Portal talk:LGBTQ/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 1

| Archive 2 →

Talk

This looks really good. I don't have any experience with portals and wonder where and how we should link up the LGBT notice board? Now that there is a Wikiproject, a notice board and a portal, there seems to be some overlap. -- Samuel Wantman 22:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• The portal is like a front page for readers who are interested in a LGBT encyclopedia. The Notice Board is for editors interested in all LGBT articles. The Project is for editors interested in making LGBT articles WP:FA quality. Davodd 23:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, and along those lines, I have proposed moving the notice board to a subpage of Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies. Discussion is here. -- Samuel Wantman 01:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Dana International

A user several times reverted the article Dana International claiming that the singer is male because one cannnot change one's gender. I find the claim awkward as the singer is always refered to as a she. Can anyone have a look at the discussion on that talk page? What is the common practice around Wikipedia? gidonb 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:LGBT culture by country?

I noticed Category:LGBT culture in Canada listed in the LGBT Category side-bar. A quick look on Google shows Category:LGBT culture in Norway, Category:LGBT culture in the United Kingdom, and Category:LGBT culture in Scotland. Does anyone object to putting these into an over-category of Category:LGBT culture by country? Or should these be added to the sidebar as is? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The execution photo is quite graphic and grim and has been up for quite a while now. Can it be changed, please? - GilliamJF 11:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Transgender

I note that the entire Transgender spectrum has been omitted from this portal.

If I add the entire TG tree, it'll probably double the length of the categories box. It would also take some time to do!

I don't know if it's possible to effectively transclude the subcategories section of Category:LGBT into here but this would seem a better way of approaching this, as it would avoid the need to maintain a static list of sub-pages, which will inevitably end up taking large amounts of time to maintain or ending up uot of sync as the categories change. If it is possible, this would allow the hide/expand functionality to provide a more compact view.

Alternately, should we include only a link to Category:LGBT in the portal? --AliceJMarkham 03:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the categories are needed there, and in any case, what to replace them with? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Change sidebar?

Do you think it would be easier, if not tidier, to change from categories to an extensive list of topics instead? The topics will never change, whereas the categories might. See Portal:Disasters for an example. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been a bit bold and changed the Portal colour scheme. How does it sit with everyone else? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm partial to purple, so it sits fine by me. :-) Jeffpw 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Now THAT'S Purple! I LOVE it! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about my new function

As a new Portal maintainer, I wanted to know how much of the article needed to be put into the preview on the Portal page. I had only put the lead in, basing my decision on how the Today's Featured Article is done. I see that Dev changed it. I don't mind, and have no preference, but wanted to know if there was a guideline to follow. Jeffpw 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know, there is no actual guideline, but the TFA usually has a massive lead section. Even then, though, it has to be adapted to stand as a mini-article in its own right. What I've done to both your and SatyrTN's articles is to expand it using info from the rest of the article so 1) it is a decent size, about three paragraphs, and 2) so that it contains a bit more information that LGBT readers would like to read, to find out more. It's difficult to explain, and I apologise for muscling in on your territory, as it were, but I'm sure you can see the improvement. Maybe some sort of portal guideline should be put on the guideline list? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no need to apologize, Dev. I thought my additions looked a bit anemic, but I was afraid to add more than just the lead. So now I know :-). And yes, some guidelines might be a good idea. Being bold is good, but being bold in a directed, thoughtful way is even better! (and I will never forgive Brangelina)Jeffpw 22:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've found some sort of guidelines on the FP pages, but also some weird thing about articles which seems kinda worrying, so I've asked Kirill Lokshin for advice. I'll let you know once I've worked out what's going on. And I will never forgive Evilston. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going for shorter (two paragraphs), though like Dev, I picked out material I thought would interest LGBT readers. I see y'alls point, though, that three paragraphs might be better. I will (probably) never care about either one! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I went and checked out this Portal thing, and it looks like we need to keep archives of articles and pictures we've rotated. We need to maintain, say, an archived list of the past thirty items we've displayed. I think that's how it works, anyway. Someone else might want to go check. I'll go set one up now for pictures. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Where would this archive be located? Coincidentally, I was just looking at the Portal article, and when I checked the history page of the portal, my change wasn't listed there. Where would that be? There has to be some record of the change somewhere, in a place so anal retentive with such an eye for detail as Wikipedia. Jeffpw 23:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The archives are located at "Portal:LGBT/Previous whatever". I've created archives for both the quotes and pictures. The reason your edit hasn't shown up on the portal is because the portal only hosts transcluded pages. What you've done is edited the transcluded pages, so your edits will show up in those histories, not on the portal page itself. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you just created it? Because I looked in Portal:LGBT/Previous article, and came up blank. I am changing the article again tomorrow, and don't want anything to get lost, since I know the archive is necessary to bring the Portal to featured status. Jeffpw 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't created an archive for articles, I've created archives for the pictures and quotes, which I've linked to from the main page. You can see them there. I didn't create Portal:LGBT/Previous articles because articles is your job, and I don't want to tread on your toes. I'm trying to hold myself back and let other people do stuff in the project. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

gotchya. I'll use your example for the article archive, starting tomorrow. Jeffpw 00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal guidelines.

Just as a reminder to everyone, the Portal is to showcase our best work. When selecting items for the portal, please ensure they are high-quality. See Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines for more on Portals. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Though the guidelines don't mention it (that I saw), images with WP:FU tags may not be used. They are deleted by a user from both portals as well as the Featured Article Request pages. Just an FYI. Jeffpw 00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I figured, they don't let you use FU images anywhere other than the article itself. I learnt that when I tried to add FU images to stub blurbs. I made sure all the pictures I've been using all come from the Commons anyway, so I didn't have to worry about that. :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good!

I just wanted to complement y'all who've been working on updating the portal. It looks good! Aleta 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Category section.

I just overhauled the categories list, trying to keep it to the broadest categories only two subcategories deep. This is also to help make room for a section on LGBT topics. I hope this is OK with everyone. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Article section

Looking at the portal page, it looks like its main focus is on the term "LGBT", rather than on LGBT issues. Seems off-balance. Dfeuer 08:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I haven't a clue what this means. Could you elaborate? Jeffpw 16:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand, Jeffpw. If you look at the top section, the section titled, "The LGBT Portal", of the portal page, it explains the term LGBT and gives a brief history of the terms used for LGBT people. It looks as if the protal is about the *words* rather than topics/issues dealing with LGBT people. It is rather misleading. The rest of the page, however, is indicative of the range of topics covered by the portal. Aleta 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I only added stuff that I found in the article. Anyone is welcome to change it if they like to better reflect LGBT issues. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a little welcome paragraph for new users, explaining what the Portal is. Hope it's ok, and feel free to polish it if you feel it's too rough. Jeffpw 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to reply so late... I was going to suggest replacing some of the info from LGBT with info from Queer studies, Queer theory, LGBT social movements, Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and Transgender, but I fear that list is a bit on the long side, and still leaves many things out (AIDS, Intersexuality, LGBT rights opposition, et alia). I wonder if it might be more useful to simply cut out all but the first paragraph, and then try to give some kind of structured index to LGBT-related articles, probably including brief descriptions of each. Dfeuer 02:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick Look

Hey, I only had time to give the main page a quick look, but here are a few things:

• The flag in the intro doesn't need a frame and such.
• The intro seems alittle long, try trimmin just a bit. Trimmed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Photos in selected article doesn't need frame such as well.
• The way the cats box is set up, seems like <categorytree> would work better.
• The biographies seem a bit long.
• The news section needs an archive if it was found outside the wikis.
• Lists box doesn't need "List of".
• And you need a {{browsebar}} on the bottom.
• If there is only gonna be one quote in the box at a time, it should be "Quote" not "Quotes".
• And a related portals box is missing. Not sure which one's you can add, but should find atleast a few.

Other that that, I didn't see much else out of place. I'll be able to look into further in a couple of days. Glad to see this portal is getting so much attention. Joe I 04:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've created and added a related portals box. Also added a {{browsebar}} to the bottom. WJBscribe 17:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ticked items sorted. WjBscribe 14:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Want to run something by y'all

5 days ago, I made SS marriage in Spain our Portal featured article. I was wondering if anybody minded if I left it up another week, as it just attained featured status. My plan was to then change to The Well of loneliness the following week, and the article about the Imperial Courts after that (that will give me time to format the refs on that article). Thoughts? Objections? Praise? Jeffpw 20:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You couldn't have found a better way to get my attention than that summary! And I don't mind at all with that plan :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Satyr. Just trying to plan ahead. We have an embarrassment of riches to choose from at the moment. I'm really proud of how our Wikiproject has developed in the last couple of months. Jeffpw 21:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you wouldn't think we were almost dead in the water three months ago, would you? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. :) Might I suggest (if it's not too much of a bother) that the lead that is currently at the portal be updated to the final FA version in that case? If it's not too much work! :) Cheers Raystorm 17:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Over-infoboxification

A creeping issue on Wikipedia is evident in the Freedom to Marry article and the Lambda Legal article - over-infoboxification. On these articles 2e have an LGBT portal box, an LGBT Rights box, and an LGBT Queer studies box. Why do we need three boxes for what arguably is the same topic? I think these should be combined into one box - many of the same topics are covered in the latter two boxes. These boxes are vying for space on relatively short articles, displacing images of the subjects/concepts, and, generally, junk up the page. One infoxbox is not so bad - but three? --DavidShankBone 18:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What has this to do with our portal? You might want to leave a message here instead. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:World homosexuality laws.png

I like this map a lot, and think it might be good to make a permanent part of the portal. Perhaps it could go above Categories and under Quotes, or to the left of Quotes (if we make Quotes a half-size column). Just a thought. Koweja 02:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

the map is good but has one mistake: in Austria is until now no civil union or domestic partnership in austrian law. 212.95.99.29 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Various edits

I'm updating the various components of the portal (some of which haven't been touched since February), and playing around with some minor structural changes while I'm at it. The page is sufficiently neglected that I'm just being bold and bypassing discussing these -- but this is my first time working with portals, so I'm learning as I go. Fireplace 01:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

One question I will throw out... does anyone object to a Selected Article/Bio/Picture system that picks a random item from a list, rather than leaving a single article to sit and get stale for 14 days before updating it? Fireplace 01:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary of changes I've made: Added new selected article, bio, and picture; added "Suggest" links for new selected content; rewrote intro. Thoughts for later: randomizing selected content, merging the categories/lists/topics windows into a single section (current version is cluttered generally doesn't give a clear picture of the layout of the pages within the scope of the project), expanding the "Things you can do" section into something meaningful; removing the "Web resources" section (seems ridiculously arbitrary, and not something anyone is likely to use anyways). Fireplace 02:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, people's accounts are active and I've heard no objections, so I'll just get cracking. Fireplace 14:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've hit everything I mentioned above and more. Basically, to update the portal with new selected content, you just add an extra page copying the formatting of the others, and increment the templates on the portal page so that it knows it can grab an extra article. Alternatively, list the content (article/bio/picture) at Portal:LGBT/Nominate and I'll do it for you. Fireplace 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing Article

• searching for an article over Robert A. J. Gagnon, can someone write it ?212.95.99.29 14:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Gift

Gift from Poland :-) Grzegorz Wysocki 19:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome!! Tks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool! I'm nicking it for the Spanish project hehe. ;-) Thanks! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We should be more observant, the code for the portal tag is in a message above... :-P Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images

Just a reminder- there should be no fair use images used on portals. I have just removed a batch from your featured article list, someone may want to go and find some appropriate free images for the ones I didn't replace. J Milburn 16:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

New german LGBT Portal

On german wikipedia is a new portal, which looks better than the old german portal. GLGerman 21:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And it looks fabulous. DevAlt 14:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yellow Head

May I please get feedback (even assistance) regarding Yellow Head (person)#Yellow Head, the berdache?

1. Should the current article be split into 3 different articles, making the article about Yellow Head, the berdache, be a "start" while making the articles for the other two people named Yellow Head each be a stub? And if splitting how should the three be named?
2. Since in the Ojibwa culture, Yellow Head, the berdache, was considered to be a woman and not a man, so how should the non-direct-quotation portions be re-worded such that this is refected as such. However, please keep in mind that in the Anishinaabe language, there are no words for "he" or "she"... just "animate being" and "inanimate being" of which both a male and a female are one in the same - both are "animate beings".

Suggestion (even edits) would be appreciated. Miigwech CJLippert 14:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC) (from WP:IPNA/Nish)

I'm going to move this to the LGBT project's talk page, where I feel you'll get more of a response. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Categorization Help

Categorization has been always my problem on wiki, but for gay people I'm even more confused... and now that I've been out of wiki for a while I don't know what to do... For example Maile Flanagan is not categorized as lesbian or bisexual, nor is written anything on the subject on the page, but she is in the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: F-J. Ulrike Folkerts is openly lesbian, she participates in the Gaygames but has no categorization for that. There are new guideline I'm not aware of? How should I best categorize the two articles? are le lists still updated? Thanks --Dia^ 10:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As Satyr did with the question above, I'm going to move this to the LGBT project's talk page, where I feel you'll get more of a response. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 13:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Help! Input required

I have provided a source on James Ist of England which states quite categorically that he had male lovers. I have added a subheading to this effect. Others, are trying to remove both the source and the heading. [[1]] Any input from people who are not anti-LGBT would be welcome as I suspect the motives of those concerned thus far. Thanks! Marcus22 11:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Have also placed this on the Talk page as per Allstarecho. Marcus22 11:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford Illustrated History of Great Britain (ISBN 0198226845 ) openly states that the Duke of Buckingham was his male lover. See also: The World of the Favourite edited by J. H. Elliott and L.W.B. Brockliss, Yale University Press, p. 63 (ISBN 0300076444 ); King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire, by David Bergeron, University of Iowa Press, pp. 32-143 (ISBN 0877456690 ); The Making of a King: The Early Years of James VI and I, by Carolyn Bingham, Collins Ltd, 1969, p. 129; An Historical & Critical Account of the Life and Writings of James the First, by William Harris, Kessinger Publishing, 2007, p. 73 (ISBN 0548583781 ); and The Wisest Fool in Christendom: The Reign of James I and VI, by William Lloyd McElwee, Greenwood Press, 1974, p. 178 (ISBN 0837175224 ). There is a large and growing literature on James I's homosexual relationship with at least two noblemen, and a small number of texts which claim he had physical relationships (if not emotional ones) with several knights and others as well. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve Gunderson (actor)

Is this lemma over the actor Steve Gunderson and person a fake ? Does this person as actor really exist ? Or is it a fake because of the open gay politician Steven Gunderson ? Some ot the links on that page are broken. Who knows more ? 212.95.108.44 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC) (german User:GLGermann)

He appears to be a real actor, distinct from the politician of the same name. I've removed the broken link, but the links to his personal site and IMDB entry work fine. Aleta (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Link to WikiProject on Portal Page?

Resolved

 – added it twice, once at the top and once at the bottom

- ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 00:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing it? Should it be added to make it easier for interested folks to join?Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Muchas gracias!!!! Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know?

Any thoughts on having a Did you know...? section on the portal? (See Portal:Film for example.) I think it could fit nicely under the random quote section. --BelovedFreak 12:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've started creating this section per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. --BelovedFreak 21:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not many use this page. For future reference the best place to ask questions/discuss issues is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. Lots more people watch that page. :] - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 21:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Queer studies

Category:Queer studies has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.

There is a very spirited discussion taking place. Cgingold (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Appropriateness of the use of the Pride flag and 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 problem for discussion, & even if nothing comes of it, to at least bring it up.

Wikipedia is a NPOV encyclopedia. It's not a "Gay"-only encyclopedia. It's not a niche encyclopedia like the conservatives' Conservapedia, or the Trekkies' Memory Alpha. As Wikipedia editors, we all ideally aim to portray topics (contraversial 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 (through the use of the Infobox), and at worst it lends the appearance of POV slant. Thanks for reading. --Caveman80 (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)(moving to more-relevent LGBT studies) --Caveman80 (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Protest 365gay.com

After the relaunch it seems that all old stories are gone. The URL are obsolete. And i tried to find 2 Articles with the internal search-function. No success. I wrote a protest-message (down the site: "Contact us"). All nott reachable [2]. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 04:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sexual orientation

There is currently dispute on Template:Sexual orientation, and i am seeking input from other users. Previously the template had two separate sections, "Sexual orientations" and "sexual identity" (which can be scene here [3]). There has been controversy of what exactly falls under a sexual orientation and what fall under sexual identity. For example, some find asexuality to be a sexual orientation and other feel it sexual identity. In an effort to remain neutral, i found it imperative to combine the two lists to say "sexual orientations and sexual identities" leaving the decision of what falls under what to the reader. By having two separate listings, and having, for example, zoosexuality under sexual identity, we are supporting on agenda above another, which is un-neutral. This version here is the version i have proposed and edited, but there is currently an edit war. If you could please add your input to the template talk page, that would be great, thanx : ] --Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Blessings of homosexual couples in anglican and roman catholic churches

• A civil union was blessed on May 31, 2008 in anglican church of Church of England in London, United Kingdom
  • Episcopalchurch: Gay priests' civil partnership blessed in London church
• A civil union was blessed on August 20, 2008 in roman catholic church in Wetzlar, Germany
  • Frankfurter Rundschau: Bischof von Limburg Dekan muss gehen wegen Schwulen-Trauung (german) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.99.36 (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term "Openly Gay" in Wikipedia

In several articles in Wikipedia, people are referred to as "openly gay". I'd like to suggest that we review this terminology, and deprecate its use. The reasoning is pretty obvious: we don't speak of people being "openly straight", so using the term "openly gay" appears to be unequal treatment. Certainly, some people are gay and some people are straight (and some people are bi, and so on), but the use of the additional word "openly" seems to me unhelpful, conveying as it does a kind of semi-subliminal disapprobation. To see why, consider the phrase "openly pedophile": being a pedophile is bad and generally something kept concealed, which is why the word "openly" matters. We do not speak of people being "openly blue-eyed" or "openly left-handed", because there is no value judgement attached to these attributes. By continuing to refer to people as "openly gay" we conspire with those who regard being gay as something unnatural and worthy of concealment, and I don't think we should do this.

