see you there - eventually! - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Satryn and Dev920 both lurk a bit, not sure who else was into that - you may want to do a search for IRC in the archives here. -- Banjeboi 05:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did the search and found that Raystorm (talk · contribs) was the one that got it setup. The user hasn't been active since December 2008. I left a note at Dev920's talk a couple of days ago as well. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just given it a try. There was no one else on. How come I remember using our WP chatroom but never had to download an IRC client? I'm using the same laptop.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

cat _meow question

Category:Early campaigners for LGBT rights says the list should include people who campaigned "before the modern movement of the 20th century". Quick question - when did the modern movement began? 1956? 1969? APK is your own Personal Jesus 17:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, campaigning began in 1958, the year the Homosexual Law Reform Society and Albany Trust were established (following the Wofenden Report in 1957). The next significant movement in the UK was the Gay Liberation Front in 1971, but it did not survive beyond the 1970's, whereas the HLRS developed into the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, which is still around. The approach taken by the GLF developed into Outrage through the activism of Peter Tatchell, while the UK group Stonewall (UK) has a similar approach to CHE. From a UK perspective, the current movement developed out of what took place in 1958 and 1969. However, I would still think it appropriate to include people like A.J. Ayer and Antony Grey (HLRS & Albany Trust) as early campaigners - but not as early as Ulrichs, Edward Carpenter, Havelock Ellis, Magnus Hirschfeld, etc. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the reply. APK is your own Personal Jesus 19:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

reorganised template a bit

The numbering was messed up, which meant that legal issues was not showing up (two sets of lists numbered '5'). I re-numbered the sections, which gives us 7 groups. I found that on some articles there is already an option for rights, so I have revived this on the template. Because the last two sections will not necessarily be relevant for all articles, and because the template is getting quite long, I created two extra options to supplement the existing culture option. These are social, and prejudice, to cover social attitudes, and pejudice/violence against LGBT people as well as legal/rights and culture/community. I have updated the documentation, which explains how to use these four options:

{{LGBT |culture=yes}}
{{LGBT |rights=yes}}
{{LGBT |social=yes}}
{{LGBT |prejudice=yes}}

Added a new group academy as well:

{{LGBT |academy=yes}}

Mish (just an editor) (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Michael Chabon

I have reviewed this article as part of the GA sweeps process. The article is basically OK, but there are a number of dead links which need fixing. I have put the assessment on hold whilst these are addressed. Comments at Talk:Michael Chabon/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex...marriage? Unions? Recognition of? Naming convention

Currently some articles on the topic use the word "marriage" while others use "unions". Some include the phrase Recognition of (many of which are redirects). There are myriad other variations on the theme. Is there any interest in standardizing a naming format for these articles? Otto4711 (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but isn't legislation on naming different in some places? I mean, what it is legally called - or what you legally call it. Worth considering here, since there are countries that you can't legally call it a "marriage". - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 12:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No you can't do that. For example, in the UK, the law was formulated in a way to ensure that same-sex marriage would not exist - to the extent that trans people who sought gender recognition certificates had to get divorced before they could be registered to ensure that once legally recognised in their reassigned sex/gender they would not then be in a same-sex marriage. Once the certificate was granted, they could then apply for a civil partnership with their former spouse. This was managed through a fast-track system where all three could take place in sequence on the same day, thus ensuring no benefits accruing from the marriage were lost in the transition to partnership. The partnership was specifically designed for gay and lesbian people to ensure that benefits and protections taken for granted by married couples were also available to gay and lesbian people, as it was seen as discriminatory not to, and applies to pensions, inheritance, insurance, adoption and custody, etc. What it does not mean is marriage, it is the partnership that is recognised, and the sexual orientation is only of issue because such partnerships are not available to heterosexuals, who already have the option of civil marriage. There was some discussion that this discriminated against heterosexuals, but that fizzled out. There were reports of people entering into civil partnership who were of the same sex, but not gay or lesbian, because they saw potential financial benefits from this. Again, these seem to have fizzled out.

So, as I understand it, in the USA, you have some places that recognise same-sex marriages, and others that recognise civil unions, while here we have civil-partnerships. I tend to use the latter terms (when perhaps I shouldn't - e.g. in the USA), as this is the term that applies in the UK, legally. I'd suggest that people need to be clear what they are describing, and have this reflect the circumstances in the context. This would be clarified by the sources. If the discussion is about what is established legally, it should reflect that usage, but if it is about discussion on ...XXX... then, the term used in the source cited would be most appropriate. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No article calls a civil partnership or other registered partnership a "marriage", and articles with titles such as "Same-sex marriage in X" do not imply that. The title should accurately describe the scope of the article. For example, Same-sex marriage in New York exists even though New York did not legalize same-sex marriage. Why? Because it's a point of public debate, it is a top legislative priority for the leading party, and New York already recognizes same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Similarly, Recognition of same-sex unions in New Jersey is the title for New Jersey because New Jersey had not one but TWO schemes, domestic partnerships, and then civil unions when a court found that the former scheme was inadequate for equal protections. Under the current scheme, it would be inappropriate for, say, Pacte civil de solidarité to cover same-sex marriage in France.

But there are myriad advantages to standardization. Users can type "same-sex marriage in X" or "Recognition of same-sex unions X" to find the situation in a jurisdiction, and under a sufficiently broad title, they can get information about all legislative and societal action on same-sex unions, not just a specific scheme like Pacte civil de solidarité or Civil Partnerships. I support standardization in the form that new articles have been standardized defacto, and the reform of the old British and French articles to support that standard. Niew (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality just legalized in India.

Homosexuality in India will be needing a huge facelift now. Zazaban (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality was not just legalized in India. The relevant ruling from the Delhi High Court is only binding in the metropolis of Delhi. Plus, their ruling could be overruled by the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the government, which has an opaque position, must repeal the law for it to apply everywhere else.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niew (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia at The Hardy Boys

There's a massive amount of homophobia going on at Talk:The Hardy Boys - the article has been purged of all sources that discuss the issue b/c homophobe-editors say the issue is "fringe". Any help would be appreciated! Ricardiana (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur, there does seem to be a scrubbing of "uncomfortable material" aka "the gay stuff" out of the lede altogether and mitigated in the main text. I suggest contacting Moni3 and the cabal at WP:GA on this. An RfC will likely be an elongated re-hashing of WP:IDon'tLikeIt when instead we need to lean on where reliable sources lead. -- Banjeboi 18:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I will contact Moni3 and I'll see about contacting WP:GA as well. I can't believe the homophobia here.... Ricardiana (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Andrea Dworkin

I have reassessed this article and found issues with the referencing which need to be addressed if the article is to retain GA status. The reassessment comments are at Talk:Andrea Dworkin/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality or LGBT issues?

I noticed that our articles on religions are not consistantly named. This is by itself not a problem, (but is annoying), but in considering the recent post here about ignoring trangender issues, i wanted to suggest that we rename them all to something more inclusive.

We have LGBT issues and Hinduism, but Homosexuality and Islam. AFAICT, this leaves no place for me to add a lot of information on the topic i am currently researching (LGBT themes in mythology).

I think in every religion and culture, trans and bi issues are far too interlinked with gay issues for us to have separate articles (with possible exception of very long articles that need splitting). So should we rename these article to "LGBT issues in xxxx", or should i start creating stubs for "Transgender issues and xxx"? (and "Bisexuality and xxx"?).

As this will affect a large number of articles (and tempates), i would prefer a strong consensus before going ahead, to avoid WP:Drama. Thanks!YobMod 14:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Send all to LGBT issues and ___ please. I'll help. -- Banjeboi 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, including religion and homosexuality. LBGT issues and religion?

