Talk:Drag queen/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archival repair and adjustments

Archiving was seriously messed up. The following steps have been taken:

• Archives 1, 2, and 3 were out of order; this has been repaired by two sets of round-robin moves.
• 'Counter' in the archive config was wrong, leading to discussions being moved to the wrong archive (2, instead of 3).
• Partly due to the counter, two archives had overlapping time periods; these were fixed by moving some discussions among archives after the moves were done.
• Archive_4 was created, to hold discussions from 2019, which were located in two different archives. Archive_4 is now 2019 only.
• Archive_5 was created as an empty stub, with a {{tan}} notice and hidden comment.
• The archive config |counter= has been reset to '5'.

Archiving should be fixed now, and good to go. Future bot edits should begin moving discussions from here, to Archive_5, when they satisfy the bot config. Mathglot (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Addition to Terminology section

IP 47.152.48.31 (talk · contribs) made good faith addition to the Terminology section in this edit which were unsourced. This addition has been moved here for further work.

Copy of added material from revision 1019644214.

Before the word gay was used to describe homosexual men, and before transgender individuals developed their modern terminology, a queen was any gbt person with a penis. A butch queen was a gay man whose gender expression was male. A femme queen was a gay man whose gender expression was more female, and a drag queen was anyone born with a penis who dressed in women's clothing. The term used for those who performed while wearing women's clothing varied. Female Impersonating was the original term used by many to describe their occupation.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Section on children contains no sources of differing vantage point, amounts to editorializing.

There needs to be an addition for the viewpoint against things like Drag Story Time, etc. to go along with the sources that are proponents. The current status of the section is merely an editorial quote via one person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.109.195 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Arthur Blake (actor) and a reference to improve this article

I just created an article on Arthur Blake. I’m not sure where he would best fit in this article, but undoubtedly he was the first entertainer to perform in drag at the White House during F.D.R.’s presidency and was a seminal entertainer of the Post World War II era. Also, this reference not only has a lot on Blake but on historically important female impersonators and drag artists which could be used to improve this article. 4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and added some content in the nightclub section. If anyone has a different idea, feel free to adjust.4meter4 (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2021

Remove the word "feminine" from this line:

"Drag queens tend to go for a more exaggerated look with a lot more makeup than a typical feminine woman would wear."

Make-up does not define femininity. "typical woman" is sufficient 51.37.190.58 (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. This rests on the assumption that a "typical woman" wears a certain amount of makeup. Armadillopteryx 23:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Drag Queen has a new arabic translation.

In 2018, drag queen Zuhal (Kawkab Zuhal) from Beirut released a video of her on Youtube explaining what drag is and the origin of the term “Drag” that was initiated during the Shakespearien times, and to stay true to the original meaning of the term, she launched the first arabic slang for a drag art that is a literal translation "فن الجر" (Fann El Jarr), people used to spell “drag” in arabic letters before the arabic term was launched. Now everyone uses the slang that Zuhal created. Kawkabzuhal (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FabZach13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2021 and 19 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SamanthaBethSchwartz. Peer reviewers: Sierra.french.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Are crossplayers a subtype of drag queens?

Are crossplayers normally considered a subtype of drag queens? They are performance artists dressing up as the opposite sex, but I think they might not share enough common culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaitreyaVaruna (talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

My friend who is a gender studies grad student says they are not because crossplaying is about a specific character from media, while drag queens have their own persona they have created with exaggerated feminine characteristics. MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Sexuality in World Civilizations I

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2022 and 10 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GLEN4GNSE (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by GLEN4GNSE (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead paragraph

Recent bold changes to the lead paragraph by Arunr28 were undone as WP:OR, and for other reasons (detail at your Talk page). Valiant attempts to find compromise wording in the lead by User:Ulis255 are appreciated, and discussion here may, in the end, result in your wording or something like it being adopted.

