Talk:LGBTQ culture in New York City

Thanks for making this

WhisperToMe Thanks for putting this together. I have tried to connect with many of the LGBT organizations in the city by having conversations face to face with the most achivist-minded person I could find there. Perhaps I have had 30 minute conversations with 10 organizations. I have been unable to find a point of contact with anyone who would bite to do more. Here in NYC we have a Wikipedia community which meets at least monthly, WP:Meetup/NYC, but none of us really have capacity to make a partnership happen for any organization that is not ready to give something back. They all would love to have us volunteer to use their material, but none want to talk about free licensing. I really regret how many photos and documents are going to be lost even thought many are collected and there are oral history recordings. This article is a great start for collecting what exists. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: - You're welcome! I'm hoping that this page will not only increase the understanding of the NYC LGBT community but also lead to possible considerations of re-licensing for free use. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2016 updates

Castncoot has been updating this article.

• The last stable version was in July 2016
• Here is the article as of now
• Here is the diff
• Here is the first stable version of the article when WhisperToMe established it in September 2014

I am posting here to note the changes and to express my view that at a glance, the changes appear to be positive development of the article aligned with good Wikipedia editing practices. If anyone else has comments then please share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Content from other articles

Castncoot imported some content. Here is one edit

• import of content from LGBT Pride March (New York City)

Other content for which I do not see attribution includes parts of the police raid of the Stonewall Riots and sections on Greenwich Village.

Wikipedia prefers to prevent WP:Forks of content. Castncoot, can you say something about how you decided how much content to copy here? My preference would be to keep summaries of events short and send people to main articles for more details. Subsections which link to main articles sometimes copy the lead of the linked articles, or even just a few sentences of the lead. Right now there is more content here.

I am not criticizing this because I see the article still developing, but I would like to prevent having too much of the same content in multiple places as the article develops. Also, any content copied from else should ideally have clear attribution as happened in the example above. Some of the other text in this article might not have that right now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Moves and merges

Stickee You just moved things around. Please make sure this talk page remains attached to the live article. Currently it is behind a redirect. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Stickee (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 20:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

---

LGBT culture in New York City → LGBTQ culture in New York City – The Q is described within the article (was, before it kept getting deleted) and in the official City government source.[1] This isn't meant to redefine the terminology used in any of the other LGBT-themed articles, just to be consistent with the terminology often used in New York City, as the article deals with a very specifically local issue. The Q is strictly meant to be additive and inclusive, not restrictive or compulsive. Castncoot (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose capitalizing Culture. Dicklyon (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that typo to my attention. I shall fix that to rmv the capital "C" from "Culture" in this edit. Castncoot (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. Castncoot (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I still oppose per arguments below about what's most common and recognizable. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The vast majority of reliable sources on the topic use the current title. For example, some NYC related sources:
  • Museum of the City of New York [2] - " Underground Culture in New York... Peeling back the layers of New York’s LGBT life that thrived..."'
  • PFLAG NYC [3] - "...cultural and multicultural events and activities to LGBT people..."
  • The Village Voice [4] - "...attended by hundreds of LGBT seniors and their supporters..."
  • The Atlantic's CityLab [5] - "Mapping Where LGBT History Unfolded in New York"
  • The New York Times [6] - "L.G.B.T. leaders reflect on the obstacles the community..."
  • Official NY Tourist Website (on ILNY, run by New York Department of Economic Development) [7] - "LGBT community centers are a great..."
  • New York Public Library [8] - "pivotal LGBT artists and cultural figures such as..."

I also find it unusual the proposer of this RM says the City of NY uses LGBTQ. It really doesn't. Here's a small example of departments of the City of NY:

• New York City Council [9] - "The LGBT Caucus of the New York City Council seeks..."
• NYPD Community Affairs Bureau [10] - "Fostering positive relations between the LGBT community..."
• New York City Comptroller [11] - "valuable potential in the LGBT community"

Evidently, LGBT is the appropriate name as per COMMONNAME and the sources. Stickee (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point here, Stickee. I don't think anybody disputes that LGBT is the more highly used term. In response to your many examples here, I found this example of LGBTQ being quoted in a self-identifying manner (in the abhorrent and still-developing story in Chelsea): [12]. The matter is not which term is the majority (a common theme that resonates with the LGBT(Q) community), but the legitimate citability and includability of the "Q" as a commonly used term. To not include the Q would actually be remiss. Again, we need to be focusing on inclusiveness ("A and/or B") here, not restrictiveness ("A intersection B"). Castncoot (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose the current reasons given. Articles are named per the common name of a subject among sources. Official titles do not matter. Is there a large amount of reliable sources that refer specifically to New York's "LGBTQ" culture? ~Mable (chat) 19:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, yes. I only wish I had time to research them now! :) Perhaps Stickee should do that to give fair due diligence to both terms. Castncoot (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

There should still be plenty of time before this gets closed. Maybe you'll be able to search for them later this week. I'll Google a bit as well, though it's hard to get a good grasp of sources when you're dealing with a subject like this (for me, anyway). ~Mable (chat) 20:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

As I thought, there are a lot of sources referring to LGBTQ culture rather than LGBT culture: [13]. I have absolutely no idea how to find out which is more common, though. I do know Google doesn't seem to like the "LGBTQ" initialism. Kept trying to change it to LGBT... ~Mable (chat) 20:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

But since there are a reasonable number of LGBTQ entries (thank you for doing that quick search), the Q should be given the benefit of the doubt. This is not a popularity contest. We already know LGBT will be found to be more common, even in NYC. It's simply a matter of legitimacy and reliability, and keeping in mind that the Q is additive, not restrictive or compulsive. Castncoot (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

To me personally, adding the Q would be more restrictive, for the reasons I have outlined on the WikiProject talk page. The Q also isn't commonly accepted even among LGBT activism websites like GLAAD. "All else being equal," I think it would actually be preferred to keep the Q out. Why wouldn't we use LGBTI instead? Plenty of sources for that too: [14] ~Mable (chat) 20:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Because "LGBTI" is not quoted or cited in this article, unlike "LGBTQ", which is quoted (officially by the City of New York, no less!!) and also cited twice. If it were, then yes, we should. As tempting as it may be to focus attention away from this article, one should avoid that temptation. Castncoot (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the "L" and the "T" aren't restrictive, are they? No, they are additive. Similarly, if the "Q" is excluded from the way that people self-identify as mentioned and cited in this article, does that mean that in order to be included, they will need a completely separate "Queers in New York City" article created for them? What GLAAD approves of is irrelevant here, for the purposes of this article. Castncoot (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am not sure. I know that many people complain about all options, including LGBT, LGBTQ, and every other proposed choice. At meta:Wikimedia LGBT the discussions among LGBT Wikimedia contributors in all countries have led to a conclusion of using a new acronym, not used by anyone else, which is LGBT+. Personally, I like LGBT+ because I think it builds off the precedent of LGBT and it includes everyone. The letters never end. A problem with Q is that many Americans born before about 1975 still perceive it to be an insult because "queer" was not a term that was claimed among many activists above that age. Wikipedia does a great job at sorting manuals of style and I think if there really is internationally interest in using a better term, then Wikipedia would surface that. I would favor making collecting evidence and compiling it into a manual of style somewhere on English Wikipedia so that other media outlets can copy whatever best practice is identified. I am confident that LGBT is the historically favored term but it could have happened that another term is being quickly adopted, but I would want to see a certain amount of evidence. I think this is a serious decision because NYC is the single most influential media center in the world and NYC has been disproportionately influential on the history of LGBT rights as compared to everywhere else. This article has to be correct as a model for others. I would change if someone actually compiled a viable argument to change but I do see "LGBT" as the conservative default choice. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I would support LGBT+. I agree with your reasoning, that it leaves all options open. Castncoot (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose move...? The onus is on the nominator to show "LGBTQ" is the common term, and I don't see any proof of that here.  ONR  (talk)  08:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Can this RM discussion be modified to LGBT+ culture in New York City?

Doesn't sound like LGBTQ has people's support for the title. I do like User:Bluerasberry's suggestion of "LGBT+", however. What do people think? Sounds like the international Wikipedia community has decided favorably upon the "LGBT+" acronym. Castncoot (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The same reasons to oppose in the recently closed RM still apply to this proposal. Stickee (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The article currently doesn't (explicitly) seem to cover asexuals, genderqueer people, or intersex people. No mention of any sexual or gender identities outside of LGBT. Why should this article specifically be moved to a different title? I mean, I think the article should cover these topics, and on Wikipedia's back-end, "LGBT" is basically considered an umbrella term as well. I'd rather see WP:WikiProject LGBT to be renamed in this manner than a specific article that has little to do with the + in the first place. Never been very fond of that + myself. It comes across as very othering... ~Mable (chat) 11:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• So far as I know, the idea of "LGBT+" has only appeared in the Wikimedia community and no one anywhere else has used it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• I'll note, for the record, that Wikipedia only uses "LGBT+" in internal project contexts, such as Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians — and even then, we use it only because Wikipedia would never get anything else done at all if we had to continually battle over whether it should be at "LGBT", "GLBT", "LGBTQ", "GLBTQ", "LGBTI", "LGBTQI", "LGBTTQQIAAP", "LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM", or any of the infinite number of new variants. But in mainspace articles and categories, "+" isn't viable because it's not widely used out there in the real world; it was just our own internal solution for one project category, not a viable way forward for content disputes in mainspace. For the purposes of that internal project category, we had to figure out some kind of compromise between common terminology and inclusiveness, so that we didn't get drawn into a constant series of pointless debates about something that has nothing to do with actually building an encyclopedia — but in end-user content in mainspace, we absolutely can't create our own neologisms that way. The naming of our communities is obviously a thorny issue, but it always has been — I'm old enough to remember when even adding B and T was controversial, and while it's technically before my time there was once a time when even the L was controversial on the grounds that lesbians were already covered by "gay" and thus we didn't need to say both. I really do wish there were one generally accepted "umbrella term" that covered everybody, without having to get into these unwinnable debates about how many letters should or shouldn't be in the acronym, but unfortunately there's not. At the same time, however, the idea that New York City needs a special dispensation to use a different version of the acronym than we're using anywhere else isn't all that convincing either — there's no special NYC-specific context that mandates the inclusion of more letters than we use in San Francisco or Toronto or London or Berlin. The rationale for use or non-use of the Qs and Is and Ps and 2s and Fs and Hs is the same in NYC as it is anywhere else. I don't know how to resolve this, but neither does anybody else (which is precisely why there are so many different variants out there), but the answer definitely isn't "New York City gets its own special version of the acronym for itself alone, different from the one we use anywhere else." Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on LGBT culture in New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/6SYsPUYYu
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/6SYtDiN20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712215328/http://homolexis.com/glossary/index.php/Pride_%28trope%29 to http://homolexis.com/glossary/index.php/Pride_%28trope%29
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20060214163344/www.bisquish.com/squishive/2005/07/27/in-memoriam-brenda-howard-2/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/6SYpkWFHD

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LGBT culture in New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303201003/http://www.northjersey.com/news/nyc-grants-landmark-status-to-gay-rights-movement-building-1.1361241 to http://www.northjersey.com/news/nyc-grants-landmark-status-to-gay-rights-movement-building-1.1361241
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nycpride.org/about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060214163344/http://www.bisquish.com/squishive/2005/07/27/in-memoriam-brenda-howard-2/ to http://www.bisquish.com/squishive/2005/07/27/in-memoriam-brenda-howard-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Self-Identified LGBT New Yorkers

I wonder if this hasn't become its own page? Has grown considerably. Half the space of the entire LGBT Culture in New York City is given over to this section. Collier09 (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You are suggesting it become its own category? That's a thought. Makes sense. Is growing quite lengthy. Probably lots more to add, too.Chrish65 (talk)

I do agree that it's gotten huge and will only grow. I've forked it off into a new article, List of self-identifying LGBTQ New Yorkers. Castncoot (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Rain dove.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Who is ref "Duberman"?

Question at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Good question, I did a little bit of fact-finding and added ref, for a start. Castncoot (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. See also [15][16]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced or poorly sourced edits

@Castncoot the onus is on the editor adding content, not the editor removing unsourced or poorly sourced content. Please read the message left on your talk page before reverting again. BlueboyLINY (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

We’re not going to get anywhere here. Let’s invite the other top editors of this article to comment if they so choose. User:WhisperToMe, User:Figurefour44, User:Collier09, and User:Chrish65: may I request if you folks wouldn’t mind looking at the most recent edit summaries and we can try to achieve consensus on material that would improve the notability of the article by inclusion? The Dyke March is real and significant, as is the BDSM street fair, as different and diverse notable facets of New York’s LGBT culture. The burden is notability sourced reliably, of course. Best, Castncoot (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@BlueboyLINY: @Castncoot: Vogue Magazine states that it was started in 1993, and in this article states that "The Dyke March has long functioned as a mobile site of resistance for those aligned with the fight for LGBTQ+ rights". The Cut has a lengthy article here. I think the article should mention the Dyke March. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

"Lgbt c" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Lgbt c and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10#Lgbt c until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"LGBT culture in" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect LGBT culture in and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10#LGBT culture in until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"LGBT culture in Connecticut" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect LGBT culture in Connecticut and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 12#LGBT culture in Connecticut until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. eviolite (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexualities

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Masondavidp (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Masondavidp (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jrxijown (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jrxijown (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)