Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:LGBT
LGBT studies WikiProject open tasks
watch · edit · discuss
Announcements
  • UPDATE: We now have SIX Featured Lists! LGBT people A, Sa-Sc, Sd-Si, Sj-Sz, T-V, and W-Z lists have all been featured. We're in the middle of a project-wide drive to cross-reference the LGBT lists with all the people categorized as LGBT on Wikipedia, using reliable sources. Please check out the "to-do-list, finding sources for them and adding them to the relevant list. We're just about half-way through, so every active member committing to checking just one article a day would wipe out this backlog in days. Please help the WikiProject by contributing.
Featured article candidates
Peer review
Deletion Discussions
Articles needing attention


Here are some articles you can edit:

(This is a randomly generated subset of our Full to-do list)

Please Note our massive effort to reference and sort LGBT people - Please help!

  • Related Tasks:
  1. Newly-Categorized: Articles newly-placed into LGBT categories need to be assessed for inclusion in or exclusion from the Project;
  2. Unsourced Sexuality: Newly-categorized articles without sources for sexuality need to be sourced quickly, or removed from those categories;
  3. New Articles: Newly-created articles with LGBT keywords need to be assessed and properly categorized, and tagged to the Project as necessary.

Collaboration
The current LGBT WikiProject Collaboration of the Month is LGBT symbols!
Please read the nomination text and help improve the article to featured article standard if you can.
Archive
Archives
About archives • Edit this box
LGBT studies
WikiProject
Project navigation links
Main project page talk
Portal
Watchlist talk
Members
Coordinator
Departments
 → Assessment talk
 → Collaboration talk
 → Community talk
 → Jumpaclass talk
 → Newsletter
 → Peer review talk
 → Translation talk
Useful links
Infoboxes and templates
Guidelines talk
Notice board talk
Deletion discussions
Project category talk
LGBT categories
Info resources
edit · changes

Contents

[edit] Wider variation

  • NOTE: To reply you must do so here, this talk is mirrored onto many talkpages and is designed to be concurrent with all.

Is there an article that has a wider variation that is not exclusively for Lesbians, Gays, Bi(s), and Transgenders. I am looking for a word or article that is on the lines of "everything not heterosexual" and would include Asexuality, Autosexuality, Pansexuality, Paraphilia, Pomosexual, Zoophilia and, like i said, anything not "straight". I ask because i feel that people who aren't "straight" are usually grouped into that one social group and stereotype, one common stereotype (for men) that is prevalent is femininity (Effeminacy) if they are not "straight". --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Queer/Queer Studies would probably be what you're looking for. though I doubt there is a single catch all phrase that means everything not heterosexual.The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Queer means non-heteronormative political striving. It does not necessarily refer to what you are looking for. I don't think there would be such a thing within the realm of language, to be honest. Diachresis.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur. I do not believe there will be a phrase meaning everything not heterosexual except - non-heterosexual. For the sake of usage, LGBT is much better than queer in reflecting the homo/bi/trans/inter community. goodone (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus on reasoning for LGBT Project Articles

In light of some of the recent (and current) discussions on this project talk page. I think it would be beneficial if LGBT wikipedians modified the LGBTProject banner to include a small description on the reason why any article tagged by the project rightfully falls within its scope. One example I found was on Eleanor Roosevelts talk page.

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.
Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBT studies:
Display of this WikiProject LGBT studies project tag does not necessarily reflect Eleanor Roosevelt's sexual orientation but only that she falls within the scope of the project as she is a gay icon.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

The bullet points on the consensus among editors could be hidden under the "show/hide" feature so it would not take up space. Is there any support/opposition for the modification? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

She was a lesbian. Please read Lillian Faderman and many other critics?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I was not the editor who modified this project tag- I was merely using it as an example to illustrate the larger issue I'm discussing. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No need for it. If the tag truly applies it stands for itself. Actually, I rather feel the example exemplifies a rationale for which the tag doesn't hold water. Fundamentally, the project contribution of such an article comprises of "she was gay" or "she's iconic amongst some, but not all, of the LGB community". Crimsone (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the talk page. If it falls under the scope of our editors' interests, it's good to stick on, flag and all. Don't give an inch, they'll take a yard.~ZytheTalk to me! 10:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, guys this isn't a war. SatyrTN added a parameter to the template that allows for an explanation of why it appears on a given page following a discussion (buried somewhere in the archives of this talkpage) with myself and Dev. If the presence of the project tag is non obvious or open to misinterpretation (potentially very important if we're talking the talkpage of a living person who does not self identify as LGBT) a reason should be added. It's a fairly simple way of defusing unnecessary tensions. I would continue to strongly recommend the use of this parameter on any page where it is suspected other editors might challenge the presence of the project banner. WjBscribe 11:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This was the main point I was trying to make. Just because an article's subject may not have a blatantly obvious connection to LGBT Studies doesn't mean the connection is non-existent. Queer Studies is still an emerging field and most people are unaware of the scope of LGBT issues, including editors on wikipedia. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can see what you're saying Bookkeeper, but we already added such a parameter a while back. Perhaps we should make it slightly more prominent on help pages though so people know about it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be more prominent. I've seen too many talk pages with the argument "what the hell does this have to do with Gay people?" The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It is somewhat difficult to fully accommodate both the inherent stupidity of much of humanity and also the willful blindness of certain people who don't want to know their hero had homosexual tendencies. The explanation parameter is the the most obvious method we have of explaining why the person is tagged without putting massive screaming banners at the top of articles that are at least two screen sizes so people can't easily scroll past and putting electronic suckers onto the front of every user's monitor that hold onto their eyeballs until they have read them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was the extra parameter isn't apparent at all. I didn't even realize it was an option until I came across the article mentioned above. I was suggesting the parameter should be a visible option for anyone who comes across the LGBT tag for the first time and hasn't seen any of these discussions or the archives. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriateness/POV appearance of using Pride flag & colors in NPOV articles??? (forgive the length...)

Hi everyone, If you wouldn't mind, I would like to get on soapbox for a minute. My intention is to bring up a POV issue for discussion. Wikipedia is a NPOV encyclopedia. It's not a "Gay"-only encyclopedia. It's not a niche encyclopedia like the conservatives' Conservapedia, or Star Trek fans' Memory Alpha. As Wikipedia editors, we all ideally aim to portray topics (controversial and not) fairly and balanced, even if we have personal views of agreement or disagreement with the topic.

Homosexual/bisexual affection/attraction/relationships/etc are nothing new. They have been going on since caveman days. However, the "LGBT" movement, gay pride flags, and pride colors are 20th century inventions (and not all "LGBT" individuals even identify by these labels, or feel that the flag and "gay pride" represent them) Through the use of the LGBT infobox, most homosexuality/bisexuality/etc related articles on Wikipedia automatically carry and are co-branded with "LGBT", the Pride flag, and Pride colors in horizontal dividers.

Rightly or wrongly, this gives the appearance that these articles are being maintained by people with a Pro-LGBT slant. (Like Fox News' American flag "LIVE" graphic gives the appearance of a jingoistic right-wing slant). We are here to contribute to the whole of human knowledge, not to hold a pep rally or turn Wikipedia into a gay version of Fox News.

IMHO, the use of Pride Flags & colors have no place in NPOV articles unless directly addressing the modern LGBT movement (of which the pride flag is a historical part). At best, the pride flag has nothing to do with most of the articles it appears on, and at worst it lends the appearance of POV slant. Thanks, --Caveman80 (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point, however, all all project articles are decorated with some type of iconography. The only "neutral" LGBT symbol I can think of is the greek lambda and that is also associated with a "pro-lgbt" slant. More importantly I believe the article's literary content is what rightly decides if the article is neutral- not the images which may be present on it. Even a third party encyclopedia on LGBT studies would have various LGBT symbolism, including the rainbow flag. My own college library has several Queer Study encyclopedias with the rainbow icon. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need to worry about that.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the issue here, sorry. Perhaps you could point out an article where you think the presence of an infobox is inappropriate. WjBscribe 11:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not the infobox, but that the infobox looks like something purchased from a pride gift shop lol. :-) By its very name, the pride flag symbolizes gay pride. Gay pride flags, pride colors, Gay pride, LGBT, etc., all refer to a specific way of looking at homosexuality/bisexuality/etc. that is specific to the last 100 or so years, and even then not universal to all parts of the world. Same-sex attractions/affection/relationships/unions/etc have existed in variety of forms and identities and names throughout history and in various parts of the world, yet that infobox, and even the LGBT label, projects Western-centric modern views of "WHAT" homosexuality/bisexuality is , and how society should view it, onto any varied article topics from ancient greece to ancient china (guessing on the latter of those examples). I'm bi, and according to Kinsey so are most males. (even the ones that are "heterosexual" as our articles so eloquently caste them. I like guys, but that rainbow flag doesn't represent me anymore than the confederate flag represents me as someone from the southern USA. I have nothing in common with half naked bears in leather chaps, or with civil war re-enactors :-P anyhow, my point is not that there isn't a LGBT movement or gay pride. There IS. But that infobox PROJECTS a specific viewpoint and POV and mindset onto all same-sex article topics, it co-brands them, it takes ownership of them. You guys mean well, but just like the fox news anchor who wouldn't see any problem with her network's jingoism (and label you a traitor and unpatriotic for questioning), she is viewing the world through jingoistic patriotic glasses, and you guys are viewing it through rainbow glasses. the vast majority of people (see kinsey) who are bisexual want nothing to do with and do not feel represented by pastel Bi flags and rainbow pride flags and arbitrary identity labels which are like a caste system. Anyhow, that's my 2 cents. everyone is entitled to their opinion (but opinions don't necessarily belong in infobox graphics). Anyhows, thx just my 2 cents.  :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caveman80 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, all I'm getting from you is a certain hostility to the rainbow flag as a symbol. Could you calm down the rhetoric a little please? I am listening but the rant about Fox news is pretty unnecessary - you aren't being branded a traitor or anything, I just don't think you've argued point very well. All I asked for was an example of an article where you think the use of the infobox (as it is now) causes an NPOV problem so I can better assess this issue. WjBscribe 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No other symbol or icon represents LGBT issues so effectively. There are many symbols of homosexuality, but the rainbow flag, pervasive and ubiquitous as it is, is recognizable by everyone. --Moni3 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If it comes to that, the flag presents us with a series of theoretical moot points. One of them is that since the layers don't meet, they are not queer. Anyway. I agree that it should perhaps be kept as it is ubiquitous and easily recognizable.