Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

WikiProject LGBT studies

 Home Talk Collaboration Editing Resources Showcase

Institut für Sexualwissenschaft

This article seems to flit back-and-forth between using modern terms for gender and sexual identities ("gay" and "transgender"), but in other parts it uses outdated language ("transvestite", "transsexual"). Obviously this is a historical article and I am aware that terminology changes, but I think this could do with a copyedit from members of this Wikiproject for consistency (and any other edits you would reccomend for this article). Thank you! GnocchiFan (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that the terminology at times is a bit inconsistent. I think the use of the word "transvestite is outdated, but that it is appropriate because it better conveys the language used by Hirschfeld et al at the time, and to retain the language used in the sources. The use of the word transsexual vs transgender seems arbitrary and I feel it would be better to use the word transgender consistently, since it is generally more used. The phrase cross-dresser is also a bit dated I suppose, but so long as it links to the cross-dresser page I would not change it. HenrikHolen (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2022–2023 mpox outbreak#Requested move 22 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2022–2023 mpox outbreak#Requested move 22 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Legal gender

I think that recent edits are biased and somewhat unordered. Sharouser (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a student editor, so it's not surprising that it has references but not in-line citations, and that it does indeed have a POV (even if its one that many of us agree with.) I would recommend dealing with this editor directly; they are clearly finding their way around. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No queerphobes

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No queerphobes concerning the essay Wikipedia:No queerphobes. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30 § Category:People with non-binary gender identities

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30 § Category:People with non-binary gender identities. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sapphic#Requested move 2 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sapphic#Requested move 2 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 21:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Can I get some help with Bathroom bill?

Hi all

I would really appreciate some help improving Bathroom bill, as far as I can see the main issues are

• It is extremely America focussed, there are many laws in the UK, France etc which are similarly aiming to descriminate
• There is no real historical context given, these kinds of arguments have been used for a long time (I added some more info on the talk page)

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Pushback from Wiki editors regarding "notability" and "relevancy"

Hello, all. I'm Jo (they/them), and I wanted to open up a discussion on pushback people in this group may have received from Wiki editors or even the site itself regarding LGBT topics. I'm especially interested in the ways the "relevancy" and "notability" policies for the site could be used to discriminate against unknown/marginalized/understudied histories.

As an archivist, I come across a multitude of primary sources on queer history in rural areas/American Midwest/American South every day, but very little secondary sources discuss these topics simply because these histories are understudied by academia/journalism/etc. Collection finding aids could count as a secondary sources, but LGBT-centric archival collections are only a small percentage of queer historical preservation. Oral histories, newspaper clippings, and other archival materials would only count as primary sources, I'd imagine.

I'm wondering if these policies lead to an endless feedback loop of sorts, such as "Wikipedia won't let you write a page on X topic because there aren't enough secondary sources" --> "There are not enough secondary sources because not many people know about this" --> "Not many people know about this because its not on Wikipedia" --> "Wikipedia won't let you write a page on X topic because there aren't enough secondary sources." If I write the secondary sources myself, or include ones associated with an LGBT activist organization, I imagine it would count as a conflict of interest.

Any input here would be very much appreciated, whether for giving advice or just to rant about your experiences with these policies. If there are specific pages out there that are examples of "notability" and "relevancy" being cited in controversial/highly contested talk pages, all the better. Thanks for your all's time! Theodorethearchivist (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our job is not original research, but I am grateful that this is the case. It is very valuable that we have a very well-defined responsibility as regards LGBT subjects vis à vis knowledge at-large, which complements those working in other areas, including doing that much-needed original research. We can't right great wrongs, but we can make people much more complexly aware about how wrongs are being righted. Remsense诉 16:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, side note: have you looked at our sister project Wikiversity? I think editors should make a habit of recommending it to people who are interested in doing original research or presentations of information, and the best way to make a sister site to Wikipedia more widespread in its use is to put valuable stuff like what you've been working on there somehow. Just throwing that out there! Remsense诉 17:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I had not heard of Wikiversity, would you recommend I start my own original research page? And could a Wikiversity page be cited on a regular Wikipedia page, like "Primary sources such as The Indianapolis Recorder allude to an event held at this ballroom in 1933, advertised as a 'pansy ball.'"[citation to Wikiuniversity link here]. Would that still violate "no original research" rules on Wikipedia? Thanks so much! Theodorethearchivist (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

No, absolutely no-one has heard of Wikiversity, & even fewer read it. I wouldn't bother. And no, you can't cite it here. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

In part to avoid intractable issues like circular referencing, user-generated websites in general are almost never considered reliable sources, unfortunately. But I think there's a lot of value in putting together some treatment exploring this subject, I would personally want to read and share it! Not enough people have heard of Wikiversity, but I think it has a lot of potential culturally to be a place where independent researchers share their work. Remsense诉 00:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

What you're facing is not just a notability issue, it's an WP:original research issue -- to take a bunch of primary sources and provide analysis is really not what Wikipedia is here for. This is an encyclopedia, not a journal. It actually does seem to correct the world's imbalance in topics a bit by having fairly achievable standards for notability. And I would like to think that these standards can actually be an incentive to do original research in the places that call for it -- if you can get articles on this into two appropriate journals, hey, there's probably room for a Wikipedia article on it! (But certainly I've run into many occasions where someone is arguing that there should be more attention paid to Topic X -- and they're generally right -- and that Wikipedia is therefor the place to do it, and they're wrong, we're meant to be a lagging indicator, not a leading one.)

Whether newspaper clippings are primary really depend on what they are and what they are being used for. Certainly, newspaper articles are used as references in plenty of Wikipedia article. But a two-inch clipping from 1930 about Mary and her longtime companion Shirley opening a new grain store in Dubuque might be a useful reference in an article on Shirley, but it doesn't do much for us for an article on Lesbian Depression-era Agriculture. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! Most of my research thus far, if I edit it to Wikipedia, would add context to already existing articles in my area. These articles (usually specific streets, places of business, or historical sites in my city) don't have any mention of the LGBT history held in these places, simply because people don't know or have not thought to add it to Wikipedia. Would my addition of new primary sources onto these existing articles (where the guideline of 3 to 5 secondary sources to justify the existence of the article has already been reached) still be going against rules prohibiting original research? I expect that my mention of specific drag balls, protests, and other major events in LGBT history onto "mainstream" articles (like my city's monument or City Hall, etc.) could be met with a "well, you don't have enough secondary sources to justify this inclusion." I'm not assuming bad faith on the part of other editors, I just want all my basis covered before I fight to include what I've found. Theodorethearchivist (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY explains that you can use primary sources, you just have to use them with care. That doesn't guarantee that someone else may not see the material covered there as being of insufficient import to the matter at hand, but that just puts it to the normal level of editor discussion. I realize that is not comforting; much of Wikipedia editing is not some simple application of mechanical rules, but building consensus. An announcement that Thus&Such Drag Ball will be held at This Location is far less effective than showing import than a history of drag balls mentioning it, and that less effective than a history of This Location. This will be worked out on a case by case basis. Give it a try, and be willing to accept that it may not work out. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Would my addition of new primary sources onto these existing articles (where the guideline of 3 to 5 secondary sources to justify the existence of the article has already been reached) still be going against rules prohibiting original research? I expect that my mention of specific drag balls, protests, and other major events in LGBT history onto "mainstream" articles (like my city's monument or City Hall, etc.) could be met with a "well, you don't have enough secondary sources to justify this inclusion."

Sorry to throw yet another complex policy into the mix, but what you are thinking about here is less a question of original research (though depending on what your primary source actually says there could be an original research issue) than due weight. (Of course from a practical perspective of "will this edit stick", other major considerations are how good the article currently is and how actively it is maintained.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"If I write the secondary sources myself, or include ones associated with an LGBT activist organization, I imagine it would count as a conflict of interest" – it's less about conflict of interest, and more that sources need to be 'reliable' secondary sources (e.g. academic journal, book or sometimes news outlet depending on the coverage). Also, notability guideline does not determine the content within articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article. Content within an article is subject to WP:DUE guidelines. People commonly confuse the two. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'd go pretty easy on things like demos & protests. Key public sites have loads of these, & few will stick in the article, however important the participants thought them. But the current Gaza-related ones may be exceptions. Johnbod (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Damian Hubbard, from Mean Girls

I've created Damian Hubbard, if any project members are interested in improving articles about LGBT fictional characters and film/theatre. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

LGBT-owned business

Wikipedia has Black-owned business and Category:Black-owned businesses. Thoughts on creating LGBT-owned business and Category:LGBT-owned businesses? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support ! I think it is definitely a notable topic and defining category, there is a lot of coverage in the media. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Per nom. — JuanGLP (talk/contribs) 12:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, both! I've got the ball rolling at LGBT-owned business. Collaboration welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, please help populate Category:LGBT-owned businesses appropriately! Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I just helped populate it and also expanded the lead of the article, I did a quick search for "Queer-owned" since that is an alternative term for it and tagged some of the businesses into the category as well. I also created the redirect Queer-owned business for it. Raladic (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Great, I think we should add mention and redirects for Gay-owned business and Lesbian-owned business, too. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding the Fictional LGBT+ characters category

Hi, I don't know if this is the right place for this. Apologies in advance if it's not. I was wondering if the Category:Fictional LGBT characters is still applied when a character is depicted as LGBTQ+ in another piece of media that exists in a different universe from their original appearance? I assume yes, because articles cover their wide appearances in their respective franchises. This seems to be the case with Harley Quinn, who is explicitly LGBT+ in the comics, but not in the cartoon she originally showed up in. But I cannot find or think of other examples. If it's valid to tag an article as such, does anyone have something from the manual of style which confirms this? Thank you. GenetKauto (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if sources back that they are this in some particular media then it is appropriate. The important part is that we have a reliable source cited in the artickle to support the categorization.

As for your specific example of Harley Quinn - They are already tagged as Category:LGBT characters in animated television series and Category:LGBT characters in animation which are more precise sub-categories of Category:Fictional LGBT characters, but you could add them to Category:LGBT characters in comics if they are indeed also represented as such in comics. Raladic (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you. :) GenetKauto (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I want to improve the LGBT_speculative_fiction category lists

Hi, I just added suggestions for a couple of useful new subcategories to Category_talk:LGBT_speculative_fiction - I just wanted to make sure somebody sees this.

(I'm currently researching queer representation in geeky genres for an annotated recommendations list over on IMDb, so I have a list and I'm perfectly happy to put in the time to add the category tags to the individual media pages. But I don't know how to create subcategories - and in any case, that shouldn't be done by an outsider, I think.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:1ED0:3500:4886:EC7D:A008:E793 (talk)

Mermaids (charity)

Hi all. I've added some comments in the talk section of Mermaids (charity) regarding suggested improvements. There's one paragraph in particular that I would like to have a second pair of eyes on, and the page relies on some fairly biased opinion pieces for its sources. Thanks in advance for any help. HenrikHolen (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This whole article is a bit of a mess organization-wise. I've updated this paragraph to rely less on opinion-pieces as evidence and present more neutrally. However I think a larger rewrite may be helpful. Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Queer erasure#Requested move 18 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Queer erasure#Requested move 18 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 02:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2023 Bud Light boycott#Requested move 13 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Bud Light boycott#Requested move 13 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

LGBTQ+ history page request

Hi, I'm getting in touch to see if there are any LGBTQ+ Wikipedia contributors who can help create a Wikipedia page for someone I know. They're a non-binary and trans person living with dementia in their late 60s. They co-founded the Pink Angels Anti-Violence Project in Chicago (one of the first LGBT community policing organizations in the U.S), have written and starred in plays, and now publish pioneering research about trans and non-binary people with dementia. They would love to get a page set up so they can leave a digital queer legacy, and they have sources and photos too. I'd love to put interested parties in touch! 81.108.181.56 (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The key is having reliable information from independent sources. If such sources exist, then it will be ok to write an article based on those sources. Otherwise, it cannot be done: Wikipedia not a platform for memorials, no matter how worthy the person may be. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I will second what TechBear said about an article for your friend. I have started Draft:Pink Angels Anti-Violence Project, which I think could pass notability requirements, particularly if we can add a few more sources. I invite any interested editors to contribute, particularly if they have access to the full text of the NYT source used in the draft, as I do not. ForsythiaJo (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@ForsythiaJo, try this archive link. Wracking ^talk! 22:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! I somehow forgot that the Wayback Machine was an option, lol. ForsythiaJo (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If you move forward with this project, please also make sure to clearly state your conflict of interest (see WP:COIE for an easier overview) on any relevant talk pages or AFC submissions. Wracking ^talk! 22:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks so much for your responses and interest! I'm not a wiki editor myself, so I wouldn't be editing the article, which would avoid conflict of interest. What is the best way for me to pass on information, sources and independent references that this person has gathered? They would have information relevant for the Pink Angels Anti-Violence Project page too, including online sources for a documentary the project was featured in. 62.133.12.120 (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You can start a topic on the Draft talk:Pink Angels Anti-Violence Project talk page and list the sources in there.

Then editors interested in helping will be able to look at them and use them for inclusion in the article as appropriate if they are reliable sources. Raladic (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If you have access to print sources, you might be able to contact someone interested in this subject directly through something like email. Due to Wikimedia's copyright stance, we cannot transcribe print sources onto Wikipedia talkpages directly/completely. You might also be interested in uploading scans of print sources to the Internet Archive, so everyone can access them. Stuff like old fliers would be great too, though Wikipedia is often most interested in sources independent from the subject, like newspaper articles. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Womyn and Womxn

Notifying the WikiProject that there is a merge discussion here for the pages Womxn and Womyn. --MikutoH ^talk! 02:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)