Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 73

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

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

FYI

Pursuant to this and this. I thought you should be made aware of this one, this one, and this one. And this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.49.247 (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm skeptical as to whether playing Whac-A-Mole with individual user boxes is a constructive use of time, but there is a current discussion of potential interest on the general user box policy at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes § Restrictive language--Trystan (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Categories question - Peter Karlsson (ice hockey)

Hello all, I read this news article [1] on a Swedish ice hockey player who was killed in an alleged Gay panic defense and I was wondering what the policy would be on LGBT categories on this man's article.

According to the news article, Karlsson was not openly gay, but this was the 1990s and he played a macho sport, so this is not unusual. The only testimony that he was gay comes from his killer, a homophobic neo-Nazi. The killer testified that he was reacting against a sexual assault, while nobody else had any recollection of Karlsson being violent. The killer may have fabricated the whole thing to exploit the panic defence and a homophobic legal system.

I do not deny that Karlsson was a victim of a homophobic murder. But I'm caught in two minds about what to do with the biographical categories. On one hand, Karlsson may have been a closeted gay man, but on the other hand, the only witness to that was a Nazi who killed him. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:CATLGBT "For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate". It's not clear to me that there is such consensus - of the two sources used in our article, one says that he was gay (but the same author in a previous article in that series writes uncritically that "Socrates was homosexual", and reports that Ravel was "a gay French composer" when our article says "sexuality and personal life remain a mystery", so I suspect him of lacking nuance on the topic of queer figures in history!); the other is a BBC article which is pretty equivocal on the matter. If more reliable sources exist saying that Karlsson was gay, the category might be appropriate.

As the article stands at the moment, I would be inclined to keep Category:Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes while removing Category:Gay sportsmen, Category:LGBT ice hockey players, Category:LGBT sportspeople from Sweden and Category:Violence against gay men. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Autism and sexual orientation article

Hey! I have recently created the Autism and sexual orientation article. I am not an expert in the area but I couldn't see the topic mentioned elsewhere. If anyone here has any additional information, or could look over and check what I have put in the article is accurate, I would greatly appreciate it! --Bangalamania (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this article! Already posted a possible section which could be added (and can be revised of course), to the article, on the talk page. I'll see what I can add and find, as there is bound to be some articles about this out there. Historyday01 (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Angels and gender

There's a discussion at WP Christianity about the gender of angels and whether they should be treated as non-binary. Enjoy! Skyerise (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yup, left a comment on there. I look forward to further discussion on the topic.--Historyday01 (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Kim Anh article declined

Hello, I worked on an article for Kim Anh, which seemed to be declined solely for her music notability, and it doesn't appear her LGBTQ+ activism was taken into consideration. Would someone mind looking into this for me? Any insight is greatly appreciated. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

New category for specifically anti-trans groups

I have created the category Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights as its own category distinct from Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights. Currently, the LGB Alliance is the only group there, which is a good example of what I'm talking about. Describing them as "anti-LGBT" is inaccurate (they claim to be pro-LGB but anti-T), and there are quite a few "gender critical" groups (depending on your perspective) that are very specifically anti-trans in the same manner. If anyone on this WikiProject has pages to add/change to that category, it would be greatly appreciated. –Bangalamania (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it not sufficient to include them under orgs that oppose LGBT rights on the basis of their opposing trans rights? The reader will undoubtedly figure out what the deal is when they get to the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

They don’t oppose LGB rights. They oppose T rights. So, no, that wouldn’t make sense. —Kbabej (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, they claim not to, those who have seen their tweets can decide for themselves... Anyway, I can see the logic behind the new subcategory but I can also foresee problems defining what should and should not be included. Many anti-LGBT groups have a greater or lesser emphasis on hating one stripe of the rainbow more actively than the others and there doesn't seem to be a clear line between that and a truly specific group (if indeed any such truly exist). It also seems odd to have a subcategory for specifically anti-trans groups but not for specifically anti-L, G, B and I groups. Maybe we need those as well? I'm not pretending to have an answer here, just pointing out some issues. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

James Barry (surgeon)

Please weigh in at Talk:James_Barry_(surgeon)#Trans_men_category. Does it violate categorization guidelines to apply Category:Transgender and transsexual men, since Barry did not identify with the trans label during their lifetime and not all sources agree with it? Or is it appropriate for a subject whose main claim to fame was as an AFAB person living as a man, whom reliable sources have shifted to describing as a man (with or without concurrently including Category:Female-to-male cross-dressers in light of older sources describing Barry as a woman in disguise)? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity" category at CfD

WikiProject members and page watchers may wish to view or comment on this deletion discussion about Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

List of LGBT Exhibitions

Hi, a researcher I am working with is interested in created a page listing UK exhibitions on the topic of LGBT issues. I was just wondering if there was best practice tips I should know about.

Will we have problems meeting the notability requirements? Does the new page have to be a Draft which we submit?

Thank you. Furbybrain (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Furbybrain: This article will lay out how you'll want to go about the process. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Potential Discord Channel

The unofficial-official server, WP:DISCORD, (which covers en-wiki, commons, meta, wikidata, and a lot of wikiprojects) has potential for a collaboration and discussion environment on Discord for this project.

I propose the WikiProject have a channel there for discussion of LGBT-related matters that pertain to the project and wiki. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd support that. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be helpful. Good idea. Isabelle ^🔔 22:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

+1, Urve (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Men seeking men redirect discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 5#Men seeking men regarding retargeting or deleting the redirect "men seeking men".. Thank you. —AFreshStart (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Gay pride → LGBTQ pride

An editor has requested for Gay pride to be moved to LGBTQ pride. Since you had some involvement with Gay pride, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so).

LGBT pride and Pride (LGBT) have also been suggested as alternative names and additional participants may be help in reaching a consensus. Havelock Jones (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway article reassessment

Her article seems to contain a single line about LGBT activism, which is placed among a myriad of other activist pursuits which seem more substantive. My question is if/how Anne Hathaway's article fits within this WikiProject. If it does, why exactly is the project's scope so unusually broad? P.S. I'm a Wikipedia newbie so I may not know what I'm talking about. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hah, I saw your comment come up on my watchlist and had the same thought - "is she bi and I didn't hear about it?" I agree that one or two statements or donations in favor of LGBT rights in an otherwise unrelated career of acting, philanthropy, and heterosexuality do not bring someone under this project umbrella. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that the article isn't substantially within the project's scope.--Trystan (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well. I think the article doesn't fall within this project's scope. --Kbabej (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Pronoun-warring at Bethany C. Meyers

Can we get some additional eyeballs at Bethany C. Meyers? Various IPs (including 2601:1C2:0:D060:0:0:0:86ED (talk · contribs), twice) have been edit-warring to force gendered pronouns into this article, contrary to Meyers's stated preference for singular they. If we can't get this IP to give it up, I'll ask for semi-protection, but that shouldn't be the first step. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Always sad to see that. Sure, I'll give the page a look when I have some time. That edit warning. It reminds me of those IPs battling over sections on the Dorothy Gale and Princess Ozma pages, in regards to what some called a lesbian relationship (others said it was just "romantic friendship") between both characters. I got involved in that at one time, but now I don't really pay it mind, because its basically inevitable that they will edit war with each other. --Historyday01 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I've got eyes on now. I don't think semi-protection is uncalled for at this point, but I'm content to see what happens next. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Err is this person notable? They are the founder of a business that does not even have it's own wikipedia page and 1/3rd of the article is personal life.Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

There was a deletion discussion here from 2019 that came to the determination the subject was notable, though I have a hard time getting notability from the article. --Kbabej (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Claude Cahun

The pronouns used in the article are inconsistent, alternating between she/her and they/them. There's a quote in the lead that could be intreperated as the article subject identifying as non-binary. I'm not sure what to do in this particular circumstance, I just saw someone changing pronouns while glancing through recent changes. I need to sleep and there seems to be mutiple old discussions about this on the talk page, so I thought this would be the place to bring attention and see what, if anything, should be done. Clovermoss (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

They/them pronouns are always appropriate for someone of indeterminate gender identity regardless of the reason for that lack of determination. The inconsistency should be removed, the two remaining she/her pronouns normalised to they/them Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

She/her was the status quo, and there is evidence that those are the ones that should be used. See the newer comments at Talk:Claude Cahun#Pronouns as well as Talk:Claude Cahun#Gender pronouns. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this evidence. Could you link directly to it? I agree with anti that the appropriate thing to do if there is any unclarity is to leave it in the middle.--Licks-rocks (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The only "unclarity" is from a few editors making assumptions, not any dispute in the sources. Both RS and Cahun's terms used in reference to herself are in the feminine gender. This is in the comments there; I don't feel the need to quote them here. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh that's what you meant. I was looking for a link and couldn't find any. I agree that it's a bit weird to impose new pronouns on someone, yeah. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking for a collaborator

I am attempting to revive an abandoned draft about Alison Kafer. She is an American academic who has written an influential book Feminist, Queer, Crip about the intersectionality of Feminist, Queer, and Disability Studies. She has also authored many other works on related topics. I'm looking for someone reasonably familiar with feminist and/or queer scholarship, as I'm quite comfortable dealing with disability topics but I'm out of my depth with the other two subject areas. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help! I will be free most all Friday day to work on it if that works. Just let me know! --Kbabej (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kbabej Thanks, that would be very helpful, time is not an issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Great. Looking forward to collaborating! --Kbabej (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Aimee Challenor

More eyes at Talk:Aimee Challenor#Smear Campaign would help establish whether a Times source should be included in the article, and if so how it should be summarised. — Bilorv (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Mary Griffith (activist)

I have given the Mary Griffith (activist) page an overhaul. I'd love if it the project could review the status of the article. Nauseous Man (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for adding to the article! It's still pretty brief but I'll have a look at what could be expanded. I have added the WikiProject LGBT template so maybe that will draw more eyes to it. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 03:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

ClaudineChionh thanks for giving it over a once over! I was pretty keen to get it published that I overlooked some mistakes ha. Nauseous Man (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Liliana Bakhtiari

New stub: Liliana Bakhtiari. Improvements welcome, especially re: image. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Now On WP:DISCORD

The channel #wplgbt has been created on the WP:DISCORD community server under the category of WikiProjects. A notice about this has also been added to the main project page as well. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:LGBTQ+ Trauma

Hello, WikiProject,

I came across this recently created draft and wondered what folks here think about its premise, that LGBTQ+ trauma is the distress an individual experiences due to being a lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer person or from possessing another minoritized sexual or gender identity. They are a student editor, so just learning the ways of Wikipedia. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Culture of the LDS Church article potentially using outdated language

In the section "Temple Symbolism", there is a sentence that reads, "All homosexual activity is considered sinful". Should this be changed or does this outdated language better reflect the teachings of the Latter-day Saint's teachings? --96.233.119.8 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "homosexual" is inappropriate in this context. What would you even replace it with? Colin M (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

LGBT or LGBTQ?

I understand that this question comes up repeatedly, but I'm starting to think it's time to change the titles of articles containing "LGBT" so that a Q is added. Up until fairly recently, LGBT had more Google search results. However, I now see that LGBTQ has 195,000,000 results, while LGBT has only 186,000,000. Is it time to change our article titles per WP:COMMONNAME? I understand an RFC just closed, but is it finally time to reconsider? Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

A mass change of article titles based only on a google search seems extremely misguided. No. Urve (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Just making sure. I came here from my experience at [[[WP:RM]]. I was also focusing on GLAAD recommendations where they say LGBTQ is preferable to LGBT. If the community doesn't want to change them, that's totally fine. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the question makes sense. But the essential concern I have comes down to a few things. First, LGBTQ can be anachronistic to describe certain historical events. Second, it can be an issue of national varieties of English, because some places may take one word over another (GLAAD's remit certainly isn't in India or Belize, right?). Third, it can cause a source-text incongruity; some concepts are only describable with one word, such as LGBT, LGBTQ, or queer, and these are not necessarily synonymous!... take for example queer ecology or queer anti-urbanism (a couple of articles where more work can be done, hint hint), where the scholarship is specifically about queer understandings, not just LGBT or LGBTQ. So until it's a truly universal common name -- and that requires a bit more work than just Google hits -- I think it's not a good idea to effect large changes about nomenclature. Urve (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Understood. I see your point now. In that case, I think we should wait for organizations and universities to begin using the term more. I guess I got a little too carried away with the possibility of this being an early sign. Thanks for the swift reply. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the RFC marked the end of the era where everything was standardized to LGBT, which at least opens up the ability to more closely reflect sources on an article-by-article basis.--Trystan (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Stonewall

I might be able to use some help on the Talk page of Stonewall (charity) in regards to the Opposition section and the misleading language that's being used by campaigners, preferably from someone who's better versed in Wiki policy than I am (kinda new here). –CupOfTea696 (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Kim Anh

Adding this back to the discussion. I think with Draft:Kim Anh's involvement and advocacy for prop 8, and the Guardian Queer Maps project, she has contributed greatly to the LGBT community. Also, her music seems to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) in that she "has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria," "has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." (with Sam Sparro and Peaches). I know it was Sam Sparro's album who reached #1 in Belgium, and not Kim Anh's, but I still think there's something there. If anyone can have a further look into this, it'd be appreciated + any help to publish this draft. I don't think any of these points were considered in the original deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Anh. Of course, if I'm misunderstanding any of these notability requirements, please let me know. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

She also may meet this - "has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" with her support for Uh_Huh_Her_(band). Although, I know the articles mostly focus on Uh Huh Her. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Amita Kuttner pronouns

There is a discussion at Talk:Amita Kuttner about appropriate pronouns for the article. Kuttner seems to use "they/he/ille" pronouns. Reliable sources seem to be using they/them to refer to Kuttner who identifies as non-binary and pan-sexual. Our MOS does not seem to have guidance precisely on point: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity. Guidance and input may be helpful. The current status quo is to avoid all pronouns (ie just use Kuttner's name).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling has an RFC

J. K. Rowling, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, 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. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Should Talk:Éric Zemmour have a gender DS alert?

