Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 ← Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 → Archive 55

Wiki Loves Pride: Reminder!

Project members, in case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Related to this, I'd like to remind people that some time ago I created a workgroup for Canadian LGBT topics, which is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/LGBT in Canada work group (shortcut WP:CANQUEER.) Although when it was new I did get some enthusiastic interest from a grand total of two other editors, neither of them have been particularly active on Wikipedia at all since making that commitment — with the result that in actual practice, I'm still the only editor who's ever actually doing much of anything with it. So if there's anybody else kicking around here who has an interest in Canadian LGBT topics, whether you're Canadian or not, consider yourself invited to contribute! Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing and for your work Bearcat. Bumping this thread again since we are now in June! See Wiki Loves Pride 2014. Feel free to host an event/meetup in your city, participate remotely, or showcase your work here. --Another Believer (Talk) 13:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I will try to keep an eye on User:AlexNewArtBot/LGBTSearchResult for newly created articles, but don't forget to add articles you create or expand at Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2014/Results! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Help with suggestion

I'm not sure where to post a suggestion or request, but I'd seriously like to ask some review of the "transgender and transsexual-related anime and manga" category's contents. While some items are clearly connected, especially Wandering Son, many seem to have a thin connection at best. For instance, is it correct to use this label on stories where a person disguises his/her gender in order to achieve a specific end? An example is Uwasa no Midori-kun, a manga in which a teenage girl is deceived and robbed of her virginity for the sake of a bet, and then disguises herself and joins a boys' school as part of her goal to get revenge on him. There are also cases where a person is unwillingly transformed from his 'original' gender and never makes any change in self identification, instead spending much of the story trying to get rid of the source of this change. One good example of a questionable item in this area is Maze, in which you don't even have a person who transforms genders at time, you have two completely separate people with separate memories and personalities sharing a single location, taking one another's place according to whether it's day or night. In addition, there is at least one show (MM!) where the only connection is to transvestism, on a side character who is described as a "pervert" who likes to cross-dress and develops a second personality that revels in how good he looks in a dress, but even his "dark" side simply asserts that beauty goes beyond gender. I'm not suggesting that this category should be deleted, as there are certainly some with clear connection. However, I doubt it is appropriate to count each and every show with a character who cross-dresses, or has some sort of strange condition, as part of the category.

This may also sometimes be true in the areas of anime/manga in the category "Japanese LGBT-related television programs". There are certainly plenty of anime and manga that fit this, but some items in the list seem unclear. There are plenty with obvious homosexual romances, but there are also with what would best be described as "romantic friendship", relationships that are as close as any romance, but for which neither party has any desire to enter into marriage or engage in sexual activity; they're just that close. One particular light novel and anime that stands out here is Maria Watches Over Us. This series is full of such romantic friendships, numerous relationships that seem to border on homosexual; however, only one girl ever developed a true homosexual relationship, at a past point, and one man declares himself to be homosexual in the novels, breaking the heart of one of the primary characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.50.240 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Naming convention: "LGBT culture in ..." vs. "LGBT community of..."

Many articles and categories use the name "LGBT culture in [X locale]. Two articles were created using "LGBT community of [X locale]": LGBT community of Houston and LGBT community of Metro Detroit. Should these be removed to LGBT culture in Houston and LGBT culture in Detroit for the sake of consistency?

The article creator has moved both pages. Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Are there project members who would be interested in starting similar articles for other metropolitan areas as part of Wiki Loves Pride?

--Another Believer (Talk) 04:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Nell Beecham

I de-prodded this stub, but it is only of marginal notability. Please fix. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I took a look, and am not finding much at all. Perhaps someone else will be able to find something. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Beecham does not look WP:Notable to me. Her Wikipedia article will likely be deleted sooner or later. Flyer22 (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest a speedy deletion tbh. It sounds like just a university student.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: Wiki Loves Pride

Wiki Loves Pride 2014 Mid-Campaign Report

Wiki Loves Pride is a global campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects during the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on and around June 21. We are only half-way through the month, but already we have much to celebrate. Meetups and organized projects are being organized in seven cities across North America, including Atlanta, Houston, Philadelphia, Portland, New York City and Washington, D.C., with ongoing photography campaigns taking place in Portland and Vancouver. Several pictures have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons' Wiki Loves Pride photo challenge and nearly 50 images have been uploaded to the Commons category "Korea Queer Culture Festival".

View the Results page for a list of LGBT-related content created or improved so far this month, including articles (45 already!) and drafts, categories and templates, and "Did you know" hooks for the Main Page, among other content. LGBT content that needs to be created or expanded may be added here.

Call to action! Please consider starting a new article and adding it to the Results page. Even just a stub! Or, snap a few pictures at your local Pride celebration, or of nearby LGBT establishments. All constructive edits help Wikipedia's mission of providing access to the sum of all human knowledge.

