Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

WikiProject LGBT studies

 Home Talk Collaboration Editing Resources Showcase

Pre-transition photo of Gabbi Tuft discussion

Hello, members of this WikiProject are invited to join in this discussion: Talk:Gabbi_Tuft#Should_we_use_a_pre-transition_photo_of_Tuft_in_the_infobox_until_we_acquire_a_post-transition_photo? Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Could somebody please tell me what is needed to get a current photo of me in my info box area? This has been going rounds for years now and I’d be incredibly grateful for anyone willing to help. Gabbituft (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You'll need to have a photo that is released under terms compatible with those detailed at c:Commons:Licensing. The easiest way would be to take a selfie and upload it here agreeing to release it, or to have someone else take a picture and upload it there. If there's an existing photo by someone else who you could persuade to release it, you can follow these instructions: c:Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#If_you_are_NOT_the_copyright_holder. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Uploaded:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gabbi_Tuft_March_2023.tif Gabbituft (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks,  Done ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Gabbituft (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Marriage Equality Case in India

I've created a new article Supriyo v. Union of India, which is the case on marriage rights for Gay, lebsian, transgender and non-binary people in India. As the consolidated case is challenging the Indian Marriage Laws for discriminating on grounds of both sexual orientation and gender identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki6995 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Miscategorization of people by time period

In the process of helping to diffuse Category:20th-century LGBT people and Category:21st-century LGBT people, by moving people to an appropriate "XX-century [Nationality] LGBT people" subcategory if one exists, I've come across a significant problem that will require the attention of the project: specifically, while XX-century categories are supposed to be applied on the basis of the time period in which the person was notable, I came across a considerable number of people who had been categorized solely on the basis of their birthdate — if they were born in the 1990s, then they were categorized as a "20th-century person", even if they had never even initiated any sort of notability-building public visibility until after the century changeover.

That is, a person is not a "20th-century X" just because they were born in 1995, if the first time they ever verifiably did anything that added bricks to the foundation of their notability claim wasn't until 2015. It's not a question of "was this person alive in the 20th century", it's a question of "was this person already a known public figure in the 20th century".

This has tended primarily to hit newly prominent millennials in pop culture domains like music, acting, YouTubing or Drag Race, and generally not politicians or scientists or artists or writers. And on a couple of occasions, it even hit people who were born in 2000, and would literally only have been infants (and thus clearly not already notable or semi-notable performers) in the 20th century regardless of where you stand on the debate about whether 2000 was the last year of the 20th century or the first year of the 21st.

I've already removed it from some people who jumped out at me as obvious misfiles just by eyeballing their names (like baby Drag Race queens and Lil Nas X) but since I obviously don't know everybody and there are thousands of articles that would need to be checked, this will need an active cleanup project rather than being a thing I can look after entirely on my own. So I just wanted to post a request for some assistance. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention @Bearcat. This is one hell of a work. Since these are [mostly] WP:BLPs, I think we'll have to prioritise. I can do what I can as the time permits — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion regarding gender identity of mass shooting suspect

There are multiple discussions at Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting regarding how to list the name and gender identity of the suspect. Funcrunch (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Kris Jenner

Kris Jenner was married to Caitlyn Jenner. However, the current wiki page does not reflect this. Help is needed to clarify this. Talk:Kris Jenner Nonnormal87 (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You received an appropriate answer based on what occurred to Kris's life. Please, refer to Wikipedia:Forum shopping for further information. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Including sexuality for people who are out but haven’t formally "come out"

