Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ studies/Archive 70

Archive 65

←

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

Archive 75

Wanted: Translators for WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race

Hello! WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race is currently seeking assistance from multi-lingual editors who are willing to translate articles into other languages, and ideally even promote the project's quality content to similar status at other Wikipedias. If you're interested, see this discussion.

Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Male and transgender cleavage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This section in the article on Cleavage (breasts) needs a check by members of this project. I don't see it to comprehensive enough:

• No discussion of cultural impact and mention (like there is a lot on cultural mentions about women's cleavage in the history section), social rejection/acceptance or aesthetics.
• No indication of how widespread it is.
• It mentions a hormone therapy, but doesn't tell what/which hormone therapy.
• On top of it, some of the cites are not high quality enough (one looks commercial, another probably is self-published).
• Also, since this is an under-coveraged subject in mainstream academia and media, I believe it can accomodate one or two trivia to examplify what is being discussed.

It would be great if members of this project could take a look and advise. It would be out-of-the-world great if someone could lend a hand too.

Trust me, I made over 800 edits to this articles that came from months of research (yeah, I even was made to research on the credibility of some of the sources). I would have done it myself if I knew where to look and what to look for. Research without a guidance... sometimes just doesn't work. I have worked as hard I could to make this article gender balanced, diverse and inclusive (with help from awesome editors from WIR). I am sure that exactly is one of the objectives of this project.

Y And here's a cup of tea while you consider rendering some help. (Did I get that tea right? Would you prefer some Vodka, sugar, mint, lime or ginger in the tea?) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, this section is an offence for transgender people. We should seperate this section to three section: Heavage fashion, masculining methods and feminizing methods. --Sharouser (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Fragmenting a small section into smaller sections, each with very little content or context, may not be the best course of action here. May I inquire about how it is offensive so that I can address it some way or other?. Also can I have some advise on the questions I have in the request? I am having difficulty finding any RS on the material using Google Search, Google Books or Google Scholar. You see, the non-binary material here is very scanty, and, hence, expansion maybe a bigger need than fragmentation.

But I have a bigger question for the members of this project: must we have a separate section for cis-males and trans-women? Or should we rather incorporate the text into the main body? Like the history part goes to history, surgery part goes to surgery, and the bra part goes to bras (there is little else in there). Diversity maybe nothing without inclusion, and inclusion doesn't happen if we exclude people from the main body of the text, innit? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

We should not distribute that information throughout the article. It's a distinct subtopic(s) of cleavage, as the main topic's sources are overwhelmingly regarding women in a general sense and do not discuss males, nor trans women as distinct. That is why you are having difficulty finding sources on that, and you yourself noted it is an "under-coveraged subject" in sources. It would make no sense to put that material under irrelevant sections. And WP:Due weight is about following the sources, not our personal opinions/OR on what counts as "inclusion" and redistributing material on that basis. We are not here to right great wrongs about gender and the body. Nor do we censor (change) how we cover material away from how sources do just because someone may be offended (people's thresholds for offense vary widely and can contradict that of others). Many trans women would want to be able to skip directly to material they find relevant to their unique circumstances, anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but I didn't get the part where WP:CENSOR, WP:RGW or WP:OR apply here. Who is trying to censor what? Also who is trying to get what wrong right? And who did which original research here? You see, quoting policy is fine, as long someone reads them before quoting. Otherwise it is just ill-devised instruction creep.

I believe I was asking an opinion on how to present the text in an article, and that's a question related to WP:MOS, which says nothing about this particular decision (though it has stringent guidelines for Latter Day Saints or movie articles). This allows us an opportunity to decide. And it's okay to use our brain. Also I believe history etc. are probably not "irrelevant sections", especially when dealing with history etc. Calling those "irrelevant", seen from a certain perspective, might seem like a WP:COMPETENCE issue (which I hope it is not).

As for WP:UNDUE, all I could figure out was that you don't probably don't think merging the section into the main body will not "fairly represent all significant viewpoints" (quote from policy page). If that's true then I indeed have something to think about. Is mainstreaming of information about non-traditional genders and gender roles bad or good? I thought it was good, you think otherwise. Or maybe you use UNDUE more liberally than the policy, as seen in this edit. In that case, I am a bit lost.

Does anyone else has any opinion on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya Kabir (talk • contribs)

Above you stated things like, inclusion doesn't happen if we exclude people from the main body of the text, innit? This is where RGW and OR comes in. I'm all for inclusion when it fits with due weight. But "inclusion", in itself, is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and is a frankly vague term that would ultimately lead to OR as we try to define it. I didn't mean that the other sections of the article are irrelevant in some absolute sense; but that male and transgender content is not relevant to those sections. I'm not sure what you mean by merging the section into the main body. It's already part of the main body and makes the most sense as separate. Being redistributed throughout the article, and therefore in multiple pieces, means we would be repeatedly going into tangents about men and about trans women, which leads to undue weight on the few sources that talk about those groups. As for Is mainstreaming of information about non-traditional genders and gender roles bad or good?, it is not Wikipedia's job to "mainstream" anything. Since there are sources about "man cleavage", and on the aspects of the topic unique to trans women, we can cover those matters, even though a hypothetical other editor maybe would not have. But we do not try so hard to correct anything's lack of 'mainstreamness' (or right great wrongs) that we end up violating due weight in the way or amount that such material is included.

As for this edit, that was undue content. An opinion piece from 1997 and an article from some pop-sci site are not good enough sources, per WP:Scholarship, to state that such attraction is completely from cultural "training", and from the sources at another article that I pointed to and have seen elsewhere, such a statement is highly contentious at best. I see you added it back anyway.

I do appreciate your hard work at that article overall, and please keep in mind that I word my statements knowing they are to a wider audience, not just to you. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately the "wider audience" didn't respond to the comment, though it was meant for them. I responded, though it was not meant for me. Perhaps that's where the lack of clarity happened (though I suspect it was a result of trying to pack whole philosophical paradigms into one or two sentences overburdened with instruction creep, or maybe it was dismissing off a less erudite editor).

As for "it is not Wikipedia's job", an argument you have used more than once, we will need a bigger discussion. Because that very statement stands against this project, the WIR project and few others that are here to balance out Wikipedia against systemic bias.

Anyways, I guess, you don't like the idea of reditributing the text across three different sections, becasue (perhaps) you believe that it either would get lost, or would be reduced down as UNDUE. Did I get that right?

