Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

Office of National AIDS Policy

I have removed the LGBT tag. We agreed before that AIDS was not necessarily an LGBT issue.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but I notice the HIV article doesn't have the project tag either. What is the reasoning behind this? Political correctness? APK ^{yada yada} 11:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Same reasoning I would assume. HIV/AIDS is universal, not specific to LGBT studies. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not political correctness, just common sense. I am rather shocked that you would conflate the two things. It's just not relevant to being gay as of now.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

HIV can be important to just about anyone nowadays (OK, WP:AIRCRAFT is a stretch). The early history of it (i.e. GRID) might be of specific interest to this project. WP:AFRICA is the devastated group now, and they're not on the main article either.Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone who read the obituary pages of The Washington Blade in the 1990s saw the relevance of HIV to the LGBT community. --Moni3 (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. I guess I just find it offensive because I was too young when those two things were conflated. I have read about it for Theory though. Generation gap. But I reject the conflation in the same way as I reject the conflation with prostitution or madness - although historically speaking, that was relevant too.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess the argument could go either way. The AIDS article is under the WP:Africa project due to the epidemic there and among African-Americans. I suppose it would rightfully fall under LBGT Studies as well since it was originally though of as a Gay disease. I would bring it up as a discussion on both talk pages. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Moni3, you're absolutely correct. Don't forget the 1980s. I've talked to several "older" gay men here in D.C. and they've told me about many of their friends dying in the 80s due to HIV/AIDS. After a steady decline, HIV cases are actually on the rise in the gay community. APK ^{yada yada} 04:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly object to this, and I may even consider leaving this WikiProject if such a move was made. I think only articles of gays dying of AIDS, or of the early historical ramifications, should be tagged. If it's just an article about AIDS and not being gay, then no.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I can agree. That seems a bit more balanced. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, you don't have to leave. I removed my name from the project several weeks ago for different reasons and this is the last straw. I'm removing this page from my watchlist and will not contribute to anymore LGBT-related articles. If people want to somehow rewrite history and think that HIV is not an important topic related to the LGBT community, that's fine. But anyone with common sense knows that's completely ignorant and this project is a complete sham if certain users want to be politically correct and act like HIV isn't a huge issue within the gay community. I've seen discussions where people try to find an excuse to add some article that is barely related to LGBT issues and the project tag is usually added. For some reason, HIV/AIDS is different. That's insane. APK ^{yada yada} 23:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. How about if this project decides what to tag before everyone ups and leaves? We're barely keeping it together right now as it is. In fact...are we? I haven't even checked to see if California's Supreme Court strike of the gay marriage ban has been included. Has anyone else?

As for HIV/AIDS, I think there needs to be some kind of balance. I don't think all HIV/AIDS-related articles need to be tagged, but perhaps looking at the ones that are already existing and considering others that need to be written is a good idea. --Moni3 (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think correct or inccorect tagging of an article should be enough to warrant leaving the project. Perhaps there should be a group reassesment of all LGBT related article just so there is a current consensus of what is and what is not an LGBT related topic. No one ever said HIV/AIDS is not an issue to the gay community, but its also a worldwide epidemic which affects everyone. Isn't our focus here to build a more comprehensive encyclopedia? Let's not simply fight amongst ourselves. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It is homophobic to conflate AIDS with being gay nowadays. Frankly, the only way I could get it is if I got raped. That is fairly unlikely. I'm not saying we should ignore such prominent figures as Edmund White, Larry Kramer, Guy Hocquenghem and so forth - only, AIDS has no relevance to a gay twentysomething unless he has promiscuous sex without a condom. I'm aware of the historical ramifications of Act Up and Queer Nation, but once again those are historical ramifications which should be tagged. As for falling behind or not, I have been contributing to the Project lately. BTW, I have recently created an article on Michael Grumley, who died of AIDS - if someone could add the AIDS-related death category, that would be useful. I can't seem to be able to find it from another page so I can copy and paste it there.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a very POV assertion against two known facts... 1)There is a higher incidence of HIV amongst HIV people than in the heterosexual population per capita. Indeed, there's a subculture of the gay community that actually involves deliberate infection for some bizarre reason. 2) It is an undeniable fact that HIV is a large part of "gay history". Indeed, it is still a foundation for a great deal of predjudice against LGB people.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social commentary. Like it or not, there is a significant association between HIV and the gay community that wikipedia should recognise - but recognition of it does not equal conflation. Crimsone (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't deny the early historical ramifications. It has even informed Queer Theory, which I use for my hermeneutics. Surely there is barebacking among heterosexuals as well? Some of my straight friends didn't even know they could get AIDS from having oral sex without a condom. From my own experience, the only way AIDS adds to injustice against LGBT's is when you come out and someone automatically tells you to be careful with AIDS, instead of asking you who you would like to marry.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The same could be said of sex with Africans, but the fact is that there's a higher per capita occurance of AIDS in Africans too, and thus the concern/warning is perfectly well founded statistically. Crimsone (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Statistics are normative. And yes, the most pressing issue regarding AIDS is definitely Africa. The most pressing issue to gays as of now is marriage.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You can have multiple tags on articles. Just because Africa is a bigger issue re: HIV, it doesn't mean that the association between the LGBT community and AIDS is null and void. It's not. In fact, it's easily worthy of the tag. It might have negative connotations in your mind (the connotations are entirely imaginary - there is a factual link. In some senses a causal link. This is what Wiki should note... encyclopedias aren't in the business of connotations but they are in the business of facts. As to marriage being the biggest issue to gays in the world today (and there was me thinking LBGT included Lesbian Bi and Transgender too!) - that's pretty laughable. There are far bigger issues. Even the resurgance of the evangical right pales by comparison to them. Marriage isn't even a Gay issue by technicality... technically (as you seem, if you can forgive the assumption, to have a rather US centric view) it's a religio-political issue that defies the seperation of church and state. Crimsone (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to back up the statistics claim... from the Center for Disease Control... "MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men. In a 2005 study of 5 large US cities, 46% of African American MSM were HIV-positive." http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm. That's a fairly huge proportion, even if assuming that a few men claimed not to be MSM. learly then, not only a significant LGBT link, but a topic of significant specific interest to LGBT people (or at least, those that have sense... there are always a few bad apples in every basket)Crimsone (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Given more insight into the discussion, I believe HIV/AIDS fall under not only LGBT Studies, but African studies as well. There certainly isn't any harm in adding both projects to these articles- its encyclopedic. Given how the epidemic has impacted both communities, I see no reason now not to add them. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Reasons: Stigma, homophobia, anachronism.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There are ways to balance these issues. I don't feel as if ignoring or neglecting HIV/AIDS-related articles is appropriate or right for this project. The article for AIDS was delisted as an FA recently because of higher standards and neglect to the article. There's a WP:Medicine that dropped the ball, but in an historical way, so did we. When HIV first affected this country, gay men begged doctors and government officials to do something. Because of the stigma on homosexuality, gay men were ignored, but they did a Very Good Thing. They taught themselves. They organized themselves, counseled each other, raised what money they could, worked like I have never seen to change legal discrimination. They changed public perception of the disease. Out of necessity they fought to survive. The fruits of their efforts; it's no longer a leading cause of death and HIV in the US is a manageable disease like diabetes, doesn't warrant the end of education and effort. I am not considered high risk, but what men did in the 1980s and 1990s makes me very proud of them, and very proud to be gay. I can only hope if lesbians faced such overwhelming odds that they would be able to take them on so effectively.

There are a tiny few articles about how HIV affected gay men. There's AIDS origin, and individual biographies on people who died of AIDS complications, but I don't find an article about how men had to fight so hard in North America to overcome ignorance and the aforementioned stigma. That's a shame. It should be here for younger generations to read in a "Never forget" kind of way. --Moni3 (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not denying the historical ramifications. But as of now, it has nothing to do with being LGBT. I have edited the article on Eric Rofes - another example of my interet in the early ramifications of the disease. But it is not an LGBT topic.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to say this gently, because it doesn't appear that any project can afford to lose momentum right now due to splintering, particularly this one. Zigzig, your aforementioned note of the stigma and homophobia of HIV and AIDS connects them to LGBT issues. The stigma for AIDS is the same stigma that is attached to homophobia. If we tag articles on notorious homophobes, it honestly makes no sense not to tag articles that represent the embodiment of homophobia. I understand that it is a connection that you do not want to promote: HIV is spread by promiscuity making gay men harborers of the disease. That is not what should be done by tagging HIV related articles. By tagging and working on these articles, it should be a priority to acknowledge that HIV is part of the LGBT community, to remind people that it is a medical condition that should not affect social perception of gay men, and to remind people how it was handled in the past.

I don't think either of your solutions so far will be effective. Leaving the project won't do you or us any good, and ignoring the HIV articles won't do anyone any good. Too often, I find it's the most difficult path to take that ends up being the right one. By illustration of this topic—two members threatening to leave over convergent views—this is a significant issue in this community. Let's do something right about it by facing it head-on. --Moni3 (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not germane to being LGBT. It was when I was a toddler, and the only way it concerns me is when I read Theory informed by AIDS activists, or writers who wrote about AIDS. The same way testicular cancer or endangered birds concern me. I don't think promiscuous gay men are more likely to catch the disease than straight men. Or straight women. Or lesbians. Or transgenders. And so forth. And I would leave this Project were it to endorse a homophobic agenda. Please do set up an AIDS WikiProject if you are so enclined - it would certainly be useful, if there isn't already one. But I don't think this is what this Project should be about.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This project is about a host of issues related to lesbians, gay men, bisexuality, and transgender. I don't have much interest in breast implants, sex reassignment surgery, or fluffing, but I can't deny it falls under the scope of the project. I doubt many of the guys here share the enthusiasm for lesbian pulp fiction that I do. This is a varied project, perhaps moreso than any other project on Wikipedia. There is room for HIV topics in this project. It doesn't have to be - it shouldn't be - the sole focus, but it is my view that ignoring HIV and AIDS related articles is as homophobic (and quite dangerous) as declaring that all gay men will get or spread HIV, promoting the stigma you mentioned before. I think we may be arguing about different things, but I'm not quite sure what they are yet. Time to think on it would be beneficial. --Moni3 (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I a homophobe because I don't have AIDS, or because I don't think about it other than carrying a box of condoms when I go clubbing?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course no, but that's taking the argument out of context. The debate is wheter or not HIV/AIDS Has had enough of an impact for it to warrent inclusion as an LGBT study. Understandably it has. Would adding the WP:Africa to the article make it racist? Of course not- it simply means that (unfortunatly) its had a dramatically severe imapct on the countries history and culture. Sesame Street actually created a HIV/AIDS muppet for their branch in Africa to help the millions of children who are carriers understand the disease. Similarly, HIV/AIDS was originally thought of as a disease that ONLY affected Gay men. Medical science was unaware it affected everyone and unfortunately it created a negative stigma agaisnt all LGBT people. Is it sad/tragic/homophibic/ignorant? Yes it is. Is it a important aspect of both the virus and LGBT history? Most certainly it is. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Let WPAfrica deal with it themselves. From what I hear from my African friends, their nations really are dying from AIDS. Gays are not - some are, but then some heterosexuals are too - gays are more concerned about marriage and putting an end to heteronormativity and so forth at the moment. To say that AIDS is LGBT is homophobic. What kills me is that we already had this debate in the past - I think Dev agreed with me. Satyrn did too. Suddenly they have left and new members - though I recognise a couple - are trying to change the course of the Project. I think this is sad, and may indeed leave too for that reason. I will not support a homophobic Project. Notwithstanding my interest in the early ramifications regarding gays.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

More than 2 thirds of HIV infections are MSM, compared with one tenth of the hetero population... and it's not an LGBT issue? Hmmmmmmm. Of those infected MSM, less than half are African American. It's not homophobia... it's bare facts, which an encyclopedia deals with. By the way, the first article I edited at Wikipedia was Transphobia a couple of years back. Hardly new then!Crimsone (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference? I would seriously like to know where you heard that. Most MSM as you call us use condoms when we step out of abstinence. In Africa however, people are often given untrue info about AIDS and condoms.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I use the term MSM not because it's as "I call you" but because it's per the terminology used in the reference I've already cited above in the conversation. Perhaps in your zeal you failed to notice it when I cited an example of the statistics I mentioned shortly after mentioning them.Crimsone (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it has to be a current epidemic within the community to warrant inclusion in the project. Its historical significance should be enough. I'd like to know how and why you're become so confidant everyone uses a condom when they decide to have sex? The trend to bare back still exists in both gay and str8 communities. I personally know 3 gay males that have been infected with AIDS due to this. Gay or not, some people simply do not care enough about themselves to use protection- and even when they do, sometimes protection fails. In addition to the fact that although small in number Bugchasing and giftgiving still occurs as well. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know anyone who does not use condoms. The trouble with your statistics is that they seemingly fail to assert whether those MSM caught AIDS back in the day, or now. I assume it was back in the day. To that end, I should insist on only tagging the early ramifications and individual figures who have AIDS. It's just not relevant to gays any more...Zigzig20s (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, that is an entirely POV assertion. The statistics are what they are, as of 2005. They are still MSM... they are still (most of them at least) around today. They are still in the community and when they caught it is irrelevant to the fact that it is a significant issue in the LGBT community as the statistics themselves show. Even if it weren't all that big a deal (which it quite clearly is - hence the reason many campaigns in AIDS prevention target the LGBT community particularly over and above such targeting to the rest of the population), the fact is, a large proportion... actually a sizable majority of those infected are MSM, ergo, it's got a significant connection with the LGBT wikiproject. You asked for a cite, and you got it, from a reliable source. If you don't like what the cite says, then that's rather unfortunate, but never the less, the facts are there. Crimsone (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am 23 years old. The three men I personally referred to who contracted AIDS are all in their early 20s. Its as relevant to our community as it was 20 years ago. The LA Gay & Lesbian Center, bienestar and several other outreach centers I've worked/been associated with have several programs specifically directed towards gay youth desperately trying to educate them about the dangers of unprotected sex. Personally I have no idea what the official statistics are, but I do now for a fact that it is still a heavy concern for LGBT organizations that deal with todays young people. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a case of cultural relativism. I live in the UK, in a gay bubble, and I don't know anyone who does not use condoms. I know people who want long-term relationships and marriage. And people who like to read Theory. Am I living in an ivory tower? I still think your misleading statistics are homophobic. They bear no relevance to what I see. I would like to be proved wrong in an effective manner, because as it is I genuinely believe Africa is the only victim of AIDS at the moment.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent Report Sheds Light on LGBT Homeless Youth An Epidemic of Homelessness

A 2006 report titled, "An Epidemic of Homelessness," by Nicholas Ray cites a study in

which "50 percent of homeless youth...considered it likely or very likely that they will someday test positive for HIV." This report was published by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for the Homeless.

This report estimates that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth make up 20 to 40 percent of all homeless youth in the United States. As New York City is the epicenter of HIV/AIDS and has significant homeless and LGBT populations, this information is highly relevant both to SMART, Inc. in terms of policy and outreach, as well as to SMART Youth, which works with adolescents living with and affected by HIV/AIDS and those at high risk.

The report cites the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' estimated statistics that the number of homeless and runaway youth ranges from approximately 500,000 to 1.5 million each year. While this particular report does not specifically focus on HIV/AIDS or New York City, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates that there are between 15,000 and 20,000 homeless youth in New York City, of whom

3,000 to 8,000 are LGBT.

The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Take this to the Homeless WikiProject perhaps?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And blatantly ignore an estimated 8,000 out of 20,000 LGBT youth? Isn't that somewhat homophobic? As for your earlier comment, yes I do believe you were correct in saying you live in an "ivory tower". Frankly, you're luck-no, blessed- if you never have to consider someone close to you could unexpectedly contract AIDS regardless of what their sexual orientation is. I know a lot of people gay and str8 who fail prey to STDs because they did not conduct their sex lives responsibly. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I give up with words... they're apparently pointless.

http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2008/05/27/hiv-after-aids/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7194508.stm Crimsone (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And just to give anyone reading this a more personal example: I had a friend who identifies as bisexual (male) who began dating someone who identifies as gay. The gay male who had AIDS did not inform my friend (his partner) before or after the two consented to have a monogamous romantic and sexual relationship. After it came to light he had AIDS, he further denied this fact, even though subsequent test results (i was told) proved otherwise. Rape is not the only way someone can contract AIDS, sometimes people are simply betrayed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, within my ivory tower (lol!), we believe in abstinence, then condoms in long-term relationships...Isn't this obvious?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm... nope. It's obvious that you say you do, and I'll take you on your word. There's no accounting for others though, though you can trust that someone is telling the truth, trust is made to be broken. (Actually, in long term relationships, I've found that condoms aren't nessecary unless one partner is sleeping around. That's what tests are for.) Crimsone (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to think that in a long-term relationship, if the other partner has been sleeping around without a condom, that is bad luck. Just like dying in a taxi or in an earthquake. Don't you think? And this has nothing to do with being LGBT...Zigzig20s (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Morality is relative. There are some evil heteros in the world and by the same token, there are some evil gays too. Unfortunately, sexual misconduct and STDs are still a high priority within the LGBT community. If you'd like to pull the wool over your own eyes by ignoring 4 examples which span across the US and the UK we've just given you, by all means. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed... though you'd be suprised (apparently) at the frequency with which it happens. And indeed, it's no more to to with LGBT than what's believed "in your ivory tower". Sheesh - there's just no talking with some people. Crimsone (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see how careless gays fall prey to AIDS more often than careless heterosexuals these days.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We are not discussing the percentages of LGBT people against that of heterosexuals, we are asserting various facts about percentages within the LGBT community itself, which is the focus of this project and the topics which are tied to it- which, in this case, is HIV/AIDS. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult);;;; 12:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet surely it is a global disease for everyone?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it is a global disease for everyone. That, again, is not the point of this discussion. The point is whether or not the disease has impacted the LGBT community enough to warrent inclusion within this project. Do you believe any published encyclopedia on LGBT studies would not mention the impact this disease has had on the community? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Historical ramifications did. Not any more. I am out for a stroll by the sea.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Progress on tagging

Ok. I'm not sure where this dicussion is going, but it doesn't seem to be doing anything. Nor am I sure what it is really we're arguing about. But there seem to be three options:

1. WP:LGBT should never tag any HIV or AIDS related articles because HIV is a purely medical topic.

2. WP:LGBT should tag some HIV or AIDS related articles, ones that specifically address the impact of HIV and AIDS on the gay community. If there are articles that do not exist that recount the history of HIV and AIDS in the LGBT community, they should be written.

These are the articles under the AIDS template:

3. WP:LGBT should tag all HIV or AIDS related articles since the history of HIV and AIDS is entwined with that of the LGBT community.

If there are more options feel free to add. I think the discussion should be about what the project should do. --Moni3 (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is doing something... It's arguing against a project tag on the basis of a given article on the part of one person that denies the facts presented to him. The CDC article mentioned is actually where the sorce specifically citing the proportion if infections held by MSM comes from. Where it's a significant feature in LGBT, or where there's a significant (more than substantial in this case LGBT involvement, not least because there is a proven case for higher infection rates, but equally out of historic relevance and the gay giftgiver subculture, the tag belongs on it. QED as far as I can see. The argument against it is "Oh no - can't do that... it attaches a stigma", which is unencyclopedic... and besides... the stigma's already there. Crimsone (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, option 2. By all means, feel free to write articles on the ramifications if they are not to be found. But why did you add the template beneath it? The template talks about everything regarding a disease that is not relevant to being LGBT.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I agree with you, actually. I added the template so folks could see the list of articles considered to be under the HIV and AIDS umbrella so determinations might be made about which ones should get the tag, and which should not. For example, I don't think AIDS denialism should get the tag, but I think the NAMES Project should. --Moni3 (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good. Where is that monument to be found? I'm guessing Atlanta, Georgia, from the categories - I think this should appear in the first sentences, dont you? And hmmm maybe a percentage of LGBT's that this monument represents? Then it would make sense to categorise it as LGBT. Also, when was it built? Who was the instigator? And so forth... Zigzig20s (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about it lately, but the NAMES Project AIDS quilt is a traveling exhibition. I've seen it several times, and most famously it took up the entire National Mall in Washington D.C. Cleve Jones, who worked with Harvey Milk came up with the idea. He also helped develop the Shanti Project, that originally counseled dying people but was revamped to counsel those infected with HIV. --Moni3 (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking at the picture on the article Image:Aids Quilt.jpg the monument in the back is actually the Washington Monument, and not part of the quilt. The quilt itself is a collection of literally tons of panels. That picture is from one of the times it was displayed at the National Mall, which is a large stretch of land in Washington DC. It hasn't been displayed since 1996 because of its size. The Names Project which keeps the panels of the quilt was initially started in San Francisco by gay rights activists (Jones & others), but moved in 2001([1]) because of the rent involved, and to be closer to the Centers for Disease Control and other prevention groups. So SF or Atlanta are where it was based, but it does travel, and individual panels are spread out all over. Unfortunately the project's article doesn't explain any of this as well as the project's website [2]. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

point of project tags

Um, guys, could we talk about the point of a project tag for a second? I realize that there are some projects whose primary activity is placing their "territory mark" on articles -- turning a project tag into a kind of "my favorite articles" tag -- but that's not why these things exist (and WP:LGBT has never been that kind of project).

A project tag is not part of the categorization system. Category:LGBT means "we think this article is related to LGBT topics or affects LGBT people." If you think AIDS is significantly related to LGBT people (well, GBT people), then please put the (appropriate sub-)category on the article's main page.

This project's page outlines the three legitimate uses for the project tag:

• "recognising excellent contributions"
• "identifying topics in need of further work" and
• to assist the WP:1.0 editorial team.

I'll add that it effectively advertises the project in some cases and so can be useful for recruiting new members.

"This disease disproportionately affects persons engaging in anal sex, such as gay men" is not anywhere on the list of legitimate uses -- because that information is properly addressed in the article itself, through categorization (and presumably text). Project tags do not exist for the purpose of duplicating the category system. If "it affects LGBT people" were the primary criterion for adding a project tag, you'd have to tag not only HIV/AIDS articles, but also nearly every article about STIs, tobacco, and personal finance, not to mention a good number of articles about family law, psychology, psychiatry, urban studies, and drugs of abuse.

Instead, the question you need to answer is "Does this project have an interest in improving this article?" What would happen if someone posted a note here about the article? Would your answer by, "Go talk to WP:MED?" Or "Sure, we'd be happy to help?" If you reasonably expect that the project isn't (in practice) going to support the article's improvment, then you should skip the project tag on grounds of overtagging and misrepresentation of the project's actual work. If you're likely to help, then, by all means, include the project tag (and, of course, do something to improve the article).

BTW, on a long-established article like AIDS, I think you could find the answer by looking through the article's recent history. If that's not convincing, then those who support adding the project tag can solve this dispute right now by simply indicating their willingness to improve the article in question and to answer any questions left on this page by readers of that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In the case of WP:LGBT I think the project tags should be placed on articles that have to be watched for vandalism, content accuracy, and NPOV since it's often a struggle to make sure stories of the gay or lesbian side are told. I think in the case of HIV and AIDS, the latter is particularly true. I don't think this is the case of, say, WP:Florida, of which I am also a member. I find many WPs are slow to dormant right now, so tagging anything may not be a priority for these projects. --Moni3 (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO all of that counts as "improving" an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is missed, but the template doesn't cover everything in Category:HIV/AIDS, so if you want to find articles to improve there are many more in there than just the core ones covered in the template. An obvious one that would be helped by improvement by this project that isn't on the template is the Gay-related immune deficiency(GRID) article. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Since when does tagging an article having a significant LGBT connection not assist the 1.0 team? For what it's worth, the person that originally created it tagged it - does creation of the article in question not count towards it's improvement? After all, it didn't previously exist... I'd count that as an improvement. "It affects LGBT people" is not a grounds for adding the tag, but "It disproportionately affects LGBT people" is, especially when that proportion is two thirds of the American total. Especially when it's a fact recognised pretty much universally by all those working at the issue. Especially when the subject of the article themselves, being somewhat of an authority on the subject, are themselves offering the figures.

And that's where this is that. Does an article pertaining to the American epidemiology of HIV/AIDS have a significant LGBT connection? The answer is that the statistics - the statistics produced by the authority and subject the article speaks of - say it does. If there is a significant demonstrable connection, it assists the 1.0 editorial team by informing them of a specific and significant LGBT connection, and thus the article gets tagged by the project. That's pretty much the standard that I'd see applied to any articleCrimsone (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, of course, but the 1.0 team doesn't seem to use project tags like that. The bot looks at the ratings (but not the project doing the rating) to propose a list, but AIDS (for example) will be picked up by the bot based on the WPMED rating (B/Top), no matter what any other project does or doesn't do.

I have read most of the 1.0 team's pages, and I see no suggestion that they use the project tags as a way of determining "balance" or completeness or anything else. Whether or not Wikiproject LGBT studies in particular (for example) happens to tag an article appears to have no impact at all on the process. The number of projects tagging an article also has no apparent impact. Presumably they do check categories for that purpose, and they seem to have a manually generated list of important articles, but which project actually rated any given article does not seem to be on their list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

We could take a page from Orwell and let 'everything not straight' be known henceforth as "unstraight". Who's with me? Obietom (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There is non-heterosexuals. Also, I must admit I'm curious to see where this goes. Banjeboi 02:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I say that if you're aiming for a word defining a group by who they're not, non-heterosexuals would be a fair choice -- it communicates exactly what you intend: a catch-all "non-typical sexuality" type. (My intuition says most people, straight or otherwise, won't bat an eyelash at the word's "... perceived heteronormativity.") hithereimdan (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

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.~Zythe^{Talk 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)

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.~Zythe^{Talk 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)

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 File:Queer liberation banners, Philadelphia 1972.jpg 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)

Comments 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 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. There is no "official" gay/lesbian/bisexual/trans flag, because these 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. Every Wikipedian has right to comment on content in article namespace. Wikipedia is based on consensus and is not a democracy. (WP:CONSENSUS) Thx.--

PS: as i am no longer a project member, i drop my stake in this particular discussion thread. the project does not own the sidebar, as a less-experienced n00b maybe i was wrong to move the discussion here in the first place. peace. -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 23:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A great resource

I just wanted to make everyone aware (if you're not already) of the Social Science Research Network, it is an amazing collection of free of charge access to scholarly papers on many different topics. I have found some great stuff done on prison rape and I am certain that a multitude of the topics will be useful here. The search results link to an abstract and you can download PDFs from that page. Looks like you can only link to the abstract though, so if you use them as a source and someone needs to check it out they will have to download the document. --Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I should add a disclaimer, not all the articles are free but in my searches enough of them were that it seemed very useful. --Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The Violet Quill

OneTwo possible sources for the The Violet Quill is are:

• Bergman, David (editor) (1994). The Violet Quill Reader: The Emergence of Gay Writing After Stonewall. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0312110918. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help) This book is not just an anthology of stories by the seven authors that comprised the Violet Quill in 1980-1981, but includes some unpublished material from correspondence, journals, and interviews. This group is compared to the Paris Salon of Gertrude Stein, as well as others. Paperback (1995) ISBN 978-0312132026.
• Bergman, David (2004). The Violet Hour: The Violet Quill and the Making of Gay Culture. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0231130509. This will make a wonderful reliable source for the article as it's from an university press and an in-depth book about the group.

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)

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)

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)

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 .. Talk^Help 11:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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)