Category talk:LGBTQ people

2009

I have this odd desire to make a category "straight people." Roscelese (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't be the first to try. But don't bother, unless you have a hankering to create something that will get speedy deleted before you can blink. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Articles about notable LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) people who have publicly declared their sexual orientation or gender identity, or whose sexual orientation or gender identity is known and not debated by historians." Roger Casement has now been excluded from the list of Irish LGBT people because his orientation "is debated by historians". So if even one writer disputes an historic figure thay have to be deleted?

Could this not be changed to someone whose gay sexual orientation "is accepted by a considerable majority of historians" or some such? Otherwise a crank or dead writers can close off the categorisation.86.161.16.132 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Winston Churchill and Isaac Newton would fall into the same historical debate area, it might be a good idea to see how those articles are dealt with. Tfz 19:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Category definition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Obiwankenobi - I'd keep the category definition (inclusion criteria) in line with WP:COP#Clearly define the category. I see no reason to do otherwise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

LGBT is more than lesbian gay bisexual trans attempting to specify otherwise is simply incorrect. Feel free to word better but it's simply wrong to say it's just those 4. Invoking @Bearcat: for his input on inclusion criteria (see edit history) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There are broad and narrow definitions of LGBT, for categories WP:COP recommends to choose a narrow one, for obvious reasons - I see no reason not to follow that recommendation.

At least axe the loose fringes: "Queer, or who otherwise identify as being within the umbrella of LGBT" is too vague.

Don't revert typo's back in LGTB → LGBT

Don't remove the link to List of transgender people

Don't start the category definition with "This category groups articles on living people...", confusing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Fixing typos is fine, I was on mobile and didn't see that edit. The wording can be improved, but we need to have a broader definition here besides LGBTQ, there are other identities which still fall in this spectrum, but enumerating them all is the job for LGBT.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I propose to revert to my last version. You can try to convince me and others that a broader definition would be more suitable here once you're off the phone.

Using a mobile device is afaik not a viable excuse to revert errors back in. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Lighten up Francis! It was a mistake. sheesh...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem, please correct your mistakes - no apologies required. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

already done.....--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• other examples Radical faeries, Category:Pansexual people, Two spirit people, etc. There are many many identities which fit here and which already exist as subcategories. If you have better wording than LGBT umbrella that is fine, I added a sentence from the lede of LGBT that may help.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Not convinced, sorry.

Don't think the two lists are the main articles here. LGBT is the only main article I see.

Copying the intro of the LGBT article strikes me as a bad idea. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I added another list. Normally, the "List" article for set categories is considered the "main" article, whereas the topic article is considered the "main" article for the topic category. Francis, you need to propose some better language. You were trying to constrain the category to ONLY gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans people, which is simply wrong, and doesn't reflect the current contents.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Doing some reading. Indeed I prefer groups traditionally included in the LGBT concept named one by one in the category definition (only for the existing subcategories), rather than use vague descriptions as umbrella.

And yes, better not to use the two existing lists (L/G/B) and (T) as main articles precisely because they don't include people of those groups that don't fit under the exact four letters of the acronym.

A problem remains that queer (Queer vs wictionary:queer) can mean a lot of things. Maybe use genderqueer in the lede to make that clear. Maybe it would be wise not to include Queer people unless the category be renamed LGBTQ. Or explain which meaning of Queer is meant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Its nonetheless very common to use a list article as the Main (we can add LGBT as well). There's no issue if the "list" articles for main are not 100% comprehensive. queer is linked in the lede, if people are wondering what it means, they have only to click the link. There have been long debates, long since settled, on whether to extend LGBT to add Q and I and HIJ and etc etc., but the consensus was NO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Re. Main: can't speak for other categories, wouldn't do it here.

Re. Queer: would go for a clear definition in the lede. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

re: queer - Francis, if we define queer, then why not define transsexual, and gay, and lesbian, and bisexual as well? We just end up replicating those articles. The lede for a category should be concise, and a link out to a definition of complex terms like identity is completely normal and standard. Identifying as queer isn't difficult - if someone says "I identify as queer", we don't really need to do anything else, they are on the list.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Could work.

Leaves: (1) list included categories that could be perceived as (partially) outside a narrow understanding of LGBT by name (clear definition); (2) remove the intro copied from the LGTB article (too vague too); (3) don't use related lists as "main" definition, list them under the inclusion criteria. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

how is this "is used here to refer to anyone who is non-heterosexual or non-cisgender instead of exclusively to people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender" too vague? I think it's rather clear. Again, Francis, this is standard practice to use the list as the "main" for the set category. You haven't given any solid reason to not consider it so, except "Not everyone is in those lists", but that's fine, not everyone is in LGBT either. As for your (1), I'm not sure I understand - are you suggesting that Category:Queer people should not be a subcategory here? I think you need to review the discussions which led to the use of LGBT as an umbrella term, LGBT is used in dozens of categories and hundreds of articles, but it does NOT just mean L/G/B and T, it is a broader umbrella. @Bearcat: where the heck is bearcat when you need him?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I Meant, you were sufficiently convincing on Queer, could work. List the others that are included in the same way, get rid of the "LGBT umbrella".

Re. LGBT article text: asexuality? Not generally considered LGBT I recon, and isn't excluded. Don't think definition-by-opposite a good idea, as we want people (at least the living ones among them) to positively identify. "I'm not a cisgender" is not enough as a declaration for inclusion.

Re. where to list the lists: not as main when they don't cover all for a sensitive category. Might work for other categories, don't see it working here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think something in the vein of "apart from having come out, LGBT needs to be a significant part of their public life, otherwise: see lists below" would better be included. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Category:Intersex people is afaik not destined to become a subcategory of the LGBT people cat. I suppose the inclusion criteria should be clear on that. Umbrella's and "non-hetero" type of language don't make that clear.
• The same can be said of
  • third sex people
  • true hermaphrodites
  • people belonging to the Hijra caste in India (although mentioned in LGBT history#Ancient India, there oversimplified to third gender or transgender, while the Hijra (South Asia)#Gender and sexuality article writes more to the point "These identities have no exact match in the modern Western taxonomy of gender and sexual orientation, and challenge Western ideas of sex and gender").

    update, there appears to be a Category:Hijra people, it should not be moved to the LGBT people category tree imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Category:Kathoey people

I don't say some of the individuals belonging to such groups can't figure in one of the LGBT subcats (if they chose to out themselves as such), but cats named after these groups should not be made subcats in the tree under the LGBT people cat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I think intersex has been discussed before, and I think there wasn't consensus to include in LGBT - but there are certainly formulations in which they take part. As for Hijra, it will always be difficult when you have different world views to deal with a single category tree, but I think a fair argument could be made that they are relevant to the topic of transgender and that cat is the closest approximation we have so for navigational purposes better to put them within. As to the others I think it's probably best if we have a wider discussion at WP:LGBT on inclusion criteria here to arrive at a clearer consensus, few people watch this page.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

the idea is to make a distinction between people cats and other cats. I have no problem that Hijra (South Asia) is in a subcat of Category:LGBT (it is and I agree with that). Neither do I mind Hijra being mentioned in the LGBT history article (the wording could be improved though).

For people (biographical articles) it is more difficult to put them in one of the LGBT pigeonholes when they don't belong there. Note that Category:Intersex people, Category:Hijra people and Category:Kathoey people are currently all direct subcategories of Category:People by gender, I don't see any consensus to change that. As a consequence your proposal for the inclusion criteria of the LGBT people cat appears quite inadequate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't know why List of bisexual people was removed? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

third spirit? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Your relevant to the topic argumentation appears quite inadequate to me, because you don't do that to people. Same for "navigational purposes". LGBT studies can be interested in a lot of things, for instance LGBT studies can be interested in the Intersex Pride flag, that chose its colors thus that there is no link to LGBT. It would be quite perverse to label all persons that choose that flag as being LGBT, just because LGBT people are interested in it. Its a no-no, and shows inability to grasp the Wikipedia categorization concept. Same for Hijra, no matter how relevant they are for transsexuals, they are not for that reason all of them transsexuals or LGBT, that is just plain offensive. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Try to look at it from this viewpoint: suppose a famous true hermaphrodite throws this question at Wikipedia: Hey, why am I labeled LGBT? Then in your reasoning (part of) the answer could be: Because the visitors of our site like to navigate. Wouldn't that be quite lame as an answer? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

let's move this discussion to LGBT to get more eyes and views. I've reverted to the pre dispute version in the meantime please don't change it further.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Best to keep it in line with current guidelines, awaiting such times that any real answer might come to my remarks and questions above which, in the mean time, appear justified. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Re. "navigational purposes", what I said above appears to be covered by (policy-level) policy: Wikipedia is not a repository of internal links --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Would also like to draw your attention to the NPOV aspect: Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Categorization --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis we're not seeing eye to eye on many things so I suggest we broaden the discussion. I will open a new thread at the LGBT project. In the meantime I do not support the change you are attempting, COP#N is normally about jobs, not sexuality - and in broad practice if someone has identified as gay they are added to those categories even if it's not an important part of their public life.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the COP#N, what I meant is WP:COP in general, and more in particular Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Clearly define the category which has no shortcut currently, my bad.

I was expecting cogent argumentation from your side to back up your IAR approach (while, arguably, IAR forces people to make cogent arguments of how the wikipedia is improved).

Failing the cogent argumentation, I see no reason to go outside current guidance en attendant more elaborate discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Clearly define the category

Keep to a guideline-compliant category definition, awaiting further discussion that may or may not lead to deviance of the guideline, please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, my version also "clearly" defined the category, in my opinion, but you reverted it. Thus, you are not pressing to clearly define the category, you are pressing for YOUR version of clearly defining, which doesn't actually capture the way the category is used. The status quo should stay pending broader consensus as per BRD.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Re-opening discussions

Apparently the forumshopping at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Inclusion_criteria_for_Category:LGBT_people_category didn't yield any results. WP:CANVAS#Appropriate notification describes ways to attract more attention to this debate if deemed helpful.

I wouldn't go IAR on this. Please keep in mind that WP:COP was developed specifically with LGBT categories in mind. The example at Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Clearly define the category is atheism - it could as well have been LGBT, see the archives of WT:COP. When a WP:IAR approach is deemed fruitful nonetheless let's hear the cogent arguments how applying it to the following is helping the project:

• WP:FORUMSHOP/WP:CANVAS
• WP:COP, including:
  • WP:COP#General considerations, including Not all categories are comprehensive, WP:COP#N, etc.
  • Guidance on the creation of categories, including WP:COP#Consider making a list, WP:COP#Clearly define the category (and the "howto" included in the example there), etc
  • Guidance regarding problematic categorization, including WP:COP#Inappropriate categories, etc.
• Wikipedia:overcategorization, including WP:DEFINING
• Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Categorization
• WP:NOT, including WP:LINKFARM, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, etc.
• WP:EGRS, including WP:EGRS#Other considerations (e.g. people that don't fit should not be added to a category), etc.
• WP:BLPCAT
• WP:CLT (for this one: see below for a further explanation)

Apart from the shortcuts I think I explained above why most of these guidelines and policies particularily apply to the category definition we're discussing here.

Note that, apart from that, there are still many unanswered questions in the #Category definition section above (e.g. Category:Kathoey people? third spirit? true hermaphrodites? to name only a few)

For the time being the category should clearly exclude any people that are "doubtful" as far as labeling them as LGBT is concerned.

Also, exclude people for whom LGBT is trivial in the sense explained at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive201#Jodie Foster and BLPCAT

Also, link to List of bisexual people from the category page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, I suggest we shut this down, and wait for further responses at WP:LGBT. You have a novel interpretation of the contents of such categories that isn't supported by any consensus I'm aware of. I'm not suggesting IAR, I'm suggesting that the current consensus as practices may be different than what is written down. Even BLPCAT says "and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." - which you're trying to change to "is significant to their public life" - it's no the same thing!!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop the forum shopping: it is IAR on the WP:FORUMSHOP policy, and didn't yield results.

"Let's have this discussion elsewhere" is not a cogent remark. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not forum shopping Francis, I moved the discussion to where it would have more eyes. Give it time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It is, please familiarize yourself with the policy, and also with WP:CANVAS#Appropriate notification, that explains what are acceptable ways to attract more eyes.

Further, cogent arguments are always welcome. You gave a few above, but not to the bulk of my questions and remarks. Running out of arguments, you ran away to another forum.

Re. "is significant to their public life": this is about applying WP:COP as a whole, including WP:COP#Clearly define the category. Part of it is about the list/category distinction (not made in WP:BLPCAT which I never said would have been the basis of this). A general treatment of list/category distinctions can be found at WP:CLT, e.g. [A category]: 8. Gives no context for any specific entry, nor any elaboration; only the name of the article is given. That is, listings cannot be annotated (with descriptions nor comments), nor referenced. That is why some items can be included in a list, while not included in the category. See also what I said about NRA members at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive201#Jodie Foster and BLPCAT, e.g. Whoopi Goldberg: notable public LGBT activities, so categorized as such, on the other hand: no notable public support of firearms, so no categorization in that sense, however *listed* at the notable members section of the NRA article. Why create difficulties about one type of categories, while it is more than apparent how this is done in general at Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis I've made my cogent arguments, we're at a standstill so need further input. The less we continue chatting the more likely it is someone else will chime in. Please stop forking the discussion, and let's keep it where there are more eyes.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Re. "I've made my cogent arguments", no you haven't, at least not for the IAR stuff.

So, best to keep to the established policies and guidelines. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternate discussion venue archived

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Inclusion_criteria_for_Category:LGBT_people_category has been archived without attracting any additional contributors.

"significant part of the public life or notability" would probably work better than "significant part of the public life and notability" (e.g. Gerard Mortier). Maybe add "and subcategories" to the category definition. I see no other problems with this version A rationale for divergence from existing policy and guidelines has not been shown. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Indetermination

Maybe adding something in this vein to the category definition:

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.

might provide additional clarity? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Make non-diffusing?

See prior discussion Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Do we have a bigger problem. While the discussion extended to non-BLP cases I proposed to continue the discussion here.

Proposal: remove the "catdiffuse" template from the category page, following the recommendation of WP:EGRS#General #5. Reason: there are several biographies on people that are definitely LGBT, but harder to define as either L or G or B or T, so many of the categorizations exclusively limited to subcategories don't work. See examples at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Do we have a bigger problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• [1] --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

that's not what non-diffusing means. LGBT categories are all non-diffusing, meaning membership in LGBT musicians should not remove you from membership in musicians. What you are suggesting is different, which is not diffusing down to any sub categories in the tree - which doesn't make sense at all. In general these should be diffused down to the quadrants - when we have them - but there are few exceptions which is fine. "Diffusing" or "non-diffusing" is a property of the category with relationship to it's parents. Thus, a category like Category:American women novelists can be non-diffusing on Category:American novelists, but diffusing on Category:American women writers.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose something in this vein is what I'm thinking of:

---

When it's unclear whether a person exactly fits in one of the narrower categories (lesbian, bisexual, queer, etc.) use the subcategories in the branches that start with LGBT...:

• For living people: go with what the person has come out as (and go to LGBT subcategories if unclear)
• For historical people: go with the unanimous opinion of scholars and historians for the qualification of gay, bisexual, etc., and if not unanimous (or otherwise unclear): use the LGBT branches.

---

Maybe rather something to be added to the WP:EGRS guideline than something that should be on the Category: LGBT people page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at but again I feel like you're trying to legislate for a case which is vanishingly rare. First of all we have a great deal of cats that are only LGBT, so no-one is surprised to see their favorite gay X labelled as LGBT, since we don't split most by quadrants and attempts to expand this have not met with consensus. Secondly, the rare cases where we are fairly sure someone is not straight but not sure exactly what they are already handled correctly, meaning people are put into the parent. The 'diffuse' tag at the top doesn't mean the parent must be emptied, it just means one should try to move things down if possible. Finally it's not unanimous agreement of scholars that is needed, it is rough consensus. Unanimity is too high a bar.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't mess with my sig [2]

Vanishingly rare? The topic keeps returning:

• Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Privileging words over thoughts and deeds: attraction vs identity vs behaviour in sexual orientation
• Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Help, please with LGBT Categories
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Do we have a bigger problem, with both a dozen of BLP examples (mentioned by Siawase) and non-BLP examples mentioned by myself (most people in or around the Bloomsbury Group): maybe make that somewhat more explicit:
  1. Harold Nicolson (gay or bi?) — that's the one I changed to the more general LGBT already
  2. Vita Sackville-West (lesbian of bi?)
  3. Virginia Woolf (straight, lesbian or bi? - definitely LGBT, but exclusively through her novel Orlando: A Biography which in form is about a transgender topic)
  4. Duncan Grant (gay or bi?)
  5. David Garnett (straight or bi?)
  6. Dora Carrington (straight or bi?)
  7. John Maynard Keynes (gay or bi?)
  8. Lytton Strachey (gay or bi?)
  9. E. M. Forster (gay - but the categories currently go both ways (gay/LGBT))
  10. Rupert Brooke (bi? - mainly because of being the target of many a man's desire which led to "sexual confusion", since when "sexual confusion"="bi"?)
  11. Ottoline Morrell (straight, bi or lesbian?)
  12. Ralph Partridge (straight or bi? - Wikipedia article conflated with that of his second wife, so no categorization choices need to be made yet)
  13. Julian Bell (gay or bi?)

In general, it's not because Wikipedia fails to give a good overview of what the sources say that there is a "rough consensus by scholars" in any of these cases... Even then "rough consensus of scholars" can work for LGBT categorization, *not* for the narrower categories for which there is more need for unanimity, that's my point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, unanimity is impossible to police. One obscure journal publishes one article that says one bio isn't gay and boom, we need to remove it from the 'gay' category. Instead we go by whether there is rough consensus amongst the scholars of this person, not unanimity. And yes, vanishingly rare, since there are maybe 20 cases out of tens of thousands of biographies. I see no need to legislate since the 'forced diffusion' of these categories is not what is causing the dispute, and as noted for the majority of lgbt cats we don't even have quadrants underneath. If you want to add a short sentence here saying 'If there isn't consensus amongst scholarly sources as to the exact sexual orientation of an individual who is no longer living, the biography can be categorized in the LGBT Foo parent.' I suppose that would be ok, but I don't see people disagreeing with this in principle or feeling like this isn't available as an option, and with dozens of sub categories not sure if it will make a difference.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Not unanimous → go to LGBT branches. Simple. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe we don't need an additional rule:

1. Make the top category non-diffusing (i.e. remove {{catdiffuse}} template from Category:LGBT people)
2. Let WP:COP#N do its work

For example for Harold Nicolson this would work. We know he had sex with men (& liked it). This had no discernable influence on what he wrote, nor on his public or political life. If I'm not erring Portrait of a Marriage, published years after his death, was the first public testimony about his sexuality. Its author/editor (his son) downplayed the non-straight characteristics of his parents. So after that he became notable for being a LGBT person. He was never notable for being a bi or LGBT politician from England, nor as a bi or LGBT writer from England. Those two categories are inappropriate, only the LGBT people category would work as an encyclopedic qualification for this person. Also he was not notable for being a LGBT or bi person from England.

Of course the simple "Not unanimous → go to LGBT branches" is true, but already included in WP:COP#N. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Idea

I'm thinking about starting Category:LGBT people in and around the Bloomsbury Group:

• There's definitely literature about them, e.g. Virginia Woolf: Paper Darts: the Illustrated Letters (1991) by Frances Spalding; Deceived with Kindness (1984) by Angelica Garnett; Souhami, Diana (1997). Mrs. Keppel and Her Daughter. Portrait of a Lesbian Affair: St. Martin's Griffin. pp. 123–223. ISBN 978-0-312-19517-5. So, useful cross-section category.
• The category could be placed in Category:Bloomsbury Group and Category:LGBT people from England
• Could solve a lot of the ackward categorizations for the people listed above.

Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There's definitely literature about them as individual people. There's not much literary analysis, however, of what makes LGBT Bloomsburyites as a class a distinct topic from non-LGBT Bloomsburyites — which is the criterion that needs to be met to justify a category for this. See also WP:OC#ASSOCIATED, which militates against categories for "and around" association with a notable topic — if a person isn't properly categorized as having been in the Bloomsbury Group, then they don't get to be in any form of "indirectly associated with the Bloomsbury Group" category either. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I replied to these concerns at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_13#Category:LGBT_people_in_and_around_the_Bloomsbury_Group. (in short: these concerns should be checked but in truth are not causing any problems here, in fact the category I proposed above diminishes e.g. WP:OC#ASSOCIATED concerns that were existing for Category:Bloomsbury Group. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. OC#ASSOCIATED doesn't militate against filing people directly in Category:Bloomsbury Group on the basis of an indirect association; indeed they shouldn't be, but OC#ASSOCIATED isn't the reason why. What OC#ASSOCIATED says that you can't do is create a separate category intended for "people indirectly associated with X". Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bearcat Re. Harold Nicolson ("he doesn't have to have written on LGBT topics to warrant inclusion in this category; he merely has to be an LGBT person from England who wrote stuff. and "LGBT people" is a container which may only include subcats and never any individual articles at all"):

• Please don't discuss via edit summaries.
• Category:LGBT people in and around the Bloomsbury Group wasn't a solution for him (as you wished). Might you be more favourable on Category:Bloomsbury Group in LGBT history?
• Please don't use (semi-)automated operations on people categorizations.
• WP:DEFINING applies. LGBT writer is not defining for Harold Nicolson. When LGBT writer is interpreted as some sort of professional activity also WP:COP#N applies, this categorization is then not possible for Nicolson, also from that perspective.
• This section discusses whether or not Category:LGBT people should be diffusing. You haven't taken any stance yet. Then please don't just assume it *is* because you say so in an edit summary.
• The catdiffuse template on the category page reads "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable." (my bolding). Your interpretation ""LGBT people" is a container which may only include subcats and never any individual articles at all" (my bolding) is way off-limit. For Nicolson there doesn't appear to be another *applicable* subcat. Until there is there is no problem keeping him in the main cat.
• Don't know whether List of Bloomsbury Group people might be of any help here. What are your ideas on that?

--Francis Schonken (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, discussions about categorizations of an individual should happen on the individual's talk page. Very few editors watch this page. That said, i agree with Bearcat, you are attempting to enforce an understanding of LGBT + X categories which is unique to you and you alone, and does not match standard practice in any way. Also I'm confused as to your statement on whether Category:LGBT people should be diffusing - I think you mean to say whether it should diffuse to it's subcats, and for that the answer is, yes absolutely, this should contain few, if any, biographies.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Re. "this should contain few, if any, biographies": agree, per the catdiffuse template. That's why I am still trying to find a suitable solution for Nicolson. Until there is, Category:LGBT people should be no problem though. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:LGBT people from England OK? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

→ question moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#LGBT critics categorization? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Change proposals to WP:COP#N relating to LGBT categorizations

WP:COP#N is that part of the Wikipedia:Categorization of people guideline that talks about categorizing biographies along lines of notability and definingness.

Several changes to this part of the WP:COP guideline have been proposed, having, for instance, an effect on categorization in LGBT (sub)categories. Input welcome!

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Proposed language change to WP:COP#N

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Updated lede

Francis made a set of bold edits to the lede. Instead of reverting I tweaked the wording somewhat, but he undid that change. I suggest we discuss the changes I proposed here: 1) using Catmain in the normal way for the lists of people 2) removing the word 'significant' as that is not what BLPCAT says. Instead the word is 'relevant'

--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The edits were discussed at length, see above. No need to start yet another talk page thread on the same topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

yes, and your edits gained no consensus Francis. I was attempting to find a compromise position. If you reject my compromise we will revert to the version pre-dispute and wait for others to weigh in. Your choice - what do you prefer?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Radical Faeries

Afaics (all) Radical Faeries consider themselves part of LGBT(Q). The same can not be said about non-binary people, as explained above. For genderqueer, I suppose people identifying as such would usually identify as Queer, so I see no need to mention them separately. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion related to this category

There is currently a discussion related to this category at WT:CAT/EGRS#Issues with LGBT, LGBT people, and Queer categories. Please feel free to join the conversation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Parent category

@*Treker and Bearcat: See recent edit history of this category page. Since Category:LGBT has Category:Human sexuality as a parent, Category:LGBT people should have Category:People by sexuality as a parent, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• It already does. Category:People by sexuality has a Category:People by sexual orientation subcategory, which Category:LGBT people is already in, so it would be duplicate categorization for LGBT people to be filed in both categories at the same time. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • LGBT people should not be in "people by sexuality" or "people by sexual orientation", Trans people are LGBT and that has fuck all to do with their sexual orientation.★Trekker (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Right, orientation is not applicable to trans people, so that probably makes Category:People by sexuality a better parent than Category:People by sexual orientation. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Except that transgender isn't a "sexuality" either (and neither are "castrated", which I've also had to remove from the sexuality category already, or "sex offender", which I haven't yet.) So if that's the basis of an argument that it doesn't belong in "sexual orientation", then "sexuality" isn't the replacement for it. To be honest, I'm less than fully convinced that "people by sexual orientation" and "people by sexuality" really need to be two separate categories at all, but that's another story — the way "People by sexuality" is currently being used isn't quite in full concordance with what the word "sexuality" actually means, because castration and sex crimes aren't sexualities, BDSM and necrophilia are sexual paraphilias rather than sexualities per se, polyamory is a romantic orientation and not a sexual one per se, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
        • @Marcocapelle and Bearcat: Category:LGBT people should not be in either of these categories, not everything that has to do with LGBT people is SEX RELATED (which many non-LGBT people seem to falsely assume all the time and is deeply offensive), we don't have a Category:Heterosexual people so clearly Category:People by sexual orientation belongs as a child category to Category:LGBT people since all of it's subjects are LGBT people. Category:LGBT people is far broader than Category:People by sexual orientation. Marcocapelle's revertion in June where he claims "it really is about sexual orientation" completly ignores what's been explained in this discussion several times and is rather shocking and outrageous.★Trekker (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
        • As for whether Category:People by sexuality should exist. I think it really should exist, because for someone with a paraphilia that is their sexuality (NOT sexual orientation), even if it's a mental illness.★Trekker (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Note I've asked the Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies to chime in, so we can get opinions from more people than us three.★Trekker (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• The only not very intuitive thing that I currently notice is that Category:People by sexual orientation is a subcategory of Category:LGBT people. Shouldn't we get Category:People by sexual orientation renamed to Category:LGBT people by sexual orientation? Other than that, let's keep it as is. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would support a renaming, because there exists no Category:Heterosexual people category and never will because straigh people make up the vast majority of the population, so categorizing them would be kinda pointless.★Trekker (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)