Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikignome0529 (talk | contribs) at 13:24, 19 July 2009 (archived pre-rollout talk about navbox redesign to archive 29). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/TalkHeader

Template:LGBT Navigation

Proposal: Switching to new navbox format

Resolved
 – new navbox is live, see below

The sandbox's format seems to have reached a stable version... Propose adopting the sandbox version as the new live version of {{LGBT}} (and moving any future discussion of which links to include/exclude to Template talk:LGBT). Example below:

  • Example usage: {{LGBT|rights=expanded}} auto-opens the "Rights" section for readers. (different sections can be specified depending on which article it is appearing on)

thoughts/opinions/!votes? Wikignome0529 (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd support this (but have been involved). It will involved going through all the articles to ensure relevant groups are displayed for each article. Mish (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - the sandbox version is now the live version (& removed monosexism also)... the new template should ignore the former options of "sectionname=yes" (which turned on the optional sections) , and the old "=yes" options can be replaced with the new "=expanded" options below as needed:
{{LGBT |academy=expanded}}
{{LGBT |culture=expanded}}
{{LGBT |main=expanded}} (Sexual/gender identities section)
{{LGBT |history=expanded}}
{{LGBT |rights=expanded}}
{{LGBT |orientation=expanded}}
{{LGBT |social=expanded}}
There is no cause for worry though if no options are set though (or an article's navbox isn't converted to the new settings right away), since all sections are included on all pages in the new version -- adding the =expanded option just auto-opens the section for the reader. Wikignome0529 (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The new navbox actually apparently is taking the old "=yes" settings and auto-expanding those as if they were "=expand" settings. Some articles have 2 or 3 "=yes" settings though, which can probably be trimmed down to 1 auto-opened section. But the template apparently is treating =yes and =expand the same. Wikignome0529 (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. It seems to be autocollapsed though. I suggest the new improved version should be in semi-expanded mode unless someone hides it or defaults to collapsed if bundled alongside other footer templates. -- Banjeboi 11:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supposedly "autocollapse" is supposed to do the same thing you mention (only collapse if other navboxes are used), but for some reason it is collapsing even when alone. Will set it to always-expand for now.. Wikignome0529 (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deju vu?

I was thinking the same thing since I've ran into him at American Family Association trying to whitewash that article. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 07:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK help

I recently created the page Erotes (mythology), and wanted to try to get it listed at DYK. As this is the first one i've done, i wanted to solicit suggestion for the hook to increase chances of being selected (and any improvments made would be great!).

The deadline is friday, and i was hoping to get a hook that mention homoeroticism in some way. Suggestion on the talk page, please!

Also. if someone with experience in nominating wanted to do that, i am fine with sharing credit, as i wont be able to edit on firday.(Note, the word limit is already passed, and essentially everything is cited.)YobMod 12:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and made a suggestion on the talk page. Nominating is really easy - you'd just need to paste {{subst:NewDYKnom | article= | hook=... that ? | status=new | author=}} (with the relevant fields filled in) at the top of here - but I'd be very happy to keep an eye on the nomination after you've made it in case there are any queries. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I've written a longer lead, and will submit it now (with the homoeroticism between women hook). It would be great if you can keep an eye on it. and respond to any comments.

Link: Template talk:Did you know#Erotes (mythology)YobMod 10:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 items

Category Homophobic violence proposed renaming

In case this is of any interest:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_9

Suggestion is homophobia is a problem - NPOV - so this now seems part of a process of eliminating the term from article and category titles. Mish (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "The Wizard of Oz" does have gay referrences ------

This is a reply to the following:


Homosexual significance of Oz? (Cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies)

I've just read Gregory Maguire's introduction to A Wonderful Welcome to Oz, a compendium of three of Baum's Oz novels. In it, he says in passing (while talking about the gender change of the boy Tip to the girl Ozma), "...nor do I interest myself, here, in the reasons why Oz has become a metaphor for the safe and welcoming home for which gay men have long longed." This made me wonder whether there are sources which have discussed the significance of Oz for gay men in the 20th century. It's certainly entered the language — we all know what a "friend of Dorothy" signifies — but I've never seen an explanation of why Oz is so commonly connected with gay culture. (It probably has something to do with Judy Garland.) Now, obviously we can't engage in original research on this subject; so I was wondering whether there are reliable sources which have addressed this connection, and if so, what articles could or should incorporate mention of this appropriation. If Batman can sustain an entire section on Batman#Homosexual interpretations, surely there's some Oz article which has room for "the gay". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oz#Homosexual_significance_of_Oz.3F


In the above, Mr. Rowe states the following:

I've never seen an explanation of why Oz is so commonly connected with gay culture. (It probably has something to do with Judy Garland.)


Ah, Mr. Rowe, Judy Garland could very well be the reason for it. In a biography of her, titled " Get Happy, the Life of Judy Garland" written by Gerald Clark, published in 2000, it is revealed for the first time to the general public that Mr. Frank Garland, father of Judy, was homosexual (his preference was young boys) as was her second husband, director Vincent Minelli. Also, we're told that Liza's mate, Peter Allen (who's tale was told in the Broadway play, "The Boy From Oz") was a gay one also. And, another possible explanation can be found at the friendsofDorothy site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend_of_Dorothy

where one will discover the following:

Most commonly "friend of Dorothy" has been linked to the film The Wizard of Oz because Judy Garland, who starred as the main character Dorothy, is a gay icon. In the film, Dorothy is accepting of those who are different. For example the "gentle lion" living a lie, "I'm afraid there's no denyin', I'm just a dandy lion."[4][5]

Folks, that's all I have to say about this for now. Before I go, just remember that August 15th is the 70th anniversary of the MGM classic film, "The Wizard of Oz." I and my dad and brother will be watching the special three DVD edition of it, which came out on October 25, 2005. This edition has MANY extras, including several silent versions of the story.

Bc1100 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Bc1100 (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


If Frank Garland had a preference for young boys, then that would have made him a paedophile, not a homosexual. Do you mean young boys or young men? Homosexuality refers to a sexual orientation, while paedophilia is a diagnosable sex disorder, and whether directed towards males or females is not related to homosexuality, which is not a sex disorder. Mish (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous sources that discuss this. One i have says:

"Film of 1939 delighting children, those young at heart, and queer-identified persons, especially gay men, for generations. The film stars Judy Garland, a gay icon.... A number of gay anaylses of the film, most notably that by Jungian writer Robert Hopcke that while this sentimental film is appreciated by many individuals, it holds a special resonance for queer-identified persons in juxtaposing everyday reality, ie homophobic, lesbophobic, biphobic, and transgenderphobic reality, represented by Kansas, to a magical land of acceptance....Queer-identified persons discover kinship in a majority of the characters [description of charaacters and why they are identified with]....When the film is shown in a theatre, like the Castro theatre in SF, it is transformed into a rite celebrating acceptance and community. "[1]

Also (another source):

"In recent years,queer people have begun reading texts as queer even when messages were not (consciously) encrypted by their authors. This kind of "cross-reading", according to Creekmur and Doty, in their introduction to Out in Culture, depends on camp. They eyplained the queer resonance that the movie The Wizard of Oz has for gay men and lesbians by pointing out that almost everyone in thefilm lives a double life: "It's emotionally confused and oppressed teenage heroine longs for a world in which her inner desires can be expressed freely and fully. Dorothy finds this world in a technocolor land 'over the rainbow' inhabitied by a sissy lion, an artifical man who cannot stop crying, and a butch femme-couple of witches".[2]

I've put these on the talk page for now. If no-one else gets to it, it write it up as a section on monday (no time now - job interview!)YobMod 06:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche on Gays and AIDS

This page sure has a quick archive! Anyway, the LaRouche matter is now at the BLP noticeboard, and there's been a response from only one uninvolved editor. If anyone has an opinion it'd be helpful to get broader input. WP:BLPN#Views of Lyndon LaRouche#LaRouche on Gays and AIDS.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is still unresolved, and there is now an RfC. Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#RfC: Draft of Gays and AIDS section.   Will Beback  talk  06:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double standard for homosexual illustrations?