If yes, then definitely you and I can take a Y tea break now and think of how to improve that section beyond the three things that are there (i.e. history of male cleavage, bras for trans women and crossdressers, and surgery/hormone treatment). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I oppose splitting the text into scattered pieces interspersed across multiple existing sections. If you mean splitting the existing section into three, but keeping it in the same place otherwise, I don't see how to fit a three-way division into the material. Maybe the male and transgender stuff could be two separate sections though. Regarding correcting systemic bias, I don't see that as contradictory to what I was saying. We counteract Wikipedia's systemic bias by adding well-sourced (and still due and NPOV) material that Wikipedia's mostly male (etc.) editing base may tend to overlook. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I totally get the point (nothing beats a clear explanation, without acronyms linking to policy pages, so very offputting, and also without big noise about what Wikipedia is or is not). 🥂 Let's drink to some development of the section, expansion etc., in coming days.(I let go, sinfully, of my customary cup of tea. Cheers) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir, this piece that I removed (which, as noted above, was also reverted by Crossroads) needs better sourcing and discussion. Per WP:WIKIVOICE, it also should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. In the case of this article, I think you should discuss contested edits you make. I think you should let the WP:Status quo remain pending further discussion rather than immediately reverting.

Also, what is "transgender cleavage"? It's like something that Wikipedia made up. Do sources distinguish a trans woman's cleavage from a cisgender woman's cleavage? The cleavage of non-binary people? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. If we are going to keep all these in one section, then it needs a title (what exactly is this about? and so on). Any idea?

"Do sources distinguish a trans woman's cleavage from a cisgender woman's cleavage?" I didn't get the question. Does transgender women have different problems and solutions about cleavage? Yes. Beyond that I don't know. It's the second time I have posted to this project to get some help in including non-binary material in the article. May be I should stop trying, and be happy about including of cisgendered males and females only.

There has been a discussion on the article talk page about inclusion which I tried to address. But maybe a more inclusive description of all things cleavage needs to wait until some RS appear somewhere (see my first post in this thread).

BTW, I didn't do an "immediate revert". And I don't like this dismissive attitude I see here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aditya Kabir, you shouldn't close a discussion like you did above. This was not an RfC or similar. And the above discussion was not a WP:TALK violation. If editors want to continue discussion, they have the right to do so (unless a WP:TALK violation) and shouldn't feel cut off from commenting further.

I was not being dismissive. As for others? If others weren't interested in participating, they simply weren't interested. Not everyone at WP:LGBT is going to want to get involved with every LGBT matter posted here. And some of us are busy and/or have enough to deal with on Wikipedia.

Regarding what I asked, the article having stated "It is difficult to produce sufficiently feminine cleavage for transwomen, even with breast augmentation surgery, because people assigned male at birth have nipple-areolar complexes set farther apart on their chests than do those assigned female at birth." doesn't mean that this is called "transgender cleavage." That was my point. I was basically asking the following: "Do sources define 'transgender cleavage', or were sources about trans women having difficulty producing 'sufficiently feminine cleavage' cobbled together and placed under a heading that had 'transgender cleavage' in it. My point was that the term cleavage typically applies to women -- women with breasts -- and I'm not aware of sources distinguishing the cleavage of cisgender and trans women to the point that a section is needed on trans women. If the cisgender or trans woman doesn't have breasts (and I mean breast development that would lead one to characterize that part of the person's anatomy as breasts rather than simply a chest), then one should examine if the term cleavage still applies to them. And I am using the term breasts with regard to women since the term typically applies to women's chests rather than men's chests. I do see that "male cleavage" is mentioned in the article, but men are hardly ever considered to have cleavage. So the small section on men in the article is given its WP:Due weight.

Now I'm done discussing this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Done discussing "after" it was closed? Is that a WP:LASTWORD?

I have removed almost everything about transgender women trying to get a cleavage and transgender men trying to get rid of it. This version may not be very inclusive, but it is far more compliant to WP standards. Maybe LGBT studies and high quality articles don't come in the same package. The moment I got rid of it, the article got better. Much better.

Thanks for helping me to see how ridiculous it is to be inclusive. An how useless it to ask for help in reducing systemic bias. The loss is not mine at all.

As for you final piece of lecturing, check WP:CLOSE. A little more knowledge about violations "before" accusing someone is always helpful. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Kalendar Magazine

I am reading Lillian Faderman's biography of Harvey Milk and she mentions Kalendar Magazine, a "gay biweekly" (78) and "San Francisco's biggest gay paper" (83), supposedly in the 1970s. It sounds like we should have an article about it. Is anyone able to find enough reliable sources to create an article please? I can't find much. The San Francisco Public Library has a webpage; it is mentioned at The EndUp#Al Hanken era (1973–1989). Please ping me when you reply.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Relevant RFC at Margot (activist)

There's a relevant RFC at Margot (activist) discussing how the deadname of Margot - a nonbinary Polish activist - should be used in the lead and in the article.

Gbear605 (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Call for Abstracts: Queering Information: LGBTQ Memory, Interpretation, Dissemination

• https://www.ifla.org/node/93294?fbclid=IwAR1YrsacCQQbglN1Ravwjc5QuKWcqmFTnK320I_nPNq-Ax-g7cTtkDCNP8A

---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Super interesting! Will spread the word. Zblace (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Boi (slang) article up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boi (slang) if interested/if you have anything to state on the matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Definitely. The OP that proposed the deletion doesn't even give a good reason to delete it. Its just as bad as those people who tried to delete the Dana Terrace article, which has finally been saved! Yay. Its the best news I've seen all day. I'll write something on this deletion discussion later today. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yay, it was saved! --Historyday01 (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Amy Coney Barrett#Bias

Hi all, there is a discussion at Talk:Amy Coney Barrett#Bias about potential bias in covering LGBT rights content. Your input/feedback would be helpful; I want to ensure neutrality and accuracy here. ɱ (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for comments

Members of this project might be interested in the Request for Comments at Talk:Dennis Nilsen. Graham Beards (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of draft Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct closing in nine days

A Wikimedia committee has posted a draft version of a Universal Code of Conduct at meta which, while it contains language about respecting the diversity of community members and condemning hate speech that appears in vandalism, does not appear to prohibit or otherwise mention racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of prejudice outside of vandalism and direct insults (in the English version, at least.) It does concern itself with, for example, defining repeated sarcasm as a form of harassment. In the page containing summaries of committee meetings the words "racism", "sexism", and "homophobia" also do not appear. (In the English version.)

Perhaps there is a good or practical reason for this; I'm not personally familiar with the high-level Wikimedia policy development process. But the discussion of the UCoC draft closes on October 7, after which the drafting committee will submit its recommendation to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, so I am placing this message in this talk page in the hopes of ensuring that editors who can comment constructively on the absence of language providing guidance on non-insult, non-vandalism expressions of prejudice get a chance to comment. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 19:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll write something on there. Historyday01 (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type for removal from FL-Class

This is a formality as the list was already merged with another article and is a redirect now. Yet, I will leave the required message:

I have nominated List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gehenna1510 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Mango (Saturday Night Live) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mango (Saturday Night Live) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mango (Saturday Night Live) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Right cite (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Question about naming of List of poets portraying sexual relations between women

When I see the name of this list in the context of lesbian literature I find it jarring and inappropriate. However, I can't think of how to reword a title other than 'List of poets authoring lesbian-themed poetry', which seems clunky. Any suggestions? On a similar topic, can anyone advise on how to handle a revert on the List of lesbian fiction page? I changed the lede from "This is a list of books portraying sexual relations between women, works of fiction with characters who may be lesbians, bisexuals or straight-identified women who have sex with women. It includes a list of characters that make recurring appearances in fiction series." to "This is a list of lesbian fiction, works of fiction with characters who may be lesbians, bisexuals or straight-identified women who have sex with women. It includes a list of characters that make recurring appearances in fiction series." Someone editing from an IP address reverted it. I would prefer to simplify it further and simply have: "This is a list of lesbian-themed fiction. It includes a list of characters that make recurring appearances in fiction series.", Should I go ahead and change it? Or, is that edit-warring? IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

For the second question: It won't be edit-warring to change an article after nearly a year. Change it if you think it is an improvement. If it gets reverted, go to the article's talk page for discussion. Gehenna1510 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've done it. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)  Done

Jazelle Barbie Royale

Inviting improvements to Jazelle Barbie Royale. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Proud Boys hashtag takeover

There's an ongoing discussion about the recent takeover of the Proud Boys hashtag. Comments welcome at Talk:Proud_Boys#"Reclamation_of_#proudboys_hashtag"_section. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Guidance requested on deadname redirects

While we now have MOS guidelines for when to include deadnames in articles, I don't think we have any official guidance on how to handle redirects from deadnames. For cases where the deadname is actually included in the article I think it's obviously appropriate to have a redirect, but it's not clear what to do for cases where it isn't appropriate to include the deadname in the target article. I'm bringing this up now because I just came across a redirect Rodney Arsenault --> Nina Arsenault; the name Rodney is not mentioned at the target, but Arsenault's notability is in part due to being a trans activist, and the former name is verifiable in RS as well as her autobiographical work. I remember another related case having been brought to RfD a few months ago and which was closed in favor of keeping the redirect, IIRC largely because the person in question had published a few works under their former name (although they would not have been considered notable for those works alone), but unfortunately I can't find that discussion for reference. It seems like in general we need to balance the likelihood (and utility) of someone searching for the target using the deadname vs potential disrespect entailed by maintaining such a redirect, and I think we could benefit from having a guideline to work from. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it should mirror what we’re doing in practice as far as deadnaming on the article itself, and extend that to all Article Space, so no redirect unless the person was notable under that name. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

In general I think we should include redirects from deadnames only when someone is likely to search for information about the person under that name. So if they were notable under that name, they produced notable works under that name or the name is prominent for some other reason. In most of those cases the name will be mentioned in the article, but I can imagine there might be cases where it isn't. Whatever we do decide, people are complicated and there will be edge cases so it should be a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem remains that without a hard rule prohibiting deadnaming in all Article Space there is a determined set of editors who will insist on misgendering everyone possible, and causing grief to LGBTQ editors who are already stressed on these issues.

Meanwhile the Internet is full of sketchy sites that delight in misgendering people so finding out a deadname is not much of a struggle. If the deadname is not notable on its own then it doesn’t belong in Article Space. Gleeanon⁴⁰⁹ 23:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that a hard "no deadnaming in article space" rule is incompatible with both an NPOV encyclopaedia, especially regarding those people who are wholly or primarily notable under that name. We must also recognise that some trans people don't regard their birthname as something to be avoided, they are a minority (possibly a small one) but that does not mean we should not (where possible) respect their wishes to the same extent as we respect the wishes of the majority. "No mention in articles without a very good reason to do so" works (and we are generally pretty good at determining what is and isn't a good reason) because it recognises that reality is not black and white. However redirects are not articles, and it is much better that we redirect the reader to the neutral article about the person under their present name than to have a duplicate article or leave them thinking we have no article about them. If a person is only notable under their present name then it is unlikely that their deadname will be a useful search term but unlikely is not the same thing as impossible. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The hardline rule would be "no deadnaming *non-notable names* in article space" which does work for us. The person who can’t figure out what someone’s deadname(s) are—and why exactly do they need them—will be the same one who raises a ruckus and tries to add that valid name and puts the community through, yet another, round of why we don’t deadname as a rule. Gleeanon⁴⁰⁹ 01:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That rule works for articles, although it's not as hard as you imply as there will always be edge cases where notability is legitimately debatable and cases where they were not notable under their deadname but what they did during the time they used it is relevant to their notability (whether that name should be mentioned will depend on individual circumstances). However notability is not relevant to redirects - what matters is utility. Notable names will almost always make good redirects (where they are unambiguous) but there will are also be some instances (probably not many, but greater than zero) where a non-notable name is a useful search term. Unfortunately there is no way around this that allows discussion of whether or not to include a deadname in non-obvious cases but which prohibits someone starting a discussion in cases where it is obvious (either way). The only thing we can do is to shutdown those discussions quickly and firmly (for examples like that which started this thread, where redirect is obviously not useful, nominate them at RfD where they will get a few quick delete votes and then be deleted without fuss about a week later). If someone is persistently starting these discussions, or doesn't let them go, then we need to be firm about blocking them for disruptive editing. If they continue after that then a WP:NOTHERE block is likely appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we basically agree. I feel the rules cover all Article Space and should have a high bar for exceptions—obvious notability cases only—to nip the misgendering asap. From what I’ve seen is every trans BLP goes through a storm of sometimes rancorous editing all in an effort to embarrass the subject. It’s tiresome and wastes energy. Glee^anon 11:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

My point is that articles and redirects are different and so the same rule cannot work for both - "Notability" is a concept that doesn't apply to redirects so a rule based on that is meaningless for redirects. I also disagree with "obvious only" because (a) what is obvious to one person isn't always obvious to another person (e.g. due to differing subject knowledge) and (b) it denies the existence of cases that are not obvious but where including the deadname is important for some reason that isn't immediately obvious, e.g. someone who was notable under their deadname in a language other than English but is notable in multiple language contexts under their present name - including their deadname in the English language article might or might not be important for writing a comprehensive biography, it is not possible to say without looking at the matter in much more detail. Another example might be where it is not clear whether a previous name is a deadname or not (e.g. a reclusive author whose published name might be their current name ore just a nom-de-plume). There are relatively few of these cases, but they do exist and we need to have rules/guidelines that acknowledge their existence and give us a way to deal with them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I must disagree, we can have the same practical rule to cover all Article Space, and make exceptions as needed for edge cases. As a rule we should be following the spirit of doing no harm to a BLP subject so this really doesn’t need to be overly complicated.

