This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ash (talk | contribs) at 18:35, 5 April 2010 (→Third ANI). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:35, 5 April 2010 by Ash (talk | contribs) (→Third ANI)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/TalkHeader
|
|
Deletion campaign of Delicious carbuncle - advice requested
Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (DC) is on an admitted deletion campaign against gay pornography articles (as well as some gay articles) which has been running for a few months. Sources:
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Talvin DeMachio Most recent AfD where DC justifies the campaign on the basis of improving articles and uses a 'put up or shut up' argument that anyone is free to use RFC/U.
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive205#AfDs of unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers an ANI thread raised by DC to get backing for his/her campaign.
The issue is that these deletions constitute disruptive editing as the campaign has been deliberately applied (by the editor's own statement) in cases where the BLP is about a known awards winner (therefore meeting PORNBIO) and the AfD is raised against the guidance of BEFORE and NOTIMELIMIT as alternatives such as discussing improvement, flagging for rescue or further references have not been attempted. My question for this forum is that is his/her behavior sufficient grounds for RFC/U, should we continue to ignore this behavior or are there other potentially more constructive ways of handling the actions of this editor? Ash (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Make sure that there is no reason they can be deleted. It is frustrating when whole articles not connected with this project are unchallenged despite having hardly any sources. But, that is the nature of the beast. By ensuring articles are properly sourced and accurate, they will become better articles. The problem is that people create articles without proper sourcing, etc., and leave it to others to do the work of sorting them out. Mish (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've been trying to AGF a lot more lately. Is the user only submitting gay porn actors, and no straight porn actors? If that is the case, we may have a problem that needs fixing. CTJF83 chat 09:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- The majority of DC's deletion requests in the last couple of months have been specifically targeted at actors credited with gay pornography (using this articles created search). Some other articles have been raised for deletion (mostly gay related) but the pattern appears obvious and is supported by clear statements of intent by the editor in the discussions and on the ANI thread linked above. Ash (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've been trying to AGF a lot more lately. Is the user only submitting gay porn actors, and no straight porn actors? If that is the case, we may have a problem that needs fixing. CTJF83 chat 09:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Mish. If the articles clearly have WP:RS for awards (and therefore pass WP:PORNBIO and/or have multiple third-party references (and therefore pass WP:N), then the articles probably won't be deleted. Look at it as an opportunity to better the encyclopedia, even if it's a backwards way to do it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- <sarcasm> Cool, so if I wanted to take a similar back-ass-wards approach, I could step through all the articles under Category:Christianity and raise anything I didn't fancy up for deletion and that would not be considered disruptive or a matter for administrator intervention? </sarcasm> Somehow I think Misplaced Pages has defaulted to LGBT always being a "special case" in comparison to any other genre. As appears to be the case with most members of this project, I'm weary of these endless debates too. Ash (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Mish. If the articles clearly have WP:RS for awards (and therefore pass WP:PORNBIO and/or have multiple third-party references (and therefore pass WP:N), then the articles probably won't be deleted. Look at it as an opportunity to better the encyclopedia, even if it's a backwards way to do it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I feel your pain, Ash :) As you mentioned above, there *are* avenues to take if you feel this user is being disruptive. RFC/U isn't specifically an Admin intervention issue, it's a community issue. Whether or not you choose to go through the sometimes overwhelming community process to use those avenues is up to you. Personally, I tend to stay away from PORNBIOs specifically because they're such a hassle, and because other editors can be so difficult. And I'm very tired of this project getting singled out, too. I'm hoping the RFC about our banner will help some, but I don't know that it will.
- I am, I have to say, proud and happy that this project keeps soldiering on even in the midst of constant debates :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- The fact of the matter is that many gay porn bios are not up to our standards, especially the BLP ones. The way I see it, there's nothing wrong with what he's doing. A few months ago, I went through low-importance and stub-class articles in WP:FURRY, and I reduced the articles in the scope of the project by something like 20%. Many of them just didn't meet our standards, and they were eliminated. I am not, and never have been, a member of that project. It is just an area that I felt had a significant number of inadequate articles, where I could help out. The Wordsmith 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- What does the user say about it in the AN thread (way too much to read) CTJF83 chat 19:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Contrary to what Ash states above, I am not on a "deletion campaign against gay pornography articles" or gay content in general. I have taken pains to explain as clearly as I can to Ash and his assertion that this is "admitted" by me can best be characterised as deceptive. Anyone who cares to do so should read the AN discussion linked above. I don't intend to engage in yet another argument about this here, but I've had quite enough of these accusations. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Although I have only had limited experiences with Delicious carbuncle, I can easily see some pattern of WP:TE in his recent history related to gay pornography star articles. And after pointing this out in the Admin Noticeboard AfD lead to a quick violation of WP:AGF of my editing. And given our brief encounter, that's all I'm comfortable saying on this issue. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Just keep doing what you're doing, Carbuncle. Many of the articles in question were not up to scratch, and deletion was appropriate. I would ask that you try be a bit more selective with the borderline BLPs, but removing the worst of them is benefiting the LGBT project. The Wordsmith 03:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, The Wordsmith. I will try to be a bit more selective since the borderline BLPs seem to cause more drama than they are worth (even though they are usually the ones that end up being most easily improved to the point of meeting the guidelines). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
ANI
As Delicious carbuncle has seen fit to raise an ANI complaint about this discussion in LGBT studies - Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive601#Request for admin assistance with repeated personal attacks - I shall not be making any more comments on this thread. I was obviously mistaken in thinking this would be a safe forum for open discussion on these matters. Ash (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Second ANI
In Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Fraudulent referencing Delicious carbuncle has taken an issue on referencing Dave Awards and used it to continued a similar campaign for LGBT articles that I have created or added citations to. Rather than discussing improvement to these articles on article talk pages, Delicious carbuncle has chosen to use the ANI forum in an attempt to get some sort of ban against me based on his/her fishing through edits of mine dating from 3 or 4 months ago. You may feel I deserve a ban, or not, I am adding a link here as the discussion itself is of LGBT project interest rather than to garner support for or against these accusations. Ash (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- I would be wary of confusing somebody who focuses on LGBT porn articles as having a campaign against LGBT articles. Perhaps such articles would be more appropriate alongside non-LGBT pornography, say in WP:Pornography? Mish (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Understandable. However my edits (the subject of the ANI's being raised) do focus on LGBT articles rather than general pornography as a topic. Pleasuredrome is not actually a pornography article and yet that is an example being raised by DC. Ash (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, Category:Gay Saunas in the United Kingdom, I see. I can see why he might think this was promotion. We don't have a similar Category:Straight Massage Parlours in the United Kingdom, do we? I'd expect LGBT studies articles on gay saunas and bath houses to be more analytical, looking at the role they play in the LGBT community, the dynamics, rather than their etiquette in handing out towels and condoms, and various scandals associated with them. How do you see this as relating to LGBT studies? Mish (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- In fact, I'd find the article much more interesting if it went into the dynamics of how sexual interactions there are played out, the proportion of customers engaging in bareback riding and in protected sex, and so on. Mish (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- But, on the other hand, I'm not sure why anybody would get so pedantic and hot under the collar about the article. Are you saying this guy is stalking you through the encyclopedia, or is it just that he has an interest in articles you just happen to edit? If you suspect the former, then you have a responsibility to act on that to ensure this is safe place for all of us. Mish (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- If I might offer a little context, the ANI thread (which was initiated by another editor) concerns Ash's use of citations. Ash invited comment and I obliged with an example of some very dubious sourcing on a BLP. You can see all of that in this section of the ANI thread. I used two articles on gay bathhouses to supply further evidence of what I strongly believe to be the fraudulent use of sources. These articles were chosen not because they have anything to do with LGBT issues, but because they were almost solely created and edited by Ash, so they are responsible all of the text and citations. Perhaps it would be wise to look at the ANI thread before making any more assumptions about what is really being discussed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am responding to what is written here rather than there - if I wanted to respond there I would, but it is long, complex and torturous, and forks off into different areas, and TBH, life is much too short. Please try to keep these things short and succinct, otherwise it puts uninvolved editors off. Thank you for confirming that your interest is on Ash and what he edits, and not LGBT articles in general. Mish (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- If I might offer a little context, the ANI thread (which was initiated by another editor) concerns Ash's use of citations. Ash invited comment and I obliged with an example of some very dubious sourcing on a BLP. You can see all of that in this section of the ANI thread. I used two articles on gay bathhouses to supply further evidence of what I strongly believe to be the fraudulent use of sources. These articles were chosen not because they have anything to do with LGBT issues, but because they were almost solely created and edited by Ash, so they are responsible all of the text and citations. Perhaps it would be wise to look at the ANI thread before making any more assumptions about what is really being discussed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Understandable. However my edits (the subject of the ANI's being raised) do focus on LGBT articles rather than general pornography as a topic. Pleasuredrome is not actually a pornography article and yet that is an example being raised by DC. Ash (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
As Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is actively fishing though my 3½ year long edit history, as well as watching my contributions on talk pages, I have no wish to comment with regard to his/her motivations here. It is a matter of record that I have contributed on a wide range of topics, only LGBT related articles have been highlighted by Delicious carbuncle on ANI. Note I clearly used the phrasing "campaign for LGBT articles that I have created or added citations to", I highlighted this of interest to the LGBT Project, this is quite distinct from an allegation of a campaign against LGBT articles. You may feel that DC is policing these articles to the benefit of the project, or not. My perception is that this is a campaign against my contributions to gay-sexuality related articles based on doubtful and thin evidence considering my good history of contributions. Possible motivation for treating another contributor in this way rather than collaborating and discussing improvement in a non-threatening way is incomprehensible to me anyway. Ash (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Third ANI
The information posted at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Userpage_issue has caused me a great deal of concern. I have halted all contributions to LGBT topics as a result. Ash (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- This link (or any of the previous versions) yeilds me nothing related what you describe. So, give us a clue what you are on about? Mish (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- I found what I think you are referring to - but you would need to spell out any threats against your personal safety, as all I see here is an allegation of such, without any sign of what those threats were.