Also support move to "LGBT issues and...". Gonzonoir (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We might be jumping the gun here... Religion and homosexuality actually already has a transgender counterpart (Religious views on transgender people), though it hasn't been very visible & should be added to {{LGBT}} alongside the homosexuality/religion article. Though the individual "(specific religion) and homosexuality" articles do not have transgender counterparts, maybe they could just be expanded on in the sections within Religious views on transgender people instead of refactoring existing the established homosexuality articles to include transgender. This would let the "homosexuality and..." articles keep the focus on homosexuality (the main reason people would be going to those articles), and let transgender develop in 1 main article (with spin-offs if necessary). Wikignome0529 (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

But every "homosexuality and ..." article also covers bisexuality by implication (even if only denying it to exist). Should we be marginalising Bi issues? We could make articles for that too, but almost all the opinions on homosexuality apply to bisexuality also, which seems redundant. Having major articles on each (so keeping homosexuality and religion) may be warranted, as there will be lots to say even in summary, but gaving 3 articles for each religion seems a lot (or 4? Lebians are often not treated the same in religious traditions either).YobMod 18:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The titles should reflect the contents of the articles. I have not liked the "homosexuality and..." titles for the specific reason that they exclude bisxuality, and sometimes even transgender when that is included in the article contents. For example Homosexuality and Unitarian Universalism is a renamed version of what had been called, IIRC, Unitarian Universalism and LGBTQ persons. It was renamed for the sake of consistency, but ignores some of the article content. [Note that I am explicitly opposed to ignoring bisexuality in terms of titles or contents.] LadyofShalott 18:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The religious views on transgender people could be incorporated into LGBT issues and religion - this would make sense, but it needs to be discussed with editors of the trans page to establish how they feel about this. There would be some sense in this, as the Catholic church (for example) is now reframing trans along the lines laid out by Blanchard and Bailey - that it is in different individuals either a form of homosexuality or paraphilia which is embodied and facilitated through surgery and hormones. That means that, increasingly, Christian critiques of trans rely on the critique of homosexuality. Bisexuality is not well treated anywhere, so I'm not surprised this is reflected in articles not specific to that issue - it needs somebody who is interested to address that, and find whatever sources are available to do so. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not too fussed either way here. What you've said here is pretty sensible; at the same time, a religion like Islam (or at least some parts of it) treats trans people and gay and lesbian people drastically differently, which might warrant the seperate articles. Either is fine by me. Rebecca (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Me neither. Individual religions could be dealt with as LGBT, generally, Religion and homosexuality already hives off to individual religions, so there is no reason why we couldn't have this as Religion and LGBT which hives off to more detailed articles on Religion and trans and Religion and homosexuality as well. That way, if necessary, trans and homosexuality could each be dealt with in more detail through general articles, in a way that would not be necessary for articles of each religion? Perhaps the way to facilitate this would be to create this as a new article 'LGBT in relation to religion', and draw from the 'religion and homosexuality' and 'trans' articles, establishing the links to individual religions in LGBT, then tackle consistency in the individual religions one-by-one (starting from the bottom of those listed on the current homosexuality - as these are smaller - and working up to the larger ones at the top)? Whoever feels moved to do that...Mish (just an editor) (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality and seems like should be deprecated in most cases; with "Religious views on transgender people" the counterpart would be "Religious views on LGB people" with links to Religious views on transgender people prominently shown, perhaps even a hatnote. -- Banjeboi 03:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Leaving the T off has its own problems, but I agree, that if trans is to be dealt with independently, then there needs to be a way of dealing with LGB people without using 'homosexuality'. Could this be dealt with as 'lesbian and gay' people? In religious terms, bisexuality would be approached with differently, although I'm not aware of much discussion about this. In the context of long-term committed relationship, bisexuals would either be in a heterosexual or a gay/lesbian relationship, and thus covered anyway - where people engage in more than one (or casual) relationship(s), this would correspond to religion and monogamy/promiscuity and/or homosexuality. But, without specific sources we cannot say much anyway because it would be WP:OR. Having a top-level article LGBT in relation to religion, allows for inclusion of B in that article in a non-problematic way; this could then link to LGBT and individual religions, as well as Lesbian and gay people and religion and Transgender people and religion. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's not a bad solution. I dare say it'll probably suffice to cover the issue in most cases; Islam might be the only one that winds up needing a separate trans sub-article, if that. Rebecca (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Let's keep the full 'LGBT' tag, and add more info on all actors of our community as much as we can. We need to be united.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there for discussion, but from a lay perspective, how many people outside of the LGBT community will have any clue as to what LGBT stands for? If I were scrolling through a list of articles and stumbled accross "LGBT issues in Hinduism" I would have zero idea of what the article is about. Acronymns are only useful insofar as they have context. On this page, it has context. In the broader world, it has some context, but that context is not ever present. I mean, this may be aging me some, but I remember when GLBT was the first introduced at my college. *I* would associate GLBT with the subject quicker than I would LGBT. I mean LGBT looks like a Myers-Briggs personality type ;-) In short, as a person who won't think first of the LGBT community, I don't like the use of it in article names.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• note: We could also say same-gender sex and (insert religion here) and gender identity and (insert religion here). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 14:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Balloonman. This is not a problem, we can have redirects from GLBT and religion to LGBT and religion, as well as others like homosexuality and religion if we want to. As long as it get you where you want to go... Mish (just an editor) (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