If you wish to misgender someone on Wikipedia you better have a good reason to do so and minimize the damage. Glee^anon 13:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not about a desire to misgender anybody, it's about a desire to best serve the readers of an encyclopaedia by enabling them to find the article they are looking for even if they don't know the correct title. This is why we have redirects from incorrect titles, non-neutral terms, offensive nicknames, etc. if they are useful search terms (see WP:RNEUTRAL). In most cases if the name is not mentioned in the article it wont be a useful search term, and in most cases where it is mentioned it will be a useful search term. However there will be exceptions. As for the content of articles, you need to make up your mind - do you want a hard and fast rule or do you want guidelines that allow exceptions for edge cases? Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia even “hard” rules can have exceptions so that seems like a non-starter. An redirects are considered within Article Space. Glee^anon 02:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Are there categories for people who might have been gay and whose possible LGBT-status is controversial/covered up?

For example, see Gi_Hyeong-do#Death. What, if any, categories would be applicable here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, WP:EGRS would apply here. Elizium23 (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Proofreading

Hi guys, can you help me with something? Recently I created the article Transgender literature, but English is not my first language, so it may require some proofreading. Thanks a lot in advance :D--Freddy eduardo (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding an LGBT publication

Hey there! I was wondering if any of you folks could regarding the Spartacus International Gay Guide. As it is, that page give huge undue prominence to a controversy regarding its affiliation to a British pro-pederast activist group. As well as questionable POV-pushing, it also doesn't really help us understand what the Guide is today, or the relevance of guides such as this in the modern era. --Mondodi (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Is a statement associating LGBT and other minorities with paedophilia homophobic?

Or to put it another way: is a statement describing "LGBT ideology" as "coming from the same roots as nazism" objectively homophobic? Or is the adjective homophobic used to summarise these statements just an opinion that needs to be sourced? Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Przemysław Czarnek and participate there. This is a BLP issue concerning the likely next minister of education and science in Poland, once he recovers from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Boud (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on how to refer to transgender people in article titles

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#MOS:GENDERID_being_used_in_place_of_WP:Article_titles_and_for_category_arguments on how to refer to transgender people in article titles. Rab V (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of George Payne (actor) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Payne (actor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Payne (actor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Right cite (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

A process to collate knowledge on a topic with a group of experts

Hi all

I'd like to share with you and ask for your help in something I've been working on for almost a year. I've developed a process to collate knowledge on a topic with a group of experts to help map the topic area on Wikimedia to know what's missing (redlists) and to build a database for the experts to use and contribute to.

I ran the workshop in the before times with experts on sexuality education have and written up the process, the next steps are Mix n' Matching the data into Wikidata and coming up with different ways to display and use the data ways that are useful for Wikimedia and for the experts who contributed the data.

I'd really appreciate any thoughts on uses for the data and of course some help Mix n' Matching

• d:Wikidata:Switched_On:_Working_with_experts_to_collate_a_worldwide_database_of_sexuality_topics

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone here knowledgeable about trans rights in Germany pre-1980?

The article on Transgender rights in Germany seems to focus only on post-1980s era, in particular Germany's Transsexuellengesetz. I wonder if a brief history beforehand should be mentioned: Germany made many achievements on LGBT rights in the Weimar period in particular; Magnus Hirschfeld and the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee/Institut für Sexualwissenschaft's pioneering work (Dora Richter being the first known trans woman to undergo MtF surgery in 1931, for instance) and the police granting "transvestite certificates" from 1908-33 are just a couple of things that spring to mind (and then of course the persecution of LGBT people under the Nazis). I'm not an expert in the area, so I'm sure there are a few things I've missed out here... --Mondodi (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Wendy Carlos trans erasure

There's an editor who has been trying very persistently to downplay the significance of musician Wendy Carlos as a transgender woman. He's a devoted fan, but seems to feel that any attention given to her groundbreaking 1979 coming-out interview in Playboy detracts from her musical goddesshood. For a change, this particular debate isn't about deadnaming or misgendering, but about whether it's appropriate to simply say in the lede (with plenty of cites) that she was one of the first public figures to come out as trans. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, someone's just rubber-stamped the transphobe's version as "consensus" because only I objected, so I guess Wendy Carlos's coming out as trans is no longer historically important. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

That She was pioneering or among the most well-known, or that the Playboy interview brought trans issues to popular culture, etc. aren’t really made in the article. I suggest adding content to support the significance and amend the lead accordingly. Glee^anon 02:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I have added it, with numerous citations. He has insisted on removing it, claiming with incoherent arguments that it isn't true. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not certain that referring to another editor as a transphobe is civil. Nor would I consider my own actions rubber-stamping of any sort of transphobe agenda. The phrase that achieved consensus mentions all of this quite directly: "In 1979 Carlos raised public awareness of transgender issues by disclosing she had been living as a woman since at least 1968, and in 1972 had undergone sex reassignment surgery." I've been unable to grasp the nature of your disagreement with this statement and the four remaining editors who have weighed in over the past two months all find the statement clean, clear, and direct. It also provides internal links to transgender and sex reassignment surgery within the first paragraph. I do not understand how this constitutes trans erasure. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest researching and adding content on the Playboy article, its significance and impact. I also disagree with how the issues are non-contextualized in the lead but the article itself likely should be improved first. Glee^anon 04:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The trans erasure is part of a pattern by an uber-fan editor, who has persistently complained that any prominent mention of her being transgender is somehow an attack on her. He describes his mission to "not exactly HIDE this information", but... that's what he's been trying to do. I've worked on this article for years, while he has come back over and over to intentionally obscure this aspect of her legacy, in order to champion a vision of her that he wants people to see, where people know her only for her music. It's a blatant legacy-crafting agenda, and he snarls that someone who doesn't share his POV lacks "basic humanity". (I haven't always been civil, but at least I haven't stooped that low.) The statement as it reads isn't false, but 1) it intentionally omits context, and 2) does not actually represent a consensus. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as a trans person, I don't find the current lead to be transphobic or contributing to trans erasure at all. I recommend that further discussion on this specific issue return to the article's talk page, and maybe go to dispute resolution or another noticeboard if the disagreement persists. Funcrunch (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Rose Adare

hi all, the above article is up for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Adare, thought you would like to know. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