I’m sure these questions have been raised before but I’m not having any luck searching through archived discussions, as all of my search terms are too commonly used. Please accept my apologies for rehashing.
To give some background: my work as an editor primarily centers on women's ice hockey, so all of my examples will be from that realm, but I am hoping for guidelines that will be much more broadly applicable. While I am queer, I don’t want to assume that my sexuality gives me any particular authority when discussing the sexuality of others.
A number of women's ice hockey players are dating or married to a women and it’s fairly common for such relationships to be documented by reputable secondary sources. However, it is often the case that the player has not formally "come out" or publicly stated their sexuality. In such intances, is it appropriate to specify that they are LGBTQ in the text? If yes, what is the best way to do so?
For example, Kerry Weiland and Christina Sorbara are married and their marriage is documented in references from the Toronto Star and WSJ. However, as far as I have found, Weiland has never spoken about being LGBTQ or publicly defined her sexuality. In Weiland’s article, I opted to included only the information which could be sourced, i.e. "Weiland is married to Christina Sorbara and they have three children" but I have two conflicting concerns:

1. As it is currently written, the reader is left to extrapolate that Weiland is LGBTQ, which seems counter to the purpose of an encyclopedia. Many Wikipedia articles that include "[Ice hockey player] is lesbian" have references that exclusively state she is in/has been in a relationship with a woman. Is there value in writing "Weiland is part of the LGBTQ community"? Or even "Weiland is queer/sapphic/[other general term]" or specifically "Weiland is lesbian" despite the fact that it may misrepresent her sexuality?
2. Weiland is very private about her life and, while she sometimes uses her married name (Weiland Sorbara), she does not mention her wife or children in interviews or professional bios and does not use public social media accounts. Though she was noted as an LGBTQ Olympian by Outsports, is it appropriate to include any information about her sexuality and marriage when one considers how private she keeps her personal life (per WP:NPF)?

Sorry for the extended post, I’ve been sitting on these questions for a long while and really appreciate any guidance. Spitzmauskc (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The current text of Weiland's article looks good to me. Yes, the reader can infer that Wriland is queer based on her marriage to a woman, but if the sources don't state it then neither should we – there's no entirely neutral umbrella term that every woman married to another woman groups themselves under, so we can't be sure that any term we chose would be accurate, and it doesn't tell the reader anything they can't trivially deduce from the text of the article, because that's how we have established it! We definitely should not describe a person as a lesbian based on a source saying they are in a relationship with another woman – they could easily be bisexual! If and when a person publicly comes out and reliable sources talk about their sexuality when discussing them, then we can include it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

And of course, behaviour != sexuality. Tamsyn Muir identifies as a lesbian (and our article describes her as such) despite the fact that she is married to a man, for instance. It's unusual, but not impossible, for someone to consider themselves heterosexual but still be in a same-gender relationship. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

"the reader is left to extrapolate that Weiland is LGBTQ, which seems counter to the purpose of an encyclopedia" I don't think this is the case. We need to report the information that is there, not extrapolate ourselves. I don't see any reason to label someone's sexuality if they don't care to do so themselves. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is LGBTQ; that's a huge gathering of separate categories that as a group more define what you are not than what you are. Even if we accept her marriage to a woman as an indicator of her sexuality, we don't know if she's L, or B, or perhaps privately T... and if you think you can make a good guess where she falls because she's married to a woman, well then, the reader likely feels that way as well. And certainly historically we cannot judge desire by marriage; many a lesbian, bisexual, or asexual woman wound up married to a man. I would suspect that the odds of a straight CIS woman being married to a woman are much smaller, but the world is filled with odd complexities, and it seems unlikely that it hasn't happened somewhere, if only perhaps for a green card. We have plenty of biographical articles that do not even suggest the person's sexuality -- folks who have not married and did not engage in public dating - and those articles are not insufficient for that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

FAR for But I'm a Cheerleader

I have nominated But I'm a Cheerleader for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Lia Thomas has an RFC

Lia Thomas, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Remove the "living" qualifier in MOS:DEADNAME, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. The discussion is about removing the living qualifier from MOS:DEADNAME. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about the deadnaming of a dead person

Touching upon much of what the post above aims to deal with, there's ongoing discussion at Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting about whether or not to include the deadname of a dead trans person. (And, similarly, whether to prioritize the person's preferred name or their deadname.) Insight from editors who have more experiences with the nuances of MOS:GENDERID and surrounding precedents would be very helpful. Thanks! ● 2600:1700:87D3:3460:85C5:CB26:A7AA:3D4A (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

your feedback is needed

I wrote an article about the first and only drag quenn in Azerbaijan, Lady Slim. I wrote it in English for many reasons. But she's nominated for removal. Please take a look at this article.Lady Slim If you see fit, please contribute so that the article is preserved in Wikipedia. Futurolog21 (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Garrett Glaser

Someone who might be Garrett Glaser is looking for assistance at WP:HD#How do I source the content below? and I'm wondering if anyone from this WikiProject would mind trying to help them out. I left some general information on their user talk page, but perhaps someone might be able to add to that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying question about interpretation of guidelines around transition

Back in November I made some edits regarding Josie Totah, namely updating her name on some credits prior to when she publicly came out. (I meant to raise this question closer to when this occurred, but my December and January in real life were so hectic that I forgot all about it and was reminded today.) A handful of these edits stuck, but a handful were reverted with the rationale that she was notable under the other name and it was how she was credited, and when I discussed it with the person who reverted it, this was the conversation about it. I'm not looking to, like, prove anything or edit war or bring these edits back up myself (my real life is still feeling the effects from what made December and January so hectic; even if I had the energy to I simply don't have the time), but I wanted to raise the question here to improve my own understanding: Totah was privately out to her family prior to acting, but she was initially closeted when it came to acting roles (i.e. presenting as a boy, doing boy roles); however, it may be that she chose a stage name she was comfortable with at that time which was not her given name. However, now that she's publicly out, she's credited as Josie consistently. My understanding prior to those edits in November was that her prior stage name might count as a deadname, but now I'm just confused so I wanted to ask for clarification from people who might know their way around these guidelines more than I do? Is the rationale that she was privately out so the previously credited name doesn't "count" as a deadname correct and should I take that into account going forward? Just looking for a second opinion here. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me like you're dealing with a situation that doesn't really need to be faced, because looking at a few quick examples (such as the filmography chart for Holly Robinson Peete and the section of Muhammad Ali on his acting), it seems we don't generally specify the "credited as" information for actors who changed their name during their career. That's an IMDb thing, not so much a Wikipedia thing. We definitely shouldn't be making special effort of that sort just because the name change goes with a gender identification, which is the main place where we discourage referring to an old name more than needed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

At first I wasn't completely clearly understanding your phrasing yesterday (I blame pulling a back muscle), but rereading it today it makes sense. Thanks! - Purplewowies (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Drag panic

What happened to the page, drag panic? Was it deleted? — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 12:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks like it was moved to a draft: Draft:Drag panic Historyday01 (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the article back into main space. I think the page should be improved and issues can be discussed on the talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Ohhh, I thought someone deleted the page with no reason. — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 14:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I was just in the process of requesting that. I don't think it meets the criteria for draftification, especially since 2022 drag performance protests was merged there, which is outside the 90-day time limit mentioned at WP:DRAFTIFY.--Trystan (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, hence why I moved the page back. Onel5969 can discuss on the talk page, if preferred. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

List of lesbian bars

Project members might be interested in the newly created List of lesbian bars. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons

I just created List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons. I don't edit much on LGBT topics, so I figure it might be a good idea to post it here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Gene Robinson

Gene Robinson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Neopronouns after name

The style manual says neopronouns "should usually be mentioned" but otherwise mandates the singular 'they'. This sucks. If there are reliable sources specifying any explicit pronoun usage, they/them or neopronouns or otherwise, at the very least these pronouns should be mentioned immediately after their name. A recent Neopronouns RfC recommends more discussion about whether to include it as a footnote, in prose, or case by case. I say in cases with any such discussion, the first line should be formatted like this:

Maia Kobabe (/ˈmaɪə koʊˌbeɪb/, born 1989, pronouns e/em/eir) is an American cartoonist and author.

Right now it doesn't even mention e/em/eir in the body of the Maia Kobabe article, it says "Spivak pronouns" as if that's clearer. You have to dig through the Spivak article or other citations to even be exposed to eir most common way of being referred to.

People should be able to easily learn and talk about what they find in an encyclopedia. Hiding neopronouns in obscured citation (or replacing with they/them for that matter) only further mysticizes neopronouns, affirming to cis folks it's "too hard" to figure out.

tl;dr I'm relatively new here -- how do we change this? Do we assemble LGBT folks to make a new thread and vocally support prominent in-line pronouns? Eferwalt (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a complete answer here but I really don't want us to be saying what people's pronouns are before we say what they are notable for. Obviously we need to explain them before we start using them but that shouldn't be in the first sentence. Beyond that, my thoughts are less clear. There are a portion of readers for whom even they/them pronouns are too spicy, and there is probably no helping them, but we do need to keep the rest of the readers in mind. We have to find a way to combine using the correct pronouns with keeping the articles readable for people who are unfamiliar with them. We don't want the pronouns to be prominent, we want them to be read as normal. We don't want to scare readers away either from the articles or the subjects of the articles. We want to bring them along. Unfortunately, I don't have a specific suggestion for doing that beyond thinking that it might be best to use personal pronouns sparingly in these cases. DanielRigal (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

What I'm currently used to seeing is something like

Maia Kobabe (/ˈmaɪə koʊˌbeɪb/, born 1989[1]), is an American cartoonist and author. Their[a] graphic nonfiction has features in several publications and their first book Gender Queer: A Memoir was published in 2019.

Given the MOS Talk debate you link to, I think it would be reasonable to include a self-reference in a footnote:

a: Kobabe uses Spivak neopronouns e/em/eir, but Wikipedia policy is currently to avoid potentially unfamiliar neopronouns in favor of singular they.

I don't think we're likely to get an MOS change that's more respectful to people using neopronouns in the immediate future, given the most recent consensus is only 6 months old. That said, one of the things I've been hoping to do as a part of the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group is to run an editing campaign to improve how we cover trans, non-binary and gender non-confirming biography subjects — and how we cover the current moral panic about trans, enby and GNC people — so we might be able to come to a newer consensus then? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Eferwalt @OwenBlacker I saw this about neopronouns and found it to be a very strange policy, particularly for historical figures. For example, Leslie Feinberg uses she/her in the article "for consistency" but this is spoon feeding the assumed cis reader who finds ze/hir to be "too confusing." They/them as the default "non-binary pronoun" is relatively recent. There's also lack of focus on an assumed trans reader who might access an article and find it hurtful. Sure, maybe a random cis reader might feel a teeny tiny bit less confused by they rather than ey, but should that trump Maia Kobabe's own feelings on the issue? Computer-ergonomics (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I can definitely understand your perspective but, as well as what I wrote above about not-now-but-maybe-soon, I think it's also worth bearing in mind that a significant quantity of readers of the English Wikipedia are likely to be non-native speakers, so I'm generally more conservative in article-space here than in my own writing. Given we currently have a policy here that is broadly respecting of trans, enby and GNC identities, I'm not sure it's a very high priority to change compared with other Wikipedia language-editions where non-binary biography subjects are forcibly gendered, for example.

I am definitely happy to be persuaded otherwise — and it's something the User Group is going to work on in the medium-term future, with the intention to facilitate a wider conversation and informed discussion about. I can't see anything specific on the provisional schedule for Queering Wikipedia 2023, but I am sure all of us at the User Group would definitely welcome input from you all (Computer-ergonomics, Eferwalt and DanielRigal) on this. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy Information

I noticed that the LGBT rights in the United States page didn't have any sources for the subsection on gay conversion therapy under the larger section for medical discrimination. This seems to be the only part of the article which needs credible citations. I was wondering if there was any reason for this or if anyone had the expertise to solve this problem? Rylee Schermerhorn (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)