Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:LGBT)
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: 2017-03-25 20:22 (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
Members
Departments
 → 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
Persons)
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

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)

Asia Kate Dillon[edit]

Asia Kate Dillon plays Taylor Mason in Showtime's Billions, one of the first nonbinary characters in mainstream US TV. Dillon is also nonbinary.

Their role as a nonbinary character has been quite well noted in entertainment media for such a niche topic, and it's big news for the nonbinary community, so I thought it might be good to make an article about them.

It's currently a draft and I'm not really sure how else I can make it better. I've also never made a draft of a page before. Can anyone help me to improve it somehow, or advise me on what to do next? Do you think I should submit it for review?

Editing to add: Link to draft! Draft:Asia Kate Dillon

Thanks!

--Cassolotl (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cassolotl: Thanks for starting this article; I'm always glad to see more bios of nonbinary people on Wikipedia. I made a couple of small edits. It would be good to seek out and add a couple more non-primary sources before submitting the draft. As far as including a photo, Commons has strict rules on what is allowed; see here for a guide. Funcrunch (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Funcrunch Thanks! Non-primary sources, would they be sources other than Dillon's self-published social media pages? So, news articles and so on? Cassolotl (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cassolotl: Yes. Primary sources are acceptable for establishing the subject's gender identity and/or sexual orientation, but otherwise are not considered reliable sources. Funcrunch (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Funcrunch: Ahh that makes sense. I removed the primary sources because all the non-primary sources also establish Dillon's gender identity and pronouns, so hopefully that is considered a good move. And I found another two non-primary sources and added those in. I'm struggling a lot with the image thing though, and I don't know anything about their date of birth or anything. I'll do more research. Cassolotl (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Laura de Force Gordon[edit]

Hey! I'm having problems with sourcing for an article and was hoping someone here could help out. Laura de Force Gordon is an important early California suffragette, and left a note in a time capsule saying that she was a "lover of her own sex". Other than that note (which is ambiguous, given the time she wrote it and her career), none of the sources I have access to say she was a lesbian. (There is one book published in the 90s that also claims it, but as best as I can tell from Google Book Search they also claim it based on the single note; the only other source that talks much about her private life quotes a private letter discussing how destroyed she was by her husband's infidelity and subsequent divorce.) I don't want to whitewash the article if in fact she was a lesbian, but also don't want to go out on a limb based on a single ambiguous note. So... suggestions on next steps? Thanks. —Luis (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Simply quote the note; leave interpretation up to the reader. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Same-sex relationships[edit]

I was wondering what the community consensus was on same-sex relationships; i.e. the use of terms such as the rights of gay people to marry vs. the rights of same-sex couples to marry or the rights of those in same-sex relationships to marry, or the general use of the term gay relationship to mean same-sex relationship?

I would assume the consensus is to use the term "same-sex" in order to avoid bisexual erasure and to be, well, more accurate really. If so, should it be added to the guidelines for this WikiProject? HelgaStick (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should refer to same-sex, not gay, relationships and marriage, unless quoting a source that specifically says otherwise. This is for the reason you state: Not only gay people are in same-sex relationships; bisexual, pansexual, and asexual people are as well. Heterosexual transgender people are also affected by laws affecting same-sex marriage rights when their transitioned genders are not recognized. Funcrunch (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The "right of gay people to marry" is alsoproblematic because it places the ban at the individual level. The law never said a person couldn't marry, they were just restricted in who they could marry. A gay man could marry a lesbian woman, and the law and everyone would be happy (well, except for the couple themselves.) So we're better off describing the structure ("same-sex relationship") than the individuals involved. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with the above responses. The law never technically said that gay people couldn't marry at all — it just blocked us from marrying people of the same gender, while not at all prohibiting us from marrying people of the opposite sex. Yes, that sounds like meaningless sophistry and hairsplitting if you actually analyze it, but I have actually seen that used as an argument against SSM by opponents of SSM. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on an article for deletion[edit]

A single user account nominated this article for deletion.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human sexuality spectrum The user justified deletion based on the following. "This is inaccurate. Almost everything here is absolutely false, and misleads confused people into believing that some of these are actual sexualites or genders. Stop misleading these children into your false state of mind." Please comment on whether we should keep, merge, or delete the article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human sexuality spectrum. Waters.Justin (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Restoration Youth Academy scandal[edit]

I have added some info about this to Prichard, Alabama and I wonder if we should do the same with Mobile, Alabama, or even create an article about this anti-gay, so-called Christian camp. Here are some references we could cite:

Let me know what you think. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism: Lucian Wintrich[edit]

I have trimmed vandalism from Lucian Wintrich's article and added him to my watchlist, but it may be worth adding him to yours as well in case it happens again. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just had to revert more vandalism.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Graham Chapman[edit]

Could somebody pop over to Talk:Graham Chapman and solve a fairly innocuous content dispute over some LGBT related categories on the article? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Donald Trump talk regarding LGBT rights[edit]

Please comment on the RfC on Donald Trump talk regarding whether or not to include a section on LGBT rights in the Domestic Policy section of the article here. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

LGBT protests against Donald Trump[edit]

I created the article LGBT protests against Donald Trump, if any project members want to help expand. There are more sources and events to research on the article's talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Another Believer: Will you create Gays for Trump too?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
And why does it say, "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page."? Who added this restriction?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Can I ask, User:Zigzig20s, why would that be User:Another Believer's responsibility? I see s/he has in fact done so, but it's a peculiar request, unless I'm missing an inside joke or something. freshacconci (✉) 21:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I am heading to bed, but I created a quick stub at Gays for Trump. Where are you seeing this text you posted? ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
(ec)That is WP:1RR, typically imposed by ARBCOM. I suspect it is considered related to the Tea Party. LadyofShalott 05:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
But who imposed this restriction, which has a chilling effect? Or is it automatic?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The Gays for Trump has the same restriction. This is ridiculous. Is this on all Trump-related articles? This is too much.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I imposed it. Direct your angst here. El_C 05:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
OK what for? The page was just created and this has a chilling effect.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
To nip edit warring in the bud. I don't see why it should have a chilling effect at all. If anything, it should motivate more discussion, and less reverting. El_C 05:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Has there been a single instance of edit warring in this article? This is premature. These restrictions definitely have a chilling effect, because they create a sense of fear and unease. Can you please remove it and think twice before you impose such discretionary sanctions?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a negative. I'm not gonna wait to add those later, best that editors know the discretionary sanctions are in effect from the outset. If you don't edit war you have nothing to fear. You don't fear a speed limit sign, do you? Well, that's what it is. El_C 05:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Why do you anticipate there will be edit-warring? And we've discussed at WikiProject Editor Retention and here how many of us LGBT editors do not feel comfortable with the power dynamics of some admins. Anyway, this is discouraging.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry you feel discouraged, truly. The aim was to informs editors that this is a heated issue with special rules of editing attached to it. El_C 06:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to single these two articles out or anything—I've added tens and tens of similar pagenotices to articles today alone. This is just something the Arbitration Committee has recently mandated which as admins we are obligated to implement. El_C 06:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Why?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
To inform editors of the editing restrictions. For disputes to be discussed on the talk page rather than escalated as edit wars. El_C 08:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Was this discussed anywhere at all, or was it an arbitrary decision made by a dozen people?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It was discussed at length at the American politics 2 Arbitration Request. El_C 08:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@El C: In the Arbitration case of 20 months ago, it was concluded that WP:standard discretionary sanctions applies, nothing else. It should be noted that the American politics Arbcom case mentioned LGBT issues or Trump related disputes zero times, as they were not a locus of dispute in that case. Referring to WP:standard discretionary sanctions, the section on Expectations, there is a requirement that "The availability of discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but sanctions may be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion." This article has had no editor severely or persistently causing disruption, so the 1RR restriction is unnecessarily chilling and hampers our collegiate aim to improve the quality of LGBT related articles. Please remove the restriction as unnecessary and not placed in compliance with the Arbcom procedure, in this case obviously not in compliance as there has only been one editor. Please do not replace the restriction unless in the context of sufficient disruption in the article to warrant action. Thanks -- (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course the restrictions imposed on American politics articles apply to this article too, and editors need to be warned that they exist otherwise they may unknowingly fall foul of them. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Right, they are not intended to prevent free and candid discussion. And I hope they don't in this case. But how else are editors expected to be made privy to them? Again, concerns about just these two articles are a bit parochial. As mentioned, I've been doing this in tens and tens of articles: you can see the scope of the ARBPIA (if not the IP and AP) ones in my protection log, where every articles protected also corresponds to a pagenotice added. My approach to the page notice is preventative. But ultimately, I don't see the harm in editors being cautioned about a set of articles that a Wikipedia elected body has deemed controversial due to whatever reasons. The tag is there for the protection of the article and the editors involved—look at it like a special 25km/h reduced speed limit in a residential area. All it is is a speed sign. El_C 23:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Life is controversial. Let us live, let us breathe.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Having been branded an advocate, I avoid toxic subjects, it's not worth the hassle or risk of crossing some slightly arbitrary line based on one admin's personal judgment. Stamping a new LGBT article with no history of dispute with a 1RR makes it toxic, and will put off new or sensibly cautious editors. -- (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see that. It is only pointing out to potential editors that the procedures for editing that article will be a little bit different compared to editing article's outside that subject area. Problem issues connected to the actual wording of the warning, or how admins interpret them, are not specific to just this article. I think the consensus required clause is a gift to obstructionists and a sustainer of I-just-don't-like-it arguments. But the way to resolve this would be to get the remedies amended. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully, the notice will make disputes less likely to impact the article and more likely to be resolved on the talk page. On the contrary, I hope cautious editors see it as a safer space to edit. The consensus provision is currently subject clarification on the ARBPIA front, although there is also US Politics one as well. El_C 21:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, the notice is making it less likely for this article to be expanded. That's all it's doing. There has been no dispute. The article from The Advocate where Gays for Trump is mentioned for example, remains on google, and has failed to be in-lined as a reliable third-party source for expansion.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Are there any other editors who wanted to contribute to the articles but decided not to because of the notices? Nothing is set in stone. El_C 22:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Trump presidency[edit]

I also invite project members to participate in this discussion about whether or not the LGBT protests against Donald Trump article belongs in the navigation box Template:Trump presidency. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Only if we include pro-Trump support from the LGBTQ community too! We are real human beings--not a dehumanized fundraising campaign for the Democrats.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: I encourage you to leave your comments on the template talk page so other editors can read your opinion. I'm more of an inclusionist when it comes to navigation boxes, but another editor thinks even having LGBT protests against Donald Trump included is inappropriate for now (because of its stub status). We need more editors to participate in this discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I did.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:National Pride March[edit]

I've created a draft space stub for the National Pride March being planned for Washington, D.C., in June. Feel free to contribute to the draft here: Draft:National Pride March. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It needs a specific title, which includes the nation referred to. -- (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@: Hey, Fæ! What do you propose? Secondary coverage, such as the Out source used in the Wikipedia article, and the event's Twitter page, refer to the event specifically as "National Pride March". Why would we use a different article title here if there is no other Wikipedia article by this name (no disambiguation is needed)? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Unless this is established in reliable non-US publications as a common usage, it feels Americanocentric and like carpetbagging to reserve the term for a US national event rather than qualifying the title. When I read the title without preconceptions, I imagined it was going to be about national Pride marches in general (the UK used to have a Pride march, but over time this has turned into a London specific event after so many other cities have separate events, that's the sort of thing that a generic article would explain). -- (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Laurel Hubbard[edit]

Could someone familiar with the rules around coverage of transgender sportspeople take a look at Laurel Hubbard please? A couple of things lookwrong tome but I'm not familiar with the rules. She made the front page of the national sports news here and seems likely to make waves at the commonwealth games, so it would be good to get it right before then. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page there. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Gays for Trump[edit]

I created a stub for Gays for Trump because of a request made in a section above. However, the article has been marked for deletion. I invite project members to please help expand the article and/or express your thoughts re: deletion on the article's talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

And guess why no one has edited/expanded it?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I decided to walk in the fire (or dance to Not-discopop) and edit it by adding two reliable third-party sources. However, I did not expand it. We still live in fear because of the discretionary sanctions. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure folks are refusing to expand the stub, which is only a few days old, or living in "fear" of discretionary sanctions. I'm working on other articles lately, but this is one I might revisit at a later date. Just not a top priority right now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
See thread above.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not sure who this "we" is that Zigzig20s purports to speak for. Especially since the article was created less than two days ago. Funcrunch (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
At least two editors! It's all in the thread above. Funcrunch, if you want to take a chance, be my guest!Zigzig20s (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I read the entire thread above before making my comment. I'm not interested in working on that particular article, but it has nothing to do with the sanctions. Funcrunch (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
At least two of us believe it does!Zigzig20s (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Whereas the four of us believe that it dosen't. That said, again, if anyone else felt intimidated by the tag, please speak up. Nothing is set in stone. El_C 02:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
There are a gazillion articles that theoretically fall under the rubric of discretionary sanctions, but most of them haven't been tagged because there's been no sign of a problem. Preemptive tagging is unlikely to discourage problem actors from editing, but it might well persuade others not to bother. I can see how inexperienced editors might be intimidated by the tag, although many might not even notice it. (As a newbie, I tended to ignore shaded text boxes at the tops of pages as so much clutter.) I'm not at all intimidated, but if I were to happen across such a tag, it would be a red flag for me: Don't contribute here unless you're willing to get drawn into a stressful situation where power-happy admins (yes, we have a few of those) with questionable judgment and neutrality (and those too) unilaterally use procedural technicalities to thwart productive discussion and impede the addition of policy-compliant content. I might wade in anyway, after checking to see what problems had led to the placement of the tag. If I couldn't find any problems, I'd probably click away in a hurry. (I'm speaking generally here, not about this article specifically. There are certain subject areas I avoid just because they're too depressing in the first place.) RivertorchFIREWATER 15:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
To clarify my comments above, I can understand and respect if other editors might be intimidated by the sanctions notice, but the sanctions notice is not the reason that I am choosing not to edit the article. I just didn't like the (to me) vague and presumptive nature of the "we live in fear" comment. Funcrunch (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)