User talk:Varnent/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Intersex and LGBT

Hi there After earlier adding an intersex organisation (ISNA) to a list of trans organisations and having that reverted, you might want to hold off before making changes to the categorisation of intersex organisations. In particular, "intersex rights organisations" captures a different set to "intersex organisations". The latter seems not to include organisations which are intersectional and LGBT-led, and additionally includes intersex organisations that engage in activities other than the pursuit of rights. Nsw2042 (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I work with some Intersex-specific advocacy organizations, am familiar with their work, and appreciate your concern from on a conceptual level. However, that concern may not necessarily be applicable to an encyclopedia and as the categories exist right now - adding it to Category:Intersex rights organizations already makes it a part of Category:Intersex rights and Category:Intersex organizations. English Wikipedia guidelines about categorization are rather simple on this. I do not personally agree that there is a reason for organizations to be in so many categories, however, if you feel strongly about it you may want to consider labeling the subcategories as the guidelines suggest. Another possibility would be to create a category for LGBT organizations doing work for Intersex communities to clean up the main category. Let me know how you want to proceed, otherwise I will assume that you agree it should follow the logical guidelines. Hope that helps explain my thought process - it was not because I am unfamiliar with the work of Intersex specific organizations vs. LGBT or transgender organizations - it is because the categorization policies are designed to prevent overcategorization, and what you are suggesting would certainly lead to that if applied on a grand scale. Ultimately it would lead to more confusion for readers, and that is not the goal. The typical reader is not going to understand this nuance and it would seem odd to state the obvious - that an "Intersex rights organization" is both interested in "Intersex rights" and an "Intersex organization" - to your average reader the first covers the last two. Similarly, while the ACLU may not be a LGBT-specific organization, it may still be categorized as an LGBT organization in the United States rather than categorizing all 700 some LGBT-specific organizations in the United States in "LGBT political advocacy groups in the United States", "LGBT organizations", and "LGBT rights". It is true that not all LGBT political advocacy groups are LGBT-only organizations - but for the purposes of English Wikipedia - they are all be included in the same category. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 05:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the reply. I agree that there are problems with the categorisation of intersex articles. My own feeling, given that there are only 10 pages in Category:Intersex organizations and all 10 are also in the 15-page Category:Intersex rights organizations is that there is already over-categorisation, and removing 2 random articles from one of those categories in favour of the other does not resolve the issue. The overcategorisation seems to arise, here, from someone's earlier perceived need to create 2 subcategories for Category:Intersex rights which presupposes that there are distinct intersex rights organisations in the first place. I think that one way to resolve the issue might be to clarify that Category:Intersex organizations is for intersex-led organisations. Nsw2042 (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, to clarify, I'm not sure that a category for "LGBT organisations doing work for intersex people" is any more appealing (or less paternalistic) than a category for "Non-LGBT organisations doing work for LGBT people". It's even more complicated in some regions, like Australia, where LGBTI is the normal portmanteau term. Nsw2042 (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

