This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zythe (talk | contribs) at 21:54, 26 March 2007 (→Revisit []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:54, 26 March 2007 by Zythe (talk | contribs) (→Revisit [])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut|
|
Notability of "Homosexuality and religion" articles
An editor has tagged Homosexuality and Scientology and Homosexuality in Norse paganism with notability tags and declared them trivial. Someone else suggested that he tag all the "homosexuality and religion" articles similarly! Folks may want to comment on and/or beef-up those articles. -Aleta 22:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Homosexuality and Scientology? That really only needs two words: *** ******. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Tut tut tut... ;-) WjBscribe 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Tsk, tsk. Scurrilous rumour, that :-D - Alison 23:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Someone else agrees :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- LOL!! Awesome :) - Alison 00:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Someone else agrees :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
He's also targeted Homosexuality and Bahá'í Faith. This person believes these articles should be removed entirely. Aleta 23:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think its time this guy decided to Put up or shut up. Either he AfDs them or he gets on with doing something productive... WjBscribe 23:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
$5 says Unification Church views of sexuality is the next target. — coelacan — 17:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
George Takei
Probably guilty of lack of confidence here, but I wanted to verify a couple of things related to the George Takei article. Firstly, the article is categorised as LGBT Asian Americans, but not listed in "our" list of LGBT people, nor in the 'to be sorted' list. So should this article be tagged with the {{LGBTProject}} tag in its talk page, and should Takei be put on that list? I would have thought so. Just surprised that it has been missed.
Secondly, would this article be rated Start or B-class? I can't decide, though I like to err on the side of Start. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mentality (talk • contribs) 07:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
- Looks like the article's talkpage was tagged on 9 January 2007 and rated 'B' . He is listed at List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/P-T (which apparently I added him to myself on 8 December 2006). Which explains why his article isn't in the "To be sorted" list... WjBscribe 13:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Err, I don't know why or how I missed that. Bizarre, I could have sworn.... oh I was probably drunk! Thanks though :-) Mentality 12:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Gay Pride
I think this article tell not good what Gay Pride is. History and some Critics is good. The first sentenses are not. "no shame", proud, etc. In not good in english to make it self. The italien Artikle is shorter, bt a little better in this point. The first version of Gay Pride here was with a "see also" to reparative therapy. :-) --Fg68at de:Disk 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Fun with Babelfish
This made me laugh - "The German capital is considered to many lesbians, gays and Transgendern from all world as center of a pulsating Homoszene" :)
But if anyone can tell me what the actual event is called, I'd be grateful :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- They seem to run a football tournament called the Come Together Cup. It's probably not quite as much of a pulsating homoscene as the name would suggest, though. —Celithemis 07:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- '*lol* :-) Berlin is in the European community certainly a very important city. I think also for the World. So i.e. after San Francisco and New York and London. elledorado gather Money for different events and activities. i.e. the biggest de:Teddy Award fr:Teddy Award, the LGBT-Film-Award on the Berlinale, a lesbian film festival, and a soccer-cup. The other Money goes to different groups and persons in the categories arts, music, theater, film or sports. per year they gather 10.000 Euro. There is no actual event. --Fg68at de:Disk 13:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- So they are more of an LGBT organization and probably don't belong on the List of LGBT events? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I Fixed it. There are 3 Charity-Games in 3 cities. They all firm under "Come Together Cup". Köln is organized by a own Team, Essen by the local AIDS-help organisation and Berlin by elledorado. Köln has a Subsite, Essen has its own Website and Berlin has a Subsite at sonntags-club. --Fg68at de:Disk 14:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- So they are more of an LGBT organization and probably don't belong on the List of LGBT events? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- '*lol* :-) Berlin is in the European community certainly a very important city. I think also for the World. So i.e. after San Francisco and New York and London. elledorado gather Money for different events and activities. i.e. the biggest de:Teddy Award fr:Teddy Award, the LGBT-Film-Award on the Berlinale, a lesbian film festival, and a soccer-cup. The other Money goes to different groups and persons in the categories arts, music, theater, film or sports. per year they gather 10.000 Euro. There is no actual event. --Fg68at de:Disk 13:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Photos, photos, photos
Yo homeys - I've been trying to get more LGBTz for photos. Recents have been Michael Musto, Shequida and Billy Name. If anybody has a gay article that needs an NYC shot of a building or person, let me know and I'll try to arrange it. Right now I'm focusing on drag queens just b/c they are fun to shoot. I have appointments with Lady Bunny, Lypsinka, Miss Understood and Miss Coco Peru. I ran into Amanda Lepore on the street the other day, but she brushed me off to her manager who hasn't returned my phone call, dah bastard! --David Shankbone 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Justin Bond, please!!! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do. --David Shankbone 18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've been (slowly) trying to work on the Gay USA article. Perhaps a shot involving something of that - i.e. Manhattan Neighborhood Network building and/or studio(s), show hosts Andy Humm and/or Ann Northrop. Anybody who's got good sources on information for these articles would be helpful too! ZueJay (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I just e-mailed Ann and Andy to see if they'll agree to a shoot. --David Shankbone 02:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm doing Ann and Andy next Tuesday. --David Shankbone 20:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I just e-mailed Ann and Andy to see if they'll agree to a shoot. --David Shankbone 02:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Revisit V for Vendetta