Is a double standard at work in the deletion of a nude image of two males in the article? Haiduc (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting pictures with homoerotic content is now "a crusade." Haiduc (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried including it further down into the text? Displacing the navbox can upset a few people. Mish (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I agree/disagree on inclusion of the picture, but pederasty != (does not equal) homosexuality... & age (not gender) is the issue. if it were an opposite-sex picture, I imagine there would be actually be greater (or quicker, at least) scrutiny over it. Wikignome0529 (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, although it is no more inherently problematic when involving an older man and a younger man over the age of consent than an older man with a younger woman over the age of consent. Pederasty was a historically significant type of same-sex sexual relationship. I was assuming this was the case in the image concerned - if the age of the younger party is doubtful, then it definitely should not be included, as that could be illegal. If the image is part of the commons, then that should be addressed there, and the picture would not be available for inclusion; because it is available, one would have to assume it is safe to use it. Mish (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outright Libertarians

Posting this here in case anyone knows of better sources... a user has notability-tagged Outright Libertarians (the US Libertarian Party counterpart of Stonewall Democrats/Log Cabin Republicans) & plans to take it to AfD in 2 weeks if not fixed. Minus press releases, there are 15 gnews hits, but most of these are either letters to the editor/opinion, or tangential mentions.. there is some content regarding Bob Barr's nomination in '08 which might qualify for a sentence or 2, but not sure that would establish organization notability. On Google Books, there is 1 hit, but once I started to add this to the lede, I noticed that the book's content on it was almost a carbon copy of Outright's website. Wikignome0529 (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

  • The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
  • The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
  • I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
    • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
    • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
    • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
  • The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
  • The data is now retained indefinitely.
  • The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
  • Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [1]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the wikipedia entry for neutrois deleted?

I'm interested to know why this happened -particularly since I am neutrois and I have been referred for treatment in England by the NHS for this.

It is my opinion that the deletion of the wikipedia entry on the basis it was a 'little used neologism' was offensive insofar as we were denied the opportunity of having our identity (which is a valid identity) listed on wikipedia. There are many online forums where people openly identify as neutrois. Denying people the opportunity to express the word on wikipedia that best describes their identity is wrong. Since we are also non-gender-binary identified transgendered people the neutrois community can consider the deletion of the neutrois page from wikipedia to be transphobic.

Many people identify as neutrois on various web forums and bulletin boards and many of us are annoyed with what has happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxsquiggle (talk • contribs) 11:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was but one or two sentences and without any reliable sources. If you can build a new article based on NHS publications, that would be fabulous. See also this AfD. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a good bit more than two sentences, but it is true it had no reliable sources. Mxsquiggle, if you wish to work on the article, and think you have sources you could add, let me know, and I'll restore a copy to your userspace. Once it is improved, then it could be moved back into the mainspace (but not before). LadyofShalott 17:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to understand that no community has an automatic right to "have their identity listed on Wikipedia" unless valid and verifiable references can be added to the article to confirm that the identity is generally recognized in reliable sources. Deletion doesn't mean that the topic can never have an article, if a proper one can be written, but an identity community isn't automatically entitled to an article on Wikipedia until such time as it's recognized and acknowledged by sources outside of Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP LGBT studies project tag on article talk pages

Here's a new script that makes it quick and easy to add the project tag to article talk pages...

Just add the following to your monobook.js page: 

importScript('User:Allstarecho/wplgbt.js');

..then Save it. Then purge your cache (by clicking the purge link to the left).