If you have any questions, please leave a message here. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Trans woman talk pages

I suggest that all talk pages of articles on trans women should be semi-protected. I feel sure it is very likely that un-registered or newly registered Wikipedians will consistently post on the talk pages that they want to promote their statement that trans women are not real women. Please look at the top of Talk:Laverne Cox for an example. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary or practical to protect all articles of any topic. Protections should be used for specific articles, when necessary. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
This is about protecting talk pages, not articles. Georgia guy (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It is even less appropriate to mass-semi-protect all talk pages related to a particular topic, than to mass-semi-protect all of the articles themselves. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association could use some help

Hi guys. I've just stubbed International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association due to a series of long-term copyvios. It looks like quite a notable organization, though, so I wanted to drop a note here in case anyone's got the free time and interest to build the article back up again. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo and marriage

User PjeterPeter edited Template:LGBT rights table Europe, adding the claim that same-sex marriage is a de-jure legal in the country. See [1]. The edit was reverted, but he is still trying to edit the LGBT rights in Kosovo article in a similar way. While the Constitution does not contain a definition of marriage, Article 14 (1) of the Family Law defines marriage as union between persons of the opposite sex. Is anyone willing to discuss the problem at Talk:LGBT rights in Kosovo? Ron 1987 (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This High School Has Closets could use some help

Hi, Someone posted this book This High School Has Closets to Wikipedia and with the best of my limited knowledge, I tried to expand/improve it. However, it needs categories which I don't know how to do.Tews (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Tews

Map

Take a look at this map and it's image page:

Does anything strike anyone else as odd or off here? Read how the wording is made, see that there are no sources for the information and notice California is blue. California has no law or statute that prohibits same sex partners from the exact same right of marriage as opposite sex partners. This appears to be original research and is also just wrong.

Blue says "Civil unions or domestic partnerships granting privileges similar to marriage for same-sex domestic partners" California does not have "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" for same sex couples, Prop 8 was repealed. There is no restrictions on same sex couples in California. Also, note the wording on the red "banned" key. It says "Same-sex unions similar to marriage banned" Sorry, but that has bias written all over it. "Similar"? This says that same sex "unions" are not marriages but are similar.

What do others think?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy. Hollingsworth v. Perry did not invalidated Domestic Partnerships in California. [2]
"same-sex unions similar to marriage banned" refers to similar unions to marriage such as domestic partnerships and civil unions that are banned. --Prcc27 (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The are no restrictions to marriage in California for same sex couples and I believe this map is original research and very biased against subject itself. You can dodge what I am saying but the simple fact is, the map is wrong and very much original research with no reference. You could be pulling this out of your backside for all we know. --Mark Miller (talk) 07:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
That's because the map has nothing to do with marriage. It only deals with unions similar to marriage such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. If you don't believe that those states have cus/dps then check out the Wikipedia articles for yourself. If you find an error, maybe you could fix it and/or go to the talk.
Domestic partnership in California [3], Recognition of same-sex unions in Colorado, Recognition of same-sex unions in Nevada, Domestic partnerships in Wisconsin, Domestic partnership in Washington (state), Domestic partnership in Oregon, Same-sex marriage in Hawaii, Same-sex marriage in Maryland, Domestic partnership in Maine, Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia, Same-sex marriage in Illinois, Same-sex marriage in New Jersey [4]. --Prcc27 (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
While it may well be true what you say about this map, it is still original research and has no referencing for use on Wikipedia. But the map is also still inaccurate as California allows civil unions between opposite sex couples and even brother sister and father daughter for domestic partnerships that have nothing to do with same sex. So, as I said, the map is simply original research and seems rather biased to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The map only deals with same-sex unions that are similar to marriage. It doesn't deal with opposite-sex unions similar to marriage. You're more than welcome to suggest including opposite-sex unions similar to marriage in the map on the talk page. Can you please explain how what I did was original research and how where I get my sources from is any different than how sources are obtained for the same-sex partnership map? --Prcc27 (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Uhm, you do realize that that map, "Samesex_marriage_in_USA" is based strictly on whether a state allows "same sex" marriage. All the sourcing for that is simply the state recognition. it is verifiable as it is without sources. However, your map is about more specific laws and not just one but two, Civil unions and Domestic partnerships, but as I said...in California there is no Same sex civil union or domestic partnership laws. These are designed for opposite sex relationships as well, even family members for tax purposes. You need references for your map because it makes claims beyond a simple yes or no that the other map is based on.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Hence the claim of POV. California has no law in regard to same sex couples so you are editing that map on a false assumption. And again, it has no source and Wikipedia articles are not sources for content. The entire map, at this point is problematic because it uses "same sex" in a manner that is entirely from the "point of view" of one editor. Look, it isn't as if this can't be fixed, but at the moment it cannot be used on Wikipedia as this map is making claims that are not supported by reliable sources. Prcc27 I am discussing this map. Just because you see something done on one map does not mean it acceptable across the board.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
You obviously don't know what you're talking about... Domestic partnerships are legal in California; I gave a source for California twice. "All the sourcing for that is simply the state recognition" that applies to the same-sex union map too.. If a state has such unions or bans such unions they are listed as such; no source required. --Prcc27 (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
If you want to include opposite-sex unions on the map stop complaining and make a suggestion. --Prcc27 (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to chime in as map creator, I made this map solely to replace the PNG map that Prcc27 had made (File:Same-sex unions in the united states.png). All content on this map was made based on the PNG map. They wanted an SVG map, so I made it for them. Other than wanting the map colors to remain consistent with File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg, I have nothing else to do with the map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Thegreyanomaly I am aware that you simply copied the png to svg. This is certainly a good gesture on your part.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles by Georg Klauda on LGBT attitudes and the Islamic world

Hi! I found some articles by Georg Klauda on LGBT attitudes and the Islamic world. They talk about how anti-LGBT attitudes were not always the norm (previously Europe was homophobic and Europeans went to the Middle East and had homosexual experiences there), but that the anti-LGBT attitudes came to the Middle East when "gays/homosexuals" were made into an identity group.

Also if anyone edits on the Arabic Wikipedia, these articles need to be posted to the appropriate articles there, with text used from these sources translated into Arabic within the citations (to show what was cited) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

redirects to transgendered people

I have a long-term interest in improving Carmen Rupe. I have been planning on adding a redirect from Trevor Rupe to Carmen Rupe, but I'm not sure how to tag the redirect. Trevor Rupe is a Category:Redirects from former names, but that has subcats for Category:Redirects from married names‎, etc. Should I make a Category:Redirects from pre-gender transition names‎ or something? This also applies to the Bradley Manning redirect. A related issue arises with Edward Cowley's redirect from Buckwheat (drag queen); should I create Category:Redirects from drag queen names‎ as a subcat of Category:Redirects from pseudonyms? Stuartyeates (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Every action is problematic. In the case of Rupe, it seems from the article that she might have identified both as a drag performer and a trans woman, but nowadays, it is usually considered offensive to call a trans woman's style drag. Category:Redirects from pre-gender transition names‎ might not apply to drag queens, who almost never transition gender in their personal lives, but then also the category might work, because Wikipedia covers a person's public persona and many drag performers only identify to media and publication as the gender of their public persona. Perhaps Category:Redirects from other gender names? When I talk to drag performers on a personal level or want to meet outside the context of girl form, I might ask "What is your boy name?" and that is an "other gender name" I think. "Other gender names" could work for both drag and transgender and does not need so much nuance, understanding, or labeling to work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Just keep it as redirects from former names, there are like 2000 in that category, these are more like maintenance categories vs content categories. I think trying to elaborate all of the reasons a trans* or cross-dresser or otherwise person may have changed their names with specific categories isn't helpful, just leave them where they are.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Change proposals to WP:COP#N relating to LGBT categorizations

WP:COP#N is that part of the Wikipedia:Categorization of people guideline that talks about categorizing biographies along lines of notability and definingness.

Several changes to this part of the WP:COP guideline have been proposed, having, for instance, an effect on categorization in LGBT (sub)categories. Input welcome!

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Proposed language change to WP:COP#N

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Dee Palmer

See recent edit here [5], presumably by the subject (can't be sure, of course). Not sure what the best course of action is - subject is covered as "David" on the official Jethro Tull site (http://jethrotull.com/the-attic/past-band-members-and-guests/david-dee-palmer/), so I don't know if the attempt to hide the old name should stand, but OTOH the birthdate seems to have been added on multiple occasions, incorrectly, and if this is indeed the subject the subject doesn't want the birthdate, so we should leave it off. Anyway, just informing here for ideas on what to do.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't see that the birth date adds anything to the wikipedia article; their age and/or relative time of their birth seems of no significance. However I'd be inclined to beef up the Persondata to include birth name and better short desc, because that's going to help better tool assisted interlinking with other datasources (i.e. Linked data) which is made more challenging by dropping DOB. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Jeffrey Smart

Hi. Is able able to find a copyright-free picture of Jeffrey Smart and of his paintings?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of any, you might try the WP:Reference Desk. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Stonewall "riots" vs. stonewall "rebellion"

Hi folks, Why are my changes to the "Stonewall Riots" article being treated as vandalism? I AM NOT A VANDAL! Can't you see that the term "riots" is pejorative? That is why I am trying to get back to "rebellion". Again, I am a real person and not a vandal. You can reach me at mike.putch@gmail.com. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mputch (talk • contribs) 00:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Mputch (talk · contribs), I have reverted you at the Stonewall riots article three times (including when you were adding your material as an IP), and User:ClueBot NG (a bot) has reverted you once, as seen here, here, here and here. While you may not be a WP:Vandal, you are engaging in WP:Disruptive editing by changing the WP:MOSBOLDTITLE and anything else in the article to "Stonewall rebellions." The article is called Stonewall riots, and that is because "Stonewall riots" is the WP:Common name for the topic, what the matter is called in the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources; that's what we go by here -- WP:Due weight; we go by that over personal opinion, or at least we are supposed to. Not your personal opinion that "Stonewall riots" or "riots" is a pejorative. "Stonewall rebellions" can be in the lead (introduction), but as the WP:Alternative title.
How did you find this WikiProject anyway? Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Acroterion. As you can see, the matter is being discussed here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
@Mputch: repeatedly reverting to your preferred name over the commonly used and sourced name is disruptive. Please use the article talkpage if you want to propose an alternate title that is supported by widespread usage in significant scholarly sources. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok folks. If there is a reasonable way to discuss this on the "talk" page I am certainly willing. However in the absence of that I submit that my changes are no more "disruptive" (or an edit war) than your continuous reversions. Consider what that stance really means in the larger scale of things.

So lets talk -- why is "riots" better than "rebellion"? And please give a better argument than "it has always been that way". I mean really -- this is supposed to be stand-out article for the LBGTQ movement and it uses such a pejorative term for such a significant event in the movement's history? What is the basis for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mputch (talk • contribs) 02:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Because of WP:COMMONNAME. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Yep. WP:COMMONNAME. It's not that I don't get your preference, I've had feelings about the title homosexual recruitment, too, and I think that case is slightly more arguable. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't involved in the reverting, and I haven't gone and looked at it, but Mputch, if you're being accused of vandalism for lots of revisions, I'd strongly recommend reading WP:BRD. It is more or less the conventional expectation of how disagreements are dealt with here, and moving too far from that model can often mislead people, as unfair as that may be, into presuming poor motives. Hope that helps you navigate here more successfully. Best regards, --j⚛e deckertalk 06:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I think everyone understands why you have concerns about the name, but that doesn't trump WP:COMMONNAME, and it definitely doesn't permit you to edit-war to insert a term that you have made up. The encyclopedia uses the terms that are current in the world at large, and is not censored: if the consensus of sources in scholarly research and major media changes, then the article will change. Wikipedia isn't the place to start the campaign, it's where the effect of popular consensus may even eventually be recognized. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand concerns regarding calling it "riots". I prefer "riots". It's got some anger and energy about it. "Rebellion" sounds neutered and weaker. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: When you Google "Stonewall rebellions" on regular Google or on Google Books, you can see that this particular time in history is called "the Stonewall rebellion" (not the plural version that Mputch was using) or "the Stonewall uprising" by some WP:Reliable sources. But in a lot of those sources, the more common name "Stonewall riots" is still referenced. The fact that "Stonewall Rebellion" redirects to "Stonewall riots" (has since 2006, created by Subsurd) and is used in some WP:Reliable sources is why I suggested above that "Stonewall rebellions" can be in the lead on the basis of the WP:Alternative title policy. But I don't feel strongly one way or the other on whether or not to include "Stonewall rebellion" (or its plural form) in the lead as the alternative title. And if we include that, a case can be made for including "Stonewall uprising." Flyer22 (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This Oxford encyclopedia source, The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Social History, page 399, gives both "Stonewall rebellion" and "Stonewall uprising" as alternative names for the Stonewall riots. Flyer22 (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Year in LGBT rights discussion

Please help resolve a question about the limits of content in 2014 in LGBT rights and similar <Year> in LGBT rights lists. See Discussion at the talk page. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

June 21 - Wiki Loves Pride

A few meetups are being organized today as part of Wiki Loves Pride. If you have a few minutes, please join us by creating or improving LGBT-related articles. The WLP page offers some article ideas, and feel free to showcase the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A big THANK YOU to everyone who participated in the inaugural Wiki Loves Pride campaign this month. I invite you to visit the Results page to browse newly-created and improved LGBT-related content from around the world, including Atlanta, Houston, Philadelphia, Portland (Ore.), NYC, Seattle, Seoul, South Africa, Vienna, Warsaw and Washington, D.C. It's not too late to add to this list, if you feel so inclined. Thanks again for your participation and support. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

History of bisexuality article - worldwild view

This article here: history of bisexuality seems to be only a merge between history (inside bisexuality article) and Bisexuality in the US article. It contains detailed history of bisexual movement in the US, it makes reference twice about BiCon which is an event in the United Kingdom and there are no information at all about bisexual history around the world. There are organizations, asociations, groups and events going on in Europe, Oceania, Central America, South America and Middle East, at least. The reasons that I'm writing here is that 1 - it seems polite (i could just go and edit it), 2 - that the article is already marked with the worldwild view box 3 - and because I used wikipedia just a few times (old user) and don't want to make a mess. --Danieladelvalle (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Already made some edits, with a couple of information on brazilian bisexual movement wich I know best, and lookign forward to put some south american wide info, wich I have to pull together still. Know, I have a doubt: the references are all in portuguese, and I understand that sometimes it is asked to translate some portion of it. How does it work? Is it always necesary? --Danieladelvalle (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

