Talk:Lesbian American history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lesbian American history was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: August 4, 2007
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.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Voila

I started to make this a part of the History of lesbianism, but that article is in serious disrepair, and has been dormant for a long time. I figured that there was enough material to start an entirely new article, and I feel it deserves one, since there is ample material. I have put together a bunch of old notecards from sources I used during graduate level study on this topic. This is the first real article I've written, and so I hope that it isn't too shabby. I look forward to seeing it perfected. This article is currently incomplete, but I will have the initial composition complete very shortly. Thanks! --Chuchunezumi 01:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Also keep in mind that this is a skeleton only. I may add or delete much from any section. --Chuchunezumi 03:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Images

I've written Rita Mae Brown to see whether she has an image that may be used. I've also written webmasters at a couple different Lesbian history websites to see whether they have any public domain images we may use, specifically one that shows drag kings at Mona's in the 1940's. I am trying to populate the article with relevant images concurrently with continuing the basic writing. --Chuchunezumi 21:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination

I've posted this for review for good article status, since I've been unable to solicit any feedback on it from anyone else. If you are the person rating the article, please be thorough in your criticism, as I want to improve this article whether or not it currently meets the criteria for good article status. Thank you so much! Cheers! Chuchunezumi 18:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I read this article because it is nominated for GA. I do think it should be awarded GA. It's well written and well sourced. Just now, I went in and standardized the references according to Wikipedia:Citing sources. I found most of the books on Amazon, although in some cases the publisher didn't match yours'. One or the other is probably a re-print. If you have the books available, please check the ISBN numbers; I believe that is most important. Also, you can add any information that I didn't find.
I also uncapitalized lesbian and lesbianism in most cases, according to my understanding of the grammar rules. It's not necessarily clear-cut. e.g. If lesbianism is a movement like progressivism it shouldn't be capped, but if it's more like a party, like Naziism, maybe it should be. My take is that it's more like the former, but it could be a point of discussion. I'm more sure about lesbian - similar in usage to man, or transvestite. These wouldn't be capitalized.
There are a few red links. After GA, the next step is FA. All red links must be fixed for FA, so you might as well do that now. If the topic deserves an article, you can write one, or write a stub for one. If not, remove the wikilink.
I believe the Time magazine cover violates copyright. I'm not an expert, but I was told that the only time using that would be permissible, would be if the article, or section of the article, is specifically referring to the Time magazine article. Here, it's more-or-less just to show Kinsey. There's probably an alternative image available. Write on my talk page if you have any questions. Appraiser 20:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Capitalization of "Lesbian": It's good to smallcap "lesbian" in the article. It's not a political party, but it's a political identity and as such some people capitalize Lesbian. However that's not universal and, at any rate, not the way "lesbian" is used throughout the article. --LQ 21:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as the capitalization goes, I suppose I thought of it as an adjective derived from a proper noun, ie, Lesbos, the isle on which Sappho lived, the origin of the term, rather than a being originated from a political movement or other reasons. The image from Time magazine was one I retrieved from the Wikipedia data base, and as my knowledge of the specific workings of this copyright law is limited, I'll remove it pending further reasearch into its legality. I will also remove the red links. Unfortunately, most of this research was done in the library, so I don't have the books handy, and I'm not sure about how to go after the ISBN. Advice? Thanks for your prompt attention to this article! Cheers! Chuchunezumi 21:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the references some. It could still use a little work on a couple of journal references. I added an image of Mona's 440 club, I think it looks okay. An image for "Radicalesbians" would be great, but can't find anything. It should go on the left side with the section on radicalesbians. Also, a good lead image would be nice. I'll give some thought to what might work. Atom 04:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Image

Here are some possibilities. Frankly I don't like any of them. Well, I like the Cariatidi del Parlamento a Vienna, but what does that (or the Lautrec) have to do with America? (second and third images) I suppose the lead is symbolic. Atom 04:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Gertrude Stein

Parlamento a Vienna

Lautrec

[edit] First sentence

"Lesbian American history is the history of women who are attracted to other women, or Lesbians, in the United States." Seems clumsy to me. I went to rewrite, and found I couldn't really do better. I will give it some thought. Atom 04:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

  • It is well-written
  • It is verifiable, the references cited and the books listed are enough to support the article's current form. The interwiki articles are also referenced satisfactorily, therefore certain passages are also supported by references from those articles
  • It is broad enough, it covers the topic well enough, considering the difficulties that would be expected with the subject matter.
  • It is NPOV
  • It is stable
  • The images are also satisfactory

[edit] Some suggestions

  • The title "imported from England" could be changed, it requires a small edit, and is not a block for GA. I think that a better title could be found
  • An ouverture at the end of the article about the current status of LGBT movement, with regards to its implication on lesbian history, in a way to show its evolution, could also be added. However, since the article's title is history, it is not a block to GA, but might be a good idea for general encyclopedic purposes.
  • Other images could be added, but again, the difficulties with the subject matter can be a stumbling-block, therefore are comprehensible. Baristarim 14:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good, but can be better

Chu (and others): I applaud your work on this much-needed article, which brings a number of important issues to light. However, one confusing aspect of the article at the moment is that it skips around chronologically, and the use of time words is inconsistent.

For example, in the "Difficulties in study" section: "early American" is usually understood to refer to pre-Revolutionary War times, synonymous with "colonial." However, here, you use the term as if it were synomous with the Victorian period. About half of this paragraph seems to repeat what was said in the introductory paragraph, too.

In the "Attempts to criminalize" section, you begin with the Victorian era, and English legislation--which seems odd here, as the U.S. had been independent of England for over a century by the time of Labouchere's amendment, so why is that relevant to a discussion of American Lesbian history? But then the paragraph leaps way back in time, 250 years, to John Cotton's proposed ordinance.

