Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 75

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77→Archive 79

Reggie Williams article reassessment

I made significant changes to the article on Reggie Williams (the AIDS activist, not the football player) and would like to request a reassessment. It's currently rated as Start class.Blsternsun (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Mother of Pride

Brenda Howard is referred to as the "Mother of Pride" in multiple articles, but the term was removed from the biography article by Duke9000 in August 2021 based on claims of citogenesis. That removal was objected to in June this year (by CyntWorkStuff, but a third editor (Stnwllr) agreed with the first and re-removed it. Given the presence in multiple other articles I think it would be useful to have a wider discussion here that leads to consistency.

I'm aware of this only because the redirect Mother of Pride has been nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Mother of Pride). I have not looked at the claims in detail or any of the evidence and have no opinion about whether the term should be mentioned or not. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Thryduulf. I'm confused why for a biography most of the article is a listing of recipients of The Brenda Howard Memorial Award? It seems if it's notable it should be split to its own article. It doesn't add anything to the understanding of the subject's life. --Kbabej (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@Kbabej I don't know, I haven't really looked at the article and haven't edited it. I'm just flagging the inconsistency for others to resolve one way or the other if they think it's something that needs resolving. Feel free to edit and discuss other things as normal, just don't expect me to have knowledge about them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@Thryduulf I've gone ahead and split the article, so now the Brenda Howard Memorial Award has its own article. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
The same term is used in relation to Howard in several articles and books. Citogenesis or not, it has become a description. See The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies, doi:10.1177/26318318211038118, Gale A496084659. No opinion on the redirect, but probably should be in the article. Urve (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal regarding article on transgender genocide

information Note: a proposal to merge the new Transgender genocide article to Violence against LGBT people has been opened here. Please feel free to comment in that discussion. Whether moved or not, improvements to the transgender genocide content would be welcome. See discussion for sources that could be used. cc: @Mhawk10 ProfGray (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Fix or delete the Feminine Essence Concept page?

For a long time, the feminine essence concept of transsexuality page has been a real bugbear to me. To quote myself from a past talk page:

[This page is] part of a myth perpetuated by Blanchard and Bailey that one must either believe their (actually quite marginal) theory or else in unscientific folk theories. This page is not about an actual thing that people believe (or at least, this page has no evidence for that at present); rather, it's about a strawman that Blanchard and Bailey have set up to defend their theory.

IMO the whole page is a WP:POVFORK of causes of transsexuality and ought to be deleted or merged into that article. At the very least it needs a lot of work to restore a WP:NPOV. Do other people here agree, and if so does anyone want to help with this? Loki (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Including importance in the wikiproject banner

Should {{WikiProject LGBT studies}} include an importance field, even if it is not used for biographies of living people?

Here are some prior discussions I've read about the idea: 1 2 3 4 5 6

To summarise my understanding of the main points against the idea discussed previously: It might not be useful for all editors, it would be a lot of work to do all the assessment, and it's a subjective process especially around biographies of living people which can sometimes lead to conflict.

The main reason I'm putting this idea forward (again) is because I think a couple of important considerations were not made previously. First, I agree there is some contentious aspect to ranking BLPs - and I imagine it's possible to make template code that omits the "importance: ???" section of the banner if it's on a BLP page by looking at if it's in a BLP category. Second, it is useful to some people, and it doesn't need to be used by all editors to be a net positive. Third, I think this wikiproject includes both BLPs and topical areas of a social science, and I am pretty sure all the other social science wikiprojects have an importance scale (eg. psychology, economics, sociology). Fourth, I think the core topics page is functionally identical, albeit much less visible, version of the importance scale.

One of the uses of the importance rating is to prioritise editing articles with higher encyclopedic merit. There are a handful of ways to filter priority in article searches which can be used to prioritise work, and one approach that I've liked is filtering by importance with CleanupWorklistBot. It's my opinion that having more metadata enables more efficient editing, irrespective of the workload assessment imposes (which I honestly think is rather low and entirely optional). Lastly, although the importance assessment process is subjective, I'll mention that in my experience the for vast majority of articles it is uncontroversial and because of this I consider it a net positive change.

Thank you for any input on this Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't oppose the addition of an importance parameter, but we should be wary of spending too much effort on classifying how poor quality our articles are when we could instead be spending effort on improving articles. CleanupWorklistBot is predicated on a lot of energy going into adding maintenance categories and WikiProjects and importance ratings, but this hits a diminishing returns if the bot is not actually widely used to improve content. — Bilorv (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
There is already a page called Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Core topics. Anything else is a high-to-low priority topic. (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Would it be possible for us to use the importance field for a limited number of articles, and leave it blank for the rest? I can see the value in brining some automated reporting to the list of articles at WP:LGBT/Core, such as by allowing them to be sorted to the top of the cleanup list. If we have consensus within the project that a certain set of articles are of core relevance to our mandate, it could help editors identify which of those articles need work. (Though our list of core articles would need discussion and refinement first. And it has existed in some form for years, without attracting a flurry of work for the articles it lists.)
I would oppose going through and categorizing the importance of all 22k articles. Even if an editor were willing to take that on, it would lead to disputes that would spill over into the project generally. And I don't think anyone will care whether someone else has categorized an article as "low" or "mid" importance; they will edit what interests them. Agreement on 120 articles of core relevance would be hard enough to achieve.--Trystan (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Help requested for Wiki99 concept - I have been developing a concept of subject matter specific Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2 (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles for context) and calling it "Wiki99", for 99 important topics. Trystan as you say, agreement on such a number of core articles would be hard to achieve, but when leaving English Wikipedia and going into Meta-wiki to coordinate multilingual development of LGBT+ content, somehow with meta:Wikimedia LGBT+ we have to give recommendations to regional and international activist groups about what concepts in LGBT+ studies are priority for global development and translation. Like for example, if there were LGBT+ centers in New York City, Mumbai, Beijing, São Paulo, and Tehran, and somehow they all wanted general reference info on LGBT+ topics, what should they prioritize? See the list in development at meta:Wiki99/LGBT+.
If we could actually come to agreement about a limited set of important articles, then I think we could really make a serious drive to improve them and translate them into every language. That might be a way to improve global LGBT+ cultural exchange. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Advice for new editor: LGBT rights in Maldives and others

Hope it is okay to ask here, was not sure where to post. I stumbled on what seemed a strange edit [1] in the LGBT in Islam page. In looking over the editor's log after, thought I made a mistake, as that person has edited a lot in LGBT pages for a long time. Some other [2] changes are strange to me too. Could someone else look, and if I have done the wrong thing put them back the way they were. I don't think those things are right, though. Also, LGBT rights in Bhutan LGBT rights in Hong Kong. If good, I apologize. 203.0.31.200 (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)‎

I'm lost. I tried to read some policy, and I think I did the right thing in edits. My changes on a couple were undone though. I dunno now. Don't want to do the wrong thing, and what do I know, anyway? but some of the those things put in by 1 or 2 people look strange. Is anyone able to tell me if I did it wrong or if I can put it back again. This place is complicated. Left a message on the Maldives talk page, and will put one on the also reverted LGBT rights in Mongolia, but I'm not sure if that is the right place, even. 203.0.31.200 (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Sally Ride

I have Sally Ride up for FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sally Ride/archive1. She was the third woman to fly in space, and the first LGBT one. Reviewers welcome. It would be to seen some new reviewers. Or old ones. Or anybody at all actually. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Notification re: trans/LGBTQ+ image galleries

I have opened up a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images regarding LGBTQ+ image galleries (prompted by a particular edit of mine on the trans woman page). As this discussion is of importance to this Wikiproject, I thought I'd leave a notification here. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

AfD for new article Female (gender)

[This deletion discussion] concerning a new article contains argumentation that might be of interest to those interested in LGBT studies. Newimpartial (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section of the Respect for Marriage Act article

There is currently an RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section at Talk:Respect for Marriage Act#RfC concerning polygamy.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Respect for Marriage Act, polygamy, & WP:AN

There is currently a discussion which you might want to participate in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information, which especially concerns the Respect for Marriage Act and articles relating to it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Working list?

Hello, I was wondering if this WikiProject has a working list (or a to-do list)? I came across Bois Frederic Burk [Wikidata] (1906–1993), while looking closer at his notable father (Frederic Lister Burk, the founding former President of SFSU). Bois Burk has an archive at the GLBT Historical Society[1] and I did not see any Wikipedia article yet. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Bois Burk papers". oac.cdlib.org. Retrieved 2022-08-01.

Help (or advice) wanted on contentious LGBT edits

...even if it's just to tell me I'm wrong.

There's a long, tedious wrangle over sources and inserting things like "vigilante executions, vigilante attacks, torture, beatings, forced anal exams" into infoboxes at, among many others, LGBT rights in United Arab Emirates. A new twist from the editor I have been at odds with is to put laws and cases relating to sex crimes and child abuse into these pages. I find this frightening.

Perhaps I have not always handled it in the best way, so I might be partly to blame for the conflict, but things just keep getting worse. The articles are being slowly but surely degraded in quality by this editor, who is persistent and highly focused on adding their favourite themes of "torture" etc, however tenuous their sources. I think in a previous life, it has been ongoing at UAE since 2019, and elsewhere even earlier.

I only want the articles to be accurate, or near-accurate. Wild tangents and synth and now sexual abuse brought into mix? I think I'm done, now that I have been accused of falsifying quotes, and I might have come dangerously close to edit-warring. I do not want to cross that line. I am tired. Is anyone here interested in taking a look? I hope so for the sake of these articles; but I'll bow out and close my eyes to whatever mess continues if more eyes aren't on the case. Thanks and good luck. AukusRuckus (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Three pages that would benefit from a watch

Have just added three pages to the People watchlist that regularly have gay content removed by an editor who calls themselves 'William Oxford Orwigg'. The articles are John Hays Hammond Jr., A. Piatt Andrew , and Henry Davis Sleeper. MisterWizzy (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Henry Davis Sleeper

Your input is appreciated here. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft submission for a queer poet

I created Draft:Aditya Tiwari please see if you can contribute to this topic and help for its approval. Plushwiki21 (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The topic Draft:Aditya Tiwari is being held from inclusion due to homophobia. A user named "AngusWoof" keeps rejecting the draft, when changes were made by other Wikipedia users. Plushwiki21 (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Plushwiki21: are you personally accusing @AngusWOOF of homophobia, after they've explained quite clearly that the subject failed WP:GNG, the article was deleted, and the situation hasn't changed? Elizium23 (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@Plushwiki21, in looking at the draft, I can see why it was rejected via AfC. The sourcing isn’t the best I’ve ever seen, and the subject has very few articles solely about them or their work. Facebook should not be used as a source on a BLP. See WP:RSP. And there’s the issue of the podcast; while the BLP talks about the podcast, it never says the name (or perhaps I’m missing it).
The point is, it’s not a “slam dunk”, and to accuse an editor of homophobia because they haven’t accepted it is, in itself, not acceptable behavior on WP. What has the editor done besides not accepting the article to warrant that accusation? If that’s all there is, I would strike your comments, apologize, AGF, and try to work collaboratively on creating an acceptable article, because you will not get far on WP hurling unwarranted accusations. —Kbabej (talk)| Kbabej (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
By the way, I declined the draft, not rejected it. I also worked on the previous version of the article subject when it was tendentiously resubmitted and then placed in mainspace briefly before it was AFD'ed and deleted in 2021. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF, can the title be salted? It was deleted twice in 2021 (Aug & Feb), then resubmitted to AfC with accusations of homophobia when it wasn't accepted carte blanche. Seems like some very determined editors for a NN BLP. --Kbabej (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Kbabej, are you asking that the draft spot be salted or the mainspace one? Has there been abuse of either spot? I know there used to be a number of usernames for Aditya Tiwari that were blocked prior to 2021 but Plushwiki21 wasn't associated with those. Plushwiki21 was indeed involved in the August 2021 draft, but the August 2022 version is different from that as it includes a few lines of activity since 2021. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking mainspace, in case an SPA/IP/etc. moves a yet another new draft over. But perhaps not needed. Just thinking out loud! —Kbabej (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The first transgender broadcast journalist from Kerala, India

Hello, I've created a draft about Heidi Saadiya, the first transgender broadcast journalist from Kerala, India. kindly help me to expand? Imperfect Boy (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Controversies section on Eli Erlick

Discussion on Eli Erlick (a trans BLP) could use more eyeballs. Funcrunch (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC on Holly Woodlawn

There is currently an RFC on whether Holly Woodlawn's deadname should be used in her article at Talk:Holly_Woodlawn#Request_for_comment. Rab V (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Potential Article: "Transvestigator" Conspiracy Theories

I'd like to get some feedback on this. If it's problematic or otherwise not noteworthy, I won't pursue it.

There's a bizarre group of conspiracy theorists derisively called "Transvestigators" who illustrate and propagate a strange kind of transphobia and gender essentialism, to the point where some believe that nearly every famous person is an "EGI" or "Elite Gender Invert." The most notable instance of this conspiracy theory is the belief that Michelle Obama is a transgender woman. That one in particular is a sickening example of how transphobia and gender essentialism can interact with racism and sexism. The investigative journalism podcast QAnon Anonymous recently did a bonus episode exploring the landscape of these particular conspiracy theorists.

Is it in the purview of Wikipedia to cover, debunk, and explain the dimensions of phobia and bigotry involved in this family of conspiracy theories? --Gebble (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I've seen people laughing at them on Twitter. At one point one of them was trying to claim that Marilyn Monroe was trans as evidenced by her "male spine". It's a complete clown show and I'm not sure that it is suitable for an article. We don't want to give them the attention that they so obviously crave. Have a look for significant coverage in reliable sources. If you can find anything, particularly anything academic, then maybe it has a chance but I'm very doubtful. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I can only find one source online that would be appropriate, which is from MEL Magazine. Other than that, it really hasn't made it into even LGBTQ press yet. If it gets RS sigcov in the future, could be an interesting article. But I don't think the topic meets notability requirements just yet. --Kbabej (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both for your thoughts! With queerphobia on the rise in the US I fear this trend will become more popular. But for now I will set a google alert and quarantine it to my "cursed content" feed.

We don't want to give them the attention that they so obviously crave.

Yes, this is my biggest concern as well. As Daniel noticed, I'm a new contributor, so thank you for your guidance on what constitutes notability.
Re: the spotlight issue I wonder if you could recommend any articles or policies that address how the community balances notability and the desire to keep certain trends of queerphobia subterranean? Is it strictly determined by the amount of significant coverage from reliable sources?
Finally, is there an extant list of LGBTQ press that are considered reliable sources by the project? Gebble (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@Gebble: we treat LGBT topics no different intrinsically to any other topic. If something is notable then it is notable; however, in articles about "fringe theories" (including outright nonsense), we must make clear what is either the mainstream view or the factual reality (depending on just how fringe it is).
In QAnon, we say QAnon ... is an American political conspiracy theory ... QAnon centers on false claims. In Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, we start off with After Joe Biden won the 2020 United States presidential election (presupposing that Trump and supporters were wrong). In Irreversible Damage, we say that "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution and is not backed by credible scientific evidence.
It should be self-evident that no source giving any credence to the claims of "transvestigators" is reliable; thus, it's either notable and can have an article that makes the truth of the matter clear, or it's not notable and would be undue weight in any article where the subject is factual e.g. transgender. But if it's correlated with other conspiracies like QAnon then it possibly could be mentioned there. — Bilorv (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed with @Bilorv's thoughts. A list of commonly-used sources is available at WP:RSP, where a couple LGBTQ+ sources are discussed and categorized, such as PinkNews (generally reliable) and Pride.com (no consensus). --Kbabej (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Manchester Pride article

As much as I will be looking forward to it soon, the Manchester Pride article is looking decidedly promotional - and seems to have done for a while now. If anyone in this WikiProject can help improve this article, it would be much appreciated. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

Talk:Sex and gender distinction Sharouser (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Patrick Starrr

New bio for gay make-up artist, influencer, and entrepreneur Patrick Starrr. Improvements welcome! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC on first sentence of Trans woman

Comments would be appreciated at Talk:Trans woman § RfC on first sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Ty Mitchell article

Ty Mitchell

This deletion of a gay porn star and writer has been relisted twice. I would have favoured deletion of this article until I read the deletion discussion, but would encourage members of this WikiProject to give it the once-over and contribute. QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Relevant thread at the BLP noticeboard

There's an LGBT-related BLP question at the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tobin Heath/Christen Press. Would be good to get the involvement of some members of this WikiProject about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

LGBT grooming conspiracy theory potential title change

Talk:LGBT grooming conspiracy theory/Archive 1#Potentially moving the title of the page X-Editor (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gold star (slang)#Requested move 10 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gold star (slang)#Requested move 10 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Rodrigo Lehtinen

Should we use he or she? Doug Weller talk 17:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Given that the subject is a man, that'd be "he", unless the subject has otherwise requested. Please just revert anyone who changes this without explanation. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  17:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
@Maddy from Celeste thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

LGBT+ Olympians list

Hello all! I haven't been able to put much time into WP lately, but what I have has been put into spending a few months splitting out and "completing" (as much as possible) the List of LGBT Olympians. I hope to now also add substantial info to, and clean-up, the LGBT issues at the Olympic and Paralympic Games article that I split the list from, which I've started - prose lists aren't really articles, but I'm hoping we'll end up with a quality list and article out of what it was.
So I'm here to ask a favour. Or, well, two, having just seen a BLP noticeboard discussion mentioned above.

  • First, some introductory prose at the List of LGBT Olympians, and the whole template at Template:LGBT Olympians overview, are based on the information; since it's all sourced (though, see request 2), basing the text on the lists should be fine under WP:CALC. That aspect of policy does say that simple addition and converting units (which is all that is being used) should be easily permissible, with more complex calculations being allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is correct. Given the larger numbers (up to hundreds) and overlapping datasets involved, though, I would like to request that if anyone has some time, if they could check my sums are correct!
    Also, there could be more discussion on including number (and %age) of medalists - previous discussions and what was in the lead of the previous article have me include them (as well as to use a reduced figure to calculate %age since two medals are from a demonstration event), but if anyone is interested, I'd encourage this to be discussed anew.
  • Second, the list includes Tobin Heath and Christen Press, which I see above has been discussed. When I noticed last week that the original list didn't include some quite prominently out footballers, I wondered if the gaps were bigger and went to dig up a list of LGBT+ footballers and cross-check with who was in the Olympics, and added several that had outside sources. Sometimes these sources were just social media posts, but those have long been accepted for other relationships (including other people on the list who had been already included before I got involved). But the source for Heath and Press was this - a prominent gay lifestyle website that doesn't out people, with the article even saying through endless hope and demands and speculation, Tobin Heath and Christen Press got together, stayed together, came out individually in their own time, and then stepped out together — pinky-in-pinky! — on the ESPYS red carpet. Without going back to the old discussion mentioned above, which seems to have closed thinking that there was nothing but conjecture (idk), what I'm asking for in this second part is if someone has the time, they could comb the list for anyone that might not be as "out" as BLP would like. I did make sure there were sources for everyone listed, and didn't take tabloids as sources, so it should be fine, but it's obviously a subject to tread the line on.

Kingsif (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

More transgender symbols

Hi. I noticed we had a symbol for 'trans-female lesbian', but not for any other combinations, so I created others. I don't know if anyone would want such symbols [e.g. for user boxes], but if anyone does, they're listed at LGBT symbols#Simple_icons. — kwami (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Are symbols like File:Transgender lesbian symbol.svg attested to anywhere? They're not in the copy I could find of the (very weird) McElroy book. Urve (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this gallery needs good sourcing, due to the prevalence of individuals creating their own symbols to represent their identity. This type of section is prone to accumulating clutter. @Kwamikagami: if you just created these symbols yourself, whether the logical extension of other symbols there or an innovation of your own, they're not appropriate for the article. They can stay on Wikimedia Commons and, as you say, be used in userboxes if people like them. — Bilorv (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I extended from the one I did find. I'll remove them. — kwami (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
(Just to be clear, the transgender lesbian symbol [or at least its PNG antecedent] was already being used on WP. I created the rest of the set based on that example. My file was based on the PNG, which was created by user @Adarkhairedone: in 2013. She indeed says, "This is a symbol I created to represent transgender lesbians as well as cisgender lesbians who are in relationship with transgender lesbians." I'd be interested if there is a wider convention (pinging Adarkhairedone), but I have no evidence of that myself. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposals

I have been reviewing WP:LGBT/Alerts to identify and clean up stale proposals. There are a couple of merge proposals that have been around for over six months without being resolved:

Both of these could use additional participation, so that they could be closed. Trystan (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Reassessment of Pride flag

Currently pride flag is listed as a "Disambig-class" article, when I think it's clear that it isn't a disambiguation article, but an article in its own right. Would an editor mind reassessing the article? ~BappleBusiness[talk] 23:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Someone marked it as C-class now. Madeline (part of me) 06:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Cherry Valentine: Gypsy Queen and Proud

New stub: Cherry Valentine: Gypsy Queen and Proud. Improvements welcome! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Have federal LGBT protections been nullified by Texas law?

Input would be appreciated at Talk:LGBT rights in Texas/Archive 2#Fresh start to break something of a stalemate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Kiwi Farms

Of potential interest to this WikiProject: An RfC on including an external link to the Kiwi Farms website. Funcrunch (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Funded conversation series proposal

Wikimedia LGBT+ plans to request funding from the Wikimedia Foundation to organize a conversation series on major recurring social issues which arise in LGBT+ Wikimedia projects. See the proposal at

Sign support if you like. Comments and questions are welcome on the talk page here or there. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Andy Ngo has an RFC

Andy Ngo 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. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Advice on creating a page for an LGBTQ musician

Colleagues, I’m not an experienced Wikipedia editor but am interested in getting an article posted about Tom Wilson Weinberg, a well-known activist and composer of LGBT-themed music. He is currently well-referenced by others on Wikipedia but doesn’t have a page of his own. I looked to see if it was possible to add his name to the list of LGBT figures where profiles are being sought. However, the listing for musicians suggests they should be entered on "Music", a different topic list. That list has mostly classical composers and no section related to popular music, musicals, or cabaret music and it doesn’t appear to be LGBT-specific. I believe Tom easily meets the notability standards and am looking for advice about how to facilitate the creation of a page.

Thank you, John Johnmrri (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Johnmrri: Provided you don't have a connection to the subject, start writing it at Draft:Tom Wilson Weinberg and I'm sure people will check in on it. Kingsif (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
That's the issue. I do have a connection with the subject. I'm aware of the fact that it's a conflict of interest to write a "promotional" site on his behalf. But there's tons of documentary support for such a page (and many references to him from others' pages) so I'm looking to find some way to stimulate its creation without running afoul of that conflict of interest issue. I thought of suggesting that his name be added to the list of LGBTQ people who need pages written might be one route, but there is no "musicians" section for that list. Any other suggestions?
Thanks,
John Johnmrri (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@Johnmrri: In that case you can still create a draft through the WP:Articles for creation system, declaring the COI when you submit it for review. Kingsif (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@Johnmrri, if you create the draft, I will copy edit and make sure its formatted correctly before you submit for review. Just ping me if that's of interest! --Kbabej (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I’ve posted the draft page as far as I’ve gotten it, but definitely need some help and advice. Specifically:
· Certain of the supporting citations appeared in a huge font and I don’t see controls for font size to change that.
· Some of the citations currently say “Same as above”, etc. I’m not sure how Wikipedia notes the reuse of citations.
· There are a few citations that exist but haven’t been tracked down yet for their final details (e.g., review from an old newspaper that will require a trip to the archives, etc.).
· I’m not sure how or where I note that I do have a connection to the subject and a conflict of interest.
Thanks for help with those and any other advice you can offer to a novice!
Best,
John Johnmrri (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Johnmrri. Happy to help with those issues. Can you post the link to the draft? I don’t see it under your edit history. —Kbabej (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I think I didn't save it last time. I was afraid "publish" meant a finished product but now I've "published" the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tom_Wilson_Weinberg Johnmrri (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@Johnmrri: I fixed some of your formatting, but don't have the energy to review the content or address other issues right now (your references need to be put in-line for example). Hopefully Kbabej and/or others can help you out with that. Funcrunch (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Johnmrri, if you haven’t seen it already, Help:Introduction is a great guide to the Visual Editor (e.g., adding citations). Politanvm talk 23:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Dear Kbabej, I wondered if you have any suggestions now that the draft is posted? Thanks!
Johnmrri (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello. After reading this, I decided to try to assist in inlining the citations. I started, but I've realized I may be stepping on Johnmrri's toes, so I've stopped. My question is -- is editing someone else's draft a bad idea? I will revert my changes for now. Sorry about that. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
This is my very first Wikipedia entry and I have a connection to the subject of the article, so I don't think you're stepping on my toes. I tried to be objective and factual but need others to weigh in. I definitely needed help with the formatting and I am open to content editing, etc., as well... Johnmrri (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I'll make a few changes for formatting and citations. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Is Genspect Anti-trans? Request for comment

A while ago I started a thread on the Genspect talk page titled Anti-Trans revisited but it faltered, so I'm opening it up the community as an RFC and asking for people to discuss whether we should describe them as anti-trans in the lead as it's been a repeated source of contention in the page. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Integrity USA

Hello, could we please get some eyes on Integrity USA, which I've been trying to get to a WP:NPOV since May. If you check the edit history, there was a recent unhelpful page move, and many other edits that have moved it from an excessively "for" POV to one excessively "against". I'd never heard of the group till I ran across the article while doing template cleanup. Hope my edits there show I'm just trying to get the article onto a more even keel. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Storchy (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality#Requested move 17 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality#Requested move 17 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 18:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Napoleon Jinnies

Napoleon Jinnies @ AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Napoleon Jinnies

---Another Believer (Talk) 01:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Islamic sexual jurisprudence, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

New project article?

