Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

LGBT Publications

I'm not exactly certain how to go about doing this, but I would like to put together a small task force of editors who would like to focus their attentions on a particular sub-set of articles in this WikiProject. I've noticed a large number of stubs that are all one or two lines for a variety of LGBT publications that say 'X is a publication in such and such place for the LGBT community' or something to that effect which is a real shame considering the vivid LGBT media landscape that exists not only in the US, but around the world. The reason I think some sort of task force seems approriate is that in doing some work on The Washington Blade recently, I noticed that in sources I and others found, they link several different publications together as though they are all intertwined and it is hard to go through and only edit one publication when really the same source could be used on multiple pubs -- but there are so many that a small group of editors could tackle more effectively than a solo editor. Only reason I think we need to expand these articles (aside from the standard arguments that putting knowledge into the Wiki is a great thing to spread...) is that I noticed in this talk page discussion [1] of Anderson Cooper that the notability and significance of the Blade was called into question because the article was bare bones and lacked any sort of explanation of why this might be a worth while source even though mainstream media relies on it and many other LGBT publications to gain insight into the LGBT community... So does this sound like a reasonable proposition...and there may already be a model to set up a small task force like this, but I couldn't locate anything anywhere about something like this... Let me know your thoughts...and any volunteers to help? jtowns 10:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a *fabulous* idea! I'm over-committed so can't volunteer, but I support it wholeheartedly! I found two "task forces" I thought I'd bring to your attention as far as organization goes. The Dutch MilHist Task Force has a great organization and seems to be active. The Bio/Science & Academia TF also has a good organization, though they don't seem to be too active. You may also be interested in WikiProject Media, who don't seem to be active, but may answer questions or provide resources. Good idea! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea to me. If a few editors are interested in participating in this task force / working group we can easily created a suitable project subpage. WjBscribe 14:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having been prematurely brought back from my Wikibreak for reasons I will explain tomorrow, I'd like to say that I think this is an excellent idea, but we need more than just one person in it. I'd say at least three. Is anybody else interested? If no-one steps up to express their interest in joining this Taskforce, I will put a bullet in the next newsletter to inform everyone and add it to our proposed tasks until we have enough people. That OK with y'all? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dev! jtowns 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-tagged articles

If anyone's interested, there's a list of ~1,400 non-tagged articles available. These are articles that are under an LGBT category but do not yet have the {{LGBTProject}} banner.

If you go through the list and find articles tha belong to the category correctly, but don't need the banner (for instance Zoophilia), simply make a note next to the entry on the list, but leave it on the list until I can mark it in my database.

If you work off the list, remove entries as you add the banner. I'll be working off the list, so if you don't remove an article, I'll do it.
Thanks!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, why does Zoophilia belong in an LGBT category!?! WjBscribe 15:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sexual orientation and identity, I would imagine. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. hadn't thought of that as an LGBT category. WjBscribe 15:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to hand it over to WikiProject Sexology, but there's too much gay stuff in there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, we could work together with WPSexology... nothing says these have to be either/or things. :) Aleta 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the category is one that both groups can work on, I don't think the article Zoophilia is anywhere near our scope :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When using this list, watch out for category vandalism.[2] some people aren't supposed to be in these categories in the first place and their articles should not be tagged. — coel acan — 18:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And indirect categorization, such as Washington Square Park which is in Category:Greenwich Village which is in Category:Gay villages, so it ended up in the list, but shouldn't automatically be tagged imho. — coel acan — 18:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been manually reviewing all the articles on the untagged list to a) make sure they're in the right categories and b) tag them or not as appropriate. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scope.

I want to bring this up again, because we've recently tagged some articles that I really don't think are covered by us. Buffy the Vampire Slayer? V for Vendetta (film)? Why do we want to add these? Specific Buffy episodes, I can understand, but the entire series? What did all of Buffy have to do with LGBT? So V for Vendetta had two gay people in it, does this warrant our splashing our banner all over it? Are people likely to edit the article specifically for its gay content? No? So why do it?

I think we're getting far too liberal about our banner being placed on articles only tangentially associated with our project. We tag to help people wanting to edit LGBT articles in finding them - I do not see how adding every series with a gay person or storyline ever in it helps in any way other than boosting our stats. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. — Emiellaiendiay 02:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're being all that liberal. There are ~334 cats under "LGBT" with ~6,600 articles. That's about 0.4% of Wikipedia. But if a particular article doesn't belong in an LGBT cat and/or doesn't fall under our scope, remove the banner. As for Buffy, I told Dev I believe it belongs not only for the major character who's a lesbian (and a couple minor characters who are LGBT), but also because the way the show dealt with LGBT issues over time, and because of the way the LGBT community responded to the show. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that light, should we tag Xena: Warrior Princess? I just checked, and it's not, so far. Aleta 03:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now it is. :) Aleta 03:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about these, but please make certain that all non-obvious taggings use the "explanation" parameter of {{LGBTProject}} — coelacan talk — 04:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that makes sense. I'm glad to have learned about the explanation parameter; I hadn't known of it until seeing it in the St. George tag. The Xena article actually has quite a lengthy discussion about the possible lesbian subtext and related matters; so I didn't think an explanation was needed for that one. If anyone disagrees with me, feel free to add one! Aleta 05:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, to comment on the specific examples Dev brought up:

Buffy the Vampire Slayer. No strong opinion. Ideally I think the main article should have a bit more converage of its pioneer status in portrayal of LGBT people in such a series and any impact wider impact this had, if this is the case, prior to tagging.
V for Vendetta (film). Definitely within our scope. Number of characters isn't the point. One of the main things the fictional totalitarian regime that runs the UK did was outlaw all homosexual conduct, punishable by death and horrific medical experimentation. Anti-gay laws are a major part of that film.

