Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable
 

Bisexuality[edit]

I suspect if we have Bisexuality as our CoM, then this definition will be fixed up. But here's what I took from Talk:List of bisexual people:

To consider a person bisexual, there must be a good source citation to a reliable source which uses the word "bisexual." If there are other sources that present conflicting information, they should be mentioned, too, and the reader should be allowed to make their own judgement. If the person has publicly self-identified their sexual orientation, that self-identification should be mentioned conspicuously, quoting the person's own language.

If it were up to me, I would make each of the above things a possible criterion and suggest that a person could be considered bisexual if two or more of them could be found. Any further thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Reliability of sources is a concern with this issue. I'm no expert on LGBT studies, but primary/secondary sources do need assessment for reliability before we add them. --SunStar Nettalk 02:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I originally put this on the talkpage:

To start the ball rolling, I would say that to consider someone a bisexual, we must be able to verify three circumstances:
  1. That person identifies as bisexual, regardless of relationships, ie Billie Joe Armstrong.
  1. A person has had documented, notable relationships with both sexes, such as Marlon Brando.
  1. A person has been alleged, with evidence, by reliable sources to be, or have been, in a relationship with both sexes, ie Lord Byron and Alfred Kinsey.

I still agree with that, really. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Is anything happening with this now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"transgendered individuals" vs. "transgender individuals"[edit]

I think this should be "transgender" not "transgendered". Kolindigo (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Language can be transgendered but people cannot. Banjeboi 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One issue with:

A deceased person may be categorized and identified as LGBTI if they had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes...

That *might* make sense for LGB, but not for T* (which is not a sexual preference but a gender identity) or I (which is defined medically by anatomy). T* status is not defined by sexual relationships, nor predictive of same. If you mean 'gay', say 'gay' - adding T as if it were a sexual orientation is incorrect in this instance. K7L (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Additions to guidelines[edit]

A recent discussion here, led to a proposal of changes or additions to the MOS guideline here, and this has sparked a discussion here for those that may be interested. — Ched :  ?  19:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Deceased LGBT (?) people[edit]

  • "A deceased person may be categorized and identified as LGBT if they had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes.."

I am having difficulty with this criteria, which is the only part of your guidelines that deals with historical figures.

I've been reading over a hundred artists, writers, actors, directors, producers, etc. figures, primarily from the period 1900-1950. I'm running into many (I'd guess 10-20%) who are categorized as LGBT and only a few who had what you might call established "relationships" with people of the same sex. Some of folks attended parties thrown by a person who was "out" (at least among their peers) and that is the only indication that they were LGBT. Other individuals were identified as gay by a Hollywood tell-all book (that's the only source). Other times, for example, a woman spent her later years (over age 60, say) sharing a house with a female friend and so she is categorized as LGBT.

I'd say that the vast majority (I'm guessing 85-90%) of these cases are not "documented". And only a few of them (for example, John Cage and Merce Cunningham) are what most people would consider "notable".

My only interest here is in correct identification and categorizing. But given the only standard you provide--"documented, notable relationships"--, I'd have to remove quite a few people from categories like Category:LGBT entertainers, Category:Gay actors or Category:Bisexual actors. In fact, for many people who were rumored to have casual, same sex relations, the only documented relationships are their marriages.

I just wanted to check in with the LGBT Project before I start removing people from categories in case this criteria has changed. I foresee some pushback from other editors who object to artists and entertainers who "everyone knows were gay" to be de-categorized and no longer LGBT. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you name some of the specific people you are thinking of removing? I'm wondering if you're seeing "A deceased person may be categorized and identified as LGBT if they had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes" and reading "A deceased person may be categorized and identified as LGBT ONLY if they had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes" - but the judgment of reliable sources, based on casual relationships, analysis of personal writings, etc. can't simply be discarded. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, as I say, that statement is the only criteria mentioned so I did read it "only if" because there were not qualifiers or indications that other criteria could be applied.
Since this is work I did a few weeks ago and I've moved on to other topics, no particular articles come to mind. But could you address the three examples I mention above? Because those are taken from specific actors/actresses I came across and that is the extent of their "documentation".
It seems like otherwise it's a judgment call on my part and I'm pretty sure that the WikiProject LGBT studies doesn't want random editors to impose their own judgments on whether some entertainer was gay or not. If documentation or some reliable source is not required, then any editor can apply any label to anyone or remove one. Liz Let's Talk 21:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
It may be that "a historical figure is queer if reliable sources say so" just goes unsaid, since that's compliant with our policy for relying on the sources for pretty much every other subject. I suppose it could possibly be stated outright? Re your examples, could you clarify if this is a shortage of sources on Wikipedia, or if you looked further and the sources are not available? Maybe the WikiProject could help out by maintaining a list of individuals whose sexual orientation could be better sourced, so that project members could hunt down the sources. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I think the point of the criteria is that since the subject is deceased, they will no longer be able to confirm or deny their sexuality through statements or deeds, so our categorization of their sexuality must be well-sourced. But I agree that this guideline should be copyedited a bit to make that clear. I think the word "notable" here is confusing, because it makes us think of general Wikipedia notability, as in we don't list every person the subject of an article ever slept with because most of the liaisons would not be notable. But if someone is in a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex etc. then it is always going to be "notable" in the context of establishing sexuality. That said, though the simple act of having sex with someone of the same sex doesn't mean that you are gay, the word "relationships" in this criteria may also seem to demand too much, as evidenced by the question that started this section. We would obviously need some strong source(s) establishing that someone was LGBT, but they shouldn't have had to have been in a committed relationship with public house parties. I get that we're trying to not make assumptions based on anecdotal situations ("Wilson says Smith and Jones slept together after the premiere party for their new film") but there are surely many LGBT people in our past who either never found "the one" or were too in the closet to let their relationships be well-publicized.— TAnthonyTalk 16:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)