Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

WikiProject LGBT 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
LGBT portal
Transgender portal

Save Our Children

Hi!

I am translating into French your article about Save Our Children. It is an interesting work and I am happy to make it part of the French wikipedia (although I am only working on a subpage now). Unfortunatly, some paragraphes need citations and I am not sure that the articulation of all the ideas is always well-done... I wanted to tell you that because I think Anita Bryant's campaign is one of the most important moments of LGBT history in the US. And perhaps someone here has material which could improve the actual page...

Sorry for my English, I read it better than I write it.

Konstantinos (from the French Wikipedia)

Phyll Opoku-Gyimah

Could use some fleshing out. There's a couple of sources in the "External links", and more available on-line. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC).

Laura Lam

Lam is a YA author who's works so far heave an intersex protagonist. The article is listed at AfD. Her article would benefit form attention, and in particular needs research to meet WP:AUTHOR and/or WP:GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

"Homosexual" vs. "Gay" – Wikipedia policy?

I'm sure this has been brought up before but I can't remember seeing it anywhere: There are a few LGBT related pages I've been editing, where certain Wikipedia editors have insisted every use of the word "gay" be replaced with "homosexual" instead, and vice versa. I just want to know what Wikipedia's official policy/consensus is on the issue, or isn't there one? – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 13:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no direct policy. Usage will depend on sources and context. In the modern age people self identify as gay rather than homosexual, and changing this to homosexual can be pointy or even deliberately offensive. For example mass changes of gay marriage to homosexual marriage would be disruptive and is not supportable by neutral sources. Historical use however may well be accurate, so a big difference between BLPs and articles about dead people.

It has been discussed before, worth searching the archives. --Fæ (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe modern style guides favor "gay" over "homosexual." There's a feeling that "homosexual" is better in historical articles, but really "homosexual" is no less anachronistic than "gay" in articles on people who lived before the word's coinage in 1892. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

For discussions regarding the offensiveness and/or flexibility of the term homosexual and/or homosexuality vs. gay and/or lesbian; 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. There was also a discussion at WP:Med about it: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 56#Use of the term "homosexual.". Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the archive search, very useful . I had in mind the GLAAD media reference guide when making my first comment, and I have successfully used it in discussing similar issues. This is the NY Times guidance from the GLAAD page which nicely could be used to hit the nail on the head:

gay (adj.) is preferred to homosexual in most references. Generally confine homosexual in specific references to sexual activity or clinical orientation.

--Fæ (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

In the WP:Med debate, I also pointed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 49#Homosexual vs Gay in articles; like I mentioned there, we should do a FAQ on this because it keeps coming up. Use of homosexual is definitely a case-by-case basis at times. And use of homosexuality, as opposed to homosexual, is usually more accepted because it more often refers to behavior instead of to a person or to a person's sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Where would an FAQ go? To have a real impact across Wikipedia, there could be a minor amendment to MOS. This question has a track record spanning several years, so there should be sufficient grounds to create a sensible RfC or proposal for change. --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of the FAQ going at the top of this page. And as can been seen in the "Style guideline of gay vs homosexual" discussion I linked to above, there was a minor attempt to make this matter into a guideline; see the vote there at the end, in the Suggested guidelines for gay and homosexual section. I have my doubts that a guideline on this would work, given that homosexual should be used in some cases and Wikipedians have a tendency to blindly cite Wikipedia's guidelines without thinking of the exceptions and when they are hurting instead of helping; I see that often with WP:Words to watch, and there is currently ample debate at that talk page showing it. Flyer22 (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I support amending LGBT project level guidelines with a clarification similar to the NY Times quote above (nobody seems in disagreement to this sort of distinction between gay and homosexual). This would be a nice uncontentious first step and would be good evidence for how this specialist project has established a consensus for any further steps to promote the guidance more widely, or just as something solid to link to (along with a handy shortcut?) to use in article discussions.

I sympathise with a feeling of pointlessness at the prospect of trying to get this explicitly in MOS, Wikipedia being 'democratic' in a way that more often that not means that minority views are too easily put aside as 'fringe', 'advocacy' or just trolling. Establishing a local guide along with identifying the best supporting independent sources, such as GLAAD and the NYT, is a powerful friend to prop up your point of view. Times change, and the wide Wikipedia community reflects evolving social values, so it is worth testing the waters with an RfC on this type of issue, even if similar proposals were wikilawyered away a year or two ago. --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Gay is for people, homosexual is for when absolute specificity is needed, e.g. in sociological, psychological, etiological or medical contexts. That should be the policy.Zythe (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

As the issue of when to use, or swap, the terms "gay" and "homosexual" to describe a living or deceased person is a perennial subject (as per the archive links above), it seems worth setting down a standard in project level guidelines.

I propose the following basic text be added as a new section to Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Guidelines, with its own easy to remember shortcut (perhaps WP:gay?) to refer to in future discussions for preferred style:

--Fæ (talk) 10:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Amended to break out quotes from AP and NY Times as a reference. Added Canadian Press example. --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Amended to include cases where homosexual could be describing a woman. --Fæ (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment I think it would be better to briefly quote (and cite) the GLAAD style guide rather than simply external link it. Don't force users to unnecessarily go outside Wikipedia for basic information. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should provide a few references to support this point of style, it would help to give it weight in any discussion? I'm happy to see the GLAAD link turned into a footnote as the text I have used closely follows the NY Times reference in the GLAAD guide (the guide is actually a list of citations from other sources). --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Fæ Rather directly quote and cite mainstream guides such as AP and NYT because GLAAD could be regarded as non-neutral per WP:RGW. When I was involved in creating the WikiProject Disability style guide objections were raised against using "activist" style guides as sources. Try to find a few non-US sources too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll try having a hunt around such as checking the online full OED, may take me a few days so I'm happy to others to step in. Yes, citing AP and NYT directly makes sense. I think the last time I searched around this area was two or three years ago, and finding credible non-US centric sources proved almost impossible. Hopefully a few other style guides have addressed this specific terminology since then. --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Found a few British guides - Guardian newspaper, The Telegraph newspaper (both unfortunately very brief) and an interesting blog, Clarity about 'the gay thing', on the Oxford Dictionary website. Our own list article List of style guides links many different guides. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions Roger; quick Sunday morning feedback, but yet to do a proper search myself:

1. The Telegraph's guide is a mixed bag of poor quality or even misleading, I suggest parking it/discouraging anyone from using it as it seems poorly maintained.
2. The Guardian's style guide is weak, the entry for gay being okay, but there is no entry for homosexual, only "homosexual rape" which guides you to drop the word homosexual and if necessary use "male rape" (perhaps there is more guidance for the word homosexual somewhere non-obvious, I could not find it).
3. Gary Nunn's article is informative, it could be considered an advocacy piece (he did work for Stonewall) but does expand the issue. I've sent Gary a tweet, hoping that he knows of some credible sources.

As I suspected finding non-US alternatives may only find weaker or less up to date guides. I have stumbled across this sensible Canadian Press based alternate:

Sexuality

Gay is usually preferred as an alternative for homosexual men and is also commonly used for women, although lesbian is preferred by many women. Use sexual orientation, not sexual preference. Language is still evolving on what to call the individuals in a same-sex relationship or marriage. Partner, husband and wife are all acceptable options depending on preference.

Ref ucalgary.ca and j-source.ca --Fæ (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Support new section being added (although why only "gay man"? Surely the same applies for lesbians?). Although style guides from a wider variety of English-speaking countries could be somewhat more useful, as there may be cultural biases in cases like this. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 13:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point about 'man'. I have amended slightly, by all means suggest further improvements to wording, noting that the objective is to address use of homosexual as an adjective rather than any other frequently problematic words. If there are no strong objections, I suggest this is created as a new subsection by, say, the end of June; after which as better, credible alternative non-US, or new sources/style guides become available, the examples can be updated. --Fæ (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Being a convenient Sunday near the end of the month, the proposed text has now been been added to WP:Gay?. Thank you to those who helped with different viewpoints to reach a consensus. --Fæ (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SCOTUS ruling and Wiki Loves Pride

• More images at Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2015/June 26
• 
  Rally for marriage equality, in front of the Supreme Court, April 2015
• 
  Celebrations in front of the Supreme Court, June 26
• 
  Lowry Avenue Bridge, June 26
• 
  Laverne Cox, SF Trans March, June 26

I realize Wikipedia requires a NPOV, which I very much respect, but I think it is safe to assume that many WikiProject LGBT studies participants are very excited and personally affected by today's Supreme Court ruling. This is an historic day! Surely there will be a whirlwind of updates to Wikipedia articles today and for the next few days. I invite project participants to commemorate today's ruling by creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. The annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign ends in a few days, so now is the perfect time to contribute and share the results of your work here. If you need some inspiration or ideas, you can find a sampling of possible articles to create or improve here. All constructive edits are welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hurrah! Just in time for the Gay Pride march in London tomorrow.ref I'll have to find an American to kiss. --Fæ (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I created a page specifically dedicated to photographs taken on June 26, the day of SCOTUS' ruling on marriage equality. I encourage project members to add photographs (ones you've taken or transferred via Flickr) to this page to illustrate the impact of this ruling around the United States. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you notice the significance of the date? Lawrence v. Texas 26 June 2003, Windsor 26 June 2013, and yesterday's ruling? SusunW (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Gary C. Ross

Can somebody help out with this article about the first US military officer to have a same-sex wedding? I declined a WP:CSD#A7 and I've had a look around for sources and his wedding is all that seems to be covered - I'm not sure his military career meets WP:MILPEOPLE. I'd rather not send it to AfD per WP:BLP1E as it would be a worthy Did you know? nomination for LGBT history month. Who fancies helping out? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Should states with no recognition of same-sex marriage be described as having a ban against it?

If someone has past experience on other articles, especially if they know of good reliable sources, they may be able to help at Talk:LGBT_rights_in_Belarus#Distinction_between_same-sex_marriage_being_unrecognised_or_banned.

This may have potential to create a RfC to ensure consistency, it appears that this may be as issue for many articles about constitutional level LGBT rights. --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

FAC of Murder of Dwayne Jones

Hello all; just a quick note to say that I have nominated the Murder of Dwayne Jones article over at FAC; for those not familiar with the case, it was an incident in which a young Jamaican man was murdered in a mob attack motivated by anti-LGBT sentiment. I've already had two responses at the comments page but I would very much appreciate some more if anyone on here was interested. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Same-sex union recognition tables

Recognition of same-sex unions in Oceania, Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe, Recognition of same-sex unions in South America and Recognition of same-sex unions in North America articles includes the tables listing jurisdictions legally recognising same-sex relationships. Each article has the different version of the table. Perhaps we should adopt one version for all of them. PS: If I did something wrongly in making this request, then I'm sorry. Ron 1987 (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Standardization - I'm also glad you shifted the discussion here. I have three main points to make about the pages. 1). I did a revision of the North America map and an attempted one on the Oceania map. The reason for doing so was to standardize them to a degree; making it easier for readers to navigate across them. After I made changes to the North American sub-national section, I was satisfied with the layout. I found that the Caribbean and Oceanian regions have a higher concentration of European dependencies. As a result, I crafted the tables so that they could easily show which dependencies fell under each countries jurisdiction. 2) I noticed that the European and Oceanian versions show relationship schemes that have been replaced with legislation granting more (or equal) rights. For example, The Netherlands has listings for marriage, registered partnership and unregistered cohabitation. While all were important strides for gay rights in the country, I was under the assumption that these recognition pages were to detail the current (and greatest) relationship scheme available to LGBT people in each country; further research into the history reserved for the individual page, which was always linked to the countries listing. 3) Lastly, I think that the population break down on the South American page is something that should be brought to the remaining ones.
I would propose using the North American layout (showing the highest attainment of rights & national jurisdiction over dependencies), including South American style population counts and the European style "future legislation" section on all other pages. Chase1493 (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I would also be happy to make all the necessary changes across all pages myself, if no one else wants too. It's becoming quite the hobby for me ;). Chase1493 (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Standardization as per Chase1493's suggestions. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 01:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Standardization, there are some easy things to do (removing the EU flags in Europe, as the EU is very explicitly has no competence regarding the status of people), and other things should be thought about. I wouldn't be very happy to remove "earlier" or "less complete" recognitions (like same sex unions in the Netherlands), as that amounts to recentism and it is a personal choice what is the "greatest" option (people may prefer same sex unions). In the sidebar that is needed to avoid clutter, but in those regional articles, there is space to get into more detail.... L.tak (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Conditional support for standardisation – I would like to see the countries with a same-sex marriage constitutional ban included in the standardised tables. – Sdino (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If you take a look at the North America page; as well as the Oceania page I revised (see history) I included constitutional ban states. I agree with you though, it is a necessary inclusion. Chase1493 (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

So, Ron 1987 now that we have accrued some feedback; is there consensus to make any changes or do you wish to wait? Also, I haven't yet heard what steps you believe should be taken. I would like to get this process moving if we could so I look forward to your feedback. Chase1493 (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to oppose the proposition. I think there a sufficient agreement. But, please, don't remove the links to the laws (in European and Oceanian articles). If some minor technical issues will arise, then we could deal with them without RFC. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: I support L.tak's suggestion to remove EU flags from european article. I think the other issue, raised by Him would be problematic. Read the european article's history and talk page (from April and May) and you will find out why... Ron 1987 (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I see, well after reading that lengthy discussion, all I can say is that my proposal to remove previous partnership schemes would solve that problem. Spain's de facto union scheme isn't really relevant since there is a national law extending marriage rights. All of the local registries could be appropriately placed in the marriage or rights articles. All I'm trying to say is that if we are to choose between relationship schemes, we should represent the one which affords the most equal attainment of rights and obligations. To see it in a different way, we wouldn't list the civil unions in the U.S. if the state had attained marriage. The general concept of LGBT rights is to be in closest parity with those maintained by heterosexuals (IMO). Chase1493 (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I meant that the IP user was opposed to exclude earlier forms of recogntion and may to try block the changes. Ron 1987 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh gotcha, well the North and South American and Oceanian pages are all pretty much standardized. I'm gonna through some links into the Americas pages. I think I'll try to tackle the European one tomorrow. What do you think of them? Chase1493 (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that the sub-national tables also should have population counts. Ron 1987 (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ron 1987: Ok, I think that is a good idea. I'm just not sure how this will square away when we do the European table and should I leave the Native American tribes out since they are covered under the U.S. in terms of population? Chase1493 (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

1."I was under the assumption that these recognition pages were to detail the current [...] relationship scheme"

Civil unions (by whatever name) are a current form of recognition in BE, FR, IS, LU, NL, ES, UK, Brazil, New Zealand, South Africa, Uruguay, etc. Their civil unions are not "history".

2."replaced with legislation granting more [...] rights"

In almost all same-sex marriage countries civil unions were not replaced by marriage; they were supplemented by marriage.

And in the Caribbean Netherlands and South Africa marriage and registered/civil partnership were established on the very same day, by the very same law. In Malta civil union and recognition of foreign marriage were established on the very same day, by the very same law.

By the end of this year French Polynesia will get civil solidarity pacts; and they will of course not "replace" "earlier" marriage but supplement it.

3. Civil unions in those countries are not (anymore) a "less complete" step to equality. They form an integral part of equality. All of those civil unions (except in the UK) are available to opposite-sex couples, too. Their purpose is not to keep same-sex couples down. They are an alternative to marriage, for all couples - gay and straight.176.0.114.40 (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

4. Just because YOU think marriage is a "higher" form of recognition - doesn't make it a higher form of recognition. That's highly POV. As one user wrote above: "It is a personal choice what is the greatest option (people may prefer same sex [civil] unions)".

5. Those articles are called "Recognition of same-sex unions ..."

You cannot ignore the fact that civil unions are a current form of recognition of same-sex unions. Those laws are in effect in this very moment. Civil unions can be entered into in this very moment.

Don't discriminate against civil unions just because YOU don't like them !176.0.114.40 (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Ron 1987:"I meant that the IP user was opposed to exclude earlier forms of recogntion and may to try block the changes."

Yes, because that IP user, that is me, tends to be into facts, into accurate information.

Remove DK, NO and SE - as civil unions cannot be entered into anymore. I don't care. The other countries have to be included though.

They've got civil union laws in effect (and no plans to repeal them).176.0.114.40 (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding me here. I'm not inferring that one is better than the other, that is personal choice, yes. However, in many of the previously mentioned countries, civil unions (in the scope of LGBT people) were created as a specific alternative for them and in many, they allowed for same or opposite sex couples but continued to deny the right to marriage for same-sex couples. There are fundamental differences between marriage and civil unions and they are not equal in many instances. The right to adoption, changing of a surname, access to assisted reproduction, and some tax benefits are left out in varying places that you mentioned. Malta, as you mentioned, created civil unions and foreign marriage recognition the same day; but the performance of marriage is still denied within the its borders. That is a right denied. Forgive me, but I am being led to believe that you are trying to justify separate but equal, which we both know isn't the case when a country would go the route of creating a new relationship scheme instead of amending its family code. For as long as I can remember, our policy for relationship recognition has always been marriage surpassing any form of alternate scheme, no matter how close the latter is in terms of being equal with the former. Each and every country that has marriage has its own page, complete with all the details about its past and current legislation. However, for the purposes of these recognition pages, complete and equal parity without distinction (i.e. marriage) displays the countries highest attainment. Just because YOU FEEL differently about civil unions, doesn't mean it overrides years of policy on the matter. Chase1493 (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Where have I ever talked about "separate but equal"? Where have I ever supported "separate but equal"? I support giving accurate information on countries' available relationship recognition schemes.

In BE, FR, IS, LU, NL etc. civil unions are not past legislation. They are current legislation. Civil unions can be entered into in this very moment - by all couples, whether gay or straight. How is that "separate but equal" ?

"complete and equal parity without distinction (i.e. marriage) displays the countries highest attainment"

The highest attainment is equality without distinction, yes, exactly. But that doesn't necessarily mean marriage only. Equality means equality. In the aforementioned countries civil unions form part of equality.

What about the UK ? Gay couples have the choice, civil partnership or marriage. For straight couples it's marriage only. That's the same situation as in Chile, Estonia etc. - just the other way round (discrimination against straight couples instead of gay couples). Still you list the UK as having "complete and equal parity without distinction". Just because they got marriage for gay couples ? And also gay couples are still not equal to straight couples when it comes to marriage. They are still discriminated against in certain areas - even though they are allowed to call their union marriage now. The UK does not have equality ! (Neither does Portugal btw.) Equality is not just about a relationship registration scheme's name. Equality is about equality, obviously.

All laws have to be listed. All marriage laws, all civil unions - whether they grant equality of gay and straight couples or not. All those laws do exist in this very moment and they do provide for "recognition of same-sex unions". (Just to remind you ... That's what the articles are titled)176.2.12.88 (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(Copied from some talk page:) In countries that offer both, marriage and civil union, those civil unions form a real alternative to marriage, exactly because they don't include the same rights and obligations as marriage. Ever thought of the likelihood of some couples going like "We don't want to carry all those burdens that come by marriage", "We don't need all those rights that come by marriage", "Let's first try a civil union and if we still get along in a few years we could still get married maybe", ... or something?176.2.12.88 (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Transgendereds

Given that "transgender" is more common and more concise than "transgendered" (ref), and that "transgendered" is often considered offensive and compared to saying someone is "blacked" or "blackened" rather than "black" (ref, ref, ref, postscript also ref, ref), I propose we go through the 454 articles which use "transgendered" and update them to use "transgender" (except, obviously, where the word appears in a quote, an organization's name, etc). (Even if one does not personally feel that "transgendered" is offensive, I submit that it's still preferable to use "transgender" since it doesn't offend people and is more common.) -sche (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I fully support this intention and think it would be a great improvement. How do you best go about finding those 454 articles? SPACKlick (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Using Special:Search - htonl (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Support this. But we must be careful to not alter quotes. We might also ask someone at AWB to add a regex to change "transgendered" to "transgender". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to ask for replacement to be made a default in AWB, because on the first few pages of Special:Search (all I've gone through so far), greater than 50% of uses turned out to be in book titles or quotations. I don't know if that ratio holds true for all 454 pages or not. I suppose I'll make a careful pass with AWB with such regex and find out! (So far I've only changed a few pages, and those by hand.) -sche (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@-sche: it's possible to get AWB to ignore stuff in quotes, refs, or even italics. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: is it? Great! I'm using AWB right now to go through all the pages that currently use "transgendered". It turns out that the ratio I found in the first few pages (mentioned above) was indeed misleading, and a large number of articles do use the word in Wikipedia's voice. If someone could make replacement of "transgendered" → "transgender" outside of quotations part of the general copy-editing regex, that'd be useful. -sche (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I fully support this. Should an amendment be placed on the "Transgender and intersex people" section at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines to reflect this change and the reasons why, if it does occur? – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 18:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for pointing out that page; I had wondered if this wikiproject had a page for recording suggested terminology. I notice an earlier discussion of the same words. I would like to also add language explaining that transgender should not be used as a noun denoting a person ("the film features two transgenders", "Smith is a transgender"); any opinions on that? (Transgender is sometimes a noun denoting the state of being transgender, and that seems OK.) -sche (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd support that. The BBC News style guide seems to agree (at least for the term "transsexual"), as well as the Guardian/Observer style guide. (I've tried to avoid organisations such as GLAAD as per its advocacy (which some people might view as soapboxing) – if anyone knows of any neutral style guides that mention the issue please let me know). The past discussion over the use of the terms "gay" vs. "homosexual" may also be informative on this matter. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 21:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

OK; I've overhauled Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines, mostly just to make it more concise but in some cases to address the "this is out of date" tag by bringing it up-to-date with the current MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BIRTHNAME guidance. I also added a section on the use of transgender as a noun and on transgendered. I think it's alright to cite GLAAD's style guide in this matter, particularly because we have other style guides which say to do the same things GLAAD says to do — GLAAD just does a better job of explaining why to do those things. -sche (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for rewriting/adding to that section. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 12:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Changing of LGBT rights opposition

There is a proposal at the LGBT rights opposition page to rename the article "LGBT rights debate", and reorganisation of the article's text along the lines of the Abortion debate article. I support this decision, but what do you people think of it? (Probably best to have the discussion at the talk page itself, just thought I'd notify all of you here.) – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 22:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

LGBT history in [country]

For most countries, type this in and you will get a page about it. However, that page is usually only one sentence long, saying if it is a criminalized or not. I believe that these were mass-created, and there is information in other articles that say the same thing. I think we should attempt to delete these articles. I will not do anything yet, but if anyone has anything to say, feel free! RES2773 (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)RES2773

I've noticed the same. I agree that they were largely mass-created, and I also agree that if the year that homosexuality was criminalized is all we can say about LGBT history in any given country then we don't need that article. We should of course keep any "LGBT history in (Country)" article that has genuinely substantive content, but that fails to describe the articles you're talking about. Bearcat (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you both 100%, these articles can easily be re-created if there's any additional information to add. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Political lesbianism article

Considering this and this edit by an IP, and this and other edits by Kendlenico13 (talk · contribs) (which I reverted), at Political lesbianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), some of you might want to keep an eye on this article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know my post violated anything. I had to update a Wikipedia page for the final project in my Undergraduate Women Studies: Feminist Theory Course. Flyer22 (talk · contribs) Kendlenico13 (talk) 9 July 2015

Kendlenico13 (talk · contribs), I see. Thanks for explaining and discussing this here. My problem with your edits at that article is that Wikipedia has formatting standards (see WP:Manual of Style) and sourcing standards (see WP:Reliable sources) that your edits didn't fully live up to. The WP:Lead, for example, should usually have the title of the article bolded; see WP:Lead sentence. And the sources for this topic should not be poor; you definitely shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source in a Wikipedia article. I'm also not sure what POV you are aiming for. See WP:POV. Wikipedia defines POV differently than how it is defined in common discourse. What are your problems with the Political lesbianism article (which, yes, I know is a poor article), and what is your plan for fixing them? Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Experts on Oxford literary, history, and arts scene, 1920-1990

…@Flyer22: please see [4], referring to anyone you know who might be interested (Evelyn Waugh experts, etc.), and, as immediately as possible, reviewing for the article's current representations regarding his sexuality. Cheers, Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"Eurogame"

The usage and primary topic of Eurogame is under discussion, see talk:German-style board game -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage terminology

In articles discussing same-sex marriage, which terminology is correct? I would presume, as per WP:NPOV, that the term "same-sex marriage" would be used, unless quoting individuals. If so, should all the instances where "homosexual marriage", "gay marriage", "marriage equality" etc. are used in the article text be changed to "same-sex marriage"? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely yes. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely "same-sex marriage" would be preferred over "homosexual marriage" or "gay marriage". However, "marriage equality" is also fine. Funcrunch (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"marriage equality" is purely and clealy liberal POV, and I have changed it everywhere I could find it in a search. Elizium23 (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Please consider the sources and context. In articles about a person it may be more appropriate to state they are married, and to whom, rather than using qualifiers. For more general articles about rights, law and marriage, then same-sex marriage is likely to be the most appropriate term, however this might depend on the wording used in the sources.

There is a second wrinkle that many may find confusing. I was in a civil partnership which years later has become a marriage after the law changed in the UK to allow for an "upgrade"; the confusing part is that legally my marriage is retrospective, so it can be correct to date my marriage back to the original date of my civil partnership and the marriage certificate uses that same date. At the same time, I have friends who have no plans to upgrade their civil partnership to marriage, though socially most will describe them as being married and may not be aware of the difference when writing about them. --Fæ (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Elizium23 - running around and changing wording in articles on the basis that they are "liberal POV" is not helpful. Who is to say that a "non-liberal POV" is any more desirable? I would rather we try and reach a position here via consensus about how to handle terminology on the use of "equality" and then only make amendments in light of that. Unilaterally making changes based on emotion is not the way to go forward. For many people this has been an issue of equal civil rights, and we should be careful to underplay that. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus cannot override policy. For many people this has been an issue of redefining marriage and that is definitely underplayed in articles at present. Would you equally support "redefinition of marriage" as an equal, neutral term? Elizium23 (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If polygamous marriage is recognized in some societies that surely marriage does not have one definition - ie one man and one woman - and thus the issue here is not about redefining something. That's why I think use of the term would be odd. Homosexual people have been specifically prevented from enjoying the rights of heterosexual counterparts and thus the argument about equality before the law is certainly more intellectually convincing. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not the right place to discuss any specific article. If you are making mass changes to these sensitive terms, then please seek a consensus covering those articles (such as an RFC) before continuing, or it is likely to be considered disruptive. --Fæ (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Per the WP:Alternative name policy, "gay marriage" should be in the lead, because it is a very significant alternative name for same-sex marriage; when same-sex marriage is not called same-sex marriage, it is usually called gay marriage. Yes, yes, people in the same-sex marriage might not identify as gay (which can be a broad term, by the way), but the WP:Alternative name policy is not about accuracy. Terminology is usually discussed lower in a Wikipedia article, in an Etymology and/or Definitions or Terminology section. The "same-sex marriage" vs. "gay marriage" aspect is similar to the LGBT community/gay community discussion that was had at the LGBT community talk page. In that discussion, I listed WP:Reliable sources to prove my point. And, to me, gathering sources is a pain. Zumoarirodoka's addition of "homosexual marriage" to the Same sex marriage article, however, was not needed, and I was close to reverting it. I didn't revert because I figured that someone else would likely revert, and it was not a big deal to include "homosexual marriage." The term was removed by Hazhk. Flyer22 (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Some editors seem to making unilateral changes to individual articles despite the fact that a discussion here is ongoing. I don't find this helpful and risks an inconsistent approach across the whole. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, @Contaldo80:, you are not helping by reverting everyone's changes to articles and breaking WP:3RR on LGBT rights in Europe. I would agree with @Fæ: about having a RfC on this topic, but I think that "marriage equality" is the term used by supporters of same-sex marriage, and hence is deemed their point of view, so it is not neutral. The article Same-sex marriage uses three terms: "Same-sex marriage", "gay marriage" and "gender-neutral marriage" and states that "same-sex marriage is sometimes referred to as marriage equality or equal marriage by supporters.", so it would not be a NPOV to include that in articles. – Sdino (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict; I meant to add my post before Sdino's, but my Internet connection started acting up]: Judging by this this, this, this, this, this and this, Contaldo80, I see that you mean Elizium23 and Ron 1987. And this is where I feel the need to advise editors to be wary of engaging in WP:Advocacy. We should be using "same-sex marriage," like the sources do. The Same-sex marriage article is not titled Marriage equality; nor should it be. Like the lead of the Same-marriage article currently states, "Legal recognition of same-sex marriage or the possibility to perform a same-sex marriage is sometimes referred to as marriage equality or equal marriage by supporters. The legalization of same-sex marriage is characterized as 'redefining marriage' by opponents." I don't see how "marriage equality" is more neutral than "same-sex marriage." Flyer22 (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

For the record, a quick search of changes related to same-sex marriage by Elizium23 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) in the last month shows the following diffs (links given using edit comments, mostly changing "marriage equality" to "same-sex marriage"):

1. 2015-07-21 01:49 Dan_Brown_(blogger) WP:NPOV
2. 2015-07-21 01:47 Civil_union WP:NPOV
3. 2015-07-21 01:45 Libertarian_Party_(United_States) WP:NPOV
4. 2015-07-21 01:38 LGBT_rights_in_Colombia WP:NPOV
5. 2015-07-21 01:36 Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Croatia WP:NPOV
6. 2015-07-21 01:32 Mary_Bonauto WP:NPOV
7. 2015-07-21 01:27 Davina_Kotulski WP:NPOV
8. 2015-07-21 01:20 Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom WP:NPOV
9. 2015-07-21 01:16 LGBT_rights_in_Europe WP:NPOV
10. 2015-07-21 01:12 Same-sex_marriage_in_Portugal WP:NPOV
11. 2015-07-21 01:08 Equality_Ohio WP:NPOV (struck as appears tangential)
12. 2015-07-21 01:04 Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Chile Challenges in court:
13. 2015-07-21 01:03 Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Austria WP:NPOV
14. 2015-07-21 00:59 Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Italy WP:NPOV
15. 2015-07-21 00:55 Equal_Love WP:NPOV
16. 2015-07-21 00:51 Religious_views_on_same-sex_marriage WP:NPOV
17. 2015-07-21 00:49 Religious_views_on_same-sex_marriage Christianity:
18. 2015-07-06 03:37 Washington_Referendum_74 Campaign fundraising:
19. 2015-07-06 02:37 Same-sex_marriage_in_Oregon Federal lawsuit:
20. 2015-07-06 02:36 Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Germany WP:NPOV
21. 2015-07-06 02:33 Same-sex_marriage_in_Mexico WP:NPOV
22. 2015-07-06 02:25 Maine_Question_1,_2012 Campaign:
23. 2015-07-06 01:36 Marriage_Equality_Express WP:NPOV
24. 2015-07-06 01:29 Same-sex_marriage_in_Minnesota Lawsuits:
25. 2015-07-06 01:27 Same-sex_marriage_in_California Timeline:
26. 2015-07-06 01:24 Same-sex_marriage_in_Maine 2009 legislation:
27. 2015-07-06 01:11 Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage WP:NPOV
28. 2015-07-06 01:05 Heather_Matarazzo WP:NPOV

This is a significant pattern, given that mass changes were made so close together that it is not credible that sources were carefully reviewed to support changes in terminology. If the same changes continue without establishing a consensus for mass changes, I suggest this evidence is taken for more formal dispute resolution. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

However, the proponents of the "marriage equality" term cannot come up with any evidence that it is an NPOV term, therefore all those changes aren't wrong, in my opinion... – Sdino (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If you think that the term isn't neutral, then don't you mean all those changes are wrong? Flyer22 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I see that Fæ was stating that Elizium23 was changing "marriage equality" to "same-sex marriage."

Elizium23, what is up with your changing directions? By that, I mean, now changing "same-sex marriage" to "marriage equality." Flyer22 (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC) And now I see that I initially thought that Elizium23 and Ron 1987 were changing text from "same-sex marriage" to "marriage equality." It is the other way around. My reading comprehension was off. Flyer22 (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sdino: Sure. The key point here is not about "being right" but being led by reliable sources and consensus. These mass changes in a wide variety of articles, happened on the basis of one editor's perception that "marriage equality" is "liberal POV" (their description). This is a sensitive area and more care than this should be taken before making mass changes, especially if it turns out that the sources underpinning specific articles use the phrase "marriage equality". --Fæ (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Fæ: Would a RfC still be a good idea or has this discussion solved the problem? – Sdino (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

At the moment I don't think there is an overwhelming consensus and loopholes have not been pinned down. Perhaps a clear proposal would help and we could vote on it locally (rather than a 30 day RFC), and specific exceptions could be noted in the discussion if needed. Say, for example,

Proposal: Same-sex marriage is considered a preferred neutral term over alternatives such as 'equal marriage', 'gay marriage' or 'homosexual marriage'. Exceptions may be appropriate for some articles where sufficient reliable sources use a different terminology to address the subject. For example an article on equal rights may discuss 'marriage equality' in the context of a political rights campaign that commonly uses those words in reliable sources. Rapid mass changes should be avoided, as an article's sources must be checked that they support the chosen terminology.

I'm open to alternatives or tweaks to wording, then running the !vote. --Fæ (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If sources discuss the topic as "redefinition of marriage" what do we do then? Just because RS have a term doesn't mean it's neutral and suitable for Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminology should reflect the reliable sources, otherwise either the sources are not reliable/insufficiently represent all points of view (and the action is to add more sources), or the English Wikipedia is suffering from being a bizarre walled garden by being based on internal style guides, and ignoring what reliable sources tell us, which is worse. --Fæ (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I welcome this debate and am happy to abide by whatever consensus is reached. My concern is that changes continue to be made by individual editors with a particular viewpoint (and who have stated that they are opponents to gay marriage). This is not the best way to determine an overall approach that ensures neutrality on a sensitive subject and consistency across all articles. Until this matter is resolved I would ask that individuals exercise restraint and respect the collaborative peer approach which is the hallmark of wikipedia. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I propose a few changes to the proposed text:

1. "Same-sex marriage is considered a standard neutral term over alternatives..." – 'Preferred' is usually used when dealing with opinions, so I don't think it should be used in this.
2. Either a more exhaustive list of alternative terms ("marriage equality", "redefinition of marriage", etc.), or "alternatives such as 'equal marriage', 'gay marriage', 'homosexual marriage', or words to that extent."
3. "Exceptions may be appropriate for some articles solely where sufficient reliable sources use a different terminology to address the subject, the matter has been discussed on the article's talk page and a consensus has been reached. For example, an article on equal rights may discuss 'marriage equality' in the context of a political rights campaign that commonly uses those words in reliable sources, and the editors have come to an agreement that it is suitable to use that term." – As this is a controversial matter, I think every editor should have a chance to discuss the matter of the terminology used in the article.
4. "Rapid mass changes should be avoided, as an article's sources must be checked that they support the chosen terminology. Bringing articles in line with this proposal is permitted immediately after the discussion has ended." – I think that a single rapid mass change should be permitted immediately after we finish discussing this proposal, in order to bring the articles in line with the new consensus.

I would also ask for a separate vote on every change to the proposed text, both mine and any other change that other editors may have, and then a final vote on the amended proposal. – Sdino (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you rewrite the proposal incorporating your changes? Many relate to the suggested process, rather than changing the intent, so I doubt that extra voting is needed, we just need to run with a version. Minor improvements can be factored in later if needed. --Fæ (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

My proposal:

Same-sex marriage is considered a standard neutral term over alternatives such as 'equal marriage', 'gay marriage', 'homosexual marriage', or other words to that extent. Exceptions may be appropriate for some articles solely where sufficient reliable sources use a different terminology to address the subject, the matter has been discussed on the article's talk page and a consensus has been reached. For example, an article on equal rights may discuss 'marriage equality' in the context of a political rights campaign that commonly uses those words in reliable sources, and the editors have come to an agreement that it is suitable to use that term. Rapid mass changes should be avoided, as an article's sources must be checked that they support the chosen terminology.Bringing articles in line with this proposal is permitted immediately after the discussion has ended.

– Sdino (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Why same-sex marriage and not gender-neutral marriage? That's a common term used in many places that have adopted legislation. Likewise why not the term "equal marriage rights for same-sex unions". One of the concerns I have with a blanket adoption of same-sex marriage is that it allows opponents to make the claim that it isn't the same as having a proper "marriage" - it's a "same-sex" pseudo-marriage. Marriage is the same for a man marrying a woman or a man marrying a man. Thus equality. I don't want articles using language that rather permits a position that it's only the same if you think it's the same. Legislatures and judiciaries that have changed law in this regard have done so solely on the grounds of ensuring the same rights for all citizens within the State. Incidentally Sdino you haven't yet explained why you think such a mass change is necessary - what is wrong with the way that articles are currently worded? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This time, let's turn to Google for help. The term "same-sex marriage" gives me about 119,000,000 results. The term "marriage equality" gives me about 25,200,000 results. The term "gender-neutral marriage" gives me about 1,270,000 results. The term "gay marriage" gives me about 110,000,000 results. Therefore, "same-sex marriage" is the most commonly used term for what we are discussing, hence it is one of the best ways to describe it. We could eventually add that "gay marriage" is acceptable, but "same-sex marriage" is the norm and preferred over "gay marriage", in my opinion. – Sdino (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but I also think that "marriage equality for same-sex couples" (or similar wording) is also appropriate when discussing legislation and the like. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

But, why? I would agree conditionally on that. I think there would have to be enough reliable sources and consensus to introduce that term into an article. – Sdino (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a bit of a tangent, the proposal allows for variation depending on sources so we don't have to get too trapped into alternatives that are less common or more specialized, such as in legal or scientific usage. In practice I think we could put Sdino's revised version to a vote. Aside ... searching Google is little 'proof' of anything, let's not rely on this rather than finding good quality reliable sources;for example "butt sex" gives over 10 times more returns than "sodomy", but these numbers have little bearing on whether these words are appropriate for a Wikipedia article on the history of homosexuality, this is a trap I ran into myself when trying to justify neologisms a few years ago. --Fæ (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I agree completely. I just felt that I should mention it – but, as you said, this can be decided on a page-by-page basis. I would certainly be in favour of Sdino's amendment. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Fæ: When you put it like that, I have to agree... So, when are we going to put this proposal to a !vote? – Sdino (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Now. --Fæ (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinging all editors involved in discussion to make them aware of !vote. @Zumoarirodoka:@Contaldo80:@Elizium23:@Flyer22:@Funcrunch:@Ron 1987: – Sdino (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I suggest the !vote is left open for at least 10 days (allowing for 2 weekends), longer if there is anything about the wording that causes contention or anyone asks to leave it open for longer; there's no particular rush. Strike suggestion as the proposal was converted to a full RFC, so cannot work in the same way. --Fæ (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't help feeling this has all been a bit rushed. We have failed to establish why a change is necessary. Nor have we established why same-sex marriage should be the terminology used across the piece. Nor have we satisfied ourselves that there are no risks in that.

Is it a change, though? It seems to me that we're basically just formalising what is already the status quo. - htonl (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Contaldo80 (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for "same-sex marriage" as a standard neutral term

Same-sex marriage is considered a standard neutral term over alternatives such as 'equal marriage', 'gay marriage', 'homosexual marriage', or other words to that effect. Exceptions may be appropriate for some articles solely where sufficient reliable sources use a different terminology to address the subject, the matter has been discussed on the article's talk page and a consensus has been reached. For example, an article on equal rights may discuss 'marriage equality' in the context of a political rights campaign that commonly uses those words in reliable sources, and the editors have come to an agreement that it is suitable to use that term. Rapid mass changes should be avoided, as an article's sources must be checked that they support the chosen terminology. Bringing articles in line with this proposal is permitted immediately after the discussion has ended.

Please see discussion above for a background of why this proposal is needed and options already discussed. --Fæ (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Amendment changing 'extent' to 'effect' in the first line, making no change to intended meaning. Apparent mistaken phrasing in the original. --Fæ (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Votes

• Y as proposer. --Fæ (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y – Sdino (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y - I stumbled on this discussion entirely by accident, but it seems like a common sense proposal, comparable to references to interfaith and interracial marriages. bd2412 T 15:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y - Funcrunch (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• N - local consensus cannot override WP:NPOV Elizium23 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing here overrides NPOV. The proposal explains how best to comply with the policy and avoid any apparent point of view warring in this sensitive area. --Fæ (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y - this seems eminently sensible. "Same-sex marriage" is quite clearly the most appropriate neutral term; it is simple and descriptive; and, I would venture to guess, it has the greatest "market share" in common usage (maybe second to "gay marriage", but there are good reasons not to use that). - htonl (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y – "Same-sex marriage" is neutral and most precise term. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y - "Same-sex marriage" is the preferred term and should be used when possible; exceptions would be usage in quotes, headlines, laws etc —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not the intent of the proposal... Elizium23 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• That's exactly what the proposal states, or at least how it reads to me. How am I getting it wrong? —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Y - that's the most common neutral term used by other sources as well. Should be used here too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y - It's the most plainly descriptive term, though there are shades of difference in meaning among the alternatives that suggest there might sometimes be a reason to depart from it (particularly when discussing legislation that uses different language.)--Trystan (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y - Chase1493 (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y - Same-sex marriage seems to be the best terminology. Gay marriage, homosexual marriage, marriage equality, and marriage redefinition are all biased and/or problematic in some way. Drewmike (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I Am Jazz

I'd love to get I Am Jazz recognized as a Good Article or Featured Article. I'm not an expert in this area... is there anyone from this project who can help, at least take a look at it before I submit it for review? It needs to be fleshed out a bit with more sources from LGBT news. Thanks! —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)