I added one, an editor I respect removed it saying "This isn't really an article about a gender-related controversy rising to the level of one that needs Ds enabled". The editor did add this Wikiproject to the talk page. Comments? Doug Weller talk 14:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I've only took a cursory look of the article (it's huge!), but it seems like gender issues are a small part of the subject's biography, so I agree with the other editor (I also checked the talk page and the article history and didn't see much of a need for gender DS for now). I'm not sure adding the WP's banner is correct, either, as it seems tangential to the project's interests (for example, J. K. Rowling also doesn't have this project's banner, despite how notable she is for her LGBT-related opinions). Isabelle ^🔔 14:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't it fall under the BLP DS purview? Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: definitel, I don't know how I missed that it didn't have one. Thanks for adding it. I wonder if the fact he is running for president now effects what DS alerts he should have. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Not from what I can tell, I guess it depends on how his comments on race and behavior evolve, but it's highly unlikely to me that that will feature so prominently in his coverage to warrant the race DS alert. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United Kingdom

This discussion may be of interest to people here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 3. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia

Hello. I'm a spanish wikipedian. We have less than half of the articles of your Wikipedia, so I'm trying to translate some with interest for the LGTB Portal. Where can I find a list of the articles that you watch? Thanks for your help. --JFremd (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject LGBT studies articles? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! --JFremd (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Amsterdam Rainbow Dress

New stub: Amsterdam Rainbow Dress. I'm sure the dress has been displayed in other cities and modeled by other notable people, if you're aware of more to add. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Spectra Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Joint Math Meetings

On January 5, 2022, there will be a Wikipedia edit-a-thon sponsored by Spectra, the LGBT mathematics organization, at the Joint Math Meetings in Seattle. See the Meetup page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Spectra/Spectra_at_JMM_2022. Mvitulli (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC about rapid-onset gender dysphoria

Comments would be welcome at Talk:Irreversible Damage#RfC: Should rapid-onset gender dysphoria be described as "fringe"?. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria and other possible canvassing targets

An editor apparently new to LGBT topics is proposing changes to how the gender dysphoria does or does not emphasize strands of the literature on childhood gender nonconformity. Additional perspectives are needed. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

My best guess is that another round of off-wiki canvassing is underway. The latest target seems to be Feminist views on transgender topics. Newimpartial (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2021 Tbilisi Pride protests#Requested move 5 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2021 Tbilisi Pride protests#Requested move 5 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR _talk 21:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

LGBT Affirming Religious Groups Article

Hi, there have been a lot of improvements recently to the LGBT-affirming religious groups article. I don't totally understand how Wikiprojects work (to be honest) but I would love it if it could be re-assessed on the quality scale.

I would also love suggestions for improvements. There's several articles that deal with LGBT issues and religion so it's a bit of a challenge not to duplicate efforts. I've been trying to link to other articles where appropriate. I have been trying to add information about lesser known religions to better show diverse LGBT religious voices. I would really appreciate more information from people who speak other languages. For example, the Hinduism section is pretty short but I'm sure people who speak south Asian languages would know more about that topic. Joiedevivre123321 (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the Start class suffices for now. There are many empty subsections or sections that are too large for WP:SUMMARY style. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

need attestation for symbols

I found and on WP-de, but haven't been able to verify them. (Because there's a lot of idiosyncratic usage, we need to be sure to have RS's for the symbols listed at LGBT symbols.) Does anyone know of any sources? — kwami (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR for same-sex marriage in Spain

I have nominated Same-sex marriage in Spain for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 04:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

European Union or EU+EFTA?

Page LGBT rights in the European Union only considers EU member states. This applies to the graphical content too (for example, the map about marriages and civil unions have Iceland and Norway white). While this is correct w.r.t the article name, shouldn't the article consider EEA/EFTA countries too? For example, if the EU CJ ruling about residency for third-party nationals applies to EEA/EFTA countries too (as it *may* be since it the Freedom of Movement directives are usually embraced by EFTA/EEA members too), then I would expect to see Norway and Iceland in the map too, for example.

How to we interpret "European Union" in the context of this article? Strictly, or can we be more loose and consider it to include the EFTA countries?

(I understand this subject is controversial, just trying to strike a bit of balance between correctness and practicality). Touyats (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

We should consider it as strictly the EU. While EFTA/EEA members might follow their example, you are assuming they will. Especially when the page LGBT_rights_in_Europe exists, I don't see the need for your proposal above. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps then we could consider renaming the article to something else? I agree that "might" does not translate to "will", but I'd be more pragmatical here. Would a note in the introduction saying that EFTA countries are covered here too suffice? (And a corresponding note in LGBT in Europe to point out that EFTA countries are described here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Touyats (talk • contribs) 09:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Touyats I don't think I understand what you mean. I'd appreciate if you could rephrase your comment :) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean: let's add a disclaimer at the top saying "This article covers EU and EFTA countries".

And indeed, given that perhaps the EU has very little power when it comes to LGBT rights, and much is with the member countries, perhaps this article should rather be a called "LGBT rights and European Union law"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Touyats (talk • contribs) 09:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think an article on the European Union should cover EEA and EFTA. I just don't see the need to do so. Additionally, there are many times where the law differs with the practice or it might be relevant to highlight extrajudicial aspects of LGBT people in the EU so I would disagree with that name change as well. If you wish to pursue it, though, I would recommend you start an RFC in the article talk page, notify all the relevant WPs, and see if there is consensus for your changes, Touyats. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

EEA/EFTA afaik purely cover trade/economic stuff, not human rights/social matters, so it doesn't seem appropriate to include them. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the article should be renamed "LGBT rights in European Union law". While EU law only covers a limited number of LGBT rights, it applies also to EFTA and EEA members so they should be covered in the same article. (t · c) buidhe 04:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice

Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy § RFC: Should the websites she surveyed be described as "anti-trans" in the lead? Firefangledfeathers 23:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of WP:DS tags

Hi! I have added a bunch of discretionary sanction tags to a number of articles, mostly in intersex-related articles and a number of sex/gender difference medical articles as well. Please see my contribution log to see which ones (this is a short, on-going process). Just thought I'd give a notice here. Feel free to discuss the merits of these actions in my talk page, as this has been a WP:BOLD edit and I am very open to discussing/reverting these changes. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Milady de Winter Article

I'd welcome additional editor's comments on the discussion at Talk:Milady_de_Winter regarding the removal of the entire section regarding the theory that Milady was transgender (see removed section).--Shimbo (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Shimbo please use a neutrally worded notice next time, as this could be thought to be canvassing I recommend {{discussion notice}}. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

A._C._Santacruz Yes, you are quite right. I've edited the request. I was unaware of {{discussion notice}} --Shimbo (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Epaminondas Featured article review

User:Hog Farm has nominated Epaminondas for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

History of bisexuality

I translated in 2019 the article History of bisexuality in French, and coming back on the artticle I notice that the English version has disappearred and there is now a redirect to LGBT History. This seems very strange to me, as it is not the same subject. Does anybody here know what happened ? Nattes à chat (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nattes à chat: It seems like several articles were deleted on January due to copyright issues here. History of bisexuality was one of those. On the same day, a user recreated the page as a redirect. Isabelle ^🔔 22:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you I am checking on this. the article was full of references seems incredible that all of it was copyvio. Nattes à chat (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately the page was deleted, so we can't check the sources to see if something was salvageable, but you can always ask that an admin send you a copy of it to your email. Isabelle ^🔔 02:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That an article was referenced doesn't mean it's not a copyvio—you can get people acting in good faith who copy content from sources and reference them (though it stops being good faith when they've had dozens of warnings and still persist). However, CCI is, uniquely, the place on Wikipedia where volunteers are most overworked, so sometimes content is deleted as the safest cause of action when possibly some of it is salvageable. Ask for a refund via email and if you're willing to put in the effort to check thoroughly which bits are copyright violations and which are not, then the article can definitely return in some form.

We should also be concerned by the French article, which will also contain copyright violations (that are even harder to spot as they'll be in a different language). — Bilorv (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The web archive version of the page as it existed in 2020 is here http://web.archive.org/web/20201204155723/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bisexuality. I'm going to take a look at it to see what's wrong - if you want to email me to discuss Nattes you can contact me at influenzaehaemophilus@gmail.com.

H-influenzae (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Non-binary people categories

An editor has created categories Category:Non-binary people of male sex and Category:Non-binary people of female sex. I invite discussion of these new categories on their respective talk pages. Funcrunch (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Aren't these perfect candidates for speedy delete?Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about speedy; I was going to propose for deletion but thought I should WP:AGF and initiate talk page discussion first. Funcrunch (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The person who created both pages is the same person: User:Shāntián Tàiláng. --Historyday01 (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I know; I commented on his page first, and suggested we move the discussion to the category talk pages for broader input. Funcrunch (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

My bad, didn't see your comment. I won't mind if it's contested, in any case. Just see the categories as someone documenting BLPs to misgender, personally. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Funcrunch and Historyday01: the relevant categories have now been deleted. Happy New Year, and thank you for spending your holidays helping this project. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Happy New Year too! I hope I can create some new pages for LGBTQ shows in 2022... I have all these webcomic pages I want to create too, but we'll see what happens. Historyday01 (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The Well of Loneliness under FA review

I started the formal FA review on The Well of Loneliness. Your input there and further contributions to the article are welcome. --George Ho (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

User:George Ho has nominated The Well of Loneliness for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey for online Wiki LGBT+ conference

I am one of the community organizers for a 2022 Wiki LGBT+ conference. I am posting here to request responses to a survey for the organizers to use to plan this conference.

take the survey

I am also a contributor to this WikiProject, and I can anticipate some of the questions people here may have. Here are some points that I wish to share. Summary: Some LGBT+ Wiki community members want WMF to fund a community organized LGBT+ wiki conference, just as the WMF funds other wiki conferences.

Whenever anyone asks the WMF for money for a wiki conference, the WMF requires that there be a survey. Thus the survey above.
The funding request for the conference is at meta:QW2022/Proposal. Check it out, and if you like, support at the bottom or comment on the talk page in addition to completing the survey.
This would be the first Wiki LGBT+ conference.
I am not a WMF employee and not receiving WMF money. I am a staff Wikipedian at a university and I am a member of the Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network as well as other wiki community orgs.
The Wikimedia Foundation pulls in US$1 billion every 5 years. They cite support for LGBT+ issues as one of the reasons people should donate, so LGBT+ wiki editors should take advantage of the available funding. If anyone here is unaware, the WMF has money available to support LGBT+ projects, check out meta:Grants:Start and apply if you have an idea.
There is a Wikimedia community affiliate organization scheme at meta:Wikimedia movement affiliates. Most funding to communities goes through this system. meta:Wikimedia LGBT+ is the LGBT+ affiliate which is presenting this conference. If you are LGBT+ or allied then feel free to join. Post big issues to the talk page. Video meetings happen about 10 times a year, and you can join those too.
I am also one of the organizers of meta:WikiConference North America. In general I participate in wiki conferences regularly. No one has perfect planning or understanding of conferences, but I care and I try, and I want there to be a regular Wiki LGBT+ conference.

If anyone has questions then you can ask me here or feel free to post on the conference page on meta. I hope that the conference proceeds, and I hope that participants of this WikiProject LGBT Studies are able to attend the conference, present their projects and hopes for the future, and that having a conference leads to more organization and collaboration among LGBT+ Wiki editors both here in English Wikipedia and across Wikimedia projects. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EurOut.org

Hi! Unable to find a relevant delsort, so advising the project of this AfD which may be of interest to members of the project. Thank you. Star Mississippi 21:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:WTW discussion

A discussion of potential interest to this project has been started here. Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on John Whaite

I started the merger discussion on the John Whaite article, located at Talk:List of The Great British Bake Off finalists#Merge John Whaite? George Ho (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's protect the article about uranians from arbitrary deletion

The article tells about the historical term for homosexual men. It was suddenly decided to completely delete it, replacing it with a meaningless redirect to an article about the planet Uranus. Валя Беляев (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Pages are not protected preemptively. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge Category:Defunct LGBT nightclubs ?

See Category:Defunct LGBT nightclubs ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on LGBT representation in children's television

I started a split discussion on the LGBT representation in children's television article, located at Talk:LGBT representation in children's television#Splitting proposal, proposing that parts of the "LGBT representation on Disney Channel" section about Disney animation be split out into another article titled "Disney and LGBT representation in animation". --Historyday01 (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Academic article on Wikipedia LGBT+ content

Miquel-Ribé, Marc; Kaltenbrunner, Andreas; Keefer, Jeffrey M. (21 December 2021). "Bridging LGBT+ Content Gaps Across Wikipedia Language Editions". The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion (IJIDI). 5 (4): 90–131. doi:10.33137/ijidi.v5i4.37270.

Also mentioned in this paper is the Queering Wikipedia conference about which I posted recently here. If you have not already please take the survey. The Wikimedia Foundation has expectations that the content and programming of the conference reflect survey responses. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. We have Wiki Loves Pride, but at some point we may need a Wikipedia article about LGBT+ content on Wikipedia and LGBT-related activities within the Wikimedia movement in general. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry, FULBERT, and RachelWex: Thoughts on having an article about LGBT content and LGBT activities within the Wikimedia movement? I'd start a draft but I can't decide on the best article title... I'm interested in collaborating on something if others are interested as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I've created Draft:LGBT and Wikipedia to get the ball rolling, but open to more appropriate page titles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Another Believer: 2022 is the 10 year anniversary of the establishment of meta:Wikimedia LGBT+. Besides making a Wikipedia article I think the time is right for an article of original content where we profile ourselves. We could either publish in The Signpost or find an off-wiki venue. If we were to compile and publish a ~5 page article then I think that would be the best entry point into making a Wikipedia article for the topic in the Wikipedia:Journal to wiki publication model. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Help out a new editor?

Hi friends, new editor here. I rewrote the page Homosexuality in the DSM using extensive references, and the page was flagged with the message "This article needs more medical references for verification or relies too heavily on primary sources." Would anyone be up for giving it a look? It seems to me that the vast majority of the sources I cited were both medical and secondary sources -- most of them are from peer-reviewed medical journals. I'd appreciate any tips. Hope it's okay to ask for help here! RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all, hats off to you on that rewrite - I think it's a huge improvement. The prose, references, and organization are all really excellent. Hard to believe you're a new editor! I think Equivamp may have been overzealous in adding that tag, since the article is largely a historical review, and I don't think it falls under the definition of Wikipedia:Biomedical information, hence I don't think that WP:MEDRS applies. I only see a small number of citations to primary sources, and they seem to me to be in line with the guidance at WP:PRIMARY (i.e. you are not interpreting primary sources, but merely making "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source"). I'm going to be bold and remove the tag. Equivamp, if there are any specific primary cites that you think are inappropriate, I would suggest tagging them with Template:Primary source inline. Colin M (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, User:Colin M!! I really appreciate you giving it a look and removing that maintenance template, as well as your kind words! I'm really proud of my work on it and it means a lot to hear that it reads well to you. Huge thanks also for your improvements to the lead text! It felt incomplete to me but I wasn't sure how to best summarize things. I just made a couple more edits to the lead for additional nuance/accuracy. People variably use 1973 or 1974 as the date homosexuality was declassified because the APA board voted on it in 1973 but the manual wasn't changed until 1974, so that seems worth mentioning up top. And it's a small thing, but "distress over one's homosexuality" was technically only true until the DSM-IV, when it changed to generic distress over one's sexual orientation (because there are so many straight people about there who are distressed about being straight, lol), so I tweaked the end of the lead because of that. Feel free to make more edits! Thanks again!! RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Colin M's pithy prose in praise of your superb improvements to the article. Bravo! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

LGBT categories deleted from TV and film articles

The following categories were deleted from Degrassi: The Next Generation (13 categories in total) on 16:17, 18 January 2022:

Among the categories deleted from The Prom (film) (15 categories in total) on 22:10, 9 January 2022.

I opened a discussion at WP:MOSTV here, about the mass-deletion of categories from these articles and my concern about how the HotCat gadget is being used. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC); edited 10:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC) ^[updated]

Sara Gill

Hello friends! I mostly edit over at WP:WikiProject Women in Red, but I thought I would drop a note about this article for Sara Gill, Pakistan's first trans woman to graduate as a doctor. There's been some edits about her name, and I wondered if anyone from this project would be interested in checking out the recent changes? I'm pretty busy at the moment, but wouldn't want her achievements (or her name) to be mis-represented. Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Joey Mead King and LGBT Category

Is she an LGBT people from the Philippines? Her spouse's transitioning makes her LGBT? Sharouser (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If she's a woman married to a woman then yeah, that category seems appropriate. Though actually, WP:CATLGBT says that such cats "should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the orientation in question". So perhaps it should be removed unless there's a source for her actually self-identifying as lesbian, bisexual, or the like. Colin M (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

As a BLP issue, it must be removed if there isn't a clear self-identification as LGBT.--Trystan (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Palm Cabaret and Bar

Palm Cabaret and Bar has been nominated for deletion ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Genuine question

Hi there, hope you are all well. Why does Wikipedia have Bruce Jenner winning Olympic medals but it doesn't have Ellen Page starring in Juno? Sorry if this has been answer before but it's important I know. Thanks! Sirhissofloxley (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sirhissofloxley: sounds like something you should edit in accordance with Wikipedia:Be bold MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It really can't see that going through at all. Is it because Jenner does not consider Bruce a dead name but Page considers Ellen to be one? Sirhissofloxley (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That is the reason, following the guidance in MOS:BIO: In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current name as the primary name (in prose, tables, lists, infoboxes, etc.), unless they prefer their former name be used for past events.--Trystan (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Sirhissofloxley (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated my missing topics page for LGBT topics. Specialists might try to check if some more suitable as redirects - Skysmith (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Queering Wikipedia 2022 conference proposal

Wikimedia LGBT+, the Wikimedia community organization for global LGBT+ wiki coordination, is requesting Wikimedia Foundation funding to present the Queering Wikipedia 2022 conference. See the proposal at

meta:Grants:Conference/QW22/QW2022

Previously an in-person conference was scheduled for 2020, but COVID happened. There was an online gathering for LGBT+ organizers in 2021. Now proposed is this online event for later this year where anyone is welcome, including new wiki editors.

I am posting here to give notice of the event, to ask for anyone to sign their support on the proposal, for comments on the talk page of the proposal or here, and to invite anyone who wants to be involved to contact the organizers. Thanks! Bluerasberry (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Josephine Baker Discussion Revival

This is a protocol question. On the Talk page for Josephine Baker, a lengthy discussion took place nearly a decade ago on the apparent lack of sources related to her alleged bisexuality. At the time, consensus was that all further sources that claimed her bisexuality could be traced to a single, sketchy biography, and so mention of her possible bisexuality were removed from the article at that time. However, it appears that over the years the discussion was ignored, and references were added back to the article (interestingly, all of them continue to quote the source considered questionable on the Talk page). I'd like to revive the discussion over on that Talk page to see if new consensus can be built, so should I do it by creating a new subject on that Talk page? Or should I basically necro the near decade-old discussion? I do have an opinion on how it should be handled in the article, but will save that for the Talk page over there. Sevey13 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Making a new request for consensus seems like the best route. I've been doing a little more digging but have been having some trouble finding sources outside the biography, though I see her being presented as bisexual very often (however usually that biography is the source). There seems to be a corroborating source mentioned here but it's somewhat shaky. We should try and see if we can turn up more sources. I think the article's current usage of stating that Jean-Claude reported she was bisexual works fairly well. If others cast serious doubt on the specific claim she was bisexual, we should quote them and place the argument in context. If they don't, disputing the validity of whether she was bisexual in the article may count as WP:OR. According to WP:MOSBIO#Sexuality we shouldn't include their sexual orientation unless relevant to their notability, and in this case I think that since she's so notable as bi we need to make some reference to it. I hope that helps! TheTranarchist (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

Invitation to participate in 2022 Amplifying Appalachia Edit-a-thon, March 20-25

Hi y'all!

Some of you might have participated last year in West Virginia University Libraries' Amplifying Appalachia Edit-a-thon, which was a huge success, with 94 editors, 61 articles edited or added to, 291 references added, and 24,400 words! One of those additions was the [Appalachia|Queer Appalachia page], which is incredible.

We're holding the event again, asynchronously, during the third week of March (March 20-25).

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

If you want to participate, please sign up through this link: https://artandfeminism.org/edit_a_thon/amplifying-appalachia-2022-edit-a-thon/ ... which will take you to our event dashboard, which has some starting points for pages that need some attention (under construction as of 2/4/2022). The password to join is "wvu2022".

Rhizomesandranch (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Rhizomesandranch

Possible Revert War over Prounouns on Paperboy Prince

Hello. Someone has been deleting pronouns from the article Paperboy Prince. I have asked them to stop, and they have not, so I believe it is going to escalate to a revert war. What protocol should I follow to resolve this? Is it something that WikiProject LGBT studies should handle? Should it be brought to the talk page? Thanks Sevey13 (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I would post on their talk page and see if you can resolve it that way, as a starter. Just a thought. But, I'm no expert on that, as I've been involved in edit wars myself... --Historyday01 (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Not to comment on content, I agree with Historyday01, though I think using the article's talk page might be more productive. Isabelle ^🔔 20:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

That's true. Posting it on the article talk page may encourage more discussion. --Historyday01 (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sevey13, Historyday01, and Isabelle Belato: I'm not edit-warring or "deleting pronouns". These aren't pronouns. A name is not a pronoun, so I updated the article accordingly to list them as terms the article subject likes to be referred to as (which they are). I've opened a thread on the article talkpage where hopefully Sevey13, I, and any other interested editors can come to a satisfactory consensus. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I was only giving advice for how to continue the discussion, that's all. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Per suggestion, discussion has been moved to [[2]] Sevey13 (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

List of fictional characters with disabilities has an RFC

List of fictional characters with disabilities 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.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Gregory to Gloria Hemingway Move Request / Request for comment on MOS:GENDERID jurisdiction

Currently there is a discussion regarding moving Gregory Hemingway to Gloria Hemingway. Would appreciate your opinions on this!

On a relevant note, does MOS:COMMONNAME ever override MOS:GENDERID/MOS:IDINFO? That is to say, if the majority of sources refer to someone by their deadname and their gender identity is a matter of talk page dispute, can the final decision be based off the common name in sources? I don't believe it can, since otherwise those policies would be meaningless (which is why latest self-identification is the guideline), but I'd like to know about precedent in these situations.

TheTranarchist (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

@TheTranarchist: The short answer is "no", i.e., your assumption is correct. As you say, there would be no point to MOS:GENDERID if that were the case. Part of the reason for the delay in response, imho, is that this page is about LGBT studies/queer studies, i.e. an academic discipline, and improving articles in that area. Your questions would probably fit better at WT:LGBT and not here (in this case). Mathglot (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot! This is WT:LGBT! As far as I know, this project's focus is broader than just the academic disciplines, and there is no other LGBT WikiProject. Firefangledfeathers 05:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, thanks for that; have I been bamboozled by a new logo or something then? Something looks so different, I didn't recognize the page at all. TranArchist, don't believe anything I say, from now on. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for help editing an article

Is there any advice you guys have for this article Draft:List of LGBT People in America — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinuxNCats (talk • contribs) 23:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@LinuxNCats: Appreciate the effort to increase LGBT visibility on Wikipedia, but I feel the scope of your proposed article is overly broad. I suggest you take a look at Lists of LGBT people to see if you could improve one of the existing articles before creating a new one. Funcrunch (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice LinuxNCats (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Lars Eighner

The New York Times published an obituary for Lars Eighner recently:[3]. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

LGBT rights in La Francophonie

The article LGBT rights in La Francophonie is in poor shape, and has had little attention (20 edits ago was 2016). I've added a Talk page discussion suggesting conversion to a List article but other approaches are possible. See Talk:LGBT rights in La Francophonie#Convert to list article. Thanks in advance for any attention you can give to this article. Mathglot (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Need help on Liz Fong-Jones

I found Fong-Jones red-linked in a number of places, and thus considered her appropriate for Wikipedia:Women in Red, especially as a trans woman in STEM. She has very broad coverage over a number of Google controversies and has been instrumental in organizing, per reliable sources.

Her article was swiftly denied as WP:NN, and she was also removed from Wikipedia:Women, while I haven't seen that happen to any other women I've worked on on Wikipedia.

I am still new to Wikipedia, and know there's room for improvement on Liz Fong-Jones, but I believe she is absolutely notable, she's even verified on Twitter, and I'm especially concerned that she may have been removed from a "Women" category because she's trans. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@SquareInARoundHole: I cannot edit my own page due to conflict of interest, obviously, but think some of the requests for primary sourcing are reasonable and may be addressed by reference to https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-21/trans-people-describe-discrimination-support-in-the-workplace, https://www.fastcompany.com/90275462/meet-the-google-engineer-getting-its-workers-ready-to-strike, https://www.businessinsider.com/liz-fong-jones-google-concerns-2019-2, https://www.businessinsider.com/google-engineer-fong-jones-leaves-company-2019-1, and https://www.fastcompany.com/90250497/the-inclusion-advocate-liz-fong-jones which are _specifically_ about me rather than events I led/participated in. However, I would strongly make the case for immediate semi-protection of the page, as I am also currently under troll attack and defacement is very likely (and thus why I've been hesitant about having a page about me in the first place). Lizthegrey (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lizthegrey: Pages are not preemptively protected on WP. Also, requests of additions to certain articles are best left on the talk page of those articles. --Kbabej (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kbabej: Thanks. Looks like the creation got pushed through by SquareInARoundHole, so at this point I guess I'll ask someone else to watch for defacement then. Thanks for the response. Lizthegrey (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lizthegrey: & @Kbabej: I went ahead and pushed it through, as I believe it was incorrectly marked as WP:NN and didn't want time to expire. I believe that it will be improved over time, and will watch for any vandalism. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm the editor who originally knocked back the bio, but I'll not be putting it up for AfD. (a) This article is almost certain to become a battleground (but we have tools to handle this if/when it starts). (b) There are some statements which are sourced to pure-primary sources, I'll trim these as I have time. (c) Some of the structure doesn't make sense to me, I may move things if someone else doesn't beat me to it. (d) There are more categories to add, including "Women" categories (I'm engaged in a dispute elsewhere about diffusing and non-diffusing cats, so can't in good faith do this myself). Stuartyeates (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It leaves a poor taste in my mouth to put something through AfC and then push it through anyway when it gets declined. When (and I believe the time will come) new editors cannot create new articles in mainspace it will save everyone time in the long run. --Kbabej (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kbabej: This is perhaps getting off-topic, but are you suggesting another, new access level between autoconfirmed and extended confirmed be required for article creation permissions? (FWIW, I have never used the AfC process myself, but I didn't start creating articles immediately after becoming autoconfirmed either.) Funcrunch (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: I didn't suggest that. I simply said "new editors". My phrasing was based off the fact the creator of the article has been editing around four months and already circumventing processes to get their version of a BLP published when they stated themselves it would have eventually been published either way (the exact phrasing being "I do not believe that this article in particular would be one that wouldn't make it into the mainspace.") While the mechanics of how to get new users to follow the AfC process isn't one that's particularly important to this discussion, I will be supporting it in future after the community gets tired of dredging so many new articles by new users through AfD. --Kbabej (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

SquareInARoundHole please do not use Twitter verification status as an indicator of notability. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: Apologies, I wasn't meaning to use it as an indicator, but rather as part of the reason reason why I was concerned that she was marked NN. I won't mention that again. While I understand Kbabej's opinion, women, and especially trans women, are extremely underrepresented on Wikipedia, and I do not believe that this article in particular would be one that wouldn't make it into the mainspace, though I am well aware that this article needs some work, based on the feedback. I am of the strong opinion that this article simply needs more experienced editors to improve it with time, as none of the material is contentious, and only one claim, that The Solidarity Fund is a nonprofit, has been marked up as needing a non-primary source. I found there was little incentive for people to do that while it was in drafts. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@SquareInARoundHole: You gave it, what, ~~less than a week~~ a week and a half between being declined and moving it to mainspace yourself? ~~A few days?~~ If you are sure that it would make it to mainspace, why the rush to get this published? I agree that women, trans, and nonbinary people are underrepresented on WP (look at the good article list on my user page for that same sentiment). What I do not agree with is how you went about it. Is it allowed? Technically, yes. Does it circumvent a process that's been set up for new users to learn how to contribute better articles? Also yes. The original reviewer has stated they will not be bringing it to AfD, which is think is a net positive decision, but that will not always be the case when an article is declined and then pushed through anyway. --Kbabej (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kbabej: I accept your feedback, and do not intend to take this action in the future, not only because of your feedback here, but because I do respect the process and felt that this particular case was an exception. This was not necessarily about the time that passed, but instead that it was removed from the wikipedia women project, and I wanted more eyes on it in case other potentially harmful actions were taken. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Next time rather than forcing it through, SquareInARoundHole, just ask for some help here finding sources and wait a week. There is no deadline to create articles and those of us part of this wikiproject also want to see as many trans articles created as possible. I don't see you pushing through the article as a valid "exception", but rather a lost opportunity to get some feedback and beef up the article. Additionally, I don't see it being removed from WP:Women as a "harmful action". Kj cheetham was just helping format the talk page to a more readable version and probably deleted it by honest mistake. If not, why would they keep the WP:WIR and WP:WikiProject Women in Business banners? I don't see you having tried to talk with them in their talk page about the issue, and would recommend you do that next time. Kj is a very diligent editor in my experience and would be happy to discuss possible mistakes. I hope you are not feeling like you're being "roasted" in this thread, we're just trying to give you some constructive feedback for next time :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner, as I wasn't pinged into this. The reason I removed the WP:Women project tag was I felt it was a bit redundant given WP:WIR and WP:WikiProject Women in Business. I have done similar before for other bio articles without issue. I felt reducing the number of project tags helps make the talk page more readable, and was in no way a "harmful action". I have no issue with someone adding it back though. I remember when I first learned about creating articles I was originally told to aim for 1-4 of the most pertinent projects, though I don't strictly stick to that. I'm sorry for any issues I caused through that action. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz:@Kj cheetham: To be clear I wasn't inferring it was intentionally harmful, I hoped my qualification of potentially would have clarified. I am sensitive to trans issues myself for reasons, so I tried to temper my personal gut reaction with the idea that it may not have been intentional. I appreciate you explaining the reason, and that 1-4 guide for future reference. Thanks all. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I've made quite a few changes to the article. For the record, I have no problem with SquareInARoundHole's promotion of the article to mainspace (and as the editor who originally knocked it back, I have more reason to than most). Maybe we could focus on the article not the other editors? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: Thank you for your work on the article! It's looking more balanced with more additions to the 'Personal life' section. Also, to be fair, I can't see an example up above of focusing on editors. I think the discussion has focused on editor's editing, which is an important distinction. --Kbabej (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of feature films with LGBT characters

Hello! Advising the project of this AfD which may be of interest to members of the project. Thank you. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s sanitized Winsome Sears article, Washington Blade

Courtesy link: Winsome Sears

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

On the one hand, it seems like he is a pretty new editor, but on the other, I can understand his frustration as I had something similar happen to me on a page about disabled characters recently where it seemed like ALL the editors were siding against me and I was on the defensive the whole time. It was exhausting. --Historyday01 (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

David needs to understand that just like the sites he writes for would not allow him to write about just any topic, on Wikipedia there are guidelines that we are all subject to whether we like them or not. The problem of what David wrote about Sears can be summarized with this comment: "To my mind, the 'undue' part was the sheer volume taken up in comparison to the rest of the article. It was extremely detailed compared to the treatment given [by] other items in the article. It came across as almost an article in itself." The paragraph dominates the article and there is little to no interest in talking about Sears' life and career beyond a controversy. Writing external opinion columns will not help this either. If the current consensus reads "no, the biography needs to cover all aspects of her life and until that point you can talk about her political positions on LGBT", then expand her biography to the point that specific controversies don't dominate the life of an individual. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

You make a valid point there. I just sympathized to a very slight degree, but I wasn't involved in that discussion at the time, and only quickly read it over, so I can't really speak to what he said and did there. Historyday01 (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

A concern that may be unfounded is that this person made the edits for the purposes of writing the article. I don't know at what point the editing became article fodder, so to assume best intent the article came later after they became frustrated, but at that point doesn't it become vandalism? Sevey13 (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

My idea to write the essay came only after editors responding to my RfC reached the consensus that nothing should be added to the Winsome Sears article. DavidMWalter (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)DavidMWalter

Consensus can change, however, you need to convince the community by making changes that will minimize the problems mentioned by them. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Tbhotch. Part of me wants to keep working on this until I "get it right" by Wikipedia standards, but I'm not convinced I could ever get past the long-time, celebrated editor who said this: "You are wasting all of our time. You are a WP:SPA here only to promote your point of view on this politician and I can only conclude that you have no place editing Wikipedia." It's difficult for me to see how a newbie can prevail in such an environment, but having said that, I'm now VERY aware of the need to proceed cautiously, in a manner that is in sync with the sense of the Wikipedia editorial community. Is that a reasonable expectation of would-be contributors? From a Wikipedia perspective, I suppose it doesn't matter: Wikipedia does things the way Wikipedia wants to. And it's certainly entitled to do so. But I look at this from the end-user perspective, which, in this case, is that a controversial politician's Wikipedia article was left without what I consider essential information. That's problematic, in my view, and it prompted me to write my essay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMWalter (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

All of us were newbies at one point. Different parts of Wikipedia have completely different tones, much like social media (you wouldn't say that "Facebook" was rude to you if someone made a mean reply to a post you made on Facebook). In fact, of all the communities I've been part of, Wikipedia is the most heterodox: ask three Wikipedians their opinion on a topic, and you'll get four different answers.

Though I'm sometimes spoken to as rudely as the quote you given (and sometimes more rudely), the majority of individuals interact with me positively. We do, however, have a critical issue with attracting new editors. It's my opinion that we are slowly dying from lack of new volunteers. So the issue you raise does not go unnoticed or unprotested by some of us. — Bilorv (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, David. And thanks for being willing to keep going. I've found the WikiProject LGBT to be an excellent resource as I've ramped up my own editing, and I'd encourage you to enlist help from here as you continue.Sevey13 (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Sevey13 and thanks, Bilorv. Onward! DavidMWalter (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)DavidMWalter

For those interested, I've added a 'Political Positions' section to the article, which is common for political BLPs. It includes (as of writing this comment) cannabis legalization, education, LTGBTQ rights, and second amendment subsections. The LGBTQ rights section is really pared down from DavidMWalter's addition that inspired the RfC (in fact, it is only three lines). Any additional due positions can be added. --Kbabej (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing this through, Kbabej :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: Thanks! My pleasure. --Kbabej (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Kbabej! DavidMWalter (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)DavidMWalter

Question regarding the scope of this WikiProject

I've noticed that a fair amount of articles covered by WP:LGBT are not strictly LGBTQ+ articles albeit still touching upon it at certain points to varying degrees depending on the article. Is WikiProject:LGBT studies more of a broad project covering anything LGBTQ-related or connected to LGBT/queer studies in general? Dankmemes2 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an all-volunteer project, and a WikiProject, like this one, is a "a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia". The breakdown into different project names is a convenient way to manage complexity and allow volunteer editors interested in a particular topic to find each other and work together. As such, a definition of scope is not really required; if you think something belongs here, bring it up, and maybe you'll find some like-minded editors who would like to collaborate with you on your ideas for improvement. Whether a discussion, say, about LGBT Olympians belongs in the Sports WikiProject, or here, just depends where volunteers feel like gathering to discuss it. In a case like that, it's more or less up to the first person who raises a discussion to choose the venue, and you can always link it from the other WikiProject, if it straddles more than one. Does this help? Mathglot (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

User:MathglotThanks for the explanation. I was a bit curious because the About WP:LGBT section on the project page does indeed mention a scope to an extent but it feels rather restrictive given WP:LGBT includes many articles that brush upon or briefly mention LGBTQ+ topics but are not inherently LGBTQ+ in themselves (for example, Boyfriend or Adult animation in the United States). I personally think it would be more appropriate to include terms like "related to" or "linked to" on the project page like other WikiProject pages do so as to clarify its breadth and avoid confusion. Would it be alright if I edited that in? Dankmemes2 (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dankmemes2:, interesting, I guess I never even noticed that, and I wonder how much others do. As far as adding it in, you could try, after all, WP:BE BOLD is a guideline and the worst that could happen, is you'd be reverted. Or you could try a more conservative approach, and see if you would get buy-in from other users first. Personally, I don't worry so much about what it says, and if I need to raise a discussion, I just raise it, and I haven't had a problem.

On the other hand, as a more practical matter, you've never edited the main project page, or participated in a discussion here on the Talk page (before this one), so it seems a little bit like jumping the gun to want to change the scoping. Why not hang around for a while, participate in a bunch of discussions first and see how that goes? Maybe after you've got some solid experience under your belt, your ideas of what to change in the scope statement will be more informed by that experience and more likely to be helpful. Seems a bit premature to me to try to change it now, but I don't make the rules and if you want to have a go at it, it all comes down to consensus in the end. Hopefully you'll get some feedback from other editors here as well. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes the inconsistencies and unspoken nuances can be quite annoying to new editors, Dankmemes2. I'm personally of the perspective that we experienced editors rely on people like you to point them out, so feel free to "iron them out". As Mathglot mentioned above, worst case is you'll be reverted. I also agree it might be best to just add it as a "to-do" task you plan on implementing and waiting a bit (I for example am waiting a few months to figure out the best way to clarify closing guidelines that are inconsistent between different advice and guideline pages). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I think there is probably room to improve the scope statement, but I would be opposed to broadening it to explicitly include articles that only briefly mention LGBT issues. Sometimes an article with little or no LGBT content gets tagged because it has room for expansion, which is fine. Some articles with only brief content are tagged because that content is particularly sensitive, but such articles should be the exception rather than the rule.

The practical benefit of tagging an article as in-scope is that it shows up in WP:LGBT/Alerts, WP:LGBT/Quality, WP:LGBT/Showcase, and similar reports. Even narrowly construed, our scope includes many thousands of articles, so it is a lot to cover. Adding a lot of articles of tangential interest makes it harder to find, track and maintain articles with substantial LGBT content.--Trystan (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)