men screwing men and religion would be more palatable than same-gender sex and religion, TBH. GI & religion is pretty problematic, because it is a concept that is also used in feminism, then some gay & lesbian people can have GO issues as much as trans peple, and in relation to GID it has certain pathological overtones, on top of which it is not the GI that is at issue in religion, but what people do about their GI.Mish (just an editor) (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

How about Queers and religion? That should give people a clue what its about.Mish (just an editor) (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Could we have "LGBT and..." as the article titles, and a full set of "Homosexuality and..." "Trans and..." "Bisexuality and..." and "Lesbianism and..." etc. redirects for each article? Then article editors can type in whatever seems most comprehensible and context-appropriate to them. Confused readers happening upon "LGBT and..." can just, y'know, click on it to find out what it means :) Gonzonoir (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As this is an encyclopedia, I truly believe we should keep using LGBT. It is the most standard/neutral/mainstream term we have. Even Obama's speechwriters use it.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an easy alternative, just wanted to point out that without context, many of the people who see it won't know what it references. As for Obama's speechwriters...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but people get along with our article on Hemiptera when the word that's familiar to them is bugs... Let's just supply a full complement of redirects, so article creators and editors can supply whatever seems intuitive enough in context. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being a bit facetious in the beginning of my last response. I agree, LGBT and... makes sense, with some separate articles for sub-sections that would be too long (like trans, gay, lesbian, and religion-specific topics) and redirects for commonly used terms, which will guide the lost, feed the curious, and stop people starting up their own versions independently. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Balloonman you are correct but the zinger is provided by yourself - without context - the lede of all wonky titles articles should provide exactly that context and spell out what LGBT is like "lesbian gay bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people". For the religion article it may make sense to move it to Religious views on LGBT people, add a section using the lede from Religious views on transgender people article and add a section how bisexual people are fabulous and are never a concern; and lesbians don't have sex so they too don't count. I may be wrong on a few points though ... -- Banjeboi 00:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Damn, and there was me thinking I was bisexual - I guess I must be a lesbian. I can hear my partner now ('I told you so!')...Mish (just an editor) (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

They're everywhere - watching you - while you sleep. -- Banjeboi 12:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Jumping into this discussion late - yes, definitely we should rename all the religion-specific articles to "LGBT issues and _". I tried to get that done a while ago, but it never happened... I'm neutral on whether we rename Religion and homosexuality. My one concern is that if Religious views on transgender people gets merged into there, the LGB content will overwhelm and crowd out the trans content. I wouldn't be opposed, though, to having a Religious views on LGBT people that links to both of the slightly-more-specific articles as well as to the religion-specific articles. --Alynna (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting wouldn't merge the Religious views on transgender people into a larger LGBT article, it would create a parent LGBT article out of Religion and homosexuality where the transgender one would have a summary section pointing to the larger article and also contextualize bisexual issues to the topic. -- Banjeboi 12:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So, i made a small start on this, renaming the religion articles that already mention trans issues. The plan is:

1) Rename the less developed articles to "LGBT issues and...." (this is the majority), defining LGBT in the lead.

2) Leave the largest, most developed articles where they are and create a new parent article at "LGBT issues...." (possibly this only applies to Christianity, due to it having multiple sub-articles)

3) Create an LGBT issues and religion article, with sections for L G B and T (using the leads from Homosexuality and religion and Religious views on transgender people)

4) Create many redirects for "GLBT issues" and other likely search terms.

5)Update the navbox.

Sounds good. --Alynna (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Template:Religion and LGBT issues is titled 'Religion and LGBT issues', can we re-title it 'LGBT issues and Religion'? Mish (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"LGBT issues and..." too vague?

If consensus is for this particular naming scheme, not going to make a big deal, but am I the only one that thinks the "LGBT issues and _____" naming scheme is kind of off/could use refinement? The articles are mainly about individual religions' views--historical and contemporary--on LGBT (sin/not sin, LGBT people being included/excluded and in which roles, etc.). These are mainly historical/theological articles--but "LGBT issues" makes it sound more like a political article. Wouldn't something like "Religionname views on LGBT" gives readers a better idea of the articles' focus? Wikignome0529 (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Either is fine by me. I only used "LGBT issues and ..." because Hinduism and Wicca were already at those titles.YobMod 09:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really, LGBT is the main focus on the article, not the religion itself, only the religion's views on LGBT (only minimal reference to heterosexuality as being the only 'correct' sexuality, for example). The religious views are political - people argue (for instance) that their religious views are justified because of the religious history. The views are about LGBT, so the only reason the articles exist is because it is about LGBT people - LGBT is treated as sin, crime, mental disorder, or non-problematic from a religious perspective - religion is not treated as a sin, crime, mental disorder, or non-problematic from an LGBT perspective. LGBT is the dominant theme across all these articles - and only those aspects of religions that are believed to relate to LGBT. Mish (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed a problem. LGBT is not a noun, so "Religionname views on LGBT" sounds ungrammatical. If it would need to be "Religionname views on LGBT people and behaviours" or somesuch, i think it is too long.YobMod 11:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How about just 'LGBT and religion', 'LGBT and Christianity', 'LGBT and Islam', LGBT and Judaism', LGBT and Buddhism', 'LGBT and Hinduism', 'LGBT and the Church of Latter Day Saints', 'LGBT and Jehovah's Witnesses', 'LGBT and Scientology', 'LGBT and the Hare Krishna Movement', 'LGBT and paganism', 'LGBT and Ba'hai', 'LGBT and satanism', 'LGBT and New Age religion', 'LGBT and shamanism', 'LGBT and Sikhism', 'LGBT and Parsi', 'LGBT and Jainism', 'LGBT and tribal religions', and so on. Mish (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That would also seem ungrammatical but I don't have an elegant solution to offer instead. Maybe quiz Moni3's talkpage? She has a bunch of language geeks and lurkers who may be able to offer insight. -- Banjeboi 01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Romaine Brooks GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Romaine Brooks for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found an image issue, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. The issue should not be too difficult to address. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge Monosexism?

This is a very short stub that may be better to grow as a section in Bisexual erasure, I think a merge would be appropriate here - any thoughts? -- Banjeboi 12:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How many reliable sources can you find for that word? It sounds like a neologism. Of the two sources in the article, one explains it as it is mentioned, and another mentions the term as something 'bisexual activists coined'—in passing. Niew (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Would't that support merging? Anyway there certainly are reliable sources and a good article can be built, I just see the current paragraph as being a good subsection in Bisexual erasure until someone opts to to expand it. -- Banjeboi 01:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging to a section in bisexual erasure and/or monosexual sounds good. I think this is a neologism that is only ever used in context of comparison with bisexuality, and cannot currently stand on its own as an article.YobMod 09:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I merged to Biphobia, as they seem to be very similar if not identical.YobMod 13:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

New Egalitarian same-sex relationships in classical antiquity article

In response to a couple of interesting finds by another editor of Macedonian relationships between adolescent boys I have created this new article and would like to invite contributions. As this is not a mere list, a little background for each couple would be ideal, a couple of sentences or a paragraph or two would be ok. Thanks, Haiduc (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Exploring possibility of converting LGBT footer to collapsible sections...

This would make the {{LGBT}} footer show all sections by default (instead of having to be manually switched on with |rights=yes, culture=yes, etc.), but would be a drastic change in the navbox's existing appearance/format. Project member opinions invited @ Template talk:LGBT#converting to collapsible navbox. thx, Wikignome0529 (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a mock-up by chance? -- Banjeboi 18:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The sandbox version is located at User:Wikignome0529/Sandbox1 (feel free to tweak, example transclusion appears below)Template:LGBT/Sandbox. By default, the navbox has all sections collapsed, but individual or mutiple sections can be set to expand to section(s) relevent to the article it appears on. For example, if it appears on an LGBT rights article, {{LGBT|rights=expanded}} would auto-open the rights section for readers. (example with "|rights=expanded" below) Wikignome0529 (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this, but we need to get the centering figured out properly, so that the heading, groups and footer are all aligned. One way of doing this would be to have another image of the same dimensions (such as the existing Flag) on both sides of the box, left and right. Mish (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Another possible way to deal with it would be remove the side graphics completely (the rainbow flag could be replaced with something like in the title bar) Wikignome0529 (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thnk you for working on this; I would get rid of the left side flag altogether and centering is not that big of an issue. -- Banjeboi 12:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have commented out the LHS flag, and I have to say I think you are wrong. The mis-alignment looks poor. Mish (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well these are aesthetical and formatting issues. For instance I think it should be tweaked so that if a section is expanded the section title - in this case LGBT Rights · Legal issues - would be left justified with the list on the right. Regardless two flags is unhelpful. Also I'm concerned about what seems to be weighting of article's importance relative to each other. I think I preferred alphabetical order. -- Banjeboi 14:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Within the groups, they are alpha sorted, the way the groups themselves are sorted is historic (Group 1 being first, Group 8 being last) - this probably works, but it could be reordered (hopefully Wikignome doesn't mind me fiddling with the template in his sandbox). The left justify thing would be OK, except the group title and the group list don't left justify in alignment - which looks odd. I'll play with it. Mish (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Couple weren't - I've redone as alphasort for both titles and groups. Mish (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind @ all, tweaking is welcomed to help come to a version everyone likes. I made a couple of changes to try out the flag icon solution: Removed right-hand flag photo, replaced with flag icon in title bar (and restored align=center to headers since centering is no longer a problem) . However, this makes the template look kinda of barren (not having a RH graphic), so I added the flag photo back to group6 as an example (each group could have a topical graphic, which would help break up the text-only appearance of the template). Wikignome0529 (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It looked better the way I done it after Benji made the suggestion of left justifying the group detail, and right justifying the group title, and leaving the full flag on the RHS. It looks a bit odd, but it looks better than wonky centering, and with either two or zero flags. Dat's wot oi tink, anywayz. Mish (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, I misunderstood Benji's suggestion when I first read it (though it was referring to only left-aligning auto-opened sections). I restored the former version, but is there a way to do this without right-aligning the headers? Either left-aligning (even though it indents them & does not match the left-aligned group contents), or center-aligning (even though it does not center-align with the navbox title bar) Wikignome0529 (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Try it now - both left justified. Mish (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we have to have 'unlabelled sexuality' in Sexuality - not sure neologisms are appropriate in the navbox. Also, Bisexuality is in Sexual identies and Sexual Orientation - do we need to duplicate items in different sections?Mish (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice, big improvement -- as far as Bi goes, I'd list that in both since it is both an identity & an orientation? No opinion as far as unlabeled goes - support having this as a topic (people who don't ID by an orientation), but article has not developed much since AfD. btw, moved the sandbox out of user namespace to Template:LGBT/Sandbox. Wikignome0529 (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed Unlabelled. I guess as 'Homosexuality' is there, Bisexuality should be there in that context, as it is an orientation, unlike gay and lesbian. This section seems to cover medical/psychological approaches - if we pinned that down more, then intersexuality and trans would fit in there as well. Wondering whether the section should be split into 'Sexual orientation' + LGBT issues in biology/medicine/psychology'? or relabel section 'LGBT issues in biology/medicine/psychology and Sexual Orientation'. Just thinking, because issues around Intersex are as much to do with medical approaches as identity (fewer intersex people identify specifically as intersex rather than LGBT or Q, while more probably identify simply as heterosexual men and women) Mish (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Ok I have more challenges; under, likely all, sections I think it would help clarify with further subsections of some sort. "History" I think it would be helpful to have main overarching history and then clarify insome way that Holocaust was 1942, ergo a chapter in the big picture. "Community · Culture" could subdivide to show which are which, etc. If I figure out who has the templates, maybe the Milhist project?, that does all the wonky layout I tried to describe I'll post a link. -- Banjeboi 01:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why 1942, and not 1938-1944? Or why not just call it 'Homocaust'? Mish (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Separated out history into two lines: general history/timeline, and specific items - not sure how to split list between community and culture, as it all looks like culture to me (do we need 'community' part of heading?). Mish (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I added in {{Navbox subgroup}} to 3 sections (Rights, History, Sexual orientation) per above suggestion...also commented out the liststyle because it was causing the subgroup headings to be indented also (though if the subgroup template is added to all sections, then the indenting might not be needed at all?). I was able to force the centered title bar to align w/ the underlying centered sections using an invisible gif method, which worked in Opera (@ 1024x768), but did not work in Firefox (and may not work at all in resolutions higher than 1024x768). it does appear to work on the bottom bar (Category/Portal) though, at least @ 1024x768 (Opera & Firefox). The subgroups could use some playing around with, but they are now in the template for refining or scrapping.. Also, tried out merged "sexual identities" with "sexual orientation" section, making the former Gender/sexual identities a section for Gender identity/expression/transgender topics (a section which did not exist before). Feel free to revert/revise any of the edits.. once we iron down the basics (formatting issues, main topics) and have a presentable initial version, maybe we could go ahead and !vote on implementation and then move further discussion of inclusion/exclusion of specific content to Template talk:LGBT? Wikignome0529 (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am using SeaMonkey on ubuntu at 75%, and it looks OK. I can test it out in different resolutions & on firefox on ubuntu & vista, icemonkey on debian, and explorer on vista - but doubt I'll get time before Wednesday. I reverted the segregation of identities for pragmatic reasons - intersex will not fit anywhere when separating out sexual orientation and gender/sexual identities (it is neither a sexual nor a gender identity) - but by separating sexual identity and gender identity and adding a third sub-group for non-heterosexual identities, this allows for the placement of intersex there. It also means that queer, two spirit and third-sex/gender can go there as well. Two-spirit has elements of gender and sexual identity, and third-sex was originally formulated by Carpenter as a gay identity, but has become increasingly associated as third-gender - queer does not belong in gender identities by any stroke of the imagination, but neither can it be contained within sexual identities alone. This still leaves room for homosexuality and bisexuality as distinct sexual orientations - and possibly 'inversion' and 'contrary sexual feeling' ought to be in there as well? Mish (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's really shaping up nicely IMHO, I think "Prejudice · Violence" should be folded into "Social attitudes"; possibly renamed, and then sub-divided like some of the other sections. -- Banjeboi 01:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This is so cool...Mish (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

merged sections per above suggestion, tested @ higher resolution than 1024x768 & the gif still works. In the top, it has no effect in Firefox at all at any resolution. Wikignome0529 (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Deju vu?

• Lionelt (talk · contribs) seems to have a persistant soapbox and is quite the experienced editor for only having a few hundred edits. I sense a similar agenda that we saw from Ejnogarb (talk · contribs) but it could be someone else altogether. Anyone known where the tool to compare two users' contributions is? -- Banjeboi 01:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing since I've ran into him at American Family Association trying to whitewash that article. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 07:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Category Homophobic violence proposed renaming

In case this is of any interest:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_9

Suggestion is homophobia is a problem - NPOV - so this now seems part of a process of eliminating the term from article and category titles. Mish (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If "The Wizard of Oz" does have gay referrences ------

This is a reply to the following:

Homosexual significance of Oz? (Cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies)

I've just read Gregory Maguire's introduction to A Wonderful Welcome to Oz, a compendium of three of Baum's Oz novels. In it, he says in passing (while talking about the gender change of the boy Tip to the girl Ozma), "...nor do I interest myself, here, in the reasons why Oz has become a metaphor for the safe and welcoming home for which gay men have long longed." This made me wonder whether there are sources which have discussed the significance of Oz for gay men in the 20th century. It's certainly entered the language — we all know what a "friend of Dorothy" signifies — but I've never seen an explanation of why Oz is so commonly connected with gay culture. (It probably has something to do with Judy Garland.) Now, obviously we can't engage in original research on this subject; so I was wondering whether there are reliable sources which have addressed this connection, and if so, what articles could or should incorporate mention of this appropriation. If Batman can sustain an entire section on Batman#Homosexual interpretations, surely there's some Oz article which has room for "the gay". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oz#Homosexual_significance_of_Oz.3F

In the above, Mr. Rowe states the following:

I've never seen an explanation of why Oz is so commonly connected with gay culture. (It probably has something to do with Judy Garland.)

Ah, Mr. Rowe, Judy Garland could very well be the reason for it. In a biography of her, titled " Get Happy, the Life of Judy Garland" written by Gerald Clark, published in 2000, it is revealed for the first time to the general public that Mr. Frank Garland, father of Judy, was homosexual (his preference was young boys) as was her second husband, director Vincent Minelli. Also, we're told that Liza's mate, Peter Allen (who's tale was told in the Broadway play, "The Boy From Oz") was a gay one also. And, another possible explanation can be found at the friendsofDorothy site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend_of_Dorothy

where one will discover the following:

Most commonly "friend of Dorothy" has been linked to the film The Wizard of Oz because Judy Garland, who starred as the main character Dorothy, is a gay icon. In the film, Dorothy is accepting of those who are different. For example the "gentle lion" living a lie, "I'm afraid there's no denyin', I'm just a dandy lion."[4][5]

Folks, that's all I have to say about this for now. Before I go, just remember that August 15th is the 70th anniversary of the MGM classic film, "The Wizard of Oz." I and my dad and brother will be watching the special three DVD edition of it, which came out on October 25, 2005. This edition has MANY extras, including several silent versions of the story.

Bc1100 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Bc1100 (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If Frank Garland had a preference for young boys, then that would have made him a paedophile, not a homosexual. Do you mean young boys or young men? Homosexuality refers to a sexual orientation, while paedophilia is a diagnosable sex disorder, and whether directed towards males or females is not related to homosexuality, which is not a sex disorder. Mish (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that discuss this. One i have says:

"Film of 1939 delighting children, those young at heart, and queer-identified persons, especially gay men, for generations. The film stars Judy Garland, a gay icon.... A number of gay anaylses of the film, most notably that by Jungian writer Robert Hopcke that while this sentimental film is appreciated by many individuals, it holds a special resonance for queer-identified persons in juxtaposing everyday reality, ie homophobic, lesbophobic, biphobic, and transgenderphobic reality, represented by Kansas, to a magical land of acceptance....Queer-identified persons discover kinship in a majority of the characters [description of charaacters and why they are identified with]....When the film is shown in a theatre, like the Castro theatre in SF, it is transformed into a rite celebrating acceptance and community. "

Also (another source):

"In recent years,queer people have begun reading texts as queer even when messages were not (consciously) encrypted by their authors. This kind of "cross-reading", according to Creekmur and Doty, in their introduction to Out in Culture, depends on camp. They eyplained the queer resonance that the movie The Wizard of Oz has for gay men and lesbians by pointing out that almost everyone in thefilm lives a double life: "It's emotionally confused and oppressed teenage heroine longs for a world in which her inner desires can be expressed freely and fully. Dorothy finds this world in a technocolor land 'over the rainbow' inhabitied by a sissy lion, an artifical man who cannot stop crying, and a butch femme-couple of witches".

I've put these on the talk page for now. If no-one else gets to it, it write it up as a section on monday (no time now - job interview!)YobMod 06:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)