| Revision as of 23:23, 24 November 2007 editGordonofcartoon (talk | contribs)7,228 edits →R Family Vacations: no sign of COI← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:25, 24 November 2007 edit undoJeffpw (talk | contribs)9,574 edits →R Family Vacations: the penny dropsNext edit → | ||
| Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
| ::::I should point out that at least the first ref, about the company's location, didn't have the information on the page. I have updated that ref with another ref from a different site altogether, and will be looking at the other refs. Sometimes pages change; sometimes editors mistakenly put the homepage on the article as a source, when they found it on a sub page. In any event, Satyr is correct that this should be discussed on the talk page of the article. However, that said, thanks for pointing this out so we can improve it. If our project tag is on the article, all of us in the project are responsible for the maintenance of the article. ] (]) 23:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC) | ::::I should point out that at least the first ref, about the company's location, didn't have the information on the page. I have updated that ref with another ref from a different site altogether, and will be looking at the other refs. Sometimes pages change; sometimes editors mistakenly put the homepage on the article as a source, when they found it on a sub page. In any event, Satyr is correct that this should be discussed on the talk page of the article. However, that said, thanks for pointing this out so we can improve it. If our project tag is on the article, all of us in the project are responsible for the maintenance of the article. ] (]) 23:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Agreed with SatyrTN. As I also said at ], Benjiboi's previous track record of edits on varied topics doesn't remotely suggest a special relationship with ]. On the other hand, good faith may well be questioned when an anon editor - see {{userlinks|71.127.226.19}} - clearly with knowledge of WikiProjects and the ] system, shows up on Misplaced Pages solely to try to discredit one article and its creator. ] (]) 23:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC) | :::::Agreed with SatyrTN. As I also said at ], Benjiboi's previous track record of edits on varied topics doesn't remotely suggest a special relationship with ]. On the other hand, good faith may well be questioned when an anon editor - see {{userlinks|71.127.226.19}} - clearly with knowledge of WikiProjects and the ] system, shows up on Misplaced Pages solely to try to discredit one article and its creator. ] (]) 23:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Ah, the penny drops. This anon IP has a similar IP addy to Benjiboi's harasser. I'll check into that further. Thanks for mentioning that, Gordonofcartoon. ] (]) 23:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:25, 24 November 2007
Shortcut|
|
Help! Input required (Re: James I of England)
I have provided a source on James Ist of England which states quite categorically that he had male lovers. I have added a subheading to this effect. Others, are trying to remove both the source and the heading. ] Any input from people who are not anti-LGBT would be welcome as I suspect the motives of those concerned thus far. Thanks! Marcus22 11:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've piped in a bit, send up a flare if it gets out of hand again. Benjiboi 12:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The entire "Homosexuality" section was deleted today. I added my $0.02 to restore (with additional sourcing) per no consensus to delete. — Becksguy 13:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Never mind.... The section was just restored by Allstarecho. BTW, how do you put out those flares once lit? They burn for some time.... — Becksguy 14:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Some people are just intransigent in their insistence that homosexuality should be excluded from people's bios. It wouldn't surprise me if Quentin Crisp's bio was reworked to make him straight. That said, I had a look the other day at the King James article, and it seemed impeccably sourced on this topic. I'll watchlist it and revert as necessary. Jeffpw 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- And, just...wow. The editors there are actually saying we should be satisfied that they gave us a footnote in the article. Seems typical of the marginalization of LGBTs throughout history, doesn't it? -- Jeffpw (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually,between the "Favorites" and "Personal relationships" sections and the separate article on personal relationships, I think we have pretty good coverage. -- Haiduc (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- And, just...wow. The editors there are actually saying we should be satisfied that they gave us a footnote in the article. Seems typical of the marginalization of LGBTs throughout history, doesn't it? -- Jeffpw (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Some people are just intransigent in their insistence that homosexuality should be excluded from people's bios. It wouldn't surprise me if Quentin Crisp's bio was reworked to make him straight. That said, I had a look the other day at the King James article, and it seemed impeccably sourced on this topic. I'll watchlist it and revert as necessary. Jeffpw 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Due to the edit war, the article has now been fully protected until disputes have been resolved. Last time was in Sept 2007 for a couple of days. — Becksguy (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- HAD good coverage. Almost all of it has been expunged, though no-one has a valid reason for that. If this continues much longer, I'm taking this to RfC or something. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking of RfC also. Just re-added additional sources, although I don't think they will be interested. — Becksguy (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- UPDATE: Now that the edit warring sockpuppets are no longer inflaming the situation by removing any mention of James's male sexual relations, we have come to consensus for a placeholder in the main article and have started work on the daughter article Personal relationships of James I of England and it's talk page. Mostly discussing on the talk page now. — Becksguy (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Music book needed
Anyone have this book on their shelf? Or, next time you go to the library, can pick it up? Specifically Redl@nds597198 and I are checking in to the sexuality of Charles Wourinen. Any help is appreciated! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's in the library but I'm babysitting my nephew tonight. Will take a couple days. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're awesome! My tiny little library doesn't have it :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeh. Mine may have a few more books, and quite frankly, a ginormous gay section. (Thank you, Barbara Gittings.) I'm reading that book about gays in WWII. I haven't come across the origins of Friend of Dorothy yet, but it's a pretty good read. --Moni3 (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Gasp! Are you feeling alright, Moni!?!? Reading a book - for enjoyment's sake! And enjoying it, too!!! <insert dramatic, queenly gesture here> ;) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeh. Mine may have a few more books, and quite frankly, a ginormous gay section. (Thank you, Barbara Gittings.) I'm reading that book about gays in WWII. I haven't come across the origins of Friend of Dorothy yet, but it's a pretty good read. --Moni3 (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're awesome! My tiny little library doesn't have it :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
On Charles Wuorinen (note spelling) b. Jun 9, 1938 in New York - no mention of his sexuality in the article on him. No mention on themes of sexuality in his works. No mention of sexuality in his writings. (Swift, Richard. "Charles Wuorinen." The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Stanley Sadie, ed. Volume 4: Macmillan Publishers; 1980, p. 548.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah. Hm. Um. Moni, could you see if they have the "New Grove II", published in 2001? That one's supposed to have a whole section on LGBT musicians... Sorry - should have specified. My bad! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dangit! Ok...if I get off work early today I may be able to stop by the library. If not, I'll probably, sadly, be in the library on Friday furiously trying to edit my TKaM article for FAC...--Moni3 (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Bad news. No 2001 edition. Only 1986 as the last updated one. And still no mention of his sexuality in that one. Bummer, dude. Sorry. --Moni3 (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dangit! Ok...if I get off work early today I may be able to stop by the library. If not, I'll probably, sadly, be in the library on Friday furiously trying to edit my TKaM article for FAC...--Moni3 (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Puni Puni Poemy
I just saw the project tag on the above page and was wondering whether it really counts as being LGBT as none of the characters are officially LGBT. It's mostly just a parody on the kind of Anime girl-bond cliche that's often portrayed as homosexuality by Western conservatives. The again, if you count parody of perception of LGBT as being LGBT.....?
Let's just say I think that the tag is best reserved for pages with more serious or direct LGBT content. Spreading it too far kinda cheapens it.
perfectblue (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- After reading the article, I removed the bot placed tag. If anybody feels I made an error, feel free to revert me. From what I can see, the bot added the tag because the show had been categorized as LGBT related by an anon IP back in March. I removed the cat, too. Jeffpw (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- One of the characters Futaba I think her name is. Is definitely in love with the protagonist, she's usually considered a parody on the character of Tomoyo Daidouji ... and that was all in the article wasn't it? --Tyrfing (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Freddie Mercury
Freddie Mercury's article has been hit a few times today by vandals, I've caught a few of the hits, but I am not sure if I got it all restored. Would someone take a looksee, I am new to WP so I may have missed something, or not got it all put back to right. Thanks Jacksinterweb (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I took a look back, and don't see you missed anything . You can always check by clicking the history tab and comparing versions. The "undo" button in history works wonders, too.:-P Jeffpw (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
New Version of BDSM online
Please put it on your watchlists. Since the article's content has already passed 2 peer reviews on :de and was awarded the equivalents to A-Class and FA-Class on :de I wonder which steps might be helpful to move it from b-class on :en. It would be great if the project could support me in doing so.--Nemissimo (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have no time now to make links, but you can always submit for Peer review here on LGBT, or a broader peer review within the entire community. The League of copyeditors can also give it a looksee. If you feel connfident, submit it for a good article nomination. I have tomorrow free (thank the fucking lord! and will give further suggestions on your talk page. I have a lot invested in the article, too! :-D Jeffpw (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Content dispute RfC on Chris Crocker
Talk:Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) Content dispute if source of content is considered reliable to subject, need outside opinions. Posting to both wikiprojects associated with article. Benjiboi 20:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Southern Voice
An anonymous IP user has prodded Southern Voice for no assertion of notability. I'll see if I can find something to add to this stub article. Any help is appreciated. Aleta (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Homosexuality and psychology
I have an IP edit warring on this page to include the Catholic Church's moral objections to homosexuality. This article should focus on the psychological aspects of homosexuality, not on organizations who "think it's a disorder" unless they are, in fact, psychological organizations. We already have religious aspects of homosexuality articles, and moral articles, etc. Can I get another editor to join in here somehow? --David Shankbone 03:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
SatyrTN did and I added my agreement on the talk page. And now I have it watched. Any chance the two IP editors are the same person, since each only edited that one article and just reverted to their preferred version? I don't know the rationale or process for check user. — Becksguy (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- The post-war section needs to be improved. Evelyn Hooker comes after the Kinsey Reports, and in between there should be some mention of Irving Bieber and Sandor Rado. Plus there seems to be no mention of Charles Socarides either. I shall try to improve the article when I have more time.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dang - look at Zig throwing the history around! Nice :) Personally, my eyes glaze over at the mere thought of editing an article entitled Homosexuality and psychology. Or maybe that's the turkey... :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Also perhaps it would make more sense to broaden the article to psychiatry too. They are often intertwined in the history of homosexuality.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dang - look at Zig throwing the history around! Nice :) Personally, my eyes glaze over at the mere thought of editing an article entitled Homosexuality and psychology. Or maybe that's the turkey... :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
As I posted on the article's talkpage: This article lists several organizations which utilize reparative therapy. The WP article on reparative therapy, aka conversion therapy, says: "Conversion therapy is closely associated with the "ex-gay" movement, which is more explicitly religious." They may utilize psychological methods in the therapy, but they are motivated out of religious concerns. None of those orgs, or the DoD, is "medically or psychologically qualified," so based on Becksguy's argument, none of those orgs should be in the paragraph. The Catholic Church is also motivated out of religious concerns. The paragraph discusses orgs that don't accept the med opinion; it says nothing about those orgs being "medically or psychologically qualified." Either all should be listed, for balance, or all should go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.78.89 (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Category:Queer theologians
There is a category Category:Queer theologians. It is the set of theologians who espouse queer theology. I had thought until today that people were accidentally misinterpreting it as "queer people who have studied theology", because one or two people repeatedly add Gene Robinson to it. On these grounds, I was thinking of requesting a name change to "Theologians who study queer theology" or something". (Today I saw that users who have done so have also been blocked for homophobic bullying ( ...) and I suspect that they think "queer" in the category name is an insult; I think a rename might help with that, too.) The Wednesday Island (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- The first two of those were blocked for WP:ATTACK, I suspect, and the third one for being a sock-puppet. I doubt changing the category name will help in either situation :) I, too, considered a name change when I saw the anon keep at Gene Robinson. But the repetitiveness of "Theologians who study queer theology" bothers me. And "People who study Queer Theology" is too general. I think I'd rather just leave it alone. Anyone else? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe the intro text for the category can be rewritten to clarify what the category is supposed to list? I think just adding, "This category lists academics and religious scholars noted for their study of Queer Theology." TechBear (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that for other theologian categories, such as Category:Atheist theologians, the name denotes theologians who are atheists. Same thing with Category:Fictional theologians. There should be some kind of standardization, as "Queer theologians" does imply theologians who are queer, not people who study queer theology. I don't think merely adding text to the category page will help as you don't see it right away. - Koweja (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe the intro text for the category can be rewritten to clarify what the category is supposed to list? I think just adding, "This category lists academics and religious scholars noted for their study of Queer Theology." TechBear (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh. Hm. I didn't realize that about the other cats. So is there a similar cat? Maybe something about Feminist Theology? Liberation theologians doesn't have the problem. Grr - this ain't an easy one :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps this should be brought up at WP:CFD as the scope of the issue extends beyond the scope of the LGBT project? - Koweja (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh. Hm. I didn't realize that about the other cats. So is there a similar cat? Maybe something about Feminist Theology? Liberation theologians doesn't have the problem. Grr - this ain't an easy one :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
R Family Vacations
(Also reported at WP:COIN)
Inital discovery: This article is fraught with error. The sources for references 1,2,3 and 10 do not support the text. Reference 4 is an outdated link. Reference 11 doesn't work. The source for reference 6 lists Dan as a friend of Rosie, not a biz partner as written in the text. The source for reference 7 lists the capacity of the ship to be 2,600; they had 1,600 passengers the first year, and 2,200 after -- text says capacity is 2,200 and is over 70% full with 1,600. The text under reference 8 says simply O'Donnell was quoted when it was actually Kelli quoted in the source; the text preceding the quote gives no indication it was Kelli.
COI concerns: why did the single author of this article use the term "Reservations" instead of "Homepage" or any other term to describe the first reference? Readers clicking on the word "Reservations" are taken to the company website page, and an attracting jumping link to make a reservation. Did the author want to provide a convenient link to the website so the reader could make a purchase, i.e., buy tickets? Does the author have a business or financial interest in this company? Why else would he highlight "Reservations" in the first reference, a reference to a source that doesn't support the text, i.e., that the company is headquartered in Nyack? There are possible COI issues here that need to be investigated.71.127.226.19 (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- A company trying to use Misplaced Pages as a means of free advertising isn't particularly uncommon, so it is possible that the creator is trying to create spam. Or they could honestly be trying to create a legitimate article and simply not have the right sources. In either case, if it's not notable enough, it can be deleted by going through WP:AFD. If it is notable enough to have an article, it'll get cleaned up over time by neutral editors. WP:COIN and here were the two best places to report the issue, so thank you for bringing it to people's attention. - Koweja (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that having the right sources at hand should precede the creation of an article. I also believe that it was more than coincidental that the author chose to steer the reader to the company website where they would automatically come upon and be attracted to the reservations link, in effect, saying, "here's where you go to make a reservation with R Family Vacations."71.127.226.19 (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry - what's the problem here? The article was created by Benjiboi, not some company looking for advertising or trying to spam. The references provided satisfy notability requirements. Benjiboi has a *great* record for articles that he's worked on. If you feel some of the content is inaccurate, that should be brought up on the article's talk page. And truthfully, *that* is the best place to start if you have questions about a particular article. If your concerns aren't satisfied there, perhaps *then* the WikiProject (or coi) should be involved. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I should point out that at least the first ref, about the company's location, didn't have the information on the page. I have updated that ref with another ref from a different site altogether, and will be looking at the other refs. Sometimes pages change; sometimes editors mistakenly put the homepage on the article as a source, when they found it on a sub page. In any event, Satyr is correct that this should be discussed on the talk page of the article. However, that said, thanks for pointing this out so we can improve it. If our project tag is on the article, all of us in the project are responsible for the maintenance of the article. Jeffpw (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed with SatyrTN. As I also said at WP:COI/N, Benjiboi's previous track record of edits on varied topics doesn't remotely suggest a special relationship with R Family Vacations. On the other hand, good faith may well be questioned when an anon editor - see 71.127.226.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - clearly with knowledge of WikiProjects and the WP:COI system, shows up on Misplaced Pages solely to try to discredit one article and its creator. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, the penny drops. This anon IP has a similar IP addy to Benjiboi's harasser. I'll check into that further. Thanks for mentioning that, Gordonofcartoon. Jeffpw (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed with SatyrTN. As I also said at WP:COI/N, Benjiboi's previous track record of edits on varied topics doesn't remotely suggest a special relationship with R Family Vacations. On the other hand, good faith may well be questioned when an anon editor - see 71.127.226.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - clearly with knowledge of WikiProjects and the WP:COI system, shows up on Misplaced Pages solely to try to discredit one article and its creator. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I should point out that at least the first ref, about the company's location, didn't have the information on the page. I have updated that ref with another ref from a different site altogether, and will be looking at the other refs. Sometimes pages change; sometimes editors mistakenly put the homepage on the article as a source, when they found it on a sub page. In any event, Satyr is correct that this should be discussed on the talk page of the article. However, that said, thanks for pointing this out so we can improve it. If our project tag is on the article, all of us in the project are responsible for the maintenance of the article. Jeffpw (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry - what's the problem here? The article was created by Benjiboi, not some company looking for advertising or trying to spam. The references provided satisfy notability requirements. Benjiboi has a *great* record for articles that he's worked on. If you feel some of the content is inaccurate, that should be brought up on the article's talk page. And truthfully, *that* is the best place to start if you have questions about a particular article. If your concerns aren't satisfied there, perhaps *then* the WikiProject (or coi) should be involved. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)