I think we have to trust that project members have a good reason for tagging articles and discuss it with them if we are unconvinced. WjBscribe 08:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Buffy should be included. It had at lest two entire seasons with major gay characters and LGBT topics, such as coming out and showing a lesbian relationship in a positive way on prime time. It's not The L Word, granted, but I think that at the time it was the closest thing anyone could ask for. V for Vendetta, I have more reserves. The lesbian character was important for the plot (it was quite a beautiful story), but... Raystorm 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think V probably qualifies - asWjB points out, the discussion of homosexuality, etc. in the film goes beyond "there's a lesbian in it" -although, admittedly, LGBT issues are much more prominent in the graphic novel than in the movie. Carom 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. :-) It's much more light in the movie. Still, it could be included. Raystorm 16:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Homosexuality and ..." articles

Article titles such as Homosexuality and religion, Homosexuality and Wicca, Homosexuality and Christianity, etc. are starting really to bother me as they imply only the LG of LGBT(QI...). I'd like us to consider revising the names, and where needed, the content to match, to something along the order of "Sexual orientation and...", "Sexuality and...", or similar. I raise the issue in reference to the religion articles because those are the ones that started bugging me, but I don't mean it to be exclusive to those. In some cases, e.g. Homosexuality and Wicca, the title is quite a misnomer given the amount of discussion of, in that case bisexuality. In others, the title may more accurately reflect the content that is there, but not necessarily where we need it to go to be inclusive of all LGBT. What do you all think? --Aleta 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sexual orientation and..." sounds right. "Sexuality and..." would probably unnecessarily expand the scope of the articles to include things like masturbation, fertility, puberty, birth control, etc. Fireplace 02:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Fireplace. Sexual orientation and... broadens the term enough to be inclusive without making the scope of the articles too large. Koweja 04:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that leave out the "T"? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles don't cover the T. I suggest "Transexuality and religion" be separate as a lot of those articles are long enough already WjBscribe 11:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the Homosexuality and Christianity article doesn't specifically cover T, there are verses in the bible that are often considered to apply to T, discussion of those verses could be added. The only problem though is that such discussion could be considered POV, just as it is POV that the bible condemns homosexuality. --CC Proctor 13:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that it is necessary to expand the articles to "sexual orientation." It's really not about sexual orientation as a whole — religions generally don't discuss "orientations"; it's more about actions. Besides, what religions condemn heterosexuality? The topic discussed is homosexuality. I would think the only need to call it "sexual orientation and..." would be to include bisexuality. However, since the articles only address the same-sex aspect, the "Homosexuality and..." titles seem apt. — Emiellaiendiay 03:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out initially, it's not true in all of these articles that only the same-sex aspect is addressed; bisexuality is discussed in at least one of them. Also, while it may be usually true (?), it is not always the case that behavior only is at issue. The orientation itself may be at issue (whether in approving or disapproving fashion). Aleta 04:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to wholesale change article names. Where it's appropriate like the mentioned Homosexuality and Wicca, I say go for it. I haven't combed through them recently but Homosexuality and religion, Homosexuality and Christianity look pretty specific in their scope. If they start addressing the rest of the LGBT community then we should discuss it then. Just my $.02 --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 07:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot tagging

Hi, I just wanted to let you know a bot tagged film Talk:Boys Life 2 with your WP template. That's only part of a series of 5 articles, so you might want to tag the rest as well. Cheers! Hoverfish Talk 08:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hoverfish! The tagging is a manual process assisted by the bot, and I got tired last night so didn't finish the Boys Life movies. But I'll get to them :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resources list

I have created a resources list for people wanting to write LGBT articles - I would be grateful is everyone could add to it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great idea! We really need to make this work, it'd be terribly helpful to have a good resources list. If every one of us adds just one link, we'll have 100+ resources! :-) Come on people! Raystorm 16:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Involved page

A while back, I suggested we create a Getting Involved page similar to the one that WP:COMICS has. Well, I finally finished it, here it is. I've tried to pitch it to someone who has a vague notion of what Wikipedia is about (as well as shamelessly plagiarised WP:COMICS]] but not much more. Thoughts? Anyone is welcome to edit it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's brilliant, by the way. If I think of anything I'll add it to the page. — coelacan talk — 21:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter

The newsletter will be going out in approximately ten minutes. Can I congratulate us all on another good month - we've beaten our recuitment record for the fourth time in a row, elected a coordinator, built another department, designed a recruitment poster etc. Can I ask next month that we get a few more FAs in? They've slacked off a bit recently. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...And there is no way I am ever sending out that newsletter by hand again. *flops into bed* Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps SatyrBot can be recruited in future...? WjBscribe 00:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great work Dev920! --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 07:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks Dev! :-) And I can't believe you sent all those newsletters manually... Raystorm 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I like to catch up with what everyone's up to, but I think that's just too impractical now, regrettably. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added LGBT Portal to Seattle Men's Chorus

This is the largest LGBT community chorus in the world; I was surprised that the LGBT portal was not already on it. --Allyn 13:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article was a word-for-word copy violation. It even said at the bottom: "Taken from the Seattle Men's Chorus Homepage http://www.flyinghouse.org/about". If this is an important article, maybe someone would like to start it again from scratch? WjBscribe 13:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Men's Choruses' claim to be the largest LGBT community chorus in the world is erroneous, as there are several others (e.g. San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus and Turtle Creek Chorale) with at least as many members. MusicMen 17:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Current events - Trans city manager being fired

Yksin has been doing a great job with the Steve Stanton article. I'm posting here because I'd like to get more eyes and fingers on it right now. CNN Headline News is covering this story every half hour today, confirming that he is being fired for being trans. It's probably safe to expect that the article will be getting some hits. There might be a "Did You Know" in there somewhere, too. — coelacan talk — 18:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little self-tooting my horn

I know this isn't the place, and I have no problem with somebody removing this message, but I was allowed to stand with the obnoxious paparazzi ("Who do you photograph for?" "Wikipedia." "Oh, Wikipedia...do you have some kind of card or anything?" "Not really...." "Okay, sure, go ahead.") and photograph Angela Bassett and her husband Courtney Vance - I am pretty happy about the results, and had to share them. Check out their pages. Dave --DavidShankBone 01:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great pics, David! You are just a gem, the way you go around taking pics and automatically sharing them on Wikipedia. You have so improved the encyclopedia with your numerous photographic contributions. A great big thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jeffpw 06:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NAMBLA (cringe)

