Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs)
259,776 edits
m Robot: Archiving 3 threads (older than 30d) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 41.
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 332: Line 332:
:Changing the pronouns to pronouns that are in direct conflict with a person's [[gender identity]] is in violation of the [[MOS:IDENTITY]] guideline. Every now and then, people do the same thing at the [[Chaz Bono]] article. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 19:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
:Changing the pronouns to pronouns that are in direct conflict with a person's [[gender identity]] is in violation of the [[MOS:IDENTITY]] guideline. Every now and then, people do the same thing at the [[Chaz Bono]] article. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 19:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
::Note: I reverted the editor and explained matters on his talk page, right after Wikiwind and another editor commented there (I assume that the user is a he, going by the user name). The editor has started a discussion on the topic at the talk page: [[Talk:Brandon Teena#Definitively settling the issue of pronoun]]. I commented there as well, but it may be best that one or more editors from here also comment there. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 20:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
::Note: I reverted the editor and explained matters on his talk page, right after Wikiwind and another editor commented there (I assume that the user is a he, going by the user name). The editor has started a discussion on the topic at the talk page: [[Talk:Brandon Teena#Definitively settling the issue of pronoun]]. I commented there as well, but it may be best that one or more editors from here also comment there. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 20:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

==Category:LGBT neo-Nazis==

'''[[:Category:LGBT neo-Nazis]]''' and its sub-category [[:Category:LGBT German neo-Nazis]], which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 27#Category:LGBT neo-Nazis|the category's entry]]''' on the [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion|Categories for discussion]] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you.

Revision as of 21:45, 27 September 2012

WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


WikiProject
LGBTQ+ studies
Project navigation links
Main project page
 → Project talk page
Watchlist talk
Members
Departments
 → Assessment talk
 → Collaboration talk
 → Community talk
 → Core topics talk
 → Jumpaclass talk
 → Newsletter
 → Peer review talk
 → Person task force talk
 → Translation talk
Useful links
Infoboxes and templates
Guidelines talk
Notice board talk
Sexuality and gender
deletion discussions
Info resources
Bot reports
Newly tagged articles and
assessment level changes
Article alerts
Unreferenced BLPs
(Biographies of Living
Persons)
Cleanup listing
New articles with
LGBT keywords
Popular pages
Recognized content
Portals we help maintain
LGBTQ portal
Transgender portal
edit · changes

Tom Cruise

There's a discussion at Talk:Tom Cruise#LGBT Project about whether the article should be in this Wikiproject or not. As far as I can tell, the only link he has to LGBT is that he has a history of suing people who say he's gay. The concern that apparently sparked the discussion was that he could sue Wikipedia for putting him in the LGBT project/putting the template on his talk page. I don't have strong opinions on the matter myself, but I thought I'd notify interested editors here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Talk:Tom Cruise#LGBT Project has since morphed into something rather more significant: whether this WikiProject can be prohibited by outside editors from adding articles to its scope due to concerns that the project tag might be misconstrued. WikiProject members may wish to visit the above discussion, or the related posting on WP:BLPN.--Trystan (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that "prohibition" isn't the goal and agreement by editors part of this project is sought. Acoma Magic (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remember Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people, when we agreed that this group can tag any article they want? Remember the guideline at WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN, which says you can tag any article you want? Well, apparently not everyone remembers it. But SV's coments have reminded me that your assessment cats could have a more verbose name, like "B-class WikiProject LGBT studies articles". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fight OUT Loud

Please consider this Request for Comment re notability. Fight OUT Loud Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Petras

The article on Kim Petras consistently cites her as "he" despite identifying as a woman. I do not believe this is accurate protocol but am not entirely sure so would rather leave it/bring it to the attention of people who deal with this topic. Thank you. Wherschel (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender reporting in the media

Paris Lee's latest piece for the Independent's blog network is a good read about how the journalistic community, despite their standards of practice, are often terrible when it comes to reporting of trans issues. It's nothing new; Trans Media Watch submitted evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on a similar tangent. Should these problems be explicitly noted? I've seen on several pages where the source's description is preferred over the person's self description. Sceptre (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those, i'll add them to what i'm doing on User:Jenova20/Transphobia in the media! ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern two spiritulasim

There can be no denial of the fact that as humanity evolves so too does our sexuality. It would be ignornat to assume otherwise. What is considered to be an evolved sense of sexuality or of gender identification? That is a question that is not asked enough. There are many clinical and phsycological studies and theories. Ranging between what was "wrong" with those with alternative gender identifications or sexual preferences to what is "wrong" with those who would repress, deny, or otherwise dishonor their own sexual desires. Being of an alternative gender identification or sexual orientation can provide difficult circumstances for personal growth, sexual coupling, or simply societal functioning. Historically in Native American and other indigenous tribal cultures, there were those who were simulaneously a male and a female presence. Although these indidviduals were often intuitive and held places such as medicine men and women and tribal councellors, their connection to the devine left them as targets for retribution or sacrifice when the gods didn't bless the community with a healthy crop or disfortunes of the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.204.60 (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Dyke"

The usage of "dyke" is up for discussion, see Talk:Levee -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binarism

The new binarism article could use some help getting off its feet. All help will be greatly appreciated.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gold star lesbian