TERF has an RFC

TERF has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Loki (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: lead of Wendy Carlos

An Rfc concerning the article Wendy Carlos is under discussion at Talk:Wendy Carlos#RfC on phrasing of her gender transition in lead. Your feedback would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Zoie Palmer: Canadian actor

Discussion @ Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding Canadian actor Zoie Palmer and whether her coming out at the Canadian Screen Awards by thanking her then-partner (producer Alex "Alexandra" Lalonde) should remain in the biographical article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Want to be a translator

Hi, I am new to Wiki. I saw in the LGBT project page that there are translators needed for articles in other languages to english and back. Where do you I sign up? Is there a list of translators and articles? --LoraxJr 19:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@LoraxJr: I think it was @Another Believer: who was asking translations for some WP RuPaul articles. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@LoraxJr: You can also check Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Translation. Gehenna1510 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@LoraxJr: I do translations from various languages; check with me on my Talk page if you want specific tips. Also, check out WP:PNT. Mathglot (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for your help! I feel less lost now. I will consider all the references and contact you on talk pages once I get more questions. Which I surely will) LoraxJr 12:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race, Collaboration for November 2020: Vampire Fitness

WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race's Collaboration of the Month for November 2020: Vampire Fitness

Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about the move of an article in scope of this project

There is a discussion whether or not Thomas(ine) Hall should be moved to Thomasine Hall. Since the article is part of this project, some members may be interested in the discussion. Gehenna1510 (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Cavetown (musician)’s aromantic and transgender identity

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Cavetown (musician)#RfC on aromantic and transgender identity. Glee^anon 04:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Heads up about new CSUC WikiEd course

WikiEd is Wikipedia's education program that works with students in colleges and universities who edit articles here as part of their coursework for a college class. CSUC currently has such a course with 60 students who will all be editing LGBT-related articles. As these editors are all new, the articles may be subject to all the same issues related to editing by a new editor. We need some volunteers to watch these articles during the life of the class (now till end December) and help keep them on track.

The table below contains course assignments listing dozens of Wikipedia articles within the purview of WikiProject LGBT studies being edited for this class. Context expert for this course is User:Ian (Wiki Ed). Advisors at WikiEd are stretched much thinner than before, due to recent budget/covid-related layoffs this year, so any help or additional eyeballs by members of this project at any of these articles, would be helpful. Here is the list of articles:

If you have questions related to the WikiEd program, you can raise them at the Education Noticeboard. Please sign up below as a volunteer to watch a few of these articles.

Volunteers

Please help by signing up for one or more articles. Check the box in the list above, for articles you are able to watch during this course. (To get good coverage, we need more than one watcher per article, so please sign up even if your fave articles are already being watched.)

Then, add the list of articles you're watching below, and add your signature.

• I will watch Ball culture, Butch and femme, Drag queen, Gender role, History of transgender people in the United States. Mathglot (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• I will watch Discrimination against non-binary people, Transgender disenfranchisement in the United States, Transgender inequality, and Transgender people in sports. (Several of these pages were already on my watchlist.) Funcrunch (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

A subject's sexual orientation being relevant to their public life

Some editors here might be interested in weighing in on the following: Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#The piece about the subject's sexual orientation being relevant to their public life. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed move of Yaoi

Opinions are welcomed on the following matter: Talk:Yaoi#Requested move 8 November 2020. Morgan695 (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Deadnaming, redux

FYI, discussion about the wording of WP:DEADNAME, following the recent RFC which members of this wikiproject workshopped the wording of, is continuing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Further_refinement_of_wording. -sche (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Trevvy

is there anyone willing to adopt this article? It has a number of longstanding issues, which is why I found it in a backlog project, but loathe to further lessen our LGBT content. Feel like with its relatively long history there should be some sourcing out there, but I cannot find any. THanks! StarM 18:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Mirka Makuchowska - of Campaign Against Homophobia in Poland - unnotable?

Mirosława Makuchowska was today proposed for deletion with PROD. I removed the PROD with justification. If you have arguments for keeping or deleting the page, then you may wish to watch the page to keep an eye on it. Boud (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the above, seven other articles within this project’s scope were added to AfD the other day (see list at WP:LGBT/Alerts). The deletion discussions could probably use more input to help determine whether the nominated articles meet the relevant notability guidelines.--Trystan (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC about stubbing an article

Talk:Queer theory § Stubbed I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 03:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC on Nicole Maines' deadname

There is an RFC at Talk:Nicole Maines#Request for Comment: Nicole Maines' former name on whether Nicole Maines deadname should appear in the article, and if so where. Your input would be appreciated. Rab V (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

The page Transsexual has been proposed to be renamed and moved to a different title. Interested editors may wish to join the discussion on the article talk page. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Brendan Behan's Bisexuality

Hi all. My apologies if I have any formatting issues as I just created an account to draw attention to this! I noticed in Brendan Behan's article that his bisexuality is not mentioned. In the talk section, there is a subheading for his bisexuality and it seems that there was insufficient proof to maintain his status as an LGBT figure. I'm currently writing a dissertation on Brendan Behan and queer theory and I have ample proof of his bisexuality. Ulick O'Connor's biography Brendan Behan (1970) notes accounts of his bisexuality (page 96) from John Ryan, Desmond MacNamara, and two unnamed IRA men. Behan's affairs with women are also noted on the same page. Another biography, Brendan Behan: A Life, by Michael O'Sullivan (1997) details Behan's relationship with Peter Arthurs in New York and his relationship with Fred May, an Irish composer. Behan's bisexuality is assumed within Reading Brendan Behan edited by John McCourt and Brendan Behan: Cultural Nationalism and the Revisionist Writer by John Branigan, two of the most prolific academic texts on Behan's work. Within Behan's work itself, there has been ample discussion by academics, such as Branigan and Michael G. Cronin, on the implied homosexual relationships between Brendan (Behan's literary ego) and Charlie Millwall in Borstal Boy which is a semi-autobiographical work. In Confessions of an Irish Rebel which is a continuation of Borstal Boy, Behan details multiple homosexual encounters, most notably an encounter with Cathal Goulding in the showers of Mountjoy Prison. Most notably in his short story After the Wake, which was published in 1950 in Points Magazine before Behan's rise to fame, Behan details a story of a homosexual trying to seduce a married man and it is implied that the narrator is successful in his endeavor at the end. The short story is not only explicit in its homosexual intentions but it is written in the same autobiographical style as Borstal Boy and Behan's Brendan is presumed to be the narrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hknish (talk • contribs) 21:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You should discuss this at Talk:Brendan Behan (and please remember to sign your comments). Graham Beards (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Hknish. As Graham says, you can make comments like this at the talk page of the article in question. I would also suggest that you simply make the change you want to see for yourself. See WP:SOFIXIT. It's good that you mention sourcing, because such references will be needed in the article. If you have any technical or editorial issues (e.g. with adding references) then feel free to ask me at my talk page. — Bilorv (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Beirut Pride

Just to draw your attention to Beirut Pride, where the founder of the event (the only Pride event in the Arab world) has made extensive edits to the page which have been reverted on grounds of being overly promotional and self-referenced. I feel that in among this edit there is a large amount of good material that can be retained, though it may take some work to unpick. You are invited to get involved! The Land (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Assessment request - Girly

I have tried to update the article on the webcomic Girly, but good sources are scarce. Can anyone make any suggestions on how to improve this article? Is this article now C-class and if not, what does it need to get there? HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I did find some good sources just from a quick search online:

• Library of Congress
• Okazu: Erica Friedman of Yuricon reviews the comic (I've used her for anime reviews mainly and would argue she is pretty credible) here, here, here, and here, along with here and here.
• Josh Lesnick Interviewed by the Readers in 2004

I'd look at this, this, this, this as these could be good. That's sadly all I could find in a search for "girly" comic in a google search. I don't think this source would be good and neither would this.

I hope that helps.

Historyday01 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

MOS:BIO RfC on changing DEADNAME on crediting individuals for previously released works

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works
Surprised this hasn't been posted here yet; not just about Page, but prompted by those edit wars. Kingsif (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Anti-LGBT politicians who were outed at CfD

Hey there. I listed Category:Anti-LGBT politicians who were outed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 2. --George Ho (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Article needs cleanup and moving

The article LGBT rights opposition needs to be moved to the title Gay rights opposition or a similar title, then cleaned up. The article is mainly about gay rights (mostly same sex marriage) and only mentions transgender people (and transgender rights) in passing. This suggestion is also per a post made on the article's talk page. Thecocohead (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Deadnaming of Elliot Page

The actor Elliot Page (you may know him under the name of Ellen Page) came out as transgender yesterday, and while I'm impressed on how quickly many articles were updated he is still deadnamed in many. I've edited a few, but there are still a lot that deadname him. This should be fixed as quickly as possible. Alex Skye Kroy (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Alex Skye Kroy, thanks for posting this. Well, the main page for Elliot seems good. It looks like his dead name comes up on 392 pages from a search I just did if that helps. I'll try to work on it later today.Historyday01 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, yeah, his main page seems covered. It's the various movies that are being a problem. Alex Skye Kroy (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swish (organization)

I take no stance. Just saying. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Preferred gender pronoun § Requested move 3 December 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Preferred gender pronoun § Requested move 3 December 2020. GreenComputer (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Emma Portner#LGBT categories

Please weigh in here as to how to categorize (or not) Elliot Page's wife and how to support the categorization, if appropriate, in article text! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS discussion about Gay City News

• Gay City News
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Please see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gay City News. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Colin Mochrie's daughter's deadname

There's an RfC at Talk:Colin Mochrie re: whether or not to include Colin's daughter's deadname.

Thanks for all you do. --WhyBeNormal 22:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Making The Boys in the Bar near FA-quality

Hey guys. I want to make "The Boys in the Bar" near FA-quality. I previously nominated it as FAC but then reversed the nomination, fearing that it would fail. Help is appreciated. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Author name in source citations

I've run into a situation where the byline has a name the author used briefly while transitioning. The name matches her gender, but it's also not her current name. Thoughts? Woodroar (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

If it was only used briefly, it's probably not notable. A note treating it like a pseudonym could be added to the ref to prevent reader confusion, perhaps with a link to the author profile. Kingsif (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is something I think we need more discussion of. When it comes to bylines, there are plausibly privacy issues with using a person's correct name rather than a deadname. In the case of public figures or people whose current name is known (without doxxing or extensive investigation), I don't think we should be using deadnames in prose in Wikipedia's voice ever. As references, it is more often appropriate as it will be the search term or information someone needs to access the source. If the person is not a public figure and their current name is not something we are 100% sure they want everyone to use then we shouldn't be using it (could cause outing issues for the person by more widely publicizing something they only saw being used within website X).

The right outcome in the case you found is something I can't guess at without looking at it in some detail. — Bilorv (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

USE OF DEAD NAME re: ELLIOT PAGE

The very first Wikipedia entry following Eliot Page is the use of their dead name. Unless Eliot prefers this (which i cannot imagine they would), please delete [(formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987)]. Thank you, m — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.38.229.226 (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This is per our standards at MOS:DEADNAME, as Elliot was notable under his previous name. This allows readers who may not have been aware of the name change to know they are on the page they were looking for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Blue Alliance

This short article could use some TLC. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pauli Murray § Pronouns

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pauli Murray § Pronouns. Peaceray (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Chopin and sexuality

Please participate at Talk:Frédéric Chopin#RFC: Chopin and Sexuality. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Template for Preferred pronouns

There's a new template {{Preferred pronouns}} that is now available for use on Talk pages of biographical articles. It creates a standard Talk-style banner listing the preferred pronouns for the subject of the article. An example can be seen at Talk:Karin Tidbeck. Please suggest any desired changes or improvements to the template at its talk page, Template talk:Preferred pronouns. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I just updated the Dana Terrace and Molly Ostertag pages. How should I do the entry for Noelle Stevenson when she uses any pronouns? Historyday01 (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Nico Tortorella and they/them pronouns

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding repeated removal of they/them pronouns from a BLP subject article. The thread is Nico Tortorella. The discussion is about the topic Nico Tortorella. Thank you. Joeyconnick (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Asking for help on new pages

So, I decided to reorganize those history pages (it begins with this one) I created earlier this year and I created four new ones:

• LGBTQ representation in adult animation
• Cartoon Network and LGBTQ representation
• LGBTQ representation in animated web series
• Netflix and LGBTQ representation in animation

The names of the pages are not set in stone, of course, and I'd love to expand them, if possible. I know I don't have every series on there, so I'd appreciate your comments, feedback, and suggestions. Thanks and Happy New Year (almost)! --Historyday01 (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

To other editors: please see discussion at the TV project. Kingsif (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 7#LGBT academics

Under Category:LGBT people by occupation.

Is this notable and defining needing its own categorization intersection? Or should the whole tree be tossed, and this is the first segment to be discussed?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think its notable enough and I commented as such. I don't understand why the OP didn't try proposing a category for non-binary academics. That would be more constructive than deleting all the category for LGBT academics outright... --Historyday01 (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Nick Carter

There's been an editwar simmering for several weeks between anonymous IPs over whether Nick Carter (musician) should be categorized as LGBT or not. I've temporarily semi-protected the article, and am requesting comment at Talk:Nick Carter (musician). Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I'll comment there. I would say that if there aren't reliable sources that say if Nick Carter is LGBT, then he shouldn't be added to that category. That would be my contention off the bat. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Rachel Levine, United States government official

• Rachel Levine

The United States is in the midst of a party transition right now and many people are in tension.

Relevant to WikiProject LGBT, the incoming president has appointed Levine to a high ranking position. Levine is trans, and because of this, her article is the target of vandalism and hate on the talk page.

I am unclear on Wikipedia best practices for continued requests for all the usual hatemongering, including requests for using name and pronouns assigned at birth. If any users have interest and capacity to address a higher profile case of LGBT harassment then this one might be that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit-a-Thon on the 27 th of January

Hi, On the occasion of the international Holocaust Remembrance Day on 27 January 2021, ELC, Queer Code and les sans pagEs are pleased to invite you to join them for an edith-a-thon with a special focus on 'Lesbians in the Holocaust', Jewish, Resistance fighters, asocials, Roma, Jehova Witnesses, people with disabilities, communists, anarchists and other categories of people persecuted by the Nazi regime.' See here for more details https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Les_sans_pagEs/Lesbians*_during_the_Holocaust. Hoping some people will join. Kind regards, --Nattes à chat (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

If some people are interested in setting up a en-Wiki page for the event please go ahead :)

Proposed splits of List of LGBT characters in television and radio and List of transgender characters in film and television pages

Hello everyone! I am involved in two discussions, which I'd like to get your input on:

1. A discussion on the List of LGBT characters in television and radio talk page about whether to split the page off into respective pages for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, asexual, and intersex characters, since some say it appears to violate WP:SIZESPLIT due to its current size.

2. A discussion on whether to split off content from the "Portrayals in television series" section on the List of transgender characters in film and television into a page entitled List of trans characters in television series. If approved, the main page would be renamed List of trans characters in film.

Thanks and I hope to see your comments. --Historyday01 (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Straightwashed artists

Hi, I would like to ask who could help improving the article on straightwashing. I think it would be good to show some examples, like I already tried to do:

Many famous artists, writers, actors and composers also got straightwashed by historians, such as Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Giacomo Leopardi, Benvenuto Cellini, Camille Saint-Saëns or Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikowsky.

References

And here is the talk about it.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

IP vandal at Ellar Coltrane

Can a few people please add Ellar Coltrane to your watchlist? Coltrane uses singular they, and recently, 205.56.181.195 (talk · contribs) has been changing the pronouns at the article. I've reverted twice, and added two messages to IP's talk page, but I'm going to stop there to avoid warring. More participation would be helpful, if IP keeps at it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. There's an issue raised on the talk that wasn't resolved. Should they be put in male categories like Category:21st-century American male actors? I don't really understand categorization myself, so I hope someone more knowledgeable can let me know. Urve (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Trans persons and stage names

I was asked today if WP:DEADNAME overrides COMMONNAME in cases where the person is an entertainer with a stage name. Tyler Reks was the stagename of a wrestler, but now the article is moved to the persons new legal name, is this correct?★Trekker (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to see how MOS:DEADNAME would apply, as that guideline is 1) not addressing the article title, but the opening sentence, and 2) the Reks name is certainly one she was notable under, so it would be acceptable for inclusion in her opening line. And given that she used the stage name repeatedly rather than minimally in her press release, it seems like she is not trying to distance herself from the association. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I see what appears to be misinformation here, since the relevant section is WP:NAMECHANGES, a subsection of COMMONNAME, and it is aligned with MOS:DEADNAME. The relevant passage is, If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well. So the question is whether reliable sources announced after the gender transition do, or do not, continue to use the former stage name, which is actually the same criterion set out in MOS:DEADNAME. Of course, former names from the notability period are normally included in the lede as well, per the ASTONISH principle. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

LGBT rights in the Czech Republic

Hello,

I have recently discovered a mistake in this file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_rights_in_the_EU.svg

The Czech Republic should be marked checkered red in the section for same-sex marriage. A group of politicians proposed a law legalizing same-sex marriage in the country almost 3 years ago. More information about the credibility of my statement can be found here: https://news.expats.cz/weekly-czech-news/after-one-year-the-czech-republics-equal-marriage-bill-still-waiting-for-government-approval/

I would appreciate if anybody fixed the data.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Václav Skalický — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaclavskalicky (talk • contribs) 14:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Roy_Cohn#AIDS_quilt_and_legacy

Would someone look at this note, just placed there by a new editor, User:NotVeryGoodAtThis? If it can be verified/proven noteworthy with a secondary source, this might be an interesting addition. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

What doesn't LGBTIQQA come up as an option for tagging and writing about?

Hello Folks,

I was wondering why LGBTIQQA is not coming up as an option to select or even as a main article of inclusion? I am writing on LGBTIQQA Buddhists and I am interested in contributing in this space/s.

There has been a lot of exclusion and contestations of spaces of LGBTIQQA inclusion and participation in the last couple of years in Buddhist Sanghas at International Conferences that I have been attending these last few years. There's a lot of published material out there but there is also some documentation of the communities in media spaces that are on the edge of being an acceptable source to Wikipedia, so I would also like to know how to move around that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaitlinKEMM (talk • contribs) 08:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, Caitlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaitlinKEMM (talk • contribs) 08:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi CaitlinKEMM! From what I can see LGBT page is redirect from LGBTIQQA, and it does mention LGBTIQA and other acronym options present in English language. I am not native, nor located in the Commonwealth to fully understand the practice of use of this, but my guess is that LGBT was common denominator at early stages of building Wikipedia categories and it was kept as a norm. Personally I would also extend it at least a bit now in 2021, but I think it is up to native speakers to agree on this. Btw. you are also welcome to start a new sub-category that fits exact need you look for, just make sure it is populated with at least handful of articles and not just 1-2. Good luck! Zblace (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment! LGBT is certainly stuck in an historical time and space and that's a great suggestion from you to start a page on LGBTIQQA . I think it is really needed. We need to catch up with the times. LGBT is really from a couple of decades ago now. The common usage is LGBTIQQA , I will consider the situation and create a page as time goes on. I have a lot of sources. I want to have really good ones. I might create the page here in the sandbox and see what feedback I get. CaitlinKEMM (talk • contribs) 23:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Four remaining articles and what to do with them

As you may know, I have created a lot of LGBTQ pages in the past year. I recently created a Non-binary characters in fiction, Pansexual characters in fiction, Gay characters in fiction, and a Intersex characters in fiction page. I used to have more for asexual, lesbian, and gay characters, but I recently merged those into other articles. Do you all think I should move those pages to new names, specifically Media portrayal of Non-binary people, Media portrayal of pansexuality, Media portrayal of gay people (which could also be called Media portrayal of homosexuality), and Media portrayal of intersex people, in line with other pages (Media portrayal of lesbianism, Media portrayal of LGBT people, List of media portrayals of bisexuality, Media portrayals of bisexuality, and Media portrayals of transgender people), or leave them as they are? Historyday01 (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

LGB Alliance

Dear all

I recently started an article for LGB Alliance, a transphobic hate group working in the UK, US and Ireland. I'd really appreciate it if you could keep an eye on it for vandalism, the group is very active on social media and may encourage their followers to vandalise the page. Also anything you could add to the article would be really appreciated.

Thanks very much

--Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This article has since (quite correctly) been moved to Draft:LGB Alliance to work on the POV issues. It must be compliant with WP policy before it could me moved back into main space. Newimpartial (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that there is now a main space article, and the POV issues have been (more or less) addressed. The new article has also survived AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Science Femme

• Science Femme

I started this article about a hoax including transphobia. I wanted to share here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in 2021 Amplifying Appalachia Edit-a-thon, March 1-5

Hi all!

In honor of Open Education Week, West Virginia University libraries (and friends) invite you to participate in Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, in order to develop pages about people important to West Virginia and the rest of the region, but who are often overlooked.

Our Edit-a-thon is focused on amplifying the stories and figures of under-represented Appalachian artists, writers, and other creators, particularly womxn, people of color, LGBTQ individuals, and other disenfranchised communities. We have been lucky enough to work with Art Feminism and our event is held under that umbrella!

This event is asynchronous, which means that during the first week of March (March 1-5), you can make edits to related Wikipedia pages at any time that is convenient for you.

If you want to participate, please sign up through this link: https://artandfeminism.org/edit_a_thon/amplifying-appalachia-2021-edit-a-thon/ ... which will take you to our event dashboard, which has some starting points for pages that need some attention!

Rhizomesandranch (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merger of LGBT themes in anime and manga and History of LGBT anime pages

A proposed merger of the LGBT themes in anime and manga and History of LGBT anime pages is located at Talk:LGBT themes in anime and manga#Merger proposal and may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. Historyday01 (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move of Transgender hormone therapy (male-to-female)

A proposal to rename Transgender hormone therapy (male-to-female) (as well as the parallel article "Transgender hormone therapy (female-to-male) ) is being discussed. Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Transgender hormone therapy (male-to-female)#Requested move 15 February 2021. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Need help with deadnaming in Laura Jane Grace article

Please see my entry at the bottom of the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laura_Jane_Grace

YarrowFlower (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

There's now an entry for Wiki Loves Pride in the main space. Improvements welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Title of Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case

I hope I have complied with Wikipedia's policies on trans names re the Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case article, which mentions the bullying of a nonbinary individual who was notable under their previous name.

Should their previous nickname (based on a deadname, but one which they were known as at the time) be the title of the article, as it currently is, or should this be changed as well? --Bangalamania (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

review of Mary Jones (trans woman) § Alternative View?

See page history for what was added. I did some formatting, but realized the section needs attention. Not sure if it should be reverted, or if there's an appropriate tag, but I figured I would ask here. Note the un-encyclopedic line that was added that I removed (my edit). = paul2520 💬 15:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed split of content from the Media portrayal of LGBT people page

A proposed merger of content from the Media portrayal of LGBT people ("LGBT representation in children's media" section) to the LGBT children's television programming page is located at Talk:Media portrayal of LGBT people#Proposed split / merging and may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. Thanks! --Historyday01 (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Another trans-related query

For India Willoughby, who most recent RSes describe as being transgender: she has made it clear that she identifies as transsexual and not transgender (see: Lorraine interview). Should this individual's self-identification be given preference to the way her current gender identity has been described in most reliable sources (i.e. should we be using the term 'transsexual' rather than 'transgender' if this is her preference)? --Bangalamania (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sally Ride

Hello. There's some discussion on the Sally Ride talk page about whether her LGBT identity is verifiable and rises to the point of importance to include in the first few sentences of the article. Full disclosure: I am for this change and made the initial comment on the talk page and the initial edit. The discussion risks turning into a revert war, and I'd appreciate additional perspectives. I am not asking for people to come mob the page and rush to Sally's defense, I am asking for truly objective voices to help dissect this issue, because right now it's just me and one person who disagrees with me. I am fully open to acknowledging I am making an incorrect assertion and bowing to consensus, but right now there simply aren't enough people looking at the question to build that consensus. We can ask for an official third perspective, but the guidelines for that ask for the issue to be thoroughly discussed on the talk page first and that's tough to do with two people talking in circles.

If nothing else, I'd appreciate you weighing in on the page about how to properly, succinctly identify her. I have been going for a blanket LGBTQ term, while the other editor is advocating for "lesbian" if it is going to be included in the opening. Please respond on that talk page, not here, so it can be part of that discussion to keep it in one place. Sevey13 (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help in this discussion. For those interested, we had some good suggestions come in and went ahead and made a change accordingly. Additional perspectives always welcome but the immediacy of the request is no longer relevant. Sevey13 (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)