Talk:Drag queen/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Drag fashions

Hi, im doing a dissertation for uni. The title is "An investigation into the glamour of cross dressing and the drag influence on the future of fashion". If anyone has any comments on how they think drag styles have influenced mainsteam fashions or where they see drag fashions going in the future, etc, id be grateful of them. Thanks

What about the New Romantic movement from the 80's and Boy George who utlizied a pretty camp drag look?--Joyfulpotato 20:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

seems a bit partison

best word i could use, but anyway, the part about most performers being "Gay Men" doesn't seem right. that's like saying that most criminals are black. It may appear that way, but it isn't nessasarly true.

Are you comparing being a criminal to performing in drag?

Black people are often portrayed as criminals and criminals are often portrayed as mostly black because we live in a racist anti-black society. Are you saying that gay people are stereotyped as drag performers or that drag performers are stereotyped as gay? Hyacinth 10:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

And given that the majority of drag queens *are* gay men or transgender women, is it really partisanship, or discrimination? Marumari 22:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

if the monitors would allow me to post my link to the Golden Stiletto

You would have access to a fantastic book that talks just about what your dissertation is on if the editors would allow my link to the Golden Stiletto to stick. You would also know about a British documentary that covers the same material. I have fought to keep a link up but i surmise that homophobic editors are keeping the Golden Stiletto out of Wiki. I propose formally that they let it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainoahemolele (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad Pictures

couldn't we get better pictures on this page? where's dame edna, where's divine? what are all these crappy second-rate drag queens doing here? --Joyfulpotato 19:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

And "An example of poorly planned drag"? ... seriously? Ugh.

This site seems to be very Americanised. I have no problem with a good deep look at the usa drag world, but there are other centres of drag...like the UK (thats me), and removing chunks of info about the Uk and some of its most famous characters and its own take on drag, does not do this page any good. In the UK and elsewhere there are many other aspects of the dragqueen/tranny scene that many do not realise exist, there many crossovers and blurring of the edges. I worked with an artist who produced a book called 'Crossing the line', and the range of dressing up was vast i.e. Some drag queens are also transvestites, some are not, and some trannies aspire to be drag queens. I put in the link to the obituary of Burnel the transformer who won the Alternative miss world a no. of times and stood as an MP in a by-election. I hope it stays on the site to represent some from the UK.

I agree - In fact I recently saw a very interesting film on Indian drag queens recently - a film called 'The Pink Mirror'. I realized Drag concepts in India are so different - very Bollywoodish. But it was sure camp and funny and quite kitsch with sond and dance! Truly Indian! The site should find more representations like these unique drag queens too.-- NB, February 17, 2007

Straight vs gay?

This article says often, though not exclusively, gay men, whilst Transvestism#Drag_Queens (which should probably be merged to here) says They are often straight, and lead mostly heterosexual lives with their true female partners. - so which is it? (And I realise that both could be true if there's plenty of both gay and straight drag queens, but we should probably say that rather than implying one or the other, and it would be good to be consistent). Mdwh 01:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• It appears that someone has taken it upon themselves to convert the transvestism article into something akin to a POV fork of the transgender and/or cross-dressing articles. As such, I'd seriously consider reverting that article to the last version before 18th December. That article was an historical article on the term and not an article on the practice, particularly as the term is now widely considered insulting. --AliceJMarkham 07:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• After further consideration, I'm going to suggest that the section from there not be merged here at all. There is only a summary there. I intend to add {{main}} tags to the various sections and fine tune it a bit. The result should make that article a proper WP:MOS compliant summary style article that points to drag queen, cross-dressing, etc. --AliceJMarkham 07:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Merger with drag queen discussion

oppose -these are different phenomena. Transvestism is more broad and it includes heterosexual dress-up. Drag queen is more specific and it refers more to gay men that don the feminine apparel as performance. Arbol25 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment If you mean the merge box which is on transvestism, then it's not suggesting merging these articles (which would be a bad thing, for the reasons you give), it's suggesting that only the "Drag queen" section be moved to here. Indeed, the fact that drag queen and transvestism are different subjects is all the more reason that information on drag queens should be in this article, and not the transvestism article in my opinion. Mdwh 04:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

But I got steered to this page by the merge box discussion box on the transvestism page. Arbol25 19:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

Right now the article says: "Queen refers to the trait of affected royalty found in many drag characters." That's gotta be wrong. I think it's much more likely that "drag queen" descends from the word "quean" meaning an ugly girl. (So it should really be "drag quean".) I imagine the confusion comes from the fact that gay culture was primarily an oral culture, and wasn't recorded in writing until "quean" had already disappeared from common English usage.

The Straight Dope has an article on the word "faggot" which mentions that many insults which are now used to refer to male homosexual men were once insults that refered to girls or women. It doesn't specifically mention "quean", but I would think it pretty obvious. We don't see the word "quean" much anymore, but it was once common. You can see it used in Shakespere.

--Scientivore 02:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Drag queen vs. Transgender

This issue has come up in regards to a photograph of transgendered singers being placed on this page. The question is: do transgendered also fall under the category of drag queen? Although I am unable to provide citation, most people I know (and I have photographed many of the famous drag artists on this page) do not consider the same. It is my understanding that my drag performers, should they "go under the knife", would lose money and the ability to perform since they have then undergone gender reassignment, and the "illusion" of playing another gender is no longer an illusion, but is reality, disqualifying them for the drag artist moniker, since they are not, technically, in "drag" anymore. Opinions? Can anyone provide some links or citations to this issue? it may be worthwhile fleshing out on this article. --David Shankbone 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think that you're mixing up transgender, which is an overarching term for gender variant people, with transexual, which is a term for people transitioning to live permanently as the opposite gender to that of their birth. Some drag queens such as Carlotta have transitioned and regretted it, but have still continued doing drag shows. In the normal usage of the term, transgender includes all transexuals, crossdressers, drag kings, drag queens, genderfuckers, etc. --AliceJMarkham 15:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

RuPaul said it best - "You are born naked, the rest is drag." Although gender and sexuality play a role in many performers' art the nuances of labels and cultural interpretations certainly allow that trans folk can be drag queens no matter who they love or what gender(s) they are or identify as. Drag is an outward artiface and even if politically incorrect the Kathoys photo was labeled as drag performers so it's inclusion seems acceptable and adds more of a global perspective that article can certainly use. Even if the Kathoys pictured don't self identify as drag queens others do identify them as such. That's how I found the photo in the first place. Benjiboi 00:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but we are trying to be more encyclopedic than what RuPaul says and whether other people, perhaps mistakenly, call the Kathoys drag queens. The policy at play here are WP:V. And in this regard, I think people would look to this article to come up with some sort of learned idea of what differentiates drag queens and transsexuals, beyond RuPaul quotes and popular misconceptions (which can be part of the article, but only if that is, indeed, what they are). In that regard, we can use the Kathoys photo to illustrate that people often mistakenly label transsexuals as drag queens, if that is the case. I just want to see some WP:V citations regardless of whether what I think or what Benji thinks is indeed the case. This article needs some citation. We can go from there; but until then, I think the Kathoys don't need to be on until we know how they should be used. --David Shankbone 03:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. The photo is labelled as being drag queens and I doubt the photographer was clever enough to have them sign a form stating that we could label them as such. By this standard lots of images would be removed that are IMO fine as well. Cite away. Benjiboi 04:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they are drag queens, take them off the transsexual article. The point is that it is confusing to put them on both, and shows a lack of understanding about the nuance of the issue. --David Shankbone 04:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It would perhaps be different if they self-identified as drag queens, but we shouldn't be placing every transsexual performer on this article! If "others" identify them as such, we'll need to see the sources to comment. Also I think Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons comes into play here. Mdwh 13:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. The photographer identified them as drag queens not me. And trans people can certainly be drag queens as well and identify as both. Drag is an artiface usually done for entertainment purposes it's not who you sleep with or what gender you were or are. I also see little evidence that anyone is confused with inclusion of the image on both a Trans article and a drag one. Nor have I experienced a lot of drag queens when performing on stage to self-identify as such. To me the argument is like asking someone to choose whether they are a photographer or gay, couldn't they, just maybe, be both. Benjiboi 22:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty simple: just provide some citations to back up your opinions. --David Shankbone 22:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Which opinions would you like cited and where would you like the cites posted? Benjiboi 22:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that a real question? What are you arguing and why are you arguing it? --David Shankbone 22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You've deemed that I have to cite something to reinsert the Kathoys photo which was labeled as drag performers. The photo's inclusion seems acceptable and adds more of a global perspective that article can certainly use. What is it that you need cited so that I can make that happen? Benjiboi 22:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If they are drag queens, then they should be removed from the transsexual page. --David Shankbone 22:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree completely. Being transgender or transexual does not disallow one from also being a drag queen See Transgender#Drag_kings_and_queens and Transsexual#Defining_transsexualism. I see no reason why the image can't be included in both articles. Benjiboi 23:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) None of these articles are sourced or cited. I am not saying you are wrong, but before we posit that drag queen and transsexual can be used interchangeably, I want to see a reputable source/citation to back it up. That's all. And, that's policy. --David Shankbone 00:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never suggested that drag queen and transsexual can be used interchangeably and I don't believe that's true. However I do know that someone who is transsexual can certainly also be a drag queen. Transsexual is what you are, drag queen is what ones does. Benjiboi 01:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

