Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 45

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46

Miss Vera's Finishing School for Boys Who Want to Be Girls (book)

A discussion has been started on whether the article on this book should be merged with the (largely identical) article on the school. Input from members of this project are welcome. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Should Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention be tagged as LGBT-related?

Please see Talk:Malcolm_X:_A_Life_of_Reinvention#LGBT Tag WhisperToMe (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sexual orientation/sexual identity discussions with regard to categorizing LGBT people

Hello, everyone. I saw the Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Privileging words over thoughts and deeds: attraction vs identity vs behaviour in sexual orientation discussion yesterday and decided that one or more of you may be interested in weighing in on it. Bearcat, a member of this LGBT project, has already. I am also interested in weighing in on it, but some of what I would have stated has essentially already been stated by those opposing the editor's proposal (the editor who started that discussion), and I'd rather not get into a debate about this. I waited until today to notify this project of it because I was both busy and lazy yesterday, and also wanted to see how things developed on that discussion matter. As for the other discussion, that is Talk:Jodie Foster#Redo consensus; it's currently closed, but any one of you may want to re-open that discussion or start a new one about that topic. For the record, I don't see the problem with putting Foster in the LGBT category. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Gary North

Question: Regarding two of the subsections in Gary North (economist) -- which describe his views (in part regarding his alleged hatred of, and alleged desire to stone to death, homosexuals, but contain original rather than secondary sources – are they proper? Please see the discussion here. Steeletrap (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

More eyes needed at Talk:Homosexuality

There is a current discussion under way that may need more editor attention. It appears a new editor (possibly a single purpose account) has begun a discussion about violence to the LGBT community and is stating the article is intentionally misleading.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Update:That SPA account made a legal threat and was blocked, socked and both blocked indef. User:PaleCloudedWhite became upset with me when I suggested that their proposal to change the header of Homosexuality#Violence against gays and lesbians to "Hate Crimes" to reflect what they believed the FBI source being questioned by the SPA/Sock was about. User:Bb23 also agreed with this but I was not convinced and continued to oppose this suggestion as I felt it narrowed the scope of the section to a US centric legislative subjects. That would mean only things that were actual hate crimes could be there and we are no longer talking about the history of violence to the LGBT community. I aslo objected because the section is a summary of a main article that may have been split from this one and I feel it inappropriate to rename sections like that over single source in the summary. User:PaleCloudedWhite accused me of calling them homophobic, took this project off their watch list and left the discussion. I have responded in no uncertain terms. I think it a good idea if another editor approach them to see what their concerns are because I am afraid I will just freak out back at them over this.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Benvenuto Cellini

Can somebody here put it on your watch list? An unnamed editor keeps removing the categories. I don't want to have to buy into arguments about Cellini's sexuality. Dealing with Leonardo and Michelangelo are sufficient. Amandajm (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Question about categorization

I posted a long comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Guidelines#Deceased_LGBT_.28.3F.29_people and it said to cross post it here. I hope to get some guidance about placing historical figures in LGBT categories. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Mass deletion of categories - Repairing

It's just been found that a number of categories in use by this project were created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, so User:Ronhjones has had to delete them. However, it looks like a number of them were very useful, so one may want to look through these deletions and re-create/re-categorize. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand why he had to delete them; it's not mandatory that banned users' edits must be deleted if they're beneficial to the encyclopedia. It's also really annoying that he just removed the categories from articles without upmerging them into the categories that remain.
Anyway, the categories that he deleted are:
I'm not suggesting all these categories should be automatically recreated, but some of them definitely need to exist. Please feel free to annotate the list above with comments and ideas on specific categories. - htonl (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The deletions have caused a heck of a mess. I've checked several, and no articles have been put back into the category they were originally in before the sock came along. I can understand wanting to have a strict policy against socking, but we've cut off our nose to spite our face here.--Trystan (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
And there's a whole lot more awaiting imminent deletion at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created by blocked or banned users. I've mentioned on User talk:Nymf (he's the one who did the nominating) about this problem of the categories getting deleted without appropriate recategorization. - htonl (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Several of these categories have been used by users other than sock, which would disqualify them from G5 speedy deletion. Given the very short time in which the entire batch was nominated, I do not think any checking was done regarding who has been using these categories; everything created by the sock has been put on the chopping block regardless of what use has been made of it in the last 10 months.--Trystan (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it considered proper to remove the CSD (and take responsibility for the category in whatever ceremonial form is called for)? I mean, another one is Category:Jewish American actors, it's huge! Obviously one should not sockpuppet, but re-creating and repopulating all of these will be a huge time sink for productive users too. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I nominated all of those categories in a go as the user was just caught socking, yet again, and I had enough of it. I was going to nominate them for deletion 10 months ago, but never had the energy then. These things needs to be dealt with vehemently, but as they haven't been for over 2 years, the user knows that he can return to socking and get away with it.
My 2 cents is that you should re-categorize rather than re-create, for the benefit of the Wikipedia project itself. Nymf (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
No, that's a poor decision. It is the behavior of socking that is the problem, not the fact of categorizing Jewish American actors together or subdividing gay villages by country. Allowing them not to be deleted, if claimed by legitimate users, is the best solution - recreating and repopulating is extremely tedious, but still results in proper categorization - putting a black mark on these categories forever is foolish. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I concur. Not all categorization is bad. It would have been better to nominate them for deletion or merging at CFD and let those there decide if they were worth keeping.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
By not deleting the categories, we legitimize the behavior of the sock puppets. That is very bad, and lets the user know that he can get away with it, as long as he is adamant. Point in case: the user is already back, blanking templates for the categories to stay. Nymf (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
But the reason socking is bad is because it's damaging to the encyclopedia and to the process of building an encyclopedia. Blocking socks is a means to an end, not an end in itself - by prioritizing this sockpuppet over good categorization practice, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
If a sock's work can be cleanly and promptly excised, I'm all for it. But these categories have been around for nearly a year, and have been reviewed and used by other users. I think we are well past the point of pulling these particular threads out of the cloth.--Trystan (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The scorched earth anti-sock policy continues, including the loss of Category:LGBT parenting and many others. User:Diannaa has deleted several, again with no upmerging or replacing the categories that were there before the sock came along. I have no idea what, if any, tools are available to make tracking and reverting this kind of widespread, reckless, and destructive editing feasible.
To the extent that this teaches the sock a lesson, it's that they can cause an amazing amount of chaos and widespread decategorization, as we are now in a much worse position category-wise than we were before the sock ever came along.--Trystan (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
What the fuck is all this. It's hard enough keeping homophobic editors from removing clear-cut historical LGBTs (and even living, out LGBTs) from appropriate categories - the sheer amount of work that needs to be done to undo this catastrophic decision hurts my head to contemplate.Zythe (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I noticed this edit by Bearcat which appears to be cleanup of some of this mess, and I noticed he had done dozens of similar edits - thank you, Bearcat, your work was noticed and appreciated.  :) Maybe you could advise us on the mess described in this thread? EdChem (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, this is my fault. I assumed that because the nominations were done by a trusted long-term user that the deletions should proceed. I will help with the clean-up. I will start by re-creating Category:Fictional bisexual females and restoring its contents using information from my deletion logs and contribs. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Next I will do Category:LGBT entertainers from the United States -- Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Actually, Bearcat has dealt with that group by placing them in Category:LGBT people from the United States. So I think i had better wait for instructions as to what you want me to do next. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I did catch as much as I could of what happened yesterday, but unfortunately I'm not able to guarantee that I caught everything. For what it's worth, although I've also directly deleted some of Rafiki's categories in the past, I do typically make sure to upmerge the entries back into a parent category before deleting the category — but I do recognize that my status as an administrator does enable me to do that in a way that a regular editor might not have access to.