Nevertheless, I've rolled the article back to the previous stable version before the recent flurry of changes to the WP:LEAD. This is partly because of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, but mostly because this is a 20-year old article with 1,500 editors, because it is in a sensitive and controversial topic area which is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions, and because the stable wording in the lead took shape after significant and sometimes difficult discussions by many editors to achieve consensus. While bold editing is encouraged, that has been tried already; WP:CONSENSUS is core policy. Consensus can change, and this is the appropriate place to find out if it has. Please discuss proposed changes to the lead here, before making any further changes to it in the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to Change lead paragraph

The lead paragraph should be changed for this reasons:

1. Being gay is not a gender. It's a sexual orientation. Just because a man is gay doesn't mean he does drag queen shows. Not all gay men have the same attitudes or the same personality because they have the same sexual orientation, just as not all Americans have the same attitudes or the same personality because they have the same nationality.

2. The same article defines Drag Queen as a show that is performed solely for entertainment purposes and says that anyone can do it, so being a drag queen should not be associated with homosexuality or being transgender as it promotes stereotypes.

Finally, I propose to replace the lead paragraph with this text:

Not to be confused with transgender people neither homosexual people, as a drag queen can be anyone regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. Ulis255 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Ulis255, welcome. This section you created is clearly a response to the previous one, so I've made it a subsection, and altered the title slightly. To reply to a discussion, please follow the recommendations at WP:THREAD. You're a new editor; before even considering changing the lead, we should make sure that the proposed change is supported by the body of the article. Also, not every editor is on the same schedule, and it may take some time to collect opinions. Just because you don't see anything here in a few hours or a few days, doesn't mean you should just change the lead again; so please be patient. We may need to notify some WP:WikiProjects if there isn't enough feedback, but as there are a couple of hundred page watchers, hopefully some will chime in here at some point. There's no hurry.

As far as your specific points, imho we shouldn't make a blanket statement in the lead about drag queens *not* being associated with gay men, because that completely ignores the history of where it originated, and remained, for a long time. A snapshot in time taken during the run of a contemporary popular television program gives a different picture that what it was earlier, and the lead needs to take into account more than just the present moment. But it should also take into account the situation now, so some kind of wording like you propose might work, if it can include that sense of evolution, but not worded quite the way you have done. Let's see what others think about this. Mathglot (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I just rolled back 3 edits which appeared to be personal opinions with no sources and also had bad grammar. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

And I rolled back 4, by another brand new user. I'll leave them a message at their UTP to come discuss here. Mathglot (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Their newness and pattern seem similar to me; I think regular editors here should retain good faith, but at the same time be aware and vigilant about the possibility of socking. Mathglot (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

And now another WP:SPA has arrived. I've notified them about revert-warring and told them to engage here:

* Budyy16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

1 week since I proposed to change the lead paragraph

It has been 1 week since I proposed to change the lead paragraph of the article and there has been no opposition from users. Only the user Mathglot discussed, who said he agreed to change the lead paragraph, but did not specifically propose an alternative text to the one I proposed. It is clear that the lead paragraph needs to be changed, because the way it is written encourages stereotypes about gay men, in addition to misclassifying homosexuality as a gender. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a gender. Ulis255 (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I reverted, and added the word historically to bring it more in line with what the body of the article says. (Also, I'm not a fan of "In modern times..." which leads off that sentence, but that didn't seem related to what you wanted to change, so we can leave that out of this discussion, and take it up separately.) Btw, I disagree with your reasoning that it encourages stereotypes about gay men; it does no such thing. Nor do I see how you think it misclassifies homosexuality. So, basically, I don't buy any of your reasoning. Which isn't to say I wouldn't support a change similar to the one you are proposing, but I'd have to see the sourcing that supports it, and changes would have to be made to the body of the article first, before attempting to change the lead in a way that no longer follows the body. And given the sensitivity of the article topic, you should still probably get consensus here, before attempting to change the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH.