The next section is titled "Early historical records," but the two records discussed in this section are from 1913 and 1923--less than a hundred years ago, well within what historians would deem "modern" American history, I would think.

Next, under "Boston Marriages," the New England section gives no indication of when this practice was prevalent, although the accompanying picture is of Jewett, who died, as noted, in 1909. The Utah section has an interesting, but undated quotation; the reference to the 1952 statement by the LDS church may be misleading here, timewise. I can't imagine 1950's Mormon women fooling around with each other publicly. Also, to say that the church "granted identity" to these women makes it sound as if the church officially recognized or encouraged such relationships, which I rather doubt--although the church certainly did embrace the "alternate lifestyle" of polygamy until forced by the federal government to drop it in 1890! Strange how they thought that was okay, but gay sex, no.  :-)

"Early 20th century": first, exactly when and where did the club called Heterodoxy exist? The 440, you say, was "concurrent" with it, but when was that? My guess would be the 1920's. But then the same paragraph leaps bewilderingly to a short discussion of Emma Goldman--who was most definitely not the kind of gal to be hanging out in fashionable nightclubs, regardless of her sexual orientation. At any rate, Goldman was deported in 1919 and never set foot in the U.S. after that. I've never heard Goldman called the mother of the gay/lesbian rights movement; can you provide a source for that claim? As far as I know, she never publicly advocated for gay rights.

"Birth of a movement" and "the Stonewall riots": basically good paragraphs; the first covers 1955-1969, the second is about what happened in 1969. But then the next section, "Kinsey reports," jumps backward 20 years.

You mention the gay and lesbian rights movement and Rita Mae Brown, but it didn't all begin and end in 1969; more could be said about the evolution of the movement in the 1970's, as well as more about how lesbian concerns paralleled with and differed from the (hetero) feminist movement in that period. Of course, a flood of both lesbian and gay literature worth mentioning began to appear in the 1970's, too, and Brown's Rubyfruit Jungle would be highly appropriate to discuss here as sort of the "grandmother" of lesbian novels.

"Radical lesbian ideology" has a lot of interesting content, but you include no time indicators at all here. More about lesbian life and concerns in the 80's, 90's, and 00's, including the tremendous response by lesbians towards helping deal with the AIDS crisis, as well as lesbian involvement in the same-sex marriage debate, would be nice to see.

Browsing through my copy here of Katz's Gay American History book, I'm noticing a number of lesbian stories/articles/denunciations from 1655 on down. But I hesitate to start adding things in, as you have obviously done a lot of work on this article already and have gathered some great information together already. Besides, I'm a guy, and I think it would be better if a woman made the improvements--lesbian life & history is not my area of expertise, obviously. But I'm wanting to see you make this a super-good article, and I hope my suggestions are helpful. Good luck! Textorus 06:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right about the Utah section. There's a study of lesbians in Salt Lake City in the 20s and 30s, conducted more or less in secret, that came to light in the 70s. The women in that study are mostly from Mormon backgrounds and they're all very closeted. They're worried that The Well of Loneliness is creating too much publicity and making everybody look more closely at them. There doesn't seem to be a sense of things having changed in the recent past either, and the oldest woman in the study was 56 at the time of interviewing, so any tolerance or recognition from the church must have been pretty much over by the turn of the century. —Celithemis 08:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks a million!

Wow! You gave Lesbian American history the review it truly needed, especially given I'd like to one day bring it to featured article status. I can't thank you enough for your input. Most of the material I had was from a graduate level history class (History 640: History of Women in the United States), in which I did a lot of research on Lesbians in American history. Unfortunately, the essays therewith associated were often critical, so wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia, bearing my own stamp of political ideology. I've had to work with my notecards from the research and temper my analysis for an NPOV view, so several things I was unable to immediately address (for example, the role of Lesbians in the promotion of marriage equality), but plan to review. Honestly, I have all of Emma Goldman's writings, and though I don't have the reference handy (now I have my homework for this weekend), Emma Goldman was *the first* person on record in the United States (I remember this from the same history class, unless Dr. Dunn was lying...I just consulted my notebook and I have that among my lecture notes) to speak out for LGBT equality. As Emma Goldman is my hero (silly as it may sound), I've resolved to refrain from making edits to her article (though I reserve the right to make minor edits) on this very importatnt heroine. Also, I like to remind you that you are no less capable than anyone else in advancing this topic. If we were to believe that only women or lesbians were capable of accurately advancing this topic, then we would be quite ignorant. You don't need to be Wilma Mankiller to advocate the Cherokees, and you need not be Rita Mae Brown to advocate Lesbians. I sincerely prize your input, and I hope that you'll continue to be a necessary part of making sure this topic receives proper scrutiny. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 07:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kate Richards O'Hare image

I don't think it's appropriate to have O'Hare's image there, as she refers to lesbianism as a perversion, and it's not certain if she was actually a lesbian, as I even have not heard any rumor or allegation stating this. --Revolución hablar ver 12:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title of article

I suggest the rename "American lesbian history." — Emiellaiendiay 03:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

What's the reason the categories were deleted today? They seem to be applicable.--Appraiser 06:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-rated as Start class

I've just been bold and re-rated this article as Start-class, for all the reasons I posted here at "Good, but can be better" above. That was over six months ago, and no substantial rewriting has been done since then, and the original editor has apparently decided to leave Wikipedia permanently. Article is a great topic, though, and there is a ton of further material out there that should be incorporated here; I hope somebody will tackle my suggestions stated above and expand the article as it deserves to be, with good souces/references.--Textorus 01:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur with delisting. Needs some work on the "well written" (minor grammar issues observed) and broad in coverage (simply needs expansion). ZueJay (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)