It's not necessarily a requirement to recreate every deleted category wholesale, however — part of what got Rafiki banned in the first place was that he had a persistent habit of splitting any and all "LGBT" categories he came across into four separate quadrant-specific gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender subcategories, without regard to whether that was warranted or not. So some of the categories listed above do not need to be recreated; however, whenever possible the articles that were in those categories should be refiled in common "LGBT" categories instead of recreating quadrant-specific ones. And as noted, I did try to catch as many former "LGBT entertainers from the United States" as I could, and refiled them back into the existing Category:LGBT people from the United States (where they were before the entertainer-specific subcategory was created) instead of recreating the deleted category, if they weren't already in another subcategory such as Category:LGBT African Americans or Category:LGBT writers from the United States. I can't guarantee that I caught everybody, however, although I can't think off the top of my head of any obvious people that I missed. I see, however, that the category has since been recreated — and accordingly, the people can be moved back into it again.

One thing it's important to keep in mind is that even banned users who created a lot of bad stuff can still occasionally hit on something valid and useful anyway, and it also doesn't mean that the category becomes permanently banned from ever being recreated again even by an editor in good standing. I would suggest that as much as possible, regular editors should list categories created by banned users for CFD rather than speedy, precisely so that we can prevent things like this from happening — because editors should have the option of being able to say "actually this category is useful enough that we should keep it anyway" and/or "make sure that the closure involves upmerging the articles to this parent category rather than just decatting them". Or alternatively, if it's important to strip the banned user from the edit history, one could delete the category and then recreate it under their own name so that it has a valid user behind it instead.

To be perfectly frank, this was a major f*ck*p that should not have happened in the way that it did. I do recognize that the practice of deleting a banned user's contributions comes from a place of rational intentions — however, we all have to make every effort to ensure that we don't accidentally create another massive problem in the process as happened here. Although I'm relieved that there is an effort underway to fix it, we need to make absolutely sure that nothing like this ever happens again. I'm not going to blame any specific user, as both Nymf and Diannaa quite clearly acted in good faith according to the rules — but if two good faith actions combine into a massive disaster like this, there's clearly a flaw of some kind in the process. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help cleaning up, Bearcat. I can guarantee that I personally will not do anything like this ever again. I am very sorry to have caused so much trouble. -- Diannaa (talk)
I made a bold edit here per Bearcat, your thoughts welcome. Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
"Should" essentially becomes a loophole for socks to go wild creating categories, since the process of bringing something to CFD can be quite tedious. Perhaps the wording could be changed to "consider"? I recognize the problem with G5:ing some of these categories, but as a whole this is a rather unique case, as 99% of the blocked socks are not as adamant and long-winded as RafikiSykes. Nymf (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll agree with Nymf here — there are indeed going to be cases where it's appropriate to be cautious and take it to CFD for the reasons that showed up here, but even so there are still going to be some other cases where the category is just a no-brainer delete that isn't going to cause actual problems. So it would indeed be better to word that as a possibility to consider rather than as an absolute rule with no exceptions. Obviously useless categories (e.g. Category:Redheaded people with extra toes and a mole on their cheek) can still be speedied without needing special treatment, and ones that have an explicit consensus against them (e.g. Rafiki's persistent filtering of common LGBT categories into quadrant-specific subcategories) should still be speedied as long as the articles are reupped to a parent — there are certainly circumstances where CFD should be preferred over speedy, but that doesn't have to be the default option in every case. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not well versed on the quadrant-ization (or lack thereof) standards here. Perhaps you could write up a LGBT-categories guidance esp the rules around quadrants and place it at WP:EGRS? In any case, per the language wording, can we move that policy discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Proposed_changes_re:_category_deletion_of_banned_users. FWIW, I would be ok with softening the language to give examples of things that should be speedied, vs things that need proper merging and/or discussion. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I have actually done so in the past, for the record, but within days another user removed it again on the basis that they didn't personally agree with the consensus position, and then proceeded to attack me as a "bad faith" editor for the next several weeks in every single CFD discussion where we crossed paths whether it had anything to do with the EGRS guideline or not — so while I'd certainly like to readd it, I'm not willing to do so without backup. At any rate, the actual consensus is that quadrantization is only allowed in a few specific cases (writers, politicians, musicians, actors) where common "LGBT" categories would be populated in the thousands, but not in cases where a common "LGBT" category still only has one or two pages' worth of entries — and that in any case where it doesn't already exist, it cannot be implemented without explicitly seeking a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT to allow that specific new situation. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Let's start a new discussion over there on language to be added. I would support more or less what you outline above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Is the list above a complete list of the categories that were deleted? Let's make sure that we know exactly what has to be fixed. (Personally, this issue came to my notice when Category:Gay non-fiction books was removed from a page on my watchlist, and no upmerge has yet happened; likewise Category:LGBT parenting.) –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Relatedly, have all the users who were involved in decategorizing commented here? If we can look through their contributions, we can find out which articles were decategorized so that we can restore them with a minimum of toil. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I can't say for sure who worked on it. It might be best to post at WP:AN and/or WP:ANI to see if there was anyone else. In addition to myself, User:Ronhjones did some for sure. He deleted quite a few, and some of them were done as early as July 2. Checking his deletion logs, I found he deleted the following 65 categories: -- Diannaa (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


Extended content

I worked on it only in August. I first depopulated the category and then deleted the category. So in my case, matching up the preceding contribs to the matching log entry will reveal what the contents of each category was at the time of deletion. A couple categories were empty when I arrived, and that's how I realised that another person was working on it simultaneously. Here's a list of the 94 that I did: -- Diannaa (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


Extended content

Bearcat, thanks for your continued input and assistance. Diannaa, thanks for recognising and admitting a mistake and contributing to the clean up. On quadrantisation, it seems to me to be appropriate in the pornography area, porn actors are not in LGBT porn, but rather in gay, straight, bi, lesbian, trans, ... porn. On the deletions, I note that Ronhjones, who deleted many categories, apparently got bored with upmerging.  :( I have requested an explanation. EdChem (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to second EdChem in thanking Bearcat and Diannnaa for their work here.--Trystan (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I got bored waiting for AWB to respond - my connection is OK, but not the fastest, and sometimes AWB just seems to pause for ages - when it did that for several minutes I aborted, and decided to either try next day or let someone else have a turn. If you want me to run through my contribution list and rollback the edits, then just leave me a note.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Persistant disruptive edits on articles labeled "LGBT People from Italy"

Three months ago, the same user began to make systematic disruptive edits from different computers on Benvenuto Cellini, Poliziano, Torquato Tasso and Lucio Dalla among others.

The different IPs used by this person, probably Guido Lonchile (talk · contribs), are, for the more recent ones : (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs) for Torquato Tasso (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs)and (talk · contribs) for Benvenuto Cellini (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs) and B. River (talk · contribs), specifically created on this purpose for Poliziano.

Isn't it possible to block that person or to protect these articles ? Frimoussou (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Bearcat has protected the articles and range blocks are currently being contemplated. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistant disruptive edits on articles labeled "LGBT People from Italy" -- Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


There is currently a discussion at Talk:Greta Garbo#LGBT stuff - again (it's hard to miss, as it's currently the only discussion on the page). I participated briefly in a sub-discussion about synthesis, and have advised the current principal editor of the article on technical issues in the past, but am myself a bit confused as to what is considered acceptable in this area (i.e., what constitutes a "documented, notable relationship"). Could someone from this project take a look and offer an opinion regarding the appropriateness of the current article content and the recently removed (unrelated to the mass-deletions discussion above) LGBT-related categories? TIA. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please enlighen me?

Hi there :) Could someone please check and let me know why it qualifies for speedy deletion? The author stated he works on adding english ref. - as far as I can see the german refs (incl. a german newspaper) proove the significance, which I also feel stated within the article itself. - as for advertising maybe someone here has an edit proposal? (pers. I don't consider it advertisment) - any insight would be really appreciated, cause I'm kinda baffled esp. when comparing this one to other bdsm organizations' articles.--YahZila (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Since it's now gone - thx for nothing, I guess :( --YahZila (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

James Dean article

Can I get some comments/more eyes on this matter from this project with regard to the James Dean article? Like I stated in that edit summary, I don't feel strongly about this matter (Dean being in the LGBT category). And I am the one who had Dean removed from the bisexual category years ago, as that hidden note points to. But it seems justifiable to have him in the LGBT category for reasons Bearcat and I stated in this discussion at the Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality talk page. By linking his username now, I also invite Light show, who removed the category before I reverted him, to discuss this. I see that he is also discussing a LGBT matter with regard to the Greta Garbo article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And I see that he has now reverted me, which I left a note about, and he has commented on my talk page. So, yes, outside input on this James Dean matter would help. Flyer22 (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I feel quite strongly about it. The weight of evidence is compelling: he was definitely gay.Zythe (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Zythe. As always, thanks for weighing in. I'm not sure how you feel that he was definitely gay, though. I mean, it seems he had a clear sexual interest in women...unless that was an act. There are claims that he was gay. There are claims that he was bisexual. There are claims that he was actually heterosexual and was only gay-for-pay. Needless to say, this is why I had him removed from the bisexual category years ago...because his sexual orientation/sexuality is not clear-cut and is a significant matter of debate among people who knew him, media and scholars. Here's a quick link to the aforementioned discussion that led to removing him from the bisexual category: Talk:James Dean/Archive 2#Category:Bisexual actors? (2009). And here is a discussion from 2012 about how to improve/format that article, which also includes the matter of covering his debated sexual orientation/sexuality: Talk:James Dean/Archive 2#Recent article revision from sandbox; given that a lot of what is in that sandbox is a better James Dean article, it should be integrated into the article...though it should be cleaned up first. Flyer22 (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't splitting hairs about gay/bi (often this is an impossible behavioural distinction, and gay works as an umbrella term). More recent sources, such as later works by Bast, very convincingly indicate that he had a primary interest in men with at least a number of beards, in addition to some (earlier) heterosexual affairs, which is unusual. He was clearly a beneficiary of the casting couch, sure, but it does not seem to me he was gay-for-pay. But this is my personal conviction, and I wouldn't put this forward in arguing for a specific LGBT quadrant category. It ought to be uncontroversial to say he was LGBT, however.Zythe (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clearing that up. And you find it unusual that Dean had earlier heterosexual affairs? Due to heteronormativity, it's rare that I've come across a gay person who has not had a heterosexual experience (whether the experience was non-sexual, such as simply going out on dates, or sexual). Flyer22 (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
No, but I think it unusual a man would require a beard if he was only gay-for-pay. I think dating women earlier on is perfectly explicable. I realise what I wrote before reads as very unclear!Zythe (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
LOL, don't worry about it. Only the part I questioned was unclear to me. Flyer22 (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
And I apparently overlooked you having added in this. I just read that part about two minutes ago. Flyer22 (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bisexual erasure#Homophobia

Comments are needed with regard to the linked matter in the heading of this section. I've already commented there. Flyer22 (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Albert Fish's GAR

Albert Fish, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 02:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Categorization of LGBT people

This has probably been discussed before, so I wanted to bring it up here before taking any action. Why do we categorize people as "LGBT" something when more specific categories (especially Category:Gay men and Category:Lesbians) exist? I thought it was odd that we have Category:LGBT people by nationality but not Category:Gay men by nationality or Category:Lesbians by nationality. So Mathieu Chantelois is an LGBT person from Canada, not a gay Canadian (or gay Canadian male, if "gay" is deemed too broad). I understand some individuals won't neatly fit into one letter of LGBT, but when they do, doesn't it make sense to have more specific categories? --BDD (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

See this discussion (and perhaps the one immediately above it) at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. The short answer is this: Some people have come out as being a part of the LGBT community (sexuality-wise or both sexuality and support-wise)...without specifying their sexual orientation. And per WP:BLPCAT, they shouldn't be placed in a sexual orientation category unless they have identified with the sexual orientation in question. And then there are the historical figures whose sexuality/sexual orientation has been debated as being non-heterosexual, but their sexuality and sexual orientation has never been confirmed; not to mention...the concept of sexual orientation did not exist during the time that some of these historical figures were alive (though opposite-sex and same-sex sexual attraction has always existed). Flyer22 (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, you raise some really good points there. I hadn't considered that people who appear to be simply gay or lesbian may in fact be bisexual (bisexual invisibility strikes again!). But where we have reliable statements that "he came out as gay" or "she came out as lesbian," surely we can categorize them more specifically than LGBT, right? So I could go ahead and create and populate Category:Gay men by nationality and Category:Lesbians by nationality, for example? --BDD (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, of course. But I'd rather wait and see what others of this project have to state about this topic you've brought up and specifically the proposed categories, if anything at all. Flyer22 (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC) can be tricky simply going by sources stating that a person came out as gay, lesbian or bisexual. And this is because the author (or authors) of any given source may have categorized the person as such when the person has not categorized him- or herself as such to the author and/or publicly. As currently noted above on this talk page (the "Sexual orientation/sexual identity discussions with regard to categorizing LGBT people" section), this has happened with Jodie Foster (though I believe it's clear that Foster has at least come out as LGBT). This is why it's better to go by a statement from the person confirming his or her sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Similarly, it seems to be quite common these days for someone to indirectly come out by mentioning their partner/spouse, and that doesn't actually tell us if they're gay/lesbian or if they're bi. - htonl (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

By and large, the practice of this project has been to avoid subdividing "LGBT" categories into distinct subcategories for each individual letter, except in a few very specific cases where a single "LGBT" category would be populated into the thousands. That goes for occupational categories (a few of which have quadranted subcategories but most of which do not) and for "nationality" ones (none of which have the quadrants and none of which have sufficient population to need them anyway).

Particularly because LGBT-related categorization is still a sensitive issue that raises WP:BLP concerns, the project's goal when it comes to "LGBT people" categories has always been to strike a balance: we want there to be enough categories for the tree to be useful, but we also don't want there to be so many categories that the tree becomes too unwieldy to properly monitor for vandalism or BLP issues. And accordingly, part of the balance that was chosen was to keep most categories at the common "LGBT" level rather than comprehensively subdividing them, and to allow quadrant-specific subcategories only in cases where the common "LGBT" category was getting large enough to need the breakdown on size grounds.

Just as an example to illustrate the problem, let's say that you created "Gay men from Canada", "Lesbians from Canada", "Bisexual people from Canada" and "Transgender and transsexual people from Canada". A lot of people could be filtered down into the subcategories, true, but there would still be a few people who would have to be left in the main Category:LGBT people from Canada parent for the reasons noted above — with the result being that instead of having one category to monitor for vandals who still think it's funny to add Justin Bieber, you now have five.

Now keep going, and maybe you'll see the problem even more clearly: every "LGBT" category that we have on Wikipedia turns into five categories instead of one? Dear gawd, please no. Bearcat (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Homosexual propaganda/promotion of homosexuality

While the world's eyes are on Russia at the moment, that phrase is not exactly a new concept. As British editors will recall, we had our own "promotion of homosexuality" law (which, thank Christ, only applied to schools and local councils) which got repealed ten years ago. However, the idea of homosexual propaganda still exists here (I've come across four schools whose SRE policies prohibit it, despite the Equality Act), and Section 28 is often brought up to compare similar proposed (but never passed) laws and bill amendments, both here and overseas. I seem to remember Tennessee had what was effectively Section 28 passed a few years ago, for example?

In any case, the idea of homosexuality as something that can be "promoted", and this being an excuse to oppose or roll back LGBT rights, is a possible case for an article; do others think this is the case? Sceptre (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an overarching source for this or are you proposing we begin the research for such?--Mark 00:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm gauging thoughts on this. The Telegraph today directly compares Section 28 to the Russian law, if you were looking for sources to start with. Sceptre (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC on LGBT rights under international law

Members of WikiProject LGBT studies are invited to participate at a Request for Comments concerning material on African countries' obligations under international law to protect LGBT rights. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope editors will not be misled by your heading. The Africa-specific content is just a piece of this. The questions the RfC poses are far more general. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, the whole RFC arises because, before LGBT rights under international law was created, its content was posted to a dozen or so "LGBT in <African country>" articles. One of the main questions of the RFC is to decide whether it's appropriate for the material to remain on those pages. But I suppose you're correct that the RFC isn't solely about that, so I've updated the section heading here and will see about changing it on other noticeboards. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

More eyes at Coalition for Marriage

Hi guys, can i get some more eyes at the Coalition for Marriage article. I'm not able to scrutinise every edit at the moment and strangely the article is attracting more brand new users than it was when it was in the news on a weekly basis. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 10:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning and Talk:Gender identity disorder#Updates required to reflect DSM-5

This and this are matters some of you might be interested in commenting on. Flyer22 (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was just going to recommend that editors weigh in Talk:Chelsea Manning discussion as there are a lot of misconceptions flying around. Liz Let's Talk 00:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Noting here some different places this matter has spilled: Here, here, here, here. And even a WP:BOLD attempt by an IP to change MOS:IDENTITY, which was reverted. And, of course, there's the news (as in the media). Flyer22 (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


After seeing the debates at Chaz Bono, Laura Jane Grace, and now Chelsea Manning regarding MOS:IDENTITY, it seems like some sort of essay might be helpful explaining the basic principles behind the guideline. I don't think the level of understanding of trans issues in the general public is very high, and a quick overview might make a lot of things clearer for many editors. Do we have anything like that?

I've done up a draft here; please feel free to edit, as I am not an expert on transgender issues. I think it would ultimately live best as a project space essay, perhaps at WP:GENDERIDENTITY.--Trystan (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My thanks to the editors who have participated. I've gone ahead and moved it to Wikipedia:Gender identity, with a redirect from the above.--Trystan (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Article titles for transgendered people

This discussion may be of interest to readers of this talk page. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


Totally serendipitously, I've stumbled upon what looks to me like an aspect of the "List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films" pages that is out of synch with the Manual of Style guideline on flag icons. Beyond notifying this wiki-project about it, I'm going to leave the issue alone. It's my hope that there will be a recognition here that the flags provide no additional information beyond that already conveyed by the names of the countries they decorate. That's the logic behind the guideline. Happy editing. David in DC (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Pangender

Information.svg An article in this WikiProject, Pangender, has been proposed for a merge with the article Genderqueer. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. April Arcus (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing LGBT topics - Skysmith (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Splitting Homophobia in the black community

I have proposed that Homophobia in the black community should be split into separate articles Homophobia in the African American community and Homophobia in the Black British community anybody with opinions would be most welcome.Dwanyewest (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not merge into Homophobia? It's not exactly a lot of content and it's likely to duplicate a lot of the same sources and content. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 09:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I really don't think Homophobia in the Black British community would be able to stand on its own. And as to Jenova20's question this is about a form of inter-minority prejudice not just one side. And very few of the sources are used in both articles.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The titles, and the scope/POV they invite seems non-neutral. This goes for both Homophobia in the black community and Homophobia in the Latino community. Wikipedia doesn't have any other "Homophobia in X community" articles. If they are kept, they should be renamed and constructed neutrally, similar to how the articles in Category:LGBT topics and religion are handled. Siawase (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe "Homosexuality and race"? Teammm talk
17:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have other inter-minority prejudice articles please see Racism in the LGBT community as well as African-American–Jewish relations. If you would like Homophobia in the X community why not add it. However if you are going to take down the two articles in question you should address all four evenly so not as to show bias.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
African-American–Jewish relations appears to be neutrally named and constructed though. If it was named similar to Homophobia in the black community it would be named "Anti-semitism in the black community" and/or "Anti-black racism in the Jewish community" (topics which are both covered more neutrally within the broader African-American–Jewish relations article.)
Racism in the LGBT community looks like it might have neutrality problems too though. It's probable the intersection of race and LGBT could be covered more neutrally, maybe a broader article covering race and LGBT that includes the contents of the Racism in the LGBT community, Homophobia in the black community, Homophobia in the Latino community as well as other content like intersectional activism (ie, activism against racism as well as homophobia, transphobia etc.) Siawase (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I have already tried to do this with Racism in the LGBT community article long before the other two existed. How can we assure it will work this time?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, from a quick look at Talk:Racism in the LGBT community it seems that it has been nominated for deletion several times, but a formal move request to see if consensus can be found for changing/broadening the scope has not been tried, so maybe that would be a good place to start? Siawase (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm somewhat convinced. I really do think that having all three topics addressed neutrally sounds better. Besides I was going to add articles on Homophobia in the Asian diaspora, Homophobia in the Native American community, Homophobia in the Arab Community and Homophobia in the Jewish community anyway. That might be easier in one article on LGBT-Ethnic minority relations.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yeah, a larger article covering several ethnicities sounds like a good idea. Some might not have enough material to warrant stand-alone articles. Maybe model it after the LGBT and religion topics article? There would also be some overlap where we already have articles like Judaism and sexual orientation for example. I still don't think the "Homophobia in..." format is neutral, and indeed, some of the content already in the Homophobia in the Black Diasporic community (like the number of openly LGBT people, or president Obama speaking out against homophobia) would fit better under a more general "LGBT and the Black Diasporic community" rubric. Siawase (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Follow up after thinking it over. How about a more general race/ethnicity and LGBT article with a listing (similar to LGBT and religion topics) of all the ethnicities you mentioned, as well as the ones in Racism in the LGBT community, and then under the header for each ethnicity mention racism experienced by LGBT members of that ethnicity, homophobia and/or acceptance within the ethnicity, gay rights and other activism within that community (like Obama's statement) and any other more general information (like the number of out people.) I think that could come out workable and neutral. Siawase (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok so I have basically three things I think I should mention. A) I think its going to be difficult to convince the people at Racism in the LGBT community to agree to this and B) I need to know whether I could still create the other articles even though they are going to be infused later. C) I think it should be known that Jewish and Judaism are two very different things. And that not all homophobia in the Jewish community is due to Judaism.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I've added a new article Homophobia in the Asian American community. I've decided to continue creating them and when we are ready we can fuse them all into one.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuit article needed, any takers?

Hey all, after reading this news story about a victory for same-sex couples in the case of Cooper-Harris v. United States, I went looking for the wikiarticle but all I can find is one short mention here. Since this case has major effects regarding veterans benefits for same-sex couples, seems like it deserves its own article. I don't have time to create one and track down refs and legal citations - anyone else want to give it a go? Textorus (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

More eyes at LGBT rights in Russia

Can I get more eyes at the LGBT rights in Russia article. IP users are making many questionable and POV edits. Thanks!--В и к и T 19:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:MOS-TM and Template:MOS-TW have been nominated for deletion

Template:MOS-TM and Template:MOS-TW have been nominated for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 31#Template:MOS-TM and Template:MOS-TW. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Christine Jorgensen

Go to the bottom of Talk:Christine Jorgensen and you'll see a discussion between just 2 users; myself and User:JanetWand. JanetWand appears to believe that I don't understand the difference between gender and sex. The truth is that I do, but that gender is the method that Wikipedia is supposed to use when determining how to refer to trans people. Anyone (besides JanetWand) able to reveal their thoughts on the discussion?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Georgia guy does not seem to be able to demonstrate his understanding of the terms, and is making a superfluous edit of the term male to female when referring to the process that Ms. Jorgensen underwent in her transition, going from male to female. He seems to think that using male is offensive here, but I say it is not, but is merely the truth in describing what occurred and the conventional expression. I am a transwoman, and it does not offend me, however, we would like to hear from others. I feel confident that I can demonstrate that this is how medical professionals refer to the procedure, which by itself should be enough to render GeorgiaGuy's argument baseless. GeorgiaGuy is working with another user, both of whom seem to have the agenda of revising gender terminology, which is a noble cause, but one which oversteps its usefulness here, in my opinion. At the very least his argument represents a fringe movement, not the concensus view. However, the subject is open to discussion. JanetWand (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

For clarification, I have a big concern that people who see the term "male-to-female" on Wikipedia will think that it's perfectly okay for Wikipedia to say that trans women actually were men, as opposed to women trapped in men's bodies, before the surgery operation. Georgia guy (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

As I understand the discussion so far, Janet's argument is that using the term "male-to-female" does not imply that trans women were men before; it means that they had men's bodies. So why all the fuss? Diego Moya (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The term literally gives equality to the 2 bodies as if the earlier body wasn't wrong. We need to refer to trans women as follows: they were women throughout their lives; they simply had the wrong body before being corrected with surgery. Their gender identity is unambiguously female. Can you (someone other than JanetWand) explain why the term "male-to-female" doesn't imply that they actually were men before the surgery operation?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)