While I do agree that the categories are troubled, I am not sure I agree that starting with two is bad, if anything the solution should be to continue with the rest (which is what I was planning on doing originally) and not undo what was done with the first two. I like the effort to compromise, but not sure that the solution will convey what you are looking for. Most people do not read the category pages, and most categories using that naming convention do not mean "led" - for example "transgender organizations" are not always transgender-led organizations and "youth organizations" are not always youth-led organizations. I recognize this often frustrates folks familiar with or working for the organizations, but again, the audience are general readers and not experts in gender identity politics or organizations. We cannot come to Wikipedia as Intersex advocates but as educators - and that's an important distinction that often means we have to be more general than would apply to say academic or organization publications. I am not sure there is precedent for doing it, so it may not last, but you may want to try creating a "Intersex-led organizations" category. I suspect people will argue that it's a distinction that for the purposes of Encyclopedia do not matter versus say the purposes of an online directory (which policies state that English Wikipedia is not) - and that it's such a specific distinction there are not enough potential articles to support it. You could probably find some precedent to argue against that, but it's what I suspect would come up should someone care enough to object to it. You may want to review Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Overcategorization to get some ideas on a solution. Happy to help implement or respond to ideas. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 05:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify your intent? Because continuing with the shift to Category:Intersex rights organizations would entirely depopulate Category:Intersex organizations. Thjat's not an issue about how I come to Wikipedia, it's an issue about what makes sense to the reader. On the other hand, removing activists and organisations from Category:Intersex rights makes obvious sense. Nsw2042 (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Similarly to "transgender organizations" and "youth organizations" and so on and so forth - the idea would be to diffuse the category as much as possible. So organizations that are not rights organizations - such as service or education only organizations - would remain in the top-level category. Keep in mind that the organization only having subcategories is not necessarily a bad or demeaning thing - but rather very common in categorizing at this stage of coverage of a topic like this - over time they flush out more. The rights category should have a subcategory for activists and one for organizations and diffused as such, then articles about Intersex rights in general would remain in the top category. Again, all of this would make this topic more consistent with dozens of other single population specific organizations. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 06:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but the issue is that shifting rights organisations to the specific category will completely depopulate the organisations category. All of those organisations are involved in rights, primarily in relation to healthcare. Nsw2042 (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, looking at Category:Transgender organizations, GATE, Transgender Europe and Zoe Belle Gender Centre are all transgender rights organisations. Not sure about Taiwan TG Butterfly Garden. And there is no "Transgender rights organisations" category, yet the main article in "Transgender organisations" is a "List of transgender rights organisations". Perplexing to the reader. Nsw2042 (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, it seems to me that you are presupposing there is the infrastructure and level of community development in each of those communities to support a particular level of disaggregation that isn't justified. Nsw2042 (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, the lack of current structure does not mean it will not or should not exist. And again, there are always examples of poorly placed entries. None of this should be used as a defense for going outside categorization guidelines. I do not see anyone suggesting that the List of transgender organizations could not use improvement - I agree - it is not clear to the reader. I am sorry, but I do not accept the premise that a particular level of organization not yet being reached somehow means we should stop working towards that, Wikipedia will always be a work in progress. You have offered nothing to that specific topic. There are non-rights based Intersex organizations, and I am confident their articles will be added. Again though, a category with only subcategories until more content arrives is not a terrible thing and exists in many places. The Intersex rights organization category will be a subcategory of Intersex organizations. You originally stated that there was a good reason for those two organizations to have all three categories, and we seem to have gone way off that topic. A category being left without articles is not a reason to leave categories in an article, the categories need to apply to that article and should not overlap. Again, I encourage you to review the applicable guidelines. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 07:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I created a List of intersex organizations late last year and there are less than 40 organisations currently listed - including organisations with no Wikipedia pages at present. I'm hoping to write articles on more of them, but notability is an issue with some. Even if they were all listed in Category:Intersex organizations it would still be fairly straightforward to navigate. My case is that overly diffused categories with none or a very small number of organisations in each category makes it much harder for a user to navigate. And with so few organisations who clearly provide engage in multiple types of activity, disaggregation will be somewhat arbitrary and can misrepresent the sector. Perhaps there might be a case for regional disaggregation at some point, but the US has 6 organisations currently listed. My recommendation would be to leave the categories as they are until such time as navigation becomes an issue. Nsw2042 (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, could you please name the non-rights focused intersex organisations, or (better still) add them to the list of intersex organisations? Nsw2042 (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are asking me to prove that there are non-rights Intersex organizations, but here are some I am familiar with, I suppose if I researched I could find more: Accord Alliance (explicitly not advocacy based, per Tides Foundation), Interface Project, Bodies Like Ours, Youth TIES, Intersex Support Group International, Israeli Intersex Support Group, and Survivor Project (many different orgs use this name - but there is one which is specific for Intersex survivors of domestic violence). --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 08:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I considered adding Bodies like Ours but came to the conclusion that it is a website, there appears to be no organisational component beyond that. Your other references are already described (Interface as part of AIC), no longer maintained (Survivor Project not updated since 2003 - if it wasn't notable then it probably isn't in hindsight) or seem to relate to a listing on the ISNA website - but bear in mind that ISNA is a defunct organisation with a website that is no longer maintained (one of my objectives is to make sure the encyclopaedia contains notable, useful current information). Nsw2042 (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting them for inclusion on Wikipedia, just giving examples of non-rights intersex orgs. I pulled it from a list from a document I had from a training a few years ago - it was the nearest list I had. Like I said, if I researched, could probably find more. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 04:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I keep commenting as issues occur to me, sorry. All I'm really saying is that structure should develop and be implemented only as the need for structure becomes apparent, it shouldn't preempt it. Nsw2042 (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If notability is a problem, you may want to look at other places like WikiQueer or a Wikia based wiki, or spend some time building relationships with other Wikipedians who will help defend the notability with you. However, trying to argue the guidelines and just insisting they not be followed will not help. I am going to continue cleaning up categories, along with others, and again if you feel these articles should not be diffused, open a discussion, get some consensus, and label them as such. Otherwise, I do not see any reason to give this group of articles some unique treatment, it does not lend to readability. Again, what you are saying would all be more applicable if there were not clear guidelines about overlapping categories - and you have still not explained why having one article in three overlapping categories helps readers beyond it keeps articles in some categories. That is not what the categories are there for, it is what lists are there for. Also, I am familiar with the list of Intersex organizations and unfortunately, again per Wikipedia guidelines, the external links should be changed to redlinks until the articles are created: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of organizations: Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY. So it should not be a list of all Intersex organizations on the planet, but rather a list of Intersex organizations that have or are likely to have in the future a Wikipedia articles - which could be all of them certainly - but it is up to editors to decide which are likely to make it and which are not. Simply linking to the website of all of them without articles is not what the lists are intended for. Please keep in mind that many times, certainly not all times, people are making these suggestions because we genuinely want the content to remain. Things like this just give arguments to people that do not like these types of articles, and unfairly I am very aware of that they can held to a strict interpretation of guidelines and policies. If you want as many of these articles to remain intact long-term as possible, I suggest familiarizing yourself with the guidelines and either working within them, or advocating for their change. I know from experience that trying to wiggle around them may work on the articles for maybe up to 18 months, but eventually it makes the article subject to people chopping away at it. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 08:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

