Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Guidelines

Bisexuality

I suspect if we have Bisexuality as our CoM, then this definition will be fixed up. But here's what I took from Talk:List of bisexual people:

“

To consider a person bisexual, there must be a good source citation to a reliable source which uses the word "bisexual." If there are other sources that present conflicting information, they should be mentioned, too, and the reader should be allowed to make their own judgement. If the person has publicly self-identified their sexual orientation, that self-identification should be mentioned conspicuously, quoting the person's own language.

”

If it were up to me, I would make each of the above things a possible criterion and suggest that a person could be considered bisexual if two or more of them could be found. Any further thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of sources is a concern with this issue. I'm no expert on LGBT studies, but primary/secondary sources do need assessment for reliability before we add them. --SunStar Net^talk 02:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I originally put this on the talkpage:

“

To start the ball rolling, I would say that to consider someone a bisexual, we must be able to verify three circumstances:

That person identifies as bisexual, regardless of relationships, ie Billie Joe Armstrong.

A person has had documented, notable relationships with both sexes, such as Marlon Brando.

A person has been alleged, with evidence, by reliable sources to be, or have been, in a relationship with both sexes, ie Lord Byron and Alfred Kinsey.

”

I still agree with that, really. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is anything happening with this now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"transgendered individuals" vs. "transgender individuals"

I think this should be "transgender" not "transgendered". Kolindigo (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Language can be transgendered but people cannot. Banjeboi 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One issue with:

A deceased person may be categorized and identified as LGBTI if they had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes...

That *might* make sense for LGB, but not for T* (which is not a sexual preference but a gender identity) or I (which is defined medically by anatomy). T* status is not defined by sexual relationships, nor predictive of same. If you mean 'gay', say 'gay' - adding T as if it were a sexual orientation is incorrect in this instance. K7L (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to guidelines

A recent discussion here, led to a proposal of changes or additions to the MOS guideline here, and this has sparked a discussion here for those that may be interested. — Ched : ? 19:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deceased LGBT (?) people

"A deceased person may be categorized and identified as LGBT if they had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes.."

I am having difficulty with this criteria, which is the only part of your guidelines that deals with historical figures.

I've been reading over a hundred artists, writers, actors, directors, producers, etc. figures, primarily from the period 1900-1950. I'm running into many (I'd guess 10-20%) who are categorized as LGBT and only a few who had what you might call established "relationships" with people of the same sex. Some of folks attended parties thrown by a person who was "out" (at least among their peers) and that is the only indication that they were LGBT. Other individuals were identified as gay by a Hollywood tell-all book (that's the only source). Other times, for example, a woman spent her later years (over age 60, say) sharing a house with a female friend and so she is categorized as LGBT.

I'd say that the vast majority (I'm guessing 85-90%) of these cases are not "documented". And only a few of them (for example, John Cage and Merce Cunningham) are what most people would consider "notable".

My only interest here is in correct identification and categorizing. But given the only standard you provide--"documented, notable relationships"--, I'd have to remove quite a few people from categories like Category:LGBT entertainers, Category:Gay actors or Category:Bisexual actors. In fact, for many people who were rumored to have casual, same sex relations, the only documented relationships are their marriages.

I just wanted to check in with the LGBT Project before I start removing people from categories in case this criteria has changed. I foresee some pushback from other editors who object to artists and entertainers who "everyone knows were gay" to be de-categorized and no longer LGBT. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name some of the specific people you are thinking of removing? I'm wondering if you're seeing "A deceased person may be categorized and identified as LGBT if they had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes" and reading "A deceased person may be categorized and identified as LGBT ONLY if they had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes" - but the judgment of reliable sources, based on casual relationships, analysis of personal writings, etc. can't simply be discarded. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I say, that statement is the only criteria mentioned so I did read it "only if" because there were not qualifiers or indications that other criteria could be applied.

Since this is work I did a few weeks ago and I've moved on to other topics, no particular articles come to mind. But could you address the three examples I mention above? Because those are taken from specific actors/actresses I came across and that is the extent of their "documentation".

It seems like otherwise it's a judgment call on my part and I'm pretty sure that the WikiProject LGBT studies doesn't want random editors to impose their own judgments on whether some entertainer was gay or not. If documentation or some reliable source is not required, then any editor can apply any label to anyone or remove one. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 21:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that "a historical figure is queer if reliable sources say so" just goes unsaid, since that's compliant with our policy for relying on the sources for pretty much every other subject. I suppose it could possibly be stated outright? Re your examples, could you clarify if this is a shortage of sources on Wikipedia, or if you looked further and the sources are not available? Maybe the WikiProject could help out by maintaining a list of individuals whose sexual orientation could be better sourced, so that project members could hunt down the sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think the point of the criteria is that since the subject is deceased, they will no longer be able to confirm or deny their sexuality through statements or deeds, so our categorization of their sexuality must be well-sourced. But I agree that this guideline should be copyedited a bit to make that clear. I think the word "notable" here is confusing, because it makes us think of general Wikipedia notability, as in we don't list every person the subject of an article ever slept with because most of the liaisons would not be notable. But if someone is in a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex etc. then it is always going to be "notable" in the context of establishing sexuality. That said, though the simple act of having sex with someone of the same sex doesn't mean that you are gay, the word "relationships" in this criteria may also seem to demand too much, as evidenced by the question that started this section. We would obviously need some strong source(s) establishing that someone was LGBT, but they shouldn't have had to have been in a committed relationship with public house parties. I get that we're trying to not make assumptions based on anecdotal situations ("Wilson says Smith and Jones slept together after the premiere party for their new film") but there are surely many LGBT people in our past who either never found "the one" or were too in the closet to let their relationships be well-publicized.— TAnthony^Talk 16:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smith example

The essay says that birth names "may be woven into an "Early life" section", before giving an example which seems to avoid using a first name at all. ("Smith was born male but never felt this reflected who she was...") Should this include a male forename to clarify how such a name would be "woven in"? Or has the section skipped a bit and moved on to talking about gender in general at that point? --McGeddon (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a poor example, which illustrated an earlier version of the guidelines. While the name and gender they were assigned at birth doesn't always belong in the lede, it's generally acceptable to mention them in the body of the article. A better example would be "Smith was born male and named George, but never felt this reflected who she was..." -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Nef

There have been disputed edits to Hari Nef concerning her birth name. An IP editor has challenged the current text at Talk:Hari Nef#Birth name. Please check that the article correctly follows the guidance at WP:TRANSNAME and consider whether that guidance should be changed. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I think that guidance is likely to confuse and maybe even to mislead. It should be brought into better and clearer alignment with the actual policies. DanielRigal (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-binary people

Some non binary people use they/their as their pronoun. Others use what are for me at least less common terms like e/eir. When writing a bio of a non binary person, if their preferred pronoun is e/eir do I use that in the bio? Not my area of expertise and not sure what wikipedia guidelines are - I'm assuming I use their preferred pronoun but I want to be sure I'm doing it right. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 11:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity to the reader, I would suggest avoiding words whose meaning is not widely understood, in favor of the more familiar singular they/them/their, which is gender-neutral and should be acceptable even if it isn't their first choice. (e.g. I prefer he/him/his, but if you refer to me as they/them/their, that's not incorrect or offensive.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing drag performers as LGBT without clearly mentioning that in the article

Hey. About my edits on Rosé[1], Kandy Muse[2] and Denali[3]. As everything in Wikipedia should be based on sources, I find it deeply problematic that drag performers are routinely categorized as LGBT (people/artists/etc.) without mentioning that in the actual text (with reliable sources where they themselves say they are LGBT). I have watched all seasons dozens of times and frankly don't remember any contestant stating on record that they are not LGBT, so this might feel silly for some editors, but still. Sources, sources, sources. This is Wikipedia after all. Any thoughts? -- Puisque (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Drag certainly is connected to LGBTQ culture, but a drag queen absolutely can be straight and cis, and we should not be making assumptions about their sexuality or gender. Only describe them as gay, bi, trans, queer, etc if they themselves do.--Alexandra^IDV 03:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Openly gay"

It seems strange to me that we still routinely describe living gay people as "openly gay" - shouldn't the default simply be "gay"? How many living people are verified by reliable sources to be gay such that we can describe them as that, but have not admitted it publicly? It reminds me of the phrase "practicing homosexual", as if the more usual state of being is a furtive celibate homosexual. Time to normalize being gay, surely? ----Pontificalibus 07:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: just use "gay" unless there's some historical context that makes the distinction important for that particular person.--Alexandra^IDV 09:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will make this change in the article I was editing. Maybe someone could think about the wording of the first paragraph of the project page, which seems to encourage this wording and is likely the first thing seen by editors looking for guidance on this matter.----Pontificalibus 12:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a meaningful clarification in many historical contexts, such as describing Harvey Milk as "openly gay". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The complication is that it is entirely possible to be gay but not out, and people do have a habit of trying to misuse Wikipedia to out people they perceive to be in that boat without obeying our rule about "not unless they're out". So the language around all of this is tricky and complicated, but there's a genuine reason why that's the case. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]