Should 2022 Bratislava shooting be added to the project? Matroxko (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes Dronebogus (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria has an RFC

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for whether to describe ROGD as pseudoscientific in the lead. 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. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment

I would be grateful for views from editors on this request for comment: "Listing of wrestlers who self identify as non-binary". McPhail (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Max (given name)

A while ago I edited the article for the given name Max, which wrongly claims Max to be a masculine name. Max is short for a variety of names, including Maxine, which is a feminine given name. Max is also a name used by many non-binary people. I found several sources for Max being short for Maxine, popularity of the name Maxine in the 20th cantury, and Max as a given name for female babies, but another user reverted my edits, and used derogatory language and ultimately threatened to sanction me for "edit warring". I feel I provided enough sources and resources to edit the article, but I am honestly exhausted and scared to continue. This was my first, and probably last time engaging with Wikipedia. I leave this here in the hopes someone else with more power than an anonymous IP address can settle this. Here is the talk page with sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Max_(given_name). The edits happened in February, the last one with the comment "just because a few women may take the name, just to stand out, doesn't mean it's gender neutral; continue edit warring and you will be sanctioned". 89.247.174.158 (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason you keep editing from different IP addresses? --Kbabej (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

LGB Alliance

This is a transphobic hate group.

For now comment requested with the first sentence

Also apparently Jimbo Wales expresses that the organization is not transphobic. See also the comments of Jimbo Wales.

Bluerasberry (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: please try to use a more neutral call for comments. Consider reading WP:APPNOTE for some tips. Isabelle 🏴‍☠️ 16:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
@Isabelle Belato: Acknowledged and you correct. Discussion goes on the target page and calls for comments should not predispose anyone to the way they should comment. Wikipedia can only work when people follow the rules and I was in error. I left my errors visible but reworded. I regret and will not do this again. Thanks for calling me out. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Health Liberation Now listed at Reliable Sources Noticeboard

A discussion on whether Health Liberation Now, a conversion therapy watchdog organization which tracks the attacks on trans healthcare and forces behind them, should be considered a reliable source. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted on the RSN noticeboard in a better format to faciliate discussion of various options including 1) using without in-text attribution 2) using with in-text attribution and 3) not using as a source. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § Legal name change and updating deadname. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps someone from this WikiProject could take a look at this TH question and see if they can help this person out. It might be better helpful if someone familiar with how such things on Wikipedia steps in and tries to sort this out. Someone might also want to take a look at 1976 Summer Olympics and see whether any updates are needed for Caitlyn Jenner since the article still refers to Jenner as "Bruce Jenner". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics and Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon have already been updated as per community consensus. MOS:DEADNAME deals with this already. (CC) Tbhotch™ 01:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
1976 Summer Olympics#Highlights, however, still refers to Jenner as "Bruce". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Some further digging found this September 2015 edit which removed any mention of "Caitlyn Jenner". I can't determine whether such content was subsequently re-added and removed again, and the editor who made the September 2015 change has been indefinitely blocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

New WP:POV editors

I have noticed a couple of recent arrivals of new accounts engaging in edits on gender identity-related pages from a WP:FRINGE POV associated with Genspect and the SEBGM. This happens from time to time, of course, but I expect we may be seeing more of it particularly if, as I suspect, off-wiki coordination is involved. Just posting here so others are also aware. Newimpartial (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alice Di Micele

Notice

The article Alice Di Micele has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

While there is a tenuous claim of significance (and so fails speedy), there is no claim of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. UtherSRG (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Maud Molyneux, trans French actress

I created a draft for Maud Molyneux. She was quite active in the French nightlife scene in the 1970s and 1980s. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding standard treatment for gender dysphoria

At Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine the question has been raised whether there is a general professional standard for the treatment of gender dysphoria. (The Society disputes the validity and effectiveness of the affirmative care model.) More expertise on this question (and more eyes on the page) would be helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Neopronouns RfC [moved], which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This discussion is an RfC on allowing use of neopronouns in articles and may be of interest to project members. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

What about Dylan Mulvaney?

Does anyone think Dylan Mulvaney should have a Wikipedia article? Dwanyewest (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m not convinced that she’s much beyond the WP:BLP1E threshold yet. I’m not seeing much in the way of significant coverage from reliable sources in the first 3 pages of a google of her and what’s there is mostly (vastly mostly) bigots complaining that she even exists. So at the moment I’d not expect an article on her to survive a CSD-A7 challenge, let alone an AfD, and I’d expect it to be a magnet for every GC in the world to maliciously edit. But I could easily be proved wrong by a good draftspace article being created first, so of course YMMV. — Trey Maturin has spoken 21:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Cherry Valentine

Project members are invited to review Cherry Valentine ahead of a possible Good article nomination. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for Good status if any project members are interested in reviewing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Do some LGBT articles on Main need a disambiguation pointing here?

should LGBT community (Start) and Queer studies (C class), LGBT (B class) as an indirect advertisement of the LGBT+ WP community?

( i would be in favour of if you want to help on LGBT articles go here, but I think I am in the minority)(

Also do you think the classes on the above three articles look too low? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 07:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Both of those articles already "indirectly" link here by virtue of being rated as articles within this project on their talk pages, so I would say that disambiguatory links leading here from the tops of the articles aren't necessary since they already have project boxes on their talk pages. As for the ratings, the thing is that while articles are initially "rated" as of the time the talk page gets created, Wikipedians actually have very little if any follow-through on reassessing articles for rating changes as the articles grow and develop. In truth, the only consistently reliable takeaway you can glean from any article's talk page "rating" is what class the article was initially created at, because nobody's actually doing the work of comprehensively reviewing already-rated articles with an eye to revising the class ratings they were given at the start. That's a universal issue with Wikipedia in general, not a failing unique to those two articles. Bearcat (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Pregnancy

There is currently a rather raucous discussion taking place about whether to mention Trans pregnancy in the lead section of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Breast_binding:Talk

I started a discussion proposing changing the title of "Breast binding" to "Chest binding." I am curious to see what people think about changing it. Iscargra (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Question maybe looking for a consensus

Hello, I'm not a member of this project, and despite being an ally outside of Wikipedia I don't usually edit LGBT related articles, it's primarily sports. But I do have a question that potentially falls under both. Even if you aren't a football fan, I'm sure most people have heard of Aaron Hernandez, the former NFL player who was convicted of murder and killed himself in prison. A recent edit to the page got me thinking, is there a specific policy or consensus of when LGBT related categories are added to a page? I'm asking this because Hernandez himself never publicly came out as gay while he was still alive but a multitude of people that knew him have said he was. I don't think WP:NFL is a good place for this discussion because this specific thing isn't related to his football career. I guess what I'm asking is should he have LGBT related categories on his page despite never coming out himself?--Rockchalk717 16:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:LGBT/Scope

I've created a new project sub-page at WP:LGBT/Scope (linked to from WP:LGBT/Editing), discussing when and how to tag articles as in scope for WP:LGBT. Input from other editors is welcome.--Trystan (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Problem with offensive slurs as redirects

Hello everyone. Recently, while browsing Wikipedia, I have found redirects titled "Trans f*g" (censured here to now disturb readers). Such redirects shouldn't be present on Wikipedia, as they are slurs, and part of the hate speech, and created by transphobic and homophobic people. This brought to my attention, that we should make sure, that this isn't a bigger precedence, and check if there are any other such hateful redirects on Wikipedia, and if we find them, delete them. Thank you for your attention, sincerely, Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Artemis Andromeda: Sorry, Wikipedia is not censored. 154.20.213.253 (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@154.20.213.253: It's true that Wikipedia does not censor encyclopedic material solely on the grounds of being objectionable. However, we regularly delete content when it is offensive and has no apparent benefit to the encyclopedia. A redirect being "offensive or abusive" is a valid criteria for deleting it (specifically #3). For this reason, the redirect Trans fag → Transgender sexuality was speedy-deleted (RfD) a day after Artemis left his original comment.
We do have various legitimate articles about slurs, and redirects containing such, but importantly, those redirects point toward material focused on the slurs themselves, and don't treat them as if they were neutral synonyms for the groups they are a pejorative for. For example, the redirect Faggy → Faggot (slang) is fine, whereas it would obviously be unacceptable if it redirected to an article about gay men. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Death of Pratima Goankar

Hello all, I've started a page for the Death of Pratima Goankar, an Indian interesex athlete who died by suicide in 2001. I was wondering if project members could give it a read - I don't think I've written a page who someone identified as intersex previously. Also, if anyone can find her date of death, I'd be very grateful - it might be paywalled in here? Many thanks (will cross-post to Women in Red too) Lajmmoore (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Breast binding#Requested move 2 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Breast binding#Requested move 2 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Josephine Baker LGBT Category Tags?

I tried to start this discussion a few months ago on the Josephine Baker page but no one has responded. Maybe as a result I should just make a bold edit? But while she is undoubtedly a queer icon (sources at the GLBT Historical Society in San Francisco, for example, discuss drag queens modeling themselves after her in the 1960s, and more recently she's been paid homage on RuPaul's Drag Race), there is no extant evidence that she herself identified or engaged in any same-sex activity. She actively disavowed homosexuals during her lifetime, going so far as to disown one of her children when he came out. This of course isn't necessarily proof, as there's been plenty of examples of internalized homophobia in history. But I couple this with tracing claims as to her sexuality. I've followed all the sources that are listed in her article alluding to same-sex relationships and found that they all lead to a single, likely dubious source. They do not present any unique evidence, they just claim the one source as valid, which sort of hides the fact that all of this stems from one throwaway sentence in a biography written by someone who had a complicated relationship with her, who also stood to benefit by cloaking her in exotic mystique. One wrinkle here is that I do not read French, and since Baker spent most of her life in France there may exist more concrete evidence in French-language sources.


With all this in mind, I would like to untag her as an LGBT actress/individual until such time that more concrete sources are brought forward. To me, it feels irresponsible to make that claim on her behalf without having solid proof, and from what I see there is none. Sevey13 (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

her putative foster son wrote a biography in which he says she was bisexual. It seems that is the premise upon which the categories are applied. If there is good reason to doubt such a biography and the secondary sources, such as Marjorie Garber's, that cite it, then we can doubt it. Per WP:EGRS there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. I am not seeing a consensus here, off-hand; without it we must remove the categories. Elizium23 (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in. I think the point about consensus is the most important here. Setting aside opinions about the historicity of Jean-Claude's biography, the fact that every source I followed pointed back to that singular biography is the signal to me that there is no consensus. Then again there may be a source in French which says different. Sevey13 (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

UK coverage of transgender issues up for discussion at WP:RSN

An editor has made three rapid filings at WP:RSN on the coverage of transgender issues by The Times, The Telegraph and The Economist. Additional input is requested. Newimpartial (talk) Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Review of a draft

Hi, I've revised this page for Draft:Aditya Tiwari which is a stub about a queer poet from India. Editors, please see if you can help get this approved? The topic was declined from inclusion some time ago because they did not meet the notability guidelines. but, note that there is now a different set of sources in the draft, so I think it would be OK to give it another review. Plushwiki21 (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Plushwiki21. I started on some basic ce and expanding the lead, but then saw there was at least one previous AfD and some potential socking going on in that discussion. I'm going to step back from this draft. I'm also not familiar with some of the sources (News18, Outlook, Homegrown, and Livewire) so I don't have the confidence to say the sourcing is a slam dunk. If you have any questions I suggest you ask at the Teahouse, a place for new WP editors to ask questions. Cheers. --Kbabej (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Kbabej. I checked the sources. News18, Outlook, Homegrown, and Livewire are some of India's leading news publications. I see you have made some changes in the top section, but its the same as the one mentioned in the bottom section. Do you think we can take advice from more editors on this? I will definitely take it up to Teahouse as well. Can you put up a request over there as well? Thanks. Plushwiki21 (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Plushwiki21. I would recommend you review WP:LEAD, which says the lead should be a short summary of information in the article. For the lead you'll want to quickly summarize the main sections of the article so readers can quickly know what the article is about. Of course you should definitely ask other editors for their opinions as well, but I'd encourage you to read the LEAD article first so you can expand and reword accordingly.
As for the Teahouse request, I'm not sure what you'd want me to ask. I'm going to leave any further requests for article expansion, editing, or general questions to you to pursue. --Kbabej (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, @Kbabej, I've passed on the request to the Teahouse, thank you for sending WP:LEAD, I'll go through it and make changes in the draft. Plushwiki21 (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Misgendering of living person

See the WP:EW at Cheshire home invasion murders and also Talk:Cheshire home invasion murders: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheshire_home_invasion_murders&oldid=1122392863

It is my understanding that articles, especially but not only those of biographies on living persons, should respect an individual's gender identity. Editors do not get to invalidate an individual's gender identity because of unrelated issues, like their felon status. Respecting an individual's clearly and unambiguously communicated gender identity does not require "consensus". I believe TheXuitts is not a bad faith editor, but merely uneducated on both the topic of gender identity and Wikipedia rules covering these topics, and want to make it clear that I am not looking for disciplinary action against them.

As someone that has mainly been fixing smaller typos and adding a fact here and there during her downtime at work, I am not well versed enough in the details of how to resolve conflicts like these. Not having created an account in all my years here does not help either :) I really would appreciate a third opinion on this, even though the rules as written (and basic human decency) seem to make this decision easy enough. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:B9FD:F9D:DB4E:720D (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The ongoing discussion on the talk page seems to be productive (although editors, including yourself, are being a bit combative in places). Our rules can’t cover all edge cases, and this is an edge case, so the discussion there may well be very helpful when it feeds back into our rules and guidance. But this can only happen if everybody involved assumes the good faith of everybody else there. There’s no deadline, so it is really worth letting it play out for now. — Trey Maturin has spoken 14:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Honest question - how is this an edge case? She is a woman, she should be referred to as such. There is no ambiguity involved - and do not forget this is about the validity of *all* trans people. Same logic as how you do not get to - sorry for the crass example - call a black person the n word, just because they might have committed a horrible crime. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:3DC9:45F9:9852:2083 (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe "edge-case" is a particularly good word for it. It's not particularly different from other articles that prominently feature trans people who didn't come out until after the subject was closed. The murder aspect makes it awkward, but the BLP philosophy applies just the same. The only remotely similar case I can think of is Pictures for Sad Children. Luckily, in this case, we have much clearer sources on the subject actually being a trans woman. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how this is an edge case: MOS:GENDERID seems to pretty clearly apply, and nobody seems to have suggested otherwise. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I am a lot older than most people here, so my perspective is rooted in being queer in a different time.
There are two things that make this an edge case; one from the point of view of readers of an encyclopaedia and one from the point of view of queer politics.
For the readers: What are they expecting to see when they visit this article? What will aid their understanding of the subject at hand most clearly? We can't know what they're looking for, obviously, but we can hazard a guess. They're wanting factual, sourced information about a crime and the criminals involved. If they're using Wikipedia in the way we suggest they use it, they're using it as a launchpad for further research and following the sources we're providing. Our text should not drift very far from what the sources are saying. The sources are using pronouns that applied to this woman at the time they were written – he/him. We're asking a lot of our readers if we require them to read an article of ours that uses she/her and then visit sources that say he/him, not least because we are, in effect, rewriting what those sources say. For our readers, we need a compromise.
Now, that's not everywhere, and not in all circumstances, and not something to be applied with a broad brush or written down on tablets of stone. For 99% of articles, the change of pronouns is unimportant and readers can cope with it. But just now and again – an edge case – we find someone whose fame (or infamy) lies entirely with their previous gender identity. We need to allow for that, now and again, without setting a precedent either way. It's something of a reasonability test – a common thing in jurisprudence in ex-British countries but unknown elsewhere and an anathema in the US where the text itself is the most important thing – where we say "what would a reasonably intelligent person reasonably expect from this?"
I posit that a reasonably intelligent person would reasonably expect that we follow the sources and use he/him, whilst very clearly noting that she is a she and she wants she/her to be used. Where that doesn't work, they/them is handy as it equally offends everybody.
The other reason this is an edge case is not based on Wikipedia rules, but is something my generation of queers cares about (and you're free to dismiss my views here accordingly – note that I haven't edited the article, let alone edit warred over it). That point is that queer people get a lot of hate, and the haters are always looking for an excuse to run us through with swords. That this woman committed a terrible crime and is trans will – I do mean will – be used to claim that all trans people are terrible criminals. It's nonsense, but that's what they did to gay people in the 1970s and are doing to trans people now.
How can we write a balanced article about a sourced event without feeding the haters what they want? Well, the one thing we can do, perhaps they only thing we can do, is to divorce the crime from the gender identity. We won't succeed, but we can try. We can make it clear that the person who committed the crime was a person who committed a crime, and they later revealed they were trans. The alternative is to hand straight people (no offence, allies) an instant victory: look at this trans criminal who committed a trans crime whilst being trans and other such JKRish nonsense. I'd rather not hand them such an easy win on something that is so very obviously complete bollocks.
But that latter point is not supported by Wikipedia policy, and should not be. Which is why I haven't edited the article, so call off the ArbCom dogs! :-)
Nevertheless, it's another indication of an edge case. We can't make good rules from an edge case, and we can't sensibly apply good rules to an edge case. But what we can do is talk about these things in good faith, without being combative, seeking a compromise that works first of all in favour of our readers in general and second of all within queer communities. Deep breaths all round, basically.
(I use 'queer' as a shorthand for our alphabet soup; I'm happy to identify as queer myself because it was an insult that was common when I was young. I have reclaimed it for myself and it has no power over me now. The experiences of other people are different, and I freely invite you to use your own terms for yourselves and to mentally edit my preferred term to fit what suits you. I will be unoffended by your lived experience just as you will be by mine.) — Trey Maturin has spoken 20:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
In all this, I still see no compelling policy reason not to use Hayes' most recent self-identification, except that it may come as a surprise to readers, or that it does not match what is most common in sources. MOS:GENDERID very explicitly addresses both of these "edge cases" (in fact fairly common), and provides crystal-clear guidance on how to describe individuals who were notable pre-transition. It is the community's stance (and the result of RfCs spanning three decades) that a cis reader's momentary discomfort or confusion does not supersede our duties toward BLP subjects. To diverge from this requires an RfC-level consensus, or a damn good justification.
As you recognize, your second argument (that dispassionately applying our policies on gender identity to convicted felons would generate culture war fodder) is not based in any of Wikipedia's goals or policies, and has little sway one way or the other. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
The alternative is to hand straight people (no offence, allies) an instant victory: look at this trans criminal who committed a trans crime whilst being trans and other such JKRish nonsense. Culture warriors are going to culture war regardless of what we write on Wikipedia. Hayes is already being used in this way on social media, Graham Linehan wrote a blog about them in May 2022, and Hayes' name appears a couple of times on Ovarit and Mumsnet, despite our misuse of pronouns (and possibly name). Hayes is just one among many convicted trans people used in this way. I think it's important to keep in mind that those folks are not operating in good faith, and will happily misuse any information that could lead towards their end goals.
As such I have to agree with the other editors present. This is not an edge case, and the article as it is current written goes pretty strongly against the guidance at MOS:GENDERID. In particular, footnote b is somewhat egregiously against the consensus that we use pronouns that reflect a person's most recent expressed gender identity. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I get it, I really do. MOS:GENDERID trumps everything else, because MOS:GENDERID is written down. That's how we work here. And that means edit wars and people bickering on talk pages and 3-decade RfCs, but there's nothing to be done because MOS:GENDERID is written down. Ah well. As you were. — Trey Maturin has spoken 22:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion

Any input would be appreciated at: Talk:Sex reassignment surgery#Requested move 23 November 2022. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

One Love armband

Surprised to see no article on this given the World Cup controversy. Article there [3] ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Could use more eyes on Fred Sargeant

Fred Sargeant did a controversial protest at Vermont pride, and was physically assaulted. No matter how one feels about Sargeant's POV, as Wikipedians we have to put our personal feelings aside and write neutrally. For one of the founders of Pride to be assaulted at Pride is notable. This deals with an issue in the community that is notable, difficult, and deserving of coverage. Others, mostly IPs and newer or low-use accounts, do not feel it should be covered, and are blanking the content. There's discussion on talk. Would appreciate more eyes on this, especially those experienced with how weird the press has been about these conflicts in recent years. We have one gay press source covering this, and one local one, but the others tend to lean conservative. However, the sourcing is sufficient, and even the conservative-leaning ones are are still usable as long as the text is neutral. (This problem with which outlets will even cover incidents is one we've had to deal with in recent years with sourcing on some of these controversies. Pretending it's not an ongoing issue is not helpful but some are either unaware or using it to push POV). Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be overatating the quality of the sourcing on this "incident", which consists largely of editorial commentary and unreliable sourcing. But in any case, the views of additional editors would be helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Colorado Springs nightclub shooting#Requested move 20 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Colorado Springs nightclub shooting#Requested move 20 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Drag

Hey everyone! I am JuanGLP, and here is an idea I have. Should we create aa WikiProject Drag? Or make it as a task force? We have plenty of drag shows that needed work (this will not include WikiProject Drag Race). It is just an idea that I would love to come into life. — JuanGLP (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

List of asexual, grey sexual, and demisexual people

Hi, all --

I recently created List of asexual, grey sexual, and demisexual people using a few sources I found listing asexual people, then double-checked sources to confirm sexuality. We have similar pages for lists of LBG and transgender people, so I thought it was noteworthy to create a separate page for the aces.

I would love y'alls' help in expanding this article. Significa liberdade (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Any good way to prevent reverts of GENDERID changes on person who is not independently notable?

The edits are few and far between and usually but not always by IP addresses (such that pending changes protection didn't actually stop any because that happened to be the time an established account did the removal), so before I tried going to RFPP again, I wanted to try to ask for other solutions here. On Signing Time!, one of the cast members has been out as nonbinary for awhile and the article reflects how they identify currently, as is the guideline. Because they're not independently notable (though they're notable within the context of the linked article as they're basically the reason the series exists), there's no flashing sign (like a footnote or something) saying why that is. (There was initially, but I asked here about whether I'd done things right and pretty shortly after asking someone came and removed the footnote for the notability reason.)

Every few weeks, someone comes and changes most or all of the name mentions back to their former name. I suspect this is a case of the editor in question not knowing about the change rather than malicious changes since some parts of the official website for the product use their previous name and you probably wouldn't know about the change if you hadn't happened to have read about it from other sources like the person themself, other things they've worked on, etc. (though I don't know how much of this hypothesis is me doing AGF and how much is riding on the fact most don't change the other now-neutral gendered words, pronouns, etc.).

I tried pending changes protection once and it technically didn't do anything because no non-autoconfirmed users edited the article in that timeframe (only an autoconfirmed account did). Before I try for another round of protection, is there any other method I can use to try to reduce/eliminate these sorts of edits? Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Try adding comments like <!--do not change "they" to a gendered pronoun; so-and-so came out as nonbinary on February whatever --> -- that should slow down the well-intentioned (although not stop any deliberate efforts.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I just wasn't sure if that was enough because a few of the mentions of the person already have a ref named Liam (their current name) next to them and it was feeling like the reverters ignored those (they don't remove them or edit their contents) so I wasn't sure if a hidden comment would be any more effective. Will take that into account, though! *jots that down on to do list for hopefully later today* (Definitely no stranger to "hidden comments and other things the user definitely saw aren't slowing them down because they're being deliberate" though. :-/ ) - Purplewowies (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Having said that... this is a weird borderline case. To the degree that this person is notable, they are notable under their old name, which they performed under. If this were sufficient notability that they had an article, we'd certainly include a Newname (then performing under the name Oldname)-type reference. As they are not notable enough to require that, and as presumably they are basically a private individual under their new name, perhaps the best route is to eschew including a name altogether. While that would not avoid the pronoun issue, it does mean that we're less likely to have people coming in with good intentions saying "whoops, they say the performer is Newname, and I remember well that their name was Oldname". --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Darwin Del Fabro

Hello all

I recently created Draft:Darwin Del Fabro, a wp:bio about a queer Brazilian actor and was hoping that one of you would be kind enough to take a look and let me know how it could be improved. Or, if it looks ok, to move it to the mainspace. It seems to be languishing in the AFC backlog. Thank you in advance for your help and consideration.Volcom95 (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Natalie Clifford Barney

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Natalie Clifford Barney/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 22:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

ego-dystonic sexual orientation

I'm really trying to avoid editing articles. Could someone take a look at this edit to ego-dystonic sexual orientation and verify that it is, as I believe, someone falsely claiming that a study from the Catholic Medical Association is an NIH study, and undo it if so? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Reverted, thank you. Crossroads -talk- 01:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Trans bashing#Requested move 9 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trans bashing#Requested move 9 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Henry Berg-Brousseau has died

I recently created a draft for trans activist Henry Berg-Brousseau. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Konrad Juengling

Konrad Juengling has been nominated for deletion. Discussion participation welcome. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC notice

There is an RfC at Talk:Alexei_Yagudin#December_2020_RfC_-_inclusion_of_2020_controversy_in_lead that may be of interest to editors in this project. JimKaatFan (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking to rewrite Transgender sexuality

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Transgender sexuality § An eye toward a rewrite. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback would be welcome at this discussion at WikiProject Law, regarding the use of the terms legal or decriminalized in articles related to LGBT rights topics. Mathglot (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa

There is an RfC at Talk:Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa#RFC that may be of interest to editors in this project.--Trystan (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Starting "Wiki Loves Pride 2023"?

It looks like Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2022 is done, as its now Jan. 1 in 2023, although its still 2022 here, so I'd say we can mark Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride for 2022 done with a green check. I'm not as skilled and am afraid I might mess something up if I create Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2023 page. It would be better to do this sooner, rather than later, I'd say, to get the near year off to a good start. Historyday01 (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01 Happy to get the ball rolling: Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2023. Happy New Year! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Great! I'll add in some pages I've already worked on this year. Historyday01 (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Sasha Colby

Resolved

Sasha Colby has been nominated for deletion. Article improvements and/or discussion participation welcome. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Never mind! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Naysha Lopez

Naysha Lopez has been nominated for deletion, if any project members want to take a look. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The article was kept ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBTQ%2B_studies/Archive_75&oldid=1249345135"