Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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: 2018-06-22 19:57 (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

Category:LGBT economists[edit]

Are there enough openly LGBT economists besides Raphael Bostic to create a category?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:CATEGRS, the raw number of people who could be filed in such a category is not the controlling factor in whether it should exist or not: the controlling factor is the question of whether the intersection of "LGBT" with "economists" represents a WP:DEFINING characteristic or not. That is, it would need to be demonstrated that there was something that made LGBT economists a distinct class of thing in their own right, different in a notable and encyclopedic way from non-LGBT economists: they do the job in a different way that's directly tied to sexuality, they produce a distinct LGBT-specific type of work, there's reliable source analysis out there about LGBT economists as a group, that sort of thing. I don't see how LGBT economists would actually meet that standard. That said, there are certainly others (I can think of at least two off the top of my head, including one of the most famous economists in the entire history of economics), but that isn't the point: the category's degree of definingness or lack thereof is what matters, not the raw number of potential entries. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, you could say the same thing about Category:Women economists or Category:African-American economists, yet those categories exist.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
When it comes to women, no, actually you couldn't. The old stupid stereotype about "women can't do math", which made it quite rare for women to get accepted in jobs that involved numbers (e.g. science, economics) until quite recently, means that there is actual reliable source analysis out there about women in those fields. I can't speak to whether the same exists for African-American economists or not, but I can say there is a reason why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a thing — if you think it doesn't meet the standards spelled out by CATEGRS as to when an identity/occupation intersection is warranted, you're welcome to try it at WP:CFD. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, we get harassed out of pursuing careers, and we can get fired for being LGBT in most jurisdictions. So yes, I think LGBT professionals (including LGBT economists) deserve categories.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Rivertorch: Second opinion please?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. I have to say that I'm seeing both sides of the argument. I'm definitely sympathetic to what you're saying about LGBT professionals across the board, but I think the point that Bearcat makes is particularly valid here. Let's see...let's take it as a given that LGBT professionals' jobs are at risk. (This is true for non-professionals, too, of course.) Do we have any reason to think that LGBT people are especially underrepresented in the field of economics? Is this true with different categories of employment—e.g., academia, government, corporate? If there's been anything written about such questions, or if you can find any data at all on it, I'd be inclined to accept the category. As it stands now, I'm just not sure. RivertorchFIREWATER 06:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep category In the United States and elsewhere it is legal for employers to fire anyone for being LGBT+. Many employers still do such things. Consequently LGBT+ people as a class face discrimination in the job market for the best jobs, including professional positions like economist. It is general knowledge that LGBT+ activists seek to direct more LGBT+ people into STEM to counter a social myth that LGBT+ people should go into the arts and avoid the sciences. Being an LGBT+ person and in the sciences is defining in itself because of the particular attention in education and career services to place LGBT+ people into such roles as a way to identify under-recognized talent and promote professional diversity.
I do not think anyone should take English Wikipedia categories too seriously right now. Within 3 years I expect that categories will come from Wikidata and not have intersections. People in this category will be "LGBT" and "economist" and it will be trivial to search them all without having the intersection "LGBT economist". Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
LGBT people are at risk of discrimination or firing in every job. That doesn't make being an LGBT practitioner of that job a WP:DEFINING characteristic in the sense that's required to justify a category for LGBT economists, because it's not a unique trait of economists to the exclusion of every other occupation. And people have been talking about a new categorization system, whereby each individual characteristic would be applied as a standalone tag and "subcategories" would be generated by searching for the intersection of two distinct tags rather than existing as standalone category tags in their own right, for about 10 years now without it ever actually happening — so if and when it does happen, then we can rethink and reorganize categories accordingly, but as long as it's still just the same pie in the sky dream it was in 2008 it's not a reason to start taking the existing categorization rules less seriously yet. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
At best it should be done with caution; some folks may remember the Women novelists category, in which a hubbub was raised because by being filed into that category, female authors were being taken out of the main Novelists category. So I would want to see that there is some compelling work out there about LGBT economists before saying that they should be separated out. It would not at all surprise me if there were. Certainly, there has been enough attention paid to Maynard Keynes's sexuality that someone may well have done either a biographical survey ("here are ten LGBT economists and the influence they've had") or a study ("the average LGBT economist leans Keynesian, and makes 10% less than their straight-identifying counterpart") that would make it worthwhile. And there may be a worthwhile category on, say, economists who study LGBT issues (the economic effects of same-sex marriage, for example.)
I will also concur with the hopes and expectations expressed that in the longer term, this sort of categorization goes away, that we'll be able to do a search for biographical articles that are flagged as both "economist" and "lesbian", say, rather than relying on these category overlaps. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Reply to all. I have a hard time understanding why you don't think being LGBT, in any profession, is a defining characteristic. I think it is. Could you please explain your rationale? Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Do they do economics differently from non-LGBT economists? Inherently work different places, study different things, find different results? Is there anyone studying LGBT economists work as a separate unit? I certainly allow for that possibility, but I'd want to see evidence, rather than just being a combination of two interesting and perhaps separately defining but unrelated attributes. If the combination is defining, I would expect to see some material in significant and reliable sources on it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I guess it depends on what you mean by "defining characteristic" and what you mean by "profession" and the intersection between the two. At the individual level, a person's LGBT status has a bearing on all aspects of their life, including the work they do, but only with certain occupations is it likely to have a particular public relevance. When I worked as a busboy one summer in my teens, I'm pretty sure my LGBT status had no bearing on anything to do with my work; it may have been a defining characteristic of me, but it was not a defining characteristic of the intersection between me and my occupation. Honestly, I don't think the situation was much different when I was in a professional-level job a few years later. It's more likely to be a defining characteristic in a profession, I guess, but it isn't necessarily. I think that much may depend on the specifics: what is true for one individual and one profession isn't necessarily true for others. I don't know if that helps at all. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not have the entire story, but I started LGBT people in science to start to collect sources describing how LGBT people have a different and particular experience in these fields which non-LGBT people do not have. The cited sources report that LGBT experience in science includes social pressures which make LGBT students in science shift majors to humanities and also difficult career experiences as there is a tradition of expecting that a scientific workplace should avoid the public perception that it employs LGBT people. I hope this helps as a start. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

June Women in Red focus on LGBT/Pride[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons.

New: WiR Loves Pride

New: Singers and Songwriters

New: Women in GLAM

New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking for editor of Rites Magazine[edit]

Taking a chance and posting to see if anyone here edited Rites (magazine) - working on it for my Master's Essay and would appreciate talking to whoever edited the page. Queermaessay (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bearcat: GMGtalk 14:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I've done a bit of cleanup work on this page in the past, but I haven't done any of the detail work and really don't know very much about the magazine besides the fact that it existed. It was never as famous as The Body Politic, and I didn't live in Toronto until after it was gone — so I've never really known very much about it. That said, I am personally acquainted with one person who's named in the article as one of the magazine's original contributors — so if talking to somebody who was there would help, I'd be happy to ask him if he'd be willing to talk to you. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Bearcat: Yes, The Body Politic is proving hard to avoid and information on Rites hard to find. Talking to someone who was an original contributor would be amazing and really helpful, I really appreciate the offer. Also, excuse my ignorance please (I'm very new to Wikipedia!) but does cleanup work mean editing rather than adding content? Thanks again, Bearcat Queermaessay (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I know that you're new to Wikipedia, so you may not know these things (forgive me if you do.)
This page gives you a list of every edit to that article, this page (down low on it) list the contributors to that article, in order of number of contributions. Each of the contributors has a "user talk" page (you can see that linked to on the first of those pages; after their name, you'll see "talk|contrib"; click on "talk") where you can leave messages just for them... but also when you go to their talk page, you will see on the left-hand column a link for "email this user", which is another way to reach directly out to them (and particularly useful if they are no longer active on Wikipedia.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@NatGertler: I feel pretty silly! I figured there had to be something like that but I really could not find it. Thank you for the links. Super helpful!! Queermaessay (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Everything is obvious to those who already know, harder for those who don't. At the top of every Wikipedia page, you'll find a tab mark "history". That will give you the editing history, and by clicking on the links marked "prev", you can see what a given edit change. That may help you find the editors who did the changes that you are most interested in... although it looks like in this case Bearcat has you well taken care of. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I messaged my friend and heard back that he's willing to talk to you, though for privacy reasons I'm obviously not going to give out his personal information on a Wikipedia talk page. Go to my userpage, and in the left sidebar under "Tools" you'll see an option for "E-mail this user", which will take you to a message box — send me a message through there, and I'll respond with his e-mail address so you can make the arrangements. And yeah, I've done some editing on the article (punctuation, linking names when there was an article to link to, revising categories, etc.), but I haven't really added much content at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I've just emailed you! Queermaessay (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I've not read the above discussion (sorry), but I added an infobox and made a few other minor changes. I was going to start adding "citation needed" tags throughout, but decide the tag up top was enough. That being said, if sources are not added soon, I'd support removal of all unsourced content and/or moving unsourced content to the article's talk page for future consideration. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject[edit]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.


On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride[edit]

Project members are invited to contribute to the 2018 Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs during the month of June and seeks to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. In-person events are being organized in some cities, and editors can also participate remotely. Results are being tracked here, so feel free to show off your work. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

LGBT community name change[edit]

I'm wondering if we should add a Q to the end, or maybe call it Queer Community? CTF83! 04:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd say at least avoid the latter suggestion, as not all LGBT folks embrace the "queer" concept/descriptor. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
We could rename it "LGBTQ," but not "queer." LGBTQ sounds more current than LGBT. Queer is a different concept.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Different how? I know he's not the whole community, but Dan Savage says queer is an all encompassing term, for all non hetero or cis. CTF83! 04:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
One may be gay but not queer and vice versa. The construct of queerness partly grew out of Judith Butler's Gender Trouble, but it also has a left-wing ring to it. In purely theoretical terms, 'gay' is essentialist and 'queer' is constructivist.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, am I opening a Pandora's box when I say should we add Q to all LGBT articles? CTF83! 06:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's a Pandora's box as getting a consensus to change usage would be difficult. The WM-LGBT+ user group compromised on "+" due to the need to include all sexual and gender minorities along with sticking to a name that non-LGBT identifying readers/users would understand. "Queer" is an increasingly useful descriptor, and as an older gay person I have shifted my view from rejecting it to using it to describe myself, though as said above, it is not a word that includes everyone. Until there are widely accepted generic terms, compromises like "LGBT" or "LGBT plus" are handy and probably as good as we can find. -- (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I also have come to see "queer" as a nice term to describe myself, although I also use "gay". A close family member, who is queer herself, jokes about the "LGBTQIABCDEFGHIJK..." community, which is a humorous way to describe the current challenge, as you all have articulated well here. I am not opposed to LGBTQ. Btw, TIL that we have an article titled, Intersex and LGBT. I learned a lot reading it! Wikipedia is awesome. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, you are. See this recent failed proposal. Mathglot (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'd be fine with LGBTQ. I don't like LGBT+ at all, however. But the Q is hard to define (by definition), so perhaps we shouldn't make any changes at all. We already have a separate article about Queer.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I read the recent move proposal. Although I'd like it to say LGBTQ or LGBT+, the consensus at this time is against that. Maybe it's "too progressive" of a change at this point in time. Since that move was specifically to LGBTQ, would LGBT+ be an acceptable compromise? CTF83! 19:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I personally would prefer that to anything with a 'Q' in it, but except in the case of certain articles with a decidedly scientific bent, titles ought to reflect actual usage out there in the world (with some extra weight given to what reliable sources have used, if that can be definitively determined). Google results often don't mean a lot, but compare "LGBT+ community" to "LGBT community": the latter has more than 16 times as many hits, which is way more than can be accounted for by any search-specific anomaly I can think of. Having recently participated in a seemingly never-ending discussion about a different title, I'm well persuaded at this point that satisfying everyone shouldn't even be attempted. Pick a title that reflects common usage, make sure it's not misleading in any significant way, and stick with it. I think that's what we've got now. While the four letters of LGBT may not account for every permutation of sexual orientation and gender identity that an individual might identify with, it's unlikely to mislead anyone as to what the article is about. If it's a subtle form of erasure, well, we need to wait until that sinks in for enough people that something else becomes the most common term. RivertorchFIREWATER 22:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the argument made by Rivertorch that we should stick to the most commonly recognized name, which would be LGBT. Definitely opposed to renaming just to Queer for the reasons others have said.AnaSoc (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Violence against LGBT people in the United States or Category:American victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes[edit]

Should articles like Death of Sean Kennedy or Killing of Allen R. Schindler Jr. be categorized in Category:Violence against LGBT people in the United States or Category:American victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes please? There is no consistency at present.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at several articles in Category:American victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes; the majority do not involve cases where the perpetrator was convicted of a hate crime. Several specifically mention that there was no hate crime legislation on the books at the time of the incident, or that it wasn't pursued in this case. I think it would be beneficial to move those articles to the parent category, Category:Violence against LGBT people in the United States, and then re-evaluate whether the subcategory is useful based on how many articles remain.--Trystan (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

History of violence against LGBT people in the United States[edit]

Should we only include anti-gay assaults that led to deaths? What about non-fatal (but still very violent) gay bashings?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Good point. "Violence" denotes a violent physical attack, including rape and other forms of sexual assault. Focusing on murder and manslaughter only would result in an incomplete article.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Gay concentration camps in Chechnya[edit]

I am concerned about the apparent misuse of Wikimedia, by making a public claim that the purge of LGBT people in Chechnya is "American fake news invented to demonise the Russian Federation". As far as I am aware there are no reliable sources that would support this, making it fictional conspiracy theory, and it also appears to defame and deride all LGBT+ people in its intent (diff). This is particularly disturbing as the person using the article talk page this way is a long term contributor, though they were once blocked for 3 days by Drmies (ref)

What should the next steps here be? Is this an Arbcom case, a report to WMF SuSa as an attempt to deride LGBT+ contributors, or is this something that should be kept low-key on the article talk page? I would be happy to invest some volunteer time in taking this forward, however my keyboard time will be very limited until next week. Thanks -- (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oh, that editor. They've been running amok all over the place. Doug Weller, what think you? And what do you think given that they've been warned about BLP DS, and that their block on St. Gallen Group was for "disruption", meaning, in this case, a combination of edit warring and BLP violations? You're an arb, you know the procedure! :) , you know I have to ping User:Claíomh Solais here. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the ping Drmies. -- (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not clear about the deriding contributors, but I have just now given a gender-related alert. I'd suggest ANI for these and other issues. That's got to be a first step before ArbCom. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. The deriding contributors is based on "being driven by people who appear to be very favourable to "LGBT" issues and may find it emotionally gratifying to feel, by proxy, "persecuted" and so might not be able to approach the topic with a clear head and NPOV." The idea that the contributors to the move discussion are using this persecution of LGBT+ people as a "proxy" for gratification is toxic and appears deliberately obnoxious.
@Drmies: would you add the DS/gg template to the talk page, now that Doug has considered it relevant? The template says that an admin should be the one doing it. If you feel it appropriate, you may want to collapse the discussion thread created to discourage more disruptive comments along these lines. I've been bold and done the latter myself. Thanks -- (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: "Oh, that editor. They've been running amok all over the place." - MTE. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion about renaming the article has now been closed and the article moved, so the thread where the incident occurred will no longer be edited by anyone. -- (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Womyn's land article[edit]

I expanded the Womyn's land article, adding new content and adding new sources. The article could use some more work.AnaSoc (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Did some more work on the Womyn's land article. Anyone else interested in improving the article? See the article's Talk page for some suggestions.AnaSoc (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Tennessee#Hate_crime[edit]

The section says, "Tennessee law has punished hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation since 2001." Is anyone able to retrieve examples please?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, the link/RS from HRC is dead.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Transgender controversy[edit]

Hello. I need a second opinion about this edit. Do you really think it was undue?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Due weight is a judgment call I wouldn't make without looking closely at the whole article (and maybe similar articles, as well), but it is entirely possible that it is noteworthy and appropriate and not undue. It's unlikely that a single unit in a restaurant chain would ever be notable, so the argument made in the edit summary that you linked is specious. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Rivertorch: Thanks. Maybe you could revert it, since the edit summary seems misguided? Only if you want to.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd really have to look more closely first, and I've been trying to get offline for over a half hour now. Face-smile.svg If it's still there tomorrow... RivertorchFIREWATER 14:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Reverted. RS has reply from corporate, that makes it a corporate issue. If anyone wants to blank this again, it's a talk page debate, not just a revert war. -- (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I expanded it (the staff had to be retrained, etc.) and it was removed again.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Fæ: Do you think an RfC would be a good way to assess if the content is due or not?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not obvious enough to invest more time in. There are easier wins. -- (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I find it suspicious that they changed their name just after this happened. It could be the perfect distraction away from their apparent denial of transphobia. And I doubt the heteronormative media will report on it more, so "recentist" sources may be all we are left with.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Trans woman[edit]

Would any editor who actually has time today please check out the edit war at Trans woman? Full protection will likely be needed. RivertorchFIREWATER 19:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Project Blitz: the legislative assault by Christian nationalists to reshape America[edit]

See this. The "blitz" is a large number of bills brought forward in 20 states in the last two years, "presented as measures to preserve religious liberty, but are intended to give businesses, pastors and childcare providers the right to discriminate against LGBT people in line with their “sincerely held religious beliefs”." Doug Weller talk 20:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


Is it possible that we could re-examine some of the top-level statements to acknowledge the validity of asexuality as part of this scope? While I don't ask that we reproduce all the information pertaining to this here, a nod to the existence of more than 2 scales (gender and orientation) that effect sexuality would be a positive move. Some cis hetero aces identify as queer due to non-normative sexual or romantic functions/appetites, despite hetero-normative orientation (target is separate from action), and have a really hard time doing so due to some over-simplified language when this and similar terms are being defined both by the public at large and often the LGBT+ community.

Basically if we acknowledge it's validity as an orientation rather than lack thereof we should then re-examine some of our more umbrella statements and stances and see how they interface with the concept of metrics beyond the classic 2. (Remember, everyone is on the aro and ace scales, even if they are lockstepped and white, they exist as useful defining metrics) Editors, consider please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:AE08:1006:FD00:794B:D640:6DD9:34F2 (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

NPOVN on Trans woman Lede text[edit]

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Definition_of_"trans_woman" with broad implications for Trans * articles. Please take a look. Newimpartial (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Cotton ceiling[edit]

There have recently been a number of edits redefining this term. The article apparently gets very little editor attention, and it would benefit from having more eyes and input on it. I am soliciting such eyes/input from all the Wikiprojects which its talk page lists it as being of interest to. -sche (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@-sche: This is not a notable topic and wouldn't not stand up to a proper Afd. Not a single one of the link clutter on that article is an RS. This is a blog-created neologism which caused a brief kerfuffle when other blogs reacted, and nothing since. I've been biding my time to ensure that it is truly stale and dead before nominating it. Mathglot (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it does seem like most of the sources (both those that were in the entry before recent edits, and those recently added) only mention it in passing, and many or most are not reliable sources either, being self-published or otherwise not RS. I made a cursory check for high-quality academic references directly about the topic and didn't spot any. I am fine with waiting until current edits die back down (to see if they manage to add anything useful and not just POV) before an AFD. -sche (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Dick Leitsch[edit]

Dick Leitsch is in need of more in-line references before we can nominate it for RD on the main page, if anyone is interested...Zigzig20s (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)