Talk:LGBT movements/Archive 1

Gay rights in other articles

On the Quebec talk page, DW wrote:

My point is that many Wikipedia articles have references to gay rights etc. when the matter in the vast majority of cases is irrelevant to the facts/knowledge being passed on.

DW, would you please give some examples of irrelevant references to gay rights in Wikipedia articles? If I agree that they are irrelevant, I will gladly delete them. I don't want gratuitous promotion of homosexuality, any more than the atheist or other non-Christian contributors want gratuitous promotion of religion. --Ed Poor

Could somebody add some fact about gay right movement in other places? Like that in Europe? --Gboy 17:52, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

It may be useful to consider the discussion/points at Talk:Gay rights timeline and Talk:2004 in gay rights. Thanks Dysprosia 23:25, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

True or false??

True or false: there will be far more gay rights if Bush wins than if Kerry wins. 66.245.30.216 20:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

God Knows! not suitable to discuss this here. --Yacht (talk) 06:29, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Considering that Bush is trying to make a campaign issue out of his push to ammend the constitution so as to preclude gay marriage, I think it's safe to say that if Bush wins, there will be fewer gay rights than if Kerry wins (even if Kerry does nothing). →Raul654 06:40, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

He is an a*** on this issue! :X --Yacht (talk) 06:53, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the assertion that most members of the gay rights movement believe that sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable. I think it would be more fair to say that while many believe this, many others believe sexual orientation is fluid, and that the adoption of limiting labels like "gay" or "heterosexual" is a response to the demands of our culture. Many believe that the matter of whether sexual orientation is innate is irrelevant. Viewing sexual orientation as innate is important to those who feel they must justify themselves to a culture that for those unwilling to conform to the heterosexual model requires the equivalent of a great big doctor's note saying "Johnny should be excused from being heterosexual. His homosexual condition is innate."

Category change

I parented this article under Category:LGBT civil rights and moved all the category memberships of this article to that category. I'm mostly just trying to cut down on clutter...there's no particular need for this article to be in 2 top-level-ish LGBT categories in addition to the obvious subcategory of each of them. Redoing edit in the hopes that this will seem sensible after being explained. – Beland 03:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Situation in Middle East

In the article it says "As of 2005, Israel is the only country in the Middle East where homosexuality is not illegal or prosecuted by the authorities. " This is incorrect. In Turkey there are many homosexual singers, artists etc. and they are quite open about their sexual orientation, and are not being prosecuted. Admittedly in rural regions it would lead to isolation or honor killings, but I can imagine negative reactions to homosexuals in conservative Israili communities as well. Hence, I am removing this sentence.

Gardiner

"In May 2005, Jeff Gardiner supported the same sex union act by starting a flame."

I pulled out this text because it doesn't seem to make sense. Gardiner is apparently a Canadian U.N. peacekeer. If anyone can re-work this or knows the correct version, please feel free to re-insert it. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:49, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

PS: The entry on Jeff Gardiner may contain substantial fantasy elements (i.e. Nobel Peace Prize recipient). If anyone has heard of this fellow, please add some sources to that article. -Willmcw 23:37, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

America

Is the foundation of our country equality or not? Our forefathers came here seeking that elusive word. It is placed in the Dec of Ind and the Const. It is the core of America and why people come here. By denying GLBT rights we go against america itself. it is inevitable that there will be another gay civil rights movement akin to stonewall.

Thanks. Don't forget that this is an international encyclopedia. Unfortunately the same argument can't be made in every country. -Willmcw 02:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Wasn't the first US gay rights march in NYC from Washington Square (? some square) to Stonewall in 1970, the year after Stonewall? In the US section, it states that the first march was in DC in '79. ACCURACY IN QUESTION!!!

PLEASE CONFIRM!!!

well considering that black people didn't have equal rights in theory until the 1860s and in practice until the 1960s and the motto of our country is In God We Trust, equality isnt the cornerstone of the US.

Spain

I understand that Spain recently recongnized gay marrages along the same lines as Canada, yet there is no inoformation on the Spain site or this... can any say if this is true or no?Drachenfyre 4 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)

George W. Bush Poll

I would like to bring your attention to an active poll in the George W. Bush talk page.

• Talk:George W. Bush#Sentence Poll - Poll/survey on whether or not the fact that Bush is the "first Republican to appoint an openly gay man" to his administration. Pro says it is a relevant fact that shows Bush is making strides toward inclusiveness, con says given the hundreds, even thousands of appointments a president makes, one is insignificant. Lengthy discussion is above the poll.