I have removed the LGBT WikiProject tag from the NAMBLA article. Both due to the discussion on that article's talk page, in the RfC on the matter, and the unfortunate phrasing that made the tag format to something like "NAMBLA is supported by WikiProject LGBT studies" (eek). I also saw that a member left the project today over the impression that this WikiProject "supports NAMBLA". Does anyone have any thoughts on this? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comes up all the time and everyone goes 'cringe', myself included. Unfortunately, it does come under the remit of WikiProject LGBT studies. At least in that way it can be monitored closely and studied for POV/vandalism - Alison^<talk> 06:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask who left today over this issue? Jeffpw 06:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be User:Avazina. See here - Alison^<talk> 06:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article should be monitored. But if that means having a template on the NAMBLA article that says, "This article is supported by WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia." I just can't be part of the WikiProject, either. Isn't there a way of monitoring them without including them? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removing the tag. While I'm not a big NAMBLA supporter (and likewise cringe), it is part of our history, and totally within the scope of our project. I would totally agree to adding something to the explanation= tag, or even adding a "faux" tag that words things better and still keeps it in our watchlist. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It seems that we're in a quandry, because if our project removes the tag from that article out of Political considerations, I would consider leaving the project, myself. I'm sorry you are unconfortable with the tag on the article, but it is most definitely a LGBT issue. Jeffpw 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have always supported tagging the talk page, because I believe the article is within the project's scope. But, this WikiProject needs active members much more than it needs strict tagging guidelines. The editorial dispute over whether or not the article should be in Category:LGBT organizations, Category:LGBT history, or neither, is a general content dispute that involves the larger Wikipedia community, and in my opinion shouldn't be anything that would drive anyone away from this WikiProject. (Take it up with WP:RFC, not WP:LGBT, you know?) But the WikiProject tag? That's LGBTProject-oriented, and that's optional, and if tagging the article is going to result in the loss of productive editors from this project, then the tag should be dropped. The project has an active editor who is not a member, and that arrangement seems to suit everyone fine. Similarly, the project can have an article that is actively monitored without being tagged. It doesn't mean the article isn't a concern of this project. — coelacan talk — 07:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Avazina's edit summary. What bothers me is the misunderstanding of "LGBT[Project]'s DE FACTO approval". If a member of this project can have this misunderstanding, many more non-members will certainly believe the same. Project scope I don't disagree with. But the project should not appear to be in support of something it doesn't support. If it's misleading, then it's harmful, no matter which article is in question. The mere fact that this tagging is being misunderstood by several editors should be troubling. — coelacan talk — 07:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coelacan, I'm a little surprised that there's such confusion. Perhaps we need to consider rewording the tag if that's a legit option? It seems the tag wording is the problem. Or generate a special tag for it similar to the one used for Saint...shoot, I can't recall who, but we added an explanation as to why the tag was on his article. Either that, or can we develop a "reduced" LGBT tag that simply says we monitor the article (I could see placing something like that on V for Vendetta (film) instead of the full project tag). There are many options here. Removing it for now while we discuss the matter might be ok, as long as we come up with some alternative to add back later. ZueJay (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a case of editors not reading carefully. The tag clearly reads "This article is supported by the LGBT Project", not "This organization is supported by the LGBT project". There's a crucial difference here, and it's not particularly subtle, either. And I do not support removing the tag while discussions are ongoing. Jeffpw 07:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little surprised by the confusion, but I can grasp it by trying to imagine that I don't know how the project works. And most people don't. There shouldn't be confusion. And I'm tempted to say, "well that's not what the tag means so those people are wrong and they should get over it". But there is such confusion. And I expect it will remain as long as that template, especially with its icon, is up there. There's just a strong psychological correlation that results from that visual. I wonder if the talk page needs to be tagged in any way? There must be ways of monitoring the article that don't involve tagging. — coelacan talk — 07:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the consensus of [RfC on the matter] indicates that we should not imply that NAMBLA is an accepted part of the LGBT community. If the tag is not removed from the article, it seriously needs to be reworded. I disagree with Jeff and think that the tag should be removed while this is being discussed. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, kathryn, the LGBT Project does not take a position on NAMBLA. Individual members have in dividual opinions, though I believe the vast majority oppose the organization and what it stands for. That said, NAMBLA is part of LGBT history, just as Naziism is part of German history. The article on Nazism is supported by Wiki project Germany--do you think they are advocating that country's return to a fascist, murderous dictatorship? The principle here is exactly the same. Jeffpw 07:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I believe you are arguing in a perfect world. The fact that people should not misunderstand does not stop people from misunderstanding. I for one know what exactly what the tag means, and I think we should dispense with it because many other people do not. People don't seem to be making the mistake of believing that WikiProject Germany supports Nazism. But for whatever reason, several editors both inside and outside of the project made the mistake of thinking that this project supported NAMBLA. We can't fault people for misunderstanding, and we can't fault Kathryn or anyone for not wanting to be associated with that misunderstanding. — coelacan talk — 08:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intersting choice - Nazism. Just went there and then to Holocaust to see how the various projects word their templates - they do not use the word "support" they simply say it falls within the scope. We have a tendency to read quickly online and not fully understand text all the time and that is what appears has happened here. Just as a I said "might" consider removing while we discuss, not "remove" alone. ZueJay (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satyr, is it possible to make a template, perhaps {{WPLGBT-monitored}}, that just drops the class-category without adding any other visual? — coelacan talk — 08:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps: "This article is monitored by WikiProject LGBT studies. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page." plus the rating. No rainbow flag, just text? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a project member, but it is hard for me to see how NAMBLA would not within the scope of the project given how many sources and critics of the gay-rights movement among others attempt to connect BAMBLA to the movement (I think it does also raise interesting issues about the nature of consent and related things that I'm not convinced most of the gay-rights movement is willing to really discuss, but that's my own POV). Regardless, the use of the language "support" is problematic. Why not have the template in all cases just say something like "This article is edit by the LGBT project" or soemthing like that? JoshuaZ 08:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of using the explanation option on the template to give a little note as to why it's there, just like on Talk:Saint George (as SatyrTN suggested). Either that, or change the tag to read "This article falls within the scope of...", but don't remove it. This article obviously qualifies as one this project should be working on. —Mira 08:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is within project scope. The nature of this particular article's subject is such that it impedes calm decision-making processes for many people. I do not expect the "explanation" parameter is obvious enough for this case. The primary reason for the template is to assist in tracking. That can be accomplished by simply adding Category:B-Class LGBT articles, without the graphic or anything else to provoke misunderstanding. — coelacan talk — 08:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two words: Neville Chamberlain. Jeffpw 08:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's got to be some corollary of Godwin's Law. Seriously, what do you want that Category:B-Class LGBT articles doesn't accomplish? — coelacan talk — 08:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How could it possibly be a "LGBT B class article" if it is not part of the LGBT project? And the next demand will be that it is removed from that category as well. Jeffpw 09:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither I nor Kathryn are suggesting that the article should be removed from the project. Only that the template is misleading in this case, unnecessarily so. — coelacan talk — 09:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Coelacan, perhaps Kathryn should answer that for herself. If that is indeed so, then it looks like sleight of hand to me, done solely for image purposes to improve our PR. I don't mean to be combative here, but I truly feel it is wrong to remove the project tag. maybe I should make a little list of all the articles this project covers that offend me, and which I feel give this project a bad name. For instance, do we as a project really support the idea of deliberately infecting ourselves with AIDS? That article certainly presents us in a wonderful light. Shouldn't we remove the tag from that, too? Jeffpw 09:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe she did.[3] And keep in mind that these concerns are coming from outside the project as well. Non-members, self-identifying as straight, have complained on that talk page about the project tag. For whatever reason, nobody's making the mistake of thinking that the template means the LGBT project supports bugchasing. Yet that mistake is being made here, repeatedly. I can't explain it. But I think that rather than acknowledging that this misunderstanding is a problem, you are simply saying that it shouldn't be a problem. I agree. That doesn't alleviate it though. — coelacan talk — 09:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in her second comment on this page, I interpret it to mean she wants the article completely out of the Project. The diff you provided showed a modification of Alison's comment made by Kathryn. In any event, please see the new tag. Comments? Jeffpw 09:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, since I posted my support of the new article tag it has changed again. I felt the first change gave greater protection and distance for LGBT members, which has been a concern of mine. We Gays, Lesbians, Bi's and Transgendered persons have enough problems being perceived by society as perverts and sexual deviants; NAMBLA (albeit a dead organization now) has done enough damage to encourage the persistence of that perception by society. The last thing the LGBT Project should do is anything that might further encourage that perception. While I do understand that neutrality is the expected goal of any wiki editor, there are visitors to wikipedia who don't participate in editing and simply browse the various pages for information. The one thing we don't need is for any of them (or others) to miscontrue the intent or scope of the LGBT Project and conclude that the members subscribe to the more extreme aspects of the LGBT world. I don't think that a detailed and specific disclaimer in article tagging, when it becomes necessary, would be problematic to the LGBT Project's editing neutrality. In short, I preferred Jeffpw's first version of the new tag, but that's just my opinion. --Avazina 23:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

(indent reset) The diff I linked was her most recent word on the subject. Anyway, I've changed the template to read "within the scope of" and added emphasis to your changes on the Talk:NAMBLA page. As I said earlier, I don't think the explanation parameter is going to be quite enough; the flag itself carries particular connotations and is very powerful psychologically as a visual cue. I still think that dropping the category alone is the best route. But I'd rather let this one sit while others chime in. I think America is going to bed now. Let's pick this up later. I'm going to go work on Steve Stanton for a while. — coelacan talk — 10:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While America sleeps others awake. I think the template (for ALL articles) should be carefully worded to preclude the possibility of it being seen either as an endorsement or a condemnation. The problem is not with this or that article, it is with an overly effusive template. Haiduc 11:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This American is just getting started on hir day and may not have had enough coffee yet to really be a part of this discussion. But... I'm opposed to just adding the "B-class LGBT articles" category and removing the tag. For one thing, I don't know if that would still keep the article on the LGBT Watchlist. However, I do support putting a text-only banner on NAMBLA that states that we watch and edit the article. Though I do wonder at Jeff's comment about where this will lead - Bugchasing is one thing, but personally I find Log Cabin Republicans offensive - would we use this banner there, too?

So lets compromise a little. It's no big deal to add a parameter to the template like image=no that would suppress the image. That combined with a thorough review of the wording (per the comment by Haiduc and others) should address most concerns, no? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be very careful about creating a two-tier classification with our template: "things we like and things we do not like about LGBT culture." We all have our betes noires, I am sure. Who shall we cast out farther? The NAMBLA rapists or the Bugchasing and Barebacking murderers? I suggest caution here. Haiduc 15:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Haiduc, for your take on the situation. I agree that this article is being handled differently because it makes people uncomfortable, and not because it is so difficult to classify. After giving this some thought, I think that if people are not comfortable participating due to articles falling under the scope of our project, they are free to leave. But to say that certain articles must be deleted if individual participants are to remain is both a form of censorship as well as an invitation to chaos. Jeffpw 15:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both statements Haiduc made above. We have to be careful of creating a two-class system and the template is/was overly effusive. The current version is better. A text only version would suit me, afterall many articles also have the LGBT template/footer - we don't have to have the flag on everything. It signals a tacit endorsement. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 16:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the wording on the tag has been changed to

This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia.

Which is much better. I do not think supressing the image is a good idea as then we might need to have this discussion every time someone wants to supress the image b/c they "disagree" in some way with labeling the article as LGBT related.
The explanation now attached seems incredibly redundant, and pretty harsh. I haven't read the article, but it appears by this statement that the project has taken a position on the topic of the article which is inappropriate conduct for the project at large. Can we simplify and reword this explanation - It should not be more than one (maybe compound) sentence. ZueJay (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zuejay, one could say that this entire discussion is based upon the project taking a position one way or another on the article. That disclaimer on the article was placed there in response to editors saying they were leaving (and in one case, had left) if the tag stayed at all. To me, removing the tag, as has been suggested, is taking an even stronger position. My feeling is that, as the article falls under our scope, we slap the same tag on it that we do on every other article, and let people manage their potential discomfort in their own way, as long as it doesn't disrupt the project or encyclopedia. Jeffpw 19:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what it appears this discussion "looks like" but I've tried to avoid expressing opinions about the article subject matter. I have read this conversation and I do understand what is going on. I agree, now, that there should only be one tag to avoid edit wars with the project tag and other similar foolish edit problems. I am simply expressing dissatisfaction with the current wording of the 'explanation'. May I propose another wording?

This article falls within the empirical scope of the wikiproject. This tag does not imply acceptance or endorsemsnt of NAMBLA.

I just want to simplify the bugger. ZueJay (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that you weren't fully informed about the discussion. I know you have been following it closely. I was just confused at what seemed the full circle we were making with this discussion. The text as you wrote it seems fine to me, if, indeed, we need text at all. Coelacan, however, seemed to feel the text as it now is on the tag, was not strong enough, and wanted the flag removed. I am beginning to wonder if we can please everybody involved in this discussion. Jeffpw 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I got snippy - inflections in voice don't "show-up" online. It seems not everyone will be pleased no matter what. The tag does need to appear on the page just as it does on Exodus International (as someone pointed out on NAMBLA's talk page - which needs to be archived). I understand the desire to supress the image, I just think it will lead to more edit conflicts. And I feel the simpler the wording, the better off we all are - the more words, the more oppotrunity for mis-interpretation. ZueJay (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out again that this isn't simply a project-internal discussion on what everyone's comfortable with. Non-members, self-identifying as straight, have complained on Talk:NAMBLA about the project tag. The template is generating false understandings. So the discussion has to be about more than simply making everyone comfortable; we have to try to see why the template is/was being misconstrued, and fix it, for the sake of facts. If there are elements of the tag that are contributing to false understanding, then those have to be on the table. I think the flag is one such visual cue. Since it's not a meaningless symbol, it carries along the frames that people have associated with it: often gay-positive. When people see it on that talk page, there's cognitive dissonance: "wait, no, that's wrong, NAMBLA isn't LGBT". All the text explanations in the world don't alter the underlying processing of frames that the symbol carries. I think this contributes to the misunderstanding. Anything else that does so also needs to be on the table. This isn't just about comfort zones, it's also about accuracy. — coel acan — 23:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a custom version of the banner to try to make clearer what project's position on NAMBLA is. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the simplified 'explanation'. However, "maintained by" is not accurate as it implies the LGBT project alone works on the article. A disccusion on this is occurring further down this page. ZueJay (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossgender impersonators in film/theatre

Hi all. I have been working on a number of articles related to crossgender impersonators in Japanese performance. In Kabuki, as in Shakespearean theatre and other forms, all the roles are played by men, and some men play only women's roles. Similarly, the Takarazuka Revue features all-female troupes and casts, in which some women specialize in only male roles. This phenomenon extends beyond just these two forms, and beyond just Japan, of course. But I can't seem to find any extensive articles on the subject (just a small section under Transvestism), and no categories for actors who professionally specialize in impersonating the opposite sex.

You all likely know as well as I do that people who crossdress professionally in this way are not necessarily gay. So I apologize somewhat for bringing this somewhat out-of-scope topic up here. Any thoughts or suggestions - if you know where to find these articles & categories, and I'm just looking in the wrong places - would be most appreciated. Thanks. LordAmeth 13:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, LordAmeth! I ran in to a couple of similar situations when reviewing the articles in Category:Drag kings and Category:Drag queens. Some of the articles in those cats (though not many) aren't LGBT. Though some might argue that drag in general falls under "T". I don't believe there's a category for Category:Performers who cross-dress, which might include Eddie Murphy and Robin Williams. But equating Kabuki players with Drag queens does seem out of place. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I should create something? Category:Female impersonators and Category:Male impersonators, or something like that? A man like Taichi Saotome (not a kabuki actor) or Tamasaburo (who is), playing the role of a woman in a play is not the same as Eddie Izzard playing himself - a man - in drag. Though I do see your point about Robin Williams, Eddie Murphy, Monty Python actually playing women's roles. LordAmeth 15:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think those categories would be a good idea. I'm passing over tagging Vesta Tilley right now. She's currently in Category:Drag kings but it appears Category:Male impersonators would be more approrpriate. — coel acan — 05:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of transsexuals and Gender identity disorder

... are on the main page this morning in the DYK section. They're a prime target for vandalism so please add to your watchlist! - Alison^<talk> 16:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of project banner

Evidently, Dev's not too keen on "within the scope of" for the project banner. As I recall it sets off her synesthesia. Do we reopen the discussion on the wording of the banner? Or is the explanation on the NAMBLA banner enough for those concerned? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further review, we voted 6 to 1 for the phrase "within the scope of". -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the problem that many of the articles tagged are not supported by this WikiProject. By that I mean they've been tagged, but not edited significantly or even cleaned up. I tag a lot of talk pages without touching the articles themselves (shame on me, but I'm lazy like that). WjB pointed out that "within the scope of" avoids any appearance of taking credit for other editors' work. Appearing to take credit for no work at all is undesirable too. (League of Sloppyeditors?) — coel acan — 23:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "within the scope of" remains the best wording at this point; I'd really like to hear what others think, including other suggestions. Perhaps, now that there are significantly more members, another list of options should be entertained and another vote needs to be held? ZueJay (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion can't hurt. I favoured "within the scope" at the time of the last discussion and still do. In my view "supported by" implies an approval of the topic and commitment to maintain the article. The former we simply should not do. The latter we we cannot commit to given the shear number of articles with this project's scope. However, our membership has expanded considerably since the discussion last December and it may be a good idea to revisit the matter. WjBscribe 01:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see that I think it's ridiculous that you want to change the wording of the banner for the sake of one sodding article. This also goes back to my attitude towards tagging articles like Buffy and V for Vendetta - if we aren't going to at least plan to support them we shouldn't tag them. However, 6-1 is a fairly definitive ratio, so if you all decide to go with that I only ask that you chnage "scope" to "remit", because my eyes are starting to water. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are we changing the banner for one article? The discussion in Dec was way before the recent probs with the NAMBLA article. Surely we should now discuss what the banner should read for all articles, rather than having disclaimers on some articles but not others, which I find problematic. Either we disavow approval on all articles or none- otherwise a subjective judgment will creep in as to which articles need the disclaimer. By the way, can I ask why you prefer the word "remit" to "scope"? WjBscribe 01:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the banner 'just for this one article' by expanding the macro and editing the result. (Currently "This article falls under the scope of", but feel free to change it.) There is no need to change the overall banner just because of one article, if we don't want to. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Please, feel free to contribute to this conver., too. ZueJay (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should help prevent any revert warring and calm people down, though it is just a temporary solution. Banners need to be transcluded templates rather than substituted because it makes it harder to maintain the banner, makes a mess of the talk page, and besides, we should have a uniform statement. If we have separate messages for subjects we don't like we haven't solved the problem at all. Koweja 05:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With synesthesia, certain combinations of letters can cause unpleasant sensations, if I learned anything from the Discovery Channel (and others can be pretty awesome). Anyway, thesaurus.com suggests bounds, breadth, field, purview, range, span, sphere, stage, and ... purlieus. I remember the discussion that Satyr linked; I don't remember how it changed after that. But, whatever. I'm partial to "breadth", myself. Makes me think of warm loaves. — coel acan — 03:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying synesthesia; I must have read the first few sentences at least three times and still wasn't certain how it applied here. So Dev920, let us know which words trip your troubles and which don't; as you are Coordinator, we can certainly come up with a reasonable alternative to the dreadful sko-p-e. Also found: gamut, spectrum, domain (from Merriam-Webster). ZueJay (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just for one article. There was already a minor issue at Homer's Phobia because someone thought that "supported by" meant we were claiming credit for it reaching GA status. I thought supported would be an acceptable alternative, but apparently not. An alternative to skope (does it help if we misspell it?) would be fine but we have to be careful that we don't imply that we a)own in whole or part, b)are actively involved with the development of, or c)agree with the subject of the article. Koweja 02:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

crickets

So... anybody like "breadth"? — coel acan — 06:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Breadth" always means "wide" to me. I think I'd prefer sphere, domain, or spectrum (which implies rainbows!) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Domain" sounds too territorial and royal to me. "Spectrum" and "sphere" are okay. Also "bounds". — coel acan — 07:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum work well, especially with the Rainbow flag as part of our Project's symbol. I don't particularly like sphere because it makes me think of sphere of influence. Bounds works well too. Koweja 15:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with remit? :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regional, IMHO :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense that I am using it, it seems also to be limited to the judiciary. Maybe not. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I could not figure out remit - no wonder! ;) ZueJay (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset to margin)

"This article falls under the scope of" is my choice. I also think a generic statement like "The WikiProject banner on this article does not imply acceptance or endorsement." would be appropriate. I reworked the banner on one of my user pages HERE. Don't worry I don't plan to use it anywhere, just an idea.--ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 16:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also like purview "within the purview of." Or would too many have to check it in the dictionary? Might need a proposal of all and multiple vote cycles to narrow down. ZueJay (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love purview. Completely missed that when it was mentioned above. I would be happy with breadth as well. Although a part of me would like to see, "This article falls under the ever-vigilant and restless eye of WikiProject LGBT studies! Be afraid, be very afraid." but maybe that's just me. :-) --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 06:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{LGBTProject}} : let's pick one/some

Okay, these are the wordings supported by two or more editors here. Add others if I've overlooked them. This is simple approval voting, so choose any and all that you like. I suggest this run three days, as I expect five days is unnecessary, but if anyone disagrees, we'll make it five. — coel acan — 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we vote for "scope"? Frankly, I don't like any of the choices, and I believe some of them aren't in the lexicon of most English speakers (American or otherwise). HalJor 06:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I didn't add scope because the word aggravates Dev920's synesthesia and many of us were looking for a work-around. However, if you think it's the only workable option, I (or anyone else) can add it anyway. I wanted to make this caveat clear first though. Shall I add it? — coel acan — 06:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scope is used by many other Wikiprojects and is far preferable to anything else here, IMO. If Dev's synaesthesia is really the only issue, it would be easy enough to set her up with a custom stylesheet that causes the word to be blacked out for her. (Or just black out the letter "o", or whatever is sufficient.) —Cel ithemis 12:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is within the spectrum of WikiProject LGBT studies

— coel acan — 03:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Favorite. —Mira 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
---ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 05:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Favorite-SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is within the remit of WikiProject LGBT studies

This article is within the purview of WikiProject LGBT studies

—Mira 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
---ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 05:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is within the breadth of WikiProject LGBT studies

— coel acan — 03:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—Mira 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is within the sphere of WikiProject LGBT studies

---SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffpw 06:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is within the bounds of WikiProject LGBT studies

— coel acan — 03:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is supported by WikiProject LGBT studies (the current wording)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies

Sorry Dev. WjBscribe 12:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—Cel ithemis 12:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raystorm 13:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies

WjBscribe 12:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—Cel ithemis 12:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raystorm 13:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is under the iron fist of WikiProject LGBT studies; click to pay homage

~~— coel acan — 03:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
~~---ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 05:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
~~---SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

(the below didn't get included when it obviously should have)
This article is painted with the rainbow of WikiProject LGBT studies.

~~---SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

DYK

Is it just me, or are we getting a lot of main page articles? I mean, Classification of transsexuals and Gender identity disorder as DYK's yesterday, and I see that Same-sex marriage in Spain will be Featured on the 14th, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer on the 10th. I think that speaks very well of our project! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye! It's pretty sweet. Help me squeeze a DYK out of Steve Stanton! The article's approaching 36 hours now. Is there a tidbit there? "Did you know that Steve Stanton was fired by jerks?" That doesn't seem to work. — coel acan — 03:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that successful city manager of Largo, Florida — Steve Stanton — has been fired for pursuing sex reassignment? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Satyr, that inspired me to be just NPOV enough. =) We'll see how it goes. — coel acan — 06:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note - make sure the sex reassignment link is disambig. Perhaps sex reassignment therapy with the "therapy" hidden. ZueJay (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did, because I anticipated that the redirect would change soon. Thanks for making the disambiguation page. — coel acan — 06:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a member of your project, but would like to request help

I keep coming across your tags and have enjoyed browsing around your project. Now I'd like to ask for advice. What criteria should editors use when deciding where in an article (or whether) to include a person's sexuality? The two examples I have in mind are fairly straightforward, in that the individuals are out and have used gay issues as some part of their political work, so their sexuality is of relevance to their public lives. Even in these cases, there is some debate on the talk pages. (The two I am thinking of are Irshad Manji, controversial Canadian writer, and Waheed Alli, Tony Blair's youngest appointment to the House of Lords.Any comments you would care to make there would be gratefully recieved as well.) But what about more generally, when the person is out in some contexts? Or it is of less relevance to their work? If it's of no relevance to their work, or they are not out, then it is reasonable not to mention it. But otherwise? Do you have a proto-policy about this? Many thanks. BrainyBabe 17:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are a gay activist, or their work is based in gay themes (such as writers, artists etc.), this should be mentioned in the introduction and expanded on in their career sections. If they are simply someone who happens to be gay (e.g. Evan Davis) than it should simply be mentioned in their personal life section section and as a category. IMO, anyway. It's the principles I follow when editing articles. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether: Personally I feel it's always good to include that a person is LGBT. If nothing else, it helps educate people that we are everywhere. That might be POV, but there ya go. :)

Where: I think Dev put it right on the money. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually treat WP:V and WP:N as significantly overlapping. If something can be verified, that's usually because reliable sources have considered it notable enough to mention. That's not a perfect guide, but it usually works in my experience. — coel acan — 07:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of importance