If people are on record as gay or straight or whatever, that's verifiable information and belongs in a Wikipedia article. If someone has come out at some stage, that's verifiable information too, and also belongs in Wikipedia. If there's speculation about someone's sexuality, but no clear proof or statement from them, this doesn't belong in our articles, because we deal in verifiable truth, not opinion. What we don't deal in is speculation, or the support of phrases that tacitly imply that being lesbian or gay is something less than desirable, or something bad, or something that is generally or might better be hidden. Being gay is just like being blue-eyed or left-handed - it's just the way we are - and we'd like straight people and gay people to be treated equally. Let's start be doing this in Wikipedia.

WMMartin (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, WMMartin! I agree that what you describe is the way things should be, but there are still vast inequalities between straight people and gay people. First of all, any biography you read here in Wikipedia is presumed to be of a straight person - no questions asked, that's the default. Furthermore, there are still variations in how "out" someone might be. For some examples, take a look at Jodie Foster and Little Richard (both are straight), through Jay Brannan (who identifies as gay, but doesn't want that fact in his article), through Urvashi Vaid ("openly lesbian"). So while I agree the desired state of things should be that the word "openly" isn't necessary, it currently is. IMHO. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that we assume straightness, nor would I say either Foster or Little Richard is straight. To say that is as incorrect as saying someone is gay who has not declared so him or herself. (Whether the reader makes that assumption is another matter.) That being said, I agree with Satyr about the use of "openly". Aleta ^Sing 19:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with SatyrTN, in a better world we simply wouldn't care unless we wanted a romantic relationship with them. -- Banjeboi 00:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

POV concerns with questionable articles

Why articles like Men_who_have_sex_with_men have gone unnoticed as long as they have -- not only with blatant injections of POV from cherry-picked references that brand gay men as promiscuous time-bombs for HIV/AIDS transmission -- while brightly displayed in categories such as Sexually_transmitted_diseases_and_infections and HIV/AIDS is completely beyond me. It doesn't end there, of course. These references have been included in the homosexuality article for some time now. (albeit, reverted several times over an extended period, and subject to various edit conflicts)

This is a blatant violation of Wiki's NPOV policy -- these inclusions only serve to convince the reader that gay males are promiscuous and nothing more. Such terminology as "men who have sex with men" is not common outside of places such as, say, Africa, and warrant no basis for inclusion here. The references make it pretty clear -- such terminology may only be cited back to blog sites that fail notability beyond all doubt.

I propose someone first nominate the "men who have sex with men" article for deletion, then follow-up on removing any cross-referenced material from other LGBT articles. This really needs to stop. 74.242.99.148 (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'd invite you to participate in a couple ways. First, you might consider signing up for an account. You might also (and/or) take your concerns to the actual Men who have sex with men article. And if you really want, consider joining WP:LGBT - a WikiProject with the aim of bettering Wikipedia's LGBT related articles. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me note that I had an account in the past, but due to harassment from other editors, haven't used it in a long time. As far as directly editing Wikipedia is concerned, I feel the entire matter is a lost cause and would rather do without the frustration. Between arguing policy, basis for notability and article inclusion, attempting to ensure neutrality in lieu of article ownership, and my favorite -- failed AfD nominations that are ridden with sock puppets, proxies and / or given non-admin closure after spurious accusations of bad faith nom. If you expect me to take Wikipedia seriously enough to register an account, then I hope you plan to restore my faith by doing something about this article. Otherwise, I plan to go about my business and try to forget that this horribly failed exercise in Democracy still exists. 74.242.99.61 (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I must be a real idiot because I keep on being burned by the very same fires, but I keep on coming back for more punishment. Drop me a note when you are ready to work on the article and I promise to take a look. Haiduc (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're an idiot. I do, however, think you are an extremist, and have crossed the line on one too many ocassions. Wikipedia is not a posterboard for your personal agenda, and until editors such as yourself stop treating it that way, I will never consider Wikipedia a legitimate encyclopedic foundation. As it stands now, it's everything but an encyclopedia -- it's a social networking site; a place to advertise yourself or your work, no matter how trivial; a forum for sharing personal thoughts, insights and transgressions; a political, religious and societal fight-club. It's a social trend that every half-wit will contribute the most uncontrived and inane information toward just because. Unfortunately, you are not making it any better with your own contributions, and I would sincerely plea that you cease altogether. 74.242.99.61 (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

New Article: Arcigay

• italian organisation for civil unions in Italy. GLGermann (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)