If you have an opinion on this matter, please feel free to vote as to your opinon. Thanks. :) Sdauson 21:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

succumb to political pressure

Voyager640 just added the following :

Many of these views have been taking up by mainstream institutions such as government, professional organizations, and many parts of the non-profit sector. This is due to increasing scientific evidence in support. Opponents of these views, however, believe that these mainstream institutions have succumbed to political pressure rather than relying on a rational examination of the facts. This may be true but it needs some degree of sourcing or else it's just making an accusation against them. MPS 18:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Let me revise it slightly. I don't think it's intended to be an attack. Voyager640 18:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Let me know what you think. Voyager640 18:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It's better, but there are two remaining gaps. "These views are considered controversial by some," Who considers them controversial? You can't just say "by some " without saying who those some are or else somone will come back and challenge this later. a decision that many opponents believe was made for political reasons. Who believes this? "Many opponents." You need a source that says Groups X, Y, and Z think it was done for political reasons. My tone sounds agressive here but I'm not trying to shout or anything. I don't doubt that you have a basis for saying what you're saying but I think you need to have a source rather than attributing objections to the amorphpus "some people". Peace, MPS 18:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Homosexuality as a mental illness is still debated by opponents of gay rights. On NARTH's website, they assert (http://www.narth.com/docs/schoenewolf2.html): Another example of the way the Gay Rights Movement utilized Marxist tactics was how it forced the American Psychiatric Association to normalize homosexuality. Dr. Charles Socarides reports in Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far (1995) how the Gay Rights Movement, through a series of political maneuvers, intimidated the APA in to taking homosexuality off the DSM category of sexual disorders. Here again were the usual elements of political correctness: The American Psychiatric Association was now the evil oppressor and gays were the innocent victims who needed to take arms against this modern evil and conquer it.

As for the DSM II/III/IV issue: (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/2/210) "In 1973 homosexuality per se was removed from the DSM-II classification of mental disorders and replaced by the category Sexual Orientation Disturbance. This represented a compromise between the view that preferential homosexuality is invariably a mental disorder and the view that it is merely a normal sexual variant. While the 1973 DSM-II controversy was highly public, more recently a related but less public controversy involved what became the DSM-III category of Ego-dystonic Homosexuality." <end>

Well, yes, that latter is exactly as I stated it: the removal was from the DSM-II, not the DSM-IV. As for the first, the question was not whether people say that homosexuality is a mental illness, but whether there was debate in the psychiatric community about that. There isn't such a debate: what you have is people who have lost that debate screaming for a do-over. In contrast to the APA, neither NAARTH nor Socarides can be taken as disinterested observers, and just posting something on a website doesn't make it significant or true. - Outerlimits 01:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Re: removal - homosexuality was not removed entirely; the DSM-II and III diagnoses were used to diagnose homosexuals inappropriately. Voyager640 02:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Re: NARTH - Outside of psychiatry, these views are (perhaps unfortunately) c quite commonly accepted, and thus they still have weight because of the number of people who (perhaps incorrectly) believe them. Voyager640 02:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "have weight"? -Seth Mahoney 02:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Move countries to new separate articles?

I am proposing to move the various sections dealing with US, UK, etc. to new separate articles for each of those countries entitled "Gay rights in the United States" etc, and replace the removed text with a link to the "Gay rights by Country" category. Does anybody have any objections? Wuzzy 20:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved the text on Ireland to a new article Gay rights in Ireland Wuzzy 10:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved the text on South Africa to a new article Gay rights in South Africa. Wuzzy 23:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved the text on Canada to a new article Gay rights in Canada. Wuzzy 05:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the text on Middle East since already included in article Gay rights in Israel. Wuzzy 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved the text on the United States to a new article Gay rights in the United States. Wuzzy 20:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved the text on the United Kingdom to a new article Gay rights in the United Kingdom, and deleted section Gay rights by country. Wuzzy 13:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we use footnotes?

I am rewriting the section on the US gay rights movement, and will be using references. Anybody object to the use of footnotes? Wuzzy 02:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete 2 references?

I added several references, and in the process improved the format of the existing Schoenewolf and Spitzer citations. However, I am leaning toward deleting those two. I don't see them as sources for any of the points in the article. As for the history of DSM and homosexuality, perhaps the following would be better: http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html Wuzzy 15:47, December 30, 2005

Supporters

Editor poll: Would it be worthwhile to add a section to the article on notable (ie politicians, celebrities, artists, etc) supporters of the gay rights movement? Most articles on other political and social movements make mention of notable supporters, speakers, and thinkers, while this one seems to mention practically no one. I can think of several just off the top of my head. Shouldn't they be included? Replies in this section please. Thanks, -Kasreyn 06:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. However, they should have had a worldwide influence, since this is a worldwide article, and the mention should be brief (one paragraph at most per person) and include a wikilink to a separate article on each person for the full treatment. On the other hand, I would not want lists, since they become easily corrupted through vandalism, and are not sourced. Those who have had an influence only in a few countries should be mentioned in the "Gay rights in..." article about their country. I think that the main "Gay Rights" article should provide a broad overview that can nevertheless be read in one sitting. Since the topic is so broad, controversial and evolving, ihe article could easily become unwieldly, as it was before much of its content was moved into "Gay rights in..." articles. Wuzzy 10:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems like an overly strict requirement. Is there even a majority of countries, by population, that even have gay rights movements? If not, then it would be impossible to meet that requirement. -Kasreyn 10:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There are probably gay rights movements in most countries of the world, though they are not well known, and certainly the status of gay rights varies tremendously from country to country, and even within countries. See Category:Gay rights by country. It is easier to focus on just one country, which is why there are separate articles, but there also needs to be a worldwide overview. However, this is very challenging because the movement is often underground, suppressed by governments, shunned by mainstream media, and divided by language and other barriers. Wikipedia might help remedy that. I think that there would be relatively few individuals who would have had a world wide influence. Mostly they would be writers and academics, since their work crosses borders eventually. Magnus Hirschfeld is an old example. There are a very few worldwide organizations too. Wuzzy 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of NPOV, I think there should also be a comparable list of considerably influential individuals who dedicate at least some of their time, energy or funds to fighting the gay rights movement. Rexmorgan 21:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Pre-history of "gay rights"?

Anyone got this book: We Are Everywhere: A Historical Sourcebook of Gay and Lesbian Politics? Apparently, on pages 40-43, it describes an incident in 1790 in France where "groups of militant "sodomite-citizens" demand freedom and recognition in petitions addressed to the National Assembly, the governing body of the French Revolution."

The complete reference is:

"We Are Everywhere: A Historical Sourcebook of Gay and Lesbian Politics", editors Mark Blasius and Shane Phelan. New York: Routledge. 1997. ISBN 0415908590

I think the historical document is:

Charles, Marquis de Villette, High Commander of the Order. "The Children of Sodom Before the National Assembly or Delegation of the Order of the Cuff Before the Representatives of All Other Orders of All Sixty Districts of Paris and Versailles, 1790.

I'd be interested to know the story. There seem to be other incidents pre-dating Ulrichs:

• 1725: Customers at a London "molly house" fight off a police raid in what is perhaps the first documented example of a gay male protest against Law enforcement.
• 1833, London: Captain Nicholas Nicholls, 50, is sentenced to death on a charge of Sodomy. His sentence is protested by an anonymous poet who writes one of the earliest works of protest against the persecution of same-sex love:

Whence spring these inclinations, rank and strong?

And harming no one, wherefore call them wrong?

• 1836: Switzerland: Heinrich Hoessli publishes the first volume of Eros: Die Mannerliebe der Griechen ("Eros: The Love Between Men of the Greeks"), a historical survey and defense of same-sex love and one of the first books to call for social tolerance of persons drawn to it.

ntennis 05:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Limited geographic scope