The article Gold star lesbian (the term refers to a lesbian who has never had sex with a man) has been deleted as non-notable. The term has been used in scholarly articles (see this Google Scholar search) and appears in various dictionaries of slang, but perhaps should only be considered a dictionary definition. If the concept is notable, then there ought to be a Wikipedia article on it, but I am not sure that notability can be proven. I have submitted the definition to Wiktionary. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected ther page to Wiktionary, see Gold star lesbian. I doubt the concept is independently notable, but I may be mistaken, see Google News archives and Google Books. I have no objections to expansion or improvement of the article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The entry has been deleted from Wiktionary. See 07:00, 4 September 2012 SemperBlotto (Talk | contribs) deleted page gold star lesbian (Creative invention or protologism: please see WT:CFI; use WT:LOP) [1]. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seduction of the innocent (Batman)

Forgive me the catchy header, just hoped to draw another eye or two. For what, by my count, is the fourth time in about two months or less, Talk:Batman is seeing another wall-of-text "rabble rabble Batman's not gay remove your reliably-sourced and appropriately-weighted section on scholarly interpretation of Batman as a gay figure rabble rabble" rant; I really am getting to the point where I'm liable to start responding with nothing of value beyond vitriol. Any of you guys maybe want to watchlist the page in case you could add something now or in the future? Current fella is literally arguing that an author is not a good source for his own intent, just to give you a taster. Thanks for any help you might be able to add. GRAPPLE X 08:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fundamentally part of the same mess as at Talk:Tom Cruise, except at Tom Cruise we also get to claim that there are serious BLP issues in having the LGBT studies WikiProject banner on the page. In case you were wondering, this problem does affect other WikiProjects, but usually with less impersonal vitriol (and sometimes more personal vitriol, when we have two WikiProjects whose members dislike each other and believe that the other group is engaged in a hostile takeover). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Batman talk page should benefit from a FAQ at the top specifically addressing the issue. Also there's a repeated topics template, see Talk:Homophobia. Insomesia (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice Board

Hello - I think we should redirect the project noticeboard here. No one uses it, and people wanting to post a heads-up should be coming to the talk page. What I'm not sure how to handle is integrating that page's history/archives into the talk page's history/archives, so people are aware that the material is there to be read. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility might be to transclude noticeboard posts onto this page, much as posts to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure are transcluded to WP:AN. This would obviate any complications over page histories and the existing archives. I'm not sure if there are other implications, either theoretical (e.g., project page content duplicated on a talk page) or logistical (the possibility of new duplicate archives). Rivertorch (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support a redirect without transclusion and leaving the history and archives there. To make people aware of the existence of the archives we just link to it. I confirm that the notice board has never been popular and has received fewer than ten posts in the past few years and that this page is the de facto noticeboard. It might be possible to re-institute the noticeboard in a few years if more people participate in LGBT community development, but right now there is no need for that board and this one both. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category for Discussion

Category:Gay Wikipedians is being proposed for deletion after the earlier deletion review discussion. Please feel free to participate. Thank you! Ncboy2010 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does the WikiProject Template need a disclaimer?

I'm not a member of this project, but the ongoing discussion at Talk:Tom Cruise brought an issue to my attention which should be discussed here. Currently, {{WikiProject LGBT}} is being added to any article that has some interest to members of this project. It has been argued (and I agree) that when added to the talk page of a biography of a living person, it has problematic BLP implications. But there's also a widespread view that WikiProjects should have the right to tag articles as part of their scope. So, here's a possible solution to this dilemma: should the template include a short disclaimer, something alone the lines of The use of this template does not necessarily imply that the subject is LGBT?

We already take a similar approach with potentially contentious categories - as I'm sure this project's members are aware, Category:LGBT people and its subcategories have a clear disclaimer at the top stating This category may inappropriately label persons. I think we should do something similar with the template. This isn't a matter of 'protecting us from getting sued', it's simply a matter of basic decency, and not making potentially offensive implications about living people. What does everyone else think? Robofish (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. No more than every other Wikiproject tag needs a disclaimer. We shouldn't bow to what feels like hysteria and homophobia. The current guidelines noted in the discussion amply cover the situation. Insomesia (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed ツ Jenova20 (email) 20:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of two minds.

Mind One: We are not labeling persons when we use a project tag. We are stating our interests. Need we list the homophobes and homophobic organizations we tag as obvious evidence of that? We could discuss someone's sexual orientation ad nauseam on a Talk page without being challenged, but the rainbow is too much? And I don't think a comparing Talk page material with entry page material is appropriate.

Mind Two: I'd be happy with language that says that "this entry is of interest to participants in the LGBT Project". I'd have serious problems with anything that smacked of a disclaimer. As usual, it's all in the details. Maybe we need to subtract the "LGBT-related" language. Of interest shoudl suffice. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does say "WikiProject LGBT studies" and the rainbow (flag) is the international symbol of LGBTQQI, etc inclusiveness. Anyone actually upset by that probably is upset about lots of things that we aren't about to change, about ourselves or the project. Insomesia (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that an even handed approach is much more palatable than one that targets just this project. I would not be opposed to modification of Template:WPBannerMeta to the effect of The presence of this banner does not constitute a material statement about the subject of this article, though it seems a little legal-y to me. Changes to that template should be discussed at the village pump first since it they would impact virtually every article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we simply add something to Wikipedia:General disclaimer or create Wikipedia:Talk page disclaimer if this is that big an issue? There must be other issues on talk pages we might need a disclaimer for? Hiding T 09:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the other comments, this doesn't seem to be generally considered a problem needing a specific disclaimer. Fair enough, I was probably being a bit oversensitive in suggesting it. It's also true that this is far from the worst template when it comes to implicitly making allegations about someone - the likes of {{WikiProject Criminal Biography}} are much more serious. That template seems to do without a disclaimer, and just expects people to use it with caution; I suppose the same applies here. Robofish (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of transsexuals

I'm concerned that this article may not be NPOV but would prefer other editors to take a look. Primarily it seems to be yet another article legitimizing Blanchard's work which has been seen as controversial. Insomesia (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of flag icons and improvements to Same-sex marriage legislation around the world

Could you give your opinions here? Ron 1987 (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And your ideas about how to improve that woeful and bloated article would also be useful and welcome there. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in *country* series

As someone who is interested in differences in LGBT rights in different countries, I have frequently been disappointed to find that in many of the "LGBT rights in *country*" articles, the rights of transgender people are never discussed. This is a huge problem, and I think that a systematic effort should be made to include a section on transgender rights (or the lack of) in every article, regardless of how brief. Otherwise, it's just LGB. Incidentally, I've also noticed a tendency to focus on gay men, with lesbians frequently receiving little to no attention; this is also something which needs to be assessed, but it's much less prevalent than the trans problem. --92.39.193.94 (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably indicative of the situation with RSes and even LGB charities in those countries. Very often, the "T" is an afterthought. Stonewall, for instance, have come into a lot of flack for not just ignoring, but actively harming the trans rights movement. Sceptre (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The bias is in the publishing and sources. There are not many members of the transgender community in publishing, academia, or media, and so not much content exists to be cited. If you are sensitive to this issue and have access to media on the international transgender community then consider posting your sources to the respective talk pages of each country's LGBT rights article. Without sources this content will never be included, and I fear that for many places there just are no sources to cite. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the IP above. I've been curious about transgender issues in countries like China for a while, because the information isn't available on Wikipedia and I wouldn't know where to look for legal information (which, really, is the content I'm after for these articles). I've found out about some aspects of the Chinese laws regarding transsexuals through English versions of Chinese newspapers (things like you must wait five years for surgery, and can change your identification at a police station, but you must be single and must have had surgery). Are these valid sources for asserting what the legal position is, or must I find copies of the actual laws? Also, can I join this project? --Poppy Appletree (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Poppy, First, yes, you can join this project! Welcome! You can list yourself as a member here if you want. Newspaper coverage (from reliable newspapers) is in some ways actually preferred on Wikipedia to primary sources: reading the actual laws can be error-prone, newspaper coverage tends towards at least "big-picture" accuracy. Primary sources (the laws themselves) can be used, but are best used cautiously, or in addition to newspapers, books, etc. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT cats for dead royalty

User:Pgarret has recently been removing the Category:LGBT Royalty from a number of gay and lesbian dead royals, such as Edward II of England, Henry III of France and Princess Isabella of Parma. He has also in at least one instance replaced "gay" with "homosexual" which may be indicative of his WP:POV. I started a conversation on his talk page and he simply reiterated his view that it is WP:OR for these individuals to be declared gay simply because they had sexual relations with people of the same sex and then reverted my reverts. Apparently, his grandfather was baptised by one of the royals whom he has decided is not gay enough to be labeled LGBT (which he views as a "political" term) so it is also somewhat personal to him. Please feel free to weigh in. Argos'Dad 18:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of and/or substitution of the terms gay and homosexual and lesbian is usually debatable. The best solution is follow to the sources. You don't tell us where that's been an issue. It would help to know. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing gay to homosexual is reminiscent of organizations that replace the word gay with homosexual to hilarious results (here. But I take your point that it is not the central focus here. User:Pgarret has provided his list of unsourced or not sufficiently gay people to warrant the GLBT cat. It is here:


  • James Brooke ‎ (Category:LGBT royalty proper source?)
  • Franz, Duke of Bavaria ‎ (No source. Absolutely no conclusive evidence, removing Category:LGBT royalty)
  • Marie Joséphine of Savoy ‎ (Category:Lesbians no conducive evidence. removing)
  • Marie Joséphine of Savoy ‎ ("have suggested Marie Joséphine's possible lesbian relationship with a lady-in-waiting" not sufficient for placing in any LGBT category)
  • Philipp, Landgrave of Hesse ‎ ("According to biographer Jonathan Petropoulos, Philipp was probably bisexual" this does not mean that Philipp, Landgrave of Hesse can be automatically placed in Category:LGBT royalty, Category:LGBT people from Germanyetc. removing)
  • Prince Pierre, Duke of Valentinois ‎ ("Prince Pierre's homosexuality, according to his friend, British writer James Lees-Milne" i.e. claim not conducive evidence. Removing Category:LGBT royalty)
  • Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia ‎ (Removing Category:LGBT. Sources weak. (rumoured to have been a homosexual). A reactionary even by contemporary conservative standards http://pages.rediff.com/grand-duke-sergei-alexandrovich-of-russia/)
  • Louis Joseph, Duke of Vendôme ‎ (Saint-Simon lui reprochera surtout d'être adonné au « vice » des « habitants de Sodome » from fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis-Joseph_de_Vend%C3%B4me. i.e. has been criticized for alleged homosexuality - removing categorization until more sources)
  • Ludwig II of Bavaria‎ (Man kann natürlich fragen: Ist es überhaupt von Bedeutung, zu wissen, welche sexuellen Probleme Ludwig II. hatte oder ob Ludwig II. homosexuell war oder nicht? http://www.sgipt.org/medppp/zwang/ludwig2/frauen.htm#Ludwig%20II.%20und%20die%20Sexualit%...) Ludwig II of Bavaria ‎ (Ludwig is best known as an eccentric and at best a latent homosexual. A long-time and very close and personal relationship with Richard Wagner did exist but does that also make Wagner a LGBT candidate?)
  • Prince George, Duke of Kent ‎ (Queens uncle Prince George was only reputed to have had sexual liaisons with maybe a man or two. Does that justify categorizing as Category:LGBT royalty or Category:LGBT people from England)
  • Princess Isabella of Parma ‎ (No sources for Category:LGBT royalty. Wikipedia articles in German, French, Italian does not mention this LGBT claim. A claim is not enough -only facts. Thank you)
  • Henry III of France ‎ (Alleged homosexuality...hat his supposed homosexuality was based on his dislike of war and hunting being interpreted as effeminate, an image cultivated by political opponents. Removing "presumptive" categories)
  • Ferdinando II de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany ‎ (The LGBT category- No corroborating facts. Italian and German language Wikipedia has only; Ferdinando II sposò Vittoria Della Rovere. Discendenza: Cosimo (*/† 1639), Cosimo III.(1642–1723), Francesco Maria (1660–1711).)
  • Edward II of England ‎ (rumoured to have been either homosexual or bisexual i.e. not established fact. Rumoured to have been a clown or had Abasiophilia does not count as reason for Category mark)
  • Christina, Queen of Sweden ‎ (Not a substantiate fact. Sexuality "labels" in history are not only misleading, highly controversial or manipulated evidence but especially anachronistical when applied throughout history with there own and differentiated concept of sex and sexuality.)

I am not saying any of these people are/are not GLBT. I am struck by the standard PGarret is using to determine who is gay enough to warrant the category. Argos'Dad 19:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to look at just one of these, Henry III of France. And there really isn't enough to justify the category. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but I take a look at Prince George, Duke of Kent ‎who has repeated documented liaisons with men and women. If that's not bisexual, what is? And the B in LGBT is for bisexual... Argos'Dad 21:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"documented liaisons with men and women" -- some fuzzy wording with a citation to the Letters of Noel Coward that cites no page. Same for the "some suggestion" citation of Lucy Moore's work. "reportedly blackmailed" with no citation at all. The most specific bits cite Picknett, Prince, Prior & Brydon's War of the Windsors, which you really don't want to be using as a source. The lead author is Lynn Picknett, "a writer, researcher, and lecturer on the paranormal, the occult, and historical and religious mysteries." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May I express my extreme disappointment in this discussion? When I saw this section header pop up in my watchlist, I thought it was going to be about homosexual felines who were fans of deceased monarchs. Perhaps not nearly so necessary a discussion, but one with more inherent interest. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My great-aunt Mildred had a cat that she swore was gay, but alas, Mildred wasn't royalty and the cat failed WP:Notability. Sorry to disappoint! Argos'Dad 21:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that comment had a like button. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{Like}}. There's a template for everything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All very funny were we not still reeling from the death of Her Majesty's corgi. Dogs are people too, my friend. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • As you go back into history it gets more difficult because we don't have people self-identifying as LGBT the way they do today - because of legal and social penalties, or because the language and concepts simply did not exist. It is undoubted that in many of these cases, reliable sources - multiple, reliable, scholarly, neutral, modern-day - identify the individuals as LGBT according to modern understanding. If we cannot agree to categorize people like James VI/I and Edward II as absolutely LGBT (although I think we should; their relationships are very well documented), we should be able to create some sort of "Possibly LGBT people" category that would include only deceased people (probably with some date cutoff, so as not to catch the recently dead that users might speculate about) and for which inclusion would be determined based on an assessment of sources. This would allow us to recognize the work done by historical scholars on these individuals' personal relationships and avoid arbitrarily weighting the views of some scholars (the ones who say they're straight) over others, while avoiding taking a position if the matter is debated. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to second this suggestion ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Possibly LGBT" is just too broad. Debates will arise whether an unsubstantiated rumour is enough to be included in that category. Maybe it could be created if the guidelines for that category says it should only be applied when there is substantial evidence. Acoma Magic (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems obvious to me that we would use the judgment of reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but it needs to be substantial evidence. "Possibly" is much too broad. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said - we would go with reliable sources, because this is how WP works. We don't examine primary documents and decide if the language used between two men is romantic enough to be "substantial evidence" - we read historians who have analyzed the documents and so on, and go with what they say about the individuals' relationships. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about LGBT interest or Person of LGBT interest? Or is that too broad? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 20:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Pre–20th century people widely described [viewed?] as [being] LGBT"? Fat&Happy (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Deceased royalty who engaged in same-sex sexual relations"? Avoids the modern category terminology. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mines a suggestion for all circumstances where the tagging could be controvertial, such as John Travolta for example. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 21:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding based on Roscelese's original comment about "scholars" and "going back in history". In the case of a BLP like Travolta (or even Cher, Midler and Madonna), I don't think there's a need to categorize the individuals themselves as "Person of LGBT interest"; it's sufficient to indicate that the article itself is of LGBT interest by use of the project template and the categories it generates on talk pages. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do have Category:Pre-19th century LGBT people. I think some of the suggestions being made are far too wordy; to me, "possibly" is sufficient in the category name, while the category description could elaborate on what determines inclusion. The other issue is that pre-19th-century doesn't currently split by occupation, nor do any of the proposals made here including mine; this obviously doesn't help us with the problem at hand of Category:LGBT royalty. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still prefer something a bit more definitive, like "widely viewed as", but have to admit it's a little wordy, especially if, as it seems, you're thinking of baseline phrasing for a number of categories like occupation. Could you at least live with narrowing the field a bit by substituting "Probably"? Fat&Happy (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be fine. Would you agree that it would be a subcat of "LGBT people"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Well, technically it's not, of course. Otherwise there would be no need for it. But as a practical matter, for the new cat(s) to be at all useful, yes, it would have to. (Unless, of course, you want to follow the "tail wagging the dog" principle used where, e.g., Category:Whig Party Presidents of the United States is a sub of Category:Whig Party (United States) presidential nominees and make "Probable LGBT people" the overall parent, but that's always seemed a bit weird and counter-intuitive to me.) Fat&Happy (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to the original point, "Probably LGBT royalty" seems awkward or ambiguous. "Probable LGBT royalty" or "Royalty who were probably LGBT"? Fat&Happy (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is a regional difference? "Probably LGBT people" seems a lot more correct to me than "Probable LGBT people" (the "probably" modifying the adjective, not the noun). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Yeah, grammatically that's right. I think my reaction may be based on a tendency to look at the beginning adverb and read it with an implied "People who are...", which results in the ambiguity. (I didn't realize I had that reaction while we were only discussing "people", just when I substituted a more specific noun, whether royalty, writers, or carpenters.) Fat&Happy (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Probable" makes it sounds like we have mathematical odds calculated. "Suspected" or "believed"? --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find that objection more true of "probable" than of "probably". Fat&Happy (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment about Same-sex marriage legislation around the world

A request for comment about this article is now pending. You are invited to join the discussion. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sex change operation" and similar terms

So, I'm looking to replace terms like "sex change operation" with more appropriate ones like "sex reassignment surgery" after noticing it being used in Hong Kong's LGBT rights page. I have a style question, though: In the example shown, I changed "has had a sex change operation" to "has undergone sex reassignment surgery". "Undergo[ne]" is frequently used in reference to surgery and medical treatments, especially significant ones, but I'm curious whether the term could be construed as non-neutral. I don't want to say "had sex reassignment surgery" because it sounds stupid and reads badly, but at the same time I don't want to introduce new issues into pages whilst updating terms.

Thoughts? --Poppy Appletree (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the preferred term is "Gender reassignment surgery" but i can't be 100% on that. This might be like the LGBT debaccle again to an extent. If something discusses a specific wording then point out the preferred wording but don't misattribute. I intend to actually have a bit of this kinda stuff in my workload eventually as the UK parliamentary committee report into the press was presented a lot of examples of the press trying to whip up hate against transgenders by using the unpolitically correct terms on many occasions. And i actually saw one today from the Daily Mail (hardly surprizing) about the cross-dressing "doctor" giving the illegal bum implants. What can you expect when the papers regulate themselves? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 18:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Gender reassignment surgery" is meaningless; sexual reassignment surgery is the surgical alteration of sexual characteristics to align them with a person's gender identity. When described in terms of gender, which is often in a broader context than just surgery, it's referred to as "gender affirmation". I'm guessing you got the term "gender reassignment surgery" from that Daily Mail article, which is a mistake, as the Mail doesn't even try to get their facts straight.
From the article which I believe you're referencing: "Morris Garner, a man who has undergone some gender reassignment surgeries and refers to himself as Tracey Lynn Garner, faces a life sentence for the death of one of his patients"[2]
That's the Daily Mail for you. Apparently, many other newspapers are making the same error in describing Garner as a cross-dresser. Huffington Post (which, despite its attempts at being a liberal paper, is generally abysmal with trans issues), gives us the following: "The suspect – who police say was born a man and identifies as a woman"[3] Garner isn't a cross-dresser, she's a transgender woman.
Terms like "sex swap" are banned by the PCC in the UK, and (as far as I'm aware) terms like "sex change" are discouraged. The PCC, however, is utterly useless, so these rules get ignored.
As for the topic itself, though, I was just asking whether "undergone" was inappropriate. With regards to misattribution, the example shown, the source itself used "sex reassignment surgery", whereas the editor who wrote it up had used the term "sex change operation".
As a final aside, "transgenders" isn't an appropriate term, since transgender isn't a noun - it's an adjective, so it has to be used in conjunction with something else. "Transgender people/folk/men/women/whatever" would be correct. ("Trans" is used in the same way.) --Poppy Appletree (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"sex reassignment surgery" - I was close! =D
As for "transgenders", i've seen "gays", "lesbians" etc used that way tonnes of times so i believe you're a bit behind the times on that one. Using it without the words "folk", "peoples" or what-have-you is the most common phrasing. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 19:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Gay", "lesbian" and "transgender" are different words. "Gay" and "lesbian" are both nouns and adjectives, "transgender" is an adjective only. Furthermore, I'm trans, and I'm quite definitely not behind the times. Using transgender as a noun is incorrect, and as Wiktionary notes, offensive. You may find it helpful to read this, which is very good. --Poppy Appletree (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, there is a difference in saying "I'm gay" and "I'm a gay": "I'm a gay" is not correct. similarly I can describe myself as transgender, "I am transgender" but I can't say "I'm a transgender." It's just a matter of linguistics. Referring to transgender individuals as "transgenders" is not correct, you have to attach a noun: "Transgender people", "transgender individuals", "Transgender man/men", "transgender woman/women" etc.
Also, "Gender reassignment surgery" is not meaningless, as it is increasingly used in academic and medical text. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected then. Thanks for the link, i don't see me using it very often but it's useful to know.
Intersex is genderless right? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 21:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Intersex is a grouping of medical conditions which are present in 1-2% of the population wherein people have sexual characteristics which normally appear in the other sex. Specific features are very, very varied, but the importance of such conditions with regards to LGBT issues is in the way it challenges the exclusivity of male and female sexes, particularly the idea of such a divide being "natural". Some intersex people may view themselves as genderless, or view themselves as between sexes, but it's common for intersex people to identify within the traditional male/female binary. Generally, those who identify as genderless would be genderqueer or similar. It's complex, and human diversity apparently has no conceivable end, as everything breaks down into different little things and people are all different in how they approach their identities. Diversity ad absurdum. --Poppy Appletree (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bookkeeper: "Gender reassignment surgery" implies that a person's gender/gender identity is altered via surgery. Depending on how you interpret this, there are separate problems. Suggesting that someone's gender expression/gender role is altered by surgery is of course absurd, and the concept of changing someone's gender identity via surgery would be that of surgically altering whatever aspect of a person's brain that creates gender dysphoria, so that their gender identity aligned with their assigned sex. "Gender reassignment surgery" is opposite in meaning to "sex reassignment surgery", which is altering the body such that it is congruent with a person's gender identity. That's why I said the term was meaningless. The purpose of surgery is to bring the body into cohesion with the brain, not to bring the brain into cohesion with the body. --Poppy Appletree (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the same token, "sex reassignment surgery" has often been thought of as an attempt to alter a person's sex, in the genetic sense of the term (meaning xy to xx or xx to xy which is, as of yet, a medical impossibility). While you an I may understand the term implies altering the sexual characteristics of genitalia, it is not always seen that way. Gender Reassignment surgery as a term is meant to imply surgery which brings the body into cohesion with the brain, to use your own words, not the other way around. Technically, both terms have flaws, but both are acceptable by academic and medical standards. I personally use SRS rather than GRS, but I understand its intended meaning. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of the PCC, it's toothless and newspapers still use those terms (see the above section on trans reporting in the media). On the subject of terminology, my personal preference is "genital reconstruction surgery", but any contemporary term should be accepted, and definitely over "sex change". Sceptre (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The phrases "sex change", "sex change operation", and "sex change surgery" are deprecated, and definitely passé.
Those like myself, who try to maintain the distinction between "sex" (as reproductive anatomy, also usually identified with the secondary sex characteristics of a person) and "gender" (as a socio-psychological manifestation of the self, and sometimes, brain-sex), tend to prefer "Gender Recognition Surgery" or "Gender Confirmation Surgery", since that stresses that the internal sense of gender - usually after being reinforced by a successful experience during Transition (transgender) - is "confirmed" through surgery bringing the genitalia and secondary sex characteristics more in line with that sense of self.
"Sex Reassignment Surgery" is the term which used to be predominant, but its use seems to be on the wane. "SRS" still seems to be quite commonly used, since "GRS" doesn't seem to have as much standing as a well-known acronym.
Referring to such surgeries as "Gender Reassignment Surgery" leads to confusions such as User:Poppy Appletree notes above… however, you need to be aware that many people including experts are using the term "gender" to refer to "sex". This creates a perplexing zone of confusion in discussions about the relationships between sex, gender and gender identity, pre- and postnatal hormonal influences on gender identity, socialization, etc., which confusion is by now IMO almost impossible to overcome, since there is no authority in the English language to enforce a standard (unlike say, France, or Israel? ;-).
To give you some idea of how confusing the terminological chaos re: "things trans" can be… I identify myself as a pre-op transsexual. My therapist, who is reasonably expert and has been doing gender therapy for a long time, told me recently: "You're transgender. You definitely qualify for surgery." So: there you go: she's not using "transgender" as an umbrella term here, contrary to the current popular usage. She even corrected me once when I referred to myself as a "transsexual" and said "You're transgender". (Was I confused? YUP.)  ????
PS to User:Poppy Appletree - "Diversity ad absurdum" … "Nature loves diversity; society hates it." - Milton Diamond.-)
thanks, - bonze blayk (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in Rhode Island page is inaccurate, Gender Identity not protected

I'm not sure how to make the change myself (I haven't edited Wikipedia before), but the section of the LGBT rights in Rhode Island page which states that "Rhode Island has a criminal statute covering acts of violence motivated by both sexual orientation and gender identity/expression" is not correct. Rhode Island does have a statute providing for penalty enhancement for crimes motivated by, among other things, sexual orientation (R.I. GEN. LAWS § 12-19-38), but the statute does not cover gender identity or expression.

A 2012 law (2012 Rhode Island Laws Ch. 12-124 (12-S 2488) (effective May 30, 2012)) amended the definition of “Hate Crimes” in the hate crime monitoring and reporting law (R.I. GEN. LAWS § 42-28-46) to include gender identity and expression, but this law explicitly does NOT affect the sentence enhancement statute ("This section shall not be construed to increase or enhance the penalties against the perpetrators of hate crimes as defined in this section, unless provided for by any other section of law")

The whole thing is a bit of a mess, but the take away is that when a criminal selects their victim because of the victim's gender identity or expression the person has committed a hate crime as defined by the hate crime monitoring statute (R.I. GEN. LAWS § 42-28-46), but their sentence will not be enhanced by the state's Hate Crime Sentencing Act (R.I. GEN. LAWS § 12-19-38). In other words, the state tracks crimes motivated by bias against gender identity or expression, but it does not have a has a criminal statute covering acts of violence motivated by gender identity/expression.

If someone could figure out how to format this into an accurate/succinct edit it would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.0.100 (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsible project template?

Is there a collapsible version of the project template? I'd like to add it to articles, but it feels really intrusive at full size. --Poppy Appletree (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The {{WikiProject LGBT studies}} template? The usual practise is to put it inside {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} if there are three or more project banners on the same talk page; then it collapses automatically. - htonl (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

articles in Category:American victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes being targeted

So far I've found seven with plenty of reliable sources being prodded. More eyes on these articles would be appreciated. Insomesia (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROD --Poppy Appletree (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While Rebecca Wight needs a thorough rewrite, I took it from 2 to nearly 20 sources and tossed the PROD. Nothing simplifies a notability discussion like a broad, well-distributed bucketload of sources. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm about to be away on Wikibreak, but most of the articles that got PROD'd, not all, were from one editor, who is understandably very unhappy. If someone were open to reaching out with a helping hand there, it could make a lot of difference. (I'd do it myself, but it's silly to do that and then to not answer emails for ten days...) --j⚛e deckertalk 02:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any context to all of the PRODs? Sceptre (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles are in the same category, it's the only context I can see. Now they are all being sent for deletion by AfD. Insomesia (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are the first four ... Insomesia (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm conflicted about what to do here. There is an argument that they fail WP:EVENT because of lack of significant coverage any amount of time after the fact or any individual impact, but if deletion discussions about attacks on Israelis are any indication, Wikipedia simply doesn't care about WP:EVENT anymore. I think it's a good guideline, but I'm not sure it's community consensus anymore since it always gets trodden into the dirt whenever the victim is Israeli. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more:

--В и к и T 16:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, FFS. The editor nom'd someone whose murder had two books written about it? *shakes head* --j⚛e deckertalk 16:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm walking away from this situation, but I would encourage editors not to "lie down and take it", there are a number of sources and entirely policy-compliant arguments for keep in many of these cases. Apply Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News Archives. Most of this will sort itself out in the end. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 17:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of thing happened several years ago, and we did lose some articles despite ample reliable sourcing. Notability is always a judgment call, but I found it difficult to continue to AGF when multiple articles dealing with a very specific subject were being targeted using a narrow reading of notability guidelines that those pursuing a deletion agenda were quite unable to defend. That's why I walked away then, and that's why, beyond perhaps adding a source here and casting a !vote there, it's sometimes useless not to "lie down and take it". Rivertorch (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the WP:GNG guideline is all that's needed. No need to prove that each hate-crime was particularly gruesome, etc. Insomesia (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:EGG, keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Per the Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link.
  • Per WP:LINKCLARITY, The article linked to should correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible given the context: [...] the link target and the link label do not have to correspond to each other, but the link must be as intuitive as possible.

On Template:LGBT, under the tab "Social attitudes Prejudice Violence" ... and in the subsection "Prejudice & Discrimination" there is a dispute on how to list List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups, an article I created and the other person has tried to delete (discussion closed as keep).

I feel we should be brief but the opposer feels we must include a qualifier that it is a list that is produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). I feel adding the "SPLC" acronym is inappropriate on this full template (usually an acronym is explained, and SPLC is unlikely to be known by most to see the template).

Some options:

  • SPLC-designated anti-gay hate groups
  • Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-gay hate groups
  • SPLC list
  • List of anti-gay hate groups
  • Anti-gay hate groups

