Wikipedia talk:LGBT notice board/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Missing Articles

How will the contents of LGBT literature differ from the contents of Gay literature, Lesbian fiction, Lesbian literature etc etc? This sounds like a recipe for overlap and argument. We need an agreement on what is "literature" and what is the diffence between gay, lesbian, gay and lesbian, queer and LGBT in these fields before anyone starts writing. Adam 02:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

GLBT Lit. is partially discussed under Queer literary interpretation,a rather awkward title if you ask me, and certainly an article that needs some tender loving care. I agree with Adam that some type of framework should be put into place and certainly this is a forum where I think that should happen. For what its worth, I would group literature under the banner of LGBT literature and film under LGBT film. At least start there and should sections grow too large we can spawn some daughter articles. Ganymead 05:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'nm afraid I will object strenuously to the use of GLBT, LGBTI etc in article titles. These acronyms are very "in" and unhelpful to general readers. Unfashionable though it is, I still think "gay" is the most acceptable umbrella title, followed by "gay and lesbian." Adam 05:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand how, as a right-wing gay man, you may want to distance yourself from minority elements of the LGBT community so long as your own interests are potentially benefited. Unfortunately for you, this is the way this topic is being most commonly labelled (both in the real world and in academia), and your personal biases are not relevant here. Ambi 09:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Since I added these titles, I thought I'd respond. I think there should be umbrella articles that cover the entire topic of alternate sexualities and gender in film and literature. I think the "LGBT" discussion that has come up applies to ALL articles that try to cover topics in this field broadly. I also think that there is a problem with LGBT, but in many places (like San Francisco where I am), "gay" has become unacceptable. Whatever the term should be, I think we should use the same term for ALL umbrella articles. So I'd rather not have this debate about every topic that gets written about. Let us have it in one place, work towards consensus and then apply the decision to every umbrella article. In the mean time, for whatever reasons and historical events, the term in Wikipedia appears to be LGBT, so that is what I called it.

If there is umbrella articles about film, it should broadly cover the history of the topic and outline subtopics. I think there is a difference between gay (male) film and lesbian film, and even more so in literature. Queer literary interpretation might be a legitimate subtopic of LGBT literature, as would many others. As I am not an expert in these topics, I'd be open to hearing from those more expert in how they should be structured. -- Samuel Wantman 07:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Queer literary interpretation, I think, should be merged with queer theory, and then we should start a new article Gay and lesbian literary interpretation. A third article, Trans literary interpretation is a good idea, too. Here's why:

1. Gay and lesbian history, literary interpretation, and so on, has primarily been about claiming figures as gay.

2. Queer history, literary interpretation, and so on, is not about claiming figures as gay. This, generally, is where you get admonitions like, "it is anachronistic to say that Alexander the Great was gay".

3. Gay and lesbian historians and theorists on the one hand and trans historians and theorists on the other are often at odds with one-another, because each group wants to claim the same figure as one of their own.

Finally, we have Category: LGBT literature. They would all fit nicely there, and this would remove the need for an article heirarchy. Any info we want on tying them all together we could put in the category rather than in its own article. -Seth Mahoney 16:27, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hypothetical... I'm 16, I just came out, I know nothing about LGBT literature. Where's the overview? What is LGBT literature? Just from this discussion, it is clear that it has 1) literature by LGBT authors; 2) literature that includes LGBT characters; and 3) literature that can be interpreted as having LGBT themes. What is the history? What are the themes? What are the genres? Doesn't an overview deserve an article? --Samuel Wantman 07:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for any factaual article possible being written. The only problem I see with LGBT literature as opposed to just adding a description to Category:LGBT literature is that the description will likely be short (I could be totally off base here) and would therefore present a likely candidate for VfD, all the more so because it is LGBT themed. So I guess my advice is: If you want to write the article, by all means. Just make it long! For the record, I'm still for splitting up Gay and lesbian literary interpretation, Queer theory, and Trans literary interpretation (though I'm all for better titles if anyone has them). -Seth Mahoney 03:20, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have been BOLD and created the article for LGBT literature. As I did this at 1 AM, it's just a very rough outline, but the link at the bottom leads to a glorious outline for gay literature worldwide. Please feel free to add, subtract, rearrange and, of course, put this article in prose form. Ganymead 06:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Good start, but a warning: I don't think I need to recap the whole argument here, but without explanation, anything before the 19th century should not appear in this article. A good route to take might be to explain how these texts have been claimed by modern gay and lesbian people. But by themselves, they are not lesbian, gay, bisexual, or trans literature. -Seth Mahoney 21:25, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Is this article still being worked on by anyone? -Seth Mahoney 21:43, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality laws of the world

Okay, this article title has been bugging me for a while, and there isn't much action going on on the talk page, so I thought I'd post it here. My original thought was to change it to World laws relating to homosexuality. Anyone have any other ideas? -Seth Mahoney 16:37, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Legal regulation of homosexuality Haiduc 01:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Or Legal regulation of sexuality, which would follow the recent trend to generalize articles about homosexuality to a broader sexuality. Might be too big of an article that way, though. -Seth Mahoney 03:15, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Laws around the world concerning homosexuality --Samuel Wantman 07:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

That's a pretty long title, but it is intuitive - if I were searching for it, I'd probably enter something like that. -Seth Mahoney 03:15, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Outing

Has there been a discussion held or a decision made on the ethics of identifying the sexuality of people who have not chosen to identify it themselves (ie, outing them)? I recently removed Peter Mandelson from the category of GLBT politicians, because he has never identified himself as gay and clearly does not wish others to do so. But I can see that there are good arguments for the contrary position. I'd be surprised if this hadn't been discussed already somewhere. Adam 06:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

In this case, I don't think WP would be outing him. As the article says, it's been reported on in mainstream media. If the article just reports what sources say, and cites the sources, and if it's a notable fact, it should probably stay in. Jonathunder 07:01, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

I concur with Jonathunder in that if it has been documented in the media, the information should be noted. Indeed, I think that NPOV would argue for including this information with the note that while it is reported that he is gay, he has not indetified himself has such. Ganymead 07:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess that's OK for the body of the article (assuming there are no defamation risks), although it does violate the principal that people have the right to determine when and how they come out. But including him in the category "GLBT politicians" takes these reports to be fact, even though he has not confirmed their truth, and nor has anyone else with first-hand (as it were) knowledge. Adam 07:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Erm? He is in a long term and publically acknowledged relationship with a man (Bruno da Silva). I would have said that this counts as a "GLBT politician" ? ~~~~ 14:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It's a question of self-identification. Peter Mandelson does not identify as gay so he does not belong on the list. He ought to be mentioned on any discussion of gay politicians as a special case. David | Talk 16:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the ethics of outing atTalk:David Dreier --Samuel Wantman 09:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

David Dreier is a different case: he is a conservative Republican closet case who has voted against the interest of the gay community and has been subjected to "punitive outing" as a hypocrite and traitor. All we have done is report those events - we have not ourselves outed him. Adam 11:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no need for a discussion of the ethics of outing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot out people because of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Hyacinth 22:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

On effective ways to inform the readership about issues related to same-sex love

I notice that most, if not all, our efforts here are directed towards the elaboration of pages specifically on the topic of same sex love as reflected in this or that discipline or period. Surely, if anyone was interested in Queer literature or GLBT American history (if and when they get written), they would not be disappointed by what they would find in the respective articles. But I would like to point out a problem with devoting our attention exclusively to "on topic" articles dedicated to queer matters: this approach leads to a growing ghettoization of information on same-sex love and sexuality, information that usually belongs not only in the GLBT section but throughout the Wikipedia, in the main article devoted to each particular topic.

A perfect example is the discussion which took place a couple of months ago at Homosexuality regarding gay penguins. A great deal of material was developped and posted in the article. But no one (including myself) ever thought to add the material to the Penguin article itself, where it fully belongs. So I would like to encourage all to think as broadly as possible about what the scope of this work here entails. Haiduc 11:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you as far as adding information to the appropriate articles (like Penguin), however, I'd like to make it clear that we're (hopefully) not talking about discontinuing the development of specifically LGBT articles and categories to use as well. -Seth Mahoney 21:28, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Both are necessary. I am simply suggesting that the information needs to make the transition from being exceptional to being banal, from being segregated to being integrated. Haiduc 03:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

More mergers?

I was wondering if heteroflexible, homoflexible, and perhaps other terms in Category:Sexual orientation and identity and bisexuality shouldn't be combined into an article on the general topic of sexual orientation and identity terms, with all the various terms converted into inbound redirects. Otherwise, these articles are not much more than dictionary definitions, and there's no place to put overarching content. -- Beland 03:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll second that proposal. Are you thinking of, say, merging heteroflexible and homoflexible into bisexuality, or creating an overarching Terms describing sexual identity? If the latter, you're probably going to encounter argument about merging bisexuality into that article. -Seth Mahoney 03:44, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget bi-curious and bi-permissive (that one's on VfD). -Willmcw 05:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Article on "straight acting"?

This is a discussion about whether or not an article about the term "straight acting" should be created.

The section on "Lesbians, gays and gender roles" in the gender role article addresses this topic but in a round about way. I certainly think the term "straight acting" should be utilized in the section at some point due to its predominant use in the community. Perhaps the term should be a redirect? Ganymead 05:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I just rewrote that section of gender role, and I was about to add mention of "straight acting" there. But then I thought, maybe there's enough to be said on this topic to justify a full article. I happened to hear Dan Savage do a 15-minute piece on the topic recently. Some of the other terms listed in that section also have their own articles. This one should certainly be mentioned there either way. Thoughts? -- Beland 06:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd support an article on "straight-acting", if it contextualized why the label is so controversial. If it was just a stub that basically said "straight-acting = gay man who isn't stereotypical", it would be pointless. Bearcat 06:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've started the article Straight acting, with the hyphenated version redirecting there. I added as much context as I could off the top of my head. Feel free to add more, or do any of the usual merciless editing. -- Beland 08:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

David Charlebois

I just wanted to bring attention to these 4 red links all in the same paragraph in the David Charlebois article:

National Gay Pilots Association
Millennium March on Washington
Gay and Lesbian Employees of American Airlines, (GLEAM)
Minority Youth Assistance League

func(talk) 21:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

Should we archive old discussions for this noticeboard? Megan1967 05:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's getting long. (Which shows there has been a lot to say, and probably will continue to be.) CDThieme 22:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. Let me know what you think of how I'm doing it. Eventually, I will have to move the topic list to a separate page. -- Samuel Wantman 06:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Naming of country articles

What should the country articles be named?

Gay rights in Countryname
LGBT issues in Countryname

...or something else? They are currently "Gay Rights in Countryname", which is clearly improperly capitalized. They are also messy stubs, but hey... -- Beland 08:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the most inclusive approach would be "LGBT rights in Countryname". Ganymead 17:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

"Rights of sexual minorities in Countryname" is also inclusive. It's long, but to a broad audience it may be more readable than LGBT. CDThieme 22:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh god, not sexual minorities again. Please, just stick with LGBT. Ambi 03:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Yup, most trans-people don't consider themselfes as a sexual minority, unless they also happen to be LGB or something. Same as with "sexual identity", also got slapped onto us with protests being ignored. -- AlexR 05:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Pedophiles consider themselves to be a "sexual minority" as well. Let's stick with LGBT. Ground Zero 15:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would think that unpronounceable acronyms are doomed to be provisional labels only. Would not "queer" be a more permanent, flexible, and aesthetic alternative? To say nothing of its tradition, reclaimed value,and academic usage. Haiduc 01:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only problem is that many people, even today's LGBT people, just don't like queer, or the associations it carries. Hence "queer" is often understood to cover a somewhat narrower ground than LGBT. We should stick to the less controversial term until a better one comes along and/or another one is more widely accepted. -- AlexR 04:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't expect to solve this riddle here, but one could also say that many people do not like GLBT. To use a favored circumlocution, "some people" think it is an atrocious construct, politically incorect, unpronounceable except when spelled out (else you get "glubt"), divisive, irritating, prissy and pretentious. "Queer" also has problems, in that there is nothing queer about males going to bed together anywhere but in the west, where most males have been pussywhipped into hetero conformity. But at least it describes and includes all those with minoritarian sexual appetites. Probably the label "Queer and Homoerotic" comes close to expressing what we are talking about, since it includes everyone, including woman-loving men who have a little bit on the side. Haiduc 23:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kathoey

Both Patpong and Nana Plaza contained the phrase "kathoeys (transwomen) instead of, or in addition to, women", obviously an insulting phrase. Revert wars going on because of that, attempted another solution instead of inserting "cisgender", still, expecting more reverts; seems some people are hellbent on that insult.

In the Patpong article, a distinction needs to be drawn between male-to-female transsexuals and women. In the real world this distinction exists, whatever some transsexual activists may wish, and our language needs to reflect that. Alex wants to use the term "cisgender women," a neologism which (apart from being semantically meaningless) has no currency outside very narrow specialist circles. My view is that the term "women" ought to be used when we are refering to people of the female gender who are not transsexuals. I don't see anything insulting about this. Adam 05:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it is fairly obvious that you don't get the point here, however, if you put women against transwomen (who, by the way, are not only "transsexual") it clearly implies that transwomen are not women, which may be an opinion held by many, but still is only one POV of several. Also, the term "cisgender" is not semantically meaningless, and the fact that it is not overly widely used (yet) does hardly mean that we cannot use it in an article. You know, that is what links are for. Also, by your logic, we ought to abanon the word "heterosexual" as well, leading to such neat sentences like "Homosexual men, unlike men, do ...". I am fairly certain you would not like that, either. -- AlexR 06:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

That transwomen are indeed women has been accepted by the full bench of the Family Court of Australia, the Victorian parliament and the UK national parliament, among many other distinctions. In the real world, this distinction does not exist - and where it does, it is rapidly diminishing. [User:Ambi|Ambi]] 09:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Why the need to append the gloss? To me kathoey seems sufficient, people can read the article if they are not familiar with the term. And why are we insulting each other? Haiduc 10:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The point of the sentence is to explain that some heterosexual go-go bars in Patpong feature male-to-female transsexuals, and others do not. If the ideological assertion that "transwomen are indeed women" is correct, then the sentence becomes meaningless. But in the real world it is not meaningless, because the people concerned (the bar workers themselves and their clients) are well aware of the distinction. Therefore, as a matter of logic, the ideological assertion must be false. What the courts Ambi refers to have decided is that male-to-female transsexuals should treated as though they were women, something I fully agree with. That said, I am happy to accept Haiduc's proposed solution. Adam 10:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

(Just in passing, I note that "cisgender" gets about 650 Google hits, a very low number. By contrast "rhadamanthine," the most obscure word I can think of just offhand, gets about 1,500 hits, and "glorp," a word I just made up, gets nearly 11,000. Further, most of cisgender's Google hits are mirror sites of a few online dictionaries and encyclopaedias. In other words this word has almost no currency except among transsexual activists. Its use outside specialist articles about transsexualism cannot really be justified. Adam 12:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC))

I have no objections to not using cisgendered either; was never a big fan of the term myself. Ambi 12:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The point was not the word "cisgender" - I removed it in my last edit - the point was that the original statement was highly offensive, and Adam Carr not only insisted to keep this offensive version, he also became extremely offensive towards myself for correting that.

As far as liking or disliking the term "cisgender" is concerned, well, it is either that, or the far more problematic ones like "born", "genetic" or "bio-"women, if the distinction has to be made; therefore, well, I don't think we have much of an alternative, or does anybody know a term that is at least as widespread and not offensive nor patently nonsense? -- AlexR 15:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I reject the allegation that either my edits to the article or my comments to Alex were "highly offensive" in either intent or effect. The view that male-to-female transsexuals are not women is still widely held, particularly among lesbian feminists. Differences of opinion about this, politely expressed, should not be taken as offensive. Adam 23:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Your personal opinion, or anybodys personal opinion is completely irrelevant here - the problem was that you insisted on one decidedly POV version of the article, and as for the "politely expressed" - what would you know about that, reverting with a comment "spare us" and then insulting me and further reverting the article to the POV version. Also, you might want to get an update as far as "lesbian feminists" are concerned - you are running an old version there. -- AlexR 00:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have worked in and read the gay and lesbian media for many years and I can assure you that my observation about lesbian feminist opinion on transsexuality is quite current. Adam 01:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

References

Okay, in every group I've been a part of, I've really pushed for more references in articles. On that note, check out the bottom of the article of the day, Spring Heeled Jack. This is what all our articles should look like. There should be extensive references to other web pages, academic journals, books, newspaper articles, and so on. Every "supporters say" claim should be changed to "Person X says". Every "opponents say" claim should be changed to reference exactly who says what and, if possible, where they say it. I'm especially wanting this for this group because I think it could lend a sense of legitimacy and weight to a lot of articles that are pretty constantly under attack. So I'm wondering, cuz I've edited a lot of articles and have slacked on referencing as much as anyone else: Can anyone think of a way that could make it easy to collect references? -Seth Mahoney 20:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Categorization of articles

User:Bearcat is removing "Category:LGBT" from many articles, sometimes replacing it with "Category:Sexual orientation and identity" which obviously excludes transpeople. No debate about it or anything, either, at least not anything I found.

Oh, for fuck's sake. As I've already explained on your talk page:

Wikipedia has a stated policy about articles not being simultaneously filed in categories and subcategories of that same category; Category:LGBT is not necessary if an article is already in Category:LGBT literature, Category:LGBT musicians or Category:Transgender. All I was doing is cleaning up the master category; if I made a bad call on two or three articles, then change it and stop making me out to be some kind of villain.
One does not have to "debate" a change before making it.

And, for the record, the category description at Category:Sexual orientation and identity explicitly defines it as including transpeople. So if you don't like that, take it up with User:Beland. Bearcat 19:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Already changed - one might define as one wants to, but that does not make the definition correct. And certainly transpeople are not going to abandon something they fought for 20 years and longer just because some LGB activists want to add the T for decoration, but can't be bothered to use "gender identity" as well and therefore proclaim that sexual identity covers transpeople. -- AlexR 21:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It did use "gender identity"; those are two of the exact words you've just removed. Nowhere was the phrase "sexual identity" ever even implied to subsume "gender identity"; they were quite explicitly spelled out as two different things. Nobody proclaimed anything about "sexual identity"; the category quite explicitly made reference to the very phrase "gender identity" that you're attacking people for not referring to. So according to you, the category didn't say what it actually said; instead, it said and meant something that was nowhere to be found in it. What part of this is escaping you? Bearcat 23:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "gender identity" simply did not belong there - a cat that is named "sexual orientation and indentity" cannot claim to cover gender identity as well, no matter what the description of the cat says. What part of "gender identity is not a sexual identity or orientiation" excapes you? -- AlexR 07:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No part of that escapes me; what escapes me is why you're inventing the blatant falsehood that anybody ever said it was. The phrase "sexual orientation and identity" does not -- and, grammatically, cannot -- imply "sexual identity"; the adjective "sexual" is in reference to "orientation" and only "orientation". The phrase "sexual orientation and identity" means "the interaction between the two distinct concepts of 'identity' and 'sexual orientation'"; if it specifically meant "sexual identity", it would have to be named "sexual orientation and sexual identity". Do you read Category:Sexual orientation and society as somehow containing an invisible reference to "sexual society", too? Bearcat 05:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not "inventing a blatant falsehood" here - the cat was clearly meant as "sexual orientation and sexual identity", and it is quite common in English to drop the 2nd "sexual" in such a case. Obviously, your example with "society" is grossly misleading, as the concept of "sexual society" is hardly as widespread as the combination of the two terms "sexual orientation" and "sexual identity". To make up that cat - which is perfectly legit - and then later claim that it is supposed to cover gender identity as well is nothing but once more subsuming trans-people into a category where they might not belong, but hey, it is so much more convenient to put them there. In the - in my opinion highly unlikely - event that whoever made up this cat really thought its name was somehow inclusive of transpeople, they messed up royaly. Not only will most people read the name, as indicated above, as "sexual orientation and sexual identity"; with "sexual identity" being supposed by some people to indeed cover trans-people - the term "identity" alone is also such a wide concept that we can throw in tons of articles which nobody ever thought off. If you want gender identity to be considered part of it, name it. Explicitly. And there are reasons for that, you know - Homosexuality and transgender might start to give you an idea.

Also, your highly insulting tone, and the fact that by now you come up with perfectly absurd arguments to cover up the fact that you simply made a mistake give me that feeling that any further debate with you at this point is utterly pointless; so I guess it's EOD for me. I've got better things to do. -- AlexR 05:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, hah. The only person who's taken an insulting tone in this discussion is you. And just for the record, even the most cursory glance at the category's edit history would have shown you that referring to gender identity was within the creator's original intentions, even if he initially linked to the wrong article for it and subsequently corrected himself. But if you want it spelled out more explicitly, consider it done. (Oh, and by the way, "using absurd arguments to cover up my own errors" may just be the funniest inaccurate description of me I've ever read.) Bearcat 06:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Boyfriends

At Talk:Set (mythology) it is being discussed whether Set (an Egyptian god) should be described as being "gay" or as being "homosexual". Likewise, should Ash (technically a libyan god) be described as his "boyfriend" or as his "partner"? ~~~~ 14:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:Bisexual philosophers

(moved from project page)

Category:Bisexual philosophers (CfD log 2005 June 14)

A second proposal is to merge this category with the (future?) Category:LGBT philosophers. As above, take a peek and speak your minds.

Why not just have Category:homosexuals ?~~~~ 21:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- You actually need to ask? Bearcat 23:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

For simplicity and ease, a page with a list of LGBT-related categories: Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board/categories. Exploding Boy 07:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Gay rights in India

There is very little on the Internet or on Wikipedia about Homosexuality in non-Western cultures, including India. I was wondering if you would like to contribute towards creating a detailed article about Homosexuality in India, one that discusses historical, literary, cultural and religious attitudes towards homosexuality, as well as the current situation. I know for a fact that India has a significant LGBT community, though a lot of it is underground. I wrote the article Gay rights in India. Could you take a look at it and integrate it with a larger article on Homosexuality in India. --Notquiteauden 01:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Rename Category:AIDS victims

The CfD discussion on this category resulted in a decision of "No consensus(keep)". This seems unfortunate, because I think there was a consensus that "AIDS victims" is not a good name. So I'm thinking that it should be submitted as a rename. One possibility is be two categories: Category:People living with AIDS and Category:People who have died from AIDS. I'd like to hear other views, and choices for names. Perhaps we can figure out a plan of action before submitting again. --Samuel Wantman 07:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I started a discussion on the category talk page the other day. Personally, rather than Category:People living with AIDS I'd prefer Category:PWHIV/AIDS or Category:PLWHIV/AIDS and Category:People who died from AIDS or Category:People who died from AIDS-related complications. A little unwieldy, perhaps, but there you are. Exploding Boy 19:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's not really necessary to resubmit for a rename discussion ? the debate already covered that issue, the old name was unconditionally unacceptable, and even the category's original creator stated that she would accept a rename. Renaming has already taken place.

(I believe this comment was by User:Bearcat). I moved the comment from the main page. Hopefully the new category name is an acceptable solution for everyone. -- Samuel Wantman 00:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Renamed as what? Exploding Boy 02:35, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Category:AIDS-related deaths -- Samuel Wantman 20:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week

I'd like to propose that we create an LGBT-related collaboration of the week page, similar to those used by other project groups (or whatever you call them). The gist of it is, we propose articles that need work, vote on them, and each week we pick one to bring up to standard/write fresh/create/make an article from a stub. Any takers? Exploding Boy 02:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a really great idea, and I'd love to participate if there's something I can contribute. -Seth Mahoney 04:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

It's a good idea as long as it doesn't peter out after two or three weeks. Making the collaboration longer (say a fortnight) may be a good idea. David | Talk 07:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

David makes a very good point. Another suggestion would be to try to deliberately try to alternate large, comprehensive articles with shorter fun articles. Also, one things I've never seen done, but I think would be worth trying, is to look for topics that might overlap between two or more Notice boards and/or WikiProjects that would get multiple groups involved in improving an article. BlankVerse ∅ 09:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, if it peters out, it peters out. We, as a group of people interested in LGBT topics, are fairly new and as yet a little disorganized. There's no harm in trying new things. Here's a link to the Wikipedia:Japanese Collaboration of the Week page. Take a look and see how they do things there. In short, they accept nominations for articles that don't exist or are currently 1000 character/2-paragraph or fewer stubs, and vote on them. The chosen article is then worked on collaboratively, and their aim is bring the articles up to featured standard and "to fill gaps about Japan in Wikipedia, to give users a focus and to give us all something to be proud of."

We don't have to follow their example exactly, of course. For example, I'd be happy with having nominations for any LGBT-related article that needs work. Exploding Boy 20:35, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

We could try a couple of the articles already listed on the LGBT notice board page as needing work to start off. I can think of a few I should add to that list, too.

Also, is anyone interested in having a "to do" template like many of the other groups have? I'd be giggley to set it up if anyone feels there's any need. -Seth Mahoney 20:52, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Right, I've taken the plunge and started the page. The page itself needs some work, and some templates/template messages need creating, but it's a start. Take a look at Wikipedia:LGBT-related collaboration of the week. Exploding Boy 23:18, August 5, 2005 (UTC) Added: I think a to do list is a great idea, and here's an item: expand List of gay-related topics to include the many articles still not listed.

In fact, I'm thinking it might be time to start a Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT. I know there's already Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality, but I think we'd be better off organising under LGBT instead. Thoughts? Exploding Boy 23:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I would say that the LGBT Notice Board already straddles a middle ground between the way that most Notice Boards work and the way that most WikiProjects work. I would suggest that instead of creating another LGBT project, that it might be best to just create the WikiProject LGBT page as a redirect to the LGBT notice board page, and then borrow any good features from active WikiProjects that might be appropriate for a joint LGBT notice board/WikiProject (and anything from the WikiProject creation boilerplate at Template:WikiProject that would be worth adding as well). BlankVerse ∅ 00:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

See, I'm thinking the opposite. Since the Sexology and sexuality project appears to have gone nowhere, and doesn't have many users, and since a WikiProject could encompass many of the things we're working on, I'm proposing simply adding this page to the project page. Exploding Boy 01:01, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Starting a Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT may not be a bad idea considering the LGBT community on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality is a bad example to compare the project to since there are stronger feelings within the LGBT community - here and around the world. I have always wondered why there hasn't been a separate project on the Internet but see everyone does a great job here.

I have been in and out of Wikipedia over the last year and decided to spend more time here starting now. It's time to get organized and start working on with more organization and determination. tdempsey 02:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

List of gay-related topics

I've spent the last couple of days taking this from a small list of topics to a major list covering all the LGBT-related topics I've been able to find in that time. I propose two things: first, a rename to List of LGBT-related topics, and second, that everyone pitch in to bring the list more up to date. As it stands, the list has a definite gay male bias, since that's what I know most when it comes to LGBT topics, so it could definitely be fleshed out a little. Also, there might be some cleanup needed, especially with article titles including a starting "the," as some ended up under "T" and some under the first letter of the second word. Any help appreciated! Exploding Boy 02:42, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

There's also a List of transgender-related topics which is sorted by topics, might be usefull for your plan. Lots are probably very specific and don't deal at all with LGB matters. AlexR 13:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting keeping transgender-related topics separate? In that case, would you rename as "Lesbian, gay and bisexual-related topics"? Exploding Boy 20:35, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

On further reflection, I think the two lists should be combined. Exploding Boy 23:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

No, what makes you think so? But I am suggesting keeping that list, too, because a) it is sorted in a way that would seem unsuitable for LGB topics, and b) some of the topics listed there are rather trans-specific, and maybe, instead of linking them all on an LGBT list, a link to that list (or a heading, or a cat, or an article) will do. I was for example thinking of all the different surgeries - I don't think a list of LGBT topics needs to list them all seperately. Besides, there is nothing wrong with a list that covers just a sub-topic, is there? AlexR 23:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I was just wondering. So I guess then, are you suggesting both integrating the lists and keeping the trans list separate? Or only integrating some of the topics (in which case, how to we choose?)? And what about the name? Exploding Boy 23:38, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, integrating and adding what's missing, yes, but still keeping the trans-list seperate. (And any others, if there is a good reason.) See, I consider trans-people part of LGBT* - only there are transpeople out there who are deadly offended by the thought. Then it is quite concievable that a person might just want to inform themselfes about trans*-topics, which by itself is quite a big field. Depending on how an LGBT list were organised, it might be problematic for them to find all topics that are relevant. And as for integrating all topics or not - well, that depends on how detailed the list would want to become - as I said, I somewhat doubt that somebody looking up the much broader topic of LGBT* is necessarily interested (for example) in all the different surgical procedures. (Those listed below SRS MtF and SRS FtM.) And the "Other related topics", particularly "Sexual orientation and behaviour" had been choosen because this particular articles are relevant in this context -- many of them, together with others, would belong to a different place in an LGBT* list, though, and hence less easy to find for somebody looking particularly for that context. It makes a lot of sense to put Homosexuality and transgender on top of that section on a t*-list, but it would make a lot less sense to do so on an LGBT* list, for example. And I guess the "Media" section would be far too big in an LGBT* list to have in the first place.

So in general I would suggest that an LGBT*-List concentrates on the somewhat broader matters that are relevant for the whole LGBT* field, while highly specialized sub-lists (easily concievable for intersex topics as well, but maybe others, too) still have a place. Then again, that's my thoughts, maybe somebody else could weight in, too. -- AlexR 07:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

INCOTW

Homosexuality in India is this week's Indian Collaboration of the week. --Pamri • Talk 02:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives