Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 78

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77 Archive 78

"LGBT" vs "LGBTQ" people in prison

Hi all,

I've submitted a move proposal from "LBGT people in prison" to "LGBTQ people in prison" to keep the language of the article title in sync with the article, which uses "LBGTQ." An alternative is to keep the article title the same, and instead change the language of the article to "LGBT." Is there a reason to prefer "LGBT" vs "LGBTQ" for this article?

Thank you —Of the universe (say hello) 00:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

From what I have seen in other articles, usually it just gets kept as LGBT. Several of the sources in the body of that article actually refer to 'LGBT' however individual editors have written 'LGBTQ'. Best to sticking to the source wording for each paragraph. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
"LGBT" is the standard on-wiki initialism, as well as the name of the parent article (LGBT). So I think this is standard for the titles of articles, although I've seen other variations of the initialism in the article prose itself. Not sure if there is a policy-based reason for this.
FWIW, I personally think there should be a move away from LGBT as standard; the last time I checked, LGBTQ is becoming more popular with style guides in the US and UK. But I think this would require a more centralised discussion and considering how many variants there are now, even if LGBTQ does become slightly more used, the discussion could end up being "no consensus" and effectively back to LGBT as the standard initialism for our articles.
(Hope the above makes sense). GnocchiFan (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
There is an RFC consensus not to standardize between LGBT/LGBTQ/LGBTQ+/Queer, though LGBT carries a lot of intertia. There was a recent proposed move of Queer art that did not go head, but it would be harder to get consensus for a move away from LGBT.--Trystan (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Interesting, thank you for pointing me to that! GnocchiFan (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I've withdrawn the move proposal. Thank you for the thoughtful responses! —Of the universe (say hello) 17:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Genital modification and mutilation#Requested move 26 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Genital modification and mutilation#Requested move 26 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Which of these sources' coverage would be considered significant for the topic of Nickelodeon and LGBT representation?

This discussion was originally started at the Wikipedia help desk, but was moved here at the suggestion of another contributor. The original discussion has subsequently been closed for the sake of the move.

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@MrPersonHumanGuy: see WP:RSP for several of these. Deadline, Entertainment Weekly and Variety are as good as they come; I'm personally in favour of The Mary Sue but it typically needs to be attributed in prose; opinions on student newspapers are mixed but I might argue in favour of the Sundial piece as it's citing academics who would be self-published experts (we just have to believe it's reliable to quote them accurately); Cartoon Brew looks good to me. Is there opposition to use of the sources or is this just to seek another opinion on something you're drafting? — Bilorv (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, this is for a draft for which I've produced a source assessment table, though the table was created in response to my first submission being declined. (the person who declined my draft did thank me for the table though) The list above contains the sources I've already been able to determine as being independent and reliable, (though I excluded the SPLC Intelligence Report as that source is from the 2000s and would've only been able to cover the 2002 or 2005 controversies if it even covered Nick at all) and all I'd like to figure out now is whether any of the independent, reliable sources the draft cites contain significant—perhaps even sustained—coverage of the topic. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I still want to know if any of these sources constitute significant coverage

The only response I've been given so far focused solely on reliability, completely dodging my question. When I asked, I had already counted all the sources above as being both reliable (per WP:RSP or existing comments) and independent of the topic, so if any of these sources are considered to cover the topic of Nickelodeon and LGBT representation in detail, they could help a potential article meet the general notability guideline. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that any of those sources cover the topic of "Nickelodeon and LGBT representation" in detail? For instance, you link to this Variety article on the 2022 GLAAD Media Awards. Can you find any in-depth coverage of Nickelodeon & LGBT representation in this article?
I've just skimmed the articles, so maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see that any of them obviously constitute significant coverage. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. Each insight helps to get closer to determining whether Nickelodeon and LGBT representation is as much of an article-worthy topic as its Cartoon Network counterpart. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I would say it surely is as article-worthy as the Cartoon Network counterpart, as the person who created that article in the firs place... But, in terms the comment by Caeciliusinhorto-public, its certainly possible there's more coverage out there. The key is turning it from text which comes from list entries (which is how I originally constructed it) to those which aren't. Here are some articles which talk about Nick and LGBTQ+ rep which I know:
The GLAAD reports are good, but from my experience they primarily only briefly discuss characters, and they rarely focus on animation (which is mostly where the LGBTQ+ rep for Nick series had been I believe). I think this list of sources is at least a good start. Historyday01 (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race, season 7 episodes

Sharing a list of recently created entries for Drag Race, season 7 episodes:

Not sure if any qualify for appearance in the Did You Know section of the Main Page, but article improvements are welcome! Thanks ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

"And the Rest Is Drag" at AfD

Related to an above section, "And the Rest Is Drag" has been nominated for deletion.

---Another Believer (Talk) 21:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of assisted reproductive technology by LGBT people

Please can the above be checked by members of this WikiProject? Page was originally at LGBT reproduction and included Omegaverse speculative fiction, but if anyone can help find some good sources for the current title and scope I would greatly appreciate it 🙂 GnocchiFan (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies - person articles stats

Would it be worth adding something like this onto one of the project pages? I know some of the other projects like to show stats to motivate people to create more biographical articles. Use Source Editor to edit/copy the code to wherever you want to use it.

As of 10 May 2024, there are 5,712 articles within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies - person articles, of which 51 are featured and 120 good articles. This makes up 0.08% of the articles on Wikipedia and 0.47% of featured articles and lists, with 0.3% classified as good articles. Including non-article pages, such as talk pages, redirects, categories, etcetera, there are 15,966 pages in the project.

It could also be done for all LGBT articles:

As of 10 May 2024, there are 25,444 articles within the scope of LGBT articles, of which 138 are featured and 583 good articles. This makes up 0.37% of the articles on Wikipedia and 1.27% of featured articles and lists, with 1.47% classified as good articles. Including non-article pages, such as talk pages, redirects, categories, etcetera, there are 70,340 pages in the project.

Anyway, I thought I'd share this as someone off-Wiki asked me whether it could be done. Jimmyjrg (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what others think, but I think this is a great thing for us to have somewhere in this WikiProject! GnocchiFan (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gay sex roles#Requested move 6 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gay sex roles#Requested move 6 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

John Mahoney

About a month ago, an anonymous IP made an edit to actor John Mahoney's article, following up on the statement in the "Personal life" section that "To the surprise of much of the public, when he died, many tributes noted that he had lived privately as a gay man and was a well-known fixture on the Chicago LGBTQ scene" with the strange assertion that this was likely a lie concocted by LGBTQ activists due to "opposition" to the heteromasculinity of Martin Crane.

Now, firstly, LGBTQ people have very real issues sometimes with how we are portrayed in film and television, but there has never in all of recorded history been even one single, solitary example of the LGBTQ community ever being "opposed" to the basic existence of heterosexual characters. And even more importantly, it's frickin' Frasier — why on earth would LGBTQ people ever have to make up lies about the sexuality of John Mahoney just to get LGBTQ representation out of a show that already had David Hyde Pierce, Dan Butler and Edward Hibbert in it? Not to mention that John Mahoney himself also appeared in the gay-themed film The Broken Hearts Club, and played a gay character in an episode of ER, so why would we ever need to make stuff up about him just because of Frasier? And besides, I've known more than a few gay men in my day who openly wished their own father had been like Martin Crane, because he unconditionally loved his sons even if he didn't always understand them. Why would LGBTQ people ever have a problem with that? So the statement just doesn't make much sense at all, and obviously wasn't supported by sourcing for it.

Obviously I've removed the claptrap, but the fact that it survived a month in the article without getting noticed implies that it slipped a lot of watchlisters' attentions. So I just wanted to ask if a few more people could help look out for this in case somebody tries to readd it in the future. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Alan Joyce (businessman)#Requested move 10 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alan Joyce (businessman)#Requested move 10 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Killarnee (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

LGBT people by identity / by variation

Please comment in this discussion:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_17#Category:LGBT_people_by_identity. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

New article: The Abbey (bar)

Hi all, I just pushed The Abbey (bar) to mainspace. I am not great with categorization or formatting citations uniformly, so any help in those domains would be especially appreciated! Wracking talk! 22:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

"Charlie Morningstar" and "Vaggie" at AfD

"Charlie Morningstar" and "Vaggie" have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Morningstar and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaggie. Your comments on these AfDs would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing pronouns from articles

I'm seeing more and more where people with even a slightly ambiguous gender identity have pronouns stripped entirely from their article. I would like to bring attention to the concept of 'de-gendering' and point out that this isn't some perfect solution. I mean, James Barry (surgeon) went to great lengths to hide his identity, used he/him pronouns until death, and referred to himself as a man. Why are we caving to transphobia to remove the pronouns he chose? Taking away pronouns only for genderqueer people isn't a permanent solution. Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

And more recently, Nex Benedict who's friends clearly use he/him and they/them has lost the privilege of being referred to with the pronouns he chose. I just don't understand how this is being seen as a neutral solution, and would like a more clear consensus. Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
From WP:GENDERID:

MOS:GENDERID states, in regard to terms relating to gender identity: Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources.

The MOS appears to agree with you. I would encourage reverting any further edits you find which remove self-designated pronouns. Doughbo (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I wrote my first draft (about a trans woman), could someone take a look and make sure that I properly followed the guidelines on the use of name and pronouns?

My draft is here, I’m particularly unsure if the lead, early life and death are done properly?

Thank you in advance! :) FortunateSons (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't read the sources, but the article seems to follow Wikipedia guidelines correctly. Draft looks nice. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Great, thank you very much for your help! :) FortunateSons (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I already rearranged around your statement that she was "born male", which is not the current manner of discussing such things; current usage prefers that we treat the trans identity as always having been accurate, just misread. I raise my eyebrow a bit at the use of Confidentials as a source, as it's primarily a restaurant review site; were the subject a living person, I would object more strenuously. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Appreciate the changes, they look great! I’m mostly using them for minor things and as backup, because I don’t have access to her aboutself writing FortunateSons (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move: Genital mutilation and modification → Genital modification

Article surrounds topics such as gender-affirming care, circumcision, labiaplasty, and other matters.

Current debate here. Move discussion has been extended. KlayCax (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

TikTok-A-Thon for Trans Healthcare

Hi all

I just finished writing TikTok-A-Thon for Trans Healthcare, I would really appreciate some help with it, also please add it to your watchlist, I know trans related pages get trolls, vandals etc.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Content dispute at International Transgender Day of Visibility

There is a dispute over whether to include this content in the International Transgender Day of Visibility article (variations of it have been added and removed by several different editors, myself included). Discussion on the talk page would be welcome. Funcrunch (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I discussed the dispute with the experienced editor involved, who raised relevant WP policy considerations, and I think we came to an understanding: it's fine to add a section on "Reception" to TDOV that would include positive and negative responses and criticisms, including afaik the political controversy you sought to include. I also added some content on criticisms of TDOV's visibility focus by Black trans activists and scholars. Please let me know if you disagree or find this useful, etc. ProfGray (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The confluence of the two events was a notable event that got substantial press coverage, but the wording is terrible and not in the slightest neutral. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Can someone please reassess GaLTaS article

Gay and Lesbian Teachers and Students Association has had extensive work since being assessed as C-class a year or so ago, such that I believe it now belongs in B-class or better. Would someone with expertise in classifications please take a look and either move up to B-class or better, or provide feedback on what the article still needs? Chrisdevelop (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You've put incredible work into researching and writing this article. Rather than focus on assessment, I would think the priority would be to get feedback, as you say, and ideally the involvement of other uninvolved and experienced editors. I will comment on the Talk page. ProfGray (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

FYI - User:Bohemian Baltimore made some sweeping categorizing changes

As an FYI, the user made some sweeping changes, some of which very erroneously implied that Intersex, Asexuality and Aromanticism were separate from LGBTQIA+ by creating new subcategories and moving things around. Part of this may stem from the confusion that we currently still have all pages be titled just LGBT, although we use it to mean the wider community. This may need a broad cleanup to correct. Raladic (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding to this, they have specifically created Category:LGBT intersex people and Category:LGBT asexual people and multiple subcategories in those two that may need to be nominated for deletion (probably with the exceptions of Category:Transgender asexual people, Category:Asexual non-binary people, and the corresponding intersex transgender and non-binary categories, which were preexisting) ForsythiaJo (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I've also noticed that in the Category for LGBT people, part of the description reads "Sexual or gender-related indetermination (e.g., asexuality, Klinefelter,...) is in itself not sufficient justification for inclusion in this category or its subcategories. Other subdivisions of Category:People by gender or Category:People by status might be more suitable in this case." This may have contributed to the decision to make multiple new categories. Perhaps this is something we should discuss clarifying? ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
An editor has raised these changes at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7. A tremendous amount of editor time has been consumed in recent months by editors making sweeping, undiscussed changes to the LGBT people categories that subsequently get undone at WP:CFD.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5 (ongoing)] This doesn't seem like an especially productive way of doing things.
This got me thinking again about the arguments for implementing a shift from LGBT to LGBTQ+ on the basis of improving clarity and accuracy. I've added my thoughts on that at Talk:LGBT § Revisiting WP:COMMONNAME.--Trystan (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Non-binary gay category

I boldly created Category:Non-binary gay men (with help of WP:PetScan but I'm questioning if there's another way of naming this category. Category:Gay non-binary people or Category:Non-binary gay people? Is this vague? Sure there are non-binary men, but not everyone in the category would be directly a non-binary man I guess. And terms such as veldian/turian, vincian, or uranian imply WP:NEO. Any comment? --MikutoH talk! 00:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Giovanni 0331: tagging you since you created Category:Transgender gay men --MikutoH talk! 00:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to this category existing, but I believe a name like Category:Non-binary gay people would make more sense. I saw you added this category to two pages I watch (Alex Newell and Toby Marlow), both of whom I think would object to being classified as men. Aerin17 (t • c) 01:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Agreeing with Aerin, I am not sure Shea Couleé identifies as a non-binary man as they go by they/them and she/her pronouns out and in drag respectively. This category's value is in capturing people who specifically identify as non-binary men, it should be used more carefully Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the comments here. I think "Category:Non-binary gay people" would be a better name for the category. Historyday01 (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I have reviewed a couple more of the people categorised, a lot of this is just misgendering unfortunately. Even if it's in good faith this mostly needs to be reverted. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
For BLP safety at the very least, I am going to remove anyone without he/him pronouns. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for y'all's input. I fixed the category in the biographies. However, "gay people" includes lesbians, right? I categorized as such. I also noticed Category:Gay people was deleted. --MikutoH talk! 00:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Why even create something with the "non-binary men" or "non-binary women" strings? It feels disruptive, to say the least. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU, Antisymmetricnoise, Historyday01, and Aerin17: The categories were nominated/considered for dicussion (CfD), see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#Category:Non-binary lesbians. --MikutoH talk! 00:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move

An editor has requested that Classification of transsexual and transgender people be moved to Classification of transgender people, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about Kino's inclusion on List of fictional non-binary characters page

Presently there is a discussion here about whether Kino, the protagonist in Kino's Journey, should be included on the page listing non-binary characters (including all those which fall under the non-binary umbrella). I've responded to the original post, which asked in part, "Can someone familiar with this character please clear up the confusion? How is Kino's gender identity best described?", and challenged Kino's inclusion on the page, among other comments. However, your views would also be useful in this discussion. Thanks! Historyday01 (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Classification of transsexual and transgender people#Requested move 7 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Classification of transsexual and transgender people#Requested move 7 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Archive_78&oldid=1223223188"