Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 58

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 → Archive 65

Can the DYK project get some help from one or more editors with knowledge of lesbianism and genderfluidity?

Hi... An article on Filibus, a film from 1915, has been nominated to appear on the main page. It is presently being discussed at WT:DYK#Pulled from Prep 1: Filibus as the hook proposed for it is flawed. I was surprised to see that a film from 1915 apparently explored issues of lesbianism and genderfluidity, and think that an interesting hook for the main page could be made. As a cis-gendered male, I cannot claim great understanding of either topic, so I am seeking help to look at whether the article is supported by suitable sources in this regard, and if so, to suggest what hook(s) might be made be that are interesting, well-founded, and respectful. Suggestions and comments can be made in the WT:DYK discussion or (ideally) at the nomination page: Template:Did you know nominations/Filibus. My request is not meant as any sort of reflection on those who have contributed already; rather, I suspect that there are editors here who can bring knowledge and experience to help to reach a positive outcome quickly. Thanks in advance. EdChem (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you clarify what it is that you need help with? Modern commentators are at liberty to use terms like "lesbian" and "genderfluid" to describe female same-sex relationships and women adopting male personas in older works, even if the term "genderfluid" didn't exist at the time and "lesbian" referred to the poetry of Sappho - just like any other term that was coined or came into use more recently than the origins of the phenomenon it describes ("Judaism" and "Islam", for instance). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Roscelese: I was vague deliberately as I wasn't sure exactly what might be a problem. For example, I hope someone will look and see if there are things that could / would have the potential to offend lesbians or genderfulid individuals or others that is not necessarily immediately obvious to others. My understanding is that cross-dressing does not necessarily mean the individual is genderfluid, and that suggesting that could be offensive. For the article, we have to reflect sources so if (as you suggest), an author applies that term inappropriately, an editor may choose to use those terms through ignorance or to accurately reflect the source. I have added some material, too, and hope nothing I have put in is problematic. As far as the DYK hook goes, however, we can choose what to highlight and choose not to use in a hook something supported by sources but which may offend, just as we would not post "... that in 2013, the Internal Revenue Service of the United States declared that Juan Pablo Montoya owed it US$2.7 million?" even though we could support the statement with sources and it could be interesting. EEng has proposed a hook based on Filibus being described as "probably one of the first lesbian characters in the history of film," which is again cited but could that description offend if Filibus was genderfluid? I have added material from a source where transgenderism is mentioned, which is also not the same as cross-dreesing (obviously). So, there are two issues for me: (1) Is the article content in the area potentially offensive if gender and sexuality areas and if so, is that content supported? (2) Is there material which, will supported, should not be used in a hook due to its potential to offend / misrepresent one or more groups within the broader LGBTQI community that suffers more than enough discrimination, misrepresentation, and offense as ii? Is that clearer? EdChem (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
For heaven's sake, all this handwringing is unnecessary. The hook quotes (using quote marks) a recent, sober source's description of the character. If that description doesn't conform to some people's most up-to-date ideas of what words should be used for what, then that may stimulate interesting discussions among our readers, perhaps the adding of new sources to the article, maybe a Slate article. But it doesn't make the hook wrong or offensive. EEng 17:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with quickly asking around whether something is a good idea. For what it's worth, the ALT1 hook is not offensive if the character has indeed shown romantic inclinations to other female characters. If the two sources are just using the word "lesbian" to describe her fluid gender presentation, then I would feel less comfortable. [From the lead] "... slipping between various male and female identities to romance the detective's sister ..." makes everything sound fine, though. ~Mable (chat) 18:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Chan Chi-chuen#Requested move 28 November 2016

I invite you to the ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Female military crossdressers, part whatever

Can anyone with better Spanish than me check the sources and see if RS generally consider Amelio Robles Ávila a crossdressing woman or a trans man? A few months ago I and timothyjosephwood (talk · contribs) walked back a bunch of articles on military women after previous users had, without consulting the sources, decided that they were trans men. I've just found this one as well, but Spanish is not a language I'm especially fluent in, either for purposes of seeing how the sources refer to the subject or for purposes of determining whether or not they seem reliable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria / Gender Identity Disorder debate

There's a discussion/brewing edit war over at Gender dysphoria that could use more input. Funcrunch (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Should the Monica Helms flag be used in trans templates?

flag by United States artist Monica Helms
Unicode symbol U+26A7

I would appreciate comment on changing the Monica Helms flag to something more neutral, such as the unicode symbol for transgender. I raised the issue at Template_talk:Transgender_topics#Proposal_to_change_logo. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Interviews with celebrities in LGBT media

Hello! My name is Mike Halterman, and I was an active Wikipedia user between the years of 2004-10. My activity has slowed down considerably here in recent years, and my adminship was removed in 2015. So I am very much "out of the system" now. :)

With that said, the time I left Wikipedia has coincided with my start and growth in magazine journalism, specifically LGBT media. I have been the editor-in-chief of four different publications since 2010, and for the past 3 1/2 years I've been with the same company, Hotspots Media Group, which is Florida's largest LGBT media company and boasts Florida's oldest and most-read entertainment magazine, Hotspots (a glossy weekly). For the past six months I've been involved with a similar glossy, a monthly, in Central Florida (Hotspots Central).

In any event, I wanted to alert you to the work I've done in case anyone wanted to use the interviews as citations in biographical articles. Hotspots currently doesn't have an article but I think it would pass notability on its own if an article were created. Those articles and features are also syndicated nationally by Edge Media Network and Edge magazine, which syndicates other notables such as South Florida Gay News, Bay Windows, QNotes, et cetera.

Whether someone wants to do it or not (I don't care either way), I did at least want to let the WikiProject know that such interviews are there, and that some of the content may be useful for quotes on like, "personal life" sections, or career sections, and related things like that.

Let me link you to some of my interviews. I'll be adding on to this list and I'll re-sign with the tildes.

@Mike Halterman: Thanks for sharing the list. Lots of useful material for biographies and popular culture. I was impressed to see George Takei . What copyright licenses apply? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hotspots Media Group obviously owns the interviews. It would be cited like one would cite any magazine article from TIME or People or what have you. 47.196.97.51 (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick review of using this source in general, there's a staff page, which is good. Oddly, I wasn't able to Google Clato Beuren (president) at all, with "Clato Beuren Hotspot Magazine" (no quotes) not giving any results on a regular Google search. Googling editor Ian Maloney brought me to his Linkedin, which looks alright, though his field of study at university level (Spanish) doesn't really overlap much with his journalism career... Eh, either way, interview should be fine to use ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 08:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

If you can find any correlation between a journalism major and the quality of a journalist's work, let me know. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh no, I don't intend to diminish the quality of the journalist in question, is just that in discussions on source quality, sources edited by individuals with experience in the field are definitely preferred. Similarly, we have no idea what the editorial principles of this website are. identifying reliable sources is serious business for an encyclopedia ;) ~Mable (chat) 14:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Impromptu edit-a-thon to reestablish the Ecosexuality article

I am hosting an edit-a-thon on 2017-01-02 from noon to 4pm PST to work on reestablishing the Ecosexuality article, minus the POV, COI, PROMO, primary sources, & other problems. Folks are welcome to help edit remotely. I have some instructions at User_talk:Peaceray/sandbox/Ecosexuality draft & Wiki markup from one or two versions before it was deleted at User:Peaceray/sandbox/Ecosexuality draft (please leave the latter be). We are starting a fresh version at User:Peaceray/sandbox/Ecosexuality. Please add & edit individual sections rather than the whole article.

The Facebook event page is at https://www.facebook.com/events/178307402644082/. Maybe you can message me from the event page.

Peaceray (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Russell family (Passions) - featured article candidate

I've nominated the article about the episode Russell family (Passions) for Featured Article consideration. This article is about a fictional character on the American soap opera Passions. Comments would be greatly appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russell family (Passions)/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"Hannah Winterbourne, Britain’s highest ranking transgender soldier"

Not sure if there is enough about Hannah Winterbourne to create an article. See:

  • Gilmour, Alexander (November 16, 2016). "Hannah Winterbourne, Britain's highest ranking transgender soldier". Financial Times. Retrieved December 5, 2016.

Let me know what you think. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's some additional possible sources:
MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
We can cite Cosmopolitan, but probably not the other two sources, can we?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: Sounds about right. I'm sure someone could scare up a few arguments for using the others, but I wouldn't bother. I just did a google search and picked the top three that weren't obviously copy-and-paste jobs. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
There's also
and the self-published source, http://www.hannahwinterbourne.com/bio/.
That's fairly broad coverage across the spectrum of UK media, with some coverage in mainstream media outside the UK. As for depth of coverage, almost all of these are focused on Winterbourne, not passing mentions. I think we have enough to make a strong claim that WP:GNG is satisfied. I'm happy to go through these in the next few days to glean the important points from each, with a view to drafting an article. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Ryk72: Happy New Year. I was wondering if you'd started a draft yet?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!Zigzig20s (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Input requested

The gender identity of cartoonist John Campbell is disputed over at Talk:Pictures for Sad Children/Archives/2021/January#John Campbell never existed in the first place. The discussion is a mess, though I'd love to have more input from other editors experienced with LGBT subjects. ~Mable (chat) 12:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to second this request, it's a real mess and looks like it might be blowing up on Tumblr.--MugaSofer (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

DanVeg Trans Memorial Project

I just learned from the Wikimedia-l mailing list that editor Danveg on the Hebrew Wikipedia has taken her own life. There is a memorial project to write and edit trans-related articles (on any Wikipedia) in her memory. Funcrunch (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw that in my inbox too. I don't think the WMF does a good job at making us feel valued at all. It can be worse in local/national chapters actually (it is where I live). Perhaps we ought to create that article about the transgender soldier I suggested a few weeks ago?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tres Watson

Someone left a note on my talkpage about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tres Watson. I have not taken an in-depth look yet, but feel free to comment.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Before anyone spends much time on this, they should be aware that the page facing deletion was created by a sock puppeteer and is facing some protection by apparent socks. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Brilbluterin --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The third-party sources look reliable to me, which is why I voted for "Keep", but if there is Wikidrama involved, I have zero interest whatsoever in spending half a second on this. Wikipedia is a hobby and should be stress-free! Please let us breathe. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about LGBT is updated - Skysmith (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Nonbinary people on the Women in Red list

There is a discussion on the Women in Red talk page about whether to include nonbinary-identified people on that list. More thoughts welcomed. Funcrunch (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Some people has neutral sex by body modification

Norrie May-Welby (d:Q2184751) and Mao Sugiyama (d:Q26702590) have neutral sex. They should have neutral sex as value of d:Property:P21. But Wikidata does not have neutral sex and Wikipedia does not have any category for those people.

Category:Intersex people and Category:Genderqueer people are not enough.Lava03 (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The Wikidata classifications also assume that someone cannot be male or female and also intersex. This is inaccurate in the majority of cases, and checking a subset of people in Category:Intersex people shows a range of different, inconsistent classifications as a result. Trankuility (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Tres Watson

Hi all, might I please get some extra eyes at Tres Watson? It's a biographical article that was created by a sock ring, quite possibly as a for-pay article. Some editors have raised issues of notability and conflict of interest, and one of the contributors has expressed concern about minimization, so I'd like to get some more experienced eyes over there if possible. Many thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed that this was brought up a few comments earlier. Anyhow, more eyes are definitely welcome. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Raymond Chan Chi-chuen#Name in infobox

I started an RFC at Talk:Raymond Chan Chi-chuen#Name in infobox. I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

ITN: Chelsea Manning

There appears to be some debate about whether Chelsea Manning's commutation has anything to do with LGBTQ rights or not over at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Chelsea_Manning.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Transgender and intersex task forces?

A few months ago, I raised the possibility of creating a task force for trans, non-binary, and (possibly) intersex people and topics related to them. The idea got few responses at the time, but I want to raise it again, as it came up in a recent discussion about nonbinary people on the Women in Red page. I believe there are more than enough articles (and reliable sources) about trans and nonbinary people to support a task force, and Trankuility is interested in creating a separate task force for intersex people. I'm willing to "chair" (if there is such a thing) the trans/nonbinary task force myself, but I'm hoping more volunteers will be interested in helping out. Thoughts? Funcrunch (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Funcrunch. As well as the previous discussion about a transgender task force, had a short discussion at User talk:Funcrunch#Task forces about the possibility of a separate intersex task force. The issues and populations overlap, like both do with LGB populations and others, but have different medical and human rights issues. I hope that an intersex task force would, as Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces states, help to recruit editors. Trankuility (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I started some research on WikiProject creation a few years ago. Success appeared to be predicted by having, say, half a dozen experienced editors involved from the beginning. It is not a case of "build it, and they will come"; success looks more like "we're tired of trying to keep track of which of our talk pages each discussion was happening on, so we centralized the conversations that we would be having anyway".
WP:MED created a bunch of task forces a few years back, too. The idea was that people would watch both the main discussion page and the task forces that interested them. Basically all of those pages are dead. We had one task force that did pretty well, and then one editor retired, and that was the end of that. It turned out that it's just easier and faster to reach everyone at the main page than to hope that someone will look at the task force's talk page.
I therefore recommend against creating any task forces, especially since you don't have an existing group of editors who plan to participate in each task force (and even having six or eight committed editors is not enough to be certain that the task force's page won't be dead in a few months). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
WhatAmIDoing touches on the heart of the issue: without a decent group of active editors, the task force talk pages would dry out before you know it. Of course I'd join the transgender task force, but like on the main WikiProject, I don't expect to post much. I'd line to hear from more editors that they'd take a large part in this task force before I can support it. I wonder if an intersex task force would be even worse off... If a goal of these task force are statistics, then surely those can be obtained without creating a full side-project? ~Mable (chat) 07:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the discussion, it is very helpful. Initially I said I aspired to an intersex task force, but the reasons have more to do with providing a directly relevant page to post information about gaps (such as the red linked BLPs at List of intersex people), and hoping that a central page would help "recruit" by creating visibility. While this is now an LGBT+ project, not an LGBT one, there is still little evidence of intersex inclusion. It is not always appropriate, either. Many intersex BLPs are for heterosexual, cisgender intersex people, so there is not necessarily room for them here. Other examples include omissions from lists of templates, categories, and the new articles bot doesn't contain some necessary key words (DSD, Disorder of Sex Development, other clinical terms) to identify intersex related articles. Trankuility (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe specific watchlists, fixes and bot changes and new articles lists are enough. Trankuility (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd be interested in helping with a task force or just an edit effort in general. Keep me in the loop if you will. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in, WhatamIdoing and EvergreenFir. To Maplestrip's concern: Statistics aren't personally my primary goal for the trans task force. I'm more interested in reducing vandalism and improving the accuracy of existing articles, in addition to creating new ones. More watchlists, as Trankuility suggests, might indeed be enough to help with vandalism, but it would be good to add trans- and intersex-specific redlinks lists somewhere as well. Funcrunch (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I don't mind these ideas. ~Mable (chat) 17:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Creating specific pages for redlinks and watchlists might be a workable way of testing interest in more elaborate task force structures, while also tackling some of the reasons for wanting those structures. Anyone know how to go about changing a new articles bot, or creating a specific bot? Trankuility (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
For anyone interested, I have started a page on intersex redlinks in my Sandbox at User:Trankuility/redlinks, and a draft bot script at User:Trankuility/bot. Comments and additions are very welcome. Trankuility (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
To change the existing new-article page, you just edit the page. I did it for medicine a few years ago. It's not quite as scary as it looks – just mimic what's there if you need to add something (and removal's very easy: just blank the line). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this info. I will take a look at Trankuility's intersex redlinks/bot and draft something similar for trans/nonbinary articles soon. Meanwhile pinging Megalibrarygirl who expressed support for the task force idea over on Women in Red. Funcrunch (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, Trankuility, WhatamIdoing and Funcrunch. I think visibility for intersex, non-binary and trans people is really important right now on Wiki. If I can help support the creation of the task force or do some gnoming or reference work for you, let me know. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Creating a task force doesn't produce visibility, so if that's the goal, then I recommend working together on a few articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, WhatamIdoing. I'll come back to the bot later. In the meantime, I'm wondering if there might be an appropriate location to move the User:Trankuility/redlinks page of intersex-related tasks into this WikiProject? Thanks. Trankuility (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
That kind of list is commonly kept in a central location, at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences#LGBT .28lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender.29 and Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography#Notable LGBT .28lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, figures. Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Requested articles redirects to the first of these pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
And here we come up against the problem that some of the individuals are not lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender figures. Even where an individual might be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, that is not the reason why they would be added to the list. Trankuility (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Tangential but hopefully relevant to this discussion: I just found out when someone edited the talk page of one the articles I created that we have a Person task force here in LGBT Studies. It has only three members and very little activity on the talk page (six topics in the last three years). Not sure if this lends more or less weight to the idea of creating trans/intersex task forces, because "Person" (focusing on biographies) encompasses a very large number of articles under this topic, whereas trans and intersex are much more focused. Funcrunch (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
You can look through the list of existing sub-pages here. It shows several of the different things people have done over the years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for assistance with The Homosexual Matrix

Hello, I am trying to improve the article The Homosexual Matrix. A problem I'm facing is that I have no access to some of the sources that could be used. Some of them can be accessed via libraries, but I have not found a way of doing this myself. There is an example, and a list of similar sources, here. I would be grateful if anyone who does know how to access these sources through a library could help. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I have access to a few different databases, FreeKnowledgeCreator. You can email me links to your sources and I can see if I can uncover them. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The relevant website is EBSCO Online Library Search Engine, http://connection.ebscohost.com/. The sources I am trying to access are here, here, here, here, and here. If you click on the links, it gives you the URLs for the sources. I hope that covers it, but I can still send you an e-mail if absolutely necessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Have you applied for free Wikipedia:EBSCO access? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Didn't even know it existed. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. I'll probably e-mail Megalibrarygirl to see whether she can help me, and EBSCO access is something I will consider later. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl, I have e-mailed you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator, I emailed you the references I could access. I don't have full access to Advocate. I found a couple of other articles that may be useful and sent them, too. Holler if you need anything else! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Megalibrarygirl, that was extremely helpful. I'll see what I can do about getting access to the other references. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

When We Rise

In the process of adding a couple of updates to the upcoming miniseries When We Rise earlier today, I've noted a problem that may require the attention of this project: there are a significant number of people listed in that article, and named by sources, as appearing in the series but not named in its cast list on IMDb. This applies to virtually everybody who still doesn't have a character name next to their appearance in our list; the problem is that all of the sources for their participation date from when the production was still in the preliminary casting phase last year, so it's far from clear whether (a) they are in the series and the IMDb list just hasn't been fully fleshed out yet (although it looks awfully long as it is, and the unmatched names include people like Rob Reiner and Phylicia Rashad who are far, far too famous to get overlooked), or (b) they dropped out of the series for one reason or another and their roles were recast. It's possible that we may not actually be able to resolve this fully until the series actually airs next month, but I just wanted to note that we're going to have to keep an eye on it over the next few weeks. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

LGBT state legislators in the United States

As of today, all but one of the new LGBT people who were elected to state legislatures in November, according to the Victory Fund, now have articles; the one remaining straggler is Debbie Ingram in Vermont, if anybody wants to tackle that. However, I'm also having a challenge with one person, Randy D. Dunn in Missouri, who's named in their list but not described or categorized as LGBT in his Wikipedia article: apart from a couple of unreliable blogs, I don't seem to be able to find any reliably sourced indication that he identifies as gay or bisexual. Even his profile on the Victory Fund's website doesn't explicitly say that he's LGBT, so it's not a useful source in and of itself — and while I can find a couple of sources which name him as a sponsor or supporter of LGBT-related legislation, none of them actually state whether he's doing so as an LGBT person or as a straight ally either. Does anybody know where a better source for his sexuality might be locatable? Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

How about this? RivertorchFIREWATER 15:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, that establishes that he's l, g, b, or t. Usually, we have it narrowed down from there! --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to have to examine that letter more carefully, but even just on a cursory examination of a select few names I've already found another signatory who also poses a problem: this post from the Victory Fund, a mere four days older than that letter, identifies Daniel Hernández Jr. as the only out LGBT member of the Arizona state legislature in the new term — but the letter's signatories include Tony Navarrete, also a newly-elected member of the Arizona legislature. So the question is, despite the wording of the letter's introduction, are we absolutely 100 per cent sure that every signatory is actually LGBT, and not just a straight ally who didn't raise an issue with the wording? Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Eeep, never mind. Victory Fund screwed up; Navarrete actually self-identifies as "a member of the LGBT community" right on his own campaign website (something which even sourceably-out LGBT candidates don't always do). Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately they don't. And I wouldn't trust the Victory Fund ref to be comprehensive. RivertorchFIREWATER 06:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
My guess is that "he" is not lesbian, but not sure. :)

Modern taxonomy

A few of the links herein had some older diagrams and flow charts, but I don't think anyone authoritatively organized the full dichotomy of the LGBT interrelationships. So I made a spreadsheet but I don't know how accurate it is and am welcoming criticism. While I made up 75% of the words, it was only because I was at a loss to describe them. I met a guy whose sexual orientation was so specific (pre-op transpeople only if he was "on top") that I started calling him a quartersexual, because he was not sexually active otherwise (with post-ops, being dominated, etc.). There may need to be more divisions and I imagine some terms may fit in more than one category, so I just put them in the first place that thought made the most sense. It's a start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshlomo (talk • contribs)

Collapse table not based on reliable sources
Line Sex Gender Behaviour
Against antisexual antigender
Neutral cissexual cisgender
Opposite (Conforming) heterosexual(androsexual or gynesexual) male/female
Same (Nonconformist) homosexual (gay or lesbian) femminiello boi

butch or femme

Neither Intersexual
None Unisexual eunuch/khusra

burnesha/nullo castrati/skoptsy

Both bisexual hermaphrodite travesti
Mixture ambisexual non binary androgynous (if known)

tumtum (if unknown)

Unsure heteroflexible bicurious autoandrophilia or

autogynephilia

Reversed (Each includes pre-op and post-op): transgender transvestite

transformistas drag queen köçek

Female born Male hijra/calabai

fa'afafine/mahu fakaleiti/kathoey khanith/mak nyah muxe/winkte

Male born Female calalai/pak nyah
Number: demisexual grey-A demiromantic
Sixteenth (Experimenting as an Eighth but to the exclusion of everything else) quasihemidemisemisexual or unsextantsexual quasihemidemisemigender or unsextantgender
Eighth (Only dominating pre-op's, v"v, but only of a certain race, kind, etc.) hemidemisemisexual or octantsexual hemidemisemigender or octantgender
Quarter (Only pre-op's, but dominant, or vice versa) demisemisexual or quandrantsexual demisemigender or quandrantgender
Half (Only into pre-op transpeople) semisexual semigender
None nonsexual nongender
Solo monosexual monogender
One unisexual unigender
Two dusexual/disexual dugender/digender
Three trisexual trigender
Four quadrisexual/quadrusexual quadrigender/quadrugender
Five quinquesexual quinquegender
Six sexasexual sexagender
Seven septemsexual/septisexual septemgender/septigender
Eight octosexual octogender
Nine novemsexual novemgender
Ten decemsexual/decsexual decemgender/decgender
Eleven undecsexual undecgender
Twelve duodecsexual duodecgender
Thirteen tredecsexual tredecgender
Fourteen quattuordecsexual quattuordecgender
Fifteen quinquadecsexual/quindecsexual quinquadecgender/quindecgender
Sixteen sedecsexual/sexdecsexual sedecgender/sexdecgender
Seventeen septendecsexual septendecgender
Eighteen octodecsexual octodecgender
Nineteen novemdecsexual/novendecsexual novemdecgender/novendecgender
Twenty vigintisexual vigintigender
Many polysexual polygender polyamory
Fluid pansexual pangender
All omnisexual omnigender


Thanks, Kshlomo, but I'm afraid Wikipedia only publishes content which has appeared in reliable sources. A classification that is based on criteria defined by a Wikipedia editor is considered original research and cannot be used by the project. Diego (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Diego is correct. If you have to invent new terms to cover what you're trying to define, then it's original research that we can't use here — until such time as reliable sources start picking up on and repeating and promulgating your neologism into real-world usage, that is. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure this editor was trolling us, folks. WP:DENY... Funcrunch (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Edith Shackleton Heald

Some of you might be interested in this. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent Deaths: Stuart Timmons

There is currently an LGBT Recent Death under discussion for the main page at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: Stuart Timmons.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This ended up on the main page!Zigzig20s (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Our topic about Hannah Winterbourne was archived

Our topic about Hannah Winterbourne was archived by the bot. Is it possible to bring it back and is anyone here interested in creating the article please?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not necessary to "bring back" a discussion that nobody was contributing anymore; if you need to read it, you can read it at the archive page. As for creating the article, we simply can't guarantee immediate satisfaction of every request that gets made — the discussion was open for long enough that if anybody were seriously "interested" in taking it on immediately, they already would have by now. If it's that important to you, is there a reason you can't be that someone? Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I ought to. Somehow, I am finding it a little boring though...Zigzig20s (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Mark Thompson

Is anyone able to find more reliable third-party references about him please?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Harassed by administrators?

I was wondering if any of you had been harassed by administrators for being LGBT. How many administrators are LGBT? Are any Arbcom members LGBT? Is there a structural problem in terms of heteronormative power dynamics? Have any of you considered retiring because of a hostile environment? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I have very little expedience with admins and arbcom in general. I've never been harrassed about my gender yet, though. ~Mable (chat) 07:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The best admins are those who let us create content without making themselves known, as far as I can tell. However, that's not true of everyone, and perhaps we need to make structural reforms to make sure we can't be victimized. I suggested over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention that we could ask that administrators take an LGBT sensitivity class (perhaps an online video-based workshop). However, this implies that allies can be trusted; I am not sure that is always the case. We may need more openly LGBT admins and Arbcom members, but I am not sure how realistic or feasible that is.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm openly pro-LGBT, if that helps. El_C 09:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it's important here to realize that "LGBT" is not a monolith. There are cisgender gay men and lesbians who are quite hostile to trans people, for instance. Speaking for myself, the only significant harassment on Wikipedia I've received to date has been from anonymous editors, not admins. In fact several admins have been very helpful to me in countering trans-antagonistic harassment. But that's just my experience. Funcrunch (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've never, that I can remember, been harassed by admins over my gender or sexuality; admins have been varying levels of helpful or unhelpful in instances where other users have misbehaved. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The admin corps is a microcosm of the larger Wikipedia community, and in some respects, Wikipedia is a microcosm of the larger world. There are hateful, hurtful people and there are kind, helpful people. And then there are the indifferent people—a whole lot of them. Some of your questions are impossible to answer, i.e., how many administrators or arbs are LGBT, and I don't suppose it matters very much. My impression for some years has been that the core community of active editors generally—with many exceptions—lags a bit behind the curve in its attitudes toward all things LGBT. In particular, talk page remarks that would bring swift and certain retribution if they were directed at racial or religious minorities or women are sometimes tolerated when they're directed toward LGBT people. This has been especially true when it comes to transphobic remarks. And there have been some incidents wherein LGBT or LGBT-friendly editors have been accused of biased editing for no apparent good reason. So yes, there's a hostile environment, at least some of the time and in some parts of the wiki. I've never been harassed by anyone here for being gay, but I have avoided editing in some topic areas because I've found the associated discussions oppressive. I'd be curious to know what prompted this thread. RivertorchFIREWATER 19:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Some members of ArbCom are LGBT, but I've never bothered to count how many of my colleagues there are. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There is no clear evidence to deduce that a person identifying as LGBT is any more or less likely to work well with others because the others are openly LGBT.
Yes I have considered retirement due to the hostility created because I was openly gay and pushed for the encyclopedia to include gay cultural topics, at a time when these were invariably considered controversial. Some of the hostility and hounding I experienced was from admins and some has lasted years. I used to make thousands of edits in a month, I make hardly any in comparison now, and do not feel welcome or supported.
Rivertorch expressed it well above. --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"Adoption by same-sex couples"

I was just contemplating Template:LGBT rights table Asia, but I'm sure there a lot of other places with the same problem (Template:LGBT rights table Europe for example). I'm asking it here because I can't unilaterally change it, I'm not sure if I even want to, and I'm not sure if it's come up before (and if it has it was probably here).

If a country or territory does not formally recognize "same-sex couples" in any official capacity, then isn't the question of whether they formally allow gay couples to adopt kind of irrelevant? A lot of entries in the template linked have an "X" for all three of "Recognition of same-sex unions", "Same-sex marriage" and "Adoption by same-sex couples", but if the first two both have an "X" shouldn't the third be marked as "N/A" or the like? Marking it with an "X" seems a little weird when, as far as the law in those territories is concerned "same-sex couples" are not formally recognized in any capacity to begin with.

There are also, I'm sure, countries that formally allow adoption by unmarried individuals regardless of either their sexuality or with whom they are in a not-state-recognized relationship, which would make the question of whether same-sex "couples" in an informal cohabitative relationship can formally adopt as a couple moot.

So surely the question of whether a state formally allows adoption by same-sex couples should only be asked once it is established that the state formally recognizes same-sex relationships in some capacity, no?

Apologies if this has come up before and someone had a reasonable explanation and an example of a state where the first two were clear "X"s but the adoption box was ticked (somehow).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that several entries in the second of the templates I linked above actually have some variations on "Individuals may adopt" or "LGBT individuals may adopt", but the big red "X" right beside this still seems inappropriate when many of them don't formally recognize same-sex unions in any capacity anyway. Just removing the "X" and saying "LGBT individuals may adopt" would be better, no? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I can think of a past example which might apply: South Africa allowed adoption by "a permanent same-sex life partnership" several years before there was any general official recognition of same-sex couples. I suppose one could argue that recognition for the purposes of adoption is a form of official recognition, though. - htonl (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Htonl: Assuming the timeline presented in Template:LGBT rights table Africa#Southern Africa is basically accurate, (a) and (b) were not both simple "X"s even in 2002 (as there was [l]imited recognition of unregistered partnerships since 1998), the situation that came about with the court decision in 2002 was only in place for a few years anyway, and I can hardly imagine any state formally being in such a situation for more than a few years to begin with. But it's kind of irrelevant since, if Wikipedia had had these lists in the four years between when adoption was recognized and marriages were legalized, chances are that (c) would have still been marked with a green tick rather than a red "X". It currently has a tick and says it has been legal since 2002. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

African American LGBT Biography Project

Dear friends,

I'm working with a number of African American LGBT organizers to increase awareness of African American LGBT cultural figures. These would most likely be in the format of notable biographies. Is it possible to start a sub-project that would focus on this work? If so, how? If not, do you have suggestions about how to create a team who would focus on this particular piece of wikipedia? Many thanks for all advice, Harveymilk (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd be interested - I have created several bios on black LGBT folks (a group I'm also a part of), some for Wikipedia:Women in Red which is having an editathon for Black History Month right now. You might want to post over there too... Funcrunch (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora might have interested participants. Funcrunch (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you could post them here as soon as they've been created and I'm sure many of us will want to expand them.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Chadwick Moore

Shall we create an article about Chadwick Moore? I am not certain that there are enough reliable third-party sources, so I thought I'd ask here.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on your question per se, but it occurs to me that in instances of emerging public figures of marginal notability, Wikipedia coverage might create an echo effect leading to more (and perhaps better) media coverage of the person, which in turn could be used to argue for their notability. A feedback loop of sorts, in other words. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
At the moment, I'd consider his notability claim to be WP:BLP1E. There may be a stronger basis for a Wikipedia article in the future, but if all we can really say right now is that he got a brief blip of coverage for switching his ideological affiliation from "liberal" to "conservative", I don't consider that particularly strong grounds for an article all by itself — if he writes a book about the switch, then he might get over WP:AUTHOR for that book's reviews, but for the moment I don't see how this has become more than a 1E blip yet. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think he is notable for speaking out about his harassment as a gay conservative, but I think he may be notable as a journalist. So many heterosexual journalists have Wikipedia articles. But are there enough reliable third-party sources out there?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
A lot of journalists have Wikipedia articles mainly because some users seem to think the existence of a primary source staff profile on the website of their own employer is enough sourcing to support an article about every individual reporter at every individual television station, even if it's little more than a thinly veiled rewrite of that same profile. The number of journalists who have articles is far, far greater than the number of journalists who've actually earned them under the notability standards defined by WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting reference

Hello! This article should probably be used as a reference but I'm not sure where:

Feel free to use it. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Asia Kate Dillon

Asia Kate Dillon plays Taylor Mason in Showtime's Billions, one of the first nonbinary characters in mainstream US TV. Dillon is also nonbinary.

Their role as a nonbinary character has been quite well noted in entertainment media for such a niche topic, and it's big news for the nonbinary community, so I thought it might be good to make an article about them.

It's currently a draft and I'm not really sure how else I can make it better. I've also never made a draft of a page before. Can anyone help me to improve it somehow, or advise me on what to do next? Do you think I should submit it for review?

Editing to add: Link to draft! Draft:Asia Kate Dillon

Thanks!

--Cassolotl (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cassolotl: Thanks for starting this article; I'm always glad to see more bios of nonbinary people on Wikipedia. I made a couple of small edits. It would be good to seek out and add a couple more non-primary sources before submitting the draft. As far as including a photo, Commons has strict rules on what is allowed; see here for a guide. Funcrunch (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Funcrunch Thanks! Non-primary sources, would they be sources other than Dillon's self-published social media pages? So, news articles and so on? Cassolotl (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cassolotl: Yes. Primary sources are acceptable for establishing the subject's gender identity and/or sexual orientation, but otherwise are not considered reliable sources. Funcrunch (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Funcrunch: Ahh that makes sense. I removed the primary sources because all the non-primary sources also establish Dillon's gender identity and pronouns, so hopefully that is considered a good move. And I found another two non-primary sources and added those in. I'm struggling a lot with the image thing though, and I don't know anything about their date of birth or anything. I'll do more research. Cassolotl (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Laura de Force Gordon

Hey! I'm having problems with sourcing for an article and was hoping someone here could help out. Laura de Force Gordon is an important early California suffragette, and left a note in a time capsule saying that she was a "lover of her own sex". Other than that note (which is ambiguous, given the time she wrote it and her career), none of the sources I have access to say she was a lesbian. (There is one book published in the 90s that also claims it, but as best as I can tell from Google Book Search they also claim it based on the single note; the only other source that talks much about her private life quotes a private letter discussing how destroyed she was by her husband's infidelity and subsequent divorce.) I don't want to whitewash the article if in fact she was a lesbian, but also don't want to go out on a limb based on a single ambiguous note. So... suggestions on next steps? Thanks. —Luis (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Simply quote the note; leave interpretation up to the reader. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on an article for deletion

A single user account nominated this article for deletion.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human sexuality spectrum The user justified deletion based on the following. "This is inaccurate. Almost everything here is absolutely false, and misleads confused people into believing that some of these are actual sexualites or genders. Stop misleading these children into your false state of mind." Please comment on whether we should keep, merge, or delete the article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human sexuality spectrum. Waters.Justin (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Restoration Youth Academy scandal

I have added some info about this to Prichard, Alabama and I wonder if we should do the same with Mobile, Alabama, or even create an article about this anti-gay, so-called Christian camp. Here are some references we could cite:

Let me know what you think. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Same-sex relationships

I was wondering what the community consensus was on same-sex relationships; i.e. the use of terms such as the rights of gay people to marry vs. the rights of same-sex couples to marry or the rights of those in same-sex relationships to marry, or the general use of the term gay relationship to mean same-sex relationship?

I would assume the consensus is to use the term "same-sex" in order to avoid bisexual erasure and to be, well, more accurate really. If so, should it be added to the guidelines for this WikiProject? HelgaStick (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should refer to same-sex, not gay, relationships and marriage, unless quoting a source that specifically says otherwise. This is for the reason you state: Not only gay people are in same-sex relationships; bisexual, pansexual, and asexual people are as well. Heterosexual transgender people are also affected by laws affecting same-sex marriage rights when their transitioned genders are not recognized. Funcrunch (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The "right of gay people to marry" is alsoproblematic because it places the ban at the individual level. The law never said a person couldn't marry, they were just restricted in who they could marry. A gay man could marry a lesbian woman, and the law and everyone would be happy (well, except for the couple themselves.) So we're better off describing the structure ("same-sex relationship") than the individuals involved. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with the above responses. The law never technically said that gay people couldn't marry at all — it just blocked us from marrying people of the same gender, while not at all prohibiting us from marrying people of the opposite sex. Yes, that sounds like meaningless sophistry and hairsplitting if you actually analyze it, but I have actually seen that used as an argument against SSM by opponents of SSM. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Graham Chapman

Could somebody pop over to Talk:Graham Chapman and solve a fairly innocuous content dispute over some LGBT related categories on the article? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Donald Trump talk regarding LGBT rights

Please comment on the RfC on Donald Trump talk regarding whether or not to include a section on LGBT rights in the Domestic Policy section of the article here. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism: Lucian Wintrich

I have trimmed vandalism from Lucian Wintrich's article and added him to my watchlist, but it may be worth adding him to yours as well in case it happens again. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just had to revert more vandalism.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Laurel Hubbard

Could someone familiar with the rules around coverage of transgender sportspeople take a look at Laurel Hubbard please? A couple of things lookwrong tome but I'm not familiar with the rules. She made the front page of the national sports news here and seems likely to make waves at the commonwealth games, so it would be good to get it right before then. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page there. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:National Pride March

I've created a draft space stub for the National Pride March being planned for Washington, D.C., in June. Feel free to contribute to the draft here: Draft:National Pride March. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It needs a specific title, which includes the nation referred to. --Fæ (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fæ: Hey, Fæ! What do you propose? Secondary coverage, such as the Out source used in the Wikipedia article, and the event's Twitter page, refer to the event specifically as "National Pride March". Why would we use a different article title here if there is no other Wikipedia article by this name (no disambiguation is needed)? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Unless this is established in reliable non-US publications as a common usage, it feels Americanocentric and like carpetbagging to reserve the term for a US national event rather than qualifying the title. When I read the title without preconceptions, I imagined it was going to be about national Pride marches in general (the UK used to have a Pride march, but over time this has turned into a London specific event after so many other cities have separate events, that's the sort of thing that a generic article would explain). --Fæ (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
We can wait for more articles about "National Pride March" in other countries to pop up before changing this article's title. Then, we can turn National Pride March into a disambiguation page and retitle this article as National Pride March (United States). Until a second article under the same name exists, however, there's no reason to disambiguate this article further. ~Mable (chat) 09:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
+1 ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the article should explain what the point of this march is. If there is already a DC march, what difference does it make to have another march in the same city by another name?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Gender Equality

Hi all! I'm from Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism and I'm currently trying to edit and fix up some of our top-importance assigned articles. One of those articles is Gender equality as you can see in the lead section my first issue is that the article doesn't want to discuss genders other than male or female to 'avoid complication'. Which is a bit of a red flag for me as a feminist. The second concern is that the page needs a lot of cleanup. It's often the target of class projects, so there's a whole lot of extra historical context being thrown in for every statement. I'm trying to separate that out into a 'notes' section' in order to get a better idea of the bones that we're working with, but I'd like to move the article in the direction of the idea of gender equality - and hopefully away from the binary analysis. If anyone interested in gender-queer, trans, agender or gender-fluid editing would like to pitch in and help I would love to work with you. HelloStarling (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

LGBT rights in South Africa

The article has NPOV problems, it seems to have been extensively edited by someone with an "activist" bias. Some attempts to clean it up have been made by editors who are not well versed in the subject. hence this appeal for an expert to go over it. Please see WT:WikiProject South Africa#LGBT rights in South Africa has serious problems for some earlier discussion. The bias is not always very apparent, it is sometimes in what is left unsaid rather than what is said in the article. The use of sources of doubtful reliability to support controversial claims is also a potential problem - such as blogs containing unproven allegations of official abuse by the former government. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Portland Women March Against Hate

Project members are invited to participate in the AfD discussion re: Portland Women March Against Hate. I've expressed an interest in moving the article to March Against Hate, and expanding its scope to cover more than just Portland. I welcome editors to either contribute to the ongoing discussion or help expand this article's section for other cities. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My comment was censored. Has this happened before in a WikiProject? Is this still a safe space for LGBT editors, if our comments get censored?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Removing talk page comments that violate WP:NOTFORUM, which I agree that yours did, is not an example of WP:CENSORSHIP. Nor is it evidence of discrimination against LGBT editors. Funcrunch (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
This is not a forum for a (self-described) rant. You've been here long enough to know that. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, does this apply to a WikiProject talkpage like ours? I wouldn't write that comment on an article talkpage, but this is a different setting.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
According to the WikiProject Council, WikiProject talk pages should follow the talk page guidelines. Funcrunch (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Lets take a step back. Perhaps Zigzig20s could express what they want to say about potential left-wing bias in a relaxed and civil way? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
"The rally began with a performance by the Fallen Angel Choir, who sang "remastered" Christmas carols criticizing Trump and celebrating women and the LGBT community." assumes Trump v. women & LGBT. This is extremely POV-pushing. Perhaps we could rephrase it as "claiming to celebrate women and the LGBT community"?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The current wording in the article conforms to what is said in the source: "The Fallen Angel Choir kicked off the rally with some remastered Christmas carols that made jabs at President-elect Donald Trump and celebrated women and the LGBTQ community." (I also think this discussion would be better held on the article talk page.) Funcrunch (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The event may have been strongly POV, but is the article? We need to describe the event, and its POV, if that's how sources describe it. So long as Wikipedia's voice doesn't have that POV, it's fine. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The event did not celebrate the LGBT community at all. It claimed to celebrate the LGBT community.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
At all? What is the difference? WP:CLAIM—If those participating believe the event to have been celebrating it, they were celebrating it. El_C 18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
No. I explained that in the redacted comment. They're using the LGBT community as props. They can claim to celebrate us all they want but we can't let them speak for us on Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Zigzig20s, I think you're letting your opinions get in the way of neutrally reporting the facts here. Funcrunch (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
No, I think it would be NPOV to say they are claiming to celebrate us. We are not their pet project; we are real human beings and they don't necessarily speak for us. What they are doing is the definition of paternalism.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
You're saying "they" as if you know there were no LGBT-identified people in this choir or at this rally. Which we don't know because that isn't mentioned in the quoted sources. Regardless, you're just reiterating your opinions and I think this whole discussion is not helping constructively improve the article in any way. Funcrunch (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way. But I am afraid it is helping because I am trying to make the article more NPOV (and thus less offensive to those who don't believe they speak on our behalf). It shouldn't be in the voice of Wikipedia that they celebrated the LGBT community, since it's not true. What is true is that they claimed to do so.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

We must reflect how reliable sources discuss the event, not our own opinions about it. It seems like you believe that there not celebrating lgbtq community, but if thanks sources say they are, then that can be in Wikipedia's voice. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Sources may be equally biased. We relay facts, not sentiments. It is true that they claimed to celebrate the LGBT community; it is not true that they celebrated it. Their intent may have been in the right place, but that does not make it true.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone else agree with me? I'm trying to reach consensus here. I don't see how it would be an issue to rephrase it and say they claimed or suggested to celebrate the LGBT community. The current wording is POV.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. If a person or group self-identifies as celebrating something, I think that second-guessing them poses a neutrality problem. RivertorchFIREWATER 06:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Sources are allowed to be biased (WP:BIASED). We don't report facts/truth, we report what sources say (WP:TRUTH). EvergreenFir (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Precisely. They say they're celebrating the LGBT community. They're not celebrating the LGBT community.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Our shared aim is to ensure a neutral point of view applies, but the quality of LGBT+ related articles is measured just as any other. Consequently the requirement for the content of articles to not be original research but fully to rely on reliable sources applies. That said, it's a good thing to challenge any apparent bias of article tone, but to do this successfully please find some reliable sources to back up your point. At the moment, the point you have repeated above is an interpretation but not obvious fact, and thus original research, not something that has been stated in at least one reliable source.
By the way, a separate line of enquiry would be to assess the geographic circulation and possible political bias of sources, there may be an argument that there is a Wikipedia:Walled garden problem with sourcing, that itself can damage article quality and may be very hard to fix, unless notability can be challenged, but can at least be recognized. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm tired. If I'm creating an article about an academic and a reviewer says his book is "intriguing", I don't say the book is intriguing in the voice of Wikipedia; I say the reviewer says the book is intriguing. Same difference here.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The parallel is flawed. The primary source is KATU, http://katu.com/station/contact, which seems to have no political agenda in making their report and seems to have no affiliation with the March.
Most of your apparent annoyance may be misplaced. The wording in the KATU article that was quoted above and introduced the word 'celebrated' was that of a KATU staff member, not just a regurgitated quote from the March organizers. The word 'celebrated' actually refers to the Fallen Angel Choir, not the March or its other participants, and one of their songs "It's a most wonderful time to be queer" seems okay to be described as a celebration of the LGBT community. You can find the song by searching YouTube for The Fallen Angel Choir. I would rather the article did not just reuse wording from the KATU article without being in quotes, so would have no problem in seeing 'celebration' dropped and the sentence rephrased, but the meaning would end up the same so it's not something I would get worked up about. --Fæ (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe "celebrating" as opposed to celebrating?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I would rather just see it rephrased. It's poor for Wikipedia to be recycling newspaper text. If it were my student, I would have to have a chat about avoiding plagiarism in essays. I suggest you have a think about it and make a proposal on the article talk page. I'll be quite busy over the next few days, but will chip in. There's no hurry. --Fæ (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Chechnya needs a major clean-up

LGBT rights in Chechnya needs a major clean-up. We could also cite:

Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Generating trans/nonbinary/intersex lists from Wikidata

There's a current discussion over at Women in Red regarding generating lists of trans, non-binary, and intersex people from Wikidata, which should be of interest to this project as well. Funcrunch (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Gays for Trump

I created a stub for Gays for Trump because of a request made in a section above. However, the article has been marked for deletion. I invite project members to please help expand the article and/or express your thoughts re: deletion on the article's talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

And guess why no one has edited/expanded it?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I decided to walk in the fire (or dance to Not-discopop) and edit it by adding two reliable third-party sources. However, I did not expand it. We still live in fear because of the discretionary sanctions. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure folks are refusing to expand the stub, which is only a few days old, or living in "fear" of discretionary sanctions. I'm working on other articles lately, but this is one I might revisit at a later date. Just not a top priority right now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
See thread above.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not sure who this "we" is that Zigzig20s purports to speak for. Especially since the article was created less than two days ago. Funcrunch (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
At least two editors! It's all in the thread above. Funcrunch, if you want to take a chance, be my guest!Zigzig20s (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I read the entire thread above before making my comment. I'm not interested in working on that particular article, but it has nothing to do with the sanctions. Funcrunch (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
At least two of us believe it does!Zigzig20s (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Whereas the four of us believe that it dosen't. That said, again, if anyone else felt intimidated by the tag, please speak up. Nothing is set in stone. El_C 02:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
There are a gazillion articles that theoretically fall under the rubric of discretionary sanctions, but most of them haven't been tagged because there's been no sign of a problem. Preemptive tagging is unlikely to discourage problem actors from editing, but it might well persuade others not to bother. I can see how inexperienced editors might be intimidated by the tag, although many might not even notice it. (As a newbie, I tended to ignore shaded text boxes at the tops of pages as so much clutter.) I'm not at all intimidated, but if I were to happen across such a tag, it would be a red flag for me: Don't contribute here unless you're willing to get drawn into a stressful situation where power-happy admins (yes, we have a few of those) with questionable judgment and neutrality (and those too) unilaterally use procedural technicalities to thwart productive discussion and impede the addition of policy-compliant content. I might wade in anyway, after checking to see what problems had led to the placement of the tag. If I couldn't find any problems, I'd probably click away in a hurry. (I'm speaking generally here, not about this article specifically. There are certain subject areas I avoid just because they're too depressing in the first place.) RivertorchFIREWATER 15:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Since there was enough opposition, I've deleted the pagenotices. But the articles remain under Ds, and the pagenotice/s may be re-added. El_C 03:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
To clarify my comments above, I can understand and respect if other editors might be intimidated by the sanctions notice, but the sanctions notice is not the reason that I am choosing not to edit the article. I just didn't like the (to me) vague and presumptive nature of the "we live in fear" comment. Funcrunch (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I (and I'm sure many others) have been under the assumption that "Gays for Trump" was nothing but a twitter account which had been traced back to the IP of a (decidedly heterosexual) Trump supporter. That may be why it gets little attention, and why what attention it has gotten seems to be negative. Having been corrected by this thread and digging into it a bit, I have (admittedly minor) questions about notability in the policy sense, though not in the general sense: I feel like a legitimate LGBT organization formed to support Trump is quite notable by its very nature. But I'm not seeing a whole bunch of third party coverage. I'll keep digging, see if I can find more. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
There was talk of voting for Trump after Orlando. Include that in your search. Perhaps someone put something together. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at this AfD on an Norwegian LGBT association in Norway

Someone has nominated this article for deletion. [1]. It is based on primary sources it seems, but also, it's title should probably include Norway, saying National Association. . .could be any country. Editors want to keep it, and I would also if they move the page. Please offer comments if you've the time. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

and a reminder

This RfC needs comments regarding a section on LGBT rights on this article. here Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

LGBT in Australia

In Australia both Qantas and the Canberra Airport strongly support same-sex marriage. This support is covered on the Qantas page. This support has been removed from the Canberra Airport page. Refer Canberra Airport Talk Page. FYI CharlieDickins (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

resource for references

Hi all! I just wanted to mention that I am a member of the Quatrefoil Library (catalog), and would be happy to help people find references if they would like assistance. = paul2520 16:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Archive_58&oldid=1088082386"