Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 68

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Utopes (talk | contribs) at 23:25, 11 October 2023 (fix link for rfd). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70→Archive 75

Tommy, the protagonist of Tommy (TV series) is lesbian. Dex, the main character of Stumptown (TV series) is bisexual. Yet neither article has LGBT-related categories, and when I added them to Stumptown they were deleted. I'm posting this comment here because all of us interested in LGBT+ subjects need to stay vigilant of efforts to ignore or deny the existence of LGBT+ elements in these and other articles. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I have seen the opposite problem. Categories often remain long after supporting sources and prose have been deleted from articles. This is not in accord with WP:CATV - all categories must be sourced. I have seen people labeled as "activists" without a whiff of any activity that might qualify. I must also wonder about the categorization of people as LGBT strictly based on the types of relationships they have or had. If a man has a partner with a male name, he is automatically awarded the "gay" categories, but that seems strange when no WP:RS is involved to, for example, identify his partner as a man, or even identify the subject as a man as well. WP:EGRS would come into play requiring self-identification, rather than just the admission that he or she is in a relationship with a person of the same sex. Elizium23 (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Except that RS confirms that Tommy is lesbian and Dex is bisexual. For Tommy, I made a point in the talk page of listing RS that supports it. In the case of Dex, Cobie Smulders has stated in interviews that Dex is "definitely attracted to women and men" (the series is based on the comics in which Dex is bisexual); furthermore, in episode 1x06 Dex hooks up with her old girlfriend, and in 1x13 she has sex with a woman she met in bar. We're not dealing with marginal characters. These are characters that are intrinsic to the story. Stumptown has the "Down syndrome in television" category because Dex's brother has DS. If supporting sources and prose regarding LGBT+ characters and storyline is deleted from an article, it may very well be that the undercurrent for doing so is homophobia. If characters are lead and recurring/supporting, they exist in the history of the series even when they leave the series, and who/what they were in the storyline doesn't change because of it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: the overcategorization problem I've seen is the opposite - stuff getting labeled as an LGBT-related show because it's got one LGBT side character in two episodes or something, making the category impossible to navigate productively. Obviously we should be making sure not to overcorrect! @Elizium23: you seem to be going down a bizarre path here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
As I said in my above comment, "We're not dealing with marginal characters. These are characters that are intrinsic to the story." If a main/lead character of a TV program is LGBT+, then related categories belong in its article; same applies with recurring/supporting characters -- especially when there is RS to support the information. Bit characters, however, do not count. Nor does an occasional episode with LGBT+ included in the plot. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 15:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Whether a show belongs in an "LGBT-related television programs" category or not is not simply a question of whether sources can be found to technically verify that one or more characters in it are LGBTQ — it's a question of whether the show has foregrounded LGBTQ content in universe or not. Is the character's sexuality merely an "informed attribute", as in it's true because somebody said it was, or has it actually been actively addressed in LGBTQ-themed storylines? That's the distinction we're looking for, not just "did somebody say the character was a lesbian in an interview even though it's never actually come up in the show itself". Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race collaboration of the month


WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race's
Collaboration of the Month for March 2020:
RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12)


Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Guenther Braun

Please discuss there. Bearian (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Poisoned Ivy: Lesbian and Gay Academics Confronting Homophobia

Do you think Poisoned Ivy: Lesbian and Gay Academics Confronting Homophobia should be a separate article, or a subsection in Toni McNaron please?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The question is whether the book is notable or is it not? If yes, then a separate article; if not, then a separate article would simply be deleted. Elizium23 (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Likely too large in the sparse Toni McNaron unless you can’t find enough for a standalone; you can find sources in Google Scholar pretty easy, WP:RX if you need copies. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on whether to mention Ronald Reagan's handling of the AIDS crisis in the lead section of his bio

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ronald Reagan#RfC. Sdkb (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Romans 1:26 and NPOV

I think that dueing "Blanket condemnation of homosexual activity view" does not follow NPOV. Originally dominant viewpoint in early Christianity was that this verse is a condemnation of unnatural heterosexual intercourse. Because there are many theories about this verse, there is no dominant viewpoint of Romans 1:26 in nowadays. --Sharouser (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Peppermint RfC

Note that the discussion about Peppermint's birth name is now a formal RfC, there have been several interesting developments since the discussion first began, and there are only a few days left until the RfC is likely to conclude:

Talk:Peppermint_(drag_queen)#Request_for_comment_on_whether_to_include_Peppermint's_birth_name

WanderingWanda (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Honey Mahogany

There's a discussion on Talk:Honey Mahogany regarding use of her prior name that could use further input. Funcrunch (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

RFC at Gay Anthem

There's an RFC at Talk:Gay anthem#Proposal to remove List of historically significant gay anthem songs. Please feel free to participate in it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:LEGIT

Here's a draft article that may be of interest to the members of this project.—Anne Delong (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Logan Carter

Hi. I put the same question on the Drag pageantry's talk page, but maybe it's worth to ask it also here. I was just wondering, there was an article for Logan Carter aka Roxanne Russell, deleted because not meeting notability, but Roxanne Russell was Miss Florida 1974, and I'm reading through a book set in Florida in the 1970s and she is in basically all the drag queen show clubs of the time. Plus as Logan Carter he modeled for Haper's Bazar and Cosmopolitan. Not the least he was the partner of Jack Nichols (activist) after Lige Clarke's death and prominently figures in Nichols' autobiography. The article was deleted just for lacking notability. I cannot tell if it was good or bad, but I was wondering if it would be worth to ask for a reinstatement? --Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Elisa.rolle: I saw that this was already partially answered on the drag pageantry talk page (with a mention of WP:REFUND). I would agree with the editor there that this might be a borderline case for notability. It still might meet WP:GNG -- Does the text in the book seem to show "significant coverage" of Roxanne Russell (meaning it talks about her directly and in detail and isn't just a passing/trivial mention)?
Unfortunately, the Nichols autobiography probably won't be helpful in showing notability because it's not "independent of the subject". Otherwise, s/he might meet notability under WP:ENTERTAINER, if some of the drag queen shows were notable themselves (and she had a substantial role in them). I would think being in the role of Miss Florida is notable, so you might just need one or two more notable performances/roles or something verifying she had a cult following to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. - Whisperjanes (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Input needed: Mae Martin gender identity

Input requested at the Mae Martin talk page regarding what pronouns to use and how to best respect Mae Martin’s gender identity. Thanks! - Whisperjanes (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Shahin Shahablou

I'm begging you all please to help improve this new stub. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

RFC at Oscar Wilde

There's an RFC underway at Talk:Oscar Wilde:

Your participation would be welcome! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Transgender and transsexual scientists