External link spam

There was (and is) some discussion about adding/removing the external link to a "Golden Stiletto" website (on this and on 6 other WP pages). I find this a good opportunity to reconsider all external links added to this article, as most of them won't pass the WP:SPAM criteria. Can somebody look at this ? - DéRahier 20:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is that discussion going on? Golden Stiletto might be an interesting blog but it has little use to these articles. Benjiboi 21:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Update done. Only one had to go. Benjiboi 00:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Golden Stiletto is not SPAM, my god

Little use to these articles? You can't be serious. The Golden Stiletto expands, illustrates, and widens the little bit known about drag culture on Wikipedia. It has over 200 readers. As authority, it contains interviews by real life drag queens of real drag queens. It is also the most extensive video blog anywhere. For anyone wanting to know about what drag is, the Golden Stiletto provides fresh information. It is a new publication, but it belongs. And so do all the other links. Benjiboi, I am concerned over your concern about the supposed value of certain kinds of information. Where you would find a video of an obscure drag performance underwhelming or merely interesting, a drag queen considers it life. Just because an external site is underwhelming by your standards, doesn't make it irrelevant to the discussion as it matters to those who value the information. Every small publication starts somewhere. And for the record, a drag queen is what you are, not what you do. If you tell a drag queen "You're not a drag queen, you just do drag," prepare yourself for a stiletto up your ass. Doing drag is being a drag queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainoahemolele (talk • contribs) 22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of what a drag queen is and can be, I have friends who are drag queens but this is all irrelevant. If one wishes to see videos on almost any aspect of drag queen culture YouTube has thousands of examples. For the article's purposes the vlog is of little help, if you want to discuss ways in which t could be greatly improved so that it might be of some use then fine. Links are added and removed constantly as this is not an advert service, if a link has extensive sources or information that the average reader would benefit from then we certainly should be open to its inclusion. The vast majority, however, have been simply promoting a particular drag queen or show, and bless them all for having the good sense to promote themselves. Benjiboi 00:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You are proposing improving Golden Stiletto to some better standard. That's not your place. Wikipedia doesn't require information to be substantiated to individual editor standards. That constitutes policing outside sources. Golden Stiletto adheres to journalistic standards, and it is not simply a video log. How many people know about how a drag queen's sexuality changes once they cross over? There's an article on that in the Golden Stiletto. How many people know what a standard-setting performance is, what makes good drag? You don't find that discussion on Wiki. It's at the Golden Stiletto. The Golden Stiletto is an ad-free, nonprofit blog, so its inclusion is not advertisement. Nor does the Golden Stiletto plug any one drag queen or show. The Golden Stiletto is the only publication documenting drag as a cultural phenomenon. The ONLY one. It is highly relevant. Without it, the Wiki entry on drag is going to become outdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainoahemolele (talk • contribs) 02:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the link in question belongs on wikipedia because I believe that its inclusion qualifies for two of the reasons listed in WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. Adding the link appears primarily about promoting the web site, and it is a link to a blog. I have no idea whether the person adding it is directly associated with the site and has a conflict of interest or not. I doubt that the blog site owners would qualify as recognized experts within wikipedia's meaning of that term any more than if I started a blog on crossdressing. Being involved in and knowledgeable of a subject that doesn't make one an expert. --AliceJMarkham 03:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I was not proposing to improve an outside source but stated if you want to discuss ways in which it could be greatly improved so that it might be of some use then fine; I can see, however, that that could be seen as a proposal. Instead I'll state that that if you want to discuss what an ideal link candidate is we could touch on that. The rough consensus by the many editors that have removed the link thus far on seemingly every article it was added seems to suggest that it doesn't as of yet warrant inclusion. This certainly could change as could the perception of how useful a vlog can be. Benjiboi 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You all are too quick to turn away good, unbiased, authoritative knowledge, and quick to police outside Web sites. None of you has addressed the fact that the Golden Stiletto contains useful information on the art of drag that does not appear in Wiki. Benjiboi, forget that the blog isn't Wiki a article! That is why Wiki has outside links and corrals them in those sections. That blog does so much more than any of the existing external links, anyway. So what if the blog is not yet extensive? The other external links are no more extensive or exhaustive. I don't believe Wiki should give credence to only extensive outside sources. One link that stands is a link to a single article, a single article. The Golden Stiletto has many articles. There are no extensive, noncommercial outside sources on the Web exclusively on drag. I challenge you to find it. I have been looking for a long time and that blog is the only thing out there on the subject. You all seem more concerned about the intent of the bloggers, which is petty. I have already pointed out that the writers of the Golden Stiletto make no profit. I talked to them. As far as I know, they have no agendum, they favor no one, and they back up everything they say. It is the readers of Wiki who benefit from the link, not the bloggers. If you wanted to know that drag queens face social ostracism by the gay communities they perform for, you would not find it on Wiki. You would have to consult and cite the Golden Stiletto's interview with a drag queen. In the world of drag, being invovled in and knowledgeable of the subject is the only thing that matters -- not a piece of paper saying such and such expert read a bunch of books on drag. One of the authors of the blog IS a recognized expert in drag. He has been sought out by drag queens including four USQ pageant winners as well as several well-known New York queens. He has judged drag pageants. Drag queens consult his expertise every day in his profession, which he would not disclose. When is the last time you saw a PhD in drag? AliceJMarkham, if you started a blog on crossdressing, which isn't drag as you well don't know, you could not speak with near the knowledge and authority that the bloggers do. I propose that the Golden Stiletto be included as an external link because in balance it is more useful to Wiki readers than any of the external links already there, it is nonbiased, and it is noncommercial. I hate to say this but your resistance to this link is unusual and suspicious. --Kainoahemolele 04:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment here - be very careful about labelling people as suspicious. It could be interpreted as a personal attack. You have come onto here with a brand new account to make one edit, what we call a single-purpose account. You have an obvious conflict of interest here, and the blog seems to me to be no more important than any other blog out there. It's only got 200 readers, for christ's sake - no more than http://chasemeladies.blogspot.com/ Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree what is important to being a drag queen and indeed I have a decent base of knowledge to know there is all manner of DQ's from one-time to professionals. The fact remains that wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a how-to tutorial or an exhaustive instructional manual or even a college course on the history of DQs. The vlog in question may be an excellent resource but as of yet doesn't seem to serve as a great resource whether or not they are non-commercial, to me, makes little difference in this case, it requires the user to watch videos which seem the be organized in traditional vlog chronological manner. Your assertion that One of the authors of the blog IS a recognized expert in drag. He has been sought out by drag queens including four USQ pageant winners as well as several well-known New York queens. He has judged drag pageants. Drag queens consult his expertise every day in his profession does speak to some notability, can you link any references to this? Perhaps an article should be started on him instead linking his vlog and then, in turn, his article could be linked here. Benjiboi 04:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You keep missing the point that I am proposing only a simple link to an OUTSIDE Web site with its own standards, just like a myriad other outside sites linked to on Wiki. You keep trying to hold an outside Web site to Wiki's internal requirements for articles within Wiki. That makes no sense. It's not a wiki crime for outside sites to engage in their own discourse. Wiki serves only to document them as phenomena. When you say that the blog "Doesn't seem to serve as a great resource" you are making a judgment call you should abstain from making. It IS a great resource, and 200 drag queens are vouching for that by their readership. That's a sizeable amount of the professional drag population. Drag is a relatively small world. And it isn't like any other blog because of its journal-like composition. It is not just a videolog. Your argument that it posts chronologically and is therefore value is not relevant. Everything publishes chronologically. Some of the entries in that blog stand as articles in their own right and could be linked invidually if that were possible. If one newspaper article can be linked, so can a bunch of articles published on a blog.

Truly, what Wiki entry on the author would be complete without a link to the author's writings? But I have no interest in writing any articles on the author. I'm a single purpose account user, remember. What a patronizing thing to say, by the way. I can see now that my arguments have fallen on hard ears and hard hearts. Wiki's loss. Drag's loss. Congratulate yourselves.

I am going to forward this discussion to the blog author(s), and propose publishing it on their blog. People ought to know the current state of Wiki editorship. --Kainoahemolele 05:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that the outside link has to be held to the same standards as an article. What has been repeated stated is that the proposed link has been removed because it didn't meet the standards for links. Somehow I think drag queens will survive yet another day without that resource for now. Again the possibility of the author being notable seem to be the best way to share their expertise on the subject. Benjiboi 19:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)