I'm patrolling LGBT cats for the (very few) articles that don't have our project banner. Once again, V for Vendetta has come up. Upon reviewing the article, I'm considering whether or not it belongs in the project. I would have agreed that "a few minor gay characters does not a gay theme make" (as Jeffpw pointed out in an edit summary), but further review shows things like a quote "one of the most pro-gay ever" and "conservative Christian groups were critical of the film's negative portrayal of Christianity and sympathetic portrayal of homosexuality and Islam". Any thoughts pro or con? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well at risk of speaking to myself (I think I've said this three times now) I believe it is well within our scope. Not because of minor gay characters but because it deals with a totalitarian regime that persecutes homosexuals. The point that everyone should be allowed to love each other regardless of gender is made strongly (there is an entire segment of the film dedicated to the lives of a lesbian and her lovers) and implicitly accepted by the major (non-gay) characters. The film deals with the politics of gay oppression as well as the personal sexuality of minor characters. WjBscribe 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- WJBscribe seems to say it all. Most importantly there is a fairly predominant part of the film, almost a sub-story, which revolves around a lesbian couple. It repeatedly mentions homosexuality as a target group of the regime that is in power within the film...and I don't think it's a coincidence Stephen Fry was picked to play a gay character. It's a very "gay friendly" film which has controversial elements of homosexuality as a running theme, it seems obvious it should have an LGBT tag. Mentality 15:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, my views on the subject of articles that aren't on predominantly gay themes have been as oft repeated as WJBscribe's. As this is an issue that will only keep rearing its head, maybe it's time to better define our scope - if necessary, by vote. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I imagine that is not the sort of thing that can be decided by vote. There are too many subtleties of opinion. I could be wrong though. — coelacan — 17:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe this is one of those gray areas where we leave it up to individual editors and/or individual articles? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- That only leads to edit wars over tags, as we had over Buffy, remember? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but we followed the "correct" procedure and a) talked it over and b) brought it before both the article's editors and the project. That would seem like good process. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- If an editor thinks it should fall under our purview and is willing (even if the only one) to support it as such, why not include it? Aleta 18:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because it renders our assessment system meaningless. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- It very much falls under the category. It's practically a gay film. Maybe not even because of the characters (like Valerie and Gordon) but because it's a massive theme throughout. Buffy, too, as much as Torchwood.21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because it renders our assessment system meaningless. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- If an editor thinks it should fall under our purview and is willing (even if the only one) to support it as such, why not include it? Aleta 18:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but we followed the "correct" procedure and a) talked it over and b) brought it before both the article's editors and the project. That would seem like good process. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- That only leads to edit wars over tags, as we had over Buffy, remember? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe this is one of those gray areas where we leave it up to individual editors and/or individual articles? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I imagine that is not the sort of thing that can be decided by vote. There are too many subtleties of opinion. I could be wrong though. — coelacan — 17:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
here's an interesting article
Eastern Orthodox view of sin. Title would suggest it's rather general. Guess what the half the subject matter is? — coelacan — 18:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting, indeed. I've tagged it. Aleta 19:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- However I'm not sure about inclusion of that article in Template:RAH. That template already has Homosexuality and Christianity. There are also Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Homosexuality and Presbyterianism (just tagged), Quaker views of homosexuality, Anglican views of homosexuality, and maybe others. Someone had an idea at some point to use Template:CAH for Christian denominations. We could merge. That would make Template:RAH a little Christian-heavy though. Any objections to expanding the titles of thes abbreviated templates, by the way? And is isn't it strange that there's Homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood but not Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism? — coelacan — 19:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The Boys in the Band (play)
A well meaning Wikipedian who is not a project member has twice now changed the rating of our project tag from this article from Start to B class, in spite of both SatyrTN and myself evaluating it (independently of one another) as start. I note that the article about the film is longer and also rated start, so we are at least consistent. Maybe somebody could take a look at it and give a third opinion. Jeffpw 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- To me it seems obviously a 'Start' article. It could be improved in a number of ways, for starters a large portion of the article is dominated by explanations of the characters and a very short summary of their profiles, whereas if this were a true B class such things might have their own section. Hardly any of the article is devoted to the true meaning/plot of the story and it's short in length (which admittedly isn't always relevant, but it is here). Mentality 21:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll copy this comment over to Talk:The Boys in the Band (play) for the benefit of the other editor there. — coelacan — 21:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Of possible interest?
Michael Dillon, the first female to male transsexual at least in one sense of the word, see . Book title is "The First Man-Made Man." Not really my area but I notice there is no article on this individual or the other key individuals mentioned. --70.51.231.230 23:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Ads
Qxz has started and advertising banner, and he's welcoming WikiProject ads. I'd like us to have one, but shall we put in it? Three slides seems to be the norm (hook, follow up, lasting image), and I thought it would be quite amusing to have the final one have our rainbow flag with pen to the left and our name with "Absolutely no agenda. Except that gay one." underneath it. Your thoughts? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nooooo! This looks like it has the potential to be horribly annoying, not to mention hard on those of us with slow connections. -Aleta 04:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is a purely optional extra on userpages, and if this is going to take off, we ought to get in on it, no? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Anh, I suppose it's probably inevitable, but I don't like it. Aleta 04:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I love it! I'm already starting to think of a catchy ad campaign for us. I do agree, however, that they should stay confined to userpages, and not on articles (but maybe talk pages related to the subject of the ad). Jeffpw 09:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Qxz has made it very clear that these will not be used outside of userspace. WjBscribe 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I love it! I'm already starting to think of a catchy ad campaign for us. I do agree, however, that they should stay confined to userpages, and not on articles (but maybe talk pages related to the subject of the ad). Jeffpw 09:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Anh, I suppose it's probably inevitable, but I don't like it. Aleta 04:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is a purely optional extra on userpages, and if this is going to take off, we ought to get in on it, no? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting conundrum.
I submitted Andrew Van De Kamp as a start to Jumpaclass and the seven days are up - and Andrew is currently on FAC with 87% support. So, my question is, how the hell do we rate this? It never even saw GA. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if we're going to be strict about it, then I guess it counts as a 'B-class' :-P. Though I guess a jump to FA is possible if it is granted FA status with no further edits to it after the 7 days were up. But it would seem a shame to endanger the FA bit for jumpaclass status... WjBscribe 23:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Or we could agree time extension for any article that is on GA or FA review by the end of the days...? WjBscribe 23:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's going to pass on the strength of what I did to it during the set time period. Every edit since has been implementing minor suggestions. Do I get extra points for jumping it four classes instead of two? :-) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Or we could agree time extension for any article that is on GA or FA review by the end of the days...? WjBscribe 23:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Don Dunstan
Don Dunstan (an Australian state premier who pioneered gay rights legislation in Australia) was tagged as being LGBT related but a small group of people keep removing the tags. The people who claim thet "wrote" the article keep removing all gay references from the article with comments such as "take your activism elsewhere". This article may need a closer watch as it won't turn up on the watchlist if the tags are removed. 150.203.2.85 03:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- It might be an idea if a fresh pair of eyes took a look at this article. Its the usual problem with lack of strong verifiable sources for someone who was pretty widely known to be gay (at least towards the end of his life). I think there should be a bit more about the likelihood that he was gay (I mean he lived with a man and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia has said so -though not in a judicial capacity ;-) ) but never publicly came out. The issue is one of care over sourcing rather than anything more sinister. I think an overcautious line has been taken but can understand why. I suspect a well-sourced paragraph detailing the controversy may be the best way to go- not sure adding LGBT people category tags is a brilliant idea though. See discussion at Talk:Don Dunstan. WjBscribe 03:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I filled his entry in long, loooooong ago, but I found this reference for it. I have no idea how I found it : Spoehr, John (2000). Don Dunstan: Politics and Passion. Bookends Books. ISBN 1-876725-18-4. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC).