Talk:LGBT symbols/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Lesbian rainbow flag with double-Venus symbol

Version: symbol in canton
Version: symbol superimposed on rainbow bars

The "Lesbian rainbow flag with double-Venus symbol" has been demonstrated at Pride parades, festivals, dyke marches and other lesbian events. There are two versions of the Lesbian Pride rainbow flag: a rainbow flag with a dark blue canton containing the double-Venus symbol, and a rainbow flag with the double-Venus symbol superimposed on the bars. There are numerous sources that feature the flag, as follow: § "A" are print media and website sources that include the flag; § "B" are video recordings that show one or both versions of the flag being displayed at events.
Editors are welcome to respond to this thread with additional sources that include one or both versions of the Lesbian rainbow flag with double-Venus symbol.
If you come across a source that specifically mentions the flag in relation to lesbian representation, please highlight it. Thank you. (Btw, this thread is not a WP:RFC.)

§ A (print media and websites)  and  § B (videos)
§ A (print media and websites)
  • Rubenstein, Steve (June 29, 2008). "Thousands gather to celebrate lesbians". San Francisco Chronicle. (used in article) (deleted on 15:27, 23 July 2019)
  • Bolcer, Julie (February 16, 2010). "NM Domestic Partnership Bill Dead, For Now". The Advocate.
  • Shields, Derica (May 22, 2013). "Money, Sex, Power & Christian Evangelicals in Roger Ross Williams' 'God Loves Uganda'". OkayAfrica.
  • Garcia, Adrian (October 8, 2013). "Watch: Rainbow-American Flag Stirs Up A Storm Of Controversy at Tennessee College". The Gaily Grind.
  • Bendix, Trish (September 8, 2015). "Why don't lesbians have a pride flag of our own?". AfterEllen. Archived from the original on September 9, 2015. (used in article)
  • Han, Alex (June 2016). "San Francisco's Pride Parade 2016". Bay City Group. (used in article) (deleted on 15:27, 23 July 2019)
  • MacDonald, Jocelyn (January 13, 2017). "Today's shameless lesbians won't be queered". Feminist Current.
  • Goodfriend, Wendy (June 28, 2017). "The 25th San Francisco Dyke March 2017". look2remember.
  • "Impressions of Pride Events around the World". InterPride. 2018.
§ B (videos)

I may update this list with more sources when they're found. Pyxis Solitary yak 05:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Though the noticeboard was subheaded "Getty Images", it's clear that the consensus built there would without a doubt cover the other sources you've provided. The same issues for using Getty Images as a source are the same issues here. If you want, start a new conversation at the RS noticeboard to see if your AV and print sources are deemed reliable. Then, address the second issue regarding WP:UNDUE. I am removing the double-venus flag if there's no reliable source that expressively indicate that it is 1) a lesbian flag, and 2) it has been widely adopted as a lesbian flag. You have continued to ignore other comparisons to other flags (listed above, such as the pride flag with an American canton) and it seems you're making no effort in actually resolving this.

Yes, this may be a lesbian flag, but that doesn't mean it merits inclusion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Note to editors: as stated in the opening paragraph, this thread presents sources that contain the Lesbian rainbow flag with double-Venus symbol. These sources prove that the flag is used to signify lesbians and, thereby, its existence as an "LGBT symbol". Do not be discouraged from contributing additional sources to this thread that include the lesbian pride rainbow flag. If you are unsure about how to add a source with a citation template, the URL will suffice and a template will be created from it. Pyxis Solitary yak 01:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Are any of these sources useable for the purposes of this article? Clicking through a few it doesn't look like they even talk about the flag - and some of them are just random YouTube videos. If not to provide things actually useable in this article, what is the point of this section? --Equivamp - talk 02:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
They are in fact not useable for the purpose of this article, per WP:PRIMARY (and WP:RS). That's why the flag has been removed. What is the point of this section? is a good question too. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The purpose of this thread was unambiguously explained above: (1) "The "Lesbian rainbow flag with double-Venus symbol" has been demonstrated at Pride parades, festivals, dyke marches and other lesbian events." and (2) "this thread presents sources that contain the Lesbian rainbow flag with double-Venus symbol. These sources prove that the flag is used to signify lesbians and, thereby, its existence as an "LGBT symbol"." You cannot use YouTube videos themselves as sources, but the videos prove the use of the flag at LGBT and lesbian-related events; the citation parameter "|time=/Event occurs at" provides the time when the flag(s) appear in a video. I don't think it takes science to figure out the obvious. If you do not care to search for more sources that contain either version of the flag or both ... then don't. Other editors might. And in so doing, one or more may discover a source that refers to the flag in terms of use by lesbians, whatever the setting. That's it. In a nutshell. Pyxis Solitary yak 09:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
If they can't be used in the article, then they don't really "prove" anything inasmuch as Wikipedia is concerned. This talk page is meant to discuss improving the article, and hoarding a list of things Wikipedia can't use is the opposite of that. --Equivamp - talk 20:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: I'd agree with Equivamp. This isn't a forum for collecting articles/videos that show at least a glimpse of that particular flag design. Find a reliable source, that's all you need to do. No need to continuously update this list just to try to prove a point. I'd suggest maybe collapsing your list. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 20:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. WP:TALK#FACTS: The talk page is the ideal place for issues relating to verification, such as asking for help finding sources, discussing conflicts or inconsistencies among sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference supporting a statement is often better than arguing against it.
The Lesbian rainbow flag with double-Venus symbol is not a figment of imagination. It exists. Both versions have for many years been displayed at Pride-related and lesbian-related events in many domestic and international locations, and continues to be. It is a flag that signifies "Lesbians" and, therefore, it is an LGBT symbol. This thread is about finding sources about the flag. This thread is doing precisely what a talk page is meant for.
(To cut down on the page space, I collapsed the listed sources.) Pyxis Solitary yak 04:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
All these "sources" fail WP:V, and unless you're trying to argue that any of these sources are RS, then what is there to "examine"? This is also a terrible way to go about asking for help finding RS for that flag. At best, you just clog up the talk page and its edit history with every fleeting instance of the flag appearing in a parade you can find, and at worst, you're misleading editors who might mistake your sizable list of non-sources as actual WP:RS, dissuading them from helping to find any real ones. It would probably be more helpful to say something like, "Hey, I'm looking for sources on this flag, here's one or two links of it in use to represent lesbians. I think it's notable so a reliable source is bound to talk about it eventually." This second attempt at the same unhelpful thing, on the other hand, is...egregious. --Equivamp - talk 18:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

John Calvin was convicted for homosexual activity and thusly branded with a fleur-de-lis...

Heaps of references on the internet anent John Calvin being branded with a fleur-de-lis after being convicted for 'homosexual activity'. The aforesaid should be at least be byworded and furthermore the whyfors set out anent the fleur-de-lis being an onetime marker for homosexuality convictions. Methinks John Calvin (true name Jean Cohen) could not only be an unsung Gay and Jewish icon but also one of the father-figures behind Europe and the settler planting of Ireland, the Americas and South Africa. Anyway, worth looking into why the fleur-de-lis onetime stood as a marker of homosexual activity?

"An interesting story: in 1527, the year he was 18, Calvin was arrested, tried, and convicted of homosexual activity. Instead of being executed (per French law at the time), he was branded with a fleur-de-lis on one of his shoulders" -- 00:37, 20 September 2017 92.1.69.20

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.69.20 (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

New Lesbian Flag

While the lesbian flag that was both added and removed on June 4th indeed didn't have proper citations (using tumblr as a source), I feel like it should be represented in the article. It's seen a growth in usage since its introduction, especially on social media. I understand that tumblr generally should not be considered a valid source (see here), is there really a better source for this? The flag was put together through a poll on tumblr with over 3000 responses, and it literally originated from the site. This seems like a good enough reason to add this as a source, or at least to me. This is all a bit iffy since we're talking about a community here, since there’s not exactly a Board of Lesbian Elders that can validate a flag or not. Something that could be looked at is the "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" on the above-linked Reliable Sources page, but that is mostly about individuals, and again, not communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspharon (talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself and the lesbian community I am personally familiar with: the flag has not been established within the general lesbian community. The basis for the creation of the flag is fringe opinion, and the repetitive efforts to include it in Wikipedia is advocacy. If the flag design becomes known outside of the social media bubble and its usage is covered by non-social media sources, then it might be included in the article. In the meantime, you should familiarize yourself with What Wikipedia is not, because among the many subjects addressed in it, you'll learn that Wikipedia does not publish "original thought", "personal inventions", and proposed ideas -- which is precisely what the "new lesbian flag" is. I suggest that you also read the guideline: Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree Thank you, this is very clear. Aspharon (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
For the curious, this refers to File:Lesbian Pride Flag 2019.svg / File:2018_lesbian_flag_proposal.png. AnonMoos (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
For those who want to know the origin of the flag design and the "over 3000 responses" touted:
The "votes" refer to figures posted by Tumblr blog the search for the official lesbian flag on 31 July 2018 after it announced a flag survey 10 days earlier.
The figures are based on a poll created in the allukazaoldyeck Tumblr blog and its 3,684-response lesbian-flag-poll-data-results posted in June 2018. (This poll was created after the earlier results for a similar poll by the same blogger.)
The 5-bars flag is a redesign of the 7-bars flag that was originally created by a Tumblr blogger and posted in her sadlesbeandisaster Tumblr blog on 6 June 2018.
Needless to say, a Tumblr poll is not a survey. There is no survey methodology involved. Tumblr is a hive where any Tumblr blogger can create ideas about anything that comes to mind. Tumblr blogs and polls thrive on "likes" by other Tumblr bloggers and by being followed by other Tumblr bloggers. Pyxis Solitary yak 20:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
We can add the orange-pink flag to this article if/when any reliable sources have information on its use. If it actually recieves wide use, then it should be mentioned in a reliable source at some point.Thespündragon 19:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
"If the flag design becomes known outside of the social media bubble and its usage is covered by non-social media sources, then it might be included in the article." This statement is in the second paragraph of this discussion. It's not lost on me, however, that you uploaded the "orange-pink flag" file to Wikimedia Commons on 17 March 2019 and since then IP-only editors and editors with brand new accounts have tried to insert it, or a copy of it, into the article. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I was agreeing with you that it requires reliable sources to be included in the article. I am not those IP editors or new accounts, so I am not sure what the relevance of bringing them up in reference to me is. –Thespündragon 20:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
You have this article in your watchlist, right? Yet you have not been actively involved in reversing/deleting the many attempts to establish a "new lesbian flag" (i.e. orange-pink flag) in the article. You gotta walk the talk. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I do not, in fact, have this article in my watchlist, and do not tend to actively focus on an article very often. I commend your commitment to keeping this article high quality and well sourced, Pyxis. (commend might be too formal, but I am unable to think of a more fitting word to use there) --Thespündragon 03:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, well ... then ... apologies for making the assumption. And thank you for the compliment [only someone with an articulate vocabulary would come up with "commend" as a word to employ; I'll take it. ;-) ]. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The BBC has reported on this flag and it is without-a-doubt a reliable source. I will be readding this flag to the article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

But not at the expense of other lesbian flags displayed in Pride events and dyke marches. The file should be identified as a "new lesbian flag" -- because that is what is alleged in the BBC video by the activist (Reeta Loi) holding the illustration of the flag. Pyxis Solitary yak 09:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: That's exactly how I added it to the article, thanks for agreeing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
On 21:25, 6 July 2019 you removed the existing version of the lesbian double-Venus rainbow flag from the Lesbianism section, substituted it with your preferred version of the design, and deleted the Labrys flag. Then on 01:42, 7 July 2019 you deleted the double-Venus flag and added the "new" (2019) flag in its place. This type of activism is disruptive editing.
Even though you re-added the Labrys flag into the section's gallery on 02:20, 7 July 2019, you did not re-add any version of the lesbian rainbow flag. Another editor (me) did it on 12:36, 8 July 2019. So in actuality, your wanting to include the "new" lesbian flag has been done at the expense of the flags that have existed and been in use long before it was created. Pyxis Solitary yak 01:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: Actually nah, I think you've been reading my edits all wrong. I found a reliable source for the new lesbian flag and I couldn't find a reliable source for the double-venus flag. (You seem to have found some sources, so you rightfully readding that particular flag to the article.) I have no problem with the double-venus flag (why would anyone?), but the previous sources used weren't sufficient and I was complying with WP:RS. Please don't overthink anything or taking too personally. 🙂 Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Usually we require sources to explicitly say something, not be something we can infer (see [wp:v]]). Thus being used at a general gay pride rally does not tell us it is explicitly a lesbian flag (as opposed top say used buy transgenders). Begin very generous we might say that it being used as explicitly lesbian events indicates it maybe a lesbian flag, but that still (it can be argued) fails verififiability, because it might still be there to represent other groups, and not just lesbians. We really do need a source that says it is a lesbian flag and not really on how were interpret sources.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Flag in question
@Slatersteven: I think you may be confused here... this conversation isn't about the double-venus flag. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
OK.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
So where is the discussion over the other flag?Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Broadly covered in #Deletions by User:Nice4What, but I'll create a new discussion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

