Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 64

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

→

Ace Ventura: Pet Detective

There is an ongoing content dispute regarding the film Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and the transgender character in the film. The discussion can be seen here: Talk:Ace Ventura: Pet Detective#Transphobic? Editors who have written about this matter on Wikipedia are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Daniela Vega

Hello!

A lot of reviving is being done on Daniela Vega due to copyvio and a lack of LGBT visibility. This topic may be of interest to members of this project so please lend a hand if you are so inclined. Thanks. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Christopher Wylie being queer on the world stage

Christopher Wylie is an LGBT+ scientist currently in the news to comment on the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica data breach. It is in wiki spirit that when there are multiple published perspectives in journalism then wiki community members develop encyclopedic content in the usual wiki way based on reliable sources. Any wiki editing which makes more information available to access with less effort makes for a more positive discource for all parties involved.

Of all the ways that Christopher could have chosen to present himself, he identifies himself in Category:LGBT scientists. He is just one person doing his thing but it does seem like he is going to be a representative of the LGBT+ community on the world stage because he uses his spotlight to say things about queer culture and identity. If anyone here can find any useful way to develop his biography then that could be a path by means of which to showcase a Wikipedia LGBT+ biography in a major way, and to connect a biography like his to the collection of LGBT+ content which Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects have to offer.

@Neun-x, Emir of Wikipedia, Keizers, Kelapstick, Apokrif, Rafe87, and Hyperactive dave: Thanks for developing the article to this point. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't really help that much with that article, all I really did was add his article from the Guardian. Will see if I can help improve it further though. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I couldn't leave it uncreated.Keizers (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I hardly deserve any credit, and I still question the mentioning of his being vegan, it seems rather irrelevant to the rest of the article. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding an article to this Wikiproject

Hello all,

I recently created the article for Beyond Carnival, a book that details the history of gay men in Brazil. Is there any way it could be included into this Wikiproject? I think it has great importance to the conversation of homosexual identities in other nations.

Best, NeuroCoxinha (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The WikiProject LGBT studies banner appears on the talk page, so we're set here! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Steve Salbu

Would it be undue to add to his lede that he was "one of the first openly gay business school deans"? Both The Wall Street Journal and Poets & Quants deemed it sufficiently notable. It is already mentioned in the body of the text.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not undue, but the "one of" part makes it unacceptably vague, in my opinion. One of how many—three? thirty? And over how many years? It's just too imprecise, at least for the lede. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I was told he was the first (and only one), but the WSJ is more nuanced. I don't think there is definitive data on gay academics.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is either, and you're right to be wary of claiming he's the first. Frankly, I might be wary of that even with a decent source—not because of fears that the source was wrong but because it's hard to know exactly what it means unless the source gets very, very specific. For instance, reasonable people may disagree on the exact definition of "openly gay"; there are shades of gray. Also, the titles of equivalent jobs vary from institution to institution, and not every business school is led by a dean, so that's another point where determining "the first" is not necessarily so easy. Saying he's "one of the first" sidesteps those issues, but it also seems fairly meaningless. How many openly gay business school deans do there have to be before it can no longer reasonably be claimed that one of them is among the first? That's the way it strikes me, but I could be wrong. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Gay lisp article -- what to title it

At Talk:Gay lisp, we need some opinions on what to title the article. One recent move discussion section was made before I made this one. The article is likely to go through a WP:Requested moves discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Naming categories about gay men

Take a look at Category:Gay culture. Some subcats have "gay male" in their title, some have "gay (male)" in their title, and some only have "gay" in their title. wumbolo ^^^ 14:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on a guide for students who edit articles in sexuality topics

Hello! Wiki Education is developing a guide to help students write about all topics related to sexuality. The handout is meant to supplement other resources that they consult, such as an interactive training and basic editing brochures. We’d love to get some community feedback on the draft here: User:Cassidy (Wiki Ed)/Sexuality studies. We're looking to gather feedback by April 18th. Feel free to respond here or on the draft's talk page if you're interested. Thanks so much! Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC

There is an RfC on the talk page of the article Neo-Nazism which may interest members of this project. It can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Gold star lesbian deletion debate

Some here might want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold star lesbian. The article is on my watchlist, but I haven't yet commented in the RfC. It so far only has one vote. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Marshall Kirk and After the Ball (book)

Does anyone have the time to get Kirk's biography to describe After the Ball in a more NPOV way, making it a summary of the article on the book? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films <by year>" redirects

A discussion has been started to propose deletion of redirects of the form "List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films <by year>". Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 21:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

LGBT in Mexico and articles with similar titles

I've opened a discussion at Talk:LGBT in Mexico#Title and function about the title and function of that article. Depending on how that discussion develops, it may have implications for other similarly titled articles. I'd welcome some additional perspectives. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: I can agree that the format "LGBT in (wherever)" is not the best format, because the term "LGBT" usually is an adjective and it seems confusing. However, "LGBT" is also a noun. I would not want articles called "Scientific in Mexico", etc, but there is no well established term for LGBT which means "everything LGBT". "LGBT rights in Mexico", "LGBT studies in Mexico", "LGBT culture in Mexico" each are insufficient. I agree that "LGBT" alone is not the term I want but what is better, and why? Can you suggest more and talk this through? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This is something I've been vaguely aware of for a while, but seeing a recent requested move kind of put it in focus for me. I haven't made a comprehensive survey of these articles, and maybe I should, but what I've seen at LGBT in Mexico made me think that the article was quite redundant: all of its content could be rolled into LGBT rights in Mexico and Homosexuality in Mexico because it really doesn't say anything substantive about the 'B' or 'T' cohorts. That may well not be the case at some parallel articles, but we're still left with what I see as a grammatical issue. You say "LGBT" is also a noun. Could you give a couple examples of that? I can imagine it being used that way, but I can't think of any instances where it is effectively used so. The Random House unabridged and Collins dictionaries, as well as Wiktionary all define it, in noun form, as a "member of the LGBT community", which doesn't really fit in with how we're using it. They note that it's usually plural—"LGBTs" or "LGBT's"—which is more like how we're using it but is also typographically awkward and potentially confusing.

The purpose of our "LGBT in..." articles is potentially quite broad, encompassing history, culture, law, politics and so forth among all of the populations represented by the letters in the abbreviation. For articles dealing with some countries, it may make sense to have an umbrella article like that, but I suspect that for many countries the content will be so heavily weighted towards the L and G, and towards the topic of rights, that the title, grammar aside, doesn't make a lot of sense.

I'm really still in the early stages of thinking about this, but I'm guessing there are two issues that merit concern: the awkward grammar across the board and the appropriateness of such a title for certain specific articles. The latter issue is probably best addressed individually, article by article, but the former bothers me because it just seems wrong. You use the example "Scientific in Mexico", a good analogy. "Gay in Mexico" would be pretty much exactly parallel. I haven't thought of a simple solution. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: I am not able to pull an example of a reputable publication using the term "LGBT" as a noun. I agree that it is awkward and nonstandard, and I only advocate for the use of this term until and unless anyone proposes something better.

I confirm that almost all publication of LGBT+ issues is about Men who have sex with men. Still, the social movement has been LGBT+ for a long time, and even if LGBT+ wiki articles focus on MSMs, I still think they should have an LGBT+ title because of overwhelming precedent for calling even that LGBT+.

"Rights" is not a summary of the issue. Like you say, these articles are the top-level catch all for "history, culture, law, politics". "Science in Mexico" currently goes to History of science and technology in Mexico, but as we build out wiki, I think that these kinds of concepts should have a top level article to accept any content. When the article gets bulky then we split it out to subarticles. If someone wanted to post about some law or cultural aspect of science or LGBT+ in a country, then having a top-level article makes for welcoming infrastructure. It is not a priority to me to empty poorly formed top level articles when at least they serve as a home for some content and a landing point for anyone to check for more specific subarticles.

I want to again affirm that everything you are saying is correct and valid. This current system is no the best. Compared with anything else proposed, I only have not seen a better idea. I encourage you to check things out and make a counterproposal because this is not a dead or halted conversation. You might find a better idea. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll give it some thought, and I hope others will weigh in. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Instead of LGBT in Mexico, how about LGBT life in Mexico for the overarching article? I think this is a pattern that could work generally.--Pharos (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. I think that might just work. Anyone else have any thoughts? And what would be the best way to implement it to make sure that editors who are watching certain "LGBT in" articles but not this WikiProject page have the opportunity to comment? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I almost wonder if a request for comment is appropriate. Many articles are involved here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm clinging to your "almost" like a lifeline here. In all seriousness, I'm not sure that a project-wide RfC is necessary. Perhaps some boilerplate on all of the relevant talk pages would suffice (although I suppose that might come across as spammy). Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

There are fewer than 10 "LGBT in" articles of this type, so not very spammy. There are however, over 100 Category:LGBT by country categories, and that might be a separate CfD discussion if we want to rename those too.--Pharos (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I count 9 relevant articles (national or regional) that could be appropriately renamed as "LGBT life in X":

--Pharos (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Trinidad

Judgement decriminalized buggery today. I updated the page LGBT rights in Trinidad and Tobago, but not sure where/how to correct all the interrelated pages and charts. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Lesbian literature#See also

At Talk:Lesbian literature#See also, opinions are needed on whether or not the gay literature and bisexual literature links should be in the See also section of the Lesbian literature article. A permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Feedback requested at Drag queen

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Drag queen#Sidebar about changing from one sidebar to another on the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

And IMHO this discussion is important. Please read the Sidebar section on the Drag queen Talk page and register your opinion. Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Two attorneys are named Ty Cobb and for one we may want an article

Perhaps an article should be written on the Ty Cobb who's a lawyer who works for the Human Rights Campaign. There's already one on the Ty Cobb who's a lawyer working for President Trump. Judging from the photos and according to one source, they're not the same person. (A photo of the White House attorney is available.) The HRC attorney may have been mentioned in several articles in an LGBT newspaper, which may be enough to establish notability, and he also wrote an article, so a bibliography may be apropos. I'm not expert enough to write the article myself. If it is written, hatnotes cross-referencing the articles should be added to both or a disambiguation page should be created. (The URLs are as accessed 4-19-18.) Nick Levinson (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

F. O. Matthiessen

Do we still need a photo request for F. O. Matthiessen, or should it be removed from the talkpage? The one in the infobox looks fine to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Since the article is about one person, there ideally would be a portrait or candid solitary shot for the infobox photo. Nevertheless, the existing image shows the subject reasonably clearly, so I don't see any pressing need to replace it. (If it were replaced, the current image should be moved to the Personal life section.) The template appears to have been added by a bot almost eight years ago and has generated no discussion in the interim. I'd just go ahead and remove it. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Defining slut-shaming in the lead of the Slut-shaming article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Slut-shaming#WP:Undue weight with regard to changing the lead sentence to "people". A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Deidre Downs

Wondering if someone can help with this article, there is discussion on the talk page about including this former Miss America winner's marriage to a same-sex partner. I disagree with how @Anthony22: wanted to introduce it but I do think it is worth mentioning somewhere. My only issue is that for now, the only sourcing we have is about her wedding so there's not much to work with. It's been a couple of days but has been on my mind so thought I'd bring it up here in the hopes that some more experienced editors might be able to assist. ... Thanks, CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz 15:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I've joined the conversation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Chris Anderson (politician)

I am not convinced that Chris Anderson (politician) is notable, are you?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Me neither. Chattanooga is not a city where the city councillors would get an automatic NPOL pass just for existing, but being LGBT is not a free "more notable than other holders of this otherwise non-notable office" card either — so all we can evaluate him on is whether the referencing is good enough to get him over WP:GNG or not. But this just amounts to exactly the same volume and depth and purely local geographic range of coverage that every city councillor everywhere could always show, which is not enough to make him special. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

HTML errors in LGBT articles

I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found a few high-priority errors in articles tagged by this WikiProject. The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely.

What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.

The first list is all "deletable table" errors. If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag. Taking the first link as an example, there is highlighting in the wikitext that shows where the lint error is. It says that the problem is in the ===Studio albums=== section; the actual problem is that the section above it has an unclosed table. So that table needs to be closed properly, and then that article will be fixed.

This second list is "misnested tags". See mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. The highlighting indicates that the problem is in a ref (number 25 at the moment; search for the word "not online" in the wikitext). This is a sort of nested citation-in-a-citation. Most of the citation will be italicized in the new system. A different approach should solve this error.

For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Permission de travestissement

-or French licence to cross-dress, perhaps only for women. Rosa Bonheur had one. Introduced in 1800 & never abolished from a quick skim of the wp:fr article. Worth translating - I can't see we have anything on it. Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm tied up in other things, but I concur that this is a very interesting topic! MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

New article needs more eyes at Sexual assault of LGBT persons

Seems an important topic that we certainly need an article for, but the mid-section has some OR leaps, and I'm not sure if the current title (my own adjustment) is the best title, or whether "sexual violence" might better encompass all aspects of the topic.

Published just today through AFC process: Sexual assault of LGBT persons MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

At the moment, Sexual assault of LGBT people in the United States would be a more accurate title. It is 100% American in its scope, at present. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point re: USA focus. Perhaps adding a 'globalize' tag would be better than changing the title. Or just give the creator(s) a little time to expand the article. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is currently just a combination of original research and indiscriminate information. I would let the creator expand, as there's certainly something to write about. See: Violence against LGBT people. Notice that there is no "Violence against LGBT people in the United States" but there is History of violence against LGBT people in the United States. wumbolo ^^^ 21:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about article "List of lesbian periodicals in the United States"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of lesbian periodicals in the United States#Format change, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Should the page format be changed from a bulleted list to a table? Woodsy lesfem (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transgender Education Network of Texas

Resolved

You may, or may not, want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transgender Education Network of Texas and/or improve the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

June Women in Red focus on LGBT/Pride

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: WiR Loves Pride New: Singers and Songwriters New: Women in GLAM New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

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

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

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

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

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

The discussion about this can be found here.

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

Background

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

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

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

So far, 84 editors have joined.

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

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

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

Looking for editor of Rites Magazine

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

@Bearcat: GMG ^talk 14:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I've done a bit of cleanup work on this page in the past, but I haven't done any of the detail work and really don't know very much about the magazine besides the fact that it existed. It was never as famous as The Body Politic, and I didn't live in Toronto until after it was gone — so I've never really known very much about it. That said, I am personally acquainted with one person who's named in the article as one of the magazine's original contributors — so if talking to somebody who was there would help, I'd be happy to ask him if he'd be willing to talk to you. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Yes, The Body Politic is proving hard to avoid and information on Rites hard to find. Talking to someone who was an original contributor would be amazing and really helpful, I really appreciate the offer. Also, excuse my ignorance please (I'm very new to Wikipedia!) but does cleanup work mean editing rather than adding content? Thanks again, Bearcat Queermaessay (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I know that you're new to Wikipedia, so you may not know these things (forgive me if you do.)

This page gives you a list of every edit to that article, this page (down low on it) list the contributors to that article, in order of number of contributions. Each of the contributors has a "user talk" page (you can see that linked to on the first of those pages; after their name, you'll see "talk|contrib"; click on "talk") where you can leave messages just for them... but also when you go to their talk page, you will see on the left-hand column a link for "email this user", which is another way to reach directly out to them (and particularly useful if they are no longer active on Wikipedia.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@NatGertler: I feel pretty silly! I figured there had to be something like that but I really could not find it. Thank you for the links. Super helpful!! Queermaessay (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Everything is obvious to those who already know, harder for those who don't. At the top of every Wikipedia page, you'll find a tab mark "history". That will give you the editing history, and by clicking on the links marked "prev", you can see what a given edit change. That may help you find the editors who did the changes that you are most interested in... although it looks like in this case Bearcat has you well taken care of. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I messaged my friend and heard back that he's willing to talk to you, though for privacy reasons I'm obviously not going to give out his personal information on a Wikipedia talk page. Go to my userpage, and in the left sidebar under "Tools" you'll see an option for "E-mail this user", which will take you to a message box — send me a message through there, and I'll respond with his e-mail address so you can make the arrangements. And yeah, I've done some editing on the article (punctuation, linking names when there was an article to link to, revising categories, etc.), but I haven't really added much content at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I've just emailed you! Queermaessay (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Category:LGBT economists