The talk page was tagged. I moved the tag to the article. How is this article limited in geographic scope? Hyacinth 10:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put the tag there but to be honest that was my impression too when I came across this article a few days ago. The article started with a small section on the early "gay rights" movement in Germany, then after that, exclusively referred to US for the rest of the article. I chucked in some British references, but it really could do with a more global view. Some of the US info may have to be moved to the "Gay rights in the US" article to make room! I haven't been watching this article so forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems like all the stuff on other countries has been farmed off to the regional articles, leaving the US stuff to dominate this page. Maybe a recognition that "gay rights" are more established in some countries than others, and "gays" have it tough in Zimbabwe and Iran would be useful? Personally (and this is an enormous can of worms), I reckon that the term "gay" is a concept with a "western world" bias. Could we include, for instance, the political organising of Hijras in India on a "gay rights" page? ntennis 14:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• The article used to be quite wide in scope but was broken up. Which is probably a good thing given the number of countries that have gone into the "country by country" article... but I agree, this article currently focusses only on the US. Maybe it should address the topic thematically?? lmno 15:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the US and Germany history should be kept since the movements in the rest of the world all came from them, though that might be explained more fully. To save length this article should remain an overview of gay rights around the world. Information should not be added on a country by country basis, but there should be more information about gay rights in regions or groups of countries, such as islamic countries, Africa, South America. Wuzzy 16:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• I do not really see how this is accurate - not that I am an expert on this matter and my reading is not extensive (I couldn't care less about the development of Gay Rights in the States, for example) BUT... The trial of Oscar Wilde and other scandals from that era led to many attempts at what we might now call Gay Rights. lmno 23:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You might be right about Oscar Wilde. He might have had a lasting influence on the worldwide movement. There is doubtless more history than what what is now in the article. Write it if you can. Sources would be appreciated. Wuzzy 23:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK i did another fairly quick overhaul of the history section to try to broaden the geographic scope a bit. Will return to add refs and polish it up tmw; gotta run! :) ntennis 04:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Gay "flag" as a part of the wikipedia page stucture

I would like to hear thoughts on whether it is appropriate for the category block (topright of each article page) to clearly imitate the flag of the gay rights movement, considering that the structure and design of the block itself is part of the encyclopedia, not the article. Especially since the flag is a highly political symbol, I think that making it a part of the page structure implies that Wikipedia is hosting a pro-LBGT subsite, or an LBGT-branded "information source" (politically driven). No other structure I have seen on Wikipedia incorporates the subject matter into the design of the page itself. Rexmorgan 21:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Two points:

1. The templates used for most national entities incorporate their flags, and similar symbols are used for other templates (Socrates on the philosophy template is the first to come to mind).

2. Agree with the gay rights movement or not, the rainbow flag is a symbol of that movement.

-Seth Mahoney 21:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The articles you mentioned (see United States, Iran, France, Socrates) - the depiction of any elements that identify the subject of the article are within the template, not part of the template. Rexmorgan 00:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is ok to borrow symbolism to communicate association with a topic. It does not signify allegiance to it. Haiduc 23:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Gay_rights for a poll on alternate Gay rights templates. Wuzzy 22:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Using the rainbow on the {{LGBT rights}} template does not make Wikipedia pro-LGBT, but rather identifies articles about gay rights with a symbol of the movement. Compare it with articles about Apple Computer, which use the template {{Applecomputer}}. That template's use of the Apple logo does not seem to endorse Apple computer, does it? The Rod 01:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The articles you mentioned (see Apple Computer) - the depiction of any elements that identify the subject of the article are within the template, not part of the template design. Rexmorgan 02:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to break ranks, but I tend to agree that a flag within the box (as it is with the apple computer logo), would look classier, more 'encyclopedic', and less like advocacy. That said, I don't have a strong objection to it the way it is. ntennis 04:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Rexmorgan is suggesting that colors, styles, and other symbolism in a template's fonts or other layout (as opposed to colors and styles in images or quoted textual content within a template) constitute use instead of mention of those symbols. If that is the point, note that images can be integrated into templates in many ways. Without a caption identifying each image's relation to the related subjects, an image in a template's static content can be as much an endorsement of the image's meaning as colors or other styles in the template's frame or fonts. However, unless other templates use font colors or other styles associated their related topic, consistency may justify moving the colors from the template frame into an LGBT rainbow flag within it. The Rod 04:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I apologize for not using the clearest or most correct terminology use instead of mention. That is exactly what I was referring to. Rexmorgan 05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

To quote from above, everyone participating here should see Template_talk:Gay_rights for a poll on alternate Gay rights templates. -Seth Mahoney 05:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks kinda garish as is. Why not have the flag's stripes at the top, and list the items below? That would look much better. (my 2c.) Dysprosia 05:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Rexmorgan and ntennis. It would be fine to show the rainbow flag within the template, but incorporating the colors into the template's design seems like subtle activism to me. I'd have the same objection to coloring Template:United States red white and blue. Rhobite 05:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Aside from issues of endorsement or aesthetics, I have a more fundamental problem with the use of the Rainbow flag to indicate LGBT. Despite common misconception (particularly in the mainstream media) the Rainbow flag does not represented LGBT, only Lesbians & Gay men. (The history behind all this is complex!) Anyway, it is as an upshot of this situation that the Bi and Trans pride flags were created. Further, the majority opinion today in the Bi and Trans communities seems to be that they do not feel represented by the Rainbow flag and that it's use for LGBT contributes to Bi and Trans invisibility. This is reflected in the use of the Rainbow flag in the UK to specifically indicate L&G to the exclusion of B and/or T, for example by separatist lesbian groups.

The only solution that springs to mind at the moment, is to include the Bi and Trans flags along with the Rainbow one when representing LGBT. This should work fine in the current LGBT rights template, abet with maybe some horizontal shortening of the flags so they can go side-by-side in the same width.

--Myfanwy 13:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Propose rename

Why don't we move this page to LGBT rights movement?
1) "LGBT" because the article immediately defines "gay rights" as LGBT rights (and women and trans issues have been there from the start)
2) "Movement", because the page is really about the social movement, not just about rights (eg. "did lesbians have rights in ancient Greece?" is outside the scope of htis article and is better covered in other articles)
What do others think? ntennis 06:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Much thanks, by the way, for your major additions to the article. -Seth Mahoney 06:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Although (5 minutes and I'm already disagreeing with myself; uh oh!), the gay rights movement, by the article's own use of the terms, is different from the LGBT rights movement. We'd have to do the same sort of defining our use of the terminology, or at least defining the gay rights movement as a historical moment in the later LGBT rights movement. Or something. And we'd have the same issues with ancient Greek lesbians with either title. -Seth Mahoney 06:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I like the "Equal rights" idea. Seth's point that some users may have a problem with it is valid, but encyclopedias should be about technical correctness and not whether it hurts activists' feelings to remove their movement name from an article title. Rexmorgan 06:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

While "LGBT rights" would be more accurate, the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things, which is an official policy, says that articles should be named according to the common term that is used. Google's worldwide site shows about 10,200,000 hits for "gay rights" and only 370,000 hits for LGBT rights. As for "equal rights", that is too broad. This article is only about LGBT's, not equality for everyone.

While it is true that the article is now more about a movement, I think there needs to be an article about gay rights as a type of human rights or civil rights. While Homosexuality laws of the world does a country by country comparison, it is very long and is bound to get longer still does not provide any explanation or analysis, nor does it give a worldwide overview of the status of gay rights worldwide. So, I favour keeping the "gay rights" title as is, but expanding the article to give a worldwide overview of the legal situation. If the article gets too long, then, it could be split between the movement, and the meaning and status of gay rights. Wuzzy 08:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, "gay" is definitely more common than the neologism "LGBT". It's just that I'm not sure that "gay rights" and "LGBT rights" are actually the same thing. Anyway, the article as it stands now is about "the gay rights movement, also called the LGBT rights movement". Which is actually an interwoven history of different movements with similar goals, but with different terms for themselves — "gay rights movement" is one of many. These days, groups such as "Transsexual Menace" are not usually called "gay rights" groups; I would associate the ILGA with that term. But either organisation could comfortably be called an "LGBT rights" group.

I take your second point about an article that broadly outlines the conept of gay "civil rights" and gives an overview of the social and legal status of gays around the world today. In fact, that's what I would expect to see when I came to an article called "gay rights" — although personally I'd like it to include civil rights of Ls Bs and Ts too :) However, that is definitely big enough to fill an entire article. So perhaps we move the content that's here now to LGBT rights movement (or Gay rights movement or other somethings movement/s) and develop that kind of a page here under Gay rights? ntennis 13:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Gay rights and gay rights movement could be divided in the long term, but I think that is premature at this point. I don't think we have enough on gay rights as civil rights to justify such an article being the lead article in the Gay rights template. I think that the existing article should be kept together and could serve as a nursery for developig the civil rights angle until there is enough to split the article. As for LGBT vs Gay, I prefer LGBT and would have renamed the numerous articles already were it not for the naming policy. There is also a second policy about not using acronyms Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_spelled-out_phrases_to_acronyms. Wuzzy 14:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I cite another policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? ntennis 15:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I favour renaming this article to “LGBT rights”, which I think would entail several other changes:

• 50 “Gay rights in” articles would need to be similarly changed.
• In turn, I would estimate 100 articles linking to the above articles would need broken links to be fixed.
• The category “Gay rights by country” would also need to be deleted and replaced by the new category. This would require going through the CFD process, which requires a consensus of editors.

In other words, this type of change would require consensus from more than just you and me. We would probably need to follow the Wikipedia:Requested moves process.Wuzzy 23:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling that out; it is a broader issue than just this page. Is this discussion also happening anywhere else? It would obviously be prudent to get the terminology right before changing so many articles, and "LGBT rights" and "gay rights" are only two options.

I do believe a page covering the social/political movements can be somewhat independent of such broader changes. I'm not convinced "rights" is the best descriptor anyway, as it implies that the goals have always been "civil rights", when this is not true. They have also been sexual freedoms (eg. "LGBT liberation movement"), social/legal reforms (eg. "sexual reform movements") or a radical refiguring of society (as with, for example, lesbian feminism). More general and neutral terms might be better: "LGBT activism" or "LGBT political movements". ntennis 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick comment: All these different movements did, in the end, figure into the contemporary LGBT rights movement(s), so maybe there's no problem covering them all in an article called LGBT rights movements. Of course, they should all, in the end, have their own articles, but this one could be a good starting point for that. -Seth Mahoney 01:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to it, but can you clarify for me if (and why) you prefer "LGBT rights movements" to, for example, "LGBT political movements" or "LGBT activism"? ntennis 01:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with "LGBT political movements", but don't so much prefer "LGBT activism", since 'activism' (as, for example, it is used in the term "activist judges") has been made into something of a dirty word in the US and would carry negative connotations. -Seth Mahoney 04:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Few of the 50 articles entitled "Gay rights in" mention movements or activists. They concern laws that protect or oppress LGBT's. I think sexual freedom and legal reform are about rights. So, I would say that "Gay rights" or "LGBT rights" is the best title for them. Only about 5 of the articles deal with movements. Wuzzy 15:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly my point - the "gay rights in..." articles are about civil rights, whereas this article is (currently) about political movements. This article as it stands is not a "parent" article to those articles. I appreciate the need for an overarching "LGBT rights" (or whatever it would be called) article, but the content here is not it. As i said above, there's two seperate naming issues here, and where we place an article about LGBT activism doesn't have to determine the naming of articles about LGBT rights.

I'll try to clarify what I mean when I say that "rights" has not always been the underlying goal of these movements. The language of "rights" is part of a specific kind of political discourse that some, but by no means all, of these movments have used. For example, the Mattchine Society initally campaigned for civil rights. But much of the Gay Liberation movement of the early 1970s (and the free love movments of 1890-1920, and lesbian feminism, etc. etc.), wanted to transform the role of sex in society, including heterosexuality, gender and the family. The GLF argued that "complete sexual liberation for all people cannot come about unless existing social institutions are abolished." An important part of this program was consciousness raising — not for rights, but for a kind of personal liberation. Note that "gay liberation" gave way to "gay rights" in the 1980s, but many of these ideas resurfaced in the 1990s with queer politics, which challenged social norms and concepts of deviance, valorising "transgression" over normativity. To me, a phrase like "Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender movements" covers all these movements, but "LGBT rights movement" doesn't. ntennis 01:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"LGBT movements" or maybe "LGBT social movements" is good, but to be consistent with other, similar, articles and categories, we should use "LGBT" rather than "Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender". -Seth Mahoney 19:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool, either is OK with me; they fit better with the content that is here now than "gay rights". We may need to disambiguate the "LGBT movement" (a recent historical development) from "LGBT movements" (which include the Uranian movement, the Homophile movement, Gay Lib, Gay and Lesbian rights movement, Lesbian feminism, queer activism, LGBT, transgender movement, etc). Wuzzy, you stated your concern with a rename is not having a strong article at the top of the template. Surely the link at the top of the template can be changed (e.g. to "LGBT movements"), or left as plain text "Gay rights" (not linked), or even left as a "gay rights" link that redirects to a related article like LGBT movements until someone makes an overview article? ntennis 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Since there are only about 5 articles on LGBT movements, there is no need for a template for them. There are about 45 articles on LGBT rights as opposed to movement. So, I think the template should be called LGBT rights or Gay rights and perhaps be linked to Homosexuality laws of the world and include a new link to the article LGBT movements. When you change the article's name, you should be mindful that links in several dozen articles to "Gay rights" will break and there will not be an appropriate article to redirect them to. The LGBT movements article will not be appropriate since most of the links are about rights, not a movement. Wuzzy 01:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Currently, people clicking on gay rights are taken to page which claims to be about the "gay rights movement"/"LGBT rights movement". A simple rename would not change much; people clicking on the link would still be taken to the same article, but by a redirect. Of course, double redirects should be fixed immedately. I support your suggestion to change the heading of the template from "gay rights" to "LGBT rights". ntennis 01:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)