With respect, I think you're being unreasonable in your interpretation of the rules in respect of intersex organisations on that list. Here's the statement in WP:LISTCOMPANY: A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. I created that page, and did not require that organisations meet a notability requirement. It's been there for just over a month, and I've created 4 pages from recollection. I'm working my way through them. I realise that I need to add citations to the ones without pages. Nevertheless, I believe that it is inappropriate to create an arbitrary structure that might only be relevant if the sector doubles in size. And I will insist on evidence for disaggregation. Incidentally, I've just updated the URL for the AIS Support Group Australia, and here are the tags for articles on their pages: "activism AIS blog books children gender genetics GLBTQ health humanrights infertility international intersex law management media media AIS intersex people people intersex policy policy research sport sport AIS support surgery transgender" It would be an interesting exercise to consider where this organisation should sit. Nsw2042 (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

With the same respect, I think you are being very defensive and assuming that I am coming from a bad place. I never said you had to trim the list, I never said it had to go away, and the policy you state is correct and is in-line with what I said - it is up to editors like us to decide what should be included. However, none of that addresses that the style guide says you should not use the external links, so they should be changed from external links to red links - that does not mean orgs which may one day have an article need to be removed from the list. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 08:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is not arbitrary or about theoretical structure, what I am suggesting is what the guidelines outline. What you are suggesting is arbitrary and again. Plus none of that has to do with overlapping categories, you have not explained why the overlapping categories solves or helps anything. Your argument would be more applicable if I was creating multiple new categories, instead I am just trying to diffuse categories and resolve obvious overlapping (I am still not sure how an "Intersex rights organization" will not be seen as obviously already an "Intersex organization" interested in "Intersex rights". Keeping categories populated, whether for short or long-term, is not what they are intended to be used for. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 08:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You said: ''(I am still not sure how an "Intersex rights organization" will not be seen as obviously already an "Intersex organization" interested in "Intersex rights". This isn't the issue. The issue is pigeonholing an organisation as an "intersex rights organisation" when it provides peer support and education work as well as advocacy work. This is why I posted those tags/key words from AISSGA. Nsw2042 (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the feedback and applying it to the list page and org pages - I genuinely want these articles to both remain and be of good quality. Your concern about pigeonholing orgs that do more than just advocacy makes much more sense to me than the other arguments made. I can 100% relate and appreciate that, it comes up regularly with organizations. Many advocacy organizations do additional services like direct-service, suicide prevention, healthcare, cultural events, education, support groups, etc. However, for the purposes of Wikipedia, the preference is to not overlap categories and instead try to find other categories that describe their work. For example, I just did an article that was in LGBT advocacy orgs category and anti-violence org, education org, and cultural org. Only the rights label had a LGBT specific subcategory, but putting in the broader categories that describe the work is still preferable to labeling a Intersex rights organization as an Intersex organization. Again, most readers will never go to the category page to see that you have defined a distinction, so ultimately I do not think this is solving the problem you presented. I would suggest adding the categories that describe their work or create some for Intersex orgs - but as you noted - that area is still in its infancy on Wikipedia - so may not justify it. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 01:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This is actually one of the points I've been making from the start, the other is concern over your premise that an organisation has to be either one thing or the other, whether there are just 2 categories or more. Given the life stage of community we're talking about, such organisational differentiation doesn't exist. One of the two organisations you recategorised in a "more precise" category yesterday describes itself as: "we promote human rights and bodily autonomy for intersex people, and provide information, education and peer support". To my mind, this belongs in both categories to be found by users searching in either category. Nsw2042 (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay - explain to me how, from a readers perspective, using just the words "Intersex organization" and "Intersex rights organization" - what would the difference between the two be? Again, a "Youth rights organization" labeled articles are implied to be "Youth organizations". This has become circular. A person looking in the Intersex organizations category will see the Intersex rights organization category right there - but AGAIN, this is not what the categories are for. I really feel like this would be more helpful if you had a better understanding of Wikipedia's policies. The organization you mentioned above could be categorized as an "Intersex rights organization", "Education organization", "Peer support organization" (again, I would point to the ACLU article for how this is done for other types of orgs) - and that would be FAR more helpful to the reader than hoping that they will understand what only you mean by the main Intersex organization category being only for Intersex-specific organizations since no other organization categories are setup that way - how would the average reader know? Ultimately this is MUCH simpler than you are making it, as the pages I have already linked to explained: If Category B is a subcategory of Category A, putting Category B and Category A inside the same article is redundant - it being in Category B assumes all the attributes that make it qualify for Category A make it qualify for Category B. The idea of the subcategories is to narrow down types of articles from. You are suggesting that Category A not be a parent category but its own category - but that is not consistent with how Wikipedia articles are categorized. Look, ultimately someone is going to remove that other category, there are bots setup to do it if nothing else. So eventually it is going to happen, and you can either engage in this long debate every time, or find a solution that works within existing guidelines. I'll pick one of the articles and apply some categories as I suggested above to show you what I mean. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 02:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this, OII-USA, better gets what you are looking for (feel free to update the categories, I applied ones that seemed appropriate based on my familiarity with them). It being in Intersex rights organization conveys clearly that it focuses on Intersex - as do the contents of the article - and the other categories better place the organization based on its work within other more specific categories that would be helpful to the end-reader. If Intersex rights organizations was not a part of the Intersex organizations category, I could understand that particular concern better, but saying readers won't be able to find it within the Intersex organizations category does not make sense, especially considering how Wikipedia articles are meant to be categorized. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 02:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't resolve the issue as it's in a generic "support group" and health categories, but a very narrow and overly precise "intersex rights" category. Given that there are over 60 pages in "support groups", it's hidden like a needle in a haystack. There is nothing helpfully precise about that, and consider also how the name of the page doesn't give a reader any contextual data on what the organisation is about. I know that is not our responsibility - the organisation named itself - but you are placing it in that box. Nsw2042 (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless you're prepared to create new categories to fit (bearing in mind you could quickly have as many categories as pages) then is recommend leaving well alone. Let necessity dictate the categories as the community gets documented. Nsw2042 (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not wrong, but ultimately, those are concerns of a directory and not an encyclopedia where people generally come knowing what they are looking for. The categories are meant to help you find something you already know exists, not discover new things. Obviously that happens anyway, but that's not the intent. Wikipedia guidelines assume that if you are looking for an Intersex organization and you know its name, you will look within the parent category's subcategories. Again, that is why youth organizations that do 10 types of things may only appear in 2-3 of the subcategories for youth organizations and not the main category. I agree that these are not perfect solutions, but they are what the guidelines we are working within dictate we should be doing. If you feel that strongly about it, I suggest creating more subcategories of Intersex organizations, but inevitably someone or some bot will remove the overlapping categories. "Let necessity dictate the categories as the community gets documented." doesn't exactly work on a project with 40000 volunteers and over ten years of developed guidelines. It's not a matter of necessity, it's a matter of consistency. You are welcome to argue it on the article talk pages, but the overlapping categories will keep being removed by people and bots doing maintenance unless the category tags are changed as I said initially. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 03:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you've just negated the whole rationale behind having categories. The core of your argument seems to be that we can't have an organisation in both parent and child categories, and to resolve that you're prepared to stuff a page into external categories which present no real value to people searching those categories. I guess the only way to resolve this is to create other child categories, which then presents other issues given the size of the population of pages that we are considering. Nsw2042 (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, could you point me in the direction of a policy statement on what counts as "political advocacy" for the purposes of English Wikipedia? Thanks! Nsw2042 (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That is an excellent question and source of many debates I lost a few years ago. So I will speak to what wound up happening and not what I personally think should have happened (which would have been a more limited definition). Generally speaking Wikipedia guidelines default to Wikipedia articles for category definitions. The article on political advocacy groups says any organization that "use various forms of advocacy to influence public opinion and/or policy". The "forms of advocacy" it mentions are so broad, that basically any organization working to influence public policy probably qualifies. My understanding is it is intentionally broad to include the multiple types of advocacy and not just lobbying or what could be argued as "traditional" advocacy efforts. So legal orgs working to influence public policies with lawsuits (vs. legal orgs that only help defendants like Freedom Project), organizations that lobby elected officials, grassroots organization, mass public education orgs trying to influence public opinion on policies, etc. all seem to qualify. Hence why an organization like GLAD or Lambda Legal, which focus exclusively on legal strategies, are considered political advocacy groups, because a part of their goal in those legal cases is to change the law. When applied, it generally looks to intent. So Google, while spending money to influence public policy, does not seek out specifically to do that as a main goal, hence why they would not be labeled, even though you could argue they influence policy as much as a legal org or education org working on human rights. The difference there seems to be intent of the organization. This classification can actually have ramifications on a US organization's tax-exempt status - so the debate comes up every now and then - but from what I've seen - it settles on the outline I just gave you. Again, not perfect in many people's opinions, but the outcome of Wikipedia's consensus process. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 21:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, that debate I lost is why there is no "LGBT rights organization in XYZ location" categories and no actual org articles in the LGBT rights organizations category. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 21:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you miss that the core objective of advocacy by intersex organisations is to change medical practices. Accord Alliance does that, so do other groups. Medical practices are only partially/incidentally legislated. This is a failing in your categorisation of OII-USA, where only their work on birth assignments might be relevant as political advocacy. Nsw2042 (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If that is so, then why has OII-USA written for The Advocate on behalf of the org commenting on the impact of third-party laws on Intersex individuals and the need to change those laws. Additionally, they are lobbying the US Government on biomedical ethics. Their mission statement talks about campaigning for human rights of intersex people. Those would each qualify them as a political advocacy organization, and were some quick examples I found from their website. I have no direct connection to OII-USA, but I have crossed paths with them, and am confident I am not missing the objectives of their work. Medical practices are highly regulated, and that usually involves government, and that leads to political advocacy work. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 04:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That is why I mentioned birth certificates. The other issue, though, is that OII-USA nowhere claims to be an LGBT organisation. Nsw2042 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Where are you getting your information? They do it right here on their own website and talk about it plenty elsewhere. Regardless, it is widely accepted that intersex organizations are grouped with LGBT organizations given their overlaps - as OII-USA points out. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 05:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No, they say "LGBTQIA", which is not a synonym when it includes additional people (ie intersex, in this case). See also [1] where they ask for LGBT to be extended to LGBTI. Why bother if they are synonyms? An extract: "People with intersex variations, like all people, often grow up to be heterosexual. However, like members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) community, we are targets of discrimination based on our non-adherence to sex and gender norms." Nsw2042 (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Check the White House link, here, too [2], one in the list you linked to.

I believe that there are rules on describing people as LGBT when they are not. I assume that a parallel analysis applies to organisations. The situation is even more complex in Australia, where LGBTI is a more common acronym, but Wilipedia uses LGBT for international consistency. Nsw2042 (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

At this point, you are arguing with Wikipedia practices, and my talk page is not the place for that. I suggest you post your concerns on the Village pump. I am happy to continue to follow community consensus on this, so go change it if you feel strongly enough about it. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 06:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so - the US organisation's perception of itself as not being part of LGBT should be sufficient for the existing rule to apply. The Australian situation is admittedly more complex. Nsw2042 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you. I've been around when they've been identified in the US as an LGBT organization by people credibly claiming to be affiliated or representing them (it was awhile ago, I do not remember their exact role). You are not going to convince me that they are not considered one in the US where I work professionally in the LGBT movement and have interacted indirectly with them in that capacity and previously in a capacity more related to intersex advocacy in the US. If you think I am wrong, I suggest taking it up on the article's talk page and seeking comments from others to build some consensus. As I said, I will continue to follow community consensus. I would recommend reading up on the policies about identifying BLPs and organizations, which could be the helpful in making an argument. Also, you were the one that added the LGBT organization category originally, so why are you arguing with me about them being categorized as an LGBT organization if it is not an argument about broader Wikipedia policies? --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 06:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That's right, and at the time I was thinking in terms of the same principle that I applied on the Australian group. Looking at policy elsewhere that is a lot of doubt about whether or not that is reasonable. The tipping point in my mind, was adding them to an LGBT political advocacy category, not simply a generic LGBT category: now the category is assuming a level of specificity that I believe isn't warranted. The issue is not just the adequacy o the portmanteau but the assumed work they engage in. This discussion has been somewhat helpful in finding a path through some of the categorisation issues, btw. Nsw2042 (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It was basically just cleaning up the LGBT rights organizations category - which is not really meant to have organizations in it. I do not think that article is sufficient to build community consensus that they are not an LGBT organization. The notion that a similar organization is in another country is counter to Wikipedia's international approach to building guidelines. While it is true that this does not allow much for nuances, as I've said, Wikipedia is not perfect. Honestly one of the reasons I work on WikiQueer as well is I get annoyed with its imperfections interfering with getting things done I think a wiki like Wikipedia could do to help the queer communities. Overall I wind up agreeing either with the guidelines, the thought-process behind it when considering it has to be applied evenly across 4.4 million articles by some 40000 active people at any given time. When I have had small victories against the norm, my experience has taught me that the overall article suffers over the long-haul. I win at first, but then 2 years later when I am not paying as much attention, it gets hacked away or in danger of deletion because of my small victory. So instead I try to interpret the guidelines as best I can, and engage in conversations to change them when I feel it is productive to do so. When none of that works, I take the content to a wiki like WikiQueer and do what I want with it. I recognize and appreciate where you are coming from, but I often times have to put my "real world" advocate hat aside and make Wikipedia editing decisions based on what the guidelines suggest. When I think they are wildly wrong, I work with folks to get them changed. So where I once worried about article or content deletions, I am now able to go hundreds of edits without a revert. The reverts still happen, and sometimes I accept that the other person was right, and let it stand. Sometimes I just decide it's not worth it. Sometimes it's just non-guideline things that have just become common practices (like numerical ordering of references - no guideline says do that - but it's become common practice) so I figure if the other person feels that strongly - so be it. If I think my edit was within the guidelines and the best thing for the reader, I raise my concerns. My approach would be wildly different if I did not separate my "advocate" role from my "Wikipedia editor" role. The two certainly influence each other, but in something like this - I can appreciate why expanding LGBT acronym is good, and why strictly enforcing it makes sense from an advocacy perspective - I am also aware from a communications and public education standpoint that these are nuances that are lost on the vast majority of the audience. While it is true that education is a key to sometimes changing that, when there are things like this that remain under dispute within academic and the topic's circle (as you said, different LGBT entities are handling this differently right now - there are MANY variations in the US - LGBT is most commonly associated because of the media - but it is not consistently used by any stretch of the imagination - in the state I live in there are about 30 organizations using 5-6 different acronyms in different orders) - an encyclopedia is going to generally settle on the middle-ground or common consensus - which in this case is that the intersex community's issues are often addressed most commonly by LGBT organizations since not enough intersex organizations exist. Therefore they are often categorized with LGBT issues. Some intersex folks like that, some do not, but until it is resolved, it is unlikely that Wikipedia would go against it. There are actually not policies on categorizing people's sex, gender, gender expression, or gender identity at this point. There are for sexual orientation and religious beliefs, but there has been an ongoing discussion about making that clearer for gender/sex related issues. Intersex is made even more complicated by some intersex people asking to be identified as transgender for the purposes of things like Wikipedia. Now, all of that said, if the goal is to add I to the LGBT acronym, I can share that a strategy I know transgender activists privately used in the US while advocating for T (along with B as it happened in many cases) be added to "gay and lesbian" was to encourage their organizations be grouped in publications with gay and lesbian organizations. Over time the argument against including B & T become much weaker as they were just constantly there as some would later put it. :) --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 07:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I would argue that queer isn't a synonym for LGBT and I or LGBTI any more than heterosexual is, given that many T and I people are heterosexual... One way I resolved the categorisation/finding issue was to put intersex organisations into posts of LGBT orgs but be very parsimonious in adding categories. Note too that intersex categories do not appear in categories of LGBT issues anywhere; subsets of LGBT do. Nsw2042 (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: File:National Lesbian and Gay Federation logo.jpg

Hello Varnent. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:National Lesbian and Gay Federation logo.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not the same file format (jpg vs. png). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Legere, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New England Telephone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Forum For Equality

Hi Varnent. I saw that you placed Louisiana's Forum For Equality in the Non-Profit category, but I am pretty sure - not 100%! - that they are a political action group. I am not sure how to address that. Thanks for your help! BrianThibodeaux (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you saying that you are not sure they are a political advocacy group? The article currently appears in all of these categories, not just the nonprofit one: Category:LGBT law in the United States, Category:LGBT political advocacy groups in Louisiana, Category:Organizations established in 1989, Category:1989 establishments in Louisiana, Category:Louisiana law, Category:Non-profit organizations based in New Orleans, Louisiana, Category:Equality Federation, Category:Organizations that support same-sex marriage. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 03:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Varnet - Thanks for getting back to me. No, I am sure that they are a political advocacy group. I am saying that they CANNOT fall within the "non-profit" category. They are NOT a 501(c)(3). They advocate for, support, raise money for, etc., candidates for political office, which non-profit organizations cannot do. So, while all of the other categories seem to be right, the last one, "Category:Non-profit organizations based in New Orleans, Louisiana," would be "categorically" :) false. Thanks! BrianThibodeaux (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

They are a nonprofit corporation - but classified as a 501c4 nonprofit. The category is not exclusively for 501c3 nonprofits. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 00:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Although, according to their website they have a 501c3 under their umbrella as well. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 00:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You are completely correct. Sorry about that! I had never noticed that they had a foundation attached. That makes sense! Thanks, Vernent BrianThibodeaux (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Single-payer health care

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Single-payer health care. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Darlene Nipper

Hello, Varnent. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Darlene Nipper, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Darlene Nipper) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Darlene Nipper, Varnent!

Wikipedia editor just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Your page has been successfully reviewed.

To reply, leave a comment to Editor

15:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ronan Farrow

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ronan Farrow. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ronn Torossian

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ronn Torossian. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox film

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox film. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow...

big news in Michigan today! --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed! It has been insane at work. We are doing another email blast at 12:40a about the county clerks that will be open tomorrow.  :) --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 03:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

We need your help testing latest huggle

Hello,

I am sending you this message because you listed yourself on meta:Huggle/Members as a beta tester. We desperately need attention of testers, because since we resolved all release blockers, we are ready to release first official version of huggle 3! Before that happens, it would be nice if you could test it so that we can make sure there are no issues with it. You can download it packaged for your operating system (see Wikipedia:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta) or you can of course build it yourself, see https://github.com/huggle/huggle3-qt-lx for that. Don't forget to use always latest version, there is no auto-update message for beta versions!

Should you find any issue, please report it to wikimedia bugzilla, that is a central place for huggle bugs, where we look at them. That is i mportant, if you find a bug and won't report it, we can't fix it. Thank you for your work on this, if you have any questions, please send me a message on my talk page, I won't be looking for responses here. Thanks, Petrb (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Precious

foundation
Thank you for quality articles promoting human rights, such as Agape Foundation and Matthew Shepard Foundation, for gnomish "minor clean up", page moves, redirects, for heart, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!! --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 14:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Motto of the Day Help Request April 2014

Today's motto...

When hundred thousand edits you reach, look as good, you will not.

Nominate one today!

Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.

Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This message has been sent by pjoef on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).

DYK nomination of 1986 Balloonfest

Hello! Your submission of 1986 Balloonfest at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Georgism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John M. Becker

The article John M. Becker has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable activist--refs are about the various causes he is spokesperson for, not about him

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

• Investigative report: Hong Kong's Wikimania 2013—failure to produce financial statement raises questions of probity
• News and notes: 'Ask a librarian': connecting Wikimedians with the National Library of Australia
• Featured content: On the rocks
• Traffic report: Eurovision, Google Doodles, Mothers, and May 5th
• WikiProject report: Relaxing in Puerto Rico
• Technology report: Technology report needs editor, Media Viewer offers a new look

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 20:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of media adaptations of Journey to the West

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of media adaptations of Journey to the West. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

• News and notes: "Crisis" over Wikimedia Germany's palace revolution
• Traffic report: Doodles' dawn
• Featured content: Staggering number of featured articles

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 01:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Balloonfest '86

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

• Interview: Casliber reaches one hundred featured articles
  Wikipedia's second featured article centurion
• News and notes: The English Wikipedia's second featured-article centurion; wiki inventor interviewed on video
• Recent research: Overview of research on Wikipedia's readers; predicting which article you will edit next
• Featured content: Zombie fight in the saloon
• Traffic report: Get fitted for flipflops and floppy hats

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 12:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Character notability (for full articles)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Character notability (for full articles). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)