I have a big two-handed axe myself, which covers chopping wood and personal safety requirements. I don't think the encyclopedia will be diminished if it loses a few articles on gay porn stars, this is peripheral to LGBT studies. Mish (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)- I don't see any threat either - I'm more puzzled why so much time is tied up with peripheral articles on gay porn stars when so many important articles are in such a sorry mess? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- I found what I think you are referring to - but you would need to spell out any threats against your personal safety, as all I see here is an allegation of such, without any sign of what those threats were.
- On the revert/edit war currently going on on this page. Firstly, much of the response was to something I have already struck out, but retained 'for the record', as there was a delay of several hours between when I made the comment and when I decided to retract it. It would be better to discuss that aspect of this on my talk page. I am unable top establish the allegations, in part because the threads involved are convoluted and end up pointing to endless other threads. I cannot be neutral on issues of pornography, which is why I avoid such articles - I am fundamentally opposed to any form of sexual exploitation, whether that be sex work, sex trafficking, strip clubs, lap dancing, and pornography (whether straight or gay). My NPOV views on gay porn are subsidiary to views developed on straight porn. So, when I find threads leading me into that area, I have to call it a day, as it is simply not something I can contribute to. So, I have declared my position. Now, when allegations that some editor has done something bad, and that includes some initimation that they have harrassed an individual off-list, my response is - fine, if there is off-site harrassment, outside wiki-world, the general proecedure is to report this to the police. If harrassment has taken place here, that can be dealt with here. If is outside of this place, it needs dealing with outside. Whatever I might think of a particular editor, I don't see that making assertions about what has gone on off-site, unless there is some way of verifying this, will benefit anybody - that needs to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. I appreciate that states in the USA may have a different approach to this than where I live - here cyberstalking and harrassment, especially where they intersect with the 'real world' are taken very seriously. If that is not the case where you live, that is unfortunate - but I don't see how without some form of proof (even a filed incident report), you can expect us to assess the veracity of that.
- I agree with Cameron, there are far more important articles in this area that really could do with a lot of work - and yet when people try to get them improved, even then they can find themselves tarred with a certain brush. Remember the story of the boy who cried 'wolf'. If we accuse every editor who 'crosses' us of being homophobic (for example), then when we do find we have to deal with the real thing, people might be so tired of this, they will ignore it. I am quick to defend people's rights in most situations, but when it comes to obsessive detail on wanking material, I really do have much better things to do. Mish (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- For whatever it's worth, Mish, I didn't find your now-struck comment offensive and I didn't assume that you were in any way directing it to me. I do not know what incident so wounded Ash nor where it occurred, since they would not go into any specifics, but I take very seriously any allegation that I was jeopardizing Ash's safety and I am not prepared to let anyone imply that here. My apologies for the series of reverts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- I will also be keeping an eye on one particular editor, who I have had a good working relationship with in the past, because if I found a similar pattern of events being replicated with him, then I would start to feel a bit concerned about that. I hope my views about pornography aren't offensive - but it would be difficult for me to have one set of views on heterosexual sexual exploitation and pornography, and deviate from those in a gay context - that would be hypocritical. That is why I don't think the homophobia card will necessarily wash in those situations, because I do not think any uncritical articles about pornography belong in this project, they belong in the pornography project. Mish (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think you'll find my concern with deleting content in this area matches like concerns on all articles. Likewise I find personal attacks and incivility particularly unwelcome and unhelpful especially when editors are attacked simply because of the content area they work in. If it actually is homophobia of some sort is really not the concern for us to judge. If editor x comes in civility conflicts in a pattern with eight other editors and half are LGBT-focused editors I feel it's worth noting even if it's not used in the RFCU. When we do research for any subject you gather evidence and see where it leads. This was simply part of that process. -- Banjeboi 15:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- I will also be keeping an eye on one particular editor, who I have had a good working relationship with in the past, because if I found a similar pattern of events being replicated with him, then I would start to feel a bit concerned about that. I hope my views about pornography aren't offensive - but it would be difficult for me to have one set of views on heterosexual sexual exploitation and pornography, and deviate from those in a gay context - that would be hypocritical. That is why I don't think the homophobia card will necessarily wash in those situations, because I do not think any uncritical articles about pornography belong in this project, they belong in the pornography project. Mish (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- For whatever it's worth, Mish, I didn't find your now-struck comment offensive and I didn't assume that you were in any way directing it to me. I do not know what incident so wounded Ash nor where it occurred, since they would not go into any specifics, but I take very seriously any allegation that I was jeopardizing Ash's safety and I am not prepared to let anyone imply that here. My apologies for the series of reverts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Cameron, there are far more important articles in this area that really could do with a lot of work - and yet when people try to get them improved, even then they can find themselves tarred with a certain brush. Remember the story of the boy who cried 'wolf'. If we accuse every editor who 'crosses' us of being homophobic (for example), then when we do find we have to deal with the real thing, people might be so tired of this, they will ignore it. I am quick to defend people's rights in most situations, but when it comes to obsessive detail on wanking material, I really do have much better things to do. Mish (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
RFC/U
To hopefully complete this very sad and very tiresome story, Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) has raised Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ash. This looks like an identical resurrection of the last ANI with no new evidence of "fraud" in LGBT articles on my part being presented. The fact that all diffs relating to sources were addressed on article talk pages seems to be glossed over. The ANI went nowhere apart from being a vehicle to call me names, I guess this RFC/U will follow the same path. As for Jack Merridew's additional suggestion that I have been creating BLPs without regard for notability, anyone can PROD or raise AfDs, it seems odd that they would choose not to if they felt the BLP was a problem.
