Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

WikiProject LGBT studies

 Home Talk Collaboration Editing Resources Showcase

I want to improve the LGBT_speculative_fiction category lists

Hi, I just added suggestions for a couple of useful new subcategories to Category_talk:LGBT_speculative_fiction - I just wanted to make sure somebody sees this.

(I'm currently researching queer representation in geeky genres for an annotated recommendations list over on IMDb, so I have a list and I'm perfectly happy to put in the time to add the category tags to the individual media pages. But I don't know how to create subcategories - and in any case, that shouldn't be done by an outsider, I think.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:1ED0:3500:4886:EC7D:A008:E793 (talk)

Korbin Albert

Korbin Albert had liked some allegedly homophobic/transphobic social media posts for which she apologized, and has subsequently been booed during US national team games [1] [2]. This has been covered in significant, independent, reliable sources. However, the Korbin Albert Wikipedia page currently describes this in a way that almost makes it seem as if nothing at all was homophobic/transphobic. I would like someone from this Wiki Project to take a look and ensure that section is written from a neutral point of view. Joeykai (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

wow! That was both way too long and also misleading. I've attempted to clean it up a bit, although now the section seems to need more so it's not just a "controversy" section Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Should the section about it be called 'personal life'? It's part of her personal life sure, but when it's the only thing in that section it's kind of odd. I assume her personal life does not revolve around reposting homophobic/transphobic Tik Toks. Urchincrawler (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

List of LGBT-related acronyms

I just started this list. Did it exist before? Because I couldn't find. There are probably more acronyms missing, but I think these were enough for a start. --MikutoH ^talk! 21:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

MikutoH, it's well sourced, so thanks very much for that. The main problems I see with it are overlap, indiscriminate content, and a possible title issue involving selection criteria.

• There is considerable overlap with the LGBT article, which I believe includes most of these terms, although it might make sense to have this article for the ones that aren't , and especially if there were other acronyms that are not tied to the term LGBT itself.
• Wikipedia is not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of information, and do we really need to know about LGBTQQICAPF2K+ or MOGAI just because somebody, somewhere, mentioned it an article at some point? We shouldn't underestimate the number of people coining something or mentioning a coinage hoping to get a hit in Wikipedia, which would enormously boost their PageRank on the web. A legitimate acronym that has some sustainability or widespread usage, sure; but not something that is just a vogue word in a limited time or place. These are judgment calls, and list articles generally have more leeway on this sort of thing than at topic article, but still there is a limit somewhere.
• As for the title, what do you mean by -related? It's kind of vague term to use in a title, and could mean different things to different people. (This same question comes up in a different discussion; see § LGBT-relatedness of a film below.) Do you mean only terms related to the adjective LGBT, so all the extensions and forms of the term LGBT, but not other things? This question has to do with defining your selection criteria for the list of items that are to be included. For example, could your list also include LGBT organizations that have acronyms for their name, or part of it, like HRC, GLAAD, PFLAG, NCTE, ACLU LGBT Project, GSA?

I think attention to these issues will help define and improve it if you want to keep it separate from the LGBT article. Mathglot (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for giving some feedback, Mathglot. I asked for opinions on the title scope in Talk:List of LGBT-related acronyms because of the relatedness.

• For me, it could include acronyms such as GSA, which reminds GLA. In fact, I included GSA, but Raladic removed it. SAGA, for example, is used for both GSA and LGBT community concepts. It could be renamed to "...related to the LGBT community".
• I agree that LGBTQQICAPF2K+ was a disparate, but some legit adopted it, and it's verified by the cited sources along with searchable nonciteds. And it's the most known acronym that include K for kinks, which many put in the acronym. Though LGBTQIAPK+, LGBTQIAPD+, or some similar would fit better in this article; while for MOGAI, it's mentioned in the LGBT article. I agree that including such acronyms would open the Pandora's box to strange and extremely unusual acronyms or variants. But I avoided many and many other acronyms I know because they don't even have usage in scholar articles.
• The overlap was already debated in the talk page but there were disagreements as well in that discussion.

In fact, I'd want to list verifiable (with reliable sources) letters, and adjacent acronym variants, that are put in the LGBT acronym, that's why I didn't repeat them in the article. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Your answer about the title seemed tautological to me, and didn't really answer the question. As I said, the term -related is a very weak connector, and makes it harder to know what the selection criteria are, which should be specified in the article; see WP:SELCRIT. This is an unusual situation, as I can't offhand think of another term which has had so many variants proposed, and it may not be obvious how to determine what should be included.

For example, if some university group creates a new LGBT organization with a new, long acronym of LGBTQQIAPNDK3G+ with '3G' standing for "third gender", maybe because they want to "get on the map" by having some local newspaper report on it, and then bootstrap that published news account into an appearance on Wikipedia, do we include it? Inclusion in a list article has a lower bar than creation of a new article, but WP:INDISCRIMINATE argues against including everything that exists if it has no encyclopedic value. So, where do we draw the line?

Our WP:NEOLOGISM policy links to the policy for inclusion of a neologism at Wiktionary, which is this:

clearly widespread use, or use in durably archived media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year

That is how Wiktionary decides inclusion of terms as standalone articles, and since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that would not suffice for creating an article about a term here, but it seems like a reasonable criterion for inclusion of a neologism in a list article like this one. However, that is just my opinion, and we don't have a guideline about this, as far as I know, because I don't think this situation of very many alternate names comes up often enough to have a whole list article naming all the variants. (But look at how they do things at articles like Names of God, or Names of Japan, which are not list articles, but deal with the issue of multiple names and having to source them.) Somewhere, there is a line or threshold of weak or few citations, below which we should not include a term that is attested, but only barely, but I can't define that line; that should be up to consensus, in my opinion. How do you feel about the three independent citations over a year idea?

Another issue is whether this article is about English acronyms, since this is English Wikipedia, or about all acronyms in every language? I am not sure that the latter would be a legitimate topic for a list article, unless that topic itself is notable, meaning that there are secondary sources that discuss variants of LGBT in multiple languages all in one source, to avoid the problem of WP:SYNTH. If it is only about English acronyms, I think that is easier to defend, but then some entries only have citations in another languages, like LGBTTT; I can't find anything for it in English at all; do we include that because it has been seen in Brazilian Portuguese, even if it hasn't in English? Mathglot (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

So you believe the title isn't the only problem, it's also the content that needs fixing? I accept improvements from other editors, feel free to got that boldly. If you have a better suggestion for the title, I can move it if I agree. --MikutoH ^talk! 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

MikutoH, if you hit the Subscribe link upper right of this section, you will get notified automatically when someone responds here, even if they don't ping you or wikilink your username. Mathglot (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I was already subscribed. --MikutoH ^talk! 16:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I added some acronyms to help flesh out the page more. Urchincrawler (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft biography for Duncan Crabtree-Ireland

Resolved

Hello! On behalf of SAG-AFTRA, I have submitted Draft:Duncan Crabtree-Ireland for editor review at Articles for Creation as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Sharing a notice here in case any WikiProject LGBT studies participants are interested in taking a look. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The draft has been reviewed. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Bi-inclusive terms

The term "coupled lesbians" appears in several articles related to pregnancy. This phrase seems overly narrow, but I'm not sure what to change it to. Is "lesbian couples" appropriate? Jruderman (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I tend to lean on "female couples" as an inclusive term (unless sexual activity is specifically involved.) It's not just a bisexual matter; coupled asexuals may also wish to form families. (However, take care to check the source; it may specifically refer to coupled lesbians.)-- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

NatGertler, Jruderman sapphic/sapphism? --MikutoH ^talk! 22:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

My instinct with sapphic is that while technically the definition does not require romantic/sexual attraction, that is not the common understanding. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess my concern with sapphic would be with bisexual men there's no commonly used equivalent. (The male equivalent is Achillean but a layperson reading Wikipedia probably wouldn't know what that means.) I think female couples and male couples would be easier to understand, but my only issue is if it can cause confusion between whether you female sex or female gender. If you're including same-gender couples where one or both partners could be transgender, than female and male might be confusing as those words are often associated with sex rather than gender. Urchincrawler (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Juno Dawson and This Book Is Gay

Hello. I wanted to make the project aware of recent activity at Juno Dawson and This Book Is Gay, and give other editors the chance to look at these pages and judge if MOS:GENDERID is being applied fairly. Thank you. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to include her former name in the Juno Dawson article since it seems the book had been published with her birth name at some point and her work is described with some older news articles with that name, so I would say she was notable under that former name. I wouldn't put it in the "This Book is Gay" article though if it's not relevant to the book itself.Urchincrawler (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Second opinion on Passing (gender) article

I've been trying to fix up the issues on the passing (gender) article since it is tagged with multiple issues and was kind of a mess. I tried to fix some of the more obvious things like adding sources to unsourced info, removing fake sources and self-published stuff like personal blogs, and removing some weasel words. Since this is my first time doing a major clean up on an article, I was wondering if another editor could maybe look over it and let me know if it's ready to have the multiple issues tag removed and what else there is to correct if not. I'm particularly having trouble understanding how to best make the article cohesive. Thanks. Urchincrawler (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Cisgender drag performers?

Would Category:Cisgender drag performers be an appropriate category? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I support it. though it may open the door/make a room for other categories such as Category:Cisgender LGBT people, and Category:Transgender heterosexual people (plus Category:LGBT heterosexual people/Category:Straight LGBT people).

