Talk:It Gets Better Project/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about It Gets Better Project. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

There have been criticisms of this. Mainly, there was one Youtube response where someone noticed that Savage was a privileged, white male. The video was removed because the response was so overwhelming. Other people have noticed this as well. I'd be more than happy to find some sources for this. There are already plenty of criticisms of Savage on his on Wikipedia page. A few more could not hurt.TurtleMelody (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would just caution against conflating "criticism of Savage" (which belongs on his Wikipedia page) with "criticism of this project" (which belongs here). Roscelese (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some reliable sources would be needed as comments on YouTube are considered open forum posts are are unsuitable as citations. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There have been a few edits back and forth today on whether the sentence As the project has grown, a number of celebrities have added videos. should include a disclaimer to the effect that the people uploading videos are not necessarily gay/bi. I am not exactly clear why this clarification is important, as the article does not seem to be making any implication to the contrary. Further, the sentence reads more awkwardly with the additional clause. If people think the point is important to include, perhaps it could be added as a separate sentence? A source would be nice as well. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's necessary to note because the lead (correctly) states that the project was originally intended to have gay adults conveying the message. And would the "personal life" section of those celebrities' articles work well enough as a source?

As a side note, the "et al." that you removed was because there are a lot of celebrities on that video; if you're going to remove the "et al." I think you'd have to list all the contributors. Roscelese (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can see that. The issue itself is probably obvious enough that linking the relevant articles is sufficient, but it would be cool if someone tracks down a source discussing the contributors. How would you feel about adding a sentence to the end of the first paragraph (just after the having gay adults sentence) - The project has grown rapidly, with over ## videos uploaded in the first month from adults of all sexual orientations, including many celebrities.? With ## replaced by an actual number, of course.

et al.: There are, but I see that section as a list of people rather than of videos. There would be nothing wrong with expanding the list, citing the additional people using <ref name="85944" /> or whatever for the other names. That might bring us into list bloat territory, though. Is that list meant to be an exhaustive list of the people who have both contributed and have articles here?

Complete aside - what about Make It Better Project - should that be covered here, or would it work better as its own article? - 2/0 (cont.) 21:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me.

I didn't realize so many celebrities had contributed when I started the list, so I'm not really sure what to do with it.

Not sure, let's see what other editors think. Roscelese (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sentence added with some other stuff - feel free to do whatever you want with it. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend we simply give a brief bio after each name, and include in that bio any notable facts about their sexual orientation, level of activism on behalf of gays, or if this is their only highly notable gesture, just what they are notable for outside of gay rights. without some biographical context with each name, it does give the impression of a list of notable and somewhat notable gay people, which is not true. there are 8 names i dont recognize at all, and of the remaining 9, 4 who i know are gay/lesbian, and 2 of those only because i am fans of theirs (they sure as hell aint famous). so that makes 13 who i have a response of "oh, i guess they are gay", which while not very sophisticated (my emotional brain is pretty basic sometimes), is also not a good response to an encyclopedia article's list. examples: i would add to Gene Robinson: Openly gay bishop of the U.S. Episcopal Church. Kesha, American pop singer/rapper. Zachary Quinto, American actor. oh, and since there is no reference in the Quinto article stating he is openly gay, i wouldnt categorize him as such in his article, and i dont see him being a "gay rights activist" per se, just a somewhat vocal supporter of such, which having him in this list makes obvious. I assume he has made such statements, but we need to source such material BEFORE including it. ellen degeneris, talk show host, actress, openly lesbian gay rights activist. etc. Oh, and can we get the original news items for each teenagers suicide, to fully document this article? i'm having a hell of a time sorting out actual print news stories for each person from blogs, and articles about "It Gets Better"Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - you are suggesting a nightmare of a maintenance problem. If these people have articles we can just link to the articles, the ins and outs of their gay-related history and lifestyles would need careful sourcing and is actually off-topic as we only need their name and a link to prove they contributed to It Gets Better. Inclusion of a celebrity name in the article should only imply that, nothing else. By the way, in the case of Zachary Quinto, yes he is a gay activist but not currently openly gay or openly straight as the sources in the article about him indicate. Fæ (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. If others agree, then perhaps just a statement like "actors, writers, and activists have added videos to the site, including:". i just dont like not having any id info there. or just make the comments after their name very brief (actor, writer, etc-1 word). Oh, and i think i misread his categorization. i see he is categorized as an lgbt activist. i think i read that as lgbt actor. my error.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Right now we have a list of Wikipedia-linked names and no characterization of the the persons named; also with each name we have a video link as a citation. This, to me, is best and I do not prefer the addition of biographical information. There have been some calls for biographical information. If anyone feels strongly about this, could I see an example formatted as they would like to see it in the article? Otherwise, I think the article should stay as it is. Blue Rasberry 18:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little happier having it just be a list myself. While I don't feel strongly about it, I think the article should put relatively more emphasis on the history, purpose, reaction and structure of the project than on detailing the biographies of a subset of the thousand or more participants. I do understand that the latter can inform the former, though, so.... *shrug* --j⚛e decker^talk 19:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the Barack Obama video contribution to the project deserves a mention in the lead text as I suspect that his direct support is of more interest and significance to the layman reader (of any nationality) compared to the other notable names in the list of contributors. Any objections? Fæ (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This idea has my support. Blue Rasberry 18:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur. -Mardus (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotation added to the lead. I would not object to it being integrated into the text if someone fancies copy editing it that way, however highlighting as a quote does not seem overly undue considering the likely public impact. Fæ (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Chris Crocker and Chris Kelly need more specific links, because they have namesakes and their names lead to disambig pages. Some other names may have to be checked, too. -Mardus (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted. The only other one is Andy Cohen. Just going through the DAB checking now... Fæ (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Chris Kelly - "It Gets Better - Chris Kelly". September 25, 2010. - is a comedy writer with no associated article on Wikipedia. There are no other dab-page matches but I have not checked for direct incorrect article matches. Fæ (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