I'm not proposing alternate text, because until someone demonstrates convincingly with sources that there's something wrong with the current version, I see no reason for it to change. The burden is on you to show that the previous consensus version (the current one) is no longer valid, and to establish a new consensus to replace the old one. So far, you haven't done that, so the previous version should remain for now, at least until you do. Mathglot (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The article defines drag queen as a person who exaggerates female gender signifiers and gender roles for entertainment purposes. While the Oxford Dictionary defines Drag Queen as a person, who wears special, very bright or colorful women's clothing and makeup as part of an act of entertainment. As you can see, the definition of a Drag Queen does not mention any sexual orientation or gender identity, so clearly anyone can be a Drag Queen regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. It is an show of entertainment that anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity can perform, so I see no problem in indicating in the lead paragraph that a person of any sexual orientation or gender identity can be a drag queen. Regarding the stereotypes of gay men, I say this because in the lead paragraph being a Drag Queen is linked to an overly general term such as 'gay man', being gay is only a sexual orientation, not a show that is It's done for entertainment and I think it encourages stereotypes about gay men, because the way the lead paragraph is written seems to imply that being a drag queen is a characteristic of being gay. On the other hand, it is true that it is more common to see Drag Queen people in the LGBT community, there are transgender people who do Drag Queen shows, so it would be more appropriate to use the phrase LGBT culture than Gay man ' and gay culture. Ulis255 (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I removed a duplicate entry here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Ulis255, you keep repeating your opinion about what you *think* the lead implies or says, but with no evidence; this is just your opinion, and I don't think it's supported by the evidence. I don't want to keep going around in circles, but I'll try to explain once more.

• First of all, your logic is flawed: just because a dictionary definition *fails* to say something about sexual orientation or gender identity doesn't mean you can draw conclusions about what it *is* by that lack of detail, and therefore anything goes; it just means that by its very nature, a dictionary definition is limited in length and scope, and doesn't deal with everything you could possibly say about drag queens. The dictionary definition doesn't say plenty of things about drag queens: it doesn't talk about what countries feature drag queens, but that doesn't mean "drag queens are in every country" (you'd need a source for that); the dictionary definition doesn't say when drag queens first appeared, but this doesn't mean that you could say, "drag queens have been present in history since antiquity" (you'd need a source for that). So please don't draw any conclusions about what drag queens *are*, based on what the dictionary definition fails to include in it.
• Clearly, there is enough information about drag queens to write an entire, encyclopedic article about the topic, and you can't shoehorn your pet theory into the lead, just because of what dictionaries are unable to cram into the definition. (I'll repeat yet again, for the last time I hope: this doesn't mean your proposed wording or something like it is necessarily flawed, but your reasoning is, and fails to support it. You'll have to approach this differently, other than trying to logic it out, but rather than relying on the sources to support your contention, and then gaining consensus here from other editors, based on the support you find in reliable, secondary sources.)
• Secondly, perhaps anyone can be a drag queen (uncapitalized), but not because of your claim of what dictionaries have to say about it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and we don't go by dictionary rules and conventions, we go by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Our guideline on the MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH explains that

  "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific"

the point here being, that comments about gender don't necessarily have to go in the first paragraph at all, but could be put off to later in the lead.

• Part of your complaint is that "in the lead paragraph being a Drag Queen is linked to an overly general term such as 'gay man' ", but that's just your opinion, and flies in the face of the entire history of drag queens, which is well sourced in the article; simply stating your opinion isn't an argument for changing anything in the article, and especially not to the WP:LEAD.
• You repeat that the lead tends to confirm or imply stereotypes of gay men, again without evidence. It could be that the greater public in their ignorance thinks of all gay men as drag queens, is this what you mean, and that you want to avoid mentioning gay men in the lead, in order not to reinforce these invalid stereotypes among the public who are already too homophobic and don't know gay men, and aren't aware of the vast variety of presentation of gay men that do *not* include drag queens. Is that what you meant? If so, that is irrelevant here, because that would be trying to convert the lead of the article into some sort of advocacy, in trying to adjust the opinion of the public in what we write, here. But that is not our role. To be blunt about it, if the origin of drag queens is intimately tied to gay men and is supported by sources, then that is what the article should say. If it turns out that that reinforces inaccurate stereotypes about gay men among homophobes predisposed to believe such things, then that's too bad; this is an encyclopedic article, not therapy or outreach to make homophobes into better people, and we are not going to whitewash the history in order to promote that campaign.
• You said, "because the way the lead paragraph is written seems to imply that being a drag queen is a characteristic of being gay". As above; and also: no, it doesn't.
• You said, "being gay is only a sexual orientation". So what? If reliable sources link gay men to the evolution of drag queens, then it doesn't matter whether it's an orientation, a role, an identity, or anything else. This is just a red herring.
• You said, "there are transgender people who do Drag Queen shows" ("drag shows", uncapitalized): Yes, there are, and this is the one thing in your comments that has backing by sources, and so it could be the kernel of a discussion about how to change the lead, but not by wiping out the entire history of drag queens by failing to say anything about gay men at all, which heretofore, has been your approach, as in your statement that, "so it would be more appropriate to use the phrase LGBT culture than Gay man ' and gay culture". No, it wouldn't; that totally wipes out the history of drag queens.

I've written previously on your Talk page of the difficulty of editing articles that are under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, and the even greater difficulty of changing the lead of such articles. This is a very tough row for a new editor to hoe, but if you wish to continue this, please remember to base your arguments on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and what the reliable sources say, rather than your own logic, interpretation, or your wish to avoid what you view as invalid stereotypes, none of which is appropriate to an encyclopedic article. In the meantime, please do not make changes to the lead of this article, until you get consensus for it. I think some changes might be appropriate, but you haven't established that yet, and the WP:ONUS is on you. Mathglot (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The current version had a bit of an internal contradiction, so I was bold and simplified that bit to: "Historically, drag queens were usually gay men, and part of gay culture, but in more recent years other people also perform as drag queens, as well as in more mainstream settings."[1] - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

No objection, based on my own prior knowledge, but we should take care that the body supports this and is sufficiently sourced. Perhaps you already have. Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems we have some new users who are trying to make this unnecessarily complicated. They seem centered not on drag but on fears around trans oppression, looking to argue points that are not in this article and not what this article is about. While all of this is addressed in the article body, WP:COATRACK applies here and it doesn't need to be gone into in the lede. There's also no reason to make the proportionately tiny number of people who have done drag performances at some point, who aren't gay men, the focus of this; that would be WP:UNDUE weight. Straight people who have just done Drag (clothing) at some point aren't drag queens, fwiw. In this context, "Queen" is a gay identity. RuPaul's drag race specials and other media that caters to a broad audience may love to focus on putting people who aren't drag queens in drag for a day, as that sort of dressup has always appealed to a broad audience. It's not the same thing as being a drag queen. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to say, but you said it briefer, and better. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: your edit is again taking this into the direction of implying that anyone, anywhere, at any time, who does some form of Drag (clothing), for any reason, is a drag queen. They're not. Please discuss here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not see that. All I did was correct the grammar where "other people" doing drag didn't seem to exist before, and where those "other people" in particular, and only they, seemed to be in mainstream settings. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Women as drag queens

Since 1972 I have quite a bit of experience on the subject of drag and drag queens. Have been following Wikipedia info about the subject(s) since 2008. I am still confused about some of the things I've seen in recent years. Here are some questions:

• What is meant by the idiom women who are drag queens?
• What is the difference between a wonderfully flamboyant, heavily made up, extravagant and entertaining woman and a woman who is a drag queen?
• Is a women who is in drag queen disguised as a drag queen with her biological gender a secret?
• How do we identify a woman as a drag queen?

Sincerely confused, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Serge, can you please copy your question to the WP:Reference desk? It's not appropriate here, per WP:NOTFORUM. I'm sure you'll get a lot of good responses there. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I felt it was relevant here because of efforts to have this article include, albeit somewhat vaguely, that enough women are drag queens for them to be alluded to here in article text.

To take your advice I spent about 10 minutes trying to figure out how to add my questions to the Reference Desk and came up with nothing. Are you aware of how complicated that is/looks? Time is valuable to me. I am over 70, but not completely gaga yet. Please give me a link, if you know of one, to a Reference Desk page where one actually can add a question. Or/and perhaps I should pose the questions at the rather confusing article Female queen (drag)? Your advice is appreciated. Thanx again! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing:, sure, just go to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, scroll down a bit, and click the big blue button. Mathglot (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanx.  Done --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Drag Controversy

Objectivity is important. This article needs to discuss the ways that drag in general makes open jokes at cis women's expense and plight ("Anna Bortion," "Anna Rexic" - RuPaul's derogatory comments against cis women - the list goes on). 75.130.201.33 (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree there should be a section on feminist critiques of drag, if not a broader survey of criticism more generally. Here are some possible sources: Beginning on page 34, the master's thesis of Kevin D. Nixon reviews some of the relevant literature in a section titled "Drag as Misogynistic/Anti feminist". In the abstract to "Hegemonic 'Realness'? An Intersectional Feminist Analysis of RuPaul's Drag Race", author Sarah Jenkins says:

The show works to promote messages of self-love and acceptance ; however, it also promotes many problematic and damaging stereotypes. This thesis conducts a feminist analysis in order to answer the question: How does RuPaul's Drag Race relate to hegemonic and oppressive stereotypes and roles associated with gender identity, sexual orientation, size, class, race and ethnicity? Does it challenge or reinforce such hegemonies? In order to answer these questions, this thesis examines visual imagery, narrative, and dialogue in the show, utilizes theories from cultural and women's studies, English and communications. It concludes that although Drag Race does engage in some subversive behavior, it ultimately reinforces harmful hegemonic stereotypes.

A relevant section in Jenkins' thesis is titled "Pseudo-Feminism and the Masking of Misogyny" and she cites her sources. Meghan Murphy wrote an article titled "Why has drag escaped critique from feminists and the LGBTQ community?". I realize Murphy is controversial but this particular article has been cited in Female Masculinities and the Gender Wars: The Politics of Sex by Finn Mackay (Bloomsbury, 2021). Murphy is a reliable source to express her personal views as a self-described socialist feminist. Whether you agree with it or not, there is a body of relevant literature that would seem to warrant some treatment in the entry. --Mox La Push (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I have added some relevant material citing Deborah Rudacille as the source. --Mox La Push (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Objectivity requires acknowledging Deut. 22:5. 2600:1702:1DC1:7120:B15C:389D:FDFC:4343 (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

If and when laughter-creating satire is acceptable, and any object of such satire is acceptable, then the obvious satire, often sharp, even cruel, on what many people have considered exaggerated female vulgarity, which exists in the characters of some women and in the fantasies of many men, must be accepted on an equal footing. I would support the addition/admission of what's condescending and mean toward women in most drag acts, camouflaged by hilarity, as long as the aspect of the creative license inherent in regular satire is included. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Drag verses Theater Costuming

As noted, ancient theater, and up through Shakespeare and until modern times, there were no women in theater, and female characters were played by men dressed as women; theater existed mostly as a way to tell stories more visually than epic poems. Now, social media wants to tell us actors dressed as women is the same as drag, even though this article notes that drag queens tend to go for a more exaggerated look with a lot more makeup than a typical woman would wear. Drag is vaudeville or burlesque, not King Lear. I'm hunting for sources, but no one seemed to need the distinction until a year ago. DeknMike (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

NC public school incident

Video from a North Carolina public high school shows a drag queen rubbing their crotch against a student's crotch. This was a school sanctioned event. As this happens, the adults in the room cheer. None of them try to protect the student. This article is from Fox News.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/nc-public-school-says-looking-161425523.html

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for your culture war drivel (and Fox News is not a reliable source for anything more than the weather)

Try 8chan or conservapedia instead. Dricoust (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Non-notable image added

I do not agree with this revert. The person depicted is not notable. Their nationality is no reason on its own to add a photo of them. Hundreds of non-notable images could be added if we start this. Will remove it again, unless someone here can come up with a good not to. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Weird absence?

"Paris is burning", realness and ballroom culture don't get any attention on the page?

Is this on purpose? because it seems like a giant oversight and an extremely thematic one at that.

(ballroom culture is in the "see also", but that seems way too little) 85.147.66.47 (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Airam Gomez (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Natalie.alvarez314.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)