Since this template belongs to this project could others please weigh in on what seems the most appropriate given that this is a high-profile template? After discussion has died down we can see if there is consensus and copy the dission to the template talk page so it is saved in both spaces. Insomesia (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the first issue: I defenitely agree with StAnselm that it should be mentioned, because it is their list, not a general or governmental or legal list. Omitting SPLC would promote SPLC's conclusions into some general fact. However good or bad they based their findings, it is theirs. Insomesia and MrX argue that it is some general knowledge, and the only such list available, and so has some authority (my wording here). But as I said, I do not want this editor's opinion (a POV) between my eyes and the link. The fact that I can see this background fact somewhere else (e.g. in the full link blurb in my browser) is opposing the navbox's aim (I found this well described in WP:EGG and WP:LINKCLARITY, already mentioned). Another, new, argument against generalising the list is that it lists U.S. groups only. Mentioning the list unspecified would also obscure that limitation. Reference to the U.S.is not needed, since we describe it as a list by an organisation, there is no suggestion of completeness.
Now on the second issue, phrasing and spelling. On abbreviating into "SPLC" or not. Interestingly, I have never before heard or read about that organisation (whichever way spelled). So to me both the short and long form were equal; my reaction was: what is that? (In this am I not an average reader?). Such a question mentally raising is bad. The fact that it is some sort of an institution should best be introduced by phrasing like using designated by .... That would answer my initial question automatically, even prevent it from popping up! For this reason, writing SPLC-designated list (long or short form) is less clear, because that way it could also mean a process, or some criteria set. Of course the navbox is not the place to otherwise describe of define the organisation. Just the fact that it is one, is enough. And with this, the short form is as usefull as the long form. In general, brevity is not a main argument. We do not leave out information for the sake of brevity. But now, all other things equal, we can choose the short form for overview reason (in a navbox, words are preferred over sentences). Concluding: SPLC should be mentioned, and can be abbreviated. Phrasing can & should clarify the source as an organisation. -DePiep (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (also followed Anselm's link) I think that SPLC should be abbreviated. If people know who they are, the initialism is informative, if not, it's a link, and the article immediately starts with an explanation of the Southern Poverty Law Center. It definitely need to be labeled as the SPLC listing, because the list is POV and should be labeled as such, but the whole name is not likely to clarify anything for people who don't know about SPLC (as DePiep showed above), nor is it likely to diminish understanding for people in the know (I was a UIdaho student when SPLC got rid of the Aryan Nations). VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 12:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heres how I feel about this. There are only a few organizations in the world that list hate groups. The only two I can think of are the SPLC and the ADL. On the other hand think of it this way, what sources would we use to say they are hate groups? I would say the SPLC and the ADL are the only groups which we can really use that have an authority on the subject. All in all I strongly think that just calling it a list of anti-LGBT hate groups would be enough unless you clearly have a better source that specializes in hate groups that would say otherwise.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list from a UK group. StAnselm (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While a great list that is not helping your point. The point is you are supposed to deligitimize at least most of the hate groups on the SPLC list by finding sources that clearly state they are not hate groups and therefore SPLC is not a proper authority on the topic of hate groups.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are discussing the article page, but this thread is about how to put it in the template. And eh, who is supposed to deligitimize? -DePiep (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that SPLC is a source. Its main source of scholarship is hate groups. It contains many of the greatest experts in the field. They are the ones along with a few others who have the authority to say whether something is or isn't a hate group. The SPLC is a reliable source therefore the template should say Anti-LGBT hate groups.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your argument and choice of wording Rainbow ツ Jenova20 (email) 13:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you both be OK with List of anti-gay hate groups? I ask as this is technically a list and it's not unlikely that an article just about anti-gay hate groups could be created. Insomesia (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. If SPLC is irrelevant, then it should be not in the page title at all. Why not propose a name change there? -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean that SPLC is irrelevant? I do think possibly renaming the article might be a solution but i have no doubt the same group of editors will fight against it. Or maybe you have an idea for a NPOV name that is shorter? Insomesia (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not me arguing it is irrelevant, hence I wrote "if ...". If we link to a page, we should first consider using that page name, unchanged. Reasons to leave out the SPLC reference from the name (by using a pipe+label in the template) should apply equally to the page itself. If the page name is changed, there is not reason to follow the page name here. But indeed, when such a move is proposed at that page, the same people could show up -- because the arguments are the same: it is an organisation's list, not a general list. -DePiep (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 14:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lesbian#Most Lesbians Have Sex With Men and the Sexual identity/Sexual orientation identity articles

Hello, everyone. I'm mentioning the "Most Lesbians Have Sex With Men" discussion here because one or more of you may have something to state about it. I've already commented on the matter on the article's talk page, especially since the main contributor of the Lesbian article, Moni3, who got it to WP:GA status, is currently retired from Wikipedia (see User talk:Moni3) and cannot be reached through email. It's also because of this that more eyes on this article from members of this project would be beneficial to it. Moni3 used to keep it well-policed. And now that she's gone, it seems that role now defaults to me.

As for the Sexual identity and Sexual orientation identity articles... They are covering the same topic and therefore need to be merged...with one redirecting to the other. The former is used more commonly in everyday usage. And having studied the topic extensively, I know that the former is also used more than the latter in sources concerning heterosexuality and LGBT topics. Therefore, I suggest that the latter redirect to the former. Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Teena

A user is trying to ″correct″ pronouns in Brandon Teena article (see see revision history). In my opinion his edits are against policy, perhaps even vandalism, but I will not edit war. Can someone look into his edits in this article?--В и к и T 19:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the pronouns to pronouns that are in direct conflict with a person's gender identity is in violation of the MOS:IDENTITY guideline. Every now and then, people do the same thing at the Chaz Bono article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I reverted the editor and explained matters on his talk page, right after Wikiwind and another editor commented there (I assume that the user is a he, going by the user name). The editor has started a discussion on the topic at the talk page: Talk:Brandon Teena#Definitively settling the issue of pronoun. I commented there as well, but it may be best that one or more editors from here also comment there. Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT neo-Nazis

Category:LGBT neo-Nazis and its sub-category Category:LGBT German neo-Nazis, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBTQ%2B_studies&oldid=514888349"