I see people here have been doing a wonderful job of assessing articles by quality. I was looking over the results to see if there were any "important" articles that were in a bad state, but there are so many lower-quality articles, it can be hard to get a handle on the situation. I was wondering if it would be useful to also assign an important level to all LGBT articles, using the standard importance scale like the Math project. -- Beland 19:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance ratings for articles are a sticky barrel of worms, IMHO. To rate an article's quality can have a degree of subjectivity, but importance? I can only imagine the arguments over that. Maybe I'm over-worrying, but whenever I do article assessments, I never rate importance, only quality. My two cents, for what it's worth. --Ebyabe 20:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance is really something that has to be determined by the Project, not an individual, which makes it difficult (judging quality is hard enough, which is why I avoided it at first). Obviously articles on LGBT, Homosexuality, Bisexuality, etc are high importance, but there are thousands of articles tagged. Perhaps we could elect a committee of Project members to evaluate the importance of the articles? Koweja 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, since we have ~6,000 articles (rather than ~221,000 that WP:WPBIO has, or ~31,000 that WP:MILHIST has), I'd rather spend my time increasing the quality of articles than worrying about their "importance". Just my $US0.02. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes that should of course be everyone's goal. However if we want "our" articles to make into the Wikipedia release then we need to allocate our time so we focus on getting the most important LGBT articles ready. Koweja 02:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong argument either way. It wouldn't hurt to at least get the High-priority articles put into a category. There's probably less than 100 of those (possibly way less). I've seen templates that take both class and priority parameters, but only give a visual of class, and just drop a category for priority. That way nobody has to feel guilty about not using the priority, because those pesky ???'s don't get displayed. If this is adopted, I would suggest "priority" instead of "importance", as {{WPBiography}} has done. — coel acan — 06:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're assessing the importance for a Wikipedia release, why don't we simply create a list of Core Topics? That way people can have a list to look at but we don't have to go through the palaver (and I can only imagine the edit warring as someone discovers their pet article is "low importance") of implementing it for all six thousand articles. AND, if we work on those core topics, we can get some wikireaders out as well, something I've wanted us to do for a very long time. Does that sound OK? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does. I suggest as core articles every letter of L G B T, plus same-sex marriage, queer theory and history of homosexuality. :-) Raystorm 16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

If any stubs need expanding, feel free to let me know, I'll try and wikify them where possible. Good work so far with this project! --sunstar net^talk 14:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have 2000 of them here, edit any that takes your fancy. :) Oh and if you join WP:LGBT, enter our Jumpaclass competition too! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! Some help with Same-sex marriage in Italy would be quite welcome. :-) The first merge threat has been issued, and I don't want that to happen if I can help it! Cheers Raystorm 16:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another call for opinion re: tagging

Family Research Council. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of tagging? Haiduc 23:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know anymore. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a couple comments lately that have bothered me about project banners and their application. I wanted to clarify some of my thoughts and actions. I've been using the bot to tag ~3,000 articles, reviewing each article and assessing it at the same time — and I want feedback if I'm being overzealous or spending time needlessly.

As I see it, banners are integral to achieving the stated goals of the wikiproject: build a thriving community, raise LGBT-related articles to FA status, and maintain or improve articles that are within the spectrum of the project. I can explain why I feel banners help us achieve those goals if you want, but that's not the main reason I'm posting this.

The way I approached determining what articles are within the spectrum is that I started with the Category:LGBT and worked my way down through the category tree. Most articles within those categories should, logically, be included.

During the process, of course, I ran across all sorts of categories. Some of them — Category:Sexual orientation and identity, for example — are easy to mark for inclusion. Others — Category:BDSM, which is a subset of Cat:So&i — are only partially included. This particular article (Family Research Council) is in the Category:Ex-gay movement.

Given our recent discussions on NAMBLA, I wanted to get input from the group as to what articles should have the banner and what articles shouldn't. If it seems like I'm bringing up some strange or disturbing, or even *wrong*, articles, that's because I've worked my way through all the easy cats and now have only the marginally-related cats left.

So why are we doing this? For me, what I'm doing is completing the process of determining what articles fall within the spectrum of the project.

I hope that helps explain what I see is going on. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it is clear that my question was not intended to imply that banners have no value, but to investigate and clarify (at least for myself) their aims, so as to weigh them against the methods. I come to this with a fresh mind since I have paid the whole process absolutely no attention (as you probably figured out from my lack of involvement).

Looking closely at the tag, a couple of issues come up for me. One, the ease with which "supporting the article" can be read as "supporting the practice". I would suggest that the wording be changed in all instances to a more neutral formulation. I am not sure how I feel about the sentence inviting users to collaborate (in an ideal world I would leave it out for going beyond the bare minimum necessary from encyclopedic purposes, it seems too political, but if this what all projects do . . .) I am also not too happy with all the graphic apparatus that has begun to accumulate at the head of the talk pages, and I would reduce the size of all tags by 75%, but that discussion goes beyond our project and probably should be engaged at Wikipedia level (by someone with more free time than myself).

The question of flying the gay flag over all these articles also needs to be closely examined. I would prefer two identical gender signs, whether male or female. Flip a coin to decide which, and indicate how that was determined, for all future sleuths who will detect nefarious conspiracies in that choice.

Beyond these criticisms, I support the basic purpose of the tag, and SatyrTN's work. A register of articles indexed by quality and completeness is a valuable tool, and making readers aware of the existence of a co-ordinated (ha!) effort to raise the level of discussion on this topic is also worthwhile. The goal however should be to keep things as low key and neutral as possible.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that matters at NAMBLA have not been resolved, defensive disclaimers not being acceptable for reasons which I indicated previously. They only support the argument that the tag in its present formulation over-reaches. Haiduc 04:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Haiduc, I support the purpose of the tag, and appreciate SatyrTN's hard work. I think it's in our best interest that the banner's be as generic as possible to avoid any tacit endorsement or disapproval. I don't think we're here for that. Personally I think the flag should go. On the non-controversial pages there are usually several gay flag icons already and on the controversial pages the flag provokes unwarranted attention (NAMBLA).

Family Research Council is tricky. Their only relation to us is their antipathy to LGBT issues and the Ex-Gay tag, as far as I can tell. I don't think just opposing LGBT issues is enough for us to tag them. If their only purpose was opposition to the LGBT community, I would say tag it, but that doesn't seem to be the case. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 06:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Satyr, I think you're doing a wonderful job tagging the articles, and I thank you for taking the time and effort to do it. Without addressing the specifics of Haiduc's criticisms (except to say that if one adds {{skiptotoc}} to articles, one can skip right over all of the extraneous crap and get right to the table of contents) I want to say that FRC article, in it's present state) should not be tagged by our project. I did a text search for "gay"and homosexuality" and found a several mean spirited, hysterical comments about LGBTs ("Spongebob Squarepants is gay", etc.), but nothing that seemed to call for us to tag them. As to their being categorized as ex-gay, that seems a mistake. The article does not reference that at all, so I think until it addresses that issue, this article should be taken out of the category. Jeffpw 08:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAs

We have 21 FAs tagged, and approximately 4 of them were written by us. Either we need to stop being so banner happy or start writing more. Shall we have a special LGBT WP:FAPQ, or what? Cos this is getting worrying. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banner happy - I've been considering my original tag on V for Vendetta (film) which was all ready of FA status. When I saw the movie, I thought for sure it should be tagged LGBT. Since reviewing the article, I would have to say I now disagree with my (younger) self. I would not be opposed to removing the LGBT project tag from this non-LGBTProject-created-FA-possibly-thinly-related article.

removed. Jeffpw 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aherm, I know this board gets pretty busy but I expressed rather a contrary view a few days ago. Please my thoughts on this film at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Scope. V for Vendetta does not just have 2 gay characters, the general theme of anti-gay oppression which runs through the film makes it, in my opinion, within the scope (or whatever word is in fashion today) of the project. WjBscribe 00:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...Perhaps it is the article that needs tweaking instead. ZueJay (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing more - I have great hope for the Steve Stanton article in which User:Yksin has invested significant effort along with other editors. The four articles up for peer-review should all be considered promising based solely on the fact that editors working on those articles are requesting more input. ZueJay (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing more - That's the aim of this project, right? I personally find it kinda sad when FA's are tagged with projects' banners and not a single member of the project has contributed substantially to it becoming a FA... Raystorm 12:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Caesar

I've always understood that he was bisexual ("every woman's man and every man's woman" or something like that), but I see that the WP article has a section entitled Julius_Caesar#Political_rivals_and_slanders_of_homosexual_activity and the Talk page has multiple Project tags but not one from these parts. "Slanders", eh? At the very least, I'd have expected "rumours" rather than "slanders" - just because some or most of the stories were apparently put about by his enemies doesn't mean that there might not have been some truth in them. Anyway, I have absolutely no expertise in Roman history and don't feel like disturbing the certainties of the editors of the Caesar page just now, but I thought I'd flag this up here for everyone to think about, consult their reference-books, tag the article, start an edit war over there or what you will. Best to all. --GuillaumeTell 22:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've always thought that if Suetonius saw fit to add in the rumour, it must have been big. Having read the Twelve Caesars (*shuffled off to find copy*), my translation says "When Thermus sent Caesar to raise a fleet in Bithynia, he wasted so much time at King Nicomedes' court that a homosexual relationship between them was suspected, and suspicion gave place to scandal when, soon after his return to headquarters, he revisted Bithynia". Oh and Cicero apparently wrote " Caesar was led by Nicomedes' attendants to the royal bedchamber, where he lay on a golden couch, dressed in a purple shift... So this descendant of Venus lost his virginity in Bithynia". Apparently the rumours dogged him all his life and he was dubbed "the Queen of Bithynia". So even if it's not true, it's big enough to be worth including, I reckon. Strange how the most successful people always turn out to be bisexual, huh? :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that the term "slanders" has been accepted. It is glaringly pov. "Rumors" or "insinuations" or "accusations" are certainly better choices. Haiduc 05:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbianism in erotica

I'm trying to get consensus about usage the adjective "lesbian" and the noun "lesbianism" in the article Lesbianism in erotica and potentially head off an edit war between myself and User:Joie de Vivre. Basically, this user insists on very narrow usage of the words "lesbian" and "lesbianism" no matter what the context, restricting only to descriptions of self-identified "lesbians". It is my belief that "ordinary language" use of the word lesbian allows this term as a broad description of same-sex activity between women and that the phrase "lesbian sex" can be reasonably used to describe sex between bisexual women. I feel very strongly that English usage in Wikipedia should reflect generally accepted usage of the English language by the larger public and not usage that may be confined to a particular subculture.

Based on this, JdV had changed the title to "Sex between women in erotica" and rewrote the article to expunge nearly every instance of the word "lesbian". I think the results of JdV's edits were largely tendentious and clunky and have reverted them (though I've incorporated some of JdV's edits after reverting).

If you have an opinion on this, please weigh in at Talk: Lesbianism_in_erotica: Renaming_article. Iamcuriousblue 00:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAs needed

Many people use current FAs as a template for other poetntial ones. Certainly, I do. I noticed that, while we have FAs on gay films, gay people, gay books, gay marriage etc., there are some areas where we could do with some people out there breaking new ground, so to speak. So, here is a list of areas that I think we could do with addressing:

A newspaper (probably The Washington Blade, if jtowns has anything to do with it)
A gay rights in...
A homosexuality in...
An LGBT rights organisation
A transgender organisation
An article on a religion and homosexuality
An LGBT term
An article on a gay hate crime victim
An LGBT event

Anyone interested in developing articles in any of these areas, please, do go ahead. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Core Topics

There was some interest expressed above in starting an LGBT Core Topics. I personally think this is a marvellous idea, it will give people something to work on if they feel bored and perhaps, some time in the future, we can produce our own CD for LGBT organisations? Definitely a few wikireaders. It could compose of the top 200 most important LGBT articles. What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already said somewhere above I'm all for this idea. How should we pick the articles? Via a poll? Raystorm 12:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT-related topics

The List of LGBT-related topics is a complete mess. Either we need to delete it, or use an automated process to add all our currently assessed articles. I'm torn between those options. What do you think? And could people start replying to my posts? I'm starting to feel kinda alone... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. It's really off-putting. If you can do the automated process thingy to improve it, great. If not, I'd say delete. (Yeah that was a great help huh?) ;-) Raystorm 12:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this list do? Key topics are listed at Template:LGBT topics, which should be kept up to date. Is having that info in list form as well useful to navigation? I think it would be unmanageable if we listed all LGBT-related topics... WjBscribe 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many choices to make all of them by poll; just designating a page for people to assemble the list should be sufficient. Others will need to review the list as articles are proposed, as well as any guidelines proposed. The easiest collection technique might be to start at the top of the LGBT category tree. -- Beland 13:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]