Talk:Common Lives/Lesbian Lives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	LGBT Portal 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. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.

I guess I should say that, first off, I am writing a series of articles on significant projects in lesbian and feminist publishing, articles like Sinister Wisdom, Press Gang Publishers, ect. I believe that this article is an important part of lesbian and feminist publishing history, and a significant epoch in the lesbian cultural history of the 1980's and 1990's.

Common Lives/Lesbian Lives was a cultural milestone in the lesbian publishing world, as it was the first lesbian journal or magazine published from outside of the urban/coastal New York/Los Angeles/Berkley scene. The American Heartland, Iowa - not known to be a congenial environment for lesbians to my knowledge. As such, I think the survival of the project for 15 years is kind of a coup.

I think the topic is noteworthy because:

• It was a rurally-based project, unlike most publishing endeavors.
• The Journal was organized and published collectively.
• The material from the project has been archived at the Iowa Women's Archives Library, and so it is an academic resource for lesbian or feminist historians.
• As a lesbian historian I can attest to how difficult it is to find material about my cultural history, and I believe it is important to preserve and make available that material which we have.

I will close by saying I have been in no way associated with the magazine, I have no conflict of interest here. I have written the article solely in the interest of providing historical information.

Thanks. Kootenayvolcano 03:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• If many of the points you make here were included in the article, finding notability in what is just billed as a quarterly publication would have been much easier. I'd strongly suggest adding that sort of information to the article. Erechtheus 03:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I will do so, then. Thank you for your suggestions.Kootenayvolcano 04:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Please include verifiable sources as references for this article. If the article does not meet notability and verfiability criteria, it may be speedily deleted. — ERcheck (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I do see assertions of notability here, so I've declined to speedy it. Kootenayvolcano, thanks for cooperating and adding the requested material. However, I would encourage you to remember that, while in this case it does seem source material is available, we're here to reflect what sources already say, not to "correct" any perceived "deficiency" in them. (On the other hand, if independent sources have covered something but Wikipedia hasn't yet, by all means write that article!) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)