I think that we should restore this category. --Sharouser (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there any other opinion? --Sharouser (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject RuPaul Drag Race's Collaboration for May 2020: RuPaul's Secret Celebrity Drag Race


WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race's
Collaboration of the Month for May 2020:
RuPaul's Secret Celebrity Drag Race


Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Drag Is Magic + Vagina

I've nominated Drag Is Magic for Good article status, if any project members see any improvements to make before the review gets picked up. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Ditto Vagina (album). Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Abu Nuwas, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter

This article seems, understandably, to attract opinionated edits and could probably benefit from being watchlisted a little more widely. XOR'easter (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

BiNet USA and the Bisexual pride flag

Hello! Please be advised that Twitter account @BiNetUSA is very interested in changes to Wikipedia that would state that their organization owns legal rights to the bisexual pride flag. See here. I have attempted to direct them here, that they may effectively be put in touch with community contributors who can swiftly assess the validity of these claims and offer them a candid assessment on the viability of this request. -Fennec 19:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Never mind, it appears the backlash has made them realize the speciousness of their claim without a need for further intervention. But keep an eye out for shenanigans :) — Fennec 22:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Dorian Electra

Does this person identify as trans? I noticed this when one editor flagged it as needing citation (with a somewhat off-base edit summary) and another editor undid that, but the citations in the article contain no explicit self-ID as trans, and indeed a source from a couple years go has an explicit self-ID as cis ([1]); if that's changed beyond the self-ID as genderfluid, I would expect a clear statement but haven't spotted one in a reliable source yet). So, additional eyes / help sorting this out would be helpful. -sche (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


Is Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality a B-class article?

I believe that Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality meets this WikiProject's C-class criteria, but not B-class. Two other editors disagree. I am therefore posting this question at the three WikiProjects with interest in the article—the other two are WP:PSYCH and WP:BOOK. Please weigh in at Talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality#Article rating. Thank you   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

checkY Another topic has superseded this one. Please contribute your insights at Talk: Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality#Request for Comments (RfC) - Stalemate regarding undue weight. Thanks   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC opened for Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality is within the scope of WP:LGBT.

 Question: To what extent should this article discuss the scientific consensus on reparative/conversion therapy's potential harms and benefits?

→ Share your insights and suggestions at Request for Comments (RfC) - Stalemate regarding undue weight.

Thank you!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Personal story published, also summarize in The Signpost?

  • Stein, Abby (26 April 2020). "'I prayed to God to make me a girl'". BBC News.

In this personal story a person talks about how Wikipedia gave them info about LGBT culture.

In The Signpost every issue gives a summary of Wikipedia in third-party media. Would anyone here care to revise my suggested summary of this article for the next issue? 1-2 sentences is appropriate. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/In_the_media. Thanks. Also, anyone can submit content to The Signpost, which is always looking for stories. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Bit (film) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Corey Johnson (politician) vs. Samaritan’s Purse

I could use some help and more eyes on a POV wonky section currently named “Descrimination in healthcare”. A newer Wikipedian wants to position it as a freedom of religion issue but I think the sources support a different reading. Also the section title might need amending but I’m not sure what’s best. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Just as a FYI, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Missing biographies of LGBQ people have lost a few items due to a undiscussed and unexpected "cleanup" of wikidata related to sexual orientations, resulting in the removal of 1500 entries out of 3000 (if I am not wrong). The local LGBTQ project is working on adding the items back and checking them, but this is quite slow and take time. So all help is welcome, see the discussion here, and phabricator. We are also working on making sure the same do not happen to the gender property (P21). --Misc (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC at Alliance Defending Freedom

This RfC may be of interest to the members of this group. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Help LGBTYS address page vandalism

Hello team, I wonder if I might be able to ask for some advice and support. I manage the website for LGBT Youth Scotland - the biggest youth organisation for LGBT young people in Scotland. We're a thriving youth work organisation with a good reputation.

The last edits our staff made to our Wikipedia page were way back in 2007, so it's been rather neglected for years. We were recently alerted that our Wikipedia page has been edited at some length by a user whose goal appears to be discrediting our organisation by repeatedly featuring uncensored details of a serious crime committed by a staff member in 2009. They have added references to this individual and their crime, in graphic detail, in multiple places on our Wiki page. They have also misrepresented multiple other facts that we can refute, and added lots of small incorrect details (like misspelling our Chief Exec's name and getting our funding details wrong). Most of all, I'm concerned that the graphic descriptions of sexual assault that were added are really unsuitable for the Wiki page of a young people's organisation.

I'm very aware that any edits I now make to this page have the potential of being reverted by that user. With input from my colleagues, I'll be adding substantial (accurate!) new content to the page over the next few weeks and addressing the factual errors. I wonder if there is any advice or support you could offer me in undertaking this? We're new to Wikipedia editing and I am conscious that our page will always be a target of malicious users. As trans rights have been questioned and put at risk recently in the UK, we have increasingly been the target of people who disagree with our mission of supporting trans young people. It's entirely possible that the motivation for these malicious page edits has been driven by that movement. Your help is gratefully received. LGBTYS2020 (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Acknowledged: Since you are new to Wikipedia, I would more than happy to assist you in this matter. First and foremost, if you have a conflict of interest, please refrain from editing the article and instead use the talk page to make edit requests for its improvement. Secondly, instead of posting on Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, I think it would be better to post on Talk:LGBT Youth Scotland given that is the article you are referencing. If you need any help you can message me on my talk or the article's talk page. Thank you. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 01:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus

I'm inviting project members to help improve Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the LGBT community.

Stay safe, and happy editing, --Another Believer (Talk) 03:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Another Believer: I think we may need to add more about the increased risk of homelessness. Are there enough RS about it to add a subsection or a paragraph please?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Zigzig20s, I'm sure you can Google the same as me. If there's sourcing, I'd support inclusion in the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The way the article is presented, perhaps it should be mentioned in each subsection, with specific refuges in each location.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Kaúxuma Núpika

Hello. More eyeballs are needed at Talk:Transgender history#Kaúxuma Núpika, to improve referencing at Kaúxuma Núpika. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC Platt and Noah Galvin’s romantically dating

See discussion at Talk:Ben Platt#RfC Platt and Noah Galvin’s romantically dating. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2020

Main page: Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2020

Project members are invited to create and improve LGBT-related Wikipedia articles as part of the annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign.

Unfortunately, in-person meetups are not possible this year, but there's plenty of opportunity to collaborate online.

Feel free to update the list of new and improved pages, and happy editing! Stay safe, ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

One way to help is to request a copy edit for an LGBT article from the Guild of Copy Editors. The process is quick and easy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Happy editing, ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sexuality and gender identity regarding the Caitlyn Jenner article

There is a discussion occurring on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard here that is also within the scope of this noticeboard.Åüñîçńøł (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Category?

History of LGBTQ in policing and Category:LGBT law enforcement workers should probably share a category, and I wonder how many more articles we have about LGBTQ and policing or law enforcement topics, and how many we are missing?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested Move at List of people killed for being transgender

Editors involved in this project may have expertise helpful to the discussion at Talk:List_of_people_killed_for_being_transgender#Requested_move_6_June_2020. Rab V (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Can someone help this new editor who is likely to be blocked otherwise?

User:Diaphena2010 is a new editor who appears to be spamming a podcast and has been reverted. Unfortunately her response, repeatedly, is to accuse the editors who have reverted her (I seem to be one of them) of homophobia. I and others have tried to help her. I suggested asking for help here or at the help desk, but that hasn't worked and she just says " I don't mind getting blocked (Redacted) Blocking my account will only prove the systemic homophobia among Wiki editors." I'm giving up posting to her talk page as it's been futile. I'm also not going to block her. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This should be posted at WP:ANI. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 16:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits by user

Can someone please look into recent edits by User:Somua35? Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Online event: Wikipedia 101 for Pride and #BlackLivesMatter

RachelWex is organizing this online event. Aimed at folx who want to learn to edit Wikipedia, so I'm not sure the best way to get the word out, but posting here is a start.

Pinging Another Believer due to the section above.

Facebook event page: https://www.facebook.com/events/536729847005453/. = paul2520 (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

RachelWex, Great! Please do share if a meetup page is created. I also think sharing this link at Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2020 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives Matter would be helpful. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 Done Good ideas, Another Believer! = paul2520 (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
RachelWex, would you want to create the meetup page? = paul2520 (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
FYI I've tried to design a general page on meta with local initiatives (any help to update this page with things that I may have missed is most welcome : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Pride/2020))--Nattes à chat (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

High time an importance parameter/scheme be applied to this project

I believe this is a way overdue task, especially given the breadth of this project in terms of articles and other Wikipedia content. Here's why:

  1. With 17,908 articles ranging from classes FA to List, an importance scheme is highly pertinent for organizing this project.
  2. Why has this important feature been left out for this project? The only explanation I could find on this is, An importance parameter has not been added to the project tag for talk pages, though this has been proposed., stated here. Could the reason for it not being added to the project be the number of few articles when the project was in its infancy?
  3. Furthermore, I have not come across a single project with no importance scheme as of yet. Am I missing something or is it a common thing for projects to not have an importance scheme?

Opinions / Thoughts requested. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 10:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't use importance for Wikiproject Women. It was determined that its an arbitrary ranking and very subjective. If one has already been deemed notable, then they are. Ranking them in importance begs the question to whom? and creates a very slippery slope of trying to determine how gender alone can make someone important. It also tends to favor regional powerhouses (US/UK), rather than assessing actual import to the global community. Hierarchical ranking of people and cultures has resulted in so much of our history over time being underrepresented. My big question would be: Why would a project dedicated to improving the knowledge of those who have been unrepresented/underrepresented/hidden/marginalized want to marginalize topics by ranking them? SusunW (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts decided many years ago not to use an importance scale, and I think there are others. These scales are only useful if people use them to improve articles that have a low quality but high importance, and these days not much of this happens. Views are a fairly good proxy for importance any way - has the project signed up for these to be calculated? Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@SusunW: Loaded response, so I will be taking it in parts. While a ranking can be subjective, it could also be made objective upon application of rules and regulations a project comes up with the help of its members. When it comes to people, I don't think only their gender should be a factor in assessing their importance. Factors such as their contribution to the community, notability, status within the community etc... could/should always be used instead of their gender alone. For instance, given how notable RuPaul is/has been in the LGBT community (worldwide) for the past three decades is a better factor for ranking the importance of the article rather than just because he identifies as a man. Similar logic could be applied for Wanda Sykes, Laverne Cox and many others. It is not their genders which makes them more important, but rather what they have done. There is no "official" scale, and projects are encouraged to define their own, specialized scales. Different projects may consider different factors to evaluate importance.
As with regional powerhouses (US/UK/Europe), again a set of regulations could be agreed upon; such as local topics (specific to a country/place) could be ranked only from High to Mid, while topics of a much broader scale (of a whole continent, such as LGBT rights in Africa) could be ranked Top. Furthermore/alternatively, consensus of the project members could be utilized for ranking such topics.
I don't think hierarchical ranking on this project of wikipedia would result in certain topics being under-represented. To make it clear, the rankings are for a particular project within wikipedia and not for the whole site. Most casual readers do not ever even encounter the importance level of an article unless they click on the talk page, I don't think marginalization could ever be an issue here. By simply ranking the topics, we are not marginalizing them in any form. Assessments are for project members, not for casual readers. So the project members know where and when to improve articles.
Shawnqual Ranking things is always subjective, even if there are objective criteria, as it requires people to assess whether they think that criteria is met. It creates inequitable treatment based on the judgment of others. I noted that every single person that you listed is a US entertainment figure, making my point perfectly, though I don't doubt the importance of any of those people you listed. What about global figures like Alan Turing, Oscar Wilde, Katherine Mansfield, Sophia Parnok, Sándor Vay ... and how do you deal with eras where someone like Sally Ride was never out during her lifetime? Her importance is undeniable, but to the community that only happened after the fact. Your examples are also all living figures, so the bias of recentism must be considered and addressed, as well. How do you weigh historic figures against current popularity?
How do you propose to weigh the importance of say Caleb Orosco, whose case set legal precedent for all of the British Caribbean and all of the former British colonies, or Maria Dorothea Derrier/Karl Dürrge, who allowed their body to be studied by scientists to learn about biology, against entertainment figures. I would argue, they were far more significant to the community, at large, but most people have never heard of them. Or how do you deal with figures who were outside of the community, but had huge and significant impact on the community like Emma Trosse, Magnus Hirschfeld, or even Elizabeth Taylor? Again, my thoughts are that it is a bad idea to rank things. Everything has impact to some degree on people's lives and nothing moreso than education. Who is to determine what may be highly important to someone else in helping them navigate through their life? SusunW (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@SusunW: We have to take this in parts and come up with an objective and systematic scale. The first step is to address the importance of such a feature/task. While your opinion is relevant, I don't think it is appropriate to discard an important feature altogether based on your current stance. All your issues raised with examples of people can be resolved when a consensus is reached upon further discussions of project members. A consensus might even be reached to not provide any importance to people's articles if members deem that fit. This is what I would propose for instance when assigning importance to people's articles first and foremost, notability at a global scale within the community and contributions (including any other field such as science, literature etc..), so, Alan Turing, Oscar Wilde, RuPaul, Sappho, Carravagio, Marsha P. Johnson etc.. just to name a few would be considered 'Top' importance. Secondly, regional notability and achievements would be under 'high' category, and people with little to minuscule contributions to the community or simply being LGBTQ public figures could be under 'Mid' to 'Low' categories. I must also be clear that by notability I do not mean only current popularity, but notability in a historical context as well. Additionally, a task force formed to get this going would need to be responsible on educating themselves on any one figure. For individuals whose importance is unclear, a consensus could always be sought, and assigned levels could be double-checked by fellow members to ensure the level is right or as agreed upon by the majority. There is also a side project within this project - Person Task force which could be improved upon to handle articles of people.
I think you are centering your objection on only one type of articles (people's) among so many others. Now leaving people's articles aside, would you agree that there are certain topics for which their is very little doubt on their importance? Example: An article like LGBT is to be 'Top' importance being the central article of the project, there is no subjectivity involved in this. Similarly, articles of Bisexuality, Civil union, Coming out, Conversion therapy, Gay pride, Gender, HIV and men who have sex with men, Homophobia, Homosexuality, Homosexuality and religion, LGBT history, Pride parade, Same-sex marriage, Transgender, Transgender rights are also to be in 'Top'...I could go on with many other articles because I compiled a list to assign importance after checking class categories, before realizing that could not be done.
Please note that, we assign importance for ourselves (project members and editors) and not for casual readers. An importance level has no effect whatsoever on any reader or their perception of any topic. An article like LGBT history in Singapore is likely to be of top importance for a LGBTQ person in Singapore and of low importance for a LGBTQ person in Canada. But, as far as the LGBT studies project on wikipedia is concerned, it is of Mid importance as it only applies to a specific location. By assigning an importance level, we are not stating in any way that a particular topic is important for someone in navigating their life, just that in the larger context of this project and information within this project, the topic is of a certain importance when ranked among others. A LGBTQ person in Singapore will read the article and have their own perception regardless of it being only of 'Mid' importance. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 07:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Shawnqual Actually, I was responding to your answer about people in which you gave a very narrow list that supported my objection. I get that you are in favor of rankings, as does anyone reading the post. You asked for opinions and I gave mine with a rationale. I really didn't realize what you wanted was debate. It isn't necessary to refute people who disagree with you, as it's an opinion, not fact. Those who object bring new ideas/concern for you to consider as you push forward with this plan. Clearly neither of us will change the others' opinion and that's fine. My objection to ranking stands, regardless of whether it is a topic about people, culture, or iconic landmarks. SusunW (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@SusunW:, I was merely trying to address how we could resolve your and anyone else's similar concerns. I do think you might be interested in this sub project. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 14:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Johnbod: These scales are only useful if people use them to improve articles that have a low quality but high importance, and these days not much of this happens. I beg to differ but that does and is bound to happen for as long as wikipedia is around. Just recently, I came across the following articles: Gay media, LGBTQ migration, New Queer Cinema, Sexual orientation discrimination and Sexual revolution. Any member of this project is likely to agree that most, if not all of these articles are of high importance for the project. Yet, their quality isn't anywhere near where it should be. In case of New Queer Cinema, a tag to improve references had been placed at the top since 2009, an entire decade ago! I brought attention to it thanks to Wiki Loves Pride 2020, and a user was kind enough to improve the article and remove the tag. Sexual orientation discrimination is another good example of an important topic with very little content in its article.
As for the number of views, I am not sure if the project has signed up for that, but views can be easily seen and embedded on talk pages with the help of Pageviews Analysis. I am also not sure if page views are an indicator of importance. Certain pages, especially of current events are likely to receive more traffic, but that does not always and necessarily mean they are more important to the project than past events.
•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 12:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, whatever. But assigning importance ratings to even a fraction of 17k articles is a huge amount of work, which will detract from such efforts. You might ask yourself whether, if no one much is reading an article, can it really be that important? Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
It maybe a huge amount of work, but that does not mean it is impossible! A taskforce can be formed, even if a number of editors assign importance to 10-20 articles per day, about 70% could be completed within months. Also, how would it detract from such efforts? Readership of an article ≠ its importance. Importance does not depend on the number of page views. An article like Sexual orientation discrimination is of top importance in this project regardless of how many readers have scrolled through it. Again, we assign importance for ourselves (project members and editors) and not for casual readers who might not even be aware of such a criteria in the first place. For example, an article like the 'Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on LGBT community' may have high readership in these times and is likely to dwindle in the coming months and years. But its importance in this project will remain the same. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 07:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support With the scale that Wikipedia uses there is rarely or never ambiguity in assigning importance rankings. I think importance rankings have always been useful for WikiProjects because they identify the most important articles which are the lowest quality, and enable the development of those. I want to share two related issues:
    1. we are nearing a time when assigning and maintaining quality and importance rankings could be automated. The mw:ORES tool already ranks quality, and I expect that it could rank importance if there were social demand. Rather than having a drive to manually rank 17,000 articles here and more elsewhere, I might like to start with a discussion about the pros / cons of inviting in the Wikimedia tech team to provide this tool here as a model for other wikiprojects to use.
    2. I organize translation, and I need about ~100 articles to recommend for translation and establish a global canon of LGBT+ culture. I have a draft at meta:Wiki99/LGBT+. This list probably overlaps with articles which are top importance in the common ranking system, but also they need to be either universally relevant or carefully selected to teach globally.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: 1) I am not informed on the workings of the mw:ORES tool, but my concern would be that importance level might be harder to automate than quality level. Also, what is to be done in case of errors? Wouldn't correcting errors double the work? The idea does sound good, but I'd recommend checking the technical aspects of such a feature and if it could be feasible in the long run. It could perhaps be better for the tech team to experiment on a project with less breadth to tweak out the issues and see if the feature is at all possible. Then, it could be applied to this project by all means.
2) Wow, that is a good project. Thanks for bringing attention to it.
  • Support. I suggest rolling out for uncontroversial areas first, and working with the technical projects that can help as needed. If this can identify globally important “top” articles that are in bad shape perhaps this could also be advertised to those interested, like a monthly list of the top articles most in need of editing? Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as someone that has constantly assessed articles for multiple WP, I find the "importance" parameter to be the most trivial of them. It doesn't add anything and even WP:Mexico says "Aren't the ratings subjective? Yes, they are, but it's the best system we've been able to devise". These are excessively subjective and I have found instances about people "opposing" a lower grade. For example why would All I Want for Christmas Is You be a "high-importance" article on a WP that deals with Holidays in general; for the Christmas-WP makes sense, but not the general WP. There are 590,535 Unknown-importance biography articles, will someone fix those? No, because these require multiple factors a) a person that knows the subject, b) an article that does establish the importance of the subject, c) time to fix them, d) a very-well written guide and not the copy-pasted importance-criteria, e) to be clear that anyone can edit these parameters (somebody once reverted my assessments because I was not a member of the WP:California because the WP says "members"—as if it was a selected group of people). Currently, this WP has 536 unassessed articles, the last time I saw that number it was around 300~, I highly doubt someone will go and assess up to 23,517 to determine which are vital just to get them to at least C-class (a decent class IMO). © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 20:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Tbhotch:, I would agree with that editor on why it would be 'high', It is the best selling holiday ringtone, single in Japan, UK and is noted as one of the holiday cannon and classics, is a pretty solid reason. We cannot point blank assume that no one would improve those articles. Importance in my mind is assessed precisely for that, that people knowledgeable enough will come along and try to improve the article, or just the editors of the project will try to improve it when they can. It is to be a collaborative effort. These might be excessively subjective, but not so much if community census has been sought to create a criteria. There is an Assessment sub project within this one, yes the list has grown but that isn't to say it won't shrink. I plan to bring attention to it in the coming days. The list in total is around 17,000...the remainder are files and other stuff which does not require assessments. I am willing to assess as many as I can for as long as I can, I doubt I'd be the only member of this project with this sentiment.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 14:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • If the goal is to improve the quality of the most important articles, I don't think assessing all 17,900 articles is a good use of editor time. How about reviewing what is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Core topics, updating that page to display the quality of each article listed, and setting up some sort of system where an article is selected for improvement each month and advertised on this page?--Trystan (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Trystan:, Time issue is no concern, editors are to do this only if they want to, no one will be forced/required to. That core topics page barely gets any traffic, even none at all at times. It only saw most edits in the year of its creation (2007), since then, there have only been a handful of edits in a decade, up until 2017 and none since then. Also, what about so many articles which need improvements but are not core topics? The second idea does sound good, and I think importance assessment might help there too. Every month, a class and articles in it of an importance level could be selected to improve. For example, B-class articles with top importance one month and C-class articles with high importance the next and so on. These could easily be presented in a neat list with the help of wikipedia tools.•Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 14:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Categories removed from WP:LGBT

In reviewing the project pages, I've found a lot of helpful tools and reports I wasn't familiar with. The most useful are linked in the To-Do box, and more are listed at WP:LGBT/Editing. One report that could use some regular eyes is LGBT articles by quality log. Its main purpose is related to quality assessment, but it helpfully also shows when articles are removed from our project's scope. Looking back through its history for the past few months, I saw that an editor removed all of the following categories from our scope. They are all very clearly in-scope, so I will go through and re-add them.

Double-check "openly gay" at Karan Johar

Hi all, in this edit I removed the claim that Indian actor Karan Johar is openly gay, because oddly enough, the submitting user chose this India Today source, where he is quoted as saying "Everybody knows what my sexual orientation is. I don't need to scream it out. If I need to spell it out, I won't". That to me doesn't quite equate to "openly gay", particularly when there is supplementary context that suggests he's concerned about police retribution. If you disagree with me, I warmly invite you to shape the information properly, please. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I've escalated this to the BLP Noticeboard, since the content was silently restored. If you're interested and can read struck-through text, please see this new discussion. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

renaming Black lesbian literature?

I wanted to draw your attention to the discussion at Talk:Black lesbian literature § Retitling? that FirTre started. = paul2520 (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I replied.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Homophobic incidents on college campuses/at work

Is there consensus about whether or not we should include referenced content about instances of homophobia on college campuses and/or at work please?Zigzig20s (talk)

Hard to answer that in general, as it would depend on available sources, BLP, etc. Is there a specific article you have in mind?--Trystan (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
This referenced content was removed. Perhaps it could be restored.
In general, I think referenced content about homophobic incidents is rare to find because of shame/trauma, and because our societal normative structures tend to whitewash/minimize homophobia. I would therefore err on the side of inclusion as long as there are multiple references.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC re J.K. Rowling

Editors should be aware that a Request for Comment (RfC) about aspects of the J.K Rowling and Politics of J. K. Rowling articles has been posted on the BLP Noticeboard, here. Some editors have expressed concern that the RfC has not been put together or presented neutrally. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Page Renovation

The above discussion on assessment got me looking at our WikiProject pages, many of which are about a decade out of date. I've been quite bold in making some changes, and I wanted to pause and get feedback on the direction so far (please excuse the mess in the interim). Looking at what is done well by other WikiProjects, I have been taking the following approach:

  • Create a brief main page that provides an overview of WP:LGBT and leads to the different areas of the WikiProject.
  • Move detailed content from the main page into subpages by function: Collaboration, Editing, Resources, Showcase.
  • Replace manual content that will become dated with dynamically-updated lists and reports.
  • Consolidate questions, requests, and discussion in one place (here).

Based on inactivity, I think the following project pages can be retired and redirected, without prejudice to any users that want to start them up again in the future.

If others like this approach so far, I think there is a lot of opportunity for further improvement of the Home, Collaboration, Editing, Resources, and Showcase pages to help them best fulfill their functions.--Trystan (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Trystan:, I really appreciate your effort and work in renovating the project page. I had been thinking about it and was going to work on it in the coming days, the page seemed really dull and outdated in comparison to other project pages. No big deal but would have been better if you had started a discussion and waited a couple of days before getting to work to get suggestions. Still, great work. I have been going through the changes and seeing areas which can be improved further.
You have moved in a good direction in retiring/redirecting the sub-project pages mentioned above, but some of the content in those could be reused/repurposed in similar or new sub-pages. Happy Pride! :D •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 10:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty much done my pass through the project pages. A few things I would highlight:
I'm exploring the possibility of creating a bot that could keep the active/inactive membership lists up-to-date, as well as update the quality icons and progress meters at WP:LGBT/Core.--Trystan (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

AfD discussion about J. D. Slater

AfD for a gay pornographic actor/director/studio co-founder. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. D. Slater. I'm not sure the best argument, but the article has been around a while & I feel like he's the kind of person who could easily have a book written about him based on the amount of content and interesting story. = paul2520 (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on reliability of Pride.com

There is a request for comment on the reliability of Pride.com. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Pride.com. — Newslinger talk 01:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Sex verification in sports

I think active editors here would know better (than I), on what to do about this particular edit. The article probably needs to be updated but maybe not quite like that. Are the terms "genetic male" and "genetic female" even legit? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thread on article talk page: Talk:Sex_verification_in_sports#acsh.org_as_a_source. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

What is a gay icon?--request for comment

Hi, making note of this section on the talk page of Gay icon. Hoping to clean the article up, any comment on the criterion I propose for inclusion in the article greatly appreciated. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User replacing Lead image with rump Infobox container in LGBT articles

There's currently an issue affecting around a dozen LGBT-related articles, which I'd like to have more eyeballs and commentary on: Castncoot (talk · contribs) is replacing the top image in the lead of numerous articles with a rump Infobox used purely as an image container, apparently in order to avoid using standard [[File: ...]] syntax for the image. I'm at a loss to understand this behavior. This is kind of a last attempt at resolution before WP:ANI, to see if we can avoid that step, since discussion at their Talk page is being ignored and they've been at it for years.

Castncoot seems to have a zeal for adding an image at the top of many LGBT-related articles using a stub infobox. For some reason, they don't seem to like simple [[File: ...]] syntax for an image, and insist on using an {{Infobox}} as a container, even if only the fields |image=, |caption= and |title= are filled out. For a long time, their preferred container has been {{Infobox Chinese}} which they placed on LGBT articles since 2016. The latest flurry was during the past week, where they [re-]added {{Infobox Chinese}} to ten articles (diffs: (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10) and they have been very persistent about it (diffs from years back: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19).

To be clear: it's not about replacing one photo for a different image; the image source is not being changed: it's merely being embedded in a rump Infobox instead of leaving it using the standard Image syntax of [[File:Image-name|thumb|some caption...]]. Besides being wordier, this appears to violate MOS:VAR, as the result is no different for the viewer of the rendered page; it just exchanges one valid syntax for another which is considerably wordier.

At first, I was really confused by this, as they were adding {{Infobox Chinese}} to these articles, which just seemed bizarre. I reverted the latest series of Chinese Infoboxes from LGBT articles, and explained the reasoning behind it at this comment at their Talk page, which was deleted within minutes.

Very shortly thereafter, Castncoot started adding templates back to several of these articles. This time, responding, I suppose, to the comments about Chinese Infoboxes, they chose another one: this time, {{Infobox civil conflict}}, which can now be found on five LGBT-related articles (these are diff links): Gay pride, LGBT history in New York, LGBT history in the United States, LGBT history, and Homosocialization.

I'm not sure if this is an I-love-Infoboxes thing, or an I-hate-Image-file-syntax thing, but either way, it needs to stop. Other than this odd monomania, Castncoot is otherwise a productive editor, with 33,000 edits since 2011. I considered taking this to WP:ANI, as they've been at this in slow motion for years, but I thought I'd bring it here first, since all the affected articles involve LGBT themes, and I'd like to hear what people here think first, as well as to give Castncoot a chance to weigh in. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for catching these. I’m not sure why this user is persisting in adding stump infobox templates that don’t fit the article, but the result looks bad. if they refuse to respond when you raise the issue for discussion, ANI may be the only option.--Trystan (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Extended image syntax seems to work better instead of an unrelated infobox... thus, I agree with Trystan. {{ping|Higad Rail Fan}} 05:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Mathglot, don't go off the deep end here. These infoboxes have just been there a very long time (years), and only taken down in recent days - how do you respond to that? The new infobox I placed is (very appropriately) civil conflict and was applied to only a few pertinent articles. What exactly is the problem with having simply replaced something that has been up there literally for years anyway, please enlighten me? Have infoboxes just recently become deprecated on Wikipedia? I never anticipated any such tension like you've raised, so let's have a mature discussion please, simply to make these artices better. Now, please answer the question I posed above in this paragraph, Mathglot (or anybody). Castncoot (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I suppose then you're not instituting anything new, but it's clear to me and likely the others above that @Hiplibrarianship:'s edits there were valid, constructive ones. Yes, infoboxes are not deprecated, but they're not always necessary, especially for articles on more esoteric topics like Who is a Jew? or History of New York City. These articles listed in the OP likewise don't need infoboxes. ɱ (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh dear. Once I noticed the erroneous {{Infobox Chinese}} appeared in several LGBTQ articles, I presumed it was the result of some convenient (if somewhat careless) copy-pasting over the course of many years. (Someone intentionally misusing the Chinese template had not crossed my mind.) Obviously I'm biased about the validity of my edits; nonetheless, I don't think the longevity of misusing an infobox is relevant. — HipLibrarianship talk 04:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Also worth noting that {{Infobox civil conflict}} isn't a good fit for any of the articles listed above.--Trystan (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, I guess we all have our opinions and that's why we're here. I've always felt that the infobox cover (never heard of the term "rump" infobox till now) looks aesthetically SO much better, and seamlessly unifies similarly themed articles to the human eye. The use of the infobox Chinese was simply a matter of convenience, a direct way to arrive at a particular editing layout. It could just as well have been infobox Argentinian as far as I'm concerned- as long as it resulted in the same layout. I find the source code "template" used to arrive at the decor to be essentially irrelevant, not sure why anybody even cares about the source code; what ultimately matters is the reader's visual. But philosophically anyway, are there not Chinese LGBT people? Does LGBT history not involve civil conflict? On Wikipedia we routinely use editing structures that may not make sense when looking at the source code itself but are tools used to create a particular edit layout, whether with text, font, or graphics. I'm still quite surprised that anybody even cares about the source code used to achieve a constructive (in my opinion, of course) result for the reader. Think "outside the box," folks. Castncoot (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I more or less agree, but I think (and I suspect the others do as well) that "infoboxes" as editors are used to, will be more fleshed-out, and that your formatting would be improper. Perhaps they think readers too should be used to infoboxes used for quick, easy data, more than just the image, heading, and caption. ɱ (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Source code absolutely matters; infobox content gets recycled/repurposed on other projects, including Wikidata. Any infobox has a specific, defined usage: {{Infobox Chinese}} = showing various renderings of a Chinese term or phrase; {{Infobox civil conflict}} = summarizing details regarding non-military conflicts. The defined usage should not simply be ignored for layout and formatting. Indeed layout and formatting vary widely based on the device (tablet, phone), different browsers or apps, desktop or mobile views, etc. The integrity and functionality of the encyclopedia's content supersedes any particular display desires. — HipLibrarianship talk 06:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Well...at least in the articles describing LGBT history as a significant component - isn't that most relevantly descriptive of the long LGBT struggle – "non-military conlict"? Castncoot (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, no; the specificity matters. While the Stonewall riots are accurately summarized by {{Infobox civil conflict}}, the same template does not apply to LGBT community, LGBT culture, or LGBT history. Despite the influence/impact of the Stonewall riots on those various topics, the scope of those articles is not about a "civil conflict" itself. — HipLibrarianship talk 17:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Nor to Gay pride, LGBT history in New York , LGBT history in the United States, or Homosocialization. Mathglot (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Question From a Journalist

Hi!

I'm doing a story for Gizmodo on how editors monitor pronoun changes on Wikipedia. I've noticed you've contributed to a few pages by contributing the correct pronouns for folks who transitioned later in life/were known by their dead names during their professional lives. I'd love to set up a chat if you're interested in speaking. My email is henry{dot}giardina{at}gmail{dot}com. Please feel free to reach out, and keep up the great work!Hgiardina (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Hgiardina - You wrote, "I've noticed you've contributed to a few pages ...", but it is not clear to whom your query is addressed. If you are trying to communicate with a specific Wikipedian (editor), leaving a message on their Talk page is your best bet.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
For starters, you can read about WP:Watchlists. Mathglot (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

LGBT or LGBT+

I suggest re-naming templates (primarily) from LGBT to LGBT+, as they are not restricted only for LGBT topics but also other queer topics. There are links to topics about intersex, asexual and pansexual subjects among others. Adding a '+' at the end would hence encompass any such subjects and would be better for an all inclusive approach. These are the two templates I am talking about: 1 and 2. If there is consensus on these, other articles with LGBT in the title could also be moved with LGBT+ in the title, provided the articles pass a certain criteria of providing information on more than just LGBT. Opinions? •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 00:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There are various extensions of the LGBT initialism. Rather than picking out one of those, it's better to stick to the version that's common to all of them, the one used as a standard here, and the most prevalent. Those are still LGBT topics, even if not every identity mentioned is one of those 4, so it seems fine. Crossroads -talk- 05:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, sounds fair. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 23:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I had hoped that we will eventually replace the alphabet soup with "queer" but some of my fabulous hetero friends wonder how "queer" works for them, i.e., as allies. Darn. Back to LGBTQAI-Pn-As-poz-MSM-&. A pink star if you can decipher that one! ;^]. {Please see my post below.} Virtual hugs to all   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I dislike being referred to as queer personally, but wouldn't oppose this strongly since i'm not that active here anymore. I do remember a Reddit poll where a huge majority of LGBs opposed being referred to as "queer" though, so i will just point out that referring to everyone as queer will alienate people. This project will no longer represent me since "queer" is still a slur and i dislike being referred to as one. I'll post the poll if i can find it, but i somehow doubt it will have much impact. This will push me out of the LGBT Wikiproject and make my watchlist smaller, which might actually bring me back to Wikipedia more ironically. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I apologize, I should have made it clear that I am not advocating a change to "queer" instead of "LGBT" or "LGBTQ" on Wikipedia. I agree with you Jenova20 that "queer" does not work for most folks in our wonderful community. I again did not communicate clearly, which I regret.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
My link changed because i scrolled down too far. It's one of those websites *rolls eyes*. It should have pointed to this article. Thanks for your good faith reply. I'm glad we're not going to be labelled against our will. I alternate between cringeing and feeling insulted when i'm occasionally referred to as q. Thanks Mark ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Males wearing bikinis

Commons:Category:Females wearing bikinis, Commons:Category:Males wearing bikinis.

There are no pictures which depict males wearing bikinis in Wikimedia! We should find free images and upload them to Commons. --Sharouser (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Trying to Publish Article About Non-Binary Candidate: draft:Bre Kidman

Hi folks, I've been trying to publish an artivle about Bre Kidman (they/them), who is the first non-binary candidate for US Senate, ever. They are running for the Democratic nomination in Maine. This is for Susan Collins' seat, so a lot of money and attention is pouring in. My first attempt was rejected WITHIN MINUTES on the grounds of writing about a non-notable political candidate. After getting better feedback from other editors I added some more sources and am hoping to get this article live. They have already changed the media landscape by normalizing they/them pronouns, and have raised national controversy for a campaign logo. On the other hand, another Dem candidate in the Kentucky race is a straight white male who meets none of the notability criteria and has a live article. Editors have dismissed my pointing this out. If this WikiProject has any editors, please take a look at my article for review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bre_Kidman. I would greatly appreciate it!

I could take a look at it, sure. Historyday01 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Sure, its my pleasure.

Article easily meets GNG if a reviewer would be kind to take a look. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I assume the Kentucky candidate you're comparing them with is Mike Broihier; I will note that his article has now been nominated for deletion. But yes, in general, folks who are only known for their candidacy, particularly at a primary level, don't survive deletion review. I understanding that that can be frustrating. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    As a long-term AFC reviewer, I completely agree with the above. If a candidate is known only for their candidacy, it is extremely rare for them to be approved at AFC unless they actually get elected (in which case they generally meet WP:NPOLITICIAN). Basically, you have to show they are notable outwith the political process. Primefac (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all! Yes, Nat you were spot on. Hoping mine can be published soon. If poor Mike's election had been decided by the same historic ranked-choice ballot that Bre's will, he may still have been in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klamb70 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Primefac Thank you for your input! And there are certainly other candidates right now who are garnering a lot of media attention and donations who do not have a Wiki article (Shahid Buttar comes to mind). My subject's notability, I argue, comes from both the political and social pathways. As a candidate in a primary they don't pass any scratch test. Their campaign style and tactics have gained negative attention from national ring wing outlets and bemused coverage from neutral-left wing media. They've outlasted the usual fringe characters that run for office, and even a self-funded wealthy man who entered the race late. Of course, there's also Maine's Ranked choice ballot, which could prove to be a model for future elections. But mainly their notability is in their contribution to LGBTQ history, especially Trans history, as the first openly trans- non-binary candidate to run for US Senate, let alone survive until the ballot. They've forced US and State offices to add third gender options to their records, and are mainstreaming the use of "they" as an identifier. Even far-right sources like the Daily Caller has had to acknowledge it. That's why I'm trying to get this article published. They're laying tracks for future queer candidates and normalizing pronouns that aren't cisgender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klamb70 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem with "place in history" arguments for current events is that it's too soon to judge that, too soon to see whether they have any long-term effect at all. Writings about their candidacy while its happening aren't really a good source for judging that. And in this case, you have a "first" that required no major test - just about anyone can declare themselves to be a candidate (okay for Senate there are age, citizenship, and residency requirements, but those are minor.) There is no major gatekeeping challenge that has been met. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Transgender marriage is not Same-sex marriage

We should split this article. --Sharouser (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think for a majority of people, it’s considered the same, or close enough to be treated the same. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sharouser: Do you have a significant chunk of sources on transgender marriage that aren't about the implications, for couples where one or both parties are trans, of same-sex marriage being legal or illegal? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Roscelese and *Treker: There are many academic articles or newses about transgender marriage. --Sharouser (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
What the majority of laymen think doesn't really mater. There is an abundance of coverage on the topic of transgender marriage, therefore it is notable and can have its own article.★Trekker (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I was going by what seemed to an absence of anything in the article on the subject. If there is an abundance of reliable sources available then by all means have at it! Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't going to comment here, but I decided to after seeing the sourcing and WP:Notability claims above. Sharouser states, "There are many academic articles or newses about transgender marriage." *Treker states, "There is an abundance of coverage on the topic of transgender marriage." Where? I've looked. There certainly are not many on regular Google, Google Books, or Google Scholar. There are barely any. All I see are brief mentions using the term "transgender marriage" and usually talking about it in the context of same-sex marriage. This 2012 "Transgender 101: A Simple Guide to a Complex Issue" source, from Columbia University Press, page 27, asks if transgender marriage is the same as gay marriage. It says it depends, and goes on to state why. This 2005 "New York City Law Review, Volumes 9-10" source, from City University of New York School of Law, page 212, states, "Although transgender marriage is not necessarily homosexual marriage, the two are often collapsed, especially when the original birth-sex of the transgender spouse is the same as the sex of the non-transgender spouse. However, this conception of transgender marriage is limited." It then goes on to state why it thinks this.
Where are the sources speaking of "transgender marriage" as its own entity? How does one define "transgender marriage"? Who says that it's a marriage where at least one transgender person is the spouse, as opposed to both being transgender, like this incarnation stated? What if one or both partners do not consider it a transgender marriage, but rather a heterosexual marriage or a gay marriage? Also, the Same-sex marriage article having a section on transgender and intersex people is not stating that "transgender marriage"or "intersex marriage" is necessarily the same thing as same-sex marriage. Poor content aside, that content is in the article because it's relevant to the topic, whether or not the topics should have their own Wikipedia articles. And while we're on the subject, I don't see anyone trying to create an Intersex marriage article. What is an intersex marriage?
No need to ping me if you reply. In fact, please don't ping me. I can check back. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Flyer. @Sharouser: where is this "abundance of coverage" of transgender marriage that isn't just "how are trans people affected by the legality or illegality of same-sex marriage"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
In many jurifications, transgender people can sustain their marriage if their partner still love them and if he or she gives up legal gender change. However, many married transgenders suffer divorces. ([2]). In Nikki Araguz case, Thomas' two sons claimed that their father didn't knew Nikki's transgender status when Nikki married. ([3]) --Sharouser (talk) 12:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sharouser: The source about Nikki explicitly points out that the reason for the legal trouble was that same-sex marriage was not legal in Texas and that therefore two people who were legally considered men could not marry. If this were about whether or not suddenly learning your spouse was trans were grounds for an annulment or something because of deception, that might be another matter, but this case is literally just about how same-sex marriage law affects trans people. The first source you linked is better, and does go further into the social dynamics of a married person transitioning. I'm still not sure, however, that this in itself is sufficient to support an article on "transgender marriage". Do you have other sources on this, ideally not just news? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Roscelese: The reason for the legal trouble included that the firefighter's heirs thought that their father didn't know that his wife is transsexual. There are many articles about gender history and cancellability or divorce of transgender marriage by "deception". See Transgender Marriage and the Legal Obligation to Disclose Gender History --Sharouser (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@Roscelese: Because I provided enough evidence, I will retore the article. This legal article in JSTOR is an enough evidence. --Sharouser (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@Sharouser: That's also a potentially usable source. You seem to be on the right track, as far as finding sources is concerned - are there more? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Roscelese: Can this marriage be saved? Addressing male-to-female transgender issues in couples therapy. I found another article. --Sharouser (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Roscelese: Because I provided enough evidences, I will retore the article. --Sharouser (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Sharouser, you shouldn't. WP:GNG is still not met, no consensus for it has appeared, and the version you keep trying to restore is mostly WP:OR and has a mere two sentences with sources - the rest cannot be restored per WP:BURDEN. Crossroads -talk- 02:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I found a source about "In some cases, a non-transgender spouse wants to cancel their marriage when they noticed their spouse is transgender and the spouse had hidden their identity at the wedding.". Other sentences do not need references. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged. --Sharouser (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
And I challenged it, and so you cannot restore it. Don't refer to WP:V out of context; it also states, Wikipedia does not publish original research....Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. Again, WP:BURDEN (part of WP:V) says, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. WP:OR is absolutely not allowed, no matter how "common sense" you think it is, or even if it is true, because readers need it to be verifiable. And you ignored the issue with WP:GNG. You need to first find multiple reliable secondary sources with non-trivial coverage of this as a distinct topic to demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. Then write based on that. Crossroads -talk- 17:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Why do you think WP:GNG is still not met? --Sharouser (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Why do you think that some sentences are unverified? --Sharouser (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I will restore this article in June. I will insert more references. --Sharouser (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It would certainly be possible to write an article about transgender marriage as a separate topic from same-sex marriage — but what's less clear is that the last version of a separate article about transgender marriage was actually doing enough to justify a standalone article. The key to making a topic notable enough for an article, in most circumstances, is not just to write the bare minimum required to demonstrate that the topic exists — for a separate article to be justified, it would be necessary to write considerably more about the topic than its current subsection in the same-sex marriage article already says, and to cite considerably more referencing than just three anecdotal news stories. It's true that they're not precisely the same thing, but they do have a fair amount of overlap, particularly in the way institutional recognition or non-recognition of gender impacts whether a transgender person's marriage is considered to be "opposite sex" or "same sex" for legal purposes — so even if it's not ideal, the current situation isn't bad. But to justify a standalone article about transgender marriage, you have to put more effort into a standalone article than you actually did. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The linked section in same-sex marriage begins: The legal status of same-sex marriage may have implications for the marriages of couples in which one or both parties are transgender, depending on how sex is defined within a jurisdiction. To me, this is not an implication that marriage involving a transgender person is same-sex (and of course such an implication would be false). These implications seem relevant to discuss at same-sex marriage, at least to some degree, but the topic should also get some coverage at transgender rights. I don't oppose the creation of a new article transgender marriage if there is sufficient sourcing—and I would expect that there is. Or perhaps the article could be titled Gender identity and marriage, particularly if there is enough material about marriage in historical cultures which recognised a third gender. — Bilorv (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I will insert Norrie May-Welby case. --Sharouser (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBTQ%2B_studies/Archive_68&oldid=1179713927"