There are three different problems with the references you've added:
  1. Blogspot and other blogs, youtube videos or channels, and other primary sources, are rarely considered reliable.
  2. WP:BAREURL web references are subject to WP:LINKROT. Consider using WP:Citation templates instead.
  3. And, probably the least important, having "in Portugese" is recommended so that readers and editors can easily understand what language is involved. (I think citation templates have a parameter to specify this.)
(Sometimes the citation for a foreign language reference might also include a very brief English translation of the key phrase, but I've rarely seen people insist on this.)
Sorry this is rather a lot to change all at once! WP:REFB might make it easier to understand. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Danieladelvalle Thanks for bringing a Brazilian perspective into this. No, it is not necessary to translate non-English sources, and yes you should use them. As Demiurge said, it is nice to use citation templates so that at least you can tag non-English sources by their language. This just spares people the disappointment of clicking something they cannot read. I encourage you to do what you can. It is very hard to find good English sources about the history of the LGBT movement anywhere outside the US, so I hope you have good luck in whatever perspective you see to source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't state that non-English sources should be used on the English Wikipedia. But it's not prohibited. Wikipedia has a policy on this matter; see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, which states, in part, "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. (See Template:Request quotation.)" Flyer22 (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
That policy also addresses translation; for example, it begins with, "When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should always accompany the quote." Flyer22 (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Thanks everyone for your help. I understand they don't seem to be reliable, but it's all I have now, since the matter is really under erasure. Some other sources may be available to some of these (like a big newspapper that say something about bi-sides), I'm going to look after them... as for the translations, I don't really understand were to put it, but I could translate (going to study it in wp). As for the links in another lenguage, I saw that I could use a tiny code to specify the lenguage on links but not on references, I just don't know how to put them on the references or if it is done another way. The same goes for the spanish info I'm about to collect. --Danieladelvalle (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see any specifics on the lenguage of a reference when reading the templates article, but the webreflinks recongnize one of them so I knew how to do it, now the portuguese links are specified and I'm going to fix the other references on the article as soon as I have plenty of time to do it. Also, I got some other references that I think are more relevant, at the last edit before that. Thanks again for your kindness :)--Danieladelvalle (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

intersex people considered LGBT people?

Should Category:Intersex people be a subcategory of Category:LGBT people? I don't have strong opinions either way. It was at one point, and then was removed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. They're part of the alphabet soup LGBTQQIAAP. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, aware of that alphabet soup. Just want to see if there's consensus to include them - at least one person disagrees, so I'd like to hear from others. I believe Category:Asexual people is excluded however, and should likely not be added as a subcat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Why not make an umbrella category "Sexual minorities" as that's what LGBTQQIAAP basically is and LGBT says as much. Asexual should be (and is... with lots of RS backing it) included in LGBT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, let's keep this discussion focused on intersex people. We can deal with others separately.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree - let's keep it simple and utilize what is standard within academia and broader non enWP settings rather than try and create a new standard. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 18:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes - for academic and encyclopedic purposes they are often put under the LGBT umbrella. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 17:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
My instinctive answer is "no", as it seems to be a very different sort of category. The L, G, B, and T are identifiers of desire or self-image; "intersex" would seem to be an identifier of surface biology (but then, I've always felt T a somewhat odd fit to LGB.) It would seem a different category for Wikipedia purposes as well, as LGB&T are dependent on self-identification, intersex would not. And in political terms, the more we expand the letter buffet, the less it seems to be lumping folks together who have something in common and more defining some default and simply lumping together everything that has some form of variation from that, which is problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with this distinction. LGBT are not terms I would consider "self-identified" - especially not transgender. Intersex is characterized in academia, political advocacy, and plenty of other places as a part of the transgender community (which often also involves medical institutions in the identification process). See: [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10] for some evidence of this as a "standard" in other settings. I do not see any reason for enWP to diverge from this. It certainly wouldn't make things easier for the reader. This has been decided in a broader setting already - and enWP does not seem like the place to try and reverse that. The LGBT article also includes mention of the intersex community's identifying with (and wanting inclusion in) the umbrella label. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 18:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
From one of the links above "We acknowledge that there is great diversity of perspectives and circumstances among intersex people, just as among other people within the LGBTI 'umbrella' - some strongly identify with the LGBT(I) sector and use it as a framework for solidarity and working towards common goals, while others strongly differentiate themselves from it. Indeed many intersex people do not identify with the term 'intersex' at all. As in all other areas, the Alliance represents the perspectives of its members, who have chosen to work collaboratively and in solidarity - using the acronym 'LGBTI' - to pursue our shared goals. We do not claim to speak on behalf of every single L, G, B, T or I person in Australia, but for our members." and "When the Alliance was being established, those intersex people consulted said they did not identify as part of the LGBT community and did not wish to be represented by the Alliance, but were happy to stand side by side in coalition on shared issues." (although some later did join as the article states) The entire link on "intersex initiative" you linked is pretty much in the same vein saying there is solidarity, but that the identity and issues are not the same.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair point. However, I think for enWP purposes, it would be best to go off academic and general practices rather than get into what is no doubt a never-ending debate. There is a lot of debate about including transgender in LGBT - but for now the generally accepted practice is to include them. However, that said, I will defer to consensus on what seems the most practical and respectful. However, I do think we should avoid saying any of these are self-identified - perhaps self-declared - but an intersex person is equally as capable of hiding that aspect of their life as an LGBT person. The decision to let others know is their own, but it was not their decision to become a member of the L,G,B,T, or I communities - one of the ways they are similar - along with facing other similar cultural and legal challenges. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 00:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Part of the reason trans people are often accepting of being included under LGBT even if they are straight is that all of these categories face similar challenges in legal, medical, and social acceptance. An intersex person may or may not face these challenges depending on the nature of their condition, how they were raised, and how closely they identify with the sex that they were assigned at birth. I would not say that all of these categories of people are equally capable of hiding that aspect of their lives. (For the record, I speak as a queer transsexual male; I also identify as agender.) Funcrunch (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