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It is easily recognized... however, it is POV. And if you guys can't see that in the larger overall NPOV picture that it is POV, I'm not going to clutter up the talk page with a huge debate trying to convince you otherwise. When we bring our pride flag onto the article, it's like a tv news anchor wearing a "Support our Troops, keep them in Iraq!" cap and sequined red-white-and-blue jacket. It's POV. Case in point, Reparative therapy (since you kindly asked for an example :)) If I am a religious person seeking non-biased information about whether reparative therapy works or or is a bunch of B.S., i go there (or any other LGBT-related article) and see pride graphics central, and am going to question the article's objectivity. Anyhow... I don't want to engage in a debate (and I know this likely isn't the place to clutter up with a debate). If you don't see the POV issue in the larger overall perspective, then I'm just going to drop it for now. Thx, -- Caveman80 (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I can see your point. But I don't think it holds much significance.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The LGBT icon graces pages of articles that have significance to the LGBT community, including stalwarts like Fred Phelps and Anita Bryant. Again, I don't see what the disconnect is. Project tags have an icon, then within the box is the text that says the article falls under the scope of the project. Because the flag is there doesn't imply that Phelps is gay (though we all know he is). It says outright that his article deals with LGBT issues, and the flag represents the project. Are you suggesting that by using this symbol we're declaring that Bryant is out and proud? Perhaps association and reaction to the rainbow is an unintended consequence for which we are not responsible. I see it only as a symbol. Others may see it as a manifest. It's not. --Moni3 (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually see Caveman80's point on this. Perhaps the rainbow flag could be kept to the talk page? I'm not sure we should have any graphics on any article on Wikipedia that isn't relevant to that article, like photos for example. GreenJoe 15:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What are we talking about here, the LGBT tempate found on the main page of homosexuality or the talk page tag found on talk pages of all the articles under our scope? --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought we were talking only about the template. And I have to say, I can see Caveman80's point on that too. The flag is not directly on the Fred Phelps and Anita Bryant pages -- it's on their talk pages, where I think it's entirely appropriate, because it represents this project, not a take on the subject. But like Caveman80 points out, why is there a political movement's flag on the Conversion therapy page in a NPOV encyclopedia? While I have love for the gay pride flag, I have to say that I'd be pretty perturbed if there was a confederate flag and Dixie-slanted infobox on every topic that a Confederate WikiProject determined to be related to their work. Another example: I love the Black Panther flag/symbol. But if there was a U.S. Civil Rights WikiProject (I wish there was!), and their infobox used the Black Panther liberation flag, it would be strange if that fierce black panther stared out from any article of concern to the project, no matter whether the subject was a Black Panther figure/theory/event or someone/something opposed. That's because the panther is a POV symbol of a recent political movement, as is the gay pride flag. Like it or not, the gay pride flag being directly on the article page, not on the talk page, implies our ownership of the article. I'm not going to fight to remove the flag, for a variety of reasons, but I can see the point. It left me wondering if there are many other comparable infoboxes with similarly-POV symbols commonly used directly on article pages by WikiProjects. --Melty girl 16:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a pretty cogent argument about removing the image from articlespace and leaving it only on the talk pages. Like User:Melty girl, I'm not going to fight to remove the flag, but I can see why doing so might be a good idea. Esrever (klaT) 16:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So? We're the LGBT project editors. We can have a personal POV, as long as the mainspace does not reflect this; in templates, it exists simply as a binding image for the LGBT topic. Total non-issue. Try hard-hitting Wikiproject Scientology if you want to talk bias.~ZytheTalk to me!17:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

But why is the most prominent image on an article a "total non-issue"? Are you saying that the flag is devoid of meaning? --Melty girl 17:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I rather think the flag, as opposed to article talk pages, is a poor choice for the project. I'm bi, and I'm transsexual, but the flag doesn't fly over my head, because I see no reason to be especially proud of either - they just are, and my first identity is as a human being. Quite aside from that though, we have to be very careful I think that this LGBT wikiproject doesn't become the LGBT supporters club. The tag itself seems to act as a flag in its own right sometimes. In my opinion, it should only apply to those articles where a significant contribution from the project can be made to an aticle, or articles where LGBT plays a significant role in their subject.
The flag denotes "Gay pride". We should not be working under such a POV notion or emotion as "Pride". It's against the principles of the encyclopedia, and as such, if we can't handle that we shouldn't be here. Crimsone (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to assume good faith - unless you apply that same principle to the logo used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. - Davodd (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This same type of iconography is also used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam which is visible on the article space of tagged articles. I think its as long as the article's literary content is kept neutral the tag shouldn't matter. That doesn't just apply to LGBT but all projects. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with the "LGBT studies" template going on articles related to older same-sex issues that predate the modern LGBT rights movement. What I think may be inappropriate POV-wise is the gay pride flag as the prominent image at the tops of all these articles. I don't think the Islamic mosque or even the Christian cross are equivalent to the new gay pride flag. And, for example, the Christian infobox template with its cross is not on the Persecution of Christians article like ours is on the Conversion therapy article. It's only on the articles directly about aspects of the Christian religion, where the cross seems quite appropriate. I guess I'd feel better about all this if my fine comrades could say why the flag should be the main graphic on such a wide range of articles, instead of just dismissing the POV issue out of hand. I'm open to hearing substantive arguments about it. --Melty girl 22:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Crimsone, in a way you make my point. :-). Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. are belief systems, and their symbols accompany their infoboxes and portals appropriately. LGBT, Pride Flag, Pride colors also symbolize a belief system. If the LGBT label, pride flag & colors were only co-branded on articles about the LGBT movement, this wouldn't matter. But the LGBT label, flag & colors are projected onto wide variety of same-sex related article topics that have nothing to do with the "LGBT" modern western (and expanding to the east) movement. Some topics such a homosexuality in ancient greece are NPOV articles examining the context of same-sex relations in an ancient culture, and claiming ownership of that ancient culture under our modern label and banner. Homosexuality as a label did not exist before CE 19th Century, and LGBT movement, etc, did not exist before the 20th. For the vast overwhelming majority of human history & pre-history "gay", "lesbian", and "bisexual" people did not identify by these labels (or flags and such). They either id'd by no label, or whatever label or identity was relevent to their culture and time. Branding all same-sex topics throughout human history (and through-out the non-western, and non-identifying as LGBT world) with a modern POV political symbol brings up questions of appearance of POV IMHO. -- 71.226.14.103 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous comment by caveman80 (didnt' realize I wasn't signed in) -- Caveman80 (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
(added strikethrough for ancient greece article, didn't check it before hand... does not apply as an example since LGBT infobox is not on it) (my bad :) )-- Caveman80 (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Possible replacement example for sake of discussion would be Timeline of LGBT history , which applies the LGBT label to same-sex elements throughout human history. (When LGBT itself is a recent worldview) I'm not sure if it directly applies, but it reminds me a little of Cultural appropriation. -- Caveman80 (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
They didn't identify as LGBT because they weren't forced to.
I still don't know what this is about. The LGBT template goes on core articles to LGBT topics: Gay, Homosexuality, Lesbian, Bisexuality, Transgender, and a few others. I don't see it as a pride symbol anymore. Others seem to. I don't think it is. It's just a symbol that denotes it's a core topic in LGBT issues. --Moni3 (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur with this. The reason we use the pride flag is because everyone recognises it as an LGBT symbol. I don't associate with actually being proud. As I have said in the past, I take no more pride in my bisexuality than I do in my hair colour. It's just a part of me. But I use the rainbow flag to represent it. It's shifting meanings and I don't see why we should have a flag to denote articles within our remit in the same way as WikiProject Psychology use a psi symbol or WP:PAW use a paw. It's just there to help people recognise our stuff, not "promote gaiety". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The issue (IMHO) is it applies a specific 20th Century and Western-centric worldview (and its associated POV's) to encompass and appropriate as its own: a fundamental and primal part of human experience (which is same-sex sexuality, in its varying forms and contexts throughout cultures and history). A possible analogy would be if there was a WikiProject Libertarian (there probably is one, I didn't check) and they decided to appropriate all Libertarian-esque elements throughout the world and throughout human history as their own, and branded them with their label and banner(flag). Or if the Christians decided to appropriate all monotheistic articles on Wikipedia as their own, and brand them with their banner. I dunno... Trying to convey comparable examples but falling short I think. My main issue is that we are engaging in cultural appropriation in co-branding same-sex-sexuality throughout all of human history into a modern POV/worldview of "LGBT". If you are in the LGBT camp, maybe you can't see it, but to others outside of the camp it is more obvious (and lends the appearance of POV in a NPOV environment) -- Caveman80 (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Truth be told, I think the templates aren't aesthetically pleasing. But I think they have a place in core articles. I don't think LGBT templates should be on Eleanor Roosevelt or condoms, because those are peripheral. There is absolutely no way an LGBT template can make a core LGBT article POV. It is inherently about LGBT issues. --Moni3 (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think switching over to footers would solve most potential-POV questions as footers are relatively unobtrusive and allow a reader to review a nuetral article before further exploring any related topics including the Gay pride flag (interesting to note that if you skim the article too fast, you will not see the template). Personally, I've always prefered the footers because they are unobtrusive, and I know right where to find them.
Ooh, bugger; just stumbled across {{LGBT-footer}} and it has some changes since I last saw it - well, the autohide keeps the flag tucked away until a reader chooses to explore. This might be a reasonable compromise, and remember nothing is set in stone - give it another month and opinions may shift more or again (heck, give it five minutes and they may change). ZueJay (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That may solve the issue. It keeps the connection to LGBT Studies and it also keeps the article page from being cluttered. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this would be a big improvement. Even though the flag would remain, it would be in an auto-hiding navbox footer as Zuejay said... (placing it more obviously in the realm of "See also" type content) And to borrow some of what Moni3 was saying (and adding some of my own spin...) it would be on article pages specifically relevent to the modern gay/homophile/LGBT/etc,etc,etc movements of the last 150 years and so would be historically relevent. My 2 cents. -- 71.226.14.103 (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC) <-- comment by caveman80 (forgot to sign in again :) ) -- Caveman80 (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think a footer is a great idea, because then the rainbow flag isn't the predominant image presented on the page. And that is POV for an article like Conversion therapy, as much as I despise the concept. Thanks for linking to Rainbow flag (LGBT movement), Zuejay. It demonstrates that the political nature of this still relatively new symbol cannot just be waved away. The reason I love the flag is for the social movements and the pride it represents... but it does lend a POV stamp to an article, just like a Black Panther flag or a Confederate flag would. --Melty girl 02:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Replaced side infobox with footer in Conversion therapy article per discussion.. even if side bar remains in other articles it especially has unwanted POV connotations in this article. If anyone new to this discussion wants to see the former version in context as talked about above, see 3 June 2008 version at [3] -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 22:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a vote to change ALL sidebar LGBT tags to the LGBTFooter? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm for it if the rest of you guys are. -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 19:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC) (guys in the gender neutral sense of course)

[edit] Convert all LGBT sidebars to LGBT Footers

  • Support: mainly because it makes the article appear visually less cluttered. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: absolutely less clutter, easier to find, mimics "See also", more thorough covering more topics (selectively include certain ones). ZueJay (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: more NPOV appearance & less implied ownership of individual pages -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 00:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC) self-removing my previous vote (was project member at time of vote but since then have removed name from roll) -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 23:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Why should this project shrink away. The religious, military and other projects have sidebars, to varying degrees of intrusiveness. For example, the religious templates may, or may not, be as much of a belief system, or POV to some as LGBT, but when they become footers, then so should this one. On the other hand, also as an example, the Politics portal and Politics series sidebar is low key and non-intrusive without any logos. The Communism template is kinda in your face, being all, like, you know, red and everything. </valley> If Allstar were still here, he would be having a conniption about now. Who knows, this might bring him back. ☺ — Becksguy (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per Becksguy. Also, widespread changes like this should be fully vetted by the community before acting on them. Fireplace (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair point about the vetting. Perhaps there are only certain articles this should be changed on? But then, how do we decide? Are we not back to step one? Hmm...thinking... ZueJay (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm not voting for the project to shrink. Frankly I don't like the side bars on any of the article, no matter what project it is. I've always preferred the footer templates. It just looks neater visually. If there were a widespread wiki vote for removing all side bars I would vote in support of that as well. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry, Bookkeeper, I didn't express myself well enough. I mean why should this project's sidebar presence shrink away, not the project, per se. You have a good point about sidebars in general. — Becksguy (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: agreed, this vote isn't over the project shrinking, just in how we present it. If you look at an article such as same-sex marriage which is going to have readers coming to it from supporting, opposing, and indifferent viewpoints, and then slap a sidebar on it with "Part of a series of articles on LGBT studies" with a pride flag and pride colored horizontal dividers, the page takes on a political and POV tone imho, to a breaking issue that is evolving as we write. Even if you think we should give it the same (of course it is equal, why wouldn't you think otherwise (re: Wikipedia:Flat_earth_problem )) treatment on Wiki that interracial marriage would get, that's going to set off POV flags to anti-same-sex-marriage and neutral people coming to the article for NPOV information. The LGBT sidebar wouldn't set off so many POV red flags with me if it had more neutral imagery (such as or some other black and white picture of the sort) placing it more in the realm of historical coverage than political advocacy. The pride flag & using its colors in the horizontal dividers.. pride flags and colors are (correct me if i'm mistaken) universally recognized as pro gay / supporting gay rights / etc. which wouldn't matter in a historical context to the LGBT movement, but it is branded onto more than that currently. at least in footer form it would be below article content and separate from it, giving less POV appearance. anyhow.. my 2 cents. -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 12:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the replacement of all sidebars with footers. However, I think a concerted effort should be made (and I don't mind making it since I'm between FAs right now) to go through each article with a sidebar and make sure they are core articles. Others should have footers. The clutter on Harvey Milk's page is embarrassing. Two templates and a portal link. We are, after all, known for our style and aesthetics. I think the sidebar should go on the articles it links directly to. Other articles for important figures and concpets in the gay community should get the footer. While I'm at it, Oppose the replacement of the rainbow flag. I don't like that idea a bit. And while I'm at it, why is Banjee included in general LGBT categories in the footer? That's a pretty narrow subculture of gay life.--Moni3 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I could support that as a compromise. the sidebar has as much right on a history of the lgbt movement article as the sidebar with a cross has on a history of christianity article. -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 13:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I dont mind the flag either if it a part of the core LGBT history (social movement) articles. I'm also up for scanning the LGBT articles for levels of importance as far as sidebars are concerned. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: on sidebars in general: Navigation sidebars are there to help the reader navigate articles that are related. A study on English readers of webpages found that readers tended to read in a F pattern, that is, read the headline and lede, and then scan down the left side looking for something interesting, so placing navigation sidebars on the right is less distracting. However, look at the Communism article. The sidebar there is very distracting and pulls the eye toward it, interfering with reading flow. (It gives me a headache.) On the other hand, look at the Politics navigation sidebar. It's less intrusive, text only, there if the reader needs it, and mostly out of the eye's way if not needed. We might think about that presentation as a third alternative in addition to the existing LGBT sidebar (for core LGBT articles) and LGBT footer. Actually I think that plain sidebar should be the style for ALL navigation sidebars or replace all sidebars with footers as Bookkeeper suggests. Maybe bring this up at the Village pump. Thoughts? — Becksguy (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be an interesting discussion to see how other projects react to the idea of eliminating most or all sidebars. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: - one advantage of sidebars over footers is that you can click between articles within a series using the sidebar without needing to scroll down each time like you do with a footer. Frame-like behaviour. Only works with small sidebars and works best when the article layout is consistent across a series, but this is why I prefer interlocking sets of small sidebars linking to each other as well as the articles, rather than bloated footer templates that try and link to too much. Carcharoth (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What the Fuck I can't even believe this conversation is taking place, especially with breeders people that know nothing about what the rainbow flag stands for. 1- yes, it is the universal symbol of gay pride to many. However, it is the universal symbol of gay period, just as the stop sign is to stop. POV null. Additionally, the rainbow flag is used as a symbol of world peace. Look it up, I'm not here to do the work for you. Of all the absurd shite I have ever seen, "the rainbow flag is POV" has to take the cake! There's already a footer for its own purpose, just as the sidebar has its own purpose. As for picking and choosing which articles to put them on, that is just ridiculous. If it fits an article, it goes there without some "you can't do that 'cause we said so on the project talk page" bullshite. Are the people raising these issues, even a member of this project?? Leave them as they are, and piss off. ✰ 02:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment (not a vote)
(a) Saying the LGBT rainbow flag is a symbol of all gays is a little like saying the Confederate (US) flag is a symbol of all US white southerners, or the Nazi flag the symbol of all Germans during the third reich. LGBT is not a nation-state, there is no "official" gay/lesbian/bisexual/trans flag. People identify by varying labels, identities, have varying views, etc etc. the flag is just a symbol adopted by many LGBT people to rally around and symbolize pride/acceptance/etc.
(b) The LGBT rainbow flag has six colors, red on top. The peace flag has seven colors, with red on bottom.
(c) The discussion is about the flag's placement in article namespace. The LGBT project owns their respective banner in the talk namespace, but articles themselves belong to no one (WP:OWN) and everyone at the same time. (Note: by extension this applies to all sidebar templates appearing within article namespace, whether they bear the Rainbow flag or the Christian cross.) Every Wikipedian has right to comment on content in article namespace. Wikipedia is based on consensus and is not a democracy. (WP:CONSENSUS) Thx.-- caveman80(my 2 cents) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Luther Vandross?

Since it can not be proven he is homosexual I don't think he should be part of the LGBT studies project. What do you guys think? K.H (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

According to StarPulse his friends claim he was closeted gay, and according to this site , BET asked him and he told them it wasn't any of their business. now he is dead and moved on, and I say why not let him rest in (sexually-ambiguous) peace...  ? we don't have to claim him as our own if he didn't claim himself as our own. everyone has the right to self-identification. imho. -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It would depend on how big of an impact the gay rumors have been on his life. There are several gay icons who sexual orientation remains undefined but they became icons because the rumors became almost as notable as their careers. If it wasn't a major concern, don't tag it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm not saying there's no possibility of him being gay but all the information provided on his sexual orientation is merely speculation. K.H (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on Harvey Milk

A request for comment has been posted at Talk:Harvey Milk#REQUEST FOR COMMENT: Milk's involvement with Jim Jones/Peoples Temple. Other editor's input would be appreciated. Banjeboi 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newsletter revival

One of the best ways to remind folks that though there are some Wikiprojects floundering and half asleep, we are kinda too... But an attempt to undo that could be to revive the newsletter. By sending it out to members, we can remind them that there are still things to do. I don't mind contributing content, but I don't know jack shit about making it all pretty with the div and the colors and images and whatnot. And is there a delivery bot we can use? Any ideas? --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can find the template from a previous newsletter and then we can fill it in. I'd like to bring our attention to The Violet Quill, which needs a full-fledged article I think. Most members of the Quill have a page of their own now, including Michael Grumley, which I created recently...(the remaining one would be Christopher Cox [4] - we need more info and references...) We also need to update the Lambda Literary Award with the new winners; the info is on their website. I was also hoping we would create more articles on LGBT magazines/newspapers, as we did some time ago after I asked about The New York Native...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That's what I get for opening my big fat yap. All right, I put my money where my mouth is. Here's the draft. I don't know how to send it out, so help me with that. And please write what you need to write, Zig. Edit away. Anyone else have info to add? Aleta? Dev20? Help? --Moni3 (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeshayahu Leibowitz was not family, he only talked about homosexuality - but it is referenced info.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, correct me, of course. Edit away. I don't know what I'm doing. But that seems to be my mantra all the way up to FA... --Moni3 (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Alegoo92 was the person who requested the title change of queer studies, judging by the article log. Ged UK (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have proceeded to create a page on Christopher Cox, as it has two references...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how bots work. Satyrn knew.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well done. Someone has already updated the Lammies page - perhaps after reading the Newsletter.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Rock on. Sweet. --Moni3 (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well...I noticed the newsletter eliminates the TOC on my talk page, which drives me nuts. I compared it to the newsletter on February 29, which allows a TOC. The difference between them is the June newsletter has a _NOTOC_ code. But when I take that out, it turns the table of contents into a weirder subtable of contents. I don't know what to do and I don't know who to ask. Make it stop! --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to bring up about this newsletter is that it has a __NO-TOC__ (I put in a dash so it wouldn't work here) in it. Which I understand is because the newsletter has sections so they don't want it to clutter the top of someone's talk page. Some people may not mind this though, and also, it is not applied exclusively to the newsletter, but to anything else on a person's talk page, which they may want ToC to help navigate. Also, it is posted with every single newsletter, unnecessarily. I think it would be better to not include this tag, and if someone doesn't want a ToC on their talk page they can easily add this themself. Was it added due to complaints of ToC cluttering or something? I think it inconveniances more people than it helps. It's not really the place of talkers or newsletterers to include scripts that affect the entire page.
Another thing is, I think it might be better to have a newsletter talk page specifically. Separate from the main talk page section. It could still be viewable on this talk page using that coding that incorporates it, but at the same time, be editable externally and have a different history kept than the rest of the talk page. Currently, it would be hard to find, because /Newsletter only ever contains an automatic redirect toward the current newsletter, which is of course empty. Instead, perhaps it would be better to make the page link to all the newsletters in the archives. This way, the talk page would be easily accessible without having to follow back the redirect, and it would make it easy to navigate between the different newsletters. Also, like with how an external membership list is incorporated on a project page, or how I suggest the newsletter talk page be incorporated into the main talk page, perhaps it would be possible to do that for the main /Newsletter page. That way, it could have the same effect of redirecting, but without the hassle of it. Having a separate talk page for the newsletter seems like an awesome idea. Currently, on the box in the upper right of the page, it is the only one of the departments listed without a talk page in the right column. It sticks out like a sore thumb!
You could even do it to all newsletters simultaneously, have them all viewable on one page, while still having them accessible individually. The newsletters don't seem too huge and don't have pictures or anything so I don't think it would be that much of a strain or hassle. Naturally the most recent newsletter could be featured at the top. Most people view the newsletters individually anyway since they are sent them directly on their talk page, so I don't imagine they'd be accessing it directly much to begin with, save for when they first arrive and want to read all the newsletters from past to present in one go. Tyciol (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. Okay, sorry. I'm a bit confused. First issue is the Table of Contents that the newsletter erases on talk pages due to the _NOTOC_ tag. If I delete that code, it makes it a sub-table of contents, such as what you can see on Aleta's talk page, who deleted the code herself. However, if you take a look at the last recent newsletter, in my archives here, you can see in the code that it does not have the NOTOC code, yet it doesn't do that funny subtable of contents thing. I compared the June 08 newsletter with the February 08 newsletter, and couldn't find anything different in the code that would explain why it does that. I'm looking for the answer: add this! or delete this from the code!
  2. I have no problem making a WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Newsletter page, where people can discuss the code, add to the newsletter and assist in its building. I kinda took it this time. I can continue to write it, or oversee its construction, or someone more familiar with the table code for the newsletter can do that. I'm open.
  3. I can't make suggestions for newsletters for every Wikiproject. I don't even know where to point you to that. Or are you suggesting, we have all our newsletters archived on the page, with the most recent at the top? I'm not sure how to do that. --Moni3 (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Violet Quill

OneTwo possible sources for the The Violet Quill is are:

See also here from GLBTQ encyclopedia. The seven authors are: Edmund White, Andrew Holleran, Robert Ferro, Felice Picano, George Whitmore, Michael Grumley, and Christopher Cox. — Becksguy (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is enough there to start the article, so I'm creating it. Why wait. — Becksguy (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, 3.5 hours later, done. Not a great article, but a stub nevertheless. This will tie the seven writers together while we improve it. Further discussion should probably take place on the article talk page. I included the references above into the article. And I will post some thoughts on article expansion that everyone is more than welcome to join in on. OK, Zig, your request in the newsletter is on it's way to completion. — Becksguy (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, great. Could you please add the page numbers when you refer to the Bergman books?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox in Pederasty?

There is currently a discussion regarding whether the LGBT infobox should be placed on the Pederasty article, thus implying the relevance of pederastic relationships between grown men and adolescent or at least much younger youth or men to LGBT, Homosexuality and Queer Studies.

For me, there are two approaches (I admit that my presentation may be biased here):

