Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:44, 7 June 2009

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/TalkHeader

Template:LGBT Navigation

Good article nomination

As one more example why people should make use of the Article Alerts box found on this page, Homosexual transsexual has been nominated a fourth time for Good Article status. See Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA4 (Old noms: Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA1 - Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA2 - Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA3). Feel free to weigh in. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 00:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that above. I have removed the GA nomination template from the article and noted why on the bottom of the article's talk page. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 01:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You may need to also follow up on Misplaced Pages:Good_article_nominations and formally fail it. -- Banjeboi 10:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It's baaack. Seriously doesn't GAN have any guidelines that repeat ominations are more likely a sign tha the article is whack and needs some time before immediately renomming? -- Banjeboi 00:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the last time(?) was just a day after the previous fail. LadyofShalott 00:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked for input at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations#Homosexual transsexual. I think there is a good article in there somewhere but there does seem to be a lot of Ray Blanchard POV pushing that this may be a part of. -- Banjeboi 17:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

F*ck me, I'm famous

I was interviewed for the Misplaced Pages Signpost, Misplaced Pages's weekly in-house newsletter for the WikiProject report. It has nearly 1000 Wikipedian subscribers and arguably many of those folks actually read it. It came about rather quickly and my worst fears, that it was an elaborate hoax by a troll, were apparently unfounded. I hope y'all feel I did fine by the project, I did my best to avoid the phrase "man-humping, cock-sucking, doggy-style loving queer" but otherwise did ok. -- Banjeboi 11:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Benji. I've been reading the Signposts since they started doing this Interview with the WikiProject and considered requesting that someone do something on our little hole in the wall here. Looks like you beat me to it. I don't know whether to thank you or be jealous, so I'll say thank you. You come off as quite well-read and dedicated to Misplaced Pages.

Do I get your castoffs, O famous homo, because I was mentioned? Yay! (Although Lesbian is still at GA, but I shan't make any other critiques since I have none.) It probably shows my tendency to formulate crackpot ideas, but WP:LGBT is one of those nutty WikiProjects that eerily reflects the community it represents: one straddled between a scruffy little office staffed by righteously indignant activists and a thumping disco where folks show up whenever the hell they feel like. We don't want an elected leader or much structure. We just wanna do it the way we feel like it. Make sure Gloria Gaynor or ABBA are playing loud, though. Seems to work most of the time.

With an eye for 50 years down the road, it is quite extraordinary that we're stewarding information that has previously been inaccessible to those who were unable or unwilling to go to a gay bookstore, or out yourself to the town librarian (when there was anything in the library, or indeed anything published) to read about this stuff we write about. Because I concentrated on a lot of stuff in the 1950s when it really sucked, what is available now is quite amazing. At any rate, well done. --Moni3 (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And I'll just take the Other editors specialize on reverting vandalism line to be in reference to me, cause I wanna get some "Fuck me, I'm famous" leftovers too! :P Great job Benji, as if you could do a bad one anyway. If you're ever in Mississippi, I'll take you for an ice cold Southern Pecan beer - made in Mississippi - and some corn-fed country boy cruising. lol :] - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Moni3 I tend to agree with most of your crackpot ideas although would hope to update the music big-time or at least have a backroom lounge where the decorations become implements of terrible disasters and transformative revelations - just saying. Anyhoo I did add a correction which I hope adds a smidge of credibility that we try to get it right even if it's not always pretty! Lol! And ASE, yes I was certainly thinking of you there but the farthest South I usually go is Washington D.C. which is pretty damn Southern in the big scheme of things. I do hope to conqueer Hotlanta at some point but will gladly accept a virtual drinkee ticket until then and of course think of you everytime I'm sipping alceeholic bevs in a hottub. -- Banjeboi 22:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I just read the article - you did a very nice job, Benjiboi, thanks! LadyofShalott 20:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Banjeboi 17:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga‎

Lady Gaga‎'s being bisexual keeps getting readded and removed from her article. More eyes and some more stringent copy edit would probably be helpful here. For a month or so the only source was this , but just recently someone tried to add a reference from Rolling Stone. Right now there is no mention of her bisexuality in the article at all. I don't know how much this helps, but I also dug up an old interview from HX magazine (Issue number 883, Aug 8, 2008, Going Gaga by Brandon Voss, page 30-31) The original article is offline, but it was reported here and I found a mirror here. Siawase (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does it keep getting removed? Is the reason given on the talk page or in edit summaries? --Moni3 (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Gawd, you're making me go sleuthing through the edit history here. :P

The first white party reference () was removed with "removing unnecessary info, which are for the single not for Bio". But the cats remained for weeks more. The RS reference was reverted with "Please discuss such controversial inclusion at the talk page before" The category removals finally followed today via WP:BLP. Siawase (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Was it discussed on the talk page? Did the person who removed it bring it up? Did anyone else? For BLPs, cited information (to super reliable sources) should stay in the article, regardless if someone may find it offensive. The Rolling Stone article looks like your best bet there. Any references to her sexual history with women should be supported by her own words in sources. So, I suggest following the suggestion of the person who removed the info, justifying on the article talk page why you think it should be added, add it with primo sources, and if it is removed further action can be taken. --Moni3 (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In reply to your questions, from what I've seen, no, no, no, and yeah, I know, that all makes sense. I haven't edited the Lady Gaga article, and I'm just not up for any BLP battles right now. But I noticed this has been ongoing with her article for a while now, and brought it here in case someone else is interested in helping out. Siawase (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I added to the talk page discussion. I think it is currently 4 editors for including the sexuality information to one against. But as this is the one piece of info that editors claim is non-notable or defaming, i think more comments to consolidate consensus would be useful.YobMod 11:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Related to my comment above, how can she defame herself by admitting she sleeps with women? It should be in her own words, ideally. Second best is someone who has clearly been intimate with her who confirms it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Joan Vaccaro

I think this person might a transgendered physicist, but I am unsure. There are very good things that this is the case, but I cannot a reliable source establish Joan Vaccaro as being John Vaccaro. If someone could confirm (and add the appropriate categories, and expand the article accordingly). Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at her homepage she has quite a lot of information on beings trans and how to transition - I find it pretty likely. The easiest thing to do would be to match up a paper or academic role listed on that site with a John Vaccaro and that'll prove it. I'll have a look now. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 14:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, here you go. John Vaccaro, Reader in Physics at Hertfordshire, recepient of Levershulme Trust Research Fellowship 2004, both things mentioned on Joan's website. Now try to package that as a neat ref. :P Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 14:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll let you do the heavy lifting, (I'm really busy and really don't care about this article, but I was pointing it out to you guys out of courtesy, since it might be of interest to you).Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

I have recently expanded this article, to try to meet the broad coverage of the subject requirement of the Good Article criteria. I think, though, that the article may now be so long that it might perhaps be a good idea to divide it into smaller and more specific articles. I'd appreciate it if people could take a look at it and comment (and if possible correct any errors I may have made). I think that this article should be part of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality as well as WikiProject LGBT studies, since it clearly falls within their area as well, but I don't know how to arrange this. Help with arranging this would also be welcome. Born Gay (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It should likely be sent to peer review first. I would ask Moni3 if she'd take a look and offer some tips on what may make sense as well. I've also added the tag for the sexuality wikiproject. You can post a note to them to ask for assistance as well. -- Banjeboi 00:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is ready for peer review at this time. The edits I made were meant to be a step in the direction of meeting the Good Article criteria requirements, not to fix everything entirely. Born Gay (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Project tag

Before I add the project tag to such an obvious article, I want to make sure there wasn't some discussion before my wiki-birth or since regarding the project's tag at Talk:Anal sex. This is certainly within our scope. If there's no valid reason as to why the tag isn't there, I'll add it. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 17:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

With that reasoning, why not add the tag to all sex acts? I'm not trying to be a smartass, but... why not? --Moni3 (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that could be the case but as anal sex is pretty much the sexual foundation for gay men where as penile intercourse isn't for lesbians.. I don't know, maybe I just can't figure out how to explain my reasoning as to why.. it wouldn't hurt that the tag be on Anal sex and Cunnilingus. No, not all gay men have anal sex and no, not all lesbians lick 'gina but I'd imagine the majority do. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 17:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing when I looked at Fisting. Granted you don't have to be LGBT to fist, and being LGBT you may well not fist, it does have certain associations. Mish (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to chime in - tag it. There is an association between anal sex and (male) homosexuality that is unique among the various sexual acts in which gay people can take part. It's almost always brought up in those "gay sex is inherently more likely to give you AIDS" that we all love, despite the vast overestimation people make as to its prevalence as a sexual practice. Tagging it makes it more likely that someone from the project will notice when someone writes a load of ignorant crap in the article. Just my 2p ɪntəsvɛnsk 20:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

At first I was gonna say why isn't it already tagged? But Moni3 does bring up some good points. Do we stop at just tagging anal sex, or do we also tag rimming? I just noticed we already have fisting tagged. But what other sex acts do you think we should tag? CTJF83Talk 20:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say. Personally I don't think that rimming and fisting have quite the same level of association with gay sex per se as anal sex does. If we're going to take as our criteria for tagging "gay people do this" then we're going to be tagging half the encyclopedia. It's just my opinion of course, but I think anal sex has a special place in the list of things that gays do due to the perceptions people have around it and the associations they make. I can see the arguments on the other side though so if people think we shouldn't tag any of it or we should tag more stuff then that's fine. I hope this makes sense. I'm so tired. ɪntəsvɛnsk 21:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Fisting is tagged because I just tagged it.Mish (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, Mish, good enough reason for me. I agree Intesvensk that anal sex is probably at the top of the list of perceptions of gay people. As far as fisting goes, I would assume there aren't many straight people that do that, but I could be wrong. I think we should atleast tag anal sex. CTJF83Talk 21:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

! Fisting is tagged? I understand that strong elements of gay subculture revolve around anal sex, but I do not see fisting as having that same kind of element. Due to my own experience in various lesbian communities and the pile of reading I did/ am still doing for the Lesbian article, I would not say that cunnilingus, vibrators, or strap on sex toys should be tagged. Yes, they are all a part of lesbian sex, but I have serious doubts that parts of lesbian subculture revolve around these things. In the same vein, I'm skeptical that fisting is so integral to gay or lesbian subculture. --Moni3 (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The project page is ambiguous. It says it is about LGBT & Queer. Queer includes a lot of stuff that is not necessarily LGBT. Such as polyamory and BDSM. If any type of sexual practice is included that is not exclusively LGBT, then why should anything be excluded? The lede includes queer, but the text seems to limit coverage to LGBT identity & community issues - which would be a shame, as that would limit LGBT practice to sexology/sexuality - which has not always served LGBT people well. If you limit to practices that are predominantly LGBT, then yes you would exclude vibrators, and be in the odd position of including transsexual vaginal dilation, but not dildo's. If you don't want fisting in, take it out. I'm not that bothered - but if you are going to exclude queer stuff like polyamory & BDSM, then you really ought to make it clear that the LGBT studies project does not include queer - then maybe somebody can look at setting up a proper queer project and get on with the task of queering Misplaced Pages. Mish (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no. I'm not convinced. Either every sex practice that can be done by two men or two women should be tagged (I don't think they should), or we should limit the tags to sexual behaviors that are widely recognized as being significant to a large cross-section of gay men, lesbians, trans people, etc. As in, could you go to a different city and strike up a conversation about (sex act) with a stranger in a gay bar and have an instant understanding? Ha ha...just thinking about approaching someone like this about fisting is a very funny scenario, because I get my ass kicked in the end. Ha...end. --Moni3 (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in my (not so humble) experience, I have hung around in straight bars, gay bars, dyke bars, and I have had relationships with gay men, as well as straight and lesbian women - and maybe even a bisexual in there somewhere - and whilst I cannot verify this with sources, I would feel more confident about being understood discussing fisting in a gay or dyke bar than in a straight bar - and in conversation with a gay man or lesbian than a straight man or woman, regardless of whether people had actually engaged in the act. On the other hand, most straight men and women know about anal, and many will (in one way or another) have experienced it. As I say, I'm not that fussed really, I mean, if we can queer heterosexuals, we can do just about anything we want really - should anything need to be off the agenda? Mish (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fisting is rather well associated with gay men subcultures and indeed quite a few sex clubs were devoted to the practice almost exclusively for gay men. Women and non-gays certainly fist as well but the gay boys made it into a paaaartay! Lol! In any case we're here to offer support on articles that arguably do concern LGBT cultures and anal, oral, fisting and rimming all meet that with flying colors. I agree with Moni3 that not all sex acts do but many certainly are within our realm of possibilities. -- Banjeboi 03:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

After a few days, I finally was able to put into words the "wtf?!" response I had to fisting being tagged. I've read in quite a few sources that the basis of homophobia for many men is that men receive anal sex: they are penetrated, which is the traditional position for women. The sex act itself is not necessarily the reason for many people's revulsion to homosexuality, but that men are voluntarily giving up their dominant position. Homophobia, and in this instance it is quite literally a fear of being penetrated, is a reaction to the ambiguous masculinity presented by sex acts involving men. Fisting is just kinky, and I don't mean that in a judgmental way. The only mention I have ever seen of fisting and gay sex was in And the Band Played On, and it was not the basis of any cultural views either within the gay community or outside of it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• GLQ - 15 results for fisting (5 seem a bit repetitious but in different articles), all relating to L/G sex.
• Sexualities returns 5 results, all related to L or G sex. Mentioned in articles about L/G sex, no articles about fisting per se.
• Steven Epstein, Targeting the State: Risks, Benefits, and Strategic Dilemmas of Recent LGBT Health Advocacy, Chapter in The Health of Sexual Minorities: Public Health Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Populations, ed. Ilan H. Meyer and Mary E. Northridge (2007)
• Sexual behavior patterns of methamphetamine-using gay and bisexual men, PN Halkitis, MT Shrem, FW Martin (2005)

http://www.informaworld.com/index/713733801.pdf

• Frequent and systematic unprotected anal intercourse among men using the Internet to meet other men, A Léobon, LR Frigault (2008)

http://www.informaworld.com/index/792782768.pdf

(BDSM websites reported significantly more fisting and ‘‘watersports’’ compared to respondents recruited via the general interest gay websites and)

• Sexual trauma associated with fisting and recreational drugs, CE Cohen, A Giles, M Nelson - British Medical Journal, (2004) http://sti.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/80/6/469

(Findings from the UK Gay Men’s Sex Survey 2002 showed that overall, 12.8% of respondents had engaged in fisting within the preceding 12 months)

• HIV/STI associated risk behaviors among self-identified lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender College Students in the United States, LL Lindley, TJ Nicholson, MB Kerby, N Lu, Guilford Publications (2003) ::http://www.atypon-link.com/GPI/doi/abs/10.1521/aeap.15.6.413.24039

(LGBT college students reported engaging in a variety of sexual behaviors during ... or vibrator on their sex partner and engaging in vaginal fisting, bondage)

• Gay Men, Lesbians, and Sex: Doing It Together, P Califia - The Columbia Reader on Lesbians and Gay Men in Media, Columbia University Press (1999)
• Unpacking Queer Politics: a lesbian feminist perspective, S. Jeffreys (2003)

Can look these up in the journals I have access to & Jeffries if required, but not for another week (busy), also seem to recall a section in the Lesbian Sex Guide (forget who wrote it that is on a shelf somewhere too) Mish (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Mr. Lady Records

The article, Mr. Lady Records, has been reassessed as part of the GA Sweeps project. The article has been found to not be meeting the GA Criteria. As such it has been put on hold and may be delisted if work is not done to bring it up to the GA Criteria. My assessment can be found here. I am notifying the interested projects and editors of this eventuality. If you have any questions please discuss them on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Bert and Ernie Married.jpg

Can I get you guys to comment on concerns raised that the photo is a copyright violation. Thanks, CTJF83Talk 16:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Caroline_Cossey#Birth_name

Is it inherently disrespectful to include the male birth name of transsexuals on their articles? It's not an issue on Jayne County or Wendy Carlos, but it's been made an issue on other articles. There is currently one particular vocal editor trying to enact this as a BLP violation on Caroline Cossey. Other eyes would be welcome, because they are basically arguing that this needs to be changed on all notable trans articles. -->David Shankbone 15:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is actually not what is being argued at all. I've merely advocated that it's inappropriate to refer to her prior name in big bold letters in the opening sentence when it's a name she's ever gone by as a public figure or used as an adult. I've suggested that a more sensitive means of addressing the matter is to mention it in the text of the "early life" section of the article or equivalent - the stance most trans biographies on people who weren't known by their prior names seem to take; see our articles on Jan Morris, Georgina Beyer, Lynn Conway, Robert Eads, Sylvia Rivera, Theresa Sparks and Angie Zapata, for a bunch of obvious examples. I'm also not the one who initially complained about its use in the Cossey article, just someone who stepped in to back that editor up. Rebecca (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Jan Morris, as James Morris, climbed Everest with Hillary and reported on this to the world as part of the Coronation celebrations, because James Morris was a notable journalist before becoming Jan Morris, and covered the experience with Dr. Borou based in the former experience as journalist and writer. So, there is one exception to this rule - her former name should be in the lede even on that basis. Lynn Conway was, as I understand, notable for her contributions to IT before transition, so... few know of Wendy Carlos, but Walter Carlos was well known, as some of (his) work featured on 'A Clockwork Orange', as well as the interest at that time in the two albums of synthesized Bach. Perhaps distinctions need to be drawn between

• those who were notable before and after transition
• those who became notable only after transition, but have featured their birth name publicly (in their own published material)
• those who became notable after transition, but have never sought to disclose that information publicly and have been 'outed' by the press
• those who became notable after transition, and we do not know what their birth name was

• I would suggest that the last two need to be treated the same way,
• If it can be verified that self-disclosure was as a result of (or threat of) 'outing' by the press, then it should be treated the same way also
• But, if self-disclosure appears to have been entirely voluntary and without pressure, then it should be treated the same way as in the first case

• That gives us two standards
• Or, we have three standards - one to cover the first, one to cover the second, and one to cover the last two in the same way. Mish (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest three standards, but not, I think, the same three standards you are suggesting. The fourth group would obviously not involve the mentioning of the name in the article at all. I would think concerns about tabloid gossip reporting would mean that the same reasoning would apply to the third group.

The first group is the only one in which I don't object to the information being mentioned in the lead. In the example you note, it's quite likely that someone searching for information on Morris might be looking for information on her achievements prior to her transition, so it's perfectly reasonable to have the information in the lead - and would be highly confusing without it.

The third group is what we're centrally dealing with here, however. I'll use the example of Georgina Beyer. Beyer transitioned in her teens, and never went by her old name in either of her public careers - it's something that no one would know to search for directly. However, I presume that her prior name can be confirmed in reliable sources (though disturbingly these are not in the article at the moment). In cases such as Beyer, I think it's more appropriate to - as the Beyer article does - find a suitable spot in the early life section of the article, and list it there. Listing the prior name up in lights in the first sentence has the effect of assigning an unwarranted importance to that old name, when she hasn't used it in forty years and never went by it as a public figure.

It's a far more sensitive subject than the analogies to Ralph Lauren which I've seen fly around a couple of times, and the affected article subjects deserve to be treated respectfully in their articles. Rebecca (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nobody has treated anyone disrespectfully in the articles, we are simply trying to figure out if a new BLP standard needs to be derived. This discussion has also been started at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Birth name in case of transsexuality. -->David Shankbone 17:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Rebecca, I was highlighting the four examples to clarify how different people can legitimately be dealt with differently. I also agree that where somebody has been notable in their former name, it should be in the lede, and where they have disclosed their former name but were not notable before transition, this should be in the text; and if they were unwillingly 'outed' we should treat this the same way as if it were unknown. If we can get agreement on this, we need it formulated coherently and set about ensuring that the relevant BLPs are dealt with consistently. Mish (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, why are we even arguing this? Heh. Anyone up for formulating this into guideline form? Rebecca (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

After a night to think things over, this does sound agreeable; in particular, I'd like to thank Mish for the helpful breakdown of scenarios. Not to throw a monkey wrench into the mix, but it seems worth asking while we're on the subject: what about redirects and disambiguation? Certainly I would think we want to redirect in the first case, but after that I imagine it's less clear. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Hi folks, I hope everyone is doing well. I see the discussion has already been started. I happened upon this topic while doing some WP:BLP work, and I have a favor to ask. Just so I don't offend, and can avoid future trouts or facepalms; what is the proper term to use when discussing a BLP such as this? transgender? transsexual? is "trans" considered disrespectful? I'll likely not be able to add much here, but I'd like to follow along if there are no objections, since I think the BLP aspects of this topic are important. Thanks. — Ched :  ?  17:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to have you Ched, as it is good to have people discussing issues in which they are not emotionally invested one way or the other. "Trans" is generally considered (see "Terminology" section in link) a more broad-based, inclusive term to use when discussing people whose particular situations you don't know, since there are not small differences between Transvestite, Transgender and Transsexual. -->David Shankbone 18:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I noticed that the guideline directs folks to here .. I'd like to mention that once we (you) decide upon a proper guideline, it would likely be best to include it in the MOS that David mentions above. — Ched :  ?  17:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How you refer to people is not easy to answer simply. Referring to people as 'transsexuals' is problematic - they are transsexual people. Referring to 'transsexuality' is problematic - best to use 'transsexualism'. Referring to transsexual or intersex people as 'transgendered' can cause problems too. If you know somebody identified as a transsexual, as a transvestite, as transgendered, as intersex, then best to use that term - but as a general descriptor I use 'trans' and so far have not been shot down in flames. Provided nobody disagrees, I'm happy to go with 'trans' when discussing generally, but using the specific term appropriate in individual cases. In relation to intersex people, then many would not identify themselves under 'trans', but for the purpose of this discussion where the point is how to deal with birth names, where their adult name and birth name do not conform because of some gender reassignment at some point after birth and this is known, then the discussion about 'trans' names should apply in a similar way. That's my take on it anyway. I think a potential guideline for this situation has been proposed and agreed by Rebecca and myself - so if others are agreed I suggest we formalise that and seek approval in the MoS. Mish (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I only have one friend in r/l that would be able to clue me in, and I'll try to catch up with her in the next week. To be blunt, I'm not even sure if she is pre-op or post-op, all that was discussed was the fact that she was born of male gender, but identified as female. Other than that, we usually talk politics. I've been in a few conversations on wiki with a couple folks that I think follow this topic - I see one admin up above that I think highly of. I'll get up to speed as quickly as possible, and acknowledge the fact that I may be looking at a few wet fish and a smack on the head with a clue bat before long. All I can say at this point is that I certainly mean no offense - but I think it's important that we get this hashed out in regards to guidelines.

HEY David up there ... good to see you again. Always a pleasure to work with ya. Feel free to drop off any deserved wp:trout at my talk page ... lol. And thanks for the links .. reading up on it. Oh, and Rebecca - hope you realize I never meant any offense on anything.

On to the topic at hand. My opinion is that it would be acceptable to have a birth name in the lead, and even in the first paragraph. Rebecca brings up a good point as far as WP:UNDUE in regards to bolding. Would something like the following be acceptable:

• Person A (born - date, as birth name) is a <singer, actor, etc>

thoughts? — Ched :  ?  20:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If the person was notable using the birth name before transition, then it goes in the lede. If the person has made their former name public, but was not notable before transition, then it goes in the text as part of the background detail. If the person was 'outed' against their will, then it gets treated the same as not knowing the name - it doesn't go in. Mish (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm .. makes sense to me. I can certainly see the logic in that. Good points MishMich — Ched :  ?  21:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. These have to be handled case by case. On BLP's especially there should be greater sensitivity to only including gender and sexuality issues in context. Gone are the days of Misplaced Pages just some website to being the world's resource for everything and the leading search result ergo what we do here has immediate and worldwide impact. I think the case needs to be made to include the previous gender info in the lede at all and in most cases should be in the early life section and possibly late in the bio in ontext of impacting their life and work. We need to lean more to encyclopedia and less to tabloidy which is unfortunately how this material is often used. -- Banjeboi 03:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with this - how would you handle the issue in the instance of someone like Jan Morris, though? Rebecca (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the present version of the article is fine. Nothing in the lede and highlights in context of the career and marriage. It's a short article so any more than what we have would lean towards undue. -- Banjeboi 17:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I agree that consensus needs to happen on the individual article, and most certainly agree we should strive for encyclopedic and historical perspective in articles. I'd also agree that great care and sensitivity needs to be taken as Benjiboi mentions when dealing with BLP topics. While the "case by case" point is well taken with respect to placement, I think it would also be of benefit to have some sort of guideline on the matter. Not everyone is going to know all the names mentioned above, or in forthcoming article talk. I'd have to think that the number of articles in this section will only increase, and be it in a MOS guideline, or in the BLP policy, guidance I believe would benefit all. Those that may do GA or FA reviews, or attempt to edit the article for whatever reason, would likely appreciate some solid guidance in these matters. I know we try to avoid too much instruction creep, but I think this is a case were we could use a bit. — Ched :  ?  16:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. We need to have a general guideline, with allowances made in specific cases. -->David Shankbone 16:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, how about Benjiboi's suggestion? Name in text across the board, with the possibility of making an exception and putting it in the lead where a case can be made on talk. "As a general rule, prior names of notable transsexual people (if verifiable) should be placed in the text of biographical articles, and not in the lead section. Exceptions may be made where necessary if the person was notable under their prior name, but the case for this must be made on the article talk page." Feel free to fix my wordiness. Rebecca (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that works. We're still keeping birth name in infobox, then? -->David Shankbone 17:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I would probably lean towards not. I have no particularly strong feelings on this, but I am persuaded to some extent by Benji's post above. Rebecca (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So, can we accept something like this:

• In cases where the prior name of a transsexual person is only known as the result of an outing, the prior name must not be mentioned in the article
• In cases where a transsexual person was not notable under their prior name, but has subsequently confirmed it, the prior name must not be listed in the lead section, but may be mentioned in the article body
• In cases where a transsexual person was also notable under their prior name, the name may only be mentioned in the lead where there is consensus to do so

Again, feel free to reword - it's two in the morning and my grammar is lousy right now. Rebecca (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What about this:

• In cases where the prior name of a transsexual person is only known as the result of an outing, the prior name must not be mentioned in the article nor in the infobox.
• In cases where a transsexual person was not notable under their prior name, but has subsequently confirmed it, the prior name must not be listed in the lead section nor the infobox, but may be mentioned in the article body
• In cases where a transsexual person was also notable under their prior name, the name may only be mentioned in the lead and the infobox where there is consensus to do so.

Does that sound reasonable? -->David Shankbone 17:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Rebecca (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Should the second instance have text AND infobox, or infobox only? I think in situations like Cossey, where she was outed but then went on to become an activist, the infobox would be fine. -->David Shankbone 17:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • I think we should state something chunky and with the logic spelled out. For example:

• • • I also support the guidelines listed above and we should include that MOS guidelines help guide editing but do not trump our policies on BLP's and consensus. We can add this to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines. -- Banjeboi 17:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree with the spirit of this, and it would be good to have something along these lines. However, I don't necessarily agree with minimising the very fact of someone being trans in this way - being trans tends to be more intimately tied up with someone's notability than if that person were cis and gay. Look at the articles I listed above - articles on Beyer or Sparks (first trans people to hold political offices), Eads and Zapata (deaths related to being trans), Rivera and Conway (trans rights activists) or Morris (chiefly notable for things pre-transition) aren't going make much sense if their actually being trans isn't in the lead. I also think the examples of appropriate wording on trans issues could do with a bit of work. (And yes to the bit about guidelines not trumping BLP!) Rebecca (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the time-lag in composing and posting placed my comment before these last comments. I agree that in a case like Cossey if it can be shown that she only included the details in her autobiography because she was outed, then it may not be appropriate to feature the birth name; although given she has published it, like Ashley, it won't hurt to include it in the text itself. I don't agree about not having the former name in the lede in the case of people who have published or performed in a former name - it needs to be there, especially if their transition was public (as in Morris' case, who used the experience as an integral part of the process of transitioning her journalistic career from James to Jan) - I am actually less happy about Wendy Carlos, but unfortunately the bulk of her work was as Walter, and that is the name she will be known as to most people outside the trans community. Mish (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

moved earlier comment down:

I am not sure about the precise wording of the last sentence. I'd want to see the default being include unless there is consensus not to. If I search on 'Walter Carlos' I come to 'Wendy Carlos' (born Walter Carlos) - seems reasonable. If I type 'James Morris' there is a disambiguation page which includes 'James Morris or Jan Morris (born 1926), British travel writer', and leads to a page on 'Jan Morris', with the only reference to 'James Humphrey Morris' buried in the second section. In the article there is unsourced reference to Everest, Hillary & Tensing, but not as James, yet at the time it was James who reported, and even in recent newspaper reports this is referred to , . Amazon still lists book editions by Morris as James up to 1994: Oxford (Mar 1969); Coronation Everest (1970); Upstairs Donkey (1979); Heaven's Command: An Imperial Progress (Pax Britannica trilogy) (1979); Pax Brittanica: The Climax of an Empire (Pax Britannica trilogy) (1979); Farewell the Trumpets: An Imperial Retreat (Pax Britannica trilogy) (1979); Venice (1983); The Pax Brittanica Trilogy (1994). I have books on my shelves by both James and Jan Morris. Jan published her the experience of changing sex in 'Conundrum', the back cover quotes the Observer: 'James Morris crossed the strangest river that any man can come to in his life;' In the book itself he says he was named 'Humphrey Morris' (no mention of James). So, perhaps what should be done in these cases is simply to place in the text in the lede 'formerly known as James' or 'formerly known as Walter', so anybody searching from those names will be clear on the first line that they are in the right place. (note - The Clockwork Orange page is bizarre, as it attributes the soundtrack to 'Wendy (then Walter) Carlos' - I have such an LP from 1972 by Walter Carlos, not Wendy). What I am suggesting is not controversial, simply that public figures who transition need to have their former notable name listed in the lede unless there is good reason not to (agreed through consensus), because it is relevant. It may not always be so - but it seems better to have that as a standard which can be negotiated on rather than the other way around. Mish (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no great feelings either way about this - you both make good points, and either one is fine by me. However, I'm not comfortable with where you were going re: Cossey in your previous post. I don't think it's any of our business getting into why she discussed her prior name or whether it was because she was originally outed; as she wasn't known publicly under her former name, and thus there are none of the issues you raise in your second post, it shouldn't be in the lead full stop. Rebecca (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

My fault, I didn't make it clear what I was referring to - I agree it shouldn't be in the lede in Cossey's case, I was talking about the background in the text, the impression I got was it was being suggested it not be included at all on the assumption she was originally outed. So, it is a guideline, and can be negotiated, but anybody who was not notable before transition doesn't need to have the details in the lede, but if they have published the details themselves it should be in the main text in the appropriate place. People whose name is only known through outing should not have those details included at all, as with people we do not know about. People who were notable before transition should have the details of the former name in the lede, not as their birth name (e.g., Jan says she was born Humphrey, yet was known as James; was Wendy born Walter, or was that the name used as an entertainer, do we actually know?), but as a relevant comment that relates to their career. Sounds like we are pretty much in agreement. Mish (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment and question: First I'd like to thank everyone for helping me out here. I don't have a personal preference on a particular "version", all have merit. My question is this: Should we be considering a wider audience (such as WP:RFC or WP:CENT), or is it better to resolve this within the project that has the clearest understanding of these issues? At some point in time it appears that there will be a minor change to the MOS guideline, and I'd hate to see it derailed by "I didn't know arguments", but I also respect the idea that expanding the discussion could lead to "no consensus", and we end up in an eternal loop of discussion. Thoughts? — Ched :  ?  19:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as it is formalised as a guideline that can be accessed, particularly in relation to BLP's, because biographies like these do occasionally become targets for people who want to insist a particular usage based on an interpretation existing MoS guidelines, and it can take up a lot of time trying to dissuade edits that neither enhance Misplaced Pages nor serve the subject well. If that can be established within the project, and editors outside the project referred to that guidance, then fine. Mish (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I've boldly tweaked Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines, let's refine as needed and crosspost wikilinks to other relevant pages where folks may be looking for guidance in these issues. -- Banjeboi 10:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • There's a little too much grey area there for my liking, but otherwise good. If there's no objections, I'll start thwacking the problematic BLPs in a day or two. Rebecca (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Apart from the last sentence, I go along with this. I think that part of the guideline should be that if the person was notable using the prior name, and has openly transitioned and referred to their previous name in their own writing in the context of their current status, then it should be included in the lede, but not as 'born as' - simply a note later in the first sentence in the lede that they were formerly known as XYZ. If there is a consensus that this guideline should not be used in a particular case for some reason, this overrides the guideline. I'm happy to deal with the persons known to me, primarily those from the UK. One other situation that now comes to mind is for people whose cases were used in establishing legal guidelines in the UK - Ashley, Forbes, etc., where their former names became known through the legal procedings as well as in self-published material. In that situation, their former name has become part of a body of case-law that has led to intersex and transsexual people's rights and recognition. Mish (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm happy to go with the first half of this. I think it addresses the issue in a reasonable way, and leaves open the option to pull it out without too much fuss if there's reason to do that. I'm not too happy with the second half, though - while their names might well be on the public record due to legal proceedings, they're still not publicly known by their prior names, and they're still not important apart from as background. I maintain that "if they weren't notable under their prior name, it doesn't go in the lead" should be basically an absolute guideline. Rebecca (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Nice work on the guideline re-write Benjiboi. Clear, concise, and professionally done. — Ched :  ?  12:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Does the last point stand despite it not representing a consensus? Mish (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm happy for it to be amended along your lines. Benji? Rebecca (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mixed-orientation marriage

Can someone please take a look at this article and see if you agree that it should be deleted? Besides the aberrant POV issues; from a self-declared "ex-gay" himself; the term is nothing more than neologism; containing only 2,800 google search results when searched in quotes.
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mixed-orientation marriage Thank you. Camillex555 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to tread the OR path IMHO but others may be more able to expound on that. Unfortunately User:Joshuajohanson does seem to be making a point of some sort but I have no idea what, that marriage is still imperfect? Didn't we know that? -- Banjeboi 03:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

LGBT Pride Month

It seems that Barak Obama has declared June 2009 LGBT Pirde Month. I didn't see a mention of this here or on the Gay Pride page. ...Should there be one there? --Tyrfing (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. Since he referenced the Stonewall riots I added it to that article after checking no less than 4 times to make sure I was on the right website and it wasn't a joke or hoax. I'm still a little skeptical. --Moni3 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject LGBT studies to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also get provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a couple weeks after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That's really great! Thanks so much! ɪntəsvɛnsk 08:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yay, seven of my articles are in the top 1,000! Otto4711 (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Booo, only one of mine - i think i have to start working on more populist areas! :-). But seeing this list emphasises how many of the project articles are about straight people that have some gay following. Could we not create a task force for gay icons? It would not only help the constant arguments about using the LGBT banner for them, but could be done in such a way that separate lists are generated, so those of us interested in improving articles on actual gay people could have more direction. Madonna and Cher and Kylie etc are great, but they outnumber actual LGBT famous people by so much! Just a thought.YobMod 12:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User Alfred Kinsey

Anyone want to play detective? Alfred Kinsey (talk · contribs), likely not the deceased sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, seems to be quite experienced and making a lot of interesting edits to talkpages - editing others' comments is usually discouraged but most of these seem borderline. Thier edits as a whole might be borderline but I smell an issue - and I have issues with issues! -- Banjeboi 04:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a POV thing going on in there, and looks like UK-based Talk:Michael Barrymore#Not a tabloid Mish (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, another homosexual warning seems due - posting notes on LGBT article talkpages makes you gay, shhhh, pssssst, pass it on. -- Banjeboi 08:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Parriage

Looks like a fun but wonky newly minted neologism. it will be gone in days unless contested. I was unable to quickly find refs. Anyone want to fix/defend it? -- Banjeboi 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the Prod on this one. A neologism with almost no traction behind it, and unlikely imo to gain any. Seems to be of no use cf. civil/domestic partnership, and i doubt any companies will be using the term soon, even if the article suggests otherwise.YobMod 12:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

National Socialist League (United States)

You are warned, bumpy ride ahead - and not the good kind. -- Banjeboi 08:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Tucker

new and poorly written article at AfD, any thoughts? -- Banjeboi 09:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked for sources, and found a few, but none i think give enough notability for this article to be kept. I could be convinced by more sources, though all i found were the comprehensive type of source that covers every non-notable LGBT person (Eg Lists of LGBT comics)YobMod 12:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

History of LGBT people in Hollywood films?

I know Vito Russo wrote a book and Celluloid Closet was based on that, do we have a hidtory article though? -- Banjeboi 10:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we even have a general LGBT film article, let alone a history or hollywood subarticle. When i created the LGBT fiction template i only found lists of LGBT characters in films, trans characters in films, and LGBT films sorted by year and storyline, and articles on Thai and Singaporean LGBT films.

If anyone finds or creates a general article on LGBT films, it should be added to the template and that probably reorganised.YobMod 12:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been a major gap in the project's coverage, and it could do with both a list and what could be a very interesting general article. I know I went looking for one a few months ago, and was pretty surprised when it didn't exist. Rebecca (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Roberta Close

I'm starting a sweep through the trans-related biographies affected by the above guideline change, and I've come across the Roberta Close article.

This is pretty awful for a BLP - it's badly written, offensive in places, and is totally lacking sources. I'm doing a quick pass through taking care of the worst of it, but it could do with someone willing to dedicate some time.

Anyone want to take a shot at giving this one some work? Rebecca (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Add Bobby Darling to that list. Rebecca (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Working through these, I'm surprised at how many of them are in a pretty poor state, and they're nearly all lacking references. I'm having to go through correcting pronouns and removing some pretty awful wording in places, but the whole area could really do with a concerted cleanup. Rebecca (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there really a "gay way" of being a musician?

I'm just curious why we have the category Category:Gay musicians when there is no Gay music. How does one rationalize this category? Bulldog123 19:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists