Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rhizomesandranch (talk | contribs) at 17:06, 12 January 2023 (→‎Amplifying Appalachia Edit-a-thon, entire month of March 2023: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject

LGBT studies
Home HomeTalk TalkCollaboration CollaborationEditing EditingResources ResourcesShowcase Showcase

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

Featured Article Save Award for Natalie Clifford Barney

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Natalie Clifford Barney/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status.

ego-dystonic sexual orientation

I'm really trying to avoid editing articles. Could someone take a look at this edit to ego-dystonic sexual orientation and verify that it is, as I believe, someone falsely claiming that a study from the Catholic Medical Association is an NIH study, and undo it if so? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted, thank you. Crossroads -talk- 01:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trans bashing#Requested move 9 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Berg-Brousseau has died

I recently created a draft for trans activist Henry Berg-Brousseau. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Juengling

Konrad Juengling has been nominated for deletion. Discussion participation welcome. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC notice

There is an RfC at Talk:Alexei_Yagudin#December_2020_RfC_-_inclusion_of_2020_controversy_in_lead that may be of interest to editors in this project. JimKaatFan (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to rewrite Transgender sexuality

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Transgender sexuality § An eye toward a rewrite. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback would be welcome at this discussion at WikiProject Law, regarding the use of the terms legal or decriminalized in articles related to LGBT rights topics. Mathglot (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa

There is an RfC at Talk:Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa#RFC that may be of interest to editors in this project.--Trystan (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting "Wiki Loves Pride 2023"?

It looks like Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2022 is done, as its now Jan. 1 in 2023, although its still 2022 here, so I'd say we can mark Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride for 2022 done with a green check. I'm not as skilled and am afraid I might mess something up if I create Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2023 page. It would be better to do this sooner, rather than later, I'd say, to get the near year off to a good start. Historyday01 (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01 Happy to get the ball rolling: Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2023. Happy New Year! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll add in some pages I've already worked on this year. Historyday01 (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Colby

Resolved

Sasha Colby has been nominated for deletion. Article improvements and/or discussion participation welcome. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Never mind! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article exist?

Should the article Prostasia exist there are sources to support it. The Independent's double standards for J.K. Rowling | The Spectator , Is Noah Berlatsky Getting Cancelled? | www.splicetoday.com , Virginia professor resigns amid uproar over comments about adults attracted to children | The Independent , Pedophiles Partner with Influential Universities to Normalize Child Abuse (4w.pub) , ‘Minor-attracted people’ is an attempt to sanitise child abuse - spiked (spiked-online.com) Dwanyewest (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Dwanyewest. Of the sources you've listed, here are my thoughts:
  • The Spectator: this source only has two lines about the organization. The rest is about JK Rowling, and then about an employee of the org.
  • Splice Today: I'm not familiar with this source, and it doesn't appear on RSP. It's mentioned once in the RSP archives, but that's tangentially and not an assessment. They do discuss the org in depth in their article, and it has a byline.
  • The Independent: This source is paywalled for me, so I can't access it. From the title it seems to be about a professor, not the org, but I could be mistaken.
  • 4W.pub: I'm not familiar with this source, and it doesn't appear on RSP. They do discuss the org in depth in their article, and it has a byline.
  • Spiked: This has three lines about the org, with no further coverage than what was covered by 4W.
What I'm seeing is if the Spliced Today source would be considered a RS, you've got that one and then 4W, which also seems to be in-depth coverage. The Spectator and Spiked aren't about the org. I can't access the Independent, so you or others would have to determine weight of the coverage. With topics that are often contested and hotly debated (as I assume this would be), solid coverage is the best way to get the article to "stick". If I were creating this at the moment, I wouldn't consider it a slam dunk. But that's only an opinion, and you are of course free to create whatever article you'd like! --Kbabej (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to fill in the gaps regarding your comment:
  • The article in The Independent doesn't mention Prostasia by name at all, the name just appeared in an image caption of the professor in question
  • 4W.pub (4W means "for women") is an activist publication, from an anti-trans feminist POV. Not entirely related, but the author of that article (Anna Slatz) went on to co-found and write for reduxx.info, which is more of the same. Wouldn't call 4W reliable.
I don't think the Prostasia Foundation is notable enough to write about yet. Endwise (talk) Endwise (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the Spliced article appears to be an opinion piece by someone who by their own admission "can’t stand" Berlatsky, the communications director for Protasia whom the article is about. There are at least questions to be asked there about reliability in this context. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very careful when creating an article on a subject like this and ensure that the sources are up-to-snuff. This sort of subject can be very dangerous for Living Persons related to it. I would personally refrain from writing an article on a subject like this with less than a dozen sources, but of course that might be cautious of me. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agenda Europe rewrite

Hello!

I've been trying to improve the Agenda Europe article, but my edits will be substantial and I want some eyes on what I have so far before I go ahead and post.

I've left a message on its talk page with the link to my sandbox, which has the edits I plan to make, as well as what issues I think my revision may have due to my inexperience with editing WP. I was directed to post a notice here to direct more attention to it.

Thank you. 🎜Oktavia Miki🎝talk 00:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The climbing article Taylor Parsons has been PROD'ed twice (once by me) as there is almost no RS on "Taylor Parsons", however, Taylor transitioned from Chris Webb Parsons, a bouldering climber for whom there is RS (and therefore it is a valid BLP). I can see in the article's history that someone made a direct request to the WP help desk to rename the article from Chris to Taylor (to reflect the transition). My question is how is this handled in the BLP - do we say in the lede something like "Taylor Parsons (previously known as Chris Webb Parsons)? What is the correct format/approach? To my knowledge, she is the first climber that I have ever known to have made a transition. 09:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC) 78.18.228.191 (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might find MOS:GENDERID helpful. Specifically on the question of former names of people who have transitioned, it says: A living transgender or non-binary person's former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under it; introduce the name with "born" or "formerly". So if Parsons was notable before she transitioned, the lead should begin something like: "Taylor Parsons (born Chris Webb Parsons) is an Australian professional rock-climber..." Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chelsea Manning and Caitlyn Jenner are both Good Articles which are biographies of living trans people notable under their pre-transition name, if you want example articles to be able to point to. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that - much appreciated. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let Her Burn here, as it is apparently an issue that Queerty is a source for the subject. BD2412 T 03:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles-Valentin Alkan (Pianist and Composer)

There is an RfC at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles-Valentin_Alkan#RfC:_Alkan_and_Masarnau that may be of interest to editors in this project. Feel free to join, contributions welcome! Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

En homme + En femme merging

I'd like to get some help and discussion here, please. Cidertail (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bund für Menschenrecht

The Draft:Bund für Menschenrecht was the first gay organization in the world. This draft was created by a now-indeffed sockpuppet as a translation of de:Bund für Menschenrecht on German Wikipedia, but the topic is definitely notable, and deserves to have an article here. If someone could check the sourcing a bit, and either move it to mainspace if it's ready for prime time, or beef it up if not, that would be a great addition to coverage of the LGBT space. Mathglot (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe brought First homosexual movement to FA and might have the sources and knowledge to do something with this... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amplifying Appalachia Edit-a-thon, entire month of March 2023

Hi everyone,

Some of you might have participated in previous years' events, which have yielded a ton of improved Appalachian content on Wikipedia.

For 2023, folks from WVU libraries and beyond are holding an asynchronous editing event for the entire month of March (1-31)!

Our Edit-a-thon is focused on amplifying the stories and figures of under-represented Appalachian artists, writers, and other creators, particularly womxn, people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, and other disenfranchised communities. We have been lucky enough to work with Art+Feminism and our event is held under that umbrella!

If you want to participate, please sign up through this link: https://artandfeminism.org/edit_a_thon/amplifying-appalachia-2023-edit-a-thon/ ... which will take you to our event dashboard, which has some starting points for pages that need some attention (under construction as of 2/4/2022). The password to join is "app23" (no quotation marks). Rhizomesandranch (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]