  1. Accept public consensus (disgust) towards pederasty and distance it from assimilated homosexuality. A lot of editors who are highly active in vetting Child Abuse related articles for more pro-victim points of view, are supporting this approach. They are removing the infobox. I am sure that they can explain their point of view far better than I can.
  2. This is the more encyclopedic option, that users such as myself, Haiduc and Cesar Tort have supported. We accept that Pederasty is a form of Homosexuality, maybe in the same way that Lolita Complex comes into heterosexuality. Pederasty, according to the majority of scholars of homosexuality in different cultures, is an extremely common and often dominant form of homosexual relationship. References to pederasty abound in homosexual, queer studies and queer theory texts. We want to keep the infobox on pederasty. forestPIG 14:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
By infobox, are you referring to the template on the main page of the article, or the WP:LGBT tag on the talk page? Though we don't appear to have consensus right now, we may be moving (I hope we are) to placing the main article template only on core articles: that is, articles linked within the template. As pederasty is not one of them, I would be for removing the template and replacing it with a footer. You can see the discussion relevant to footers above. --Moni3 (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have read about Greek pederasty, but it is a very different thing from homosexuality... See Halperin's One Hundred Years of Homosexuality...It was a class thing, with age restrictions. Nothing to do with gays or queers.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
So far I only know one TV-Show that mainly featured gay men: Queer as Folk. And the main character had an affair with a 17 y/o teenager. THAT is a case of pederasty, whether political correct opportunists like it or not. Fulcher (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Was it nod by definition, a form of HS (the texts on the history of HS tend to support this)? What about pederastic practises in other societies? forestPIG 16:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you be more specific?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me, but exactly what is left of the history of homosexuality if you exclude pederastic relationships? We lose the Greeks and most of the Romans, we lose most of Japan and most of Islam from India to Morocco (including the Sufic wisdom traditions), out the window goes the Renaissance in Europe with Leonardo and company, we say goodbye to Oscar Wilde and Bosie, Symonds too, Andre Gide, Walt Whitman, Allen Ginsberg, Auden and Isherwood, and I am just rattling off names off the top of my head. You can imagine what the list would look like if I tried to be more comprehensive.
I must also take issue with Zigzig, the Greek boyfriends were very likely to be of an age which today would be above the age of consent - have you looked at the vase pictures? Those muscular youths were anything but children. We have a picture of one, as a matter of fact, right now on the Homosexuality article page, it has been there for ages. Halperin is just one voice among many, and many disagree with him and have refuted his contentions.
I also agree with ForesticPig, any text on the history of HS will treat pederasty at length, though some avoid the word per se. But we can't help it that the word means two very different things: legitimate loving relationships with boys above the age of consent, and the anal penetration of an underage child by an adult. It does not make sense to run away from the word, it only makes sense to point out the difference in meanings and treat each meaning under a separate heading, as it is done now - child molestation and pederastic relationships have separate articles. Haiduc (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you enlighten me about critics who disagree with Halperin on this issue? I would gladly read up on it. The class difference he points out does indeed seem to have been a constant in same-sex relationships - from the Cleveland Street scandal to Citebeur. However, I am unsure about the age restrictions. Frankly I don't know because I didn't see it with my own eyes, but in a non-Judas sort of way I thought perhaps Halperin's referenced study would hold some truth. Halperin only points out that it is an anachronism, though. Do we apply LGBT to anachronisms? Philosophical moot point I say.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Critics are many, whether of the type that are willing to pick a fight with Halperin, like Hubbard here or just to undermine his argument by documenting a Greek pederasty that does not jive with his "zero-sum game" model, like this very interesting paper or David Cohen, in Past and Present and elsewhere.
For age restrictions see just about anybody, including the Greeks themselves, in myth and in poetry. They even had a name for "age of consent," horaios, which might be rendered as "who has reached the right time".
As for class difference, Halperin must have done quite a sidestep to have missed one of the very paragons of Greek pederasty, and of Greek democracy: the relationship between Harmodius and Aristogiton. The boy was an aristocrat while the man was a middle class citizen, the opposite of what we are taught to expect. This difference in class can be judged in many ways, by the way. In the rigid, stratified and vertically immobile culture of pre-modern Japan, such relationships were admired precisely because love won out over class, and men and youths from radically different classes loved each other (this applying specifically to samurai relationships, rather than to prostitution, of which there was plenty, but that is another story).
Anachronism? How so? Haiduc (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, because older men don't go out with teenage boys.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you actually live in some kind of dreamworld? Wake up. Fulcher (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Guys in their twenties don't go out with guys in their teens?! Pity. Haiduc (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are talking about sexual relationships between people of the same (homo) sex, then it fits within the purview of this project, and therefore the project banner should be used on the talk page. I agree with Moni that the template does not belong in the article though if the article is not part of the template.

As for anachronisms... yes we use LGBT anachronistically. Aleta Sing 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Family Guy characters

There is some debate on Talk:Stewie Griffin on whether he should be added to Category:Fictional LGBT characters and Category:Fictional gay men. These discussions could use some input in terms of what those categories are for, and what would be consistent with Wikipedia policy and established conventions in these matters.

Incidentally, while Talk:Lois Griffin has been tagged for {{LGBTProject}}, Talk:Stewie Griffin is not. I'm not a project member, and don't know if this is right. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty strange. I think Stewie would fit the first category but not the second one. He is a character, but while he is probably as smart and complex as a man, he is a baby and people don't refer to Stewie as a man. LGBT covers him better than 'gay' too. Stewie doesn't directly identify with any labels (I've never heard him call himself gay) nor would any really characterize his behaviour. Common inferences from 'Gay' usually have people exclusive/preferential homosexuality. Stewie would be closer to bisexual, because he has had romantic feelings towards girls, like that baby girl he did a showdance with. Since he has also crossdressed and taken up effeminate mannerisms this could also bridge into transgenderism as well. He would be a much better candidate for the LGBT project than Lois. I don't even understand why she would be considered, which category would she fit? If she's ever approached transgenderism or bisexuality I must have missed the episode, it's not an ongoing theme of her character in any way that I've noticed like it is with Stewie. Tyciol (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Stewie is realistically bisexual. Lois stated in one episode she's previously dated women. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spotlight

Spotlight
An article covered by this WikiProject, Michaelangelo, is currently under the Spotlight. If you wish to help, please join the editors in #wikipedia-spotlight on the freenode IRC network where the project is coordinated. (See the IRC tutorial for help with IRC)

...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 11:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Visitation of Spirits

A Visitation of Spirits is up for deletion. It is a rather well-known book, though. Can anyone please help?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] newsletter thanks

I would like to thank Moni and all the people who contributed to it for this month's newsletter. I found it informative and useful. Well done to all! Will we be getting one next month? ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Negotiations are in progress (see Newsletter revival thread, above). But I plan to do it again. Y'all need to make some news now. --Moni3 (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)