As an article, it seems that Intersex belongs in the LGBT category because certainly there is enough interaction/intersection from the latter into the former. However, we should not be categorizing all intersex people as LGBT. Many intersex people have a gender assigned to them at birth and are perfectly "cis" from then on. Prior to better medical knowledge there were probably a good number of intersex people where their parents and doctors were not even aware of it if the intersex bits were internal. Certainly there are numerous and notable exceptions to these sattements(perhaps even the majority) but it would be incorrect, and a violation of WP:BLPCAT imo to categorize everyone there without self identification. A great deal of LGBTness is identity, and we have pretty strict rules about not assigning peoples identity to them. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Gaijin42's comment above. There is significant controversy, from what I understand, in the intersex community about whether intersex people should be grouped in with LGBT. There are individual intersex people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or trans, just as there are non-intersex people in each of those categories, but many intersex people do not want to be considered under this umbrella term. Funcrunch (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I concede that is a fair point to a large extent and my personal opinion might be shifting. Although for simplicity we do not always honor an individual's request in classification. Two-spirit and genderqueer people are often categorized in broader term categories. There are also transgender activists against being included in LGBT that are still categorized in the broader LGBT category with everyone else. I am not arguing that applies here per se - but there is some precedent for having a standard categorization method that does not always honor the personal preference of the BLP. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 00:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

LGBT culture by American city

A number of articles have been created on the LGBT culture of various American cities. I was wondering if anyone wanted to try creating an article on LGBT culture in Baltimore? Thanks. Solar-Wind (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hen is up

Hen (pronoun) is now an article on the rather successful Swedish gender-neutral pronoun. I've also nominated it as a DYK. Please feel free to provide feedback and suggestions for improvement.

Peter Isotalo 13:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Good article. Could you please post a link to the DYK nomination? Funcrunch (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
ETA above - just found the nomination via the article Talk page, ignore my request. :-) Funcrunch (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Funcrunch. If you have suggestions for more eye-catching hook, don't hesitate to suggest it. And that goes for anyone else reading this.
Peter Isotalo 18:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Genderfucking

Hello, WikiProject LGBT studies.

I´m posting this in case someone interested wants to take a look, it´s not my particular field of interest.

An IP posted a very general concern at Help Desk [11], and I took a quick look.

Two things struck me:

  • I´ve heard "Gender Bending" but never "Genderfucking", so I wonder if the terms are used in the extent that they should. There seem to be about three times more fucking than bending.
  • The sections "Examples" and "In fiction" are probably original research to a great extent, as in these examples do not come from reliable sources about Gender Bending that gives them as examples of Gender Bending. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I've replied on the Help Desk page, but I'll copy paste here: The language is a result of a page merge of genderfuck into gender bending. The term "genderfuck" is an actual term in gender studies and as you can see in the article is well-sourced. The information is not inaccurate. Regarding the concern about "inappropriate language" I would point to Wikipedia's policy of "not censored". The page does need to be smoothed out though. Flyer22, your thoughts on balancing the page? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not 100% sure regarding the balance, except to use the word gender bender or gender bending more often in the article (such as for the headings How people genderfuck, Non-political genderfucking and Genderfucking and childraising); I state this especially since the article's topic is under that title and, like I mentioned when arguing for the aforementioned merge (seen at Talk:Genderfuck#Merge proposal and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 48#Reminder), gender bending is the far more common term out of the two and genderfucking (a notable WP:Neologism) is a synonym of it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It would also help for the Gender bender article to have a terminology section addressing these terms (gender bender and genderfuck) and closely related terms, with WP:Reliable sources of course. And, as you might have guessed I would mention, something we should keep in mind regarding material that is likely to be offensive is the WP:Offensive material guideline. Sure, WP:Not censored is a policy, but the WP:Offensive material guideline is just as important as that policy. Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Genesis P-Orridge

I apologise if I have stepped into a giant elephant trap, but I have started a discussion at Talk:Genesis P-Orridge#Pronouns (again) about the appropriate pronoun to use in the article. Your thoughts would be very much appreciated. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Andreja Pejić

Andreja Pejić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Pejić has come out as trans, having undergone the surgery back at the beginning of the year. I've started the ground work; some help fleshing the article out would be appreciated. :)

Additionally, I've left some of the male categories in. Ordinarily, one wouldn't, but given Pejić's career, I think they're relevant regardless of transition. Sceptre (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I just read about this news. I am wondering if Pejić should be removed from the Genderqueer article now. While she doesn't specifically state her gender identity in the People article, it seems clear that she now identifies as a woman? Funcrunch (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure... we don't want to assume that because she changed her body that she changed her identity as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I strongly agree re the body changes, but she did also change her name, and in the article says "I always dreamt of being a girl," and "[I] became pretty good at acting as a boy. But I was hiding who I was." Funcrunch (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A response to Mr. Obi-Wan It seems clear that anti-gay activists almost universally have a religious agenda, usually from the Christian Bible.

It seems clear that anti-gay activists almost universally have a religious agenda, usually from the Christian Bible. Since English is a recognized international language I do not think that it is, or it should only be limited to the culture of the West. Here in the Eastern world, (e.g. China, India), there are prominant Buddhist who oppose homosexuality. I do not think that a religious agenda should be especially for Christian. I understand that while 'religious' in USA might mean 'Christian' in U.S., but that is not what it means in the world. Maybe wikiers on the English version should think outside their predomineant Western bias? Excuse my poor English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.42.164 (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That was my comment, actually. I thought I made it clear with my wording that I did not equate "religion" with "Christianity", which is why I specifically said "usually from" and "Christian Bible" instead of just "Bible" which could also refer to Judaism or other religions. But I appreciate your input regardless. Funcrunch (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Poland

Several edits in non-neutral manner were made. See [12], [13], [14], [15]. See discussion at Talk:LGBT rights in Poland#LGBT propaganda. Ron 1987 (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Catherina Margaretha Linck

Like the wikipedian just above wondering about what pronoun to use on Genesis P'orridge's page, I'm wondering the same about Catherina Margaretha Linck, see Talk:Catherina_Margaretha_Linck. Suggestions would be appreciated. Arided (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Homosexual vs Gay in articles

Hi friends, I recently made a change per a talk page request here, and I was curious if the change was necessary to make. The user pointed out that "homosexual" is "extremely offensive" and "extremely homophobic", so he asked us to change it to some other iteration of gay/same sex, etc. I noticed that GLAAD has said as much, but I also know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and when Muslims complain that depictions of Muhammad on the site are offensive, we disregard their complaints. Does the community have a take on this? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Since they are synonyms when talking about males, I don't see the problem in changing it to the less offensive term. Homosexual still has stigma attached to it from when it was listed as in the DSM. I don't see it as an issue of censorship as of choosing an equally valid term that is less offensive to a marginalized group of people. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Cyphoidbomb. This matter is obviously different than what we dealt with hours ago. But to answer your query regarding this particular topic: It -- whether or not to use gay or lesbian as opposed to homosexual -- has been discussed a few times at this WikiProject; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40#LGBT instead of homosexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46#Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 47#Replacing "homosexuality" with "LGBT" in article titles. We should go ahead and have a FAQ on it since it keeps coming up at this WikiProject. In that second discussion and third discussion, you can see a general agreement (well, more so in that second discussion) to not use homosexual as a noun, unless somehow necessary because of clarity. Using the word homosexual will be needed in some cases, such as at certain points when speaking of sexual orientation or same-sex sexual activity, as is demonstrated by some aspects of the Homosexuality article. Some LGBT people find the term homosexual offensive because they consider it too clinical and stigmatizing (for the reasons that EvergreenFir noted above); see the Gay article for more detail; other LGBT people don't find the term offensive at all. The term homosexuality (which often, not always, indicates behavior more than sexual orientation, as opposed to the term homosexual) is commonly seen as more acceptable than the term homosexual. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Got it. I'm easy like Sunday morning. :) Thank you both. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying terms the rule applies to

Go to Wikipedia:Gender identity. We know the rule very well. It is that a trans woman must be referred to with female terms regardless of what stage in her life is being discussed. I would like to know if anyone can clarify that it applies to terms like:

woman, she, her, girl, daughter, sister, aunt, niece

...but not to terms like:

vagina, vulva, ovary

Any thoughts on what wording to use to clarify what kind of word it applies to?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you asking? Vagina, vulva and ovary do not have gender identities. Flyer22 (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Those are examples of terms that the rule needs clarification that it doesn't apply to. Georgia guy (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Why does that need clarification? Who is going to think that gender identity refers to the genitals? And if you mean being gender-neutral regarding the genitals, that generally is not going to happen on Wikipedia either, for reasons I've already pointed out to you before. In that link, I pointed to Talk:Phimosis/Archive 2#Definition, and that is how we do things regarding the genitals and wording when it comes to WP:MED/WP:Anatomy issues on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

RSN discussion of use of TransAdvocate as a source

Related to trangender topics: Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Transadvocate_use_in_BLP.2C_etc. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Frank/Kellie Maloney

I happened to be looking at this in the light of recent events, and there is one section that is a bit of a mess. I have made a comment on the talk page here: [[16]] The problem seems to be dead links and WP:SYNTH. Could anybody interested have a quick look and check it out. Thanks.- MishMich - Talk - 12:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Ruth Bennett

You have six days to fix this. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? —Tom Morris (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
To explain: Bearian means here that he nominated the article for deletion under BLP PROD. It has since had the BLP PROD removed. (As the article also falls within the remits of Wikipedia:WikiProject Libertarianism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington, I'm sure they got similarly curt ultimatums...) —Tom Morris (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Resolved

Bearian (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles related to transsexualism/theory about sex of the brain

Judging by this edit by Bridenh (talk · contribs) that I reverted (followup revert of myself here because I'm not interested in getting into a WP:Edit war with her, and what she removed is debated), WP:LGBT editors might want to keep an eye on the Sex assignment and Causes of transsexualism articles; I see that Bridenh also edited the latter article, and that she often engages in problematic (WP:Disruptive) editing. Flyer22 (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Delusions of Gender was the more recent work to debunk "brain sex". Please explain how this is "Disruptive" editing?Bridenh (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
You are speaking of a (seemingly feminist) author's opinion, presented in her Delusions of Gender book, a book she has been partly criticized for (as noted in the Wikipedia article about that book and in the Cordelia Fine article). It is common knowledge that many (perhaps the majority of) feminists take the view that behavioral differences between human males and human females are completely socially constructed; the scientific community as a whole has not taken that stance, not even the majority of that community. And the Causes of transsexualism article certainly addresses evidence that "sex of the brain" is real. Flyer22 (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, as currently noted in the Cordelia Fine article: "...as Fine pointed out in The Psychologist, the book is concerned with scientific evidence presented as support for the idea that males and females are, on average, 'hardwired' to 'systemise' versus 'empathise', rather than the question of the extent to which core gender identity is 'hardwired'; and that she does not subscribe to a behaviourist or social determinist view of development, but rather 'one in which the developmental path is constructed, step by step, out of the continuous and dynamic interaction between brain, genes and environment.'" Flyer22 (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
You seem to have implied that a feminist author (WF:NOR, I don't recall her claiming to be one) is part of what discredits Delusions of Gender, then considering Myths of Gender, Pink Brain, Blue Brain, Brainstorm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences and the works of J. Michael Bailey and Ray Blanchard as well as much more there appears to be a "barely veiled" feminist "agenda", as Baron-Cohen put it. Or in the words of Lewis Wolpert: ""Fine hasn't a clue about biology." (he offered no specific criticisms or rebuttals of her claims)".
I also don't understand the point of using that quote, I don't have a problem with the gender identity part of the paragraph, it's psychological sex I removed. Bridenh (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I care not what you think I seem to be implying. As long as you edit the way you are supposed to, instead of basing your edits on a single author's view regarding a scientific topic and claiming the matter debunked as though that single author has the power to systematically declare whether or not a scientific matter is debunked, I generally won't have a problem with your editing. I cited the Fine quote because she quite clearly is not stating that psychological sex is completely false; gender identity is very much argued as psychological sex or as "sex of the brain," and Fine, in her own words, "does not subscribe to a behaviourist or social determinist view of development." Flyer22 (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
"instead of basing your edits on a single author's view" but that's not what i did and it's not what I do hence I only edit similar topics - because those are the ones I've read about. I clearly stated "Delusions of Gender was the more recent work to debunk "brain sex"." Where does it say only? To jump from that to claiming I'm being disruptive is not assuming good faith. Bridenh (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
You claimed that the matter is debunked; then above, you cited the Delusions of Gender book as proof that the matter is debunked. As for WP:Assuming good faith in you; if I see a reason to, I will. Flyer22 (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Above, I stated that you often engage in problematic (WP:Disruptive) editing; I based that on what I see of your edit history and talk page. I have yet to see a reason for me to WP:Assume good faith in you. I am not the right editor for you to ask that of. Flyer22 (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking at your edit history some more, you also remind me of an editor that I don't trust (one that I have a tendency to report as a WP:Sockpuppet); for example, your visits to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions and use of the word hence above, but that's another matter. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
You went from misunderstanding what I said to accusing me of being a sockpuppet despite the fact that this is my first wiki account, as if my editing didn't make that obvious enough. Goodbye and don't worry, I'll no longer point out debunked essentialist theories. Bridenh (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you of being a WP:Sockpuppet. But, despite your inexperience (or faked inexperience) with editing Wikipedia, I don't believe that you are completely new to editing this site either; experience with this site tells me that you are not. And as for pointing something out regarding science, make sure that you are actually pointing something out instead of claiming something. Flyer22 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and misunderstanding you? No, I don't think that I did. Flyer22 (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with Simple English stubs

Hi, the Simple English Wikipedia needs help with expanding its sexuality stubs, including the following:

These articles don't have to get up to featured article status right away, just so they're long enough to not be stubs. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"What a dump!", or the big WikiProject LGBT Studies cleanup drive of 2014

I found out recently that there is now a bot called User:CleanupWorklistBot operated by User:Bamyers99 which produces a big listing of articles for each WikiProject listing all those that have some kind of issue in the form of a warning template, whether inline like citation needed, or a banner like unreferenced.

According to the listing for LGBT studies, as for a few days ago, 49% of articles tagged by this WikiProject need tidying up—or at the very least, someone to check to see if the warning template still applies.

Tidying this mess up is something we should have a go at. It's unfortunate that the interaction most people have with WikiProject LGBT Studies—or indeed LGBT-identifying editors more generally—is either debating the merits of sexually explicit imagery, or in some battle around controversial BLPs and how to represent the sexuality of article subjects. It'd be nice if we could go out and fix Wikipedia rather than being (whether fairly or not) seen as the sort of people who represent the problems of Wikipedia. I hope if this is successful, WikiProject-focussed cleanup drives might be something that other projects start replicating.

I'm going to suggest that we could try and reduce the number from 49% to 25% by the end of 2014. That means fixing up about 3,400 articles. Or about 180 a week. Sometimes those will be difficult and complicated, but other times it might be as simple as finding one source. Last night, I added one source to the article Jodie Marsh (a British glamour model and television presenter) and could then remove one of the warning templates. If we fall short of the target, that's fine—the important thing is we start the process of taking responsibility of proactively fixing up articles with warning templates and find ways to start slowly chipping away at the enormous backlog of doom.

Any thoughts? —Tom Morris (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Content inclusion or exclusion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#2011 License revocation. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Archive_49&oldid=1079451325"