At the moment the list complies with WP:NLIST. As the list is becoming quite long (we may want to consider how to limit it), I suggest it ought to comply with Lead and selection criteria. I propose "People named on this list are linked to associated articles and include footnotes with an external link to their video." Any suggestions for a better wording or disagreement that such criteria are needed here? Fæ (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - but it's still likely to get too extensive before long. Suggestions for narrowing it? Roscelese (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll add the proposed text, I have no issue with it being tweaked or removed based on further discussion here. Fæ (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Good addition.

We might pare the list to only those videos that have been mentioned in other media. This will give a bit of a selection bias, though, in that people famous for other reasons will be preferentially mentioned by the press. The FaceBook feed has featured at least one video - we could count that as mention for this criterion. We could also consider limiting the list to people who have made other GLBT activism statements, but I think that that filtering would paint the project in a false light.

On a slightly unrelated note, the website now has a Donate Now button, leading to a page that states Iola Foundation is a registered 501(c)3 organization, and all contributions are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law. All donations processed through this website will benefit the It Gets Better Project, The Trevor Project, and GLSEN. Savage's early statement that potential donors were being directed to The Trevor Project needs to be updated if someone finds a source before I get a chance (it is probably in a post to /blog, or maybe one of the more recent interviews than the source for the current statement). - 2/0 (cont.) 15:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we find a (nice) way of expressing "quality" media as used in the Biographies of living persons use of the word. I am thinking of the New York Times being considered "quality" as it has clear editorial guidelines and the articles go into print, whilst, for example, http://hollywoodcrush.mtv.com is probably less so and would fail such criteria.

The phrasing of the criteria shows that I was thinking of the same footnote including a link to the video plus other citations. We probably should ensure that there are always direct links to the video (for easy verification) and the advantage of grouping citations (as per WP:CITEKILL) is that we avoid overwhelming the article with footnote numbers. See the Obama footnote as an initial example of best practice. Fæ (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not feel that the list is getting to long and do not think it is anywhere close to problematic. There are about 60 entities now and if there were 200 I would still be happy. I am not worried about the footnotes being crowded with links to YouTube either.

I think the criteria for list inclusion should be that all entries should have extant Wikipedia articles and each one should come with a link to their video. I feel that this complies with Fæ's suggestion that the list meet lead and selection criteria. I do not like the idea of judging the quality of videos by including only those with third party critique.

If any action is to be taken, then I would propose categorizing entries rather than disallowing any. Some categories which I might propose are politicians, entertainers, activists, and organizational representatives, as I think those categories ought to include all currently listed members. But even categorization is not necessary. Blue Rasberry 00:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The question is what would be a good encyclopaedic article that remains readable for the layman. A complete list is probably impossible and a very long list (>100) would be difficult to maintain and would probably need to be split off to a separate stand alone list (and broken into alphabetic sections). An alternative is to consider this embedded list being limited to the most notable (or newsworthy) representative examples and creating a category like Category:It Gets Better video contributor where any notable person can have the category added to their Wikipedia article rather than going through the burden of citing their name in this article too. This is a low maintenance option with the only pain being the effort of gaining a consensus on the more limited inclusion criteria. Fæ (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not support the creation of such a category. I think it would be a little base, for example, to put a trivial category like that on Obama's page. I have no objection with moving the entire list to its own page. I disagree with your assessment that a complete list would be difficult to make and would counter by stating that an inclusive list of all notable video-producing people would be easier to generate than a list trying to apply any other criteria. I am not opposed to the idea of limiting a list if it gets much longer, but I do not like the proposed criteria about including only those whose submissions got third party review from a WP:RS because I think this is too exclusive. I am open to hearing other proposals for criteria.

I would expect that with what I am proposing, the list would be likely to grow to over 100 entries. Fæ is quite right; if the list goes to its own page then names should be put into alphabetized sections. Blue Rasberry 04:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a separate list article is necessary. We can just make it collapsible if it gets too long. Roscelese (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, collapsible boxes are normally limited to navboxes, see the guidance of Scrolling lists and collapsible content. Fæ (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize. Ah well. Roscelese (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone think of a better title for this subsection? Wikipedia is not America. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "Presenters outside the United States", which is functionally better. If someone has a better name then change it again. Blue Rasberry 03:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

So ... who is Daniel L. Bain? His company profile talks about his work with his company, but does not mention the It Gets Better Project. That video, while pretty neat, does not really establish his relevance here. I did a quick search to see if he might be someone who passes WP:Notability and needs an article, but nothing jumped out at me. Anominto - you state that Bain was asked to join the project. By whom? If we can cite a source for that, that would probably establish relevance here, perhaps in a sentence discussing the importance for the project to be able to talk to a wide variety of people. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly this was a COI addition, the IP address contributing this name is registered to thornmark.com (the company that Bain founded) and Anominto is a SPA, consequently the repeated argument, reversions and additions over this single name seem somewhat shallow and compromised. However this does set a precedent, I suggest that when future names appear for which there is no pre-existing article that the local consensus should be that any proposer should be prepared to create a BLP (albeit a stub) before adding to this list. Fæ (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I support Fæ's suggestion. No entity should be on this list if that entity does not already have its own Wikipedia article. Non-notable people should not be on this list, and notable people should have Wikipedia articles. Blue Rasberry 15:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not dissagree with your assessment of need of support for notability or Wikipedia article. Mr. Bain is a noteworthy out LGBT Canadian business leader as CEO of a leading investment managemetn firm. Mr. was asked (sources to be provided later) specifically because the It Gets Better Canada wanted to expand the initiative beyond the "arts" community and to include examples of successful Canadian LGBT business leaders. Being new to Wikipedia I've erred in my contributions. I am going to learn more and attemtp to contribute more effectively in the future. The comments provided were helpful and appreciated. I help that providing these comments here is appropriate.Anominto (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Your best way forward would be to clarify if you do have any conflict of interest (so you can have suitable help) and create a short biographical article draft for Bain in your user space with the intention of having it moved once there has been some independent feedback on sourcing and compliance with the Biographies of living persons policy. See Help:Userspace draft for more information. Fæ (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's great feedback and very much appreciated. I will get to it and follow-up from there.Anominto (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The recent video of Janet Jackson / Larry King (here) is not available to view outside of the USA so I have been unable to tell if it is a clip from the show rather than a purpose made video. Should we exclude content only available in America? This would seem a breach of the Systemic bias guidelines. Fæ (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it on the project web site, and it's not ... it doesn't really seem to me to be an IGB project video. (Obama's video isn't on the project website either, but is more a specifically made, addressed-to-the-teens video.) I'd remove it from the list on those grounds. I'm hardly familiar with the usual habits around the systematic bias guidelines, but your reasoning seems pretty strong to me on that point. --j⚛e decker^talk 08:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Toronto's Lesbian Gay Bi Trans Youth Line is the only organization mentioned without an article related to it. Could someone take the initiative to start a sourced stub or we might have to consider removing it as non-notable? Fæ (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Stub created, but it could probably use a lookover, etc. --j⚛e decker^talk 08:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that no criticism has been included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.97.243 (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

All points of view, when backed by reliable sources and when not given WP:UNDUE weight, are welcome in the article. What do you suggest, and on the basis of what sources? --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 20:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Critiquing-It-Gets-Better-Project-for-Gay-Teens-5334 would seem like a good place to start...Naraht (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of an anti-bullying campaign? I guess the wingnuts never rest. Does the 19th amendment need a criticism section too? StarDust787 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Google Chrome commercial has aired during American Idol, The Office, and Glee. Those are just what I'm aware of. This means it has moved away from just being an internet thing. It's not a TV thing. Maybe it warrants a new section with sources? I guess you'll have to look it up for yourself, even though it's on Google Chrome's OFFICIAL YouTube page, that must not be good enough for Wikipedia. It won't let me link. StarDust787 (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see commons:Category:It Gets Better Project. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There have been five baseball teams to make videos, but they aren't listed on this page. They are: the SF Giants, Chicago Cubs, Boston Red Sox, Minnesota Twins, and Seattle Mariners (http://www.change.org/petitions/ask-the-minnesota-twins-to-create-an-it-gets-better-video). There may have been more sports teams, but I just got an email from the project listing those baseball teams. Should they be under organizations or should there be a separate "sports teams" section? --Mwn3d (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

For completeness' sake, here's a link to the Cubs' video and the Giants' video. I guess the others aren't up yet, so they don't need to be listed yet. I think the Twins should have theirs out soon. A news article on change.org says they will be recording it today. --Mwn3d (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Would a split of organizations and groups be appropriate? Either alphabetical the way that the people are or be organization type? I *think* that for organization type, reasonable would be: Political, University, Business, Sports (There are at least 5 baseball teams doing/have done, so it may be large enough). Ideas?Naraht (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I would support a split because the list is long and the nature of the supporting groups is one of the most interesting pieces of information about them. Your ideas for categories are fine. I think "non-profit organization" should also be a category. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically most universities are non-profit, but it does fill in the groups and I think most people would understand.Naraht (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've split up the Organizations and groups into somewhat more managable pieces. I'd be the first to say that I was very torn on some of the decisions and hope someone on *either* side comes up with a coherent argument. The places I was torn mostly fell into two pieces. One of them is the Business/Media Show split. I called it Media Shows because I *think* that NBC would work better with Cisco than it would with the Cast of a specific NBC show. The other place I was torn was the GLBT(-Straight) groups at Universities, I think things that productions of the university probably belong in one place and the GLBT groups at Universities belong with Human Rights Campaign. *Neither* of these decisions are ones that I was sure of. Naraht (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

the "project history" section mentions an upcoming conference (10 mar 2011) by barack and michelle obama. since it is now way past march, i tagged the section with template:update. -badmachine 02:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be a section devoted to criticism of this initiative. A good argument can be made that IGB does nothing to reduce the violence and ostracism that creates suicidal feelings in LGBT children. There should also be comment on how opportunistic politicians, celebrities and others are jumping on the It Gets Better bandwagon, obviously for purposes of self-promotion. 165.173.137.47 (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You'll need some reliable 3rd party sources for something like that. Seems somewhat unlikely that you'll be able to verify all of those claims. DP76764 (Talk) 17:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

While it won't be possible to find objective 3rd Party sources to say that politicians and celebrities jumped on the IGB bandwagon -- as "bandwagon" is a figure of speech anyway -- surely with the passage of time this project might be better characterized as a YouTube meme (and a book) than as a movement. Are there good articles about this being written that show what is being done about school bullying? It seems to have all but vanished from the headlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.15.121 (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This project could be characterized as a public health campaign, and typically for these kinds of things, marketing research happens in the first 1-3 years and academic research happens to measure efficacy after that. This campaign has been active for just under a year. Google Scholar has some articles about the campaign, but it is probably too early to expect statistical results tying this campaign to school bullying or meta-research about the collective efficacy of the local campaigns within this project. The reason this page looks strange on Wikipedia is because it is unusual for campaigns of this sort to make international news before they actually have any data backing. Let's wait a while; the sources still appear steadily, just not as news. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Most criticism focuses on use of the platitude to engage in drive-by activism, or its "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality that oversimplifies a complex issue. Some sourcing for criticism:

• Naff, Kevin (December 17, 2010). 'It Gets Better' gets annoying. Washington Blade
• Majkowskia, Tina (2011). The “It Gets Better Campaign”: An unfortunate use of queer futurity. Women & Performance: a journal of feminist theory. Volume 21, Issue 1, 2011 pp. 163-165. doi:10.1080/0740770X.2011.563048
• Puar, Jasbir K (2012). Coda: The Cost of Getting Better Suicide, Sensation, Switchpoints. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 2012 Volume 18, Number 1: 149-158. doi: 10.1215/10642684-1422179

It's certainly worth a mention, keeping WP:UNDUE in mind. Jokestress (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's ironic, and worth a comment at least here on the talk page about the timing of the founding of "It Gets Better" as occurring on September 21st, 2010 and mentioning it was founded in response to a number of suicides including Tyler Clementi, when it's noted on the page for the death of Tyler Clementi that he committed suicide on September 22nd: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi I'm sure that the organizing of It Gets Better was spurred by Tyler's death -- and more -- the subsequent investigation and media focus but it's odd that the group founding was timed so close to Tyler's death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.15.121 (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Clementi was one of several suicides occurring around the same time, and the dead are named in the lede. Billy Lucas is named as the one who spurred the founding, and his death was before the 21st. If the lede seems unclear, propose an alternative version. WP:BB and change things. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a section on "Prior Media References", as many Wikipedia articles have Media References etc., and from an encyclopedic perspective, it makes sense to document possible/potential conceptual/historical origins or at least precursors.

Here is the section, including positive/justified edit from User:Timtrent (but as it was removed, twice, by another editor, discussion below)

==Prior Media References==

The phrase "It Gets Better" was used in popular media to console a teenager at least once years before the founding of this project.

• 2006-11-20 In the Heroes episode Homecoming, the character Peter consoles the teenage character Claire that "It gets better"^[1] in response to her lamenting her unpopularity in highschool.^[2]

== (end of section) ==

I added this section with the edit summary of:

• 2011-10-03 "add Prior Media References section, note prior topical "It Gets Better" to console a teenager reference in popular media nearly 4 years before project founding"
• 2011-10-06 the section was removed, with no edit summary, no justification.
• 2011-10-06 I treated the removal without justification as an act of deletionary vandalism, and restored the section. (including an improvement edit by User:Timtrent).
• 2011-10-11 The same editor removed the section again and this time provided the following arguments in their edit summary:
  • "removing a section that has little relevance"
    • refutation: possible/potential conceptual/historical origins or at least precursors are very much relevant from an encyclopedic perspective.
  • "... or hope of being comprehensive."
    • refutation: comprehensiveness is not a requirement for wikipedia edits, sections, nor even articles. On the contrary, via stub articles, sections etc., Wikipedia encourages additions of partial/stub content to be incrementally grown by the community.

Since I've added this section (and a second time) and the other editor has deleted it twice, I am hesitating re-adding it to avoid an edit-war, and instead have brought the issue here, to the discussion page, to request input from other editors. I'd like to re-add the section, and encourage any other editor who thinks the content is sufficiently encyclopedic to go ahead and make the addition to the article as well. Thanks for your consideration.

Tantek (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I still think this section is of encyclopedic value to this article, and am thus going to re-add it. Per Wikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking.2C_illegitimate, claiming a section "has little relevance" is a frivolous reason, debunked above, and "hope of being comprehensive" is not a requirement for adding material to Wikipedia.

Tantek (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• 2012-03-05 I re-added the section.
• 2012-03-05 An hour later User:Conti removed the section with edit summary: "Revert. I'm sorry, but this is original research, among other things. There's no source connecting the use of the phrase in some TV show to the subject of this article. And even if, it's a common phrase, nobody denies this."
  • A simple citation to a direct quote from a source is not original research. Analysis of that quote would be, or paraphrasing etc. In this case the exact phrase "It Gets Better" was present in the quote from the source. - Tantek (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The assertion "even if, it's a common phrase, nobody denies this." then why is it preferable to delete the citation establishing it as a phrase previous to the project? - Tantek (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

At this point, since two editors have acted on the opinion that it is not worth including in the article, I'll leave the section here in the Talk page and up to a different editor to re-add it if they believe it improves the article as I do, for the reasons given. Thanks for your consideration. - Tantek (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to hear anyone out, but the subject of this article is the "It Gets Better Project" and not the phrase "it gets better". I do not see the connection of the phrase to the article's subject. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiable sources have been repeatedly put into this section, including Huffington Post, Bilerico Project, Queerty and The New Human Rights Movement. What I have added also includes DIRECT REFERENCES to where Savage has done/said these things himself too. Also it raises questions as to why Savage didn't include ANY of the Trans-youth who were murdered or committed suicide at the same time or just before Clementi. Stop reverting my additions as you should be able to see that what I am doing is improving the accuracy of this article, Fae. Ditto anyone else. Kate Dee (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Opinion statements by bloggers are not reliable sources for assertions of fact. Your desired addition is a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact. I know that you are new to Wikipedia, but please be open to the possibility that you do not yet understand the rules- Wikipedia is only for statements of fact, and not for our own opinions and analyses. You are welcome to participate at Wikipedia if you are willing to help write encyclopedia articles, and don't remain determined to write opinion articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the above, please read WP:SYNTH to understand why the material you added is not acceptable. --Conti|✉ 23:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the It Gets Better project, lengthy criticism of Savage (or a general life history) are off-topic. You are already attempting to add the exact same text to Dan Savage, and I suggest you stick to gaining a consensus there rather than having the discussion in two places of which this one is far less likely to result in a section being added due to being an obvious failure of weight. --Fæ (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

These are links directly from Journalists, NOT Bloggers. Also they contain articles directly from Savage himself, where he has openly abused people out of spite in his Savage Love column. Given that Savage was the creator of "It Gets Better" and not a single reference was made by him to ANY of the Trans-youth deaths that occured during that period, verifiable sources like the ones I posted are valid. If you guys weren't Transphobic, you would also see that there has been debate about this on Dan Savage's wiki page too. ie Biphobia/Transphobia. Try doing some research via the links I put in, and you will see that I am correct. Kate Dee (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Calling me transphobic when you know nothing about me, seems a poor start to establishing a consensus here. Fæ (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You have not added anything that would make your desired edits anything other than violations of the neutral point of view policy. However, you have violated the rule No Personal Attacks by calling me "transphobic" simply for not allowing you to use Wikipedia as a platform for opinions. I invite you to withdraw that attack immediately. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Am I? There is verifiable evidence from the Huffington Post that Savage did do and say those things. To say that he didn't means that you should remove the other Huffington Post reference in article, as it is clearly from a blog and "unreliable" then, using your previous logic. Not allowing verified references to where a wikipedia subject has done/said hateful stuff is Transphobic. If Savage was a conservative & wasn't gay, would you let such comments slide? Not including references to them actually degrades the accuracy/neutrality. Kate Dee (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about Dan Savage. A criticism section about him would be off topic. If you think the IGBP is transphobic, I suggest you supply sources for that. In the meantime you need to step back from calling other contributors here hateful names when you know nothing about them. Continuing in this way will get you blocked for making personal attacks. --Fæ (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not making any personal attacks, just making an observation. Given that Savage is the creator & organizer of that particular project, it isn't unreasonable to include factual material that shows he is a hypocrite. The fact that I provided accurate information that is from respected sources only to have it hurled back at me is infuriating, because as a young transperson I find Savage's behavior even now to be obnoxious and offensive. If "It Gets Better" is going to have him as their leader/organizer, then they are responsible for what he says. Not including valid criticism of him during his tenure as leader of this particular project is Transphobic, as it doesn't reflect what is truly going on while it also lets savage get away with the type of actions "It Gets Better" is supposed to help prevent. Kate Dee (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've read the sources, and they are most definitely not enough to justify your additions. Heck, half of them are from Savage explaining how his words are being distorted by the other half of the sources you use. --Conti|✉ 09:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not seeing sources which verify the proposer's assertion. I would call for the proposer to make a direct quotation from a source. The changes being considered seem like WP:OR / WP:SYNTH to me, but perhaps I do not understand. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok then. Lets get back to basics.

Do you think that being called a "Bad Tranny" is Transphobic? Yes?/No?/Why? http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=13054

Do you think that being called a "Shemale" is Transphobic? Yes?/No/Why? http://www.avclub.com/articles/march-25-2009,25624/

Is it transphobic to say the following, where Transsexuality is used as demeaning insult? "It's staggering that Rob McKenna, a female-to-male transsexual, is making it harder for other FTMs (and MTFs) to access the life saving sex-reassignment surgery that allowed Rob to become the man he is today." (McKenna, who is married with four children, is not actually transgender). http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/03/23/transgendered-washington-state-attorney-general-rob-mckenna-betrays-his-community

Do you think that castigating a person for transitioning ie "Selfish Tranny" and "Stupid Tranny", transphobic? Yes?/No?/Why? http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=13054

eg "Perhaps I'm a transphobic bigot, but I honestly think waiting a measly 36 months to cut your dick is a sacrifice any father should be willing to make for his 15-year-old son. Call me old-fashioned. Unfortunately, your ex wasn't willing to make that sacrifice (selfish tranny!), or it never occurred to him to make that sacrifice (stupid tranny!). So what do you tell your son? Tell him his father can do what he likes--suck dick and flaunt it, get his dick cut off and flaunt that." <--- Directly from the link above.

Is it acceptable for a person at the head of a movement to make comments that belittle people who are already vulnerable? Yes?/No?/Why?

Is it accurate that "It Gets Better"'s leader got glitterbombed twice for using abusive language towards Transpeople, that he doesn't want used against gay kids? Yes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/dan-savage-glitterbombed-irvine-_n_1095354.html

If Dan Savage is going to lead this organisation, then "It Gets Better" has to take responsibility for the comments he makes or has made in the past. He's a leading figure in "It Gets Better", so if he's going to use it as a bully pulpit, the organisation needs to be held accountable for his views for better or worse. Kate Dee (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Is being called "gay" homophobic? Yes and no, it depends entirely on the context. A lot (if not all) of the quotes above are entirely taken out of context. Hell, from the quotes above you could just as well interpert that Savage is homophobic ("Tell him his father can do what he likes--suck dick and flaunt it"). Whatever the case may be, what you are doing here is original research and has no place in Wikipedia, even if you are right. --Conti|✉ 12:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say no, as "Gay" is a harmless, regularly used word. "Bad Tranny" and "Shemale" aren't, as they can only be used in an offensive and degrading manner. Furthermore, I doubt you would ever see Savage saying that a gay man shouldn't come out, even if they had a son doing their final high school exams, so what gives him the right to say that about Transpeople? I also disagree on the "Original research" claim, as two of the links I presented are from "Reliable Sources" such as Huffington Post and NYT, while the others are predominantly secondary sources (or in the case of the savage articles themselves, primary). If Huffington Post and the New York Times aren't "reliable sources", then I'm sure that you'll have no qualms with me deleting all paragraphs within both the Dan Savage and "It Gets Better" articles, as by your reasoning they are "original research". Kate Dee (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

1. When did you use the New York Times as a source? I searched here and on the article page, but I couldn't find any link to the NYT related to this.
2. The Huffington Post source[1] basically says that Savage was glitterbombed and his explanation of the event. No relation or mention whatsoever to the It Gets Better Project.
3. Your argument below as to why Savage did not include transkids as an example in this project is, again, a perfect example of original research. We might as well ask why Savage didn't include lesbian suicides (he must be a lesbianophobe, I suppose), etc. If you find a reputable source saying what you're saying ("Savage did not include transkids because he doesn't like them") we can talk about including this. If it's just your opinion, we can't. That simple. --Conti|✉ 16:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Conti. Criticism of Savage not specifically in the context of It Gets Better should be at his bio, not here. There's criticism of It Gets Better that can be used instead, covering a range of political positions. Jokestress (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Savage purposefully excluded transkids who committed suicide or were murdered during the same period as Clementi. What made him do that? Was it that is was a "too complex and confusing"issue as a lot of gay rights groups have been saying about Gender Identity recently, or was there something else at play when the organisation was setup? Like it or not "It Gets Better" is Savage's baby, which means his perspectives have a large influence within the organisation. Hence the need for a criticism section of Savage on the "It Gets Better" wiki, plus Savage's bio wiki. Kate Dee (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you point to some evidence that the IGBP excludes transsexuals from the project? A statement on their website would be useful and this could be part of the article.

Please take more care with claims about Savage, you do need to source comments such as "purposefully excluded transkids who committed suicide or were murdered". Discussion pages such as this must also comply with the policy on biographies of living people, see WP:BLP. If such claims remain unsourced then they should be removed. --Fæ (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about when the project was started & the kids that Savage used to justify starting it. There were Transkids who died at the same time as Clementi and the others who were covered in the news. (Jokestress should be able to attest to that one given her contacts.) Savage didn't reference them at the time in any media release/appearance or material. He still hasn't, which as I mentioned earlier raises questions as to why. Kate Dee (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I agree that Savage's repeated use of "Tranny" (in this case in reference to a transsexual, not a transvestite[2]) is offensive and appears entirely intentional based on the sources provided, but this is still a topic best taken up at Dan Savage rather than here. Fæ (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I just added some sourcing in the section about criticism currently at the top of the talk page. This is the sort of criticism that belongs on this page. If there is a newspaper piece, book, or academic journal article that discusses transphobia within the It Gets Better Project, we can add it here. Any criticism about Dan Savage himself should go on his bio. Jokestress (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's come to my attention that quite a few people were offended when I accused a few people on here of transphobia. For that I now fully apologize, as I was a wee little bit out of line there. While I still find Dan Savage's actions and statements during his time as one of the leaders of the "It Gets Better Project" as being morally/ethically questionable, I shouldn't have taken it out on you guys. When you are used to attacks from all sides (including gay people who should know better), it can be very easy to accidentally engage in "friendly fire. So again, my apologies to anyone I may of offended, and that includes Fae, Jokestress & Fisherqueen amongst others. Kate Dee (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kate, it's appreciated. --Fæ (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There are at present 238 citations in the article, according to the final "Book" section, but only 214 of them are showing up in the References section. I tried clicking on a bunch of the footnotes in the Organizations and Groups section, but the first ten listed there (Adobe Systems to Ernst & Young) don't work, even though the ref tags and the reflist template in under the Ref section heading appear to be formatted correctly. Neither do Jesse Spencer to Olivia Wilde in the S to Z subsection above it. Does anyone know what's wrong here? Nightscream (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to add an opinion and present a reasoned rationale for or against use of the word "husband" to describe the relationship between Dan Savage and Terry Miller, a request for comment is open at Talk:Dan Savage. Please add comments there rather than here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I added the swiss Affiliate Es Wird Besser Fabiohuwyler (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The article introduces an acronym (I assume) "POC". What is "POC"? I'm guessing "person of colour", but obviously my ignorance disqualifies me from making a worthwhile edit.

A qualified editor could improve the article in this respect.

Willondon (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)  Done

All editors are 'qualified' to make edits, FYI. That one was easy too, all you had to do was investigate the source cited to verify that you were correct about the meaning of that term. DP76764 (Talk) 14:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand my qualifications as an editor, but I meant (when I said it) qualified to make a *worthwhile* edit to this article. I did read the source, all of it, but found "POC" only in the article title, and in a post-script. The acronym was never actually used in the source text, much less defined.

I don't wish to sound obtuse. My arrival at this article was peripheral and serendipitous, so I am not familiar with any TLAs or jargon used in the community that discusses the topic regularly. I considered whether it might mean "person of colour", "people of colour", "persons of colour" (any one of which might have missed a subtle distinction to which conversation on this topic is sensitive), or something entirely different.

While I feel my discomfort in making a possibly ignorant edit hasn't been properly appreciated, I do appreciate your adding the wikilink to POC for the wider audience that reads this article.

And so the article is improved. We all thank you.

Willondon (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, folks. I thought a very long list would be better captured as a list page rather than a section of this page. Wondering what others think.— James Cantor (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

For me the project is the contributors, without whom there would be no project. I understand your rationale for splitting it away, but cannot support it. Fiddle Faddle 18:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, folks. I thought a very long list would be better captured as a list page rather than a section of this page. Wondering what others think.— James Cantor (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

For me the project is the contributors, without whom there would be no project. I understand your rationale for splitting it away, but cannot support it. Fiddle Faddle 18:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this article would be enhanced by listing alll of the notable figures (not just the Pres) who have lent their voice to the project. Steeletrap (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That content already exists: It_Gets_Better_Project#Contributors DP76764 (Talk) 14:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggested file for use as the infobox image.

Free-use licensed SVG file.

My thanks to Wylve of the Commons Graphic Lab Illustration workshop. :)

— Cirt (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on It Gets Better Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120313222945/http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjY1MjUxNDY0.html to http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjY1MjUxNDY0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120528075817/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HiOm5kMpZg to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HiOm5kMpZg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120118100049/http://www.winnipegfreepress.com:80/canada/breakingnews/rick-mercers-television-rant-against-the-bullying-of-gay-teens-goes-viral---132755873.html to http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/rick-mercers-television-rant-against-the-bullying-of-gay-teens-goes-viral---132755873.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)