Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:GAY)
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Gay flag.svg WikiProject LGBT studies:
Ambox important.svg New articles with LGBT keywords (click "show" to view)
This list, produced by a bot, identified the following articles as possibly being within the scope of this project. Please add {{WikiProject LGBT studies}} to appropriate articles. The raw list is here and articles are removed after a week whether tagged or not.

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2017-02-26 22:35 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.

WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable
Drawing-Gay flag.png WikiProject
LGBT studies
Project navigation links
Main project page
 → Project talk page
Watchlist talk
 → Assessment talk
 → Collaboration talk
 → Community talk
 → Jumpaclass talk
 → Newsletter
 → Peer review talk
 → Person task force talk
 → Translation talk
Useful links
Infoboxes and templates
Guidelines talk
Notice board talk
Sexuality and gender
deletion discussions
Info resources
Bot reports
Newly tagged articles and
assessment level changes
Article alerts
Unreferenced BLPs
(Biographies of Living
Cleanup listing
New articles with
LGBT keywords
Popular pages
Recognized content
Portals we help maintain
Portal LGBT.svg LGBT portal
Portal Transgender.svg Transgender portal
edit · changes

LGBT state legislators in the United States[edit]

As of today, all but one of the new LGBT people who were elected to state legislatures in November, according to the Victory Fund, now have articles; the one remaining straggler is Debbie Ingram in Vermont, if anybody wants to tackle that. However, I'm also having a challenge with one person, Randy D. Dunn in Missouri, who's named in their list but not described or categorized as LGBT in his Wikipedia article: apart from a couple of unreliable blogs, I don't seem to be able to find any reliably sourced indication that he identifies as gay or bisexual. Even his profile on the Victory Fund's website doesn't explicitly say that he's LGBT, so it's not a useful source in and of itself — and while I can find a couple of sources which name him as a sponsor or supporter of LGBT-related legislation, none of them actually state whether he's doing so as an LGBT person or as a straight ally either. Does anybody know where a better source for his sexuality might be locatable? Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

How about this? RivertorchFIREWATER 15:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, that establishes that he's l, g, b, or t. Usually, we have it narrowed down from there! --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to have to examine that letter more carefully, but even just on a cursory examination of a select few names I've already found another signatory who also poses a problem: this post from the Victory Fund, a mere four days older than that letter, identifies Daniel Hernández Jr. as the only out LGBT member of the Arizona state legislature in the new term — but the letter's signatories include Tony Navarrete, also a newly-elected member of the Arizona legislature. So the question is, despite the wording of the letter's introduction, are we absolutely 100 per cent sure that every signatory is actually LGBT, and not just a straight ally who didn't raise an issue with the wording? Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Eeep, never mind. Victory Fund screwed up; Navarrete actually self-identifies as "a member of the LGBT community" right on his own campaign website (something which even sourceably-out LGBT candidates don't always do). Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately they don't. And I wouldn't trust the Victory Fund ref to be comprehensive. RivertorchFIREWATER 06:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
My guess is that "he" is not lesbian, but not sure. :)

Modern taxonomy[edit]

A few of the links herein had some older diagrams and flow charts, but I don't think anyone authoritatively organized the full dichotomy of the LGBT interrelationships. So I made a spreadsheet but I don't know how accurate it is and am welcoming criticism. While I made up 75% of the words, it was only because I was at a loss to describe them. I met a guy whose sexual orientation was so specific (pre-op transpeople only if he was "on top") that I started calling him a quartersexual, because he was not sexually active otherwise (with post-ops, being dominated, etc.). There may need to be more divisions and I imagine some terms may fit in more than one category, so I just put them in the first place that thought made the most sense. It's a start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshlomo (talkcontribs)

Collapse table not based on reliable sources
Line Sex Gender Behaviour
Against antisexual antigender
Neutral cissexual cisgender
Opposite (Conforming) heterosexual(androsexual or gynesexual) male/female
Same (Nonconformist) homosexual (gay or lesbian) femminiello boi

butch or femme

Neither Intersexual
None Unisexual eunuch/khusra

burnesha/nullo castrati/skoptsy

Both bisexual hermaphrodite travesti
Mixture ambisexual non binary androgynous (if known)

tumtum (if unknown)

Unsure heteroflexible bicurious autoandrophilia or


Reversed (Each includes pre-op and post-op): transgender transvestite

transformistas drag queen köçek

Female born Male hijra/calabai

fa'afafine/mahu fakaleiti/kathoey khanith/mak nyah muxe/winkte

Male born Female calalai/pak nyah
Number: demisexual grey-A demiromantic
Sixteenth (Experimenting as an Eighth but to the exclusion of everything else) quasihemidemisemisexual or unsextantsexual quasihemidemisemigender or unsextantgender
Eighth (Only dominating pre-op's, v"v, but only of a certain race, kind, etc.) hemidemisemisexual or octantsexual hemidemisemigender or octantgender
Quarter (Only pre-op's, but dominant, or vice versa) demisemisexual or quandrantsexual demisemigender or quandrantgender
Half (Only into pre-op transpeople) semisexual semigender
None nonsexual nongender
Solo monosexual monogender
One unisexual unigender
Two dusexual/disexual dugender/digender
Three trisexual trigender
Four quadrisexual/quadrusexual quadrigender/quadrugender
Five quinquesexual quinquegender
Six sexasexual sexagender
Seven septemsexual/septisexual septemgender/septigender
Eight octosexual octogender
Nine novemsexual novemgender
Ten decemsexual/decsexual decemgender/decgender
Eleven undecsexual undecgender
Twelve duodecsexual duodecgender
Thirteen tredecsexual tredecgender
Fourteen quattuordecsexual quattuordecgender
Fifteen quinquadecsexual/quindecsexual quinquadecgender/quindecgender
Sixteen sedecsexual/sexdecsexual sedecgender/sexdecgender
Seventeen septendecsexual septendecgender
Eighteen octodecsexual octodecgender
Nineteen novemdecsexual/novendecsexual novemdecgender/novendecgender
Twenty vigintisexual vigintigender
Many polysexual polygender polyamory
Fluid pansexual pangender
All omnisexual omnigender

Thanks, Kshlomo, but I'm afraid Wikipedia only publishes content which has appeared in reliable sources. A classification that is based on criteria defined by a Wikipedia editor is considered original research and cannot be used by the project. Diego (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Diego is correct. If you have to invent new terms to cover what you're trying to define, then it's original research that we can't use here — until such time as reliable sources start picking up on and repeating and promulgating your neologism into real-world usage, that is. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure this editor was trolling us, folks. WP:DENY... Funcrunch (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent Deaths: Stuart Timmons[edit]

There is currently an LGBT Recent Death under discussion for the main page at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: Stuart Timmons.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This ended up on the main page!Zigzig20s (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Our topic about Hannah Winterbourne was archived[edit]

Our topic about Hannah Winterbourne was archived by the bot. Is it possible to bring it back and is anyone here interested in creating the article please?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not necessary to "bring back" a discussion that nobody was contributing anymore; if you need to read it, you can read it at the archive page. As for creating the article, we simply can't guarantee immediate satisfaction of every request that gets made — the discussion was open for long enough that if anybody were seriously "interested" in taking it on immediately, they already would have by now. If it's that important to you, is there a reason you can't be that someone? Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I ought to. Somehow, I am finding it a little boring though...Zigzig20s (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Edith Shackleton Heald[edit]

Some of you might be interested in this. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Mark Thompson[edit]

Is anyone able to find more reliable third-party references about him please?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Harassed by administrators?[edit]

I was wondering if any of you had been harassed by administrators for being LGBT. How many administrators are LGBT? Are any Arbcom members LGBT? Is there a structural problem in terms of heteronormative power dynamics? Have any of you considered retiring because of a hostile environment? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I have very little expedience with admins and arbcom in general. I've never been harrassed about my gender yet, though. ~Mable (chat) 07:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The best admins are those who let us create content without making themselves known, as far as I can tell. However, that's not true of everyone, and perhaps we need to make structural reforms to make sure we can't be victimized. I suggested over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention that we could ask that administrators take an LGBT sensitivity class (perhaps an online video-based workshop). However, this implies that allies can be trusted; I am not sure that is always the case. We may need more openly LGBT admins and Arbcom members, but I am not sure how realistic or feasible that is.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm openly pro-LGBT, if that helps. El_C 09:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it's important here to realize that "LGBT" is not a monolith. There are cisgender gay men and lesbians who are quite hostile to trans people, for instance. Speaking for myself, the only significant harassment on Wikipedia I've received to date has been from anonymous editors, not admins. In fact several admins have been very helpful to me in countering trans-antagonistic harassment. But that's just my experience. Funcrunch (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've never, that I can remember, been harassed by admins over my gender or sexuality; admins have been varying levels of helpful or unhelpful in instances where other users have misbehaved. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The admin corps is a microcosm of the larger Wikipedia community, and in some respects, Wikipedia is a microcosm of the larger world. There are hateful, hurtful people and there are kind, helpful people. And then there are the indifferent people—a whole lot of them. Some of your questions are impossible to answer, i.e., how many administrators or arbs are LGBT, and I don't suppose it matters very much. My impression for some years has been that the core community of active editors generally—with many exceptions—lags a bit behind the curve in its attitudes toward all things LGBT. In particular, talk page remarks that would bring swift and certain retribution if they were directed at racial or religious minorities or women are sometimes tolerated when they're directed toward LGBT people. This has been especially true when it comes to transphobic remarks. And there have been some incidents wherein LGBT or LGBT-friendly editors have been accused of biased editing for no apparent good reason. So yes, there's a hostile environment, at least some of the time and in some parts of the wiki. I've never been harassed by anyone here for being gay, but I have avoided editing in some topic areas because I've found the associated discussions oppressive. I'd be curious to know what prompted this thread. RivertorchFIREWATER 19:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Some members of ArbCom are LGBT, but I've never bothered to count how many of my colleagues there are. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There is no clear evidence to deduce that a person identifying as LGBT is any more or less likely to work well with others because the others are openly LGBT.
Yes I have considered retirement due to the hostility created because I was openly gay and pushed for the encyclopedia to include gay cultural topics, at a time when these were invariably considered controversial. Some of the hostility and hounding I experienced was from admins and some has lasted years. I used to make thousands of edits in a month, I make hardly any in comparison now, and do not feel welcome or supported.
Rivertorch expressed it well above. -- (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"Adoption by same-sex couples"[edit]

I was just contemplating Template:LGBT rights table Asia, but I'm sure there a lot of other places with the same problem (Template:LGBT rights table Europe for example). I'm asking it here because I can't unilaterally change it, I'm not sure if I even want to, and I'm not sure if it's come up before (and if it has it was probably here).

If a country or territory does not formally recognize "same-sex couples" in any official capacity, then isn't the question of whether they formally allow gay couples to adopt kind of irrelevant? A lot of entries in the template linked have an "X" for all three of "Recognition of same-sex unions", "Same-sex marriage" and "Adoption by same-sex couples", but if the first two both have an "X" shouldn't the third be marked as "N/A" or the like? Marking it with an "X" seems a little weird when, as far as the law in those territories is concerned "same-sex couples" are not formally recognized in any capacity to begin with.

There are also, I'm sure, countries that formally allow adoption by unmarried individuals regardless of either their sexuality or with whom they are in a not-state-recognized relationship, which would make the question of whether same-sex "couples" in an informal cohabitative relationship can formally adopt as a couple moot.

So surely the question of whether a state formally allows adoption by same-sex couples should only be asked once it is established that the state formally recognizes same-sex relationships in some capacity, no?

Apologies if this has come up before and someone had a reasonable explanation and an example of a state where the first two were clear "X"s but the adoption box was ticked (somehow).

Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that several entries in the second of the templates I linked above actually have some variations on "Individuals may adopt" or "LGBT individuals may adopt", but the big red "X" right beside this still seems inappropriate when many of them don't formally recognize same-sex unions in any capacity anyway. Just removing the "X" and saying "LGBT individuals may adopt" would be better, no? Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I can think of a past example which might apply: South Africa allowed adoption by "a permanent same-sex life partnership" several years before there was any general official recognition of same-sex couples. I suppose one could argue that recognition for the purposes of adoption is a form of official recognition, though. - htonl (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Htonl: Assuming the timeline presented in Template:LGBT rights table Africa#Southern Africa is basically accurate, (a) and (b) were not both simple "X"s even in 2002 (as there was [l]imited recognition of unregistered partnerships since 1998), the situation that came about with the court decision in 2002 was only in place for a few years anyway, and I can hardly imagine any state formally being in such a situation for more than a few years to begin with. But it's kind of irrelevant since, if Wikipedia had had these lists in the four years between when adoption was recognized and marriages were legalized, chances are that (c) would have still been marked with a green tick rather than a red "X". It currently has a tick and says it has been legal since 2002. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship[edit]

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

African American LGBT Biography Project[edit]

Dear friends,

I'm working with a number of African American LGBT organizers to increase awareness of African American LGBT cultural figures. These would most likely be in the format of notable biographies. Is it possible to start a sub-project that would focus on this work? If so, how? If not, do you have suggestions about how to create a team who would focus on this particular piece of wikipedia? Many thanks for all advice, Harveymilk (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd be interested - I have created several bios on black LGBT folks (a group I'm also a part of), some for Wikipedia:Women in Red which is having an editathon for Black History Month right now. You might want to post over there too... Funcrunch (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora might have interested participants. Funcrunch (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you could post them here as soon as they've been created and I'm sure many of us will want to expand them.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Chadwick Moore[edit]

Shall we create an article about Chadwick Moore? I am not certain that there are enough reliable third-party sources, so I thought I'd ask here.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on your question per se, but it occurs to me that in instances of emerging public figures of marginal notability, Wikipedia coverage might create an echo effect leading to more (and perhaps better) media coverage of the person, which in turn could be used to argue for their notability. A feedback loop of sorts, in other words. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
At the moment, I'd consider his notability claim to be WP:BLP1E. There may be a stronger basis for a Wikipedia article in the future, but if all we can really say right now is that he got a brief blip of coverage for switching his ideological affiliation from "liberal" to "conservative", I don't consider that particularly strong grounds for an article all by itself — if he writes a book about the switch, then he might get over WP:AUTHOR for that book's reviews, but for the moment I don't see how this has become more than a 1E blip yet. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think he is notable for speaking out about his harassment as a gay conservative, but I think he may be notable as a journalist. So many heterosexual journalists have Wikipedia articles. But are there enough reliable third-party sources out there?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
A lot of journalists have Wikipedia articles mainly because some users seem to think the existence of a primary source staff profile on the website of their own employer is enough sourcing to support an article about every individual reporter at every individual television station, even if it's little more than a thinly veiled rewrite of that same profile. The number of journalists who have articles is far, far greater than the number of journalists who've actually earned them under the notability standards defined by WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting reference[edit]

Hello! This article should probably be used as a reference but I'm not sure where:

Feel free to use it. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)