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

Per WP:CATEGRS, the raw number of people who could be filed in such a category is not the controlling factor in whether it should exist or not: the controlling factor is the question of whether the intersection of "LGBT" with "economists" represents a WP:DEFINING characteristic or not. That is, it would need to be demonstrated that there was something that made LGBT economists a distinct class of thing in their own right, different in a notable and encyclopedic way from non-LGBT economists: they do the job in a different way that's directly tied to sexuality, they produce a distinct LGBT-specific type of work, there's reliable source analysis out there about LGBT economists as a group, that sort of thing. I don't see how LGBT economists would actually meet that standard. That said, there are certainly others (I can think of at least two off the top of my head, including one of the most famous economists in the entire history of economics), but that isn't the point: the category's degree of definingness or lack thereof is what matters, not the raw number of potential entries. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, you could say the same thing about Category:Women economists or Category:African-American economists, yet those categories exist.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to women, no, actually you couldn't. The old stupid stereotype about "women can't do math", which made it quite rare for women to get accepted in jobs that involved numbers (e.g. science, economics) until quite recently, means that there is actual reliable source analysis out there about women in those fields. I can't speak to whether the same exists for African-American economists or not, but I can say there is a reason why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a thing — if you think it doesn't meet the standards spelled out by CATEGRS as to when an identity/occupation intersection is warranted, you're welcome to try it at WP:CFD. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, we get harassed out of pursuing careers, and we can get fired for being LGBT in most jurisdictions. So yes, I think LGBT professionals (including LGBT economists) deserve categories.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Rivertorch: Second opinion please?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I have to say that I'm seeing both sides of the argument. I'm definitely sympathetic to what you're saying about LGBT professionals across the board, but I think the point that Bearcat makes is particularly valid here. Let's see...let's take it as a given that LGBT professionals' jobs are at risk. (This is true for non-professionals, too, of course.) Do we have any reason to think that LGBT people are especially underrepresented in the field of economics? Is this true with different categories of employment—e.g., academia, government, corporate? If there's been anything written about such questions, or if you can find any data at all on it, I'd be inclined to accept the category. As it stands now, I'm just not sure. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep category In the United States and elsewhere it is legal for employers to fire anyone for being LGBT+. Many employers still do such things. Consequently LGBT+ people as a class face discrimination in the job market for the best jobs, including professional positions like economist. It is general knowledge that LGBT+ activists seek to direct more LGBT+ people into STEM to counter a social myth that LGBT+ people should go into the arts and avoid the sciences. Being an LGBT+ person and in the sciences is defining in itself because of the particular attention in education and career services to place LGBT+ people into such roles as a way to identify under-recognized talent and promote professional diversity.

I do not think anyone should take English Wikipedia categories too seriously right now. Within 3 years I expect that categories will come from Wikidata and not have intersections. People in this category will be "LGBT" and "economist" and it will be trivial to search them all without having the intersection "LGBT economist". Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

LGBT people are at risk of discrimination or firing in every job. That doesn't make being an LGBT practitioner of that job a WP:DEFINING characteristic in the sense that's required to justify a category for LGBT economists, because it's not a unique trait of economists to the exclusion of every other occupation. And people have been talking about a new categorization system, whereby each individual characteristic would be applied as a standalone tag and "subcategories" would be generated by searching for the intersection of two distinct tags rather than existing as standalone category tags in their own right, for about 10 years now without it ever actually happening — so if and when it does happen, then we can rethink and reorganize categories accordingly, but as long as it's still just the same pie in the sky dream it was in 2008 it's not a reason to start taking the existing categorization rules less seriously yet. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

At best it should be done with caution; some folks may remember the Women novelists category, in which a hubbub was raised because by being filed into that category, female authors were being taken out of the main Novelists category. So I would want to see that there is some compelling work out there about LGBT economists before saying that they should be separated out. It would not at all surprise me if there were. Certainly, there has been enough attention paid to Maynard Keynes's sexuality that someone may well have done either a biographical survey ("here are ten LGBT economists and the influence they've had") or a study ("the average LGBT economist leans Keynesian, and makes 10% less than their straight-identifying counterpart") that would make it worthwhile. And there may be a worthwhile category on, say, economists who study LGBT issues (the economic effects of same-sex marriage, for example.)

I will also concur with the hopes and expectations expressed that in the longer term, this sort of categorization goes away, that we'll be able to do a search for biographical articles that are flagged as both "economist" and "lesbian", say, rather than relying on these category overlaps. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Reply to all. I have a hard time understanding why you don't think being LGBT, in any profession, is a defining characteristic. I think it is. Could you please explain your rationale? Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Do they do economics differently from non-LGBT economists? Inherently work different places, study different things, find different results? Is there anyone studying LGBT economists work as a separate unit? I certainly allow for that possibility, but I'd want to see evidence, rather than just being a combination of two interesting and perhaps separately defining but unrelated attributes. If the combination is defining, I would expect to see some material in significant and reliable sources on it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what you mean by "defining characteristic" and what you mean by "profession" and the intersection between the two. At the individual level, a person's LGBT status has a bearing on all aspects of their life, including the work they do, but only with certain occupations is it likely to have a particular public relevance. When I worked as a busboy one summer in my teens, I'm pretty sure my LGBT status had no bearing on anything to do with my work; it may have been a defining characteristic of me, but it was not a defining characteristic of the intersection between me and my occupation. Honestly, I don't think the situation was much different when I was in a professional-level job a few years later. It's more likely to be a defining characteristic in a profession, I guess, but it isn't necessarily. I think that much may depend on the specifics: what is true for one individual and one profession isn't necessarily true for others. I don't know if that helps at all. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rivertorch, Zigzig20s, NatGertler, and Bearcat: I collected some supporting evidence that being LGBT+ could be a defining characteristic of being a scientist, and I feel that this evidence generalizes to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics including economics.

I do not have the entire story, but I started LGBT people in science to start to collect sources describing how LGBT people have a different and particular experience in these fields which non-LGBT people do not have. The cited sources report that LGBT experience in science includes social pressures which make LGBT students in science shift majors to humanities and also difficult career experiences as there is a tradition of expecting that a scientific workplace should avoid the public perception that it employs LGBT people. I hope this helps as a start. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

History of violence against LGBT people in the United States

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Gay concentration camps in Chechnya

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

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

Oh, that editor. They've been running amok all over the place. Doug Weller, what think you? And what do you think given that they've been warned about BLP DS, and that their block on St. Gallen Group was for "disruption", meaning, in this case, a combination of edit warring and BLP violations? You're an arb, you know the procedure! :) Fæ, you know I have to ping User:Claíomh Solais here. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the ping Drmies. --Fæ (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not clear about the deriding contributors, but I have just now given a gender-related alert. I'd suggest ANI for these and other issues. That's got to be a first step before ArbCom. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The deriding contributors is based on "being driven by people who appear to be very favourable to "LGBT" issues and may find it emotionally gratifying to feel, by proxy, "persecuted" and so might not be able to approach the topic with a clear head and NPOV." The idea that the contributors to the move discussion are using this persecution of LGBT+ people as a "proxy" for gratification is toxic and appears deliberately obnoxious.

@Drmies: would you add the DS/gg template to the talk page, now that Doug has considered it relevant? The template says that an admin should be the one doing it. ~~If you feel it appropriate, you may want to collapse the discussion thread created to discourage more disruptive comments along these lines.~~ I've been bold and done the latter myself. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

- @Drmies: "Oh, that editor. They've been running amok all over the place." - MTE. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Womyn's land article

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

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

LGBT rights in Tennessee#Hate_crime

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

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

Trans woman

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

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

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

Transgender controversy

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

Due weight is a judgment call I wouldn't make without looking closely at the whole article (and maybe similar articles, as well), but it is entirely possible that it is noteworthy and appropriate and not undue. It's unlikely that a single unit in a restaurant chain would ever be notable, so the argument made in the edit summary that you linked is specious. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Rivertorch: Thanks. Maybe you could revert it, since the edit summary seems misguided? Only if you want to.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd really have to look more closely first, and I've been trying to get offline for over a half hour now.

If it's still there tomorrow... Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverted. RS has reply from corporate, that makes it a corporate issue. If anyone wants to blank this again, it's a talk page debate, not just a revert war. --Fæ (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I expanded it (the staff had to be retrained, etc.) and it was removed again.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Fæ: Do you think an RfC would be a good way to assess if the content is due or not?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not obvious enough to invest more time in. There are easier wins. --Fæ (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I find it suspicious that they changed their name just after this happened. It could be the perfect distraction away from their apparent denial of transphobia. And I doubt the heteronormative media will report on it more, so "recentist" sources may be all we are left with.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

LGBT community name change

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

I'd say at least avoid the latter suggestion, as not all LGBT folks embrace the "queer" concept/descriptor. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

We could rename it "LGBTQ," but not "queer." LGBTQ sounds more current than LGBT. Queer is a different concept.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Different how? I know he's not the whole community, but Dan Savage says queer is an all encompassing term, for all non hetero or cis. CTF83! 04:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

One may be gay but not queer and vice versa. The construct of queerness partly grew out of Judith Butler's Gender Trouble, but it also has a left-wing ring to it. In purely theoretical terms, 'gay' is essentialist and 'queer' is constructivist.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, am I opening a Pandora's box when I say should we add Q to all LGBT articles? CTF83! 06:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a Pandora's box as getting a consensus to change usage would be difficult. The WM-LGBT+ user group compromised on "+" due to the need to include all sexual and gender minorities along with sticking to a name that non-LGBT identifying readers/users would understand. "Queer" is an increasingly useful descriptor, and as an older gay person I have shifted my view from rejecting it to using it to describe myself, though as said above, it is not a word that includes everyone. Until there are widely accepted generic terms, compromises like "LGBT" or "LGBT plus" are handy and probably as good as we can find. --Fæ (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I also have come to see "queer" as a nice term to describe myself, although I also use "gay". A close family member, who is queer herself, jokes about the "LGBTQIABCDEFGHIJK..." community, which is a humorous way to describe the current challenge, as you all have articulated well here. I am not opposed to LGBTQ. Btw, TIL that we have an article titled, Intersex and LGBT. I learned a lot reading it! Wikipedia is awesome. :O) - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, you are. See this recent failed proposal. Mathglot (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd be fine with LGBTQ. I don't like LGBT+ at all, however. But the Q is hard to define (by definition), so perhaps we shouldn't make any changes at all. We already have a separate article about Queer.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I read the recent move proposal. Although I'd like it to say LGBTQ or LGBT+, the consensus at this time is against that. Maybe it's "too progressive" of a change at this point in time. Since that move was specifically to LGBTQ, would LGBT+ be an acceptable compromise? CTF83! 19:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I personally would prefer that to anything with a 'Q' in it, but except in the case of certain articles with a decidedly scientific bent, titles ought to reflect actual usage out there in the world (with some extra weight given to what reliable sources have used, if that can be definitively determined). Google results often don't mean a lot, but compare "LGBT+ community" to "LGBT community": the latter has more than 16 times as many hits, which is way more than can be accounted for by any search-specific anomaly I can think of. Having recently participated in a seemingly never-ending discussion about a different title, I'm well persuaded at this point that satisfying everyone shouldn't even be attempted. Pick a title that reflects common usage, make sure it's not misleading in any significant way, and stick with it. I think that's what we've got now. While the four letters of LGBT may not account for every permutation of sexual orientation and gender identity that an individual might identify with, it's unlikely to mislead anyone as to what the article is about. If it's a subtle form of erasure, well, we need to wait until that sinks in for enough people that something else becomes the most common term. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 22:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the argument made by Rivertorch that we should stick to the most commonly recognized name, which would be LGBT. Definitely opposed to renaming just to Queer for the reasons others have said.AnaSoc (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Asexuality

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

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

NPOVN on Trans woman Lede text

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

Cotton ceiling

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

@-sche: This is not a notable topic and wouldn't not stand up to a proper Afd. Not a single one of the link clutter on that article is an RS. This is a blog-created neologism which caused a brief kerfuffle when other blogs reacted, and nothing since. I've been biding my time to ensure that it is truly stale and dead before nominating it. Mathglot (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem like most of the sources (both those that were in the entry before recent edits, and those recently added) only mention it in passing, and many or most are not reliable sources either, being self-published or otherwise not RS. I made a cursory check for high-quality academic references directly about the topic and didn't spot any. I am fine with waiting until current edits die back down (to see if they manage to add anything useful and not just POV) before an AFD. -sche (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Dick Leitsch

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

Pride Flags

Hi I have seen quite a few articles recently that have had pride flags added with no sources to show these are widely used for that particular community. Is there any standard pratice for the addition of these flags? Some of the flags come from this source [1]. Pages that have had these poorly sourced flags include Fat fetishism Bear (gay culture) and Drag queen. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bear flag is well-established, and the reference for it in the article is something other than an archive of the website you linked -- more references could easily be found if thought necessary, I suppose. A quick search brings up:

Bear merchandise takes many forms and is easily available on the Internet and at bear runs. To mention just a few options, there are hats, clothing, and various manifestations of the bear flag, which displays a bear paw print and colors that represent both fur colors and diverse nationalities.
— Mann, Jeff (2010). "Bear Culture 101 (no prerequisite)". The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide. 17 (5): 24.

In 1995 The International Bear Brotherhood flag was trademarked and marketed. This design is not dissimilar from the Leather Flag. The colors represent all the fur colors and nationalities of Bears throughout the world (instead of a bruise) and the heart is replaced with a paw. What is unique about this design is the marketing of it. It has found its way onto tee shirts, bumper stickers, baseball caps, watches, stained glass, quilts, floor rugs, license plates, luggage tags, buttoons and pins.
— Kampf, Ray, ed. (2000). The Bear Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide for Those Who Are Husky, Hairy, and Homosexual and Those Who Love 'Em. New York: Harrington Park. p. 16.

Then and now, tattoos continue to be significant markers of masculinity in these gay subcultures, and not coincidentally, the use of distinctive flags as decorations, apparel, and icons used in group rituals by these subcultures has flourished. I am thinking here specifically of the Leather Pride flag, first displayed on 28 May 1989; the original Bear Flag, designed in 1992; and the International Bear Brotherhood Flag, designed in 1995; and all their variants.
— Guenter, Scot M. (2009). "Flag Tattoos: Markers of Class and Sexuality" (PDF). Proceedings, The XIX International Congress of Vexillology, York, 23-27 July 2001. London: The Flag Institute. p. 209.

The other two you mention I'd agree that they need more reliable sources that (a) there is a notable "pride" movement or community or culture or something for that particular group, (b) that that is a notable, and the predominantly-used flag for said pride movement/community/culture/etc. And at best they should probably be in a section about iconography or the community or something like that and discussed as a proposed flag instead of being in the lead. Umimmak (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. This is not an area where I have any real expertise or knowledge, I did see the pride flag on one of the photos of the Bear page so I imagined that it would be appropriate but as I'd seen these pride flags come up a couple of times and couldn't find anything on the project page about how to deal with them I though it best to ask. cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 June 26#Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 June 26#Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage. - Mr X 🖋 14:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

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

As a reminder for any articles you write or edit related to Pride 2018, please tag them with {{Wiki Loves Pride 2018}} on the Talk page so they will show up and be tracked on our results page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Pride/2018/Results -- this helps to show our community contribution to Wikipedia. --- FULBERT (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Taking photos at Pride and want to upload to Commons? Check out the Wiki Loves Pride Photo Campaign where you can upload and tag all in one place! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Campaign:WikiLovesPride Happy Pride! --- FULBERT (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Birth names guideline

There is a discussion regarding the guidelines on the inclusion of birth names of trans individuals in lead sentences at WP:VPP#Guidelines regarding birth names of trans individuals.--Trystan (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussions on gender neutral language

Are taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)‎. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Doran George

Does he pass GNG? See this for example. But it does not look like he was a tenured professor, just an instructor with a PhD.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Unlikely to pass WP:PROF, and an unusual death is not enough for GNG. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

NEED HELP!!! appealling a speedy deletion of a page that this group created

Hello,

I am a novice here but I feel that this page was deleted for "weak reasons. "Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This High School Has Closets"

I appealed to the editor who deleted it and he felt no discussion came about in support as his sole reason for deleting the page. Please keep in mind that this page came about because LGBT studies editors reviewed "page requests" and felt this was of merit to the LGBT community to create. So, this group created this page. It has important historical value to the LGBT community for the following reasons: 1) It references a landmark decision by the Canadian Supreme Court to allow same sex couples to bring their partners to the prom. 2) The book prompted the Canadian Library Association to review their LGBT policy

I also felt that the editor who deleted it ignored the fact that another editor told him the page was written within the "neutral" manner as it followed wiki guidelines.

I did not write the wikipage nor am I the author.

I am asking for your help in appealing this bad decision.

Furthermore, when I went to reddit. I went to the wikipedia page and asked for advice on how to appeal this decision. I got a nasty reply from a "TPARIS" upon review, his site seem to skew very "pro heterosexual" marriage. He went on to post to my appeal to the editor that he would delete the page too. So, there seems to be some vindictive bias in his post.

Thank you in advance Tews~enwiki (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Tews~enwiki. Unfortunately, the book does not appear to meet our inclusion guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:BOOKCRIT).←click on the links an read them

Unless you can find some reliable sources that have covered the book in some detail, an encyclopedia article is simply not warranted. Reddit is a terrible place to try to get advice about Wikipedia, as you have no doubt found.- Mr X 🖋 16:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: They actually got great advice on reddit from yours truly. Unfortunately, they only seem to hear what they want to hear and get angry if they hear anything different. And I have no idea where he gets an idea that I do anything "pro heterosexual marriage". I moderate a pro-marriage equality subreddit; so that seems to fly in the face of his accusation.--v/r - T P 19:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

So, let me understand Mr X Your group created this page, you found out it didn't meet some criteria and therefore you won't fix it? Furthermore was the criteria the same when the page went up versus changes to the present criteria. Your reply doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tews~enwiki (talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

That’s the nature of editing by consensus. If someone thinks an article would be a good idea, but ultimately it turns out that there aren’t enough sources to support it, it will get deleted. It works better, on the whole, than making it very difficult to create articles.--Trystan (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "my group" (I don't have a group). The article was deleted because the book is simply not important enough for an encyclopedia. The guidelines have existed almost a long a Wikipedia.- Mr X 🖋 16:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

LGBT Action Plan

Is anyone (perhaps User:Fæ?) interested in creating LGBT Action Plan please? There are plenty of RS online. This could end up on the main page (at least the banning of conversion therapy might).Zigzig20s (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Two AFDs of interest

Please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rua Farme de Amoedo and/or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frei Caneca Street. --Doncram (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

HELP WANTED

For a number of years we have been experiencing a steady decline in the number of administrators as a result of attrition and a declining number of editors willing to consider adminship. Things have reached a point where we are starting to experience chronic backlogs in important areas of the project including noticeboards, requests for closure, SPI, CSD & etc. If you are an experienced editor with around two years (or more) of tenure, 10k edits give or take and no record of seriously disruptive behavior, please consider if you might be willing to help out the community by becoming an administrator. The community can only function as well as we all are willing to participate. If you are interested start by reading WP:MOP and WP:RFAADVICE. Then go to WP:ORCP and open a discussion. Over the next few days experienced editors will take a look at your record and let you know what they think your chances are of passing RfA (the three most terrifying letters on Wikipedia) as well as provide you with feedback on areas that might be of concern and how to prepare yourself. Lastly you can find a list of experienced editors who may be willing to nominate you here. Thank you and happy editing... [Note:This page may not be on my watchlist so if you want to reply to me, please either ping me or drop me a line on my talk page.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Katharine Coman article nominated for GA status

I have been working on the Katharine Coman article for a couple of weeks, and today nominated it for GA status. If you are interested, please drop by to check it out.AnaSoc (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Hubert Lenoir

I'm of two minds about a source, and wanted to solicit some outside input. My question pertains to this source regarding Canadian musician Hubert Lenoir, specifically the part about two-thirds of the way down the page, where the subject of his sexual identity comes up: "This is a touchy subject, 'cause I don't want to put out the queer flag; I don't know if I define myself as bisexual or queer, because I don't like labels." I'm torn, however, between whether this supports identifying him as LGBTQ and just avoiding pinning him down to a more specific label, or whether it's still too ambiguous to support LGBTQ-related categorization at all — is he saying he's in the LGBTQ family and just doesn't identify with a specific identity label within that, or is he saying he still doesn't know if he's in the LGBTQ family at all? So I wanted to ask for some other opinions either way. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

If there is a need to include coverage of their sexuality, then at most we should quote what they said, rather than try to interpret their discomfort with certain categories as meaning that they belong in some category. However, if we're not having other sources discussing their sexuality, I'm not sure the sexuality datum rises to the level that it need be covered. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

LGBTQ+ Scientists

Hello! I would love to make a WikiProject to upload more LGBTQ+ scientists and engineers to Wikipedia. There are similar projects for other underrepresented groups (women in science, African-Americans in science...) and I often use them as inspiration for wikithons. If anyone is interested in joining me, that would be great! It is my first project. Jesswade88 (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Angela Bowen

Hello. I've just created Angela Bowen. You may or may not want to expand it. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Straightwashing

User:Flyer22 Reborn: References 1 to 5 should be merged as they are the same.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused about the categories... it's not slang, per se, as one can find it in academic discourse. Is there a ref specifically calling it "slang"? Also have any sources directly tied it into appropriation? Does that need to be spelled out directly in the article before the category is applied. I did some general fixes, though. Umimmak (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

ContraPoints AfD

An article about the trans YouTuber ContraPoints has been nominated for deletion here. I thought this would be of interest to this WikiProject. I did create the article, and I believe her channel is notable, but I am looking for your honest opinions. Please consider making your voice heard over there. Thanks.--MattMauler (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture started

Hi there, an RfC has been started at Talk:Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture #RfC on including sentence with offensive nicknames that may be of interest to those in this project. Thank you. Amsgearing (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Tom Gallagher (diplomat)

I have created Tom Gallagher (diplomat). You may or may not want to expand it.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of birth/dead names

I'm not too versed in writing many things within the scope of LGBT Studies, or rather trans people within the scope of LGBT studies. I'm just wondering about the inclusion of a trans persons birth name if it's been widely included in articles and a book about the subject. For Nicole Maines, her birth name is known as its included in a number of articles about her as well as the book written about her and her family. Just wondering since people have been adding it and I just want to know whether to revert or not or if it's okay. QueerFilmNerd^talk 20:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There's not a lot of guidance on this issue. We have MOS:DEADNAME which says to only use the deadname in the first sentence if the person was notable under that name but doesn't address mentioning it anywhere later in the text. I think the general practice if it's well-sourced is to include it in the "Early life" section. Since the Nicole Maines article is nothing but a lead, it might be best to leave it out for the moment. -- irn (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I'm just wondering since I want to fix the article up. Should I leave it out of the infobox? Because it's mentioned in there right now? And if we keep it in do I move it to "born as..."? QueerFilmNerd^talk 21:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Since there are no policies or guidelines on the matter, I can't really tell you what you should do. I can only give you my advice as a fellow editor. (I personally tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs, but I also tend to defer to the subject.) This is a very contentious issue that comes up a lot. If you're interested, you can take a look at Talk:Danica_Roem#RFC for some discussion of a fairly reliably sourced deadname and how it was ultimately dealt with. Maybe it would be worthwhile for us to come up with some sort of an essay or something as a WikiProject? -- irn (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it possibly would be? Even though its discussed within the project MOS, I felt it a tad vague. Maybe elaborating more would help? As I'm sure it would help other editors who wish to not offend anyone write the wrong thing in. QueerFilmNerd^talk 22:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Having run into issues with MOS:DEADNAME, my impression is that it fails to be sufficiently respectful for the preferences of the subject. There is no clear reason why a dead name needs to be highlighted in the first few words of the lead paragraph in bold text, especially if the subject is better known in terms of notability, under their current identity. For trans, genderqueer and others, I would much rather see the guidelines refined to put respect first and without compromising the encyclopaedic value of the article, have dead names not highlighted in bold, or deemphasised by being placed later in the lead.

It should be noted that when people are Googled, the "thumbnail" version of Wikipedia that is used, actually drops all deadnames as they are in brackets. This seems more respectful than Wikipedia itself. Try it out with Chelsea Manning. --Fæ (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Language in an article that discussed someone who identifies as non-binary

I'll admit I made a bit of a mess of this because I hadn't realised she identified as non-binary, but the article on the Columbia University rape controversy is continually having problems. See me jumping in ignorantly at Talk:Columbia University rape controversy#What's this nonsense about " (Their pronouns. They go by they/them instead of she/her) ". Almost every day someone's changing the terminology, so if anyone has a solution to keep it stable I'm sure it would be welcome. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should state that the person is non-binary. With regards to pronouns, he and she don't work as the person is not male and not female. They doesn't work because it is used when the gender is unknown. In my opinion, we should restrict ourselves only to use the person's last name. wumbolo ^^^ 17:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there a style guide somewhere stating that they/their is only used when gender is unknown? Lots of nonbinary or genderqueer folks have adopted they/them pronouns. Newimpartial (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely not the case that "they/their" is only used when the gender is simply unknown — singular-they is quite commonly used by non-binary people, and has already been used in a considerable number of BLPs of notable non-binary people on Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It would benefit the encyclopaedia if there were some examples of genderqueer BLPs where the correct pronoun use was established outside of the above norms. I have yet to read an article for someone where their expressed preference excluded binary pronouns or the use of singular they. I would very much like to talk to a specific case, then help to propose extensions to MOS or TRANS rather than attempt to set guidelines based on hypotheticals.

That "lots" of nonbinary and genderqueer people are okay with the use of singular they, does not make it okay for us to presume that nobody else would find themselves being described with these pronouns as misgendering. --Fæ (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Pronouns

So, I just have a question about what pronoun to use for a non-binary person who has no preferred pronoun. Actor Bex Taylor-Klaus came out recently as NB, but has stated that she has no preferred pronoun (as long as its said with respect). There's no agreement on the pronoun that should be used, do we stick with she/her, or, as some people are doing, use they/them. Just wondering! QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

As the statement is that they identify as enby, and they have no firm preference, it would be consistent to use singular they as a pronoun. This may be something to open for discussion on the talk page before making changes across the article. Others may be aware of further statements about their latest preferences. --Fæ (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I'll definitely open a discussion up so we can get a consensus and maybe a page notice to use they/them on the page in the future (as not everyone might know). I'll leave it as it is right now, but will open a discussion. QueerFilmNerd^talk 21:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Lige Clarke

Lige Clarke is in need of a major clean-up. I will try to retrieve sources on Newspapers.com, but feel free to help if you can. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I've trimmed a lot and referenced most of it. Let me know if you can find more sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Lost Gay Novels

I started the article Lost Gay Novels on Saturday. It's almost eligible for DYK, and I think very interesting. I'm out of town and can only edit on my phone, but if someone wants to give the article a look-over, expand by at least one sentence, and nominate it, I would be grateful and would be happy to return the favor. = paul2520 (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

While on this note, I wasn't sure if the list of 50 could be included in the article. That would be a quick way to expand it to be eligible for DYK (not the list itself, but prose explaining the list). = paul2520 (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I think our readers would want to know. I certainly would.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Having said that, the list may be copyrighted?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Paul2520: What you could (should?) do is create a referenced stub about each novel... Please ping me if you need help with this. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Totally. Some already exist. Then we could link and/or make a category. = paul2520 (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Jason Greene (Freckle)

The newly-created article Jason Greene (Freckle) is about a person who almost certainly meets the notability guidelines, but basically everything else about the article is problematic. The disambiguation isn't standard, the article is promotional, and there's a lot of focus on trivial details. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sally Oey

I need a second opinion about this. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: the other link I could find on this group is this. To me, it's interesting, and we could mention that Sally self-identifies as LGBTQ, but it's difficult since it seems this list can be updated by anyone. = paul2520 (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I have trouble with that list as a reliable source, because it looks like anyone can submit a form. And I would want more sign that shows there is some import or notability to the list to say that being on that list is important. (Which is a different question from whether being LGBTQ is an important factor... but the fact that we cannot state which of those letters she is claimed to be by being on the list makes it a weak claim anyway.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration Nominations

I am nominating Nicole Maines and Doe v. Regional School Unit 26 These are two start/stub class articles on very important trans topics. The articles need serious help to improve them. 91.110.126.179 (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria in children

WikiProject Medicine is having a talk about Gender dysphoria in children at

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Psychiatry:_Gender_dysphoria_in_children_article

and others are discussing at that article's talk page. I am posting here because I thought the conversation might be of interest to people at this project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

GayToday.com

GayToday.com is not an RS, is it?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Being a reliable source is rarely a yes or no situation. Publications are reliable in their field of expertise.

This particular publication has markers of being lower quality even in its own field. On their "about" page they fail to name an editor or an editorial board. Writers do not get by-lines and seem to not have their own named media presence. The publication seems to recycle journalism which originates elsewhere. GayToday.com is non-notable.

I do not object to anyone citing the publication but my guess is that citations to GayToday would be better directed to the publication of the original journalist who had the scoop. Lots of papers are like this and the general principle of finding the original story applies. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Nicole Maines

Looking for a second (or third, or forth...) set of eyes over at Nicole's talk page over the inclusion of the word "activist" in her LEDE. QueerFilmNerd^talk 23:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Trans woman

There is an ongoing discussion about how to define trans women in the lede for the article trans woman. This discussion can be found here Talk:Trans_woman#RfC_on_introduction. Posting about this here since the article likely falls under the interest and knowledge base of several editors that contribute to this wikiproject. Rab V (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)