What should happen:

  1. At the very top of the page, before your username, you should now see a new link that says 'add wp lgbt tag'.
  2. Go to an article talk page you want to tag. Don't click 'edit' or anything.
  3. Once on the article talk page, just click the new 'add wp lgbt tag' link at the top.
  4. This will automatically open the article talk page, automatically paste in the project banner code at the very top (seen below) and automatically add an edit summary (seen below).
  5. You will change 2 things (see below) and click Save.
  6. Quicker, faster, enjoy.

WP LGBT studies tag that will automatically be added: 

{{LGBTProject|class=?|explanation=?}}
  • Change the Class question mark to Stub/Start/C/B/A/GA (you can see them all at Template:LGBTProject. If you don't need the explanation parameter, just remove the question mark. This parameter is for explaining why the article is within our scope.. useful on some articles when people are bitching about the gay tag and wondering why it's there. If you do need to use the explanation parameter, replace its question mark with your brief explanation.

Edit summary that will automatically be added:
Add WikiProject LGBT Studies tag

If you're not using the monobook skin for Wikipedia, I can't assure you this will work on other skins. Test it and see and let me and others know. (you can change skins via your preferences link at the top of the page) - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 16:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of LGBT people

I wanted to bring to everybody's attention that I've just noticed an issue going on with the LGBT people lists which has apparently been flying under the radar.

Over the past day or so, I've had to remove at lest 15 entries from the lists of a couple of different types:

  • entries that once had an article but were subsequently deleted, and were consequently now just redlinks,
  • entries, either redlinks to non-notable people (same old "classmate vandalism") or blue links to improperly listed celebrities, which were sourced to fake references (usually a repeat of the real reference for the person immediately above or below them in the list, but in one case also a genuine link to one of those generic "famous gay people" lists elsewhere on the web but which didn't actually contain an entry for the non-notable person it was being cited for.)

In the process of catching one of the latter type, I also caught one not-gay-celebrity entry whose entire reference consisted of just "}", but I caught this only because it was immediately next to a redlink I was already removing. I'd have missed it otherwise. I can't guarantee that I've caught every bad entry, because I haven't gone through every list to confirm the validity of every single individual name — and due to the scale of such a project, I'm not going to do that all by myself. I've only removed the ones that I happened to catch as problematic in a quick once-over scan; anything more comprehensive will require a bunch of people sharing the work.

In truth, the requirement for proper referencing on the list hasn't really resolved the vandalism problem it was meant to solve. People don't seem to actually check every individual entry and reference in the list, but instead very often just let it through if it looks properly formatted and legitimately referenced. But I'm not sure what else we can do to solve the problem, apart from the permanent page protection that Wikipedia tries to avoid.

So, my questions:

  1. Are there any volunteers who'd be willing to, say, go through one letter in detail to ensure that every entry legitimately belongs?
  2. Does anybody have any other ideas for how we can minimize vandals adding bad entries, since even requiring references doesn't always seem to be enough? Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mind providing links to these lists? Additionally, we need to know which articles are now red-links so we can vet them and see which notable ones were deleted that apparently we aren't aware of. They can be moved to userspace for additional work or even a sub-space of this project. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 23:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people
As for deleted entries, "used to have an article" obviously doesn't automatically equal "is notable" — there were no redlinks which it would be particularly to our advantage or benefit to do anything special with. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe ping Satryn? If nothing else to get advice, the clever vandalism you can only do so much on. Usually getting every item reffed slows down the non-sense and makes the vandalism jump out. I'm afriad those who choose to disrupt may ramp up their attacks to be faux sourced. -- Banjeboi 08:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

renamed Religious views on transgender people

This article is hopeless, and I have tagged the entries in the section on mormonism as dubious (as they are either sources that have nothing to do with the topic, or don't exist, or link to a home-video on YouTube about what somebody things Mormon views are. I have also tagged a few other bits for various reasons (see the discussion page). The whole concept of having a title that is about 'views' by one group about some people seems contrary to both NPOV and article naming conventions, so I am in the process of renaming it. I started to move it to Transgenderism and Religion (as some of the material there is about the religious views OF transgender people), and in the same way that homosexuality and religion allows for a balance between conservative and liberal views in a way that included people who are the subject of that article (gay and lesbian people) this can allow for a more balanced treatment of the topic in a way that gives more room for those who are the subject of the article to edit in a way that reflects a variety of sources. Unfortunately, this was my first attempt at a move and I messed it up (I moved the talk page to the name space by mistake). So I have moved it to Transgender and religion (I moved talk page back to its original location first). When the blanked page for Transgenderism and religion has been freed up again, I will shift the article there properly. I think that there should be a blanket rule that so-and-so's views on anything should be clearly marked as disallowed on Wikipedia, as it seems anything with 'views' in the title is unlikely to even start looking like it is going to manage to be NPOV...Mish (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try {{Db-move}} to delete the page that's in the way, in the edit summary explain you're trying to get Transgender and religion moved there. -- Banjeboi 08:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody did it. All done now: Transgenderism and religion. Mish (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Transgenderism and religion" the best title, or would "Transgender people and religion" be better? Also, the current article doesn't appear to have any material about trans people's religious views. --Alynna (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This follows the form for similar articles like Homosexuality and religion; we can set up a redirect for that of you wish. Whatever one puts, if the word 'trans' is in there somewhere, some people will have a problem with whatever it is called. On your second point, that is exactly the point. Now it can have both. Mish (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transgender people and religion would be far better; "transgenderism" is not equivalent to "homosexuality". Rebecca (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Transgendrism is the same to transgender people as homosexuality is to homosexual people. Is is also a perfectly cromulant noun in this usage, appearing in respectful and respectable scholarly works. The "hate the sin, love the sinner" ethos of some religions show that there is a philosophical difference between the abstract noun and the grouping of people, and transgenderism is the more general term, so is better for a more general article.YobMod 17:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, use "and transgender" if you must. "Transgenderism" is seen by a good many people in the usage the article intends to use as a slur. Rebecca (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Citation needed] - It may be seen as you as a slur, but the numerous books by gender researchers shows it is clearly not, and Transgenderism (social movement) indicates the opposite too. The "and transgender" is also not grammatical. "Transgender people" would also not cover trangender dieties in Hinduism or Kami in Shinto, which are not people.YobMod 18:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite open to using other language, as long as "transgenderism" is not it. You're no expert on the subject; the fact you cite that weird unsourced "transgenderism movement" article (a claimed topic which I've never heard of despite the fact I majored in the field) rather supports that implication. On the other hand, you're being told that a lot of people do find this a slur, by someone who happens to both be trans and have a degree in this stuff. Knock it off. Rebecca (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made no claims to being an expert, which is why i asked for proof that the term is widely considered pejorative. As the links Mish provided below who, this is a commonly used term in gender studies, indicating it is not a slur.YobMod 11:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that transgenderism is not a movement, transgender is to transgenderism what lesbian is to lesbianism, in a similar way as homosexual is to homosexuality. So, there is no homosexual movement per se, but there has been a gay movement, and while there has been a lesbian movement, it has never been a lesbianist movement (although there is still a lesbian feminist movement), just as there has been a gay and lesbian movement, and there is an LGBT movement. Someone is not a trangenderist, just as few people talk about homosexualists today (although this term was used by the far-right and conservative Christians at one time), and lesbians are called lesbians, not lesbianists. Where the term transgenderism is used, it tends to be in a medical context [2]. Where transgender is concerned, it is usually used in the context of transgender people. My choice of transgenderism is as shorthand for the phenomenon [3], as transgender is usually conjoined with some other term [[4]]. I have no problem with shifting the transgenderism and religion back to transgender and religion, but my sense is that the current article name is preferable. Mish (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with 'transgenderism' as a term personally, it is recognised by WPATH, and TBH, I have never come across anybody having issues with it who didn't also have issues with 'transgender' (i.e., people who identify as transsexual and who do not wish to be associated with transgender). This naming simply follows the convention for homosexuality, although I have taken the liberty of placing the subject of the article first (which ought to be the case with homosexuality and religion too). A lot of lesbian and gay people do not like the term homosexuality, but we have not renamed that article 'lesbian and gay people and religion'. 'Lesbian and gay and religion' wouldn't work, and just as 'transgender people and religion' wouldn't work, I'm not sure 'transgender and religion' would work either. What is reflected in 'homosexuality and religion' (or vice versa) is the 'condition' of homosexuality - by which I do not mean a medical condition, but the human condition - in the same way, 'transgenderism' in 'transgenderism and religion' reflects the relationship between the condition of transgenderism - that is the human condition of being transgender. I know of no other word that is available to describe this apart from 'transgenderism' other than 'trans' - but somehow I doubt that would be acceptable in an encyclopedic sense. Mish (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., do you have a WP:RS that states that transgenderism is not an acceptable term to people who identify as transgender per se? Mish (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S., these are a handful of sources from medical, social science and community-based sources, all of which use the term unproblematically.

... etc. Mish (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transgenderism moved to Transgenderism (social movement)

Earlier today, I was bold and moved Transgenderism to Transgenderism (social movement) to distuingish from Transgender (had placed a distinguish hatnote on the top of it a while back, and the move of the transgender/religion article to a "Transgenderism" title reminded me of it). Most ghits & gnews hits seem to use "Transgenderism" to refer to Transgender. Also, in reviewing the backlinks following the move, most of them were using it in the Transgender context as well (not counting links coming from the transhumanism template). Posting a note here for other users to review the move, as someone messaged me on my talk page about not proposing it first. Thx, Wikignome0529 (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article needs to be redirected to transgender. There's no such thing as a "transgenderism movement". Rebecca (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to propose it first... the series sidebar on the transhumanism articles links to it (though the link is called "postgenderism" and it links to the 2nd half of the article). The 2nd part might be worth saving or merging elsewhere. Wikignome0529 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if someone chooses to write a Postgender article, but it certainly doesn't belong there. Rebecca (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Postgenderism's history page, one was created in Feb 2006 & redirected to George Dvorsky July '06, and then to the transgenderism article Feb '07. Wikignome0529 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I've fixed the template and reverted the postgenderism redirect to the original article, which doesn't look half bad at a glance, at least as a place to start. I've also reverted the Transgenderism redirect; that material didn't belong there in the first place and the article was an OR mess. Rebecca (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capital punishment for homosexuality

This is a brand new article started just today. It's on an important subject, but the sourcing seems dubious; I left some comments about that on the talk page. I'd appreciate it if other editors more knowledgeable about the subject could take a look at this article and see if it can be improved. Born Gay (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be merged, to LGBT issues and Islam (as most of the info is about Muslim countries), with the redirect made to LGBT rights by country or territory, which already covers this issue.YobMod 09:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is probably appropriate, given the exclusive focus on Islam in the article. It wasn't well sourced, either. Born Gay (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it came from Homophobia and was ulled out by ADM. An editor who seems to not approve of people who aren't heterosexual and Catholic. ADM may sincerely believe in what they write but I've seen umpteen pointy, vague, slurrish-against-Jews-and-or-Gays (and Michael Jackson) talkpage posts. Unless they produce a reliable source it may just be drama-stirring. Sorry, but that's my take. I've put the content back into homophobia but it could be reworked into other articles. -- Banjeboi 13:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article on this subject could be written, but this wasn't it. I redirected to the LGBT rights by country article, as the content is already elsewhere.YobMod 11:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section here: Homophobia#Contemporary death penalty which an editor has tagged as off-topic and is now asking about deletion. Maybe want to review if anything there is of any use. There is a similar section in Violence against LGBT people as I recall. It might be worth pulling it all together as a single article, and providing a link to the article from those places that are relevant? Mish (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited down this section, as much of it didn't relate to the death penalty, and reworded some of it along with sourcing the connection to homophobia. Mish (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and homosexuality

I am having trouble with an entry on this page. An editor decided to list the references against homosexuality in the three Abrahamic religions. I inserted a comment that Jesus does not discuss homosexuality in the following paragraph (and that lesbianism is not addressed anywhere, which I have now revised). This has been persistently reverted, mainly by one quite hostile editor, and I accepted a source linked to Exodus International that explained that some interpret a passage in Matthew (also in Mark) in a way that covers homosexuality, but this was not enough, and ended up with some Mormon material that I consider undue (because of the length of the comment placed in a way that downplayed the fact that Jesus never mentions homosexuality) - which I deleted. This led to the source and comment about what Jesus never said (difficult to verify somebody didn't say something without a source) being deleted. I then realised that the Exodus-Int'l-citation does include a comment that Jesus never speaks about homosexuality, so I re-wrote the short text to reflect this, and used the same citation that is used to argue that although he never spoke about homosexuality, he spoke about marriage, divorce and adultery in a way that covered homosexuality. I also found a quote from an article by a female Anglican priest on Spong's PCN study centre site, and have now added that as a source - but have not yet re-inserted the original deleted source (which is from a book about homosexuality and Christianity). I am waiting to see what happens next really. I am on the point of doing an RfC, but the instructions are to request input from the project page. Which is here and the religion project. I will take it there tomorrow if the deletion of factual (accurate and verifiable) material persists. I have not done an RfC before, so would appreciate any advice on this.

The text in question is located here:

Religion and homosexuality#Abrahamic religions

The first recorded law against homosexual behaviour is found in the holiness code of Leviticus within which sodomy is a capital offense. There are no references to sexual acts between women in the Hebrew scriptures, and one reference by St. Paul to female sexuality that may imply lesbianism (Romans 1:26). While Jesus never mentions homosexual behaviour,[12][13] conservative Christians (and Mormons) argue that his teaching on marriage, divorce and adultery in Mark 10:6-12 (repeated in Matthew 19:4-9) applies to homosexual behaviour.[12]

The discussion is here:

Talk:Religion and homosexuality#Jesus makes no reference to homosexuality in the Gospels?

I am not happy with using behaviour here, but because the issue is that accurate, relevant, verifiable information should not be excluded, I am ignoring that right now. Mish (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As i have said on the talk page, and templated on the article, this is the wrong article to even be having this discussion. Summary style of the subarticle would generally mean very few if any specific examples are given, just general trends. Sandboxing a summary of the appropriate subarticle would seem the only way forward.YobMod 09:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't there but from what I've read Jesus told all those men he hung around with to love one another, seems clear to me. -- Banjeboi 11:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He hung around with sailors, you know. Seriously, thanks for your input YobMod, you make some important important points, and I value that. I got sucked in by the edits that expanded the section in a certain way, and then tried to balance them - which was clearly a red-rag to one person. The list of condemnatory passages was unwarranted in an introduction to these three religions, as this is dealt with in tedious detail elsewhere in the article as well as in as many other articles people can push it in. It would be interesting to see which is the most often cited passage from the Bible - is it Jesus' most important statement in Mark 12:30-31, or is it Leviticus 18:22 or Leviticus 20:13? Mish (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Caonner & Sparks (1998), p. 349Conner, Randy P. (1998). Cassell's Encylopedia of Queer Myth, Symbol and Spirit. UK: Cassell. ISBN 0304704237. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Green (1997), p. 404Green, Thomas A. (1997). Folklore: an encyclopedia of beliefs, customs, tales, music, and art. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780874369861. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBTQ%2B_studies&oldid=302942900"