September

I attempted to reference the flag that's been circulated online, but this article seems to have an allergy to the mention of it- I didn't say that it was in wide use or anything of the sort; I brought up its attention on the internet, which is entirely different from making claims about it based merely on sources that illustrate its spread, and linked to those sources, which form the phenomenon that many are trying to bring attention to, not citations for any point I would allegedly being trying to make. I may not have an articulate or commendable vocabulary but the emergence of new symbols that people want to associate with, as they face changing perceptions of ones in use prior, is incredibly significant, and there's no reason that Wikipedia shouldn't bring light to that in a page that's very accessible. Symbols are created by people, sprouting out of the ground until they grow into something that can be considered significant enough to be called "official" by those who wish for such a designation. The new flag is something that has great potential for that, and in a section specifically about a wide diversity of flags that haven't been collectively accepted, that deserves attention.136.33.14.105 (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, why are Twitter searches not accepted as sources if it's being used as a primary source illustrating a phenomenon of movement? 136.33.14.105 (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
You know that Wikipedia has policies, right? Editors need to abide by them: Reliable sources, No original research, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability. Social media platforms are user-generated content and cannot be used as reliable sources. Twitter is a self-publishing platform and not acceptable as a reliable source -- the exceptions being a tweet created by the subject of an article (such as, for example, the individual of the WP biography, or a tv network's announcement regarding a program). Pyxis Solitary yak 06:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not using it as a reliable source. I'm using it as a primary source. Others such as Penrose Delta ("It [the Medium article about the flag] might be worth mentioning as a primary source.") have brought this up, but you repeatedly reference Wikipedia's content policies. I understand that Wikipedia wants reliable sources. I'm not referencing the Medium article to claim that this creator was racist or biphobic. I'm using it to back up the fact that people had concerns of biphobia and racism, which thereform mobilized people in fandom spaces to abort use of the flag.136.33.14.105 (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm using it to back up the fact that people had concerns of biphobia and racism, which thereform mobilized people in fandom spaces to abort use of the flag. I look at sources. So I read the Medium blog and went to the lipstick lesbian website (This Lesbian Life) to see for myself what the allegation about racism and biphobia was all about and read the "My Worst Date Ever" link. There is nothing in it that can be described as "biphobic". Next was the alleged racism. She writes about a blonde woman she'd met at a bar while drunk, goes on a really lousy date with her, and states "Jane was actually Asian, which is not my type at all. She totally threw me off with the blonde hair that night." What exactly is racist about this? Does the Medium blogger and the social media brutes who jumped on the flaming rampage know the definition of "racism"? Obviously not. Because saying that you're not attracted to Asian women does not equal saying that Asians are an inferior race. Social media is a snake pit with too many f'ed-up histrionic people seeking aggrandizement by any means. The Medium blog is gossip. The fact that many people (the "fandom") ate the excrement does not change what you can or cannot use as either a primary or secondary source. Pyxis Solitary yak 03:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I do not care about whether she was actually biphobic and racist or not, as if such a thing can be concisely, consistently defined. I could not care less. What I care about- and read the actual denotation here- is people's perception of racism and biphobia. I am not a person that is caught up on individuals' usage of language countless years ago in a moral sense. I am, however, caught up on seeing people's perceptions as important, because they form the basis for the usage of symbols. These arguably histrionic people are mobilizing the change of symbols. A confederate flag being flown isn't a good thing, but it has an article on Wikipedia because it's culturally significant.136.33.14.105 (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Content about the confederate flag is verified with RS. None of which are social media fads and witch-hunts.
"I do not care about whether she was actually biphobic and racist or not" -- your edit contradicts your statement. You absolutely do care, or you would have refrained from trying to use Wikipedia to establish the slanderous accusation made in the Medium blog about the creator of the lipstick lesbian flag. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Why can I not care about trends but not care about taking a stance? I like trends because they're interesting and important. I could edit GamerGate's page to talk about accusations made against journalists and yet not agree with those accusations.107.77.207.85 (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm assuming that you are also IP 136.33.14.105. This has nothing to do with what you, I, or anyone else cares about. This has to do with what content can or cannot be added to Wikipedia, how it qualifies, and how it's sourced. The Medium blog is a personal opinion blog -- and one that smeared an individual with a libelous statement, at that. Even though Wikipedia itself is a user-generated wiki, it is still an encyclopedia and its policies do not accept user-generated content as a reliable source. Pyxis Solitary yak 17:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Yet again... the blog provides proof of the existence of a blog one would talk about. Why do you take such an antagonistic stance on adding the blog? You seem to emphasize how horrible and slanderous it is at every opportunity and while yes, it can be characterized as such given the assortment of broad statements it provides, that doesn't mean it can't give value as a primary source just as one would point to historical books and documents as primary sources. Has Wikipedia never used tweets or tumblr blogs or whatever as primary sources before? (not as reliable secondary sources of information)136.33.14.105 (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is hesitant to use any primary sources, and the ones that are allowed are required to be reputably published. (See WP:PRIMARY.) Medium, Twitter, and Tumblr would be all be hard to argue that they meet that criterion. --Equivamp - talk 00:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I mean, look at the references for Felix Kjellberg or something, that's what I'm talking about. There's plenty of old Youtube videos as citations as well as reliable secondary sources. The references are there because they directly show the parts of his career you're talking about, not because they're reliable sources of information on things other than himself.136.33.14.105 (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add Progress Pride Flag

I wanted to suggest adding the Progress pride flag by Daniel Quasar as a variation on the rainbow flag. (I'm not a native english speaker and don't feel comfortable editing the article myself) but I've seen the flag mentioned in the design and architecture magazine Dezeen (june 2018), and on BBC news (July 2019) https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-london-48885240/pride-in-london-what-do-all-the-flags-mean (progress flag at 1.14) https://www.dezeen.com/2018/06/12/daniel-quasar-lgbt-rainbow-flag-inclusive/

there's also Quasar's own website/shop and the kickstarter page, both containing info on what the colors symbolize and such https://quasar.digital/shop/progress-initiative/?v=a284e24d5f46 kickstarter.com/projects/danielquasar/progress-a-pride-flag-reboot

I feel that if BBC mentions the progress flag alongside the trans, bi and rainbow flags it's legit enough that it should be included in this article

(ps. as far as I know Quasar uses xe/xem/xyr pronouns)

--AquilaCinereo (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Saw another one in front of a house in my neighborhood

A flag with the stripes of the gay flag, and a blue canton with many upside-down pink triangles on it (the flag was furled, so I couldn't see if there were 50 of them)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it has 39 triangles, in alternate rows of six and five... AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: Adding Sapphic section

Niconushinii (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Hello! I am new to wikipedia and did some research and added a Sapphic/ WLW section, which is similar to the Bear culture page in here, but for women. However, Equivamp reverted my changes saying the sources were not credible, and I tried to find more credible ones and they said the issue was still not fixed and told me to follow the BRD cycle, which led me to here. Is there anything you guys recommend? I tried to put more credible sources instead but it still seems to be an issue, and I'm open to discussing stuff. Like I said I am new, so I'm sorry if I did anything wrong!

Hi, thanks for bringing this to the talk page to discuss. Here's the edit in question I'll be addressing; there may be subsequent edits made as I type this up.
  • Sapphism]], or WLW(women loving women) is a label used as a way to unify all women who love other women such as, lesbians, bisexual women, pansexual women, etc, promoting solidarity among women of all identities. This label has been recently popularized, especially as many young women have been said to dislike using "lesbian" to identify themselves and are moving to use other terms for their identity, such as gay, queer, or sapphic. ([https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/12/young-queer-women-dont-like-lesbian-as-a-name-heres-why.html Sourced to Slate)
    • Slate is an example of a reliable source, but when actually reading it, we come to the issue that the article in question doesn't mention the terms WLW, Women loving women, or Sapphism (including variations) at all. It simply discusses the author's experience that communities that would once have simply been called "lesbian" spaces are adapting spaces to be more inclusive of the trans people/bi and pan women/otherwise "not cis men" that are often in them. It could be used as a source for a standalone statement about a decline in the use of the term "lesbian", but it cannot be used to cite the claim that Sapphism/WLW have increased in popularity, especially because of it. The dictionary.com source also doesn't mention much of what's stated in the statement (and dictionaries can be undesirable sources, especially for neologisms). This makes the assertions here original research.
  • Example text</ref> The term Sapphic is said to be related to Sappho, a 7th-century BC poet who wrote about her attraction to both men and women. Sapphic can be used as an umbrella term for any woman-aligned person who is attracted to other women or woman-aligned people. (Sourced to an old edit of a wikipedia article)}}
    • Wikipedia cannot be used to source itself. Also, that article does not mention the term Sapphism as an umbrella term for woman-aligned people; it merely states that the term was used "with the connotation of lesbian", so there's another original research issue.
  • Like with the lesbian flag, no Sapphic flag has been widely adopted.
    • This is merely an unsourced assertion and requires verifiability.
  • The first Sapphic flag was created in 2017 by an unknown creator. This sapphic flag has two pink stripes on the top and bottom, symbolizing love. In the center there is a violet, which was historically given between woman to symbolize their sapphic love. (Sourced to JSTOR Daily)
    • The JSTOR reference seems to be using "Sapphic" to mean only "lesbian" (for example, referring to "The association of violets with lesbianism"), but it could be a good use of a source to discuss the giving of violets between women.
  • The original sapphic flag had a realistic pair of violets in the middle instead, but this flag was too complicated for many, leading to the creation of the more simplified flag.(Sourced to [https://pride-color-schemes.tumblr.com/post/162230388064/sapphic
    • Blogs such as Tumblr and wikis are self-published and user-generated sources and should not be used to cite claims like this. (You can read about the limited use of such sources at those links.) The same is true of the "Majestic Mess" blog, and the other tumblr blogs used later.
There's also the issue of whether these flags you're discussing are even notable. Anyone can design a flag and post it to Tumblr. In order to warrant inclusion here, it should probably be discussed (not just displayed) but a third-party source. For example, the non-binary flag is relatively new, and iirc was originally posted on tumblr, but it is included here due to its discussion on PinkNews. Do you have any such sources on the Sapphic/WLW flags? --Equivamp - talk 02:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
You ignored the hidden instructions that appear when you open the Lesbian section both in Visual Editor and Source editing screens:
  • All content must be supported with reliable sources: see WP:RELIABLE. Also: WP:NOT + WP:ONEDAY.
  • Twitter and Facebook are acceptable sources only if they are official accounts of the subject: WP:EL/P > Social networking websites.
  • Tumblr, Medium, and Reddit blogs are not acceptable as sources: WP:RSSELF + WP:USERG.
Suggestion ... since you're new to Wikipedia: look at the references (i.e. sources) that have been used in an article such as this one. What do you find? Then go and search for sources that are similar to them. If you can't find reliable published sources (i.e. not personal blogs, not social media sites, not forums, not wikis, not Wikipedia, nothing that's user-generated content ) for newly-invented symbols: you can't add them to the article.
Also, when you use a source to support the content you've added to an article ... what is found in the source must confirm your edit. Your personal interpretations, and reading between the lines, of what a source published is irrelevant. If you add "XYZ" content and use a source for the "XYZ" -- the source must also show "XYZ". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Btw, you created your account on 5 August 2020 and your first and subsequent article edits have all been in this article. User:Saphicgay created their account on 10 August 2020 and the first and only edit made was to this article, with the summary "Added more credible sources, good so far". Just in case: Wikipedia's WP:SOCK policy does not permit the non-declared use of multiple accounts by one editor. If both these accounts are yours, you need to tag and declare them as such. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Evaluation of Article

Hi everyone! I am writing an evaluation of this article for one of my classes. I really enjoyed this article, I think it is super informative. Even as a member of the LGBTQ community, there were a lot of flags and symbols I wasn't even aware of -- so great job! I like that this article is very neutral in tone, the links are still working, and the information is sourced from at least one but sometimes more references. This is very helpful to be able to verify that the information I'm reading is correct, reliable, and somewhat new (or at least not outdated). After reading the article, I personally can't think of anything to add but I can tell this is a huge project. The one thing that I did have as a suggestion (but I'm not sure how possible it is, I don't quite understand Wikipedia formatting) is that towards the end, where there's a lot of pictures paired with shorter snippets of text, the formatting fit a little better. I just noticed that the pictures and text sit sort of oddly on my end and it made it a little confusing as to which picture might go with what text block. It was not impossible to figure out, I just wanted to throw that out there. Thanks for your contributions! Mdbar (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear feedback about the article. The reason why the shorter text and accompanying images seem to fit "oddly" is because without more text content the alternative positioning of images on the page creates too much whitespace. (The left/right positioning of images is periodically adjusted as more text is added.) When more text is added to a section containing an image -- the smoother the page layout becomes. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 21:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

"Most-recognized"

"The two most-recognized international LGBT symbols are the pink triangle and the rainbow flag." I highly doubt the pink triangle is more recognized than the transgender pride flag. It may just be me, but I would guess that most people don't know about the specific markers from Nazi concentration camps. ~ AntisocialRyan (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Such a claim should certainly be documented. However, the inverted pink triangle has been in use since at least the 1980s, which is about twice as long as the transgender flag... AnonMoos (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
P.S. The majority of people who recognize the inverted pink triangle as a gay symbol do not do so only because they're thoroughly-versed in the meanings of Nazi concentration camp symbols, of course... AnonMoos (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources

I'm confused about several of the flags shown in the article. Some of their sources are seemingly random individuals. It is unclear to me if these flags have been widely adopted or not. If not, I don't understand including them in an encyclopedia. --mafutrct (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It would help us understand what you're confused about if you specify the flags you're referring to. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 16:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mafutrct:, this can indeed be a problem, as images can be uploaded (to Wikipedia Commons) under different rules regarding original work than apply here on Wikipedia, and artists may wish to push their own work by getting Wikipedia to publish it. As User:Pyxis Solitary says, if you could mention which one(s) you are talking about, other editors can look into it. Thanks for your comment. Mathglot (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I see false information.

(I don't use Wikipedia, almost none to never, so I'm not sure how to do this, sorry if messed this up in some way.)

I saw under the gay men category that there is NO flag, and this is strongly incorrect. I read on https://cadehildreth.com/pride-flags/ that

"The Gay Men Pride Flag
The gay men's pride flag is another lesser known pride flag. It features different shades of green, blue and purple.
This modern gay men's pride flag is a revamp of an earlier gay men's pride flag that featured a range of blue tones. That version was problematic because it used colors that were stereotypical of the gender binary.
This updated flag is inclusive of a much wide ranger of gay men, including but not limited to transgender, intersex, and gender nonconforming men."

I hope this helps. <3 -- 17:58, 15 March 2021 96.41.128.51

Another one is File:Gay_men_pride_flag.png , but the question is whether they're "notable" and can be documented as such by sources which are considered "reliable" by Wikipedia standards. I thought that the rainbow flag with two overlapping male symbols at its center was a flag for gay men... AnonMoos (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear 96.41.128.51, thank you for your comment. Regarding the link you provided, this is a self-published webpage, or blog, maintained by an individual, with no editorial review or process. Since anybody can say anything on their private blog, this wouldn't be deemed sufficient for demonstrating the existence of a gay men's pride flag. After all, artists could be pushing their own designs, hoping to hit the jackpot, and get it listed on Wikipedia. So I'm afraid that source is not admissible.
The bar for uploading content and images to Wikipedia Commons is different, and people can upload their own, original work (photographs, designs, images) although there are different kinds of restrictions on what is permissible. The flag linked by AnonMoos appears to be the original work of a user on Russian Wikipedia, and is currently used on one mainspace article on Russian Wikipedia (the page Gay), one page on ko-wiki, and no other article page in any Wikipedia. I suspect this is also a case of the artist wishing to push his own designs, as it says right in the description in Commons that it is the Russian user's own work, but as long as it isn't used on English Wikipedia, we needn't worry about it.
Finally, the article probably would be better off saying nothing at all about the topic, rather than saying there are *no* flags for gay men, because it's pretty much impossible to prove a negative. For now, I've removed that one brief sentence, and since there's nothing else in the section, I've dropped it for now. It can certainly be reinstated again, but it should be accompanied by a citation to a reliable source. Thank you very much for adding your comments here about the article, and feel free to improve it by adding more content that meets our policies on WP:Verifiability of content. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
What User:Mathglot stated about "editorial review or process" and the difference between Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons (also known as Wikimedia Commons) is correct. Although you may sometimes find 'Wild Wild West' content on Wikipedia, it will eventually be removed by experienced editors who are well-versed in this project's policies and guidelines, or salvaged if legitimate reliable sourcers are procured for it. Many new editors are surprised to discover that they cannot simply add whatever they want in Wikipedia articles because it has standards that all editors are expected to follow: neutrality (WP:NPOV), accuracy (WP:VERIFY), credibility through authoritative sources (WP:RELIABLE), and no inclusion of personal opinion, interpretation, experience (WP:NOR). In "What Wikipedia is not" you will find that this project is not a venue for publishing personal inventions and creations, nor a venue for self-promotion and marketing.
This LGBT Symbols article is frequently bedeviled by the inclusion of ideas, flags, and symbols created on personal blogs, Tumblr and various other social media sites; and allegations, gossip and chatter circulating on Medium, Twitter, et al. -- and someone always tries to create legitimacy for it by inserting it on Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Oops, Wikimedia Commons! Thanks for the reminder. Mathglot (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of White Knot into LGBT symbols#Other symbols

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To 'merge White Knot into LGBT symbols; worthy of coverage, but insufficient material to have a separate page. Klbrain (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Per reasons #3 and #4 at WP:MERGEREASON: this is a stub article about an LGBT symbol that is unlikely to be expanded anytime soon (seeing as most of the sources are from 2008/2009, and so it looks like it was mainly in use as a symbol around then); and also because it would be given more context as a symbol and what it means if included in the main article about LGBT symbols. Seagull123 Φ 00:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I was not even aware of this symbol, and I've lived as lezzie-lesbo a life as a lesbian can get. I asked a couple of friends who have been out since the 1980s if they knew about this and they both remember hearing something but had forgotten all about it. So based on my and their experience, and I'm sure other members of the community -- and the curious members of the general public who come here to learn about LGBT symbols ... I would include this symbol in this article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary:, Either merge, or maybe just nominate for deletion. As Seagull123 points out, it's unlikely to be expanded anytime soon, and I'd go further and say it will never be expanded beyond a stub, and that is one of the criteria mentioned in WP:NOPAGE. Reasons to delete and not merge, might be because this is essentially the analog in semiotics of a vogue word in language; that is, it popped up for a while, had some small, localized popularity, but never got any long-term recognition and basically disappeared. Since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, one could argue that this doesn't need to be included here per WP:DUE WEIGHT. Then again, some items in the article already seem to be in that category, such as Lavender rhinoceros, as I wonder if every logo or design chosen by some bright designer in an advertising company that appears for a while in public in some city but doesn't achieve wider, or long-lasting recognition rates a mention here? I think that's worth having a debate here over.
Now that I think about it, it's about the question, "what are the criteria for inclusion of some symbol in this article?" and that is essentially the same question as posed by WP:LISTCRITERIA which says, among other things: "Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." Looking at the article, it actually is a List article, and the selection criteria for what should, or shouldn't be included should be discussed here in Talk, and some kind of consensus written up and made clear and transparent. In that sense, this question about White knot is just a subset of that, and whether it ends up being included or not, should be a consequence of what selection criteria are ultimately chosen for this article. Mathglot (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Mathglot: I would have thought that the wearing of a white ribbon would have been a declaration of virgin pride.
Anyhoo, this article includes symbols that are now obscure (such as violets and green carnation) that was homo wink-wink language in olden days. The White Knot has sources that are reliable (Los Angeles Times, NBC New York, The New York Times, EOnline, Deadline Hollywood, The Advocate, and Towelroad), so I'm in favor of merging it into this article, which you are correct in describing as being a List article because that is what it has evolved into. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Pyxis (okay if I call you that?), yes, I can see all the reliable sources, but it still possibly falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE; not everything that has reliable sources is encyclopedic. I'm not saying it definitely doesn't belong here, rather, just that interested editors here should come up with a coherent set of WP:LISTCRITERIA so editors who want to add items can have a good idea in advance what legitimately belongs here, and what doesn't, without having to have a big discussion about every single item. It would make sense for the regular editors here, to lead that discussion; I'd be glad to participate, if one materializes. Mathglot (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
It's already basically been decided that BDSM symbols without a specific LGBT connection should not be included (this does not apply to the Leather Pride flag, which does have a very specific LGBT connection). Other than that, there are no real restrictions on including relevant symbols (as long as they are sourced and notable), to judge from past practices... AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support merge - the article is a brief paragraph about a symbol of support for same-sex marriage. As it's more likely for users to go to the article about LGBT symbols than they are to go to the White Knot article directly, it's beneficial to the reader to cover the topic here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2021

Could we change "A symbol of the female (♀), male (♂) and Genderqueer (⚨) symbols combined around a circle (⚧) is used to represent transgender people" to "A symbol of the female (♀), male (♂) and a combination of the two (⚨) combined around a circle (⚧) is used to represent transgender people"? ⚨ has never been the genderqueer symbol to my knowledge, and genderqueer identity and symbols are not mentioned at all in either of the sources listed. The sources simply say it's a combination of both. PrismSplitter (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. The sources do not employ the term "genderqueer", nor make any reference to a "genderqueer" symbol. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
information Note: tagged as answered   melecie   t 05:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

My recent edit

Hello, I made a very big edit on the page which might not be welcomed. I know they're likely to be disputed, and maybe I went too far. Especially as someone who doesn't edit wikipedia a lot I feel like those changes might be doubted. My main point was to include the new gay male flag that is much more common and widely accepted, and I am here to ask that, if my edit isn't allowed or is reverted, that the page is changed to just include all flags, including the new one(and it's 5-striped variant) that I posted, rather than a full revert to the previous state. Wonkakun (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

So, as I expected, my changes were reverted. I would like to, again, make my points for, if not that, at least another updated version of it:

1) As I have said, the new Gay male flag is the one that's most commonly used and accepted, while the previous one has essentially been "rejected". I think replacing the old one with the new is perfectly fine as they're basically attempts at the same thing with the latest one having "won", but if you guys just have to include everything, I guess you could just include the new one next to it...

2) The "2018 lesbian flag" has been widely embraced as representative of all lesbians, while the "Lipstick Lesbian flag" is, as said, about "lipstick lesbians" only, and already has its original version, with the lipstick mark, down in the sub-cultures part. It only make sense for the overall lesbian flag to be properly recognized as the overall lesbian flag, while the lipstick one is recognized a part of a subculture. If you wish to have the version without the kiss too, you can put it at the same side as the original one.

3) I put the LGBT flags in order due to thinking that, well, those are the main most visible identities, the page is called "LGBT" symbols after all, while some of the others don't even have a place in the acronym, even as it has been expanded to "LGBTQ", "LGBTQIA", "LGBTQIA+". Plus the first flag in the page is the rainbow one that is called "The LGBT Flag", so it made sense to me to follow it with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender.

All that said, I completely understand just sticking with alphabetical order. There's no problem with that and I won't be trying to push against it if it's decided it should be that way.

I already asked when making the edit, and then came to the talk page to talk about it, and thankfully the revert was done with an assumption of good faith, so thank you, but please, make or allow for some kind of change. Wonkakun (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

"As I have said, the new Gay male flag is the one that's most commonly used and accepted". Prove it. WP:CHALLENGE. In Wikipedia you have to walk the talk.
"The "2018 lesbian flag" has been widely embraced as representative of all lesbians." Really? That's news to me, and I'm a lesbian who has been active in the lesbian community for many years. What happens on social media and chat rooms is not what this article is about; and personal opinions are not facts. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Well I see that the gay men flag has been accepted on the page, with an earlier upload. It is in PNG, while the ideal would be SVG. I would like to replace/update that file with a SVG version(I could just upload a new version of the file I myself uploaded(of higher original size/quality), or create a new version with the suggested "Trans-inclusive Gay Men's Flag.svg" name, I imagine the latter would be preferrable? Though I noticed that mine is also being used on another page so there would be need for editing either way).

This is especially because, the colors on that version, specifically the white stripe, were slightly messed-up. They have always been, due to an issue in tumblr processing(in the 7-stripe version only), as the white stripe was supposed to be fully white rather than greyish as it is on the currently uploaded versions. I have recently talked/worked with the creator of the flag himself to color-correct it (I can provide proof of that) and they have updated the original proposed post witht the corrected version (you can check it right now).

I'm asking for permission due to how my original attempts at editing were received, of which I understand why that was the case. I also wanted to ask if it wouldn't be ideal to have the simplified 5-stripe version on this page too, as the Lesbian one has both versions included, and that version is also used a lot and featured right next to the original in the proposal post. Wonkakun (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to include "Trans-inclusive" in the title of the gay men flag. This is only a point made by the creator and by the original uploader because the previous one, in mostly all blue tones, was alledgedly made by a transphobic. But it is meant to be simply the "Gay flag", "Gay man/men flag", not "Trans-inclusive gay flag" as a title. No one calls it like that when simply referring to it, so there's no need to make a "correction". The trans inclusivity is a point brought up in the description and the post, as I said, because of how the previous one alledgedly wasn't, but the idea is for this to be considered the male gay flag in the same way that the lesbian one is, or the bisexual one... Which all don't have "trans-inclusive" written next to it, because that should be given unless you're a transphobe. I understand that the title of the original upload might have made you think it is meant as the "Trans gay flag", but I think you're misunderstanding the point (which is why I explained above: It's a flag for gay, the G in the LGBT which didn't have their unique flag previously, and just explained as trans and NB inclusive to give meaning to each stripe and for those people to feel comfortable using it when they weren't with the previous mostly blue version).

I'm again asking for permission to update the flag with a better SVG version and put the 5-striped version too as I explained above. I would also include the source that is being used in other pages. But I'm afraid any edits I make might be considered, I don't know, "hostile" or vandalizing (when I personally think I'm making my points clear and am obviously not a vandalizer). I also don't understand why the previous all blue gay flag was accepted into the page with no issue as the "Gay men" flag but the attempts of updating it to this one are being so opposed and/or "corrected". Wonkakun (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

All this wall of text, and you still have not provided a single reliable published source to support your opinions. And sources cannot be user-generated. Whatever you or 'Joe Blo' may think about a subject is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Wonkakun -- I cleaned up File:Gay_men_pride_flag.png and changed the central stripe to pure white, since that's what you seemed to want, but that's not the same as the image getting onto this article (see previous discussions). AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. I gave up arguing here, but I gave up cause it was stressing me out... But it's particularly upsetting that now the flag has been removed from the post completely, not even with any description like "Proposed trans-inclusive flag" like before... Again, there was a gay flag other than the rainbow one here for a while, and it didn't bother anyone, so the reason for fully removing the other one and rejecting having a specific flag for gay mean seems to be purely a result of my edits and attempts... Which in one hand I'm sorry, in the other one, it feels quite petty.
In regards to reliability, again, a bunch of the flags featured on the article and elsewhere were all created on the internet and popularized like that, in the same way as this one. The only difference is that this one is a bit less prominently used than others. Which, you know, fine, maybe just say that. But again, there was another one here before that was even less prominent and it wasn't opposed, so why is this other one? It's really just a matter of it not being considered prominent enough, and my edits being considered vandalism (for understandable reasons at first). I have posted links of it being used, mentioned in articles, of merch of it, the original source, etc, here and on Pride flag. What is the reliable undeniable "proof" that needs to be presented? How does the lesbian flag, that was also created on tumblr, meet this standard but this other one doesn't?
The update I was talking about was for the File:New_Gay_Pride_Flag.svg one, and I decided back at that time over a month ago to update it myself, though I didn't put it on the article cause I knew it would be reverted, and I updated it . Again, if the one with the green stripes isn't fit to be featured because it's not used enough, the more blue versions would be even less so, because it's both less popular and was severely rejected by some due to its supposed transphobic origins (which is why the other one was clarified to be trans-inclusive). It turns out, the original creator of the more blue version that was previously featured here (cause I see now that there's a third...) has spoken up:
https://www.deviantart.com/pride-flags/journal/Clearing-up-some-things-about-the-gay-man-flag-872374294
https://ask-pride-color-schemes.tumblr.com/post/644881530268811264/clearing-up-some-things-about-the-official-gay
They say the idea that the flag was transphobic was a misunderstanding due to someone else (who would be the alledged transphobe) reposting without credit and getting more visibility. But it was merely an idea and not a finalized design, especially cause they're not a gay man themselves, and then they procceeds to mention and show the new version as a better option that should be used instead.
Either way, a couple more instances of the current flag being used in quite visible ways I thought was worth mentioning:
Tumblr (the staff of the site itself, not a user) added its colors on the "Gay" and "Gay Pride" tags, along with the rainbow for LGBT/LGBTQIA+ and other flag colors for each identity, as you can check now:
https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/gay
Screenshots in case it doesn't work/for record:
https://i.imgur.com/ub8hhJy.png
https://i.imgur.com/PdiIPvS.png
https://i.imgur.com/5UYHjFu.png
In this video from Blue's Clue's channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4vHegf3WPU
Screenshots:
https://i.imgur.com/3pEwzba.png
https://i.imgur.com/QEptnq7.png
Wonkakun (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
With respect to your comment about this:

But again, there was another one here before that was even less prominent and it wasn't opposed, so why is this other one?

It's due to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Which basically is a mashup of, "two wrongs don't make a right", and the fact that Wikipedia is a volunteer project; that is, the other one might be wrong, too, but nobody has gotten around to finding the time to remove that one, yet. Which doesn't mean it should be left in: if you found some other flag in the article that has even less support than one that was legitimately removed, then you're more than welcome to WP:BE BOLD and just remove that one, too. (Don't forget to mention in the Edit summary why you're removing it.) Wikipedia is WP:NOTABLOG or a web host for people to post their favorite stuff. One rule of thumb, which while not infallible, is a good start: if you found it on wordpress, blogger, tumblr, facebook, instagram, pinterest, tiktok, or youtube, then you probably can't use it. Mathglot (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Wonkakun, I just realized you're a new user, and I left you a "welcome" message on your Talk page. It has some useful links you might want to look at. As a new user, if you feel that the "rules" (Wikipedia calls them "policies" and "guidelines") are being applied inconsistently, you are probably right; that's another side effect of being a volunteer project. That may be partly responsible for the situation you are seeing at the article. This talk page is the right place to talk out such issues, and as previously mentioned, you can always edit the article directly and remove anything that doesn't mean Wikipedia's standard of WP:Verifiability. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Uh this is not a comment on whether or not this flag should be included, but the cited source is a Volvo Employee Blog Entry essentially, which does not seem like a good or reliable source. Especially as it does not mention a creator or year of creation Pvitamins (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

You're referring to this. I don't disagree. Most of this "anonymous" (i.e. no author credit) information appears to be copied from sources that are not accepted as reliable sources (Tumblr, social media, personal blogs, and wikis). And more often than not when you find an article like this one it's all mirrors and forks of Wikipedia. Also, there's a huge error in that article that I saw right away, which proves to me that whoever put the article together is not a professional writer. (I would not be surprised if someone at this Volvo Group organization has been one of the anonymous editors who has been trying to push the flag into the article using Tumblr and social media as sources.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacobmcglew, Ddolenti23, Ejvs17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NiaSavon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 7 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MarkusHelp.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

⚨⚩

are these symbols worth mentioning in the encoding section? Tazuco (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tazuco: According to Unicode, they're alchemical symbols. I could use McElroy (2020) to justify ⚨ as an LGBT symbol, so I added it to the table, but not ⚩. Do you have anything to support the latter? — kwami (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
they look all the same just setted up differently. they are all defined as "MALE WITH STROKE SIGN", ⚩ as being horizontal and ⚨ vertical. Tazuco (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
if ⚩ is not LGBT it would still be a gender symbol, right? Tazuco (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Not necessarily. It could just be an alchemical symbol for crocus of iron or something, and never used for gender. We'd want a source that it's a gender symbol before we say it is, and something better than someone posting a bunch of unattributed symbols online. — kwami (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
So that's it's clearly understood: Verifiability is a core Wikipedia policy. You can't get around it. Content that appears in W needs to be verified (i.e. supported) with reliable sources — and they cannot include open wikis, personal blogs, social media, user-generated, and self-published sources by anyone who is not an expert in the particular subject. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

⚥

The gender symbol article says ⚥ is a bisexual/hermaphroditic symbol, why doesn't LGBT symbols article say that? @Kwamikagami Tazuco (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually it does. But that's its biological (esp. botanical) meaning. There are no human hermaphrodites, and AFAIK different symbols are used for bisexual. — kwami (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
No unicodes for bisexuality then? Tazuco (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
AFAICT, what's in the 'Encoding' section is the complete list. "Bisexual" in the biological sense means being simultaneously male and female, like perfect flowers. It doesn't mean sexual attraction. — kwami (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for a belated reply, but ⚥ is actually used with several conflicting meanings in general pop-culture ("the sexes", "heterosexual relationships", among others), but I've never encountered it in a LGBT context... AnonMoos (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
apparently it's being discussed on wiktionary; ⚤ potentially represents both bisexuality and heterosexuality, just as other Interlinked Venus and Mars symbols — Tazuco 23:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
⚥ is different from ⚤. ⚤ is a pretty specific heterosexual symbol, while ⚥ is vague in its general (non-biological) uses. ⚥ is not interlinked. AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but ... wiktionary may be okay for definitions of words, but it cannot be used as a reliable source because it is user-generated. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
As far as I've ever been able to gather, neither one is an established or commonly-used LGBT symbol, and so are irrelevant to this page anyway. I guess ⚥ might theoretically be used as an intersex symbol (if intersex even falls under LGBT, an issue which was controversial in past discussions here). AnonMoos (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Per Pyxis, we can use any sources used by Wikt. If there are no sources on wikt, you might consider challenging the definition -- wikt requires 2 [or maybe now 3] independent attestations before they'll allow a word or a sense on wikt. — kwami (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Just as heterosociality can include bisociality, ⚤ can be used to represent bisexuality. But but at no point did it say to use wiktionary as a source, at most I wanted there could have wiktlinking of unicodes — Tazuco 16:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2022. Typo fix.

There is a "wich" that should be changed to "which" in line 2 of paragraph 5 (the section stating information about the lesbian symbolism of the white lily in Japan). Viohazardy2k (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I've fixed it. Thanks for letting us know. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Blåhaj

Would it be worth adding Blåhaj to the list? While this could be another example of a symbol frequently used to represent the transgender community, it could also be considered a passing trend. It also raises the question of what constitutes a "symbol", as it may not adhere to the typical definition. WikiWonder159 (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I am in favor of this. The Blåhaj has been used as a trans-icon for at least 4 years at this point and shows no sign of fading away. The fact that there is already a stand-alone article on wikipedia shows its relevance. If it turns in the future that it was a passing trend it can be discussed if it shall be deleted again, but even then it may still be relevant enough to be included. It's not like the Acorus calamus is a particularly common modern symbol, wikipedia can and should include past trends if they were important enough. R K NI (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm also in favor of this. It is covered by reliable sources and has sustained in the public consciousness for a few years now. I would assume it would go under Plants and animals? BappleBusiness[talk] 09:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
That would probably make the most sense, especially considering that unicorns and lavender rhinoceros are already there too.
Apparently I am sadly too new to edit the article? How does that work with semi-protected articles? R K NI (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

white knot

I reviewed the eight sources in the "white knot" section, and only one of them has the phrase capitalized. Therefore, I changed the capitalization in accordance with the manual of style. ~TPW 14:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Aro Ring

Similar to the ace ring, the aro ring is a white ring worn on the left middle finger. Can we add this? 50.222.171.106 (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If there are a significant number of reliable sources for it, sure! BappleBusiness[talk] 23:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I've found one from Kent State University mentioning it (https://www.kent.edu/lgbtq/symbols-ace-spectrum), the original tumblr post suggesting it (https://ace-aro-pirates.tumblr.com/post/99438870446/aromantic-symbols-recently-more-discussion-hashttps://web.archive.org/web/20160507234407/http://ace-aro-pirates.tumblr.com/post/99438870446/aromantic-symbols-recently-more-discussion-has). The Asexual Visibility & Education Network is reliable source, but I'm not sure if a twitter exchange by them counts but here (https://twitter.com/asexuality/status/1296512960198848514 https://web.archive.org/web/20200820182258/https://twitter.com/asexuality/status/1296512960198848514)
That is all I've found on it that isn't stuff from reddit and tumblr posts that aren't the first one. It shows that people use the symbol but I don't think that counts as a source. NebbyAxolotl (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the Tumblr post will be able to be used, but the Kent State and AVEN sources are good. I would say that's sufficient for a brief one-sentence mention of it. BappleBusiness[talk] 00:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding queer code

Hey everyone,


I feel it is valuable to add the history of queer language and code into this page. That is what I will be adding and hope that we can agree with the information added! FaithHist3106 (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi,
there is already a separate main space article LGBT slang on the topic, which is better suited for it.
i have added a link to it to the See also section of this article here. Raladic (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Can I Add this family
@ 58.65.151.10 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBT_symbols/Archive_2&oldid=1206589290"