Also, would that category include cis AFAB queens or only drag queens who are cis men? --MikutoH ^talk! 22:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Warsaw Gay Movement

Hi!

I translated the article from Polish Wikipedia into English one (it was longer and more detailed). Two things:

1. Could somebody check my grammar, spelling and vocab? English is a foreign language for me. 2. Can we change the name of the article from Warsaw Gay Movement into Warsaw Homosexual Movement?

Best wishes -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Warsaw Homosexual Movement. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Transgender hormone therapy#Requested move 15 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Transgender hormone therapy#Requested move 15 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gender variance#Requested move 12 July 2024

The discussion is here. So far there's only 1 comment so if any of you want to discuss this please do so. Urchincrawler (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment: Gay or Lesbian

Hello. Would you please comment on Talk:Sonya Deville#Gay or lesbian (again)? It is about professional wrestler Sonya Deville and her identity; e.g. calling her gay or gay female wrong (based on sources)? Thanks for the help and sharing your comments. --Mann Mann (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Queer.pl

Dear Friends.

I just translated article about Queer.pl from Polish into English. As usually, English is not my native language - can somebody view the article's language, pretty please? ;-)

Best wishes -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi I just read through it and I'm a bit confused about this sentence: "The website supports events such as pride parades in Warsaw and Kraków and participates in public debate about topics such as civil partnership, coming out and outing."

How does a website participate in public debate? Does it host public debates on their site, or are the people who run it debating these issues? Urchincrawler (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Intersex and Intersex and LGBT

The discussion is here. It currently only has one comment, may of interest to members of this WikiProject. I look forward to your thoughts there. Historyday01 (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Beira's Place

It feels like this wildly anti-trans project of Rowling's has rather glowing coverage on wiki (I think it also has a brief discussion in J. K. Rowling) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 01:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merger

A merger of List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000–2004 and List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2005–2009 has been proposed. If you are interested in participating in this discussion, please add your comments at Talk:List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000–2004#Merge proposal. Thanks. Historyday01 (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Imane Khelif

Does the members of WikiProject LGBT studies think that the article about Imane Khelif is within the scope of this Wikiproject?--Trade (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No. She is not publicly L, G, B, or T. Funcrunch (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that Khelif is a cisgender endosex woman, the harassment campaign against her feels like a queer studies topic, given its obvious transphobic and interphobic motivations, and being propagated (at least in the west) by prominent TERFs and transvestigators. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Put more practically, it is an article that members of this project would be interested in watching and contributing to. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly enough most people in her home country seems to be defending her. Said campaign is pretty much just a Western thing Trade (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems so. But, yes, I think it would be a good topic for members of this project to contribute to. Historyday01 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but I am concerned that tagging her article with the WikiProject LGBT studies category would imply to most readers that we are considering her to be a member of the LGBT community. Funcrunch (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that raising the issue here on the talk page has drawn sufficient attention from active project members, making the tagging unnecessary for immediate attention, and that the issue of so-tagging might be seen the same as putting her in an LGBT category is sufficient for us to say "we don't need to tag this time". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't all the other straight cisgendered people be disallowed from tagging then? Otherwise it just feels a bit arbitrary Trade (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Or perhaps a case of context matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If Ex-Senator Brenda Goldstarstraight who wrote the Federal "Gay is Cool" amendment and is now the host of the lesbian debate program Dykotomy gets tagged like that, well, she is someone who has chosen to associate herself with the LGBT grouping. Such is not the same for Khelif, who as far as I can tell has done nothing to associate herself with LGBT, it is merely something that has been weaponized against her. And as I said, Khelif is now someone who has been brought up in discussion on this board, so she doesn't need that tagging merely to draw the attention of this project's editors. So no, my statement is not a one-size-fits-all statement, it is directed at this very specific question, and not arbitrarily so. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

For the interested, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people from 2010. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That makes it very broad in terms of the ability to add WikiProject tags to biographies of living people. Historyday01 (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

My default assumption is that most readers don't look at the talkpage, but your point may have some merit in a wider sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "most editors". Funcrunch (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Then it gets more murky, but I hope most editors would see a difference between a WikiProject talkpage banner and an article category. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think, to the majority of readers, tagging her talk page as a subject of interest to an LGBT Wikiproject is the same thing as saying she is LGBT when she is not identified as such. BLP concerns override the desires of a few members of a Wikiproject especially since it isn't a consensus here that this article should be tagged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

to the majority of readers, tagging her talk page as a subject of interest to an LGBT Wikiproject is the same thing as saying she is LGBT when she is not identified as such--evidently this is the case based on people's replies in the ANI thread, although for the life of me I can't understand why people are reading it this way. It's WikiProject LGBT studies for a reason, a field which covers all questions of how individuals and societies relate to gender and sexual diversity, including how these phenomena affect non-queer people as well. A cis athlete who is attacked for her perceived transness absolutely falls within the realm of LGBT studies and is particularly an item of study precisely because she's not trans; I would expect to see papers about her treatment appear in peer-reviewed LGBT studies journals over the coming months. I understand people are justifiably taking BLP into consideration, but I feel like we are being overly accommodating to what fundamentally boils down to a failure of reading comprehension (or else an anticipated actively harmful failure of reading comprehension on the part of others) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Past consensus has always been that WP:LGBT can express interest in articles on non-LGBTQ+ individuals (eg, eg) in order to be notified of discussions, particularly where there is relevant content in the article. It is worth noting that the Wikiproject banner has been worded with exactly this concern in mind, and allows a note explaining relevance where it may be unclear (e.g., "While the subject is a cisgender woman, the article contains content of interest to the WikiProject, specifically content related to a harassment campaign falsely claiming that she is transgender.")

There would need to be a clear consensus among WikiProject participants that the subject is of interest, though.--Trystan (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we might need a note explaining relevance here. I would support the WikiProject banner being added to Khelif's page. Historyday01 (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not how I see it, but I may very well be in the minority. To me, "This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies" says something else. But again, I don't think the majority of readers look at talkpages. Compare [3][4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender studies (albeit inactive, apparently) if she doesn't fit under this project Iostn (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Being discussed at WP:ANI#User is threatening to report me for simply adding relevant Wikiproject tag to talk page Doug Weller talk 15:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a bit off-topic, but I looked around for something to compare to. Per article-content, I think WikiProject LGBT studies would fit the talkpage of Harry Styles. Am I right or wrong? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that's different. he already said he rejects labels, so he is technically non-heterosexual.

But that's debatable, because many transphobes reject their cisness. Would they be non-cisgender? Web-julio (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

There might be some model of analysis where that category's useful. The labels used by researchers and those by anyone else needn't align. Remsense诉 20:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like that discussion has ended / been closed and now the discussion has moved to Talk:Imane Khelif#WikiProject LGBT studies. I would suggest interested individuals of this WikiProject comment there if they see fit. Also, another relevant discussion, to this WikiProject, is: Talk:Imane Khelif#"Prominent anti-trans figures". Not sure if there is more on that talk page of interest or not. Historyday01 (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What category? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Does that mean you think the WikiProject LGBT studies template would fit on the Harry Styles talkpage, since Talk:Non-heterosexual has it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No, she is not publicly LGBT. TarnishedPath^talk 23:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Update: I have proposed possible text for Imane Khelif's page regarding the present controversy. If you are interested, please weigh in below my comment which proposes the text. Thanks. Talk:Imane Khelif#WikiProject LGBT studies.Historyday01 (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What you're proposing, for the sole purpose of advertising the interest of a handful of editors, would give UNDUE weight to the irrelevant views of those who have no say on the subject (that's not their expertise). M.Bitton (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are going to insist this comment remain, fine. I still stand by what I said: that it is inflammatory. I also suggest you restrict your discussion to Talk:Imane Khelif, as it would be more productive to all involved. Thanks. Historyday01 (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't play games with me: the fact that you removed my comment suggests some kind of ownership over this talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

LOL. I have no ownership over this page, obviously. Not at all. In fact, there are many LGBTQ discussions I don't even participate in. Sometimes I only do reversions of content to make a point about an edit. That's what I did here. That's it. While I still have my own views about your comment, I'm not going to contest your restoration of your comment. Historyday01 (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You can contest it all you want, but if you ever dare to redact my comments again, you'll take a trip to ANI. M.Bitton (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. I sure hope to never cross paths with you again. I'm not sure why you are openly threatening another user on here. Yikes. Please do not ever contact me again about ANY topic. Thanks. Historyday01 (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

As a neutral party not involved in this conversation, I am commenting to make you aware of WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. I hope this helps you understand what went wrong here, and helps you avoid making similar mistakes in future. Best regards, JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that, that's very helpful. I'll save it somewhere so I remember it next time. Looking at that rule, I do think their comment isn't necessarily a "harmful post...including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism" but... I would say it is uncivil and arguably "disruptive." However, that section also states that "posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." So, their comment would fall under the latter and shouldn't have been removed. Historyday01 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I also suggest you WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. M.Bitton (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be "uncivil" and "disruptive" only to the degree that it disagrees with what you're aiming for, and disagreement is to be expected in a discussion. This is nowhere near a borderline case. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, but I do not wish to discuss this matter any further. Thanks. Historyday01 (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for this. I updated my talk page with excerpts from that rule you mentioned and some other related ones, just to remind myself in the future, so I can refer back to it, hoping to avoid any threats toward me in the future.Historyday01 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)