I am left unsure of at what stage repeated ANIs & RFCs would be considered harassment or a misuse of process. As far as I understand it, Delicious carbuncle is free to use these tactics indefinitely for any contributor to LGBT articles s/he takes up such a campaign against. His/her track record of successfully getting people to leave Misplaced Pages or spend most of their time in defending themselves is impressive. Ash (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Allegations of bullying and off-site harassment
- Hi Banjiboi. I think I found the WP Review post - very unpleasant - definitely looks like somebody seeking to silence somebody for some reason. Not sure there is any way of connecting that to this, though, whatever one's suspicions might be. Just goes to confirm that you have to be careful what you post online, in case somebody wants to fill in the dots. I apologise to Ash if I appeared a bit heartless - I was not aware of this. Tell him that I think he should discuss this with the police, becuse from meetings with LGBT liaison officers I have been involved in, the Met are quite keen to address these types of issues, and they may be better able to ascertain the true identities of those behind this so that they can be given a formal warning - and may take this more seriously than might be assumed. Mish (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- @Banjiboi. I see that your latest edited commentary has once more been removed. Could you do me a favour here. Could you edit and replace what you said in a way that it does not mention one specific individual, linking him to actions that we cannot possibly know he was involved with. I feel it is important that we know what has transpired, why one person has decided to leave, and the details of others affected this way, so we can understand and monitor this situation into the future. Please do that here. Only state what can be demonstrated about an individual in the section discussing that individual. Mish (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest that encouraging people to speculate about "bullying and off-site harassment" here is really not a smart or productive way to address what may be a valid issue. I presume that "him" refers to me? If so, be aware that I'm going to continue to remove any comments made here that I feel even implies that I put anyone's safety at in jeopardy. I've already given Benjiboi a final warning on this, their next such comment garners them a block request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- @Banjiboi. I see that your latest edited commentary has once more been removed. Could you do me a favour here. Could you edit and replace what you said in a way that it does not mention one specific individual, linking him to actions that we cannot possibly know he was involved with. I feel it is important that we know what has transpired, why one person has decided to leave, and the details of others affected this way, so we can understand and monitor this situation into the future. Please do that here. Only state what can be demonstrated about an individual in the section discussing that individual. Mish (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest that you WP:AGF, rather than alienating more people, and read what I wrote for what it says. This is why I located this in a subsection, so that my comments would not be associated with any about you. I clearly stated that the details need to be on record, but not in a way that can be associated with any particular person. That was a piece of advice to Banjiboi. I see nothing problematic about this. If an editor within this project feels that they have been harrassed to the extent they decide to quit the encyclopedia, then people need to be aware of this. Given he has quit, I am not sure there is any further action on the encyclopedia to be taken - I have encouraged him through Banjiboi to take this up with the proper authorities, as it would appear to be beyond the jurisdiction of this ensyclopedia. I am unclear why you feel you have to start accusing me of anything untoward when I seek to ensure that nobody is specifically mentioned in this context. I would prefer it of you keep your comments directed at sections that concern you - rather than those that do not - otherwise it might give an impression that comments made here are in some way connected with you. Mish (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Mish, I made no accusations nor should any be inferred in what I wrote. I'm sorry if you read it that way. I was simply trying to make it clear that I'm not going to stand for statements similar to those that have previously been posted here by Benjiboi. Frankly, I do not even know what it was that made Ash fear for his safety. (If anyone wants to send me a link or diff via email it would be appreciated.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest that you WP:AGF, rather than alienating more people, and read what I wrote for what it says. This is why I located this in a subsection, so that my comments would not be associated with any about you. I clearly stated that the details need to be on record, but not in a way that can be associated with any particular person. That was a piece of advice to Banjiboi. I see nothing problematic about this. If an editor within this project feels that they have been harrassed to the extent they decide to quit the encyclopedia, then people need to be aware of this. Given he has quit, I am not sure there is any further action on the encyclopedia to be taken - I have encouraged him through Banjiboi to take this up with the proper authorities, as it would appear to be beyond the jurisdiction of this ensyclopedia. I am unclear why you feel you have to start accusing me of anything untoward when I seek to ensure that nobody is specifically mentioned in this context. I would prefer it of you keep your comments directed at sections that concern you - rather than those that do not - otherwise it might give an impression that comments made here are in some way connected with you. Mish (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
A quick reminder about WP:OUTING - "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not." Please do not use this talk page to circumvent the OUTING requirements by asking for such speculative information to be emailed between Misplaced Pages contributors. Note that I have previously attempted to correct use of the word "safety" for "security". If I ever used the word "safety" my intent was to express a potential security concern involving personal and professional information. There is no COI issue that needs to be addressed by such speculative information despite a non-redacted accusation posted on ANI that I have a job in marketing gay pornography. Ash (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ash, I would genuinely like to know what it is that you described in an email to me as a "homophobic attack" and on-wiki as a possible "hate crime". I don't see how revealing your personal information, while undoubtedly unsettling for you, could be called either of those, so I assume there must be more to it. Note that WP:OUTING covers on-wiki posting of information, not emails sent between editors. Perhaps you could send me the link yourself? Personally, I do not believe that you have any connection to gay pornography marketing, nor have I ever intended to imply that you do. As I have stated elsewhere on this talk page, I do not think it is in anyone's interest to focus on this particular case instead of objectively discussing the general issue. Your privacy concerns and Misplaced Pages's rules about posting personal information make it virtually impossible to have an open and honest discussion, and speculation will only lead to more mistaken assumptions being made. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I see no benefit in sharing speculative information apart from satisfying your curiosity. It has always been my assumption that you were not involved in an off-wiki attack based on your word which I have been prepared to accept in good faith. Unfortunately it is a fact that you have been involved in outing other editors on Misplaced Pages Review (David Shankbone is a prime example), so I doubt that your interest is to altruistically ensure this does not happen to other editors in the future. As you are in the middle of drafting an RFC/U against me, I suggest you concentrate on that and achieve your objective of getting me banned or blocked rather than reposting selective quotes out of context from my talk page and stirring up a matter that you have stated does not concern you. Ash (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ash, I deliberately linked the phrase "hate crime" so anyone who cares to do so can read your full statement in context. I am not trying to upset you further, I would just like to understand what got you so upset in the first place. Please don't start on another round of nonsense accusations. I informed you that I would be filing the RFC/U a week ago. I will, however, take your advice and complete it so that you may have a chance to respond. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I see no benefit in sharing speculative information apart from satisfying your curiosity. It has always been my assumption that you were not involved in an off-wiki attack based on your word which I have been prepared to accept in good faith. Unfortunately it is a fact that you have been involved in outing other editors on Misplaced Pages Review (David Shankbone is a prime example), so I doubt that your interest is to altruistically ensure this does not happen to other editors in the future. As you are in the middle of drafting an RFC/U against me, I suggest you concentrate on that and achieve your objective of getting me banned or blocked rather than reposting selective quotes out of context from my talk page and stirring up a matter that you have stated does not concern you. Ash (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Unreferenced living people articles bot
Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project.
Here is an example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects:
There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies/Unreferenced BLPs.
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you. Okip 08:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Okip! I've added our project to the list. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Your welcome ;) good to see you again. If your project is ever interested in tagging more articles with a bot, please see: Category talk:WikiProject tagging bots Okip 05:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
- If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 22:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Your welcome ;) good to see you again. If your project is ever interested in tagging more articles with a bot, please see: Category talk:WikiProject tagging bots Okip 05:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
"Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and drug use?"
OMG!!! I couldnt believe this. Not only this guy is calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours", he is also comparing them to drug use. And wait, here's the "best" part. This guy is an admin. See: Also see HIV, it seems like it is infested with heterosexism. Phoenix of9 06:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- He's not saying it himself; it's a frequently asked question, which is asked by other people, which is answered in a collapsable box. I see no issue with it. And even if there were, there's absolutely no warrant to embark on a moral crusade like you've done. Zazaban (talk) 07:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- This FAQ could have been constructed without the word 'immoral' quite easily, without losing anything apart from its appeal to certain POV. Whether people do ask this precisely worded question or not, or if it is homophobic to construct the FAQ this way - I have no opinion. Mish (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Reading that with an eye to your perfectly valid concerns, I apologize for my wording. I am openly bi and intended that FAQ question to address the problem of people bringing their prejudices to that page. The point is that neither HIV nor any other encyclopedia article should be describing anything as immoral. I see that that FAQ has received some work today, might I suggest Talk:HIV as the best forum for improving wording? - 2/0 (cont.) 13:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- This FAQ could have been constructed without the word 'immoral' quite easily, without losing anything apart from its appeal to certain POV. Whether people do ask this precisely worded question or not, or if it is homophobic to construct the FAQ this way - I have no opinion. Mish (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Your homophobia is unacceptable, I cant believe you are an admin (Copied from User Talk:2over0 )
Not only you are calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours" here , you are also comparing them to drug use. I cant actually believe you can be so openly homophobic. Stop spreading such BS in Misplaced Pages. Phoenix of9 07:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Note that this is being discussed also at: User talk:Jimbo Wales and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies Phoenix of9 08:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Phoenix, I'm not seeing anything of the sort in that diff. Cla68 (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I quote: "Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?" Phoenix of9 07:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Cla, have you tried reading the page? 'Q3: Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?'. The depiction of homosexuality as immoral is certainly displaying a particulat point of view, one that could easily be called homophobia.
- I hope that 2over0 has some explanation, homophobia seems at odds with the skills needed to be an effective administrator. Weakopedia (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Might I suggest a different approach, such as asking something like, "What did you mean by how FAQ #3 is phrased? I have NPOV concerns over the use of the word "immoral." Don't you think that might help resolve your concern in a more congenial way? Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the issue. It is FAQ, a list of frequently asked question with answers, and the question worded that way is a frequently asked question, whether or not we find it a repulsive thing to ask. No use dumbing it down when people actually ask it. Zazaban (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) Hello??? How about reading things in context? It's a FAQ question. It looks to me like a way of telling the kind of person who would ask this kind of question in this way that they are not particularly welcome. I had a quick look at the archives and couldn't find any question that is openly like that, so if it's a frequently asked question then I guess it's also a frequently deleted one. But I am sure it's a frequently thought question, and I guess it motivates at least some of the people who start unconstructive discussions on the talk page. Hans Adler 07:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- (ec but agree with above) This concern was also brought to Jimbo's talk page, and I had a go at answering it here. I'm pretty inclined to assume that, given that we are talking about an FAQ, "Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?" is indeed a rough approximation of a type of Frequently Asked Question on that page. Several other editors also worked on the FAQ and did not take issue with this wording, and unfortunately it's hardly surprising that lots of people would ask this question (which is, of course, wildly homophobic). Remember that the whole point of FAQs is to answer questions, including ridiculous ones coming from a place of deep ignorance. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Tbh, you 2 are being quite silly. Do you really think we need a FAQ in Talk:Black people about Black people's intelligence? How about a FAQ in Talk:Jews about if Jews are really Untermenschen?? Do we really have to include racist, sexist, homophobic questions in FAQ sections while retaining their offensive wording? Phoenix of9 07:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- If people frequently ask them, yes we do. Zazaban (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Again, Phoenix, a more serious issue here, IMO, than your disagreement with the wording of the question is your approach to resolving your concern. Why do you feel that the correct approach is to immediately throw accusations of homophobia and intolerance here and on Jimbo's talk page without even trying to await a response from 2/0 first? Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- If people frequently ask them, yes we do. Zazaban (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Tbh, you 2 are being quite silly. Do you really think we need a FAQ in Talk:Black people about Black people's intelligence? How about a FAQ in Talk:Jews about if Jews are really Untermenschen?? Do we really have to include racist, sexist, homophobic questions in FAQ sections while retaining their offensive wording? Phoenix of9 07:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Zazaban, if that is your opinion, I see no need in discussing anything further with you. Cla68, if you think that my response is more serious, you are too biased for me to take you seriously. Phoenix of9 08:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- WP:AGF. Please. For everyone's sake including yours, for you will not last long here if you continue to jump the gun so dramatically. Zazaban (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Weakopedia put it best: "Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article...People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic.". Your defense of homophobia is disappointing, Zazaban. Phoenix of9 08:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- The question is written the way a homophobic person might write such a question. It is not answered from the perspective of a homophobic person though. If anything, it's potentially inflammatory toward homophobes due to the assumptions about how they'd phrase such a question. It was not written by a homophobic person and the intent was not to promote homophobia. Reach Out to the Truth 22:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Weakopedia put it best: "Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article...People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic.". Your defense of homophobia is disappointing, Zazaban. Phoenix of9 08:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Copied from User Talk:Jimbo Wales
Referring to this: calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours" and comparing it to drug use. What is the procedure here? WP:RFA/U? Phoenix of9 07:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- LOL, why does this even belong on this talk page? (It doesn't) JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is a good example of why the assume good faith policy is so important. The page (and edit) to which you are referring is a Frequently Asked Questions page about HIV. The point of any FAQ is to answer questions that people might ask on article talk pages, even ridiculous ones, and even ones that exhibit intolerance in one form or another. For example on the Barack Obama talk page one of the FAQ questions is "Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?" It's there because many people have showed up on the talk page in the past shouting, "how come you're hiding the fact that Obama is a Muslim?" These individuals can quickly be referred to the FAQ which saves time. With respect to the HIV FAQ, my assumption would be that the talk page has received a lot of "how come you don't discuss the fact that the disease is always spread by homosexual sinners?" type comments. So the administrator to whom you refer almost certainly was not endorsing those kind of comments/questions (which are indeed very homophobic to my mind), but rather creating an FAQ to that would preempt them and hopefully keep some of them off the talk page, or at least not force people to answer them for the hundredth time. It would have been helpful for you to read more closely, or at least to wait for a reply from the admin in question before running over to Jimbo's talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Phoenix, you could have asked him nicely about what he meant in that diff. Instead you make severe accusations on his talk page then immediately bring it up here on Jimbo's page. Do you honestly think that this is the best way to handle it when you have a disagreement with another editor? Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is a good example of why the assume good faith policy is so important. The page (and edit) to which you are referring is a Frequently Asked Questions page about HIV. The point of any FAQ is to answer questions that people might ask on article talk pages, even ridiculous ones, and even ones that exhibit intolerance in one form or another. For example on the Barack Obama talk page one of the FAQ questions is "Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?" It's there because many people have showed up on the talk page in the past shouting, "how come you're hiding the fact that Obama is a Muslim?" These individuals can quickly be referred to the FAQ which saves time. With respect to the HIV FAQ, my assumption would be that the talk page has received a lot of "how come you don't discuss the fact that the disease is always spread by homosexual sinners?" type comments. So the administrator to whom you refer almost certainly was not endorsing those kind of comments/questions (which are indeed very homophobic to my mind), but rather creating an FAQ to that would preempt them and hopefully keep some of them off the talk page, or at least not force people to answer them for the hundredth time. It would have been helpful for you to read more closely, or at least to wait for a reply from the admin in question before running over to Jimbo's talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- That the FAQ should reflect commonly asked questions is a good thing - that FAQ question would have been equally well served by the stating 'Q3: Why does the article omit that AIDS results from homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?'. That would have answered any question on the subject. Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article. Many people will come to the article who have heard that homosexuality causes AIDS. A smaller portion of those will identify with the 'immoral' statement. People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic. Weakopedia (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Given that this person is an admin, I honestly dont see anything wrong in bringing that here. Do you really think we need a FAQ in Talk:Black people about Black people's intelligence? How about a FAQ in Talk:Jews about if Jews are really Untermenschen?? Do we really have to include racist, sexist, homophobic questions in FAQ sections while retaining their offensive wording? Phoenix of9 07:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Come on. Even so, there's no evidence that this person is openly homophobic. Honestly, I don't understand these people who need to find Fred Phelps around every corner and behind every bush. Zazaban (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe in USA, these things are more common. Being in Canada, I am honestly surprised. Phoenix of9 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I happen to be Canadian as well so please don't automatically assume I'm American, thank you. Zazaban (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe in USA, these things are more common. Being in Canada, I am honestly surprised. Phoenix of9 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Why didn't you give 2/0 some time to respond before coming here? And why did you automatically assume some foul agenda was at play without waiting for a response first? Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- How can I not assume "some foul agenda" was not "at play"? The wording and comparison is pretty clear. Phoenix of9 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, no it is not clear at all, it's fairly obviously the opposite, actually. Zazaban (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- How can I not assume "some foul agenda" was not "at play"? The wording and comparison is pretty clear. Phoenix of9 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Come on. Even so, there's no evidence that this person is openly homophobic. Honestly, I don't understand these people who need to find Fred Phelps around every corner and behind every bush. Zazaban (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Given that this person is an admin, I honestly dont see anything wrong in bringing that here. Do you really think we need a FAQ in Talk:Black people about Black people's intelligence? How about a FAQ in Talk:Jews about if Jews are really Untermenschen?? Do we really have to include racist, sexist, homophobic questions in FAQ sections while retaining their offensive wording? Phoenix of9 07:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- <sarcasm> The first steps of the procedure to follow when you notice that an administrator is openly homophobic are as follows:
- Make sure not to check the facts. Homophobia is one of those crimes that are so egregious that the presumed perpetrator is not worthy of a presumption of innocence.
- Leave a message on the admin's talk page. This is required for purely formal reasons, but this step should not be left out as it will give you an advantage later on in case other homophobes try to defend the criminal.
- To avoid giving the culprit any chance of defending themselves, start the escalation immediately afterwards by posting an inflammatory message to a high-profile page. Don't risk that the admin comes up with twisted arguments that somehow convince the secretly homophobic majority of editors that the crime was a mere misunderstanding.
- Here is a good example of how it works in practice. </sarcasm> Hans Adler 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) Cla68's questions are valid ones, but probably it's best if this gets taken away from Jimbo's talk page, because it never belonged here in the first place. There's already a discussion happening at 2over0's talk page (though ironically that editor has not even had the chance to say anything), so probably this should continue there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
If Jimbo Wales would not be interested at this specific case (User:2over0), he might be interested at:
1) Question of offensive FAQ's in general. Looking at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, this question could be relevant.
2) What to do with homophobic admins in general.Phoenix of9 07:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- We should not be mincing FAQ questions just because we don't like how they are usually worded by the people asking. Real people are often nasty my friend. Zazaban (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Weakopedia put it best: "Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article...People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic.". Your defense of homophobia is disappointing, Zazaban. Phoenix of9 08:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Considering that I'm openly gay myself, I doubt that I'm defending homophobia. And I suppose that could work, but the specific wording really isn't the issue more than your aggressive manner of handling it. Zazaban (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I know you are gay, thats why I said your defense is disappointing. Given that this person is an admin, I'm much more concerned about this than I would be if it was written by a regular editor. Phoenix of9 08:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing has happened. It's phrased the way the average homophobe would word it, and is refuted in nearly the same breath. Zazaban (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Phoenix, maybe you might want to sleep on it - then if you feel the same in the morning, take it from there. If youre really Canadian like us, What are you doing up? I'm going to bed. Have fun Zazaban. Outback the koala (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ugh, I should be writing a book right now, but now my focus has been pulled, and it's after one in the morning. Maybe I should go to bed too. I can see this isn't going anywhere anyway. Zazaban (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Outback the koala, given that you have an anti-gay userbox in your page, I dont think you are neutral here. Phoenix of9 08:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- You've got to be kidding me.. Note to others; Don't feed the trolls. Good night. Outback the koala (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- All he said was that we should go to bed; I don't see what being pro or anti gay has to do with it, that's good advice at this early in the morning. Incidentally, I don't approve of the institution of marriage for any sexual orientation. Zazaban (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- You've got to be kidding me.. Note to others; Don't feed the trolls. Good night. Outback the koala (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Outback the koala, given that you have an anti-gay userbox in your page, I dont think you are neutral here. Phoenix of9 08:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ugh, I should be writing a book right now, but now my focus has been pulled, and it's after one in the morning. Maybe I should go to bed too. I can see this isn't going anywhere anyway. Zazaban (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I know you are gay, thats why I said your defense is disappointing. Given that this person is an admin, I'm much more concerned about this than I would be if it was written by a regular editor. Phoenix of9 08:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Considering that I'm openly gay myself, I doubt that I'm defending homophobia. And I suppose that could work, but the specific wording really isn't the issue more than your aggressive manner of handling it. Zazaban (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Weakopedia put it best: "Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article...People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic.". Your defense of homophobia is disappointing, Zazaban. Phoenix of9 08:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Why?
Why do you think it is appropriate for this project talk page to move copies of entire conversations from other people's user talk pages and dump them here? Did you get permission from these users to recycle their discussion? I collapsed the above text to avoid overly disrupting this talk page, that was a compromise as it is hard to understand why this blanket cut & paste should not just be deleted. Ash (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- The idea was that this is needed to understand what is going on, and the conversation should be here anyway. Somebody at Jimbo Wales' talk suggested that it should be moved somewhere else, so it was. It seems to be over with now, so I would say collapsing them would be fine. I just felt that when they were still active, they should be open. I wouldn't have reverted a second time. Zazaban (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Linking of gay and lesbian terms offensive
This is a matter I have been meaning to raise for a long time. I fine it offensive that common, everyday items such as "homosexual", "gay", "lesbian", and "bisexual" and the like should be marked by linking as a matter of unvarying formula in biographies. It says to me: "homosexuality is exotic, marginalised, relatively unknown to mainstream thought, and therefore we've linked it so you can discover for youself what these terms mean". That is the inescapable spin-off from the formula of blanket linking in every article. Why not (announce and) link "heterosexual" for every BLP who is not gay?
I believe such linking should be used very cautiously. I unlink every one I can find. You all should too, if there's any self-respect left. Tony (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's an interesting point but these terms except for gay which is used wholly in an umbrella-like fashion, often pejoratively, are not always well-understood or even universally understood even within LGBT communities. Many time they are used without context like Marge Snarge is a Shriner. This is all well and good with the presumption that the majority of readers actually knows what a Shriner is and I think explains why generally something does need to be linked and it's better to do so in context. Does that always happen, hardly. Frankly this project has to spend much of its time just keeping LGBT content from being deleted and otherwise rolling back wildly POV content of all manner. At some point we could add onto our general page some hints on ways to present this information but I think delinking across the board would be a mistake just as you see the formulaic linking as also problematic. As this content area is often vandalized we have to take that this remains a sensitive area for many people who may simply be poorly expressing their sexuality angst onto Misplaced Pages. This is not group therapy but we do need to be reality-based that in the US this remains a major cultural battle and is heightened during election periods. -- Banjeboi 11:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hm. I'm not sure I agree with you here, Tony. Do you unlink professor when you see it in an article? By your reasoning above, "being a professor is exotic, marginalised, relatively unknown to mainstream though, and therefore we've linked it so you can discover for yourself what the term means."
- Personally, I *add* wikilinks to coming out and gay in all biographies that I work on. I believe it highlights the fact that there are more gay people than the mainstream might lead you to believe. Why hide it? I suspect this is part of that post-gay discussion that happens a lot - "why highlight a small part of who a person is" versus "we still need to be visible". I don't have an answer here - just some observations :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you think that Tony wouldn't unlink professor then you simply don't know him well enough. I think he is more of an unlinker than I am, but even I would unlink that in a biography, as pure silliness. Hans Adler 23:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- In that case, why suggest it is offensive? De-linking things that don't need linking in BLPs would be a more general discussion than LGBT-specific linkages. That would be more appropriate as WP:BLP discussion (without reference to LGBT links specifically), and would not rely on POV terms like it being wrong because it is offensive (offensive to whom?). Mish (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you think that Tony wouldn't unlink professor then you simply don't know him well enough. I think he is more of an unlinker than I am, but even I would unlink that in a biography, as pure silliness. Hans Adler 23:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Breaking section because somebody has inserted a comment mid-discussion
Tony has an excellent point. I think that if the person in question is self identified as LGBTQ and has made statements regarding or have been affected, persecuted, etc.for being LGTBQ, they should be identified as such. If someone who for example, is known for being a chef, is LGTBQ and has never had issue with it need not be linked. My opinion is not inflexible though. Both sides raise excellent points.--DCX (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- What an odd idea. I don't agree at all. I think the suggestion is itself offensive. Mish (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. I don't see how it's offensive unless you try to make it so. Zazaban (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- "Martin Luther King, Jr. ... was an American clergyman, activist and prominent leader in the African-American civil rights movement. His main legacy was to secure progress on civil rights in the United States, and he has become a human rights icon: King is recognized as a martyr by two Christian churches."
- Many of these words don't really need wikilinks. We all know what the United States of America is, and a clergyman, and a martyr. Is this offensive? Mish (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- What an odd idea. I don't agree at all. I think the suggestion is itself offensive. Mish (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Removing the word and subject of it being "offensive", do you see any truth to Tony's point? Personally, I would like to have more people linked to an LGBT category, but only when appropriate. For example The Westboro Baptists. I think they should be categorized in an Anti LGBT rights category, (if one existed)...maybe I'm going on a separate tangent though...--DCX (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- No. I can see no problem linking somebody in the case of clergy or African American or schizophrenia or whatever, why would this be different? The issue with a BLP would be if there was no WP:RS that warranted the term's inclusion in the text. In which case, it would be the insertion of the word that would have to be challenged, not the sort of Wiki-linking which we try to do with many words of this type when they are first introduced into an article. Mish (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, of course I would unlink "professor", unless there were some particular reason the article Professor helped an English-speaking reader in some way (unlikely). But you miss my point: there is no history of marginalising or oppressing professors, or hiding their existence in the subconscious. "Gay", "homosexual", "lesbian" etc have come from that state to a context where it is counterproductive to send signals to readers that they are still marginalised, unusual, unknown, abnormal, something children might want to look up like dirty words in a dictionary. To link is to keep homosexuality and related topics/items in a state of not having come out. We need to grow up. (And "coming out" might be worth linking in some contexts, since it is not as well known as a sociopsychological process as homosexuality itself.) Tony (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- I cannot comprehend how hyperlinking "gay", "homosexual", "lesbian" etc. implies any negativity of any kind. You're acting like it's some kind of horrible black mark branded to your forehead to be identified as gay, homosexual or lesbian, which is a viewpoint that I frankly find a little offensive. I'm not sure what having a word hyperlinked or not has anything to do with anything to begin with, it's not hyperlinked to 'warn' people. Zazaban (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Because it marks it as in some way abnormal; on the contrary, let's grow up and accept words related to homosexuality as normal; i.e., not in need of a link to be defined or described. For the same reason, I find the linking of "African American" offensive. It assumes, first, that readers are not African American, and are either unfamiliar with the term or so ignorant of it that they need to consult a very broadly conceived article about them. Puhleasse.
- Apart from this, WP's guidelines specify that linking should be rationed to items for which the target-article is useful to the readers' understanding of the topic, and specific.
- I'm tired of being branded as some freak in a zoo that needs a link to define my identity. Homosexual is not abnormal: it's like bread and butter. So let's stop this immature marking of it as relatively unknown or exotic. Tony (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- I see your point, and agree with the sentiment. I need to think about this a bit deeper, as I am not sure there is an easy solution. How do we 'flag' relevance, without making why we are flagging it because it is in some way unusual, not normal? I can identify with that. Mish (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, links are supposed to be made where they significantly add to a reader's understanding of a topic, and this is a hard call, usually, in a BLP article. English-speakers are supposed to know what "homosexual" and "gay" and "lesbian" mean. Just as they're supposed to know what "adult" and "city" and "author" mean. Modern linking practice is tighter about such linking than it used to be, in view of an increased awareness of the pluses and minuses of adding a link. One of the minuses is the dilutionary effect each increase in link density has on the high-value links in the vicinity.
- In an article on "Sexuality" or an aspect of sociology, "Homosexual" should probably be linked; or at least a section or daughter article might be linked ... it depends on the context. I have observed the word linked at least once in many articles in which it occurs, as some kind of formula. Perhaps there used to be a feeling that linking it would attract more readers to it, or generate more interest in this WikiProject. If that is the case, I think it needs to be questioned. The text of each article, and the unavoidable meaning attached to linking such terms, is more important. Same for "African American". Tony (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- On reflection, I am swayed by your argument. If there is some reason to identify the article as LGBT-relevant, then that can be done using the appropriate navbox and/or possibly a category. In which case, the tools necessary are in place to enable people to follow anything further, and will only be in place if there is clear relevance to the article. I see no point linking 'gay', 'lesbian', etc. in an article that falls within this project. Mish (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I see your point, and agree with the sentiment. I need to think about this a bit deeper, as I am not sure there is an easy solution. How do we 'flag' relevance, without making why we are flagging it because it is in some way unusual, not normal? I can identify with that. Mish (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- I cannot comprehend how hyperlinking "gay", "homosexual", "lesbian" etc. implies any negativity of any kind. You're acting like it's some kind of horrible black mark branded to your forehead to be identified as gay, homosexual or lesbian, which is a viewpoint that I frankly find a little offensive. I'm not sure what having a word hyperlinked or not has anything to do with anything to begin with, it's not hyperlinked to 'warn' people. Zazaban (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, of course I would unlink "professor", unless there were some particular reason the article Professor helped an English-speaking reader in some way (unlikely). But you miss my point: there is no history of marginalising or oppressing professors, or hiding their existence in the subconscious. "Gay", "homosexual", "lesbian" etc have come from that state to a context where it is counterproductive to send signals to readers that they are still marginalised, unusual, unknown, abnormal, something children might want to look up like dirty words in a dictionary. To link is to keep homosexuality and related topics/items in a state of not having come out. We need to grow up. (And "coming out" might be worth linking in some contexts, since it is not as well known as a sociopsychological process as homosexuality itself.) Tony (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Section break: relocate yet another comment inserted mid-sequence to end of the sequence, avoiding the disruption of temporal flow, & making it easier to follow
- Actually not linking African American might be a problem for many who don't have reasonably recent experience with an English-speaking culture. I am sure I never learned that term at school because at the time it didn't exist or was too recent, and I am sure a lot of readers from outside the Anglosphere would assume that the term refers only to first or perhaps second generation immigrants from Africa. Hans Adler 13:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- If a reader is so out of touch with the English-speaking world, they can look it up. Tony (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually not linking African American might be a problem for many who don't have reasonably recent experience with an English-speaking culture. I am sure I never learned that term at school because at the time it didn't exist or was too recent, and I am sure a lot of readers from outside the Anglosphere would assume that the term refers only to first or perhaps second generation immigrants from Africa. Hans Adler 13:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
New section, how do we manage what we perceive to be unreasonable behaviour on and off encyclopedia because of our connections with this project?
I am starting this thread here, because this clearly appears to be a concern for some people, and I do not want it to be associated with one specific individual. I am presenting this as a case study, opening up the question of how best we can deal with this sort of behaviour. I have developed a synopsis based on the inappropriate comments made previously, but in a way that they do not identify any of the individuals involved. I would prefer nobody identifies themselves as if they are being referred to specifically, although obviously I cannot prevent that. To summarise then:
Begin
The issue is not that we are losing a few articles, it's more akin to all content in one area, which is being targeted regardless of notability. No one disputes that non-notable stuff should likely be removed but it appears there are those who have an agenda to remove everything they can, and it seems that they are not objective enough to know the difference. Much of the drama in this one subject area stems from repeated uncivil interactions experienced by a several LGBT, or LGBT-identified, editors from one editor. There may be editors from other areas, but at least half of these styles of interaction appear to be with LGBT content editors, which suggests a pattern. LGBT admins have been asked to resolve these disputes, which was probably a bad judgement call as we don't usually demarcate which editors work on which subject areas or issues, and no LGBT expertise was required beyond the information presented.
One editor was recently targeted offsite on Misplaced Pages Review, and in the process outed by having details of his real world identity posted, alongside sarcastic smears about his character. Although there is no evidence to suggest that this was connected with an editor involved in the ongoing set of disputes, it happened just as an MfD discussion on an evidence page started to be worked on in preparation for an RFC/U to get more eyes and possible consensus on the best way to address what was seen by those who experienced it as uncivil and tendentious behaviour. This happened in the context of discussions on Misplaced Pages Review about the conflict in process here, and despite conflicts leading to warnings given about outing people here. To be clear this was offsite outing of someone for their on-Misplaced Pages work. The relevant things to note are the timing, and previous attempts to out two other editors.
It is a complicated situation, but this latest perception of harassment has led some to make certain connections between at least one Misplaced Pages editor and what took place on Misplaced Pages Review.
Finish
This is being deposited here so that other LGBT-interested editors can refer to this in case they experience similar issues. The next step may be that we need to establish what our strategy might be for managing situations like this in the future, given the obvious vulnerability some people seem to feel when experiencing this style of editing. The most obvious comment I have to make is that unless we have clear evidence of wrongdoing on the part of an editor, we should not be accusing them of things we are unable to verify - only things we can verify. That applies on-site as well as off-site. That approach appears to be counter-productive, and can itself become used against the editor who feels that they are being victimised - and in the process victimising them further.
I understand why it might be that discussion like this leads to a desire for closure, but it is important we get this right - for the whole project. A safe zone would be a start, and I am sure it is not only this project that could benefit from that, where such concerns can be discussed without those who feel vulnerable being overly concerned about interference. Clearly this does not feel like a safe place to some of those editors, and the silencing they seem to be experiencing is not helpful. How do we raise concerns like this safely, in a way that is not perceived as a personal attack, and allow us to approach some sort of resolution, rather than perpetuate conflict?
Perhaps we could go through the ways we have tried in the past, which have tended to work, which have not, and which we have not tried.
One of the best approaches I have found is to try and listen to what the other person is saying. This worked particularly well in my interaction with one editor I thought was acting in a bullying way. It turned out he was not, he actually had a point, but his style of communication (which was brusque) gave that impression. However, it only worked out because he was also prepared to listen and respond to the concerns I raised. If there is no effort to communicate, then it is not unreasonable to assume a lack of good-will.
Mish (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Mish, why have you reposted Benjiboi's comments which I have removed from this talk page several times because I take them as a rather nasty personal attack? Do you think that replacing my user name with "one editor" makes it much better? Once again, for the record, I take very seriously the assertion that I have endangered an editor's safety. As I said here, I certainly do not intend to put anyone's safety at risk nor do I think I have done so, but since the allegations are vague and non-specific, it is impossible for me to answer them. If you want to have a serious discussion of the issue, I suggest you remove this entire thread and start again with a more general statement. This project should be wary of becoming too closely associated with a small group of editors who are heavily involved in disputes that have little or nothing to do with LGBT issues. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Is RFC/U an option? From the bits and pieces I've gathered, they aren't doing much about the problem. Mish, I'm assuming you meant WP:RFC/U not WP:RFCU (which is an odd redirect). CTJF83 chat 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- @Kristen, I take your point, and I have replaced this.Mish (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you actually read my edit, you will see that it is substantially different from the contribution I drew on to form it, mostly rewritten in order to make it more concise, remove accusations as well as references to specific individuals. I do hear what you are saying, but I need you to hear me when I say that if you think you can tell me what I can and cannot do, you need to think about that quite carefully. I do not appreciate people telling me what I can or cannot do, well, not if they are men anyway. Denying there is a problem and removing any attempt at discussing this is not co-operative editing - that runs completely contrary to the principles of the encyclopedia. I have to see that as disruptive, rather than constructive, because it makes the controversy harder to follow, rather than allowing independent editors the opportunity to understand what has been happening. This is the context I wanted Benjiboi to explain - so that I could see what exactly all the fuss is about. Now I can see it, it is clearly a disturbing development (reagardless of whether you were involved or not), and I am concerned that you should seek to suppress information like this. Personally, I think you need to back off, and let people discuss this situation, rather than persistently trying to close down any discussion about what has been happening here. Mish (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- While I think it is irresponsible and misguided to encourage people to speculate here on a situation that is at best unclear, I'm not trying to stop you from doing that, if that's what you want to do. Just please leave me out of it. Find a neutral wording that describes the real issue, not a rewording of Benjiboi's fiction about derailing MfDs, etc. You seem to be looking for reasons to argue with me, Mish, rather than looking for a way to advance the discussion you say to want to have. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- You will notice me not arguing. I have left you out of it. Mish (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- While I think it is irresponsible and misguided to encourage people to speculate here on a situation that is at best unclear, I'm not trying to stop you from doing that, if that's what you want to do. Just please leave me out of it. Find a neutral wording that describes the real issue, not a rewording of Benjiboi's fiction about derailing MfDs, etc. You seem to be looking for reasons to argue with me, Mish, rather than looking for a way to advance the discussion you say to want to have. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Is RFC/U an option? From the bits and pieces I've gathered, they aren't doing much about the problem. Mish, I'm assuming you meant WP:RFC/U not WP:RFCU (which is an odd redirect). CTJF83 chat 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Carbuncle, I think the best thing for you to do now is to ignore this page entirely for a bit. Keep doing whatever it is that you do around the wiki, because from what i've seen you're a good editor. As long as you keep commenting here, drama queens will continue to drag out the same old, tired issues. Outing, "campaigns" against gay porn, homophobia, etc. seems to be the norm around here, and until some people decide to stop seeing Fred Phelps around every corner, you should just stop responding. Note that i'm not trying to ban you from the page or anything as silly as that, its just a (hopefully) helpful suggestion. The Wordsmith 22:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Relevance of articles
I have been contemplating Tony's comments about wikilinking commonly understood terms like gay and lesbian, and signifying gay or lesbian as exotic, bizarre, etc. This is my concern about a proliferation of articles about issues that are really peripheral to this project. My concern about creating a swathe of articles that gives an impression that a lot of gay people are in some way obsessed about gay porn, that seems to be presenting gay people as in some way unusual, doesn't it? It is off-topic for the project, in other than the most general terms, and I am unclear that it is particularly notable/significant enough to anybody (apart from a minority of LGBT people) to warrant a series of articles on the subject. In some ways, I find it as offensive as the effort some people put in to introduce paedophilia into a number of articles about homosexuality (and vice-versa). Mish (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ouch. That smacks of a) self-censorship, b) sexual repression, and c) trying to put on our best face "for the straights".
- Did you know that there are 39 articles about gay pornographic films versus over 350 straight pornographic films? Or that there are 216 articles in Category:People appearing in gay pornography compared to 1,213 combined from Category:Female pornographic film actors and Category:Male pornographic film actors? I'd say we're just about represented accurately in the pornography arena.
- I'm curious why you think this proportional representation presents us as unusual? I would think that, given the place that sex has in most modern cultures, an under-representation would mark us as different. Personally, I rarely touch the porno articles - but I feel like they're a fairly big part of "gay" culture (whether I agree with that culture or not), and I feel like trying to downplay it doesn't serve us (or the encyclopedia) at all. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is certainly not self-censorship or sexual repression: it is balance and cultural maturity. The (male) gay world in some places is highly sexualised; that does not mean that this whole topic area needs to sexualise itself. The street parades, the promotional material that exhibit a fixation with naked bodies and sex do no service to the cause of better positioning homosexuality in the broader human psyche; and by drumming out a highly commodified version of the self, they discriminate against the older and the less sexually "marketable" in the community. Tony (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Enh, one thing about Misplaced Pages is no one is compelled to work on articles that don't interest them. If, for instance, gay porn articles don't interest you (as they don't too much me), go work on some other articles. If they do, go then by all means work on them. Sure, different topics areas will grow unevenly as different editors' interests are piqued by different topics, but then over time more editors whose interests are piqued by other topic areas will edit, and those subject areas will increase in coverage. That's true over the entire encyclopedia, and it is true within subareas such as our own wikiproject here. LadyofShalott 03:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is certainly not self-censorship or sexual repression: it is balance and cultural maturity. The (male) gay world in some places is highly sexualised; that does not mean that this whole topic area needs to sexualise itself. The street parades, the promotional material that exhibit a fixation with naked bodies and sex do no service to the cause of better positioning homosexuality in the broader human psyche; and by drumming out a highly commodified version of the self, they discriminate against the older and the less sexually "marketable" in the community. Tony (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I wanted feedback. The Gay sub-culture has tended to be presented in a more sexualised way than the heterosexual community generally, even though there is widespread sexualisation in our society, including heterosexual culture. Straight clubbing is punctuated by people staggering around the streets with minimal clothing on, having sex in public, and so on, but this tends to be taken for granted in a heterosexual culture. We know that the majority of LGBT folks live quite ordinary lives, in committed and stable relationships, but it is rarely that reality that gets publicised. Instead, what we often get, is some manifestation of a minority aspect of gay culture.
OK, if we don't like pornography (for example) we can avoid it. Is that good enough? If I don't like something, I should ignore it and leave it to those who do. How do we ensure that a balanced representation of that subject is made if only those who like it, or have some investment in it, edit it? Do we do that with articles on Anti-semitism, or Fascism? No.
My concern is not whether there is a balance between gay porn and straight porn - but whether a project like this needs 39 articles on gay films (assuming they are all part of this project); if the pornography project needs them, that's a different issue, but do we need them? That ratio is not the balance I am talking about: 'gay' vs 'straight', it is the balance, integrity and coherence of this project, which is LGBT studies, I am talking about. Given that whole stream of awareness that developed within lesbian feminism: concerns about the way people, groups, communities, societies become sexualised, people become objectified, fetishised, sexually exploited, sexually abused, sexually addicted, I would expect to see content about that. I would also expect to content that relates to the enjoyment of our sexuality, of the diverse range of sexual reseponses that can be achieved within the LGBT community, the diverse array of potentialities that can give rise to many sexual possibilities. I don't 'get' where 39 articles on gay porn films fits? To me, that seems a lot. I'd expect something on the phenomenon, but I don't understand why we need so many articles about gay films; there being 350 articles on straight porn films, disturbing enough a statistic as it is, is not the answer to this question. So, please answer the question. Mish (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, Tony - I didn't mean to attack you with my statements above. But (not questioning your particular motivations), if the project were to somehow decide that there were too many gay porn articles, that *would* seem (at least to me) to be sexual repression and self-censorship.
- And to answer your question, Mish, I (personally) don't think 39 gay porn film articles is that many, considering we cover almost 12,000 articles. That's barely .3% - less than one percent of our articles. I would venture to guess The Advocate has a higher percentage =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, we have >39 articles on the Advocate, or the Advocate has >39 articles on gay porn movies? Do you have a source for that? =D
- It did make me think though - 56 items in the category for US LGBT magazines, and with UK LGBT magazines, that takes it over 60. Not sure what that means.
- I have raised the issue, just wanted you to think about it. Mish (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The bottom line is, any article that can be reasonably well-sourced should be included. If we can have an article on something that meets Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria, then we should do so. Concerns about balancing the Wikiproject are completely irrelevant, ,and not tagging some of them as ours is absurd. The Wordsmith 20:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I cannot take that comment seriously, sorry. I cannot find an article that deals with gay sex (i.e., the types and mechanics of sex acts engaged in between men). The term Gay sex is a redirect to Human sexual behaviour, which deals with female sexuality in some detail, but seems to lack information about gay sex, only mentioning that there is something called homosexuality. Gay sexuality, on the other hand, is a redirect to Homosexuality, which does not include any detail about sex between men. If you look at Lesbian sexual practices, this gives clear information on sex between women. Similarly, Sex reassignment surgery gives some detail on the procedures involved in transsexuality, and give links to articles like Vaginoplasty should more information be necessary. The only article that does touch on the sex acts between men is Men who have sex with men, which has a section on sexual activity, with links to articles that deal with such acts generically - but which is not linked to from Gay sex via Homosexuality. How is it we do not have a comparable article to Lesbian sexual practices - or at least link to the one article that does from Homosexuality? Given that Gay porn films (presumably) include sex acts between men, lacking an articles that deals with sex between men seems to be an omission. If somebody reads an article on Gay Porn Films, and wants to find out more about what tends to be involved in these films, how are they supposed to find out what forms that sex takes? I appreciate that most of us have experienced most forms of gay sex, but it would be naive to think our readers will know what is involved. Safe sex mentions anal sex, without giving much detail, and seems to ignore felatio; we have an article on Bareback sex, but the mechanics is not detailed. My point here is that we do not always include an article that can be reasonably well-sourced and meets the inclusion criteria - we have no article called Gay sexual practices - but from what you say, we do have a responsibility to create them. OK? Unless I've I missed something? When you construct this article (as you say, 'we should', 'it should be'), then I will be happy to help out with it. Mish (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- No one would claim that we have coverage of all topics upon which we should have coverage. It sounds like you've found one of holes in our coverage. Why don't you start the article instead of attacking others for not having done so already? LadyofShalott 01:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and regarding your question above with the comparisons to, e.g., fascism, being interested in a topic is not the same thing as liking a topic. One can find the history of fascism an intriguing and important topic while either loving it or hating it as an ideology. Similarly, one could find, for instance, the sociology of the gay porn industry, an interesting field of study while not actually being interested in the films per se. (On the other hand, you may not like the porn or find the sociology of the industry intersting either. In that case, I still maintain that it is perfectly fine for you to go find some other topic to write about.) LadyofShalott 02:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I said about not liking something - the guidelines are pretty clear, having an interest is fine, disliking something makes it harder to achieve NPOV (as would liking something I presume); it would be nice if some of the editors we often have to contend with would bear that in mind. I would find it hard being neutral about something I don't approve of, or have very negative views about. I have tried it, e.g. ephebophilia, and some articles like the LDS & homosexuality, but it is not easy; I did manage to achieve personal balance with Mary Whitehouse, but when there others with contradictory views who seem to find it hard to be detached and NPOV on the subject, it makes it harder to maintain NPOV if one also has strong feelings on something.
- Anyway, here you are then, I have set up a sandbox here to work on this article, which I think could be quite useful. User:MishMich/Gay sexual practices
As I wrote this, I realised we take all this stuff as read, but it could be useful for a reader to know what we are actually taling about when we refer to some of these things. I have yet to go round finding sources, and it reads quite explicitly (got me going in one or two places...), but given the misunderstandings there can be about gay sex, it might be good to do this for people. I am not claiming any aithority for my first draft, so if people want to suggest changes, especially in furnishing any sources, they have, I'd appreciate it. Although I have some knowledge of this, most of my resources are connected with intersex, transgender and lesbianism. Mish (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Russell Smith (prisoner activist)
Can someone please adopt Russell Smith (prisoner activist), which has a definite LGBT connection? It needs some attention, but my request on ANI didn't get it as much help as it probably deserves. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Hijra
May be a slight problem going on here, could be POV pushing from a Christian perspective. Certainly appears to lack any sense of respect for how people self-identify, insisting they are men, insisting on words like 'pseudohermaphrodite', insisting on referring to people who are usually identified under transgenderism as 'male homosexual', and so on. Mish (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
"LGBT rights opposition" category added, need help
I am adding "LGBT rights opposition" category links to articles that relate to this topic, but need help creating the category page, can someone please advise? thnx! I think this is really important, especially in lieu of recent attempts by Jesse Helms estate to rewrite him as some sort of LGBT rights defender.--DCX (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Category: