Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Sexology and sexuality (Discussion page). (2004 - 2006) - Please Do not edit!

Homosexual, Heterosexual, Bisexual, Nonheterosexual, and Sexual

Should there be an articles on Sexual X, Homosexual X, Bisexual X, Heterosexual X, and Nonheterosexual X? Disregarding, for the moment, the debate as to whether Homosexual X should be Gay X, Gay sexual X, or Same-gender sexual X, instead see: Terminology.

• Articles on Sexual X adequately deal with both Heterosexual X and Homosexual X.
• Except that articles on Sexual X are often simply articles on Heterosexual X, so Homosexual X provides the rest of the story of Sexual X.
• However, its POV and inaccurate to say X is only Heterosexual X, and Homosexual X does not cover the entire rest of the story of Sexual X as anything outside of the hetero vs homo dichotomy is unwritten (Bisexual X etc).
• But the articles on Sexual X, Heterosexual X, and Homosexual X often contain redundant information that could more concisely be covered at what may be a stub Sexual X

Proposals

Wikipedia should not have any articles titled Homosexual X, Heterosexual X or their variants

All applicable content may be added to Sexual X.

Wikipedia should include articles title Homosexual X, Heterosexual X, and Sexual X or their appropriate variants

Homosexual X and Heterosexual X complement each other and anything not covered (and possibly applicable to both) may be added to Sexual X. If both Homosexual X and Heterosexual X are brief, their content may be merged into Sexual X until such day as the content requires them to be split.

• Aye. Hyacinth 11:11, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Agreed (providing that bisexual is also a cat., see talk for more) Lestatdelc 15:15, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Agreed, provided this is for articles that are particularly or specifically or exlusively about homosexual, er, X. Gay bathhouse, for example, is an appropriate title because the content is specific to gay bathhouses, which are very different from non-gay ones. Homosexual sex, on the other hand, is just silly because the most it can ever be is a list or a repetition of the inevitable articles on all forms of non-homosexual sex. Exploding Boy 15:22, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment I concur, that was basically what I was saying in the talk entry about this, that bisexual should also be a category as well, but all such entries for any of these categories should be carefully used (as well as the terminology) within well considered contextual usage so as to not be inaccurately exclusionary by using the wrong term. Lestatdelc 15:45, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems that you are disagreeing, or it may be you're obsessing over a very specific example. See talk. Hyacinth 19:49, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Agreed. -Seth Mahoney 19:24, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Belatedly agreed, especially with what User:Exploding Boy wrote. — OwenBlacker 00:07, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Although it's difficult for me at least to see where heterosexual X would frequently occur as a separate category from X, I can certainly see the benefit of having separate discussions & articles on Gay, Bi, Les, Trans, & the rest of the rainbow. - Jowfair 6 August 2005

---

Any such schema proposed above has to take into account bisexuals and bisexuality. Both as behavior, and sexual identity. Rather late at the moment, so will have to think on this before more formed commentary can be made. Lestatdelc 04:48, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

I would suggest that the proposals also include the bisexual and the contextual usage of "non-heterosexual" when referring to both homosexual (male and female) and bisexual criterion. Lestatdelc 15:26, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

I realize this discussion and the proposals are biased themselves, but I'm not sure how to discuss choosing terms without reference to what they refer to, and to mention that one must choose a term...Hyacinth 19:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

User:Exploding Boy, can you give examples of Homosexual X, unlike Gay sex, that you would be okay with? Hyacinth 19:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Gay bathhouse, Gay pride parade, Gay nightclub, among others. Exploding Boy 22:22, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

---

Regarding terms like Homosexual X and Heterosexual X: Most of the time you seem to be thinking about Gay X and Lesbian X, which is no problem from the point of view I wanted to point out - however, the words homosexual and heterosexual are a bit of a problem when it comes to transgendered people. The moment a transgender person consideres themselves not just "male" or "female", which many do, most other people become "hetero-". Which means that a transman who is in a relationship with a cisgendered man will be in a gay, heterosexual relationship.
I just wanted to mention it now, while not much is being written, will probably save me changing pages later ;-)
Your project seems to be a good idea, BTW, if I weren't so busy on the German WP, I'd probably join. -- AlexR 15:11, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I added the context bar because reading down the main page, it was all in shorthand and jargon. If it's perfectly comprehensible to everyone else, that's great, but aside from clicking over to this discussion, I couldn't understand what issues were under discussion, how they were to be dealt with, etc. - Jowfair

Work in Progress: Guidelines for images in Sexology and Sexuality articles

Here for discussion

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Rett syndrome relevance

Why are Rett syndrome and penetrance on this project page? 203.34.41.43 04:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:BDSM submissives

Apologies for a few cross-posts here, it is hard to guess just where this should go.

Category:BDSM submissives Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_24#.5B.5B:Category:BDSM_submissives.5D.5D is currently being discussed for possible deletion because it contains only one article (Bob Flanagan). This drew my attention to several other BDSM-related categories, at least one of which is, well, weirdly populated. Copying some remarks (mine) from the discussion in question:

It is remarkable that this category is so empty when (I just checked, following a guess) Category:Dominatrices has 12 entries and Category:Bondage models has a whopping 76. [Warning, slightly tasteless humor follows.] Just goes to show what the nerdboys writing articles in this subject area are into, I guess. And at a quick look, 100% of the bondage models listed are female. Don't we have any gay nerdboys into leather here at the 'pedia? Practically worthy of WP:CSB.

Anyway, can someone help populate Category:BDSM submissives rather than delete it? And is anyone writing about male bondage models? - Jmabel | Talk 18:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:WP_Sex

Any comments on renaming Template:WP_Sex to "Template:WP Sexuality" or similar? I have not gotten any replies on its talk page. --Strait 22:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds okay to me. I didn't do it when I migrated the other stuff as it looked like a big pain in the rear to do that. Do you think it is necessary? Atom 22:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would help clarify what the project is. There's a big difference between a project that deals with "sex" and one that deals with "sexuality and sexology". I think that it's very tempting right now to start adding this template to pages like Ploidy and Ovipore, which is not what is intended (right?). The big pain in the rear would be to go around to all pages which have the template already and update the template's name. I can do this. Are there anyother complications? --Strait 23:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Updating the articles that have a link would probably be the biggest thing. Fifty pages or so. Atom 02:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ya, that's what I was saying. I can handle it. Shall I go ahead? --Strait 21:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We've given plenty of time for others to say something. I can't see an issue. Go for it. Atom 22:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done. *whew* Please fix anything I've just screwed up. I tried to be thorough, but my eyes are crossing now. :-) --Strait 05:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What an effort. I appreciate it because I sure was not looking forward to all of that work. Atom 23:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Wikimedia Commons Policy on Sexual Content

Please read the above which particularly concerns images used in this project and Register your Vote on the talk page. --Simon Speed (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The poll has now closed: 230 support, 239 oppose. Clearly more work is needed. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD: Santorum

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (sexual neologism). -- Cirt (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

images on pregnancy article

Hasn't anyone noticed that the currently-used "Image 2" as well as all the images used under the "Another Option" thread here, have been deleted by the flickr user who originally posted them (and who is the actual person who appears in the photos)?? Due to her deleting them, it's obvious she might now have some reservations about having her images used on wikipedia. I'm not one for censorship, but seriously, hasn't anyone asked her if she feels okay with us using these photos so publicly? Kikodawgzzz (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The "Another Option" thread is on the talk page and the images used are still on FlickR. However, the main article image File:Pregnancy 26 weeks.jpg (labelled "image 2" on the talk page) has been deleted from FlickR. I've messaged the FlickR account holder about it as it's a very intimate shot and the identity of the subject is clearly visible. --Simon Speed (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The photographer got back to me on Flickr. It seems that neither he nor his wife (the subject of the picture) have a problem with it. --Simon Speed (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Prostitution in Iran

Please take a look at the RfC located at Talk:Prostitution in Iran#Request for Comment, where the question is being asked, "is the Shia Islam practice of temporary marriage to be included in the article?" A bunch of reliable sources are listed which say that many people consider the practice a form of state-sanctioned legalized prostitution, but of course the nation's laws do not define it this way. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies?

Since there is little activity here, it seems to me that the issues covered by this project could be covered better as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies. The benefit of such a merger would be to bring together the two separate and rather small pools of editors interested in those related subjects. Comments? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Inactive

Is this project even active? I see mostly bot discussions, and little if any discussion... if nobody cares about a merger proposal, this doesn't bode well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems most of the stuff about sexology and sexuality is now handled at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we are still active. We go through phases like most other projects. Feel free to participate and liven things up! Atom (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I would love to be more active, and I should be doing some more work on sexuality articles... soon...AerobicFox (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC

There's an WP:RFC open at Adolescent sexuality in the United States. They would like to solve the multi-year dispute about whether the article should be "negative" or "positive" about adolescents having sex. Help from people who know what they're talking about, and can differentiate between "what the published sources typically say" and "what the sources ought to say" are (desperately) needed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

More info wanted on views of anal sex from around the world

The Anal sex article could use some help in expanding its section on various views from around the world--especially in Hinduism and amongst the various African and Native American traditions. Help?? Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Celibacy Topic Pages

The "Involuntary Celibacy" entry has not been tagged for taskforce review. Please see concerns over potential Wikipedia policy violations. Involuntary celibacy currently exceeds the writing volume of that used for the main celibacy page. It defies reason that a main topic would be less fleshed out than a subtopic. Psychology-specific terms such as "sexual avoidant disorder" do seem to be well structured and cited under wikipedia policy. Perhaps involving the same writers in a review of these celibacy-related pages may help? (98.218.218.120 (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)).

School House

I'm not a member of this project, so I'm reluctant to tag any articles for it, but would Is the School House the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex?, a pamphlet opposing sex education, fall within the scope of the project? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Image discussion

There is an image discussion on the talk page of Creampie (sexual act). Input welcome. --JN466 13:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Frot#New_section_for_frot_vs_anal_debate

I am echoing Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Talk:Frot.23New_section_for_frot_vs_anal_debate. The last RfC on the article didn't yield much productive comment, I think it is necessary to expand the request. Mijopaalmc (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Effects of Erotic Asphyxiation

I really think it is not good to name too many should i say positive effects of erotic asphyxiation on the wiki-site. especially the reference '" Author George Shuman describes the effect as such "When the brain is deprived of oxygen, it induces a lucid, semi-hallucinogenic state called hypoxia. Combined with orgasm, the rush is said to be no less powerful than cocaine, and highly addictive".[3] I really think especially young people could be lured into the habit by this. Maybe you can change this. thank you Mary-rose Mary-rose curio (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Information should not be removed from articles just because "young people could be lured into the habit." —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but Wikipedia also isn't to be a how-to either. As an alternative, Hypoxia_(medical)#Pathophysiology appears well-referenced and encyclopedic. Perhaps we could consider letting the hypoxia article describe hypoxia? BitterGrey (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Input needed at Sexual Compulsives Anonymous

There is a discussion between me and user:Scarpy about the lede sentence for describing that organization (as well as Sex Addicts Anonymous). The original lede, which Scarpy supports, is:

Sexual Compulsives Anonymous (SCA) is a twelve-step program for recovery from sexual compulsion.[1]

citing the manual written and published by SCA. I believe that that sentence fails WP:NPOV, because the term "sexual compulsion" is widely debated/contested/challenged among experts, and having the above as a lede sentence makes the page assert that that diagnosis is an accepted one, which it is not. I support this sentence instead:

Sexual Compulsives Anonymous (SCA) is a twelve-step program for people with hypersexuality who identify as sexual compulsives.[1][2]

The term "hypersexuality" is described by multiple sexologists as being 'theory-neutral'; it merely describes the behavior without implying anything about whether the people are compulsive versus addicted versus impulsive, etc. Scarpy prefers that the lede use the term as used by the SCA members. We would appreciate more opinions to help us decide what's best. Cites for the above are on that article's talkpage.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the statements James made about what I support/prefer here are false, and I'm very disappointed that James opportunistically asserted I have opinions and feelings that I never stated or confirmed. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rape in military culture

Recently I am confronted with rape in the military from among their own ranks. Staggering statistics show that 1/3 of women report rape while that at least doubles due to the nature of military culture and fear. My fiancé is deployed to Afghanistan. I wonder if women would join the military if they knew there was maybe a 70% chance they would be raped with no retaliation. If women in the military report rape they lose. No justice, no compensation, they lose credibility and maybe their job and pension. 70.185.235.48 (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You will need to redirect others to these statistics if you want those claims to be taken credibly.AerobicFox (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get that statistic from? On theSexual assault in the United States military page, it cites a 15% sexual trauma rate in female veterans and doesn't specifically mention a higher incidence rate of rape in the military compared to the general population. Obviously this could be a flaw of the page, but for your contribution maintain the Wikipedia standard of Wikipedia:Verifiability you would need to cite an already published source that is reliable. If statistics were added to the Rape in military culture discussion, it would be important to note variations based on race because, as is clear from the Rape in the United States#Rape_statistics page, the assault and reporting rates of rape vary greatly based on the race of both the victim and the perpetrator. Additionally, in an effort to remain unbiased, it would be important to find information on the rate of male by male rapes in the military. To maintain a neutral point of view it is essential to note that both men and women can be raped. Cshaase (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Bisexuality#Bailey -- "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited"

Editors are needed to weigh in on this. It has to do with having a section on the belief that people must be equally sexually to both sexes in order to be bisexual, and whether or not the controversial study by Bailey should be mentioned. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources for bondage-related subjects

I am curious as to whether there are any known reliable sources that specialize in bondage-related subjects. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What kind of information are you thinking about? The medical/psychological literature contains some descriptive work and a couple of surveys. There are communtity and subcommunity websites and newsletters (of a range of quality) describing particular practices.— James Cantor (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, in all honesty, I'm looking for a site that could in theory provide coverage of a bondage-themed video game (Mighty Jill Off) so I could provide information and reception that is not just from the perspective of a traditional gamer but also someone who is interested in its themes. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Rather out of my field though, I'm afraid.— James Cantor (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem with finding such a source is that BDSM video games are rather a small niche. BDSM itself is not well-covered in sites due to the unfortunate implications of being a site about, y'know, BDSM. While I wouldn't be surprised if such a site exists, one that counts as a reliable source and covers a relatively obscure free download title like Mighty Jill Off is going to be really hard to find. Harry Blue5 (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In order to improve accurate information and provide a fair, unbiased view about Sex Trafficking, Sex Slavery, Human Trafficking, Prostitution topics in Wikipedia, the following major news report information should be included in these sections:

In order to improve accurate information and provide a fair, unbiased view about Sex Trafficking, Sex Slavery, Human Trafficking, Prostitution topics in Wikipedia, the following major news report information should be included in these sections:

Washington post article: Human Trafficking Evokes Outrage, Little Evidence “U.S. Estimates Thousands of Victims, But Efforts to Find Them Fall Short” By Jerry Markon Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, September 23, 2007 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201401.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201401_pf.html

Village Voice Media News in the March 24, 2011 issue have a story about the controversial statistics used to calculate sex trafficking and Sex Slavery victims: By Nick Pinto – Village Voice Media:

http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-03-23/news/women-s-funding-network-sex-trafficking-study-is-junk-science/

January 31, 2011: Dallas TV News WFAA show about super bowl sex trafficking finds no proof of sex trafficking, sex slavery: by JASON WHITELY Dallas WFAA news:

http://www.wfaa.com/sports/football/super-bowl/Super-Bowl-prostitution-prediction-has-no-proof--114983179.html

March 2, 2011: In the Dallas News March 2, 2011 By JESSICA L. HUSEMAN -Staff Writer “Top FBI agent in Dallas (Robert Casey Jr.) sees no evidence of expected spike in child sex trafficking” http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/super-bowl/local/20110302-top-fbi-agent-in-dallas-praises-super-bowl-security-effort-sees-no-evidence-of-expected-spike-in-child-sex-trafficking.ece

Dallas Observer Newspaper: By Pete Kotz January 27, 2011: http://www.dallasobserver.com/2011-01-27/news/the-super-bowl-prostitute-myth-100-000-hookers-won-t-be-showing-up-in-dallas/

Dallas Observer Newspaper: By Pete Kotz March 3, 2011: http://www.dallasobserver.com/2011-03-03/news/super-bowl-prostitution-100-000-hookers-didn-t-show-but-america-s-latest-political-scam-did/

In October 20, 2009 Nick Davies of the London Guardian newspaper writes about Sex Trafficking, Sex Slavery in the United Kingdom:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated

News night BBC TV news video, about Sex Trafficking, Sex Slavery in the United Kingdom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtaEdI3aiwg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rvA60zdkD8

Nick Davies - About Truth in the Media, and mis-information being told about the exaggerated numbers of victims of Sex Trafficking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8YGmASiZZ8&feature=related

Wr8675309 (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Jeff Lewis

Input and expansion (?) for Hypersexuality

Hi, folks. I've reworked the Hypersexuality page, and it seems quite stable. I'd like it eventually to achieve GA status, and could use input and additions for any areas you think it might still be lacking.— James Cantor (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Sexual slang

Please see Template talk:Sexual slang. There is a proposal to remove an article from the template. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

New article - Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist

• Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist

New article, of interest to project members. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

New article - Book about adoption by Dan Savage

• The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant

New article - Book about adoption by Dan Savage. Feedback, and suggestions for additional research and more secondary sources - would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

New article - Book about same-sex marriage by Dan Savage

• The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family

New article - Book about adoption by Dan Savage. Feedback, and suggestions for additional research and more secondary sources - would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of controversy over the topics of sex trafficking, sex slavery, human trafficking and forced prostitution. Which should be noted and explained in these Wikipedia sections.

There is a growing number of well respected researchers, journalists, scientists, professors, that have concluded in their research that the sex trafficking, sex slavery concept is based on emotion, morals, and monetary funding rather than facts, evidence and proof. They state that very few kidnapped, forced against their will, physically abused, raped sex slave prostitutes for profit have been found throughout the world. Their research concludes that women who enter into this type of work do so of their own free will. They also state that there are many anti-prostitution groups who simply do not like the idea of consensual adult prostitution and have distorted the facts in order to push their agenda and receive funding and money into their organizations in the form of donations, government grants, and to change the laws about prostitution. They state that these anti-prostitution groups use made up child sex trafficking statistics which they have no proof or evidence of in order to gain public acceptance for their cause. Which they then pass onto the mainstream media as press releases.

Here are links about some these reports: Christine Monfort: http://the-myth-of-sex-trafficking.weebly.com/

Laura Maria Agustin, in her book: “Sex at the margins” http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Margins-Migration-Markets-Industry/dp/1842778609

Detailed Report and research about sex Trafficking, Sex Slavery, Prostitution: by Ronald Weitzer http://myweb.dal.ca/mgoodyea/Documents/Sex%20work%20-%20General/The%20mythology%20of%20prostitution%20-%20advocacy%20research%20and%20public%20policy%20Weitzer%202010%20Sex%20Res%20Soc%20Pol%207%2015-29.pdf Ronald Weitzer: http://www.bayswan.org/traffick/Weitzer_Criminologist.pdf

Nathalie Rothschild spiked magazine: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9843/

J.R. Lewis: http://sextraffickingtruths.blogspot.com/ J.R. Lewis: http://bebopper76.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/sex-trafficking-lies-myths/

Washington post article: Human Trafficking Evokes Outrage, Little Evidence “U.S. Estimates Thousands of Victims, But Efforts to Find Them Fall Short” By Jerry Markon Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, September 23, 2007 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201401.html

Minnesota City Pages News in the March 23, 2011 issue have a story about the controversial statistics used to calculate sex trafficking and Sex Slavery victims: By Nick Pinto – Minnesota city pages

http://www.citypages.com/2011-03-23/news/women-s-funding-network-sex-trafficking-study-is-junk-science/

The Village Voice newspaper in New York has a section on the Sex trafficking controversy:

http://www.villagevoice.com/sex-trafficking/

In October 20, 2009 Nick Davis of the London Guardian newspaper writes about a large British Sex Trafficking, Sex Slavery investigation that failed to find a single victim.

Guardian newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated

Angry Harry: http://www.angryharry.com/es-Where-Are-All-The-Sex-Slaves.htm http://www.angryharry.com/reHappyhookersofEasternEurope.htm

Wr8675309 (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Jeff Lewis

New article - book - It Gets Better by Dan Savage

• It Gets Better: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying, and Creating a Life Worth Living

Created, new article. :) Feedback, and suggestions for additional research and more secondary sources - would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

New page - created - Dan Savage bibliography

• Dan Savage bibliography

Newly created page, Dan Savage bibliography. Feedback and ideas for additional information and secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

List Peer Review - Dan Savage bibliography

• Dan Savage bibliography

This page is undergoing a List Peer Review, feel free to provide feedback, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment - Santorum (neologism)

• Santorum (neologism)

Request for Comment discussion started, please see Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

New article - The Kid (musical)

• The Kid (musical)

New article, The Kid (musical). Feedback and suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I Am Extremely Offended By A Sentence In The Street Prostitution Article

As a sex worker right's activist and sex worker myself, I am extremely, extremely offended by this sentence: "Once every 30 encounters, a prostitute gives free sex to an on duty police officer to avoid arrest". They are saying that as the womyn's punishment for being immoral womyn, they give away their body FOR FREE (trying to dehumanize them) to someone who has greater power then them. Now, if we were talking about a housewife who wanted to implement a restraining order against her husband and the judge required that she had to sleep with him to get it, everyone would call it for what it is: Rape. So why does a womyn's right to consent get abrogated simply because of her morals, because she is not ion society's eyes acting in the manner of a "respectable womyn"? Why are these double standards, the regulation of morals, only happens to womyn such as rape victim blame, etc? Why are we doing the same things that so many people hate ultra islamic countries do? Knocking a harmless womyn for her morals, criminalizing her, is no different than stoning her. Same thing, just done a different way.

Getting back to street walkers, i can tell you from my experiences with Copwatch that their is absolutely NO consent. As I said before, if this was a housewife being threatened with rape ie to go along and sleep with a judge so that her dangerous husband could have a restraining order placed against him, everyone would call what it what it is: rape. Whenever someone has more power over you, especially when they can take away your freedom for what is really a non crime, that is rape. Rape is anything committed under duress. So why does a womyn's dignity, her right to consent, gets taken away from her not just because of the law but also by the law itself by describing a rape as a "consensual act between her and a police officer", with the cop having SUBSTANTIAL POWER OVER HER! I want that line changed. Here is my suggestion on what to change it to: "a prostitute will be forced by a police officer to have sex with him." There is NO consent between her and that cop. When one has substantial power over the other, the other person without the power can not consent. Jail - I know - is a very scary place. I know because I have been there. And to trivialize it and the womyn's dignity because of her "morals" is sickening and sad to say the least. You might as well say that a womyn walking down the street at night wearing a miniskirt deserves rape, just like that. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RavenNM (talk • contribs) 06:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Peer review Greek love

This article may be controversial and has varied greatly...but I think it needs at least more than a single editor allowed to touch it. Give it a read for Wiki and project standards.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Input needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphilia_and_gynephilia

Talk is light thus far, input would be welcome at this link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphilia_and_gynephilia
— James Cantor (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Feedback requested: androphilia and gynephilia diagrams

Androphilia and gynephilia survived an attempted deletion recently. As part of expanding the article, several editors have been developing illustrations to explain the relationship between androphilic/gynephilic and homosexual/heterosexual. Based on the terminology as described by Ron Langevin, Milton Diamond, and Rebecca Jordan-Young (all cited in the article), we have developed two illustrations to help lay readers understand why androphilia and gynephilia are more scientifically elegant than homosexual and heterosexual in some situations. One is a basic matrix showing the four combinations of two variables each on the X and Y axes; the other is a Venn diagram. We are seeking feedback from uninvolved editors at Talk:Androphilia_and_gynephilia on which of the two illustrations is better, and if an illustration helps clarify the concept. Please stop by and comment on your preference and thoughts. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

I want to make Rihanna's "S&M" an A class article, which I am pretty sure that it is at already, and was wondering how I go about nominating it? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 12:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"A-class" is a WP:1.0 assessment rating handled by some WikiProjects. I don't believe that this small project is prepared to review articles for A-class. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 16:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation - RfC

People here may be interested to know about a RfC which is currently active :-

Female genital mutilation - RfC

I came across this by chance today. There is a discussion going on around whether or not it is appropriate for Wikipedia to use the term "female genital mutilation" (FGM). Some people think it would be preferable to use the term "female genital cutting" (FGC) on the grounds that this would be more neutral. They say that "mutilation" is POV. They acknowledge that the vast majority of academics use the term FGM, but they argue that the lack of neutrality in the term FGM outweighs this consideration.

Rubywine . talk 06:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Intersex, Sex and/or Gender Diverse (ISGD)

Hi, been a while since I have posted here - wiki-stress, geographical relocation and intermittent internet access led to my having to take an extended Wiki-break.

I am raising a number of issues about this page, on the talk page Talk:Intersex,_Sex_and/or_Gender_Diverse_(ISGD) It conflicts on with a number of guidelines: WP:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#Neologisms_and_new_compounds - WP:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Neologisms - WP:SPS - WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources - WP:SOAP. It needs to be moved towards deletion, but as I have a COI I feel I am not in a position to instigate this, so request some more experienced eyes on this please. It is not registered as part of this project, but the content clearly falls within the domain of this and/or LGBT studies projects.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MishMich (talk • contribs) 09:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ex-gay movement

Included in the article Ex-gay movement is a list of individuals that consider themselves ex-gay and/or part of the ex-gay movement. Many of those included are of no or minimal notability, with extremely little or no coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is currently a heated debate about whether mention of these individuals should be deleted or retained. See [[1]]. I've started an RfC on the article talk page [[2]], and your input would be highly appreciated. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The RfC is located here.

Request for comments at Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Hi there. I've added an RfC to this discussion at Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism and am looking for additional input. Thanks. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 02:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

How does one join this project?

Hi, I'm new here so please forgive my ignorance. I would like to get involved in this project. It seems to have slowed down a bit in recent times. How does one join? Thanks :-) MsBatfish (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC regarding pregancy image

Another go round here [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Paraphilic infantilism

This discussion may be of interest to members of this wikiproject Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Paraphilic_infantilism_.28shorter.29. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Trying to get this project active again - Dec 2011

Hi there! I'm new to the project (formally at least) and noticed that there hasn't been much activity here lately. I've put this page on my watchlist and am going to try my best to reply to anyone's comments/questions here, post updates, and list items that I come across that are of interest to this project. Hopefully that will help. I think it's a great idea to have a centralized place for editors interested in this area and helping improve related articles.

Off the top of my head, here are a few current issues/updates on articles relating to the project:
(in no particular order)

• Zoophilia - Some improvements are needed to the article, but the article is currently edit-protected because of an ongoing edit war between 2 editors. There is a relevant discussion on Talk:Zoophilia - specifically the section Talk:Zoophilia#Zoophilia as a sexual orientation, and it would be great if we could get some additional input there. So far (at the time of this post) I am the only one who has commented other than the 2 aforementioned edit-warring editors. Whether or not the article should mention that many zoophiles see zoophilia as a type of sexual orientation is just one of the issues at hand. Any help on coming to agreement so that we can all get back to improving the article would be much appreciated.

• Adolescent sexuality in the United States - This article needs some attention. It has several tags like "expert needed" & "neutrality disputed". Several issues brought up on Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States have gone un-commented on or unresolved for months.

• Situational sexual behavior - Article needs expansion. I added a list of potential sources at Talk:Situational sexual behavior#Some sources which could be used to expand the article.

• Pedophilia - This article would benefit from some extra eyes to make sure the article is/stays neutral and that new edits are patrolled for potential vandalism, lack or neutrality, clarity, or misrepresentation of sources, (as would most controversial articles, particularly in the area of human sexuality).

• Feminist views on sexuality - Recently deleted as an "attack page". Not saying I disagree, just noting it here in case anyone is interested and/or wants to write an accurate & unbiased article on that topic.

• Feminist views on prostitution - Wasn't deleted, but still needs to be added to in order to avoid being POV by giving undue weight to one particular viewpoint. Other viewpoints, for example those of feminists who support sex workers rights, need to be fleshed out more.

• Paraphilic infantilism - There is a lot of discussion going on about this article right now at multiple locations, including: Talk:Paraphilic infantilism, Wikipedia:RSN#Paraphilic infantilism, and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Paraphilic infantilism. Some of the issues are edit warring, disputed article content, whether sources are reliable are not, whether specific statements are fringe theories and therefore shouldn't be included, and so on. (Warning: it is a lot to read). The article itself needs some work and currently has a notice that it appears to contradict itself, but I wouldn't advise doing any major edits without reading the current discussions.

• Pregnancy - The discussion regarding the image (mentioned in a post above) has now been closed. But there are various (non-urgent) discussions about other article content currently going on at Talk:Pregnancy.

That's all I can think of right now. I am sure there are lots more in the bot reports on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/to do.
Feel free to post anything you think project members would be interested in in this thread. I will try to keep this list updated. Thanks! -MsBatfish (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Greek love GA review

The article Greek love has been nominated for a GA review. The nominator has commented that It probably wont make it, but it is important to try. The article can certainly use more eyes on it and GA nomination is a good way to start, so I'm posting a notice to all projects that have a banner there. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Reviewers needed for Featured Article nomination

This project has an opportunity to promote its article Birth control movement in the United States article to Featured Article status. If you are familiar with the Featured Article criteria, you are welcome to contribute a FA review at the review page. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with political biases

The entire body of work regarding sexuality and gender on Wiki shows tremendous bias. Some articles skew heavily toward feminist presentation, even to the exclusion(deliberate) of material which does not agree with a point the authors are attempting to present. Others tend to play up the modern MRA perspective to an excess (though, given the lack of comprehensive literature about MRA topics on WIKI, a clear bias emerges.) There is also a tendency of authors to overplay the impact made by various topics, and borders on outright opinion. Should the project not care to self police, and present truly unbiased encyclopedic material, I don't really see the point in its continuation. Every article that is deliberately biased, or incomplete for the sake of making a political mark degrades the overall worth and validity of Wikipedia.

I have studied gender and sexuality for more than a decade I can say, sadly, that almost every piece of work at present is skewed, contorted and lacks balance of both perspective and data.

Granted some of this is going to occur simply by trying to separate male and female sexuality, or straight vs GLBT, but there have to be limitations and clear standards for mutual exclusion/inclusion. Cainchild (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is a strong element of truth in that. I believe there are several different reasons behind that kind of bias—including many political opinions I personally support—but they do indeed prevent the writing of a neutral encyclopedia. I can't recall who originally said it, but: The only usable part of a road is in the middle; the extremes, both left and right, are in the gutters.— James Cantor (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Leather dog mask fetish images

So I have no clue how to properly categorize what is going on in the images uploaded by Special:Contributions/Kaalos of ar (something involving locking a woman into a dog mask and corset for a period of time), but the images have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 4. FYI. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment concerning Erection

A request for comment has been posted at Talk:Erection#Reverts of recent edits.

Your participation will be welcomed. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't involuntary celibacy become voluntary?

I can find nothing on involuntary celibates who came to accept their celibacy without too much stress. A gay man in my early sixties, some years ago I realised that with a low income and falling only for much younger men I wasn't going to find a partner and stopped looking for one or worrying about it. I consider myself to have changed from involuntary to voluntary celibacy at this point, for I had much earlier lost any taste for casual sex. Is this not fairly usual among older gay men? Can we offer any help to those whose celibacy remains involuntary? In my own case, an intense Platonic relationship helped (still going 33 years on) and so does keeping my brain busy - but this didn't seem to stop Bertrand Russell or H G Wells!--Nutscientist (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Trafficking of children

WikiProject Sexology and sexuality aims to develop and manage an accurate and comprehensive set of Wikipedia articles pertaining to sexology and sexuality. I plan to significantly edit and expand the article on Trafficking of children, subsequently adding it to this WikiProject. Currently, this article is denoted as Start Class: it is extremely brief and lacking in terms of accuracy, writing style, and content. However, it is also listed as High Importance in WikiProject Human Rights, an appropriate designation given that the trafficking of children constitutes a widespread and severe human rights violation. Specifically, I plan to create several new sections concerning the mechanisms, prevalence, impacts, and solutions related to this issue, while also highlighting ways in which female children & adolescents are uniquely and disproportionately affected, particularly via sex work. Accordingly, trafficking of children is directly tied to issues of sexology and sexuality, and would benefit from inclusion in this growing WikiProject. As I move forward with my proposed editing plans, I would sincerely appreciate any feedback; I look forward to the continued opportunity to contribute to this project. Crr4 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Input requested at talk:paraphilic infantilism

Please see Talk:Paraphilic_infantilism#Input_regarding_use_of_sources. Cross-posted at WP:PSYCH. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the prior discussion is at Talk:Paraphilic_infantilism#Fruend_and_Blanchard.27s_Paedophilia_article_doesn.27t_belong_here. BitterGrey (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Other prior discussions, (FTN, FTN2, FTN 3, RSN 1, and RSN 2). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that one prior discussion (two weeks ago) related simply to one source, Fruend and Blanchard's "Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists." which is about, according to the very first line "A clinical series of male paedophiles..." It doesn't use the then-already-established term "infantilism" or any established synonym, and so can't be cited in the paraphilic infantilism article without WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. The other links either followed this discussion, or are from last year. It would be best if we could avoid needless linkspam and obfuscation. BitterGrey (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion: Birth Control & Contraception & Contragestion

There is a discussion about possible merger of 3 articles, at Talk:Birth_control#Merge_proposal:_Birth_control.2C_Contragestion.2C_Contraception_articles. --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring "Prostitution in Nepal"

With this entry, I wish to inform the members of WikiProject Nepal of my proposal to restructure the page "Prostitution in Nepal," in order to provide more clarity on this issue. Any comments are welcome and suggestions for sure.

First off, the issue with Prostitution vs. Sex Work is one that is becoming more widely debated globally, and this is the recent case in Nepal. For this reason, I propose to change the nature of this page, by first altering the title to "Sex Work in Nepal." The article "Human Trafficking in Nepal" will already touch on the sex trafficking aspect of prostitution, so I wish to provide the other side of this issue by presenting the voluntary sex work seen throughout Nepal. The distinction between prostitution and sex work, although both are illegal, is an issue that many are fighting to make. I wish to provide an account of this sex work, by first providing the causes for the voluntary sex work, and then by exploring the effects of sex work on many different aspects of life, both on an individual and on a more national level. To clarify, I will link this article to the "Human Trafficking in Nepal" article, so that the reader may also see the trafficking side of this sex work. I only wish to provide the voluntary aspect that many are arguing does exist.

As I stated earlier, any questions, comments, or suggestions are welcome and appreciated. Natashacruz12 (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Masturbation

I tried to put Freud's views on this topic in article since Kant's and others are included. Should they be or was I mistaken? --RJR3333 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Asexuality as a main sexual orientation

User:Pass a Method has added that asexuality is "a main category of sexual orientation" to the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles. When I reverted Pass a Method, explaining to him that asexuality is not yet accepted as a main sexual orientation among scientists, seeing as it is highly debated as a sexual orientation, and that he should refer to what is stated in the Asexuality article about this, as well as the debate about it at Template talk:Sexual orientation, he disregarded this and soon added a reference that he feels supports his edits on the matter.

This reference does not make asexuality a main category of sexual orientation among researchers or even the general public. I could add references, references that are used in the Asexuality article, backing the assertion that asexuality is not a main category of sexual orientation. Heck, I could even use the American Psychological Association source, which is authoritative, to show how sexual orientation is usually defined among scientists; if you notice, it excludes asexuality. Further, asexuality is not part of the heterosexual–homosexual continuum, as was told to Pass a Method,[4][5] but he disregarded that by reverting to his same wording.

Comments from others on this matter are obviously needed. But since I know that this talk page is not very active, I will be posting a note about it to the related articles and individually asking editors who are well-versed in sexual topics and/or are involved with these articles to weigh in here. Flyer22 (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Here he is at it again: makes changes to the article, does not go to the talk page for consensus, reverts any changes that disagrees with his, and leaves the burden to the opposing editor to go on the talk page.

The PDF he listed as his ref is not even a reliable one; it is a brochure from a school group probably made by college students. I see no reason for Flyer22 not to revert what Pass a Method changed. Someone963852 (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Someone963852. Seeing that one of the editors who agreed with me withdrew his comment, I want to reiterate that if you read about the issue at the Asexuality article, you should be able to see what I mean. Or even at Template talk:Sexual orientation, where the matter was previously discussed. There is no authoritative, reliable source saying that asexuality is a sexual orientation in the same vein as the other three. There's no authoritative, reliable source calling asexuality a sexual orientation at all. It's called a sexual orientation by some researchers, and of course by AVEN, but it is a long way from being accepted as one by the majority of the scientific community. If it were accepted, there would be no extensive debate about it; for example, one part of the debate surrounds the fact that an asexual can be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, since sexual orientation is also about romantic attraction and most asexuals do have romantic relationships. Flyer22 (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If there's no reliable sources making the point, then we shouldn't be making it in their absence. The random pamphlet from ComBIne doesn't seem to be such a source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The source is clearly not good enough. This user is making similar changes across multiple articles that are unsourced, poorly sourced and extremely dubious. I've just reverted the lot. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Flyer22 that asexuality has not been generally recognized as a valid sexual orientation on par with the other three sexual orientations. It not accepted by the medical community or by the general public as a sexual orientation. It has no legal standing or implications. It doesn't seem to be clearly defined. There seems to be little research on the issue - to quote a source from the asexuality article: little is known because it seems to be a rare condition over a lifetime and therefore there is a "paucity of research on the subject". See: Asexuality: prevalence and associated factors in a national probability sample MathewTownsend (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a classic example of WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims needing exceptionally good sourcing. In the absence, I agree that this stuff should be removed. --Nigelj (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. And the only reason it's listed as a sexual orientation in the lead of the Sexual orientation article and in the sexual orientation template is because there is that fourth category of people who experience no sexual attraction or no romantic/sexual attraction to anyone and there are researchers who designate those individuals under the sexual orientation category of asexual. Like I stated, although asexuality is recognized as a sexual orientation by some researchers, this is not the case for the majority of them. I used to say that "it has been recognized as a sexual orientation by the psychological community" (for example, in the Zoosexuality discussion at Template talk:Sexual orientation). But that assertion is not entirely correct, if those past comments are taken to mean the scientific community in general. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the treatment in the asexuality article as it stands, including the lede, as of today at 4:05a in my local time zone. The brochure I gather User:Pass a Method is relying on is not much of a source for any fact or assertion in it. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Flyer22's version is more in-line with what sources say. I would recommend adding some refs though, so that we don't have to repeat this discussion in the future.

I think that we can consider this discussion closed. Consensus is clear, and this has been acknowledged by Pass a Method on her talk page. kyledueck (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree asexuality is not considered to be a main sexual orientation. WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies here. The consensus is clear. --NGC 2736 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Kyledueck, the Sexual orientation article makes clear that asexuality is not a main sexual orientation. But as for anyone adding that asexuality is one to the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles... Well, the American Psychological Association source takes care of defining the main sexual orientations, and editors should know that asexuality is not a part of the heterosexual–homosexual continuum (except for counting asexuals who experience romantic attraction) by just clicking on the link to that article. Other than that, the only option would be to state that asexuality is a minor sexual orientation or is highly debated as a sexual orientation. But that would be a little off-topic to mention in the lead of the three aforementioned articles. Just saying that asexuality describes people who lack romantic and/or sexual attraction or that asexuality is sometimes considered the fourth sexual orientation category, like the articles already do, should suffice. If the issue comes up again, I will state to that editor or editors the same thing I stated to Pass a Method and point them to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion in sexual orientation template

I think we all agree that Asexuality is not a sexual orientation on the same level as the other three... should it be removed from the Sexual Orientation template? Someone963852 (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say no, Someone963852, for the reasons I stated in the discussion at Template talk:Sexual orientation about it. Like I stated above, "the only reason it's listed as a sexual orientation in the lead of the Sexual orientation article and in the sexual orientation template is because there is that fourth category of people who experience no sexual attraction or no romantic/sexual attraction to anyone and there are researchers who designate those individuals under the sexual orientation category of asexual." To remove asexuality from the template...it would be saying that people are either heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, when there are actually people out there who say that they are neither romantically nor sexually attracted to others. It could be argued that asexuality can still be mentioned in the Sexual orientation article as sometimes being called a sexual orientation. But I don't see any need to exclude it from the template. My opinion on that hasn't changed. But if consensus is formed to remove it from the template and therefore override the previous consensus to maintain it, I'll have to abide by that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

well, because "researchers" choose to designate a category in their research doesn't mean that the category is valid. I could set up a research project and designate "those who refuse to disclose their sexual preference". Does that mean there is a fifth category? Also as the article linked to above points out, there is a difference between "preference" and "behavior". How is that handled, once you start creating categories that are not well researched and accepted by established authorities? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to leave asexuality in the sexual orientation template. The sidebar snippet to the right would be more accurate IMO, but it may be overly complex given that there are only four total entries. My reasoning for adding subcategories for Sexual and Asexual orientations is that asexuality is to sexual orientation as atheism is to religion. It's not really a sexual orientation, it's a lack of sexual orientation. It is worth mentioning asexuality in the context of sexual orientation, but ideally, it should be differentiated from sexual orientations in some way. kyledueck (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

who says atheism is a religion? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not me... My point was that atheism is a lack of religious belief, in the same way that asexuality is a lack of sexual orientation. If one were discussing religion, it may make sense to discuss atheism, but that doesn't mean that atheism is a religion. I see asexuality the same way. In certain situations, it might make sense to discuss asexuality in the context of sexual orientation, but asexuality still doesn't fall into that category, because it does not satisfy the necessary requirement of the category: attraction to other people. kyledueck (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better to exclude Asexuality from the template and the leading section of the SO article listing it along side the other three.

We can add a section on Asexuality in the Sexual Orientation article and include some of the points mentioned above: that Asexuality is sometimes considered the fourth sexual orientation category, but is not yet accepted as a main sexual orientation among scientists. And the part where it's highly debated, and Flyer22's example that an asexual can be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, since sexual orientation is also about romantic attraction and most asexuals do have romantic relationships.

MathewTownsend, atheism lacks religion and is not considered one, similar to the same way asexuality lacks a sexual orientation and is not considered one. The religion article has the religions listed to the sides, and Secularism and irreligion in the body. Someone963852 (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Kyledueck, asexuality is described as a lack of sexual orientation by some, but not by all (that, of course, is a big part of the debate). I see that Someone963852 has touched on my points about one reason for asexuality being considered a sexual orientation is that asexuals can be romantically attracted to others and sexual orientation also includes romantic attraction. For example, just like heterosexual people, there are asexuals who are only romantically attracted to the opposite sex. That means that these asexuals are heterosexual; they just use a different name for it -- heteromantic.

Mathew, I don't know what else to state on the subject that wouldn't be repeating myself. I mean, it's not as though we're including zoosexuality, which is a paraphilia and is sexual attraction to non-human animals. Sexual orientation (as typically defined) is about human attraction, romantic or sexual attraction, to males or females. All including asexuality is saying is that some people do not experience romantic and/or sexual attraction to anyone. That is a fourth category of sexual orientation, unless we're saying that we don't believe these people or that we define sexual orientation as only being about the existence of sexual attraction. I've stated before that "Yes, sexual orientation is 'an attraction to another person.' Asexuality is also about attraction; it is about little or no sexual attraction." It's nowhere close to the same thing as "those who refuse to disclose their sexual preference."

That said, I'm not as hard-pressed to keep asexuality in the template as I was before. It's just that I still don't agree with removing it. The way I see it is that sexual orientation doesn't only have to be defined by the existence of romantic/sexual attraction...but also the non-existence of it. I understand the atheism example, but I don't see the complexities of defining asexuality in the same light. I think Kyleduec's suggestion for the template is reasonable. But is it accurate to designate asexuality under "nonsexual," given the asexuals who masturbate? Or does masturbation not count in this context because we're talking about sexual attraction to people when we say "sexual orientation"? Either way, I prefer Kyleduec's suggestion over removing asexuality altogether. Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter to me if the template is reformatted as I suggested or not, but like you, I am against removing Asexuality from the template altogether. I'm also not completely happy with the "Nonsexual" heading. It was meant to mean "Nonsexual orientation," rather than a complete lack of sexual activity. I used it to avoid the Asexual link under an Asexual heading, and the term was pulled from the Asexuality article: "Asexuality (sometimes referred to as nonsexuality)." There may be a better word than "Nonsexual" to use for the heading - "Asexual" would be more accurate as a heading, but as mentioned, it would be better if the link and category had different names. There's always the ambiguous, yet versatile, "Other" category... kyledueck (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Other" would make more sense in a template titled Sexual orientation than "nonsexual." Someone963852 (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the keyword is "or." Sexual orientation is described as "an enduring pattern of attraction—emotional, romantic, sexual, or some combination of these" to the opposite sex, the same sex, both, or neither, and the genders that accompany them.

If a man, for example, is not sexually attracted to neither man nor woman, but is romantically attracted to woman only, he would be considered heterosexual (not asexual) since heterosexuality is defined as "romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between persons of opposite sex or gender in the gender binary" despite the "sexuality" in the suffix.

I would like to think Asexuality is emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction to neither of the genders, that would make Asexuality fine as a sexual orientation and logical in the opening of the SO article. But there are too many contradictions right now. Someone963852 (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am against taking asexuality out of the template per kyledueck and Flyer22's arguments. Pass a Method talk 05:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for the definition of "sexual orientation"? Regarding "or" (as in "or emotional ...), a person generally has a strong emotional attraction to one's children, siblings, mother etc. that is very intense, often more so than to a purely sexual attraction, which can have little emotional attraction, to some category of persons (e.g. heterosexual) outside the family. Does this count as a "sexual orientation"? Incest (see below) could be considered as a sexual orientation also then as incest sexual attractions, like sexual attraction to children (pedophilia), are notably ingrained and difficult to treat. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation - it certainly fits all the criteria discussed above - so should it be listed also?

Also, this source points out that asexuality can be temporary, affected by age (too young to have reached the age of having sexual feelings), health (people who are ill often are not attracted sexually to anyone), certain biological conditions that affect brain structure related to the ability to have sexual feelings, hormonal problems, religiosity, [6], gender[7] etc.

I think a definition of "sexual orientation" is needed from reliable sources (accepted medical or psychology sources), and not just us on this talk board trying to reason it out. This whole discussion is original research. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sexual orientation is not the same thing as sexual preference. Pedophiles and those people who are involved in incest still have a sexual orientation (the gender they prefer for their partner). Sexual orientation is the gender the person is attracted to, whether it'd be male, female, or both. Look at the sources. There are plenty that defined sexual orientation the way I just did. Here are some below:

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes.

“Sexual orientation” is a term frequently used to describe a person’s romantic, emotional or sexual attraction .. attracted to .. same sex is said to have a homosexual orientation ... the other sex are said to have a heterosexual orientation... attracted to both men and women are said to be bisexual.

[http://www.answers.com/topic/sexual-orientation The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes.

The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes.

the inclination of an individual with respect to heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual behavior

Sexual orientation is a term used to refer to a person's emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction to individuals of a particular gender (male or female).

Now that that is out of the way, the APA (and the other medical dictionaries) do not list asexuality as a sexual orientation. I honestly don't know why it's still in the template, as though it is a main orientation, when Asexuality is not even accepted as a main orientation among the scientists and is still being debated. Wikipedia should remain neutral and report the facts, not take a side. I'll go ahead and remove it from the template and change things a bit in the Sexual orientation article (Wikipedia:Be bold), unless other users can provide multiple, valid sources (not opinions) that list asexuality as a main sexual orientation alongside the other three by the researchers. Someone963852 (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The two sources that cite the first paragraph of the SO article do not mention Asexuality, so I removed it. Instead, I added a section on Asexuality in the body (needs expanding a bit). Since Asexuality is not accepted yet as a main sexual orientation among researchers, and is still being debated, I removed it from the template. Someone963852 (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess people don't take change lightly. Should kyledueck's template be used instead, since an equal amount of people on here are for and against adding/removing Asexuality? kyledueck's template does not list Asexuality as a main orientation, but does not exclude it completely from the template either? Someone963852 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone963852, you say: If a man, for example, is not sexually attracted to neither man nor woman, but is romantically attracted to woman only, he would be considered heterosexual (not asexual) since heterosexuality is defined as "romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between persons of opposite sex or gender in the gender binary" despite the "sexuality" in the suffix.

But I again point out that a man who is only romantically attracted to women and experiences no sexual attraction to anyone is defined as asexual; that's backed by the reliable sources defining asexuality.

You also say: I would like to think Asexuality is emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction to neither of the genders, that would make Asexuality fine as a sexual orientation and logical in the opening of the SO article."

But I again point out that these type of asexuals, minus emotional attraction (because everyone, except for a lot of psychopaths and sociopaths, have emotional attraction to others), exist. It's not a contradiction on that front. There are simply asexuals who experience romantic attraction and those who experience neither romantic nor sexual attraction. As for the ones who experience little sexual attraction, they could be described as self-defined asexuals...but it can't be helped that some researchers consider "little sexual attraction" to be asexual too.

And like I stated at the Sexual orientation talk page, "Yes, the American Psychological Association doesn't list asexuality, but that first sentence [in the Sexual orientation article] wasn't backed to the American Psychological Association. [And] either way, it is supported by them and other sources (meaning sources that list asexuality as a sexual orientation as well). The first sentence is simply describing categories that attractions fit under, and you have now removed the fact that a person may be attracted to neither sex from the first line." That is just about the same as removing asexuality from the template. Yes, asexuals with romantic attraction could be described as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, but the point is that they generally are not sexual, which is why they are referred to as asexual. The "terms" heteromantic, homoromantic and biromantic fit them a lot better. And, finally, being WP:BOLD is one thing. Going against WP:Consensus is another. Past consensus has been for keeping asexuality listed in the template. There is no current consensus for change, since two are for removing asexuality and three are for keeping it. And when there isn't current consensus for a change, we are supposed to stick to pass consensus. I've already stated that I can go with Kyledueck's proposal. But I disagree with the "Other" title, because that opens up a can of worms (such as people wanting things added that have been suggested and declined at the template multiple times).

Matthew, see what I stated at Template talk:Sexual orientation#Zoosexuality for why zoosexuality and pedophilia are not sexual orientations. At least not according to the majority of researchers. Sexual orientation is about being sexually attracted to the biological sex/gender of a person. Someone963852 cleared that up in fewer words than I did in the Zoosexuality discussion. My opinion that asexuality should stay listed in the template has not only been based on personal opinion, but I'm pretty much through with this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Incest

I would like some input on incest being an orientation here. Pass a Method talk 08:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you have that state that incest is a sexual orientation? Sexual orientation is the attraction to which gender. Besides, brothers that are attracted to their sisters (and only other females) are considered heterosexual, etc. Not sure if you're trolling or just dense.Someone963852 (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the personal attack was necessary. kyledueck (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a sexual orientation, unless of course reliable sources classify it as such. Incest is a sexual act between family members. Sexual orientation deals specifically with what sex someone is attracted to. It does not describe specific sexual acts, or attraction based on family status, age, or other factors. kyledueck (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

New Sexual orientation template

Should kyledueck's template be used instead, since an equal amount of people on here are for and against adding/removing Asexuality? kyledueck's template does not list Asexuality as a main orientation, but does not exclude it completely from the template either?

Someone963852 (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Like I stated above, "I've already stated that I can go with Kyledueck's proposal. But I disagree with the 'Other' title, because that opens up a can of worms (such as people wanting things added that have been suggested and declined at the template multiple times)." Flyer22 (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. People will start adding pedophilia and zoophilia, and the discussion about them being sexual orientations will, unfortunately, pop up every week. Maybe "nonsexual" would work, since people can't add paraphilias under it (since it's about sexual arousal towards objects). Someone963852 (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Nonsexual is the only way we can go. It's what Kinsey called asexuals, and, as Kyledueck pointed out above, asexuality is sometimes referred to as nonsexuality. My only gripe is that it's not like any other orientations can be described as non-sexual, so asexuality will be under the title all by itself in the template. But oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Along with the Kinsey scale point you made, asexuals lack a sexual orientation (romantic and sexual attraction), which makes it logical to be listed under the term non-sexual. As for Asexuality being under the title by itself, it is nice to be seen as something different/unique than the other three. Someone963852 (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just in case others read this section without reading the discussion about it higher, I'm taking this time to reiterate (for their benefit) that a lot of asexuals (the majority, in fact) have romantic relationships. It's romance without the sexual aspect, except for in cases where their partners desire a sexual relationship and they have sex with those partners to sexually satisfy them.

I also point out that "lack of sexual orientation" doesn't mean "no sexual orientation." The word "lack" is most likely often used when describing asexuals because most of them have romantic attractions, some have a desire to masturbate (which is of course sexual), and some who identify as asexual say that they experience minor sexual attraction with no desire to act on it. But, again, whether or not "no sexual attraction" counts as "no sexual orientation" is part of the debate. Flyer22 (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Dan Savage bibliography for Deletion?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Savage bibliography

Dan Savage bibliography has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Savage bibliography. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Pedophilia template

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 18#Template:Pedophilia about whether or not this new template should be kept, and, if kept, what/if any changes should be made to it. More opinions on the matter would be appreciated. Please read the arguments for keep and delete before weighing in, should you decide to comment in the discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul Carrigan AFD

• Paul Carrigan

Actor/director page up for AFD, deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Carrigan (3rd nomination). — Cirt (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sexuality and disability

The article Sexuality and disability is currently a miserable little stub - please help to improve it. Roger (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

More than two weeks and still no response! I'm really disappointed. Roger (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Input needed on accuracy of vaginal anatomy

Hi, all. As the heading of this section shows, input is needed with regard to presenting vaginal anatomy in the Vagina article as accurately as possible. Your help, even if just commenting on the matter, is very much needed. See Talk:Vagina#Changes about anatomy and sexual activity. Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

FREE LOVE

I was very disappointed to see the almost totally sexual basis taken for the Wiki article about Free Love. My understanding, and I was college-aged student in the late 1960's to early 70's, is that caring positively and deeply about one's fellow man without the expected quid pro quo expectation of receiving the same in return is what the term really stressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.84.199 (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Freelove is my family surname and it has been explained to me that the name represents rebellion or protest against arranged marriages - where people wanted to marry for Love; a person of their own choosing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.77.47 (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I am doing a midterm paper on human sexuality

I am doing my mid-term on human sexuality, specifically the five major paraphilias, I am trying to figure out how many people in our society suffer from paraphilias, does anyone out there know or have a general idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.250.183 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

1RR proposal at circumcision

I invite you to vote in this proposal for a 1 revert rule limit to the circumcision article. Pass a Method talk 23:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Gender identity and Sexual identity articles

These articles are a mess, and the way that "sexual identity" is being used is WP:OR (somewhat anyway). Basically, help is needed to sort this out. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Sexual identity for the current discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Anal sex#Encyclopedic tone and WP:HOWTO

Comments are needed about whether or not saying that anal sex "generally requires a generous application of a personal lubricant to prevent tearing, since the anus does not have sufficient natural lubrication" is a how-to violation/doesn't belong in the lead or possibly in the article. One view is that it is unencyclopedic; the other view is that it is a medical fact worthy of mentioning. Flyer22 (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Pedophile press

Please, review the article pedophile press. I am involved in a discussion with the author on cawiki about pedophilia and NPOV and I dont want to get into a croswiki harassment, so I ask your attention if you consider it needs some clean up. --Vriullop (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please help improve Birth control

Birth control is easy and very important to improve. Please see Talk:Birth control#Reviews on the topic in the Lancet this month through Talk:Birth control#Comparison. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Where should the "Pro-pedophile activism" redirect point?

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 13#Pro-pedophile activism about where the redirect Pro-pedophile activism redirect should point (currently it's targetted at Age of consent reform). Your civil, on-topic views at the RfD page would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sexuoerotic tragedy

The article Sexuoerotic tragedy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

notability of concept not demonstrated

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ZackMartin (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sexual assault vs. Sex crime

It has recently come to my attention that the definition of the term sexual assault in the lede section of that article seems to be perhaps problematic. If anyone here can find the standard definitions of either or both of the two terms sexual assault and sex crime, preferably with some indication of what qualifies as either, that would probably be very helpful. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

See here and here for what John means. 109.123.115.222 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Should have pointed those out myself, actually. I did note at Talk:Sexual assault#OR/SYNTH additions of bestiality and female genital mutilation my removal of the content recently added to that article on those two subjects, and I think that it makes sense that any points of clarification regarding this matter be added there, either in that section or perhaps a later one. And my apologies again for not adding the links myself, and thanks to the IP for doing so. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Exhibitionism

Eyes, please, disagreement concerning the proper scope of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Anti-pornography movement

In its previous form, this was an appallingly badly written article, full of generalities mostly supported only by cites to self-published websites (many of which I have just removed, and replaced with {{fact}} tags). Yet at the end of the article, we have a big dump of references to books which could be used as reliable sources from which to source facts for the article. Moreover, the religion part seems to be a poorly-written content fork of Religious views on pornography, and the per-country part a content fork of pornography by region. I've removed both, replacing them by summary sentences. As a result, what remains is now generally relevant to the topic: on the other hand, there is very little of the previous article left, and it now needs expansion.

I've also had the insight that there is no single coherent "anti-pornography movement" for the article to be about: instead, there are many individual anti-pornography movements with different motivations and ideological positions. I've therefore moved the article to opposition to pornography, and given it a new intro to reflect the new focus.

I'm still quite aware that the refactored article is still poor: I'd appreciate it if others could help improve it: this is a sufficiently important topic that it deserves a well-written, detailed article. -- The Anome (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:Sexual orientation#Pansexuality and polysexuality

Input is needed with regard to the above linked discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed “HIV and MSM” Article

As part of a class at Rice University, I propose to start a new Wikipedia page entitled “HIV and Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)” to expand the current small subsection on the Men who have sex with men page. The current HIV subsection of the MSM page is far more detailed than anything else on the MSM page (everything else is merely a survey) and would benefit from having freedom to expand by itself. The CDC, UNAIDS, and AVERT websites all have pages specifically dedicated to HIV and MSM so Wikipedia should have a page that goes into an equal level of detail. The page should also include information beyond public health risks alone, like the stigma associated with an HIV diagnosis in the MSM community and prevention methods. This would make the page a thorough sociological analysis of how HIV affects the MSM population. Although I will draw on the Center for Disease Control for statistics about the prevalence of HIV in the MSM community and demographic data, I will rely mainly on journal articles for my references. There are a variety of scholarly articles available on HIV/AIDS and its specific relationship to men who have sex with men. Journals like The Lancet, AIDS Journal, The American Foundation for AIDS Research, The Journal of Homosexuality, The Journal of Urban Health, AIDS and Behavior, and the British Medical Journal all have published multiple articles on topics relevant to my Wikipedia article. I will make sure my sources are varied, unbiased, and represent a variety of scholarly work. I would be interested to hear the WikiProject members’ feedback on how I can better improve my contribution. Cshaase (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit of birth control sabotage article

The current Wikipedia page on birth control sabotage is insufficient in fully covering the topic of reproductive coercion. Birth control sabotage is one form of reproductive coercion, which falls under domestic violence. This article needs a more concrete explanation of what reproductive coercion is and an additional outline of the three divisions of reproductive coercion: pregnancy pressure, birth control sabotage, and pregnancy coercion. These topics all deserve recognition because it is a form of domestic violence that can be used to control another person. This means that I want to change the title of the page, its layout, and its content to better represent the idea of reproductive coercion. I plan on pulling from various scholarly journals, news articles, and women's centers (such as the Houston Area Women's Center) to create a more encompassing page on reproductive coercion, the types, and its relationship to domestic violence. I would appreciate any type of feedback from the Wikipedia community about my proposed article expansion. Rachelpop- (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage ready for community feedback

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, an RFC that will affect the title of the articles currently titled Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion if consensus is found in favor of its conclusions, is now in its community feedback phase and ready for editors to register opinions and arguments. Please add your feedback; thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Society at peer review

Portal:Society is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Society/archive1. I've put a bit of effort into this as part of a featured portal drive related to portals linked from the top-right corner of the Main Page, and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion sorting question

I've listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, but I'm not too sure if there are other topical related deletion sorting type places to list this sort of deletion discussion? If so, feel free to do so, or let me know so I can be aware of that in the future going forwards. Thanks and have a great day! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Wet Clothes Turn On

When I was a young man of 12, I saw an episode of "My Three Sons" in which the character, Robbie goes out on a date with a girl and through a series of mishaps, his date causes Robbie to fall into a fish pond fully clothed. In some strange way I was intrigued by Robbie's unfortunate plunge into the pool at the hands of a girl. I felt a vicarious embarrassment for Robbie but at the same time, I was stimulated by the incident.

In the coming days I gave a great deal of thought about getting my own clothes wet. I thought it might be appealing in some way if I too fell in the water in the presence of a cute girl. Therefore, I asked a female classmate with whom I had a great crush to accompany me to a creek near my home. She agreed and we went near the water which was about 4 feet deep. I hung out over the large pool in the stream on the pretense that I was trying to catch minnows. I hoped that in my precarious position just above the water that she might try to push me in. Thankfully, she did nudge me shightly but not nearly hard enough to make me fall in but I pretended that the force was sufficient and I plunged in and it was with great sexual pleasure that I recall that day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.246.35 (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Society for featured portal consideration

• Portal:Society

I've nominated Portal:Society for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Society. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

College and university dating

College and university dating, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The Social Organization of Sexuality

Does anybody have access to "The Social Organization of Sexuality" Laumann et. al 1994? there's some interesting stuff in there, but google books won't let me get at the stuff i really want to quote firsthand, and i'd rather do it with page numbers and such. I'll prolly get responses at my talkpage first, but either way, thanks! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts

Can you share your thoughts here please? Pass a Method talk 11:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Tradition

I would appreciate some feedback here. Pass a Method talk 22:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Dakimakura

There's an edit dispute at Dakimakura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about the use of the photo file:Dakimakura.jpg -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

The article about She Has a Name, a play about child prostitution, is a current featured article candidate. If you would be willing to review the article, your comments at the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

How to increase intercourse timing.......i ejaculate fast...any real practical ways to increase the time in natural way?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupid4ubig (talk • contribs) 17:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Leaforstubimage.jpg

file:Leaforstubimage.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Two related deletion discussions

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gay Travel Guide for Tops and Bottoms
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Joseph Greene

Please see above two related deletion discussions, and if you wish to do so, comment at the ongoing discussions and/or help with sourcing and quality improvement at the respective article pages. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Human–goat sexual intercourse - deletion discussion ongoing

• Human–goat sexual intercourse

Deletion discussion ongoing about whether or not this article page should exist.

Please see deletion discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human–goat sexual intercourse, if you wish to voice your opinion. — Cirt (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

premarital sex

what are the prevention of premarital sex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.46.246.50 (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

2012 tour of She Has a Name

2012 tour of She Has a Name is currently up for a Good Article Nomination and the reviewer has requested an independent copyedit. If anyone who has not had previous involvement with the article would be willing to perform such a copyedit, it would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Fuck (film), freedom of speech-related quality improvement project

• Fuck (film)

As part of a quality improvement project on a topic related to freedom of speech, I've greatly expanded upon and improved the quality of the article at page, Fuck (film). Any further suggestions for additional secondary sources and referencing would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. — Cirt (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

List Peer Review for Dan Savage bibliography

• Dan Savage bibliography

List Peer Review for Dan Savage bibliography

Please see discussion, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dan Savage bibliography/archive2. — Cirt (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

A new related Wikiproject

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hentai is a new project that will be sharing interest in topics related to the Japanese anime and manga sections. You will see numerous taggings have been done by works covered under your scope. Everyone is welcome to interact or join in for discussion and dealing with the mature subject matter typically avoided by other Wikiprojects. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC on WikiProject Hentai

NOTE, At WT:WikiProject Anime and manga, there is an RFC concerning the fate of WP:WikiProject Hentai -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"The Politics of Human Sexuality"

The Politics of Human Sexuality is a TV episode article. Do we have a general article on the topic of the politics of human sexuality? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Romantic Expressionism"

Romantic Expressionism is a TV episode article. Do we have a general article on romantic expressionism? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Does not seem to exist. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Nude photography

Does nude photography fall under the purview of this project? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I replaced the tag and assessed it. Thanks again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed?

There is an RfC here Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#RfC:_Should_the_section_title_for_Academic_freedom_controversy_be_changed.3F concerning the article on Hans-Hermann Hoppe. There is extensive background discussion elsewhere on the talk page there. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have revised the section heading here to reflect what the RfC title is and modified the link to create a Wikilink. – S. Rich (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Fuck peer review

1. Fuck (film)
2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck (film) for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1.

— Cirt (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL, when seeing the "Fuck peer review" title pop up on my watchlist, I thought this section was some type of rant against peer preview, specifically WP:Peer review. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Rape during the liberation of France

Talk:Rape_during_the_liberation_of_France#Until the article meets basic quality standards… CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Boot fetishism

Why can't boot fetishism have its own page? The page used to be redirected, because the previous information there was unreferenced. When I restarted the page and wrote information with reliable sources, one person couldn't stand this and kept reverting the page, regardless of the sources.

If this subject should nog have its own page, why should it be redirected to shoe fetishism, to which it is only vaguely related? It would be better to redirect it to fetish fashion, clothing fetish, uniform fetishism, or perhaps dominance and submission, if it shouldn't have its own page. Please give your thoughts at Talk:Boot fetishism. -- Harold O'Brian (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Biased article - doesn't reflect the world we live in

Masturbation

selected quote:

" it is considered a normal part of healthy life today" with no reference. Opinion, and they will not remove it.

-- No it is not. I do not believe it is entirely socially acceptable in any society, (apart from a few microcultural examples e.g. certain indigenous tribes) and in many conservative/religious societies (e.g. Islamic countries, many rural areas across the world) it is not acceptable at all. They are confusing the views of science and medicine (which does not 100% say it is fine, hence the use of terms like "excessive masturbation", "compulsive masturbation" in medical and psychological publications) with the views of society. I proposed then to split these views, but it was again opposed. They will not even allow mention that masturbation is illegal in public in most countries, apparently that is "not on topic".

-- The requests I made to change the article and make it less biased were opposed by quoting some Wikipedia rules. I studied these rules in detail and in every case they are falsely applied to this scenario. I also found out that according to these rules, many, many issues involving content of the page which supports the overall biased view. The rules are being selectively applied by a minority to maintain a biased page which does not, I believe represent the views of all.

-- I am very disillusioned by this experience. I used to read Wikipedia with interest and admiration, but now everything I see will be suspect in my eyes. How do I know it is not the same scenario-- biased opinion rather than reality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.25 (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the same experience as you do. I think articles on sex here at Wikipedia is very biased. Information based on clear references are being removed for being unserious according to one single user, and not enough people are interested enough in discussing these subjects. I suppose many people find the articles on sex to be less important and don't want to end up in some dispute about a sexual subject, and this gives the opinions of some single active users more importance than they should be given. And articles of sex often raise opinions! BTW, who are "they"? I haven't read the discussion you are talking about, there's no link to it in your message. Harold O'Brian (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem. Generally, only people who hold certain opinions and beliefs will be motivated to edit such articles, whilst conversely "normal" people tend not to want to edit them. The result is the article is twisted to reflect their own world views, views which are nonrepresentive of the majority view on the topic. The discussions are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Masturbation#Edit_request_#_1 . "They" that I referred to are a series of people who are opposing any moderate change in the wording of the article, including removing unrefereced biased content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.26 (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on that link, I don't think you have much of a case. I suggest that you spend some time looking into their arguments and policies related to the claims the other editors made before deciding that you are unilaterally right and they are incontrovertibly wrong. The idea is to build consensus, which means that any one person's ideas aren't accepted wholesale but adapted (or completely excluded, if fringe) to meet that of the others. It would also be easier for others to sense your background in WP's policies and work with you if you registered instead of editing from multiple IPs (though not required). czar · · 15:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It took me some time to understand that the IP wants to improve the article instead of just quarreling against the medical consensus. Anyway, he/she was invited to create an account so that he/she may edit the article, but declined the request. Also, the IP has misread some applicable policies, which led me to believe that he/she wasn't serious, but argued for the sake of arguing. When I realized that some requests were reasonable, I have edited the article accordingly. Another user has replied to his/her edit requests and performed some of them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

These aside, not even drinking tap water is 100% safe, see hyponatremia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the IP editor is challenging it. The burden is on the other editors to provide sources otherwise, in many areas of the world it is unacceptable still. The claim must be sourced and expanded upon because the concern is not purely emotional, but is of an inherently divisive nature. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hefemale

The title Hefemale which currently redirects to the trans man article has been nominated at RfD. The nomination originally received no comments and so has been relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 10#Hefemale where your contribution is invited. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

whose business is it?

I want to know how EVERYONE seems to know your business, all over the WORLD, when you have a baby, and HOW OLD YOU ARE, as if it's anyone's business, but yours and the doctor's for his care to you!!!! Do you have to report your age or weight when you buy some bread or get a car, or anything else? BIRTH AND YOUR AGE ARE PRIVATE MATTERS AND SHOULD NOT BE THE PUBLIC DOMAIN OF EVERYONE IN THE WORLD!!! WHAT COMES OUT OF YOUR PRIVATE PARTS IS NO ONE'S BUSINESS BUT YOURS, YOUR HUSBAND'S, AND YOUR DOCTOR FOR CARE!! if the doctor decides to "out" you and put your public pubic information out there for all the world, and all the invasive media to see, he should be punished! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.104.65 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

When God Writes Your Love Story

The article about the sexuality book When God Writes Your Love Story is a current featured article candidate. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide at the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Gary North

Question: Regarding two of the subsections in Gary North (economist) -- which describe his views (in part regarding his alleged hatred of, and alleged desire to stone to death, homosexuals, but contain original rather than secondary sources – are they proper? Please see the discussion here. Steeletrap (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding to the "LGBT sex education" article

I am a student at Rice University enrolled in the Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities class . I would like to edit the LGBT sex education article. I'm planning to reorganize a bit and add sections on exactly what advocates for LGBT sex education in schools are asking for and what LGBT sex education is like in a selection of different countries. I'm also going to add more information to the existing sections and find more resources, because the page is very low on citations right now. The resources I have at the moment are mostly articles from journals such as Journal of Adolescence, Sex Education, and Social Work. I'm also looking at book resources.

I would be grateful for any feedback or suggestions! If anyone has any resources that might help please let me know.

Thanks, Saira Weinzimmer (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Saira. That article looks like it'll need to be stripped down to the skeleton (remove everything that can't be verified) before it's worked back up again. Let me know if you'd like a hand with anything. czar ♔ 04:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls

The article about the sex trafficking documentary film Nefarious: Merchant of Souls has an ongoing featured article candidacy here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the absence of a very well known info on SEXUAL DESIRE on wikipedia

This question is related to sexual desire of males. In the article SEXUAL DESIRE i could not find a very well known fact. It is generally seen that in sexually active active males, the time gap between the ejaculations affects their sexual desire. For example, if a man masturbates or ejaculates regularly(say once a day or once every two days or twice a day) and suddenly stops it, his sexual desire(or what we call libido) increases..It is also observed that the orgasm after a period of abstinence are also intense and getting and erection in a short term abstinence period is quicker..Why does this happen..? And why does wikipedia not mention i under the factors affecting sexual desire ..? I know that males are made to release their sperms once in a while. But why could i not find a reason or mention of it on wikipedia...many thanksEd beerman (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for these claims? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Ed Beerman: I've found the main article for this topic: it's this one here. Jarble (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ed Beerman does not need to be encouraged to edit any articles about or related to libido and/or sexual desire until he gets his sourcing issues, sourcing issues that have already been mentioned to him, under control. He also needs to stop spamming talk pages (editor, article and WikiProject talk pages) with his queries. Flyer22 (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Fuck featured article candidate discussion

• Fuck (film)

Fuck (film) is a candidate for Featured Article quality — comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Heterophobia RfD

A discussion that may be of interest to members of this project is taking place at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 9#Heterophobia. - MrX 00:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction

Nominated for deletion. Please comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction Formerly 98 (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of posting to TFA nominations

I've added Fuck (film) to TFA nominations, discussion is at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Fuck_.28film.29. — Cirt (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Fuck peer review, again

1. Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties
2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Fuck (film)

This is a note to let the main editors of Fuck (film) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 1, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 1, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Fuck is a 2005 American documentary film by director Steve Anderson, which argues that the word is key to discussions about freedom of speech and censorship. The film provides perspectives from art, linguistics, society and comedy. Linguist Reinhold Albert Aman, journalism analyst David Shaw, language professor Geoffrey Nunberg and Oxford English Dictionary editor Jesse Sheidlower explain the term's history and evolution. The film features the last interview of author Hunter S. Thompson before his suicide. It was first shown at the AFI Film Festival at ArcLight Hollywood; it has subsequently been released on DVD in America and in the UK and used as a resource on several university courses. The New York Times critic A. O. Scott called the film a battle between advocates of morality and supporters of freedom of expression, while other reviews criticized its length and repetitiveness. Law professor Christopher M. Fairman commented on the film's importance in his 2009 book on the same subject. The American Film Institute said, "Ultimately, [it] is a movie about free speech ... Freedom of expression must extend to words that offend." (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Above was posted to my user talk page, posting here as well. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Free Expression Policy Project

I've created an article on the organization Free Expression Policy Project.

Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be most appreciated, at Talk:Free Expression Policy Project.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Dan Savage bibliography for FLC

1. Dan Savage bibliography
2. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1

I've gone ahead and nominated Dan Savage bibliography for WP:FLC consideration, the discussion page is at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fluidity of sexuality

Came across this while going through abandoned AFC drafts. Does anything here look salvageable? I'm guessing no, giving all the essay content and heavy reliance on primary sources -- but wanted to check before deleting for G13 (abandoned draft). Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, sexual fluidity and how stable sexual orientation is are addressed in the Sexual orientation and Erotic plasticity articles. So any content that is not repeated in the abandoned Fluidity of sexuality draft can validly be merged to either of those articles. However, the Sexual orientation article should not have too much information about the fluidity of sexuality, since that is a different topic than sexual orientation, though the two overlap. And the Erotic plasticity article is supposed to be about a concept by Roy Baumeister, and yet it is currently the main target for discussion of sexual fluidity. I'm not 100% sure what to do in this case, but it seems that the best approach would be to take anything that is not about the erotic plasticity concept out of the Erotic plasticity article and put it into the Fluidity of sexuality draft and then turn that into a Wikipedia article; the Erotic plasticity can of course point readers to that article with a link. Then again, if the Erotic plasticity article is reduced to a stub or close to it after that, it would be best to merge it into the Fluidity of sexuality article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, reading the current lead of the Fluidity of sexuality draft, it is apparently confusing sexual orientation with sexual orientation identity (generally known as sexual identity; and, yes, I have been meaning to merge the Sexual orientation identity article into the Sexual identity article). Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22, I don't have the necessary interest or expertise to do the work you're describing, and the draft is currently slated for deletion. Is this something that you would like in your userspace to work on, or should I move it into mainspace as is? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind it being moved to my userspace; I'm likely to do something with it article-wise eventually. Flyer22 (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've moved it to User:Flyer22/Fluidity of sexuality. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

And, by the way, regarding your edit summary, I'm female...as stated on my user page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article

I've nominated Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article candidacy.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not in Front of the Children

• Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth

I've recently gone ahead and created an article about the book, Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth.

Help with suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Lap dance

Members of this project might want to keep an eye on this; help is needed to keep the focus of the discussion on the content. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Same‐sex marriage in Utah RfC

There is an RfC here on whether to include purple as a new map‐color for Utah — Info por favor (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for opinion from this project

An editor is repeatedly adding a reference to an anonymously self-published book - Nomis, Anne O. The History & Arts of the Dominatrix, to several articles including BDSM in culture and media. Could someone more knowledgeable on the subject than me please comment on the discussion at Talk:BDSM in culture and media#Criteria and thoughts on BDSM publications, given most are a) self-published and b) not academically reviewed. Thank you. noq (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Change of Article Name

Hello, A user has requested the name of the article Belle_de_Jour_(writer) - which comes under your Wikiproject - to be changed.
The user seems unfamiliar with wikipedia's naming policies and the name change procedure.
His reasoning behind the move seems to be in contravention of those naming policies, whilst he is claiming consensus a little too soon.
I think it would be valuable to get more input from other users.

Discussion at: Talk:Belle_de_Jour_(writer)#Moving_this_page_to_Brooke_Magnanti.3B_reexamining_this_issue.2C_wanting_to_move_it

Thanks. --Rushton2010 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Archived some threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Help with Simple English Wikipedia

I was wondering if anyone would be interested in expanding the following stubs:

• Affair
• Asexuality
• Autofellatio
• Autosexuality
• Barebacking
• Bean_queen
• Chastity
• Chastity_belt
• Chub
• Closeted
• Corrective_rape
• Cunnilingus
• Dildo
• Facesitting
• Fornication — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.124.31 (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that that's the simple English Wikipedia, and they want the simplest of phrasing. Any wording that is not what they deem simple is reverted or tweaked. Flyer22 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Found a few more articles. All that I am asking is that these articles be expanded to the point where they are no longer stubs.

• 69_(sex_position)
• Bukkake
• Cunt
• Eunuch

New contributor looking for advice on creating a new article

Hello all, I am required to contribute to Wiki for my class Gender and Economics in the Third World and have been designated to work on El Salvador. I am working on an article to be called Reproductive rights in El Salvador. I am looking at covering topics including things like history, abortion, sexual violence/crime, legal and/or religious issues, education, activism, prenatal care and other issues surrounding pregnancy. Other than the Wiki article creation links and basic available information; Does anyone have any suggestions on the best way to structure an article? What about content? Is there something within this topic I should focus on more than another? For example, if you were reading an article, called Reproductive rights in El Salvador, what would you like and/or expect to see? What advice can you offer to a first time contributor? Thank you all for your time.TINGLED1 (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want useful feedback, you may want to first present the structure you have in mind, because what you're asking for requires a lot of upfront work for another editor to structure the whole idea for you. What I'd recommend is looking at other "Reproductive rights in X" articles and working backwards. Since none exist, either you'll be the first, or it isn't such a great idea (especially as a newcomer). Perhaps then go back to the Reproductive rights article and expand out the Latin America section with appropriate and balanced info. When it grows too big, it can be split out into its own article (summary style). The most important advice I'd have for picking a potentially controversial topic as a first topic is that tricky stuff doesn't make for good first articles while you're still learning the ropes, and to be sure to balance each argument such that the article reads as if written from a neutral point of view. czar ♔ 01:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Based on what I have seen, I was thinking of something like this: Contents 1 History – A short overview of El Salvador and significant events that changed reproductive laws, rights, and policies 2 Human rights – El Salvador’s stance on world policies and a look at their own laws – like their stance on the Programme of Action of the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, etc. 3 Women's rights – El Salvador’s stance on world policies for women and a look at their own laws – like prenatal care, family planning education, birth control access 4 Men's rights – El Salvador’s stance on world policies for men and a look at their own laws – things like family planning education, access to condoms and spermicides, sperm donation 5 Youth rights and access – Education – Sexual education policies – What information, if any, do children receive and at what age? Contraceptive policies and availability 6 Gender equality and violence against women – What forms of gender-based violence are happening? – Rape 7 STD’s/STI’s/HIV/AIDS – Practices, polices, education, prevention 8 Issues

       8.1 Family rights, laws, and polices
       8.2 Abortion rights, laws, and policies
       8.3 Religious beliefs and issues

9 See also The Center for Reproductive Rights, Human sexuality, Planned Parenthood, Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition, Roe v. Wade, Reproductive rights 10 References - I don't want to spam up this page by listing them all here but I do have a lot of them. 11 External links - Again, I have plenty but don't want to spam this up by listing them all here.

TINGLED1 (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Created new article = Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars

• Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars

I've created a new article on the book, Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars.

Help with researching additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars.

— Cirt (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties promoted to Featured Article

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties was promoted to Featured Article quality.

Thank you very much to all who helped with this successful quality improvement project related to freedom of speech and censorship,

— Cirt (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

New article = Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence

• Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence

I've created a new article on the book, Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence.

Help with researching additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence.

— Cirt (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 10/04

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Racial fetishism. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

Womanizer

The usage of Womanizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion. See talk:Womanizer (song) where it is requested that the song replace the disambiguation page. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move of "Pussy"

I have proposed that Pussy be renamed and moved to Pussy (word). Discussion is at Talk:Pussy#Requested move. Cnilep (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles related to sexuality may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Sexology and Sexuality At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about "she" for ships

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A much gentler proposal about changing the Manual of Style to deprecate the use of "she" for ships. As it concerns the intersection of grammatical gender with actual gender, I thought some of you might be interested. --John (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Like a Virgin (book)

Page move is requested; join discussion. --George Ho (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Feminist strippers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Feminist strippers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist strippers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lightbreather (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Definition of Sex position

Sorry for canvassing, but assistance is kindly requested at Talk:Sex position#Definition of Sex position. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

English rose (personal description)

The naming of the article "English rose (personal description)" is under discussion, see talk:English rose (personal description) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Study of readers of 50 Shades

doi:10.1089/jwh.2014.4782 [8] is a study of female readers 18-24 of the 50 Shades trilogy. I was wondering how this should be integrated into the article(s). -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Revisions to sex education pages

I am a student who is working on a couple of articles for a class assignment. I am revising the articles "Sex-education in the United States" in order to add a social issues and demographics section (for example how it effects people living in poverty, teen pregnancy rates, LGBTQ youth, etc). I will also be revising the page "Abstinence-only sex education" in order to make it more general and less focused on the United States. On this article, I will be discussing global outreach, role of religion, and impact with HIV/AIDS. BSchilling (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Vaginal Lubrication entry

Okay, so I'm a Wikipedia newbie, but a grammarian and feminist. I was absolutely shocked and appalled that the photographic image for the vaginal lubrication entry shows an adult HAIRLESS vagina. While it might be argued that this is for illustrative purposes, I maintain that it only fosters the creepy penchant toward underage vaginas exemplified by this practice (and I don't much care what consenting adults do; just don't present it as a mainstream thing). I have no idea of how to replace this image with a standard haired model (presumably it would involve surfing iffy web sites). As the mother of a teen girl, I appeal to someone (perhaps a medical professional?) who agrees with me, and would know how to perform such technological tasks. Thanks. Machione (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This type of complaint has come up a lot on all pages related to female anatomy. It's difficult to find an image that will make everyone happy. How the vulva *should* look, or whether it should even be shown here at all is a very divisive subject it seems, and there is no governing policy related to the presence of hair that I'm aware of, so I'm not sure what to say. The most anatomically correct image would probably be one with pubic hair, but pubic hair removal has become extremely common as well, at least in the United States,[9] so it's not just a fringe thing. This leads me to conclude that wikipedia should show the highest quality image of the subject available on wikimedia commons, with maybe a slight preference for an image with hair, rather than mandating that the image have hair. Another option is to include both a picture with hair, and one without, as long as the second image adds something to the article.

I did a scan through the available images, and the currently used image is by far the best IMO. I did not see any better options available with pubic hair that clearly show vaginal lubrication, even to add as an additional image rather than replace the existing one. Uploading new images is always an option, but it's not just a matter of browsing the internet until you find one; the person who uploads the image must have the author's permission to use it.

I will update the image caption on the vaginal lubrication page to make it clear that pubic hair has been removed. Hopefully that will help to clear up any misconceptions that younger readers could have about the subject. kyledueck (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please review Hitachi Magic Wand

As part of a Quality improvement project, I've recently put the article Hitachi Magic Wand up for Peer Review.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hitachi Magic Wand/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel

• No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel

I've started a new article on the book by Janice Dickinson — No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel.

Feel free to help out with additional secondary sources, and/or chip in with collaborative discussion at Talk:No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The Man from O.R.G.Y.

• The Man from O.R.G.Y.

I've created a new article on the 1970 film The Man from O.R.G.Y.

Please help expand with additional secondary sources, or feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Featured Article promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion

2012 tour of She Has a Name, Featured Article promoted in 2013, has been nominated for deletion.

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sexual Recovery Anonymous

I created a short page on this 12-step recovery group because there was a redlink to it from Sexaholics Anonymous. It's been nominated for speedy deletion. Can I please get some help finding a source to establish its notability please?~Technophant (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Helga – Vom Werden des menschlichen Lebens

Page move proposal is discussed; join in. --George Ho (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Good Article promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion

1. Critical response to She Has a Name
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name

WP:GA article Critical response to She Has a Name, promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion, discussion page is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name. — Cirt (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Renaming Sexual_abuse_of_people_with_developmental_disabilities

Hello, I'm planning to change the title of Sexual_abuse_of_people_with_developmental_disabilities to Sexual abuse and learning disability. I know not everyone is happy with use of the term 'sexual abuse' in the case of disabled adults, so I'm hoping anyone here with a view will contribute their thoughts. Please visit the article's talk page for a discussion. Many thanks. Crinoline (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas?. Prcc27 (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Sexology articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sexually transmitted disease#Requested move (2014)

Page move discussion is ongoing; join in. --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sex work task force icon

See also: Template talk:WikiProject Sexuality § Template-protected edit request on 17 December 2014

I made an edit request to the WikiProject talk banner to the sex work task force icon, as I feel the current icon – a statue in Amsterdam – isn't recognisable at a small size, whereas a red umbrella – a symbol of sex work – is. The admin who answered the request suggested I ask here first; does anyone have any opinions either way? Sceptre ^(talk) 23:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Help with Simple English stubs

Hi, the Simple English Wikipedia needs help with expanding its sexuality stubs, including the following:

• 69 (sex position)
• Asexuality
• Autofellatio
• Corrective rape
• Cunnilingus
• Free love

These articles don't have to get up to featured article status right away, just so they're long enough to not be stubs. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm just asking for five or ten minutes of work on each article, just enough so they're no longer stubs. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

These articles probably need no more than five to ten minutes of work to expand them past stub stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.64.177.106 (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Writing for the Simple English Wikipedia is rather easy. Reading a few other articles should give you an idea of how to expand these other articles. Five or ten minutes are probably all that's needed for each article. 67.239.119.192 (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please please please help. I suppose I could slap something together to get it past stub stage but it would probably be better for this to be done by someone who actually knows what he/she is doing. So PLEASE!! help!! 67.239.119.192 (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Really, writing on the Simple English Wikipedia isn't all that difficult! There should be plenty of users on the site who can help if you get stuck. Again, it would probably be better if these articles are expanded by someone who actually knows what he/she is doing! PLEASE HELP! 67.239.117.25 (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

Care to comment? Draft:Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment on ethnicity and sexuality in lead sections

Hey all,

I've opened up an RfC to try and clarify some of the language around the inclusion of ethnicity or sexuality-related information in the lead sections of articles about people. Comments appreciated! Ironholds (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Invite for comments on Talk:Camel toe

There is discussion on Camel toe's talk page about use of "female/male" instead of "woman/man". As the article is related to sexuality, fashion, and anatomy I figured this would be a good location to invite comments. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

New WikiProject proposal

Hello. I've created a proposal to start WikiProject Women's health. If you have any thoughts about this proposal, feel free to join the discussion. Kaldari (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

List of people with the most children listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of people with the most children to be moved to Lists of people by number of children. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa