Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 74

Archive 70

←

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

→

Archive 79

What about Chris Chan?

Should the youtuber Chris Chan get a Wikipedia page as she is due a court case soon. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

No. Firefangledfeathers 21:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Second that no. The target is protected because it's been recreated so many times and each time determined to be non-notable. --Kbabej (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Strong no. Talib1101 (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the above, strong no. Long history of creation-deletion due to not-notable under the guidelines. JC aka Jthekid15 (Communications) 18:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Rainbow flag - propose to delete content

rainbow flag?

• Rainbow flag

See Talk:Rainbow_flag#Propose_to_delete_items_on_list

I think most of the content on this page should be deleted for not having appropriate sources. Also I feel that that past editors made subjective judgments in calling things "rainbow flags", when sources do not identify them as such and they either are not clearly rainbow colored, or are not flags.

The end result that I propose is the LGBT flag featured most prominently, deletion of unreliable sources, and cutting of content without sources. I know there is a lot of text there, but if anyone can review even part of it, then thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for András Gerevich would benefit from more participation

András Gerevich is a queer Hungarian poet currently being discussed at AfD here. Input from more editors would be appreciated. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Rusty Mae Moore

I recently created a draft for Rusty Mae Moore. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Natalie Clifford Barney Featured article review

I have nominated Natalie Clifford Barney for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"Transgender and transsexual" renaming discussion

There is an ongoing discussion concerning renaming "Transgender and transsexual" categories to just "Transgender". The discussion can be found here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Aromantic

Hi Friends!

I feel like Aromantic deserves an article of its own separate from the Romantic Orientation one. I was hoping someone here might be interested in taking this on?

Side note: In my opinion should the article should be called Aromanticism not Aromantic, like it is Homosexuality not homosexual.

Happy editing! Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You might want to weigh in Talk:Romantic orientation#‎Aromanticism expansions here then, where there has been some discussion of creating such a page as proposed by @User:MysteryRat. Historyday01 (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for someone to fix map color on "X" gender markers

X Gender Markers

Hello LGBT Studies,

Since I don't know how to edit maps on Wikipedia at all, can someone please update New York and change the color on the map to blue? Since the bill to make X gender markers on driver's licenses available was signed into law last year and someone still hasn't changed the color of New York to blue. 104.254.200.99 (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Margot Heuman has an RFC

Margot Heuman, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for what language should be used to describe Heuman's sexual orientation. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Sylvia Rivera activism section begins by relying too heavily on a single article

The first few paragraphs of the activism section of Sylvia Rivera's article sources almost entirely to a single article, one which puts her in a negative light. Perhaps it should remain a part of her article (unless it is shown to be untrue) but there should probably also be more alternate, neutral, and positive sources for information surrounding her life and activism. True love and understanding (talk • contribs) 12:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:BLPN#Aryan Republican Army and deadnaming

I'd really like input from here as I am not at all sure what should be done if anything about recent edits. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on renaming transgender and transsexual categories

There is a proposal to rename the categories for transgender and transsexual people to remove "transsexual". Discuss here. Funcrunch (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

FYI, this was previously linked above. Colin M (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. Funcrunch (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Kind of just want to make sure I didn't botch a name and pronoun change that felt complex

So, one of the actors in Signing Time! has been out as nonbinary for awhile and uses they/them pronouns and the name Liam, but the Signing Time article used their prior name and pronouns until recently (even though their mother's article had been edited recently to reflect their current gender identity). So I figured I'd try to make the changes myself. I changed the pronouns in this edit in February, but I held off on the name changes for the following reasons:

• Liam is not presently notable independent of Signing Time so I'm not sure what amount of inclusion of their deadname is okay
• Liam is credited under their former name in the program credits I have access to (the quickest way for me to check if they've been changed in more recent copies (which I think is unlikely, if only because their name isn't changed in several areas of the show's website) is to get my hands on a subscription to My Signing Time (their "streaming" option for the episodes))
• There is an animated character in a side series detailed in that article which was created before they came out (Baby Signing Time), which is meant to be a "baby version" of Liam but which is not voiced by them, and I wasn't sure how to handle addressing that character using the deadname

I wasn't sure how best to handle that but tried this series of edits today to try to change the name in a way that felt aligned with MOS:GENDERID. (It needs a fair bit of general cleanup which I did not take on today, also, but that's beside the point.) I'm not used to a situation that felt "blurry" like this one so I don't know if I did too much, not enough, or just right. (Side note: Does the page need something like {{MOS-NB}} on its talk page? It does technically contain material on one or more nonbinary people.)

This might normally be the sort of thing I ask about on a talk page but that article's talk page is a bit of a desert and I was afraid I might forget if I only mentioned this there, even though I've temporarily got the page (back) on my watchlist. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

LGBT themes in literature

Such an article exists in Polish, French and Italian, but not yet in English. See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3139891#sitelinks-wikipedia We do have somewhat overlapping article on LGBT themes in speculative fiction and some others by genre, and some others by media, such as LGBT themes in video games. Anyway, if anyone is interested in this, Google translate is a good way to get started by reading and importing content from these others Wikis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

non-binary sex reassignment surgery

Nowadays, non-binary sex reassignment surgery such as penile-preserving vaginoplasty and vagina preserving phalloplasty or metoidioplasty are available. But where can we add this information? Sharouser (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sharouser: I think you could just include a (sourced) mention on each of the pages you linked, saying that these procedures are available for those who wish to have them, regardless of gender identity. (Assuming the surgeon and the person's insurance carrier, if relevant, allow this.) Funcrunch (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Surely it would belong in sex reassignment surgery and perhaps the -plasty pages. But WP:MEDRS sources are needed regardless. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

d:Q111592834 and d:Q80988068 depicted these surgeries. Sharouser (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Are the references at Pronoun game usable?

Hello! I would like some help figuring out whether the references that arr currently in Pronoun game are reliable and usable, or whethet they are not. When I was editing it to standardize its references' date formats (as I might contribute to its prose, which I'm slightly planning to do so in the future as it's not too big of an article), I realized that its references might not be usable in the first place. I'm asking for help as while I think one of the sources is unusable (particularly the People.csail.mit.edu "Anthropomorphic Diary" reference as it seems to be a primary source), I'm not at all sure whether the other references are usable or not and, in my situation, verifying them takes a bunch of time and I also don't know if my verification would be correct. Cheers! LightNightLights ^(talk) 15:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Categorization issues to watch out for

Just a heads-up about something to watch out for in the next few days...

On April 12, there was a significant influx of brand-new editors who did some really weird categorization-related things, like adding Category:LGBT sportspeople to people who were already in appropriate "LGBT sportspeople from [Specific Country]" categories and Category:LGBT heads of government to mayors. I was initially mystified by this until I found that somebody had already filed an SPI check on some of them, which led to the revelation that the editors were all part of a Wikimedia Student project (so just in need of some education in wiki process rather than deliberate vandalism.)

So just a heads up to be on the lookout for similar edits in the next few days, and if do you come across anything like this, respond with guidance and mentorship. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is related to Bearcat's message because it happened about a week ago, but an editor created 32 "LGBT-related controversies" categories (like Category:LGBT-related controversies in Iceland) that have been lying empty and will be deleted in 2 days. I'm not sure if this is a type of expanded categorization that could be useful. But you can see them all in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion.

If they are still empty on Saturday, they will be deleted so if you think these are helpful additions to the Category:LGBT-related controversies category tree, you might look and see if there are appropriate articles that would fit into these categories. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on changing the redirect target of Get the L Out

I've started a discussion in Talk:Get the L Out on whether to change the redirect target of Get the L Out. It's a little bit trivial but I wanted to bring it to attention here since it's in a talk page of a redirect page, which means only few people might be watching it. LightNightLights ^(talk) 15:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Lauren Hough (writer)

I recently created a draft for writer Lauren Hough. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I looked at your draft. Not to be rude anything, but it looks scattered because of all the spaces. I feel like I should be expecting more from a user who joined 15 years ago. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 14:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Did you point us to the correct draft? It looks as if it's barely been started. --Kbabej (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It is the correct draft. Check the edit history. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 14:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Huh. I agree with your above comment about expecting more. --Kbabej (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Good sources, looks notable. I've tried to add a bit about why the nomination was revoked, as neutrally as I can manage (might need another go over). Not sure why others are surprised that an experienced editor would do the research and citation stage of writing an article before the prose. — Bilorv (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: Category:Defunct LGBT nightclubs

Category:Defunct LGBT nightclubs has been nominated for deletion.

More feedback needed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_14#Category:Defunct_LGBT_nightclubs.

---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/J. K. Rowling

Of possible interest to this Wikiproject. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 10:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

2 Articles connected with WikiProject LGBT studies - Deletion discussions

Two articles that may be of interest to the User Group are being discussed for deletion, and I want to make sure people are aware of them. They are Joe Locke (actor) and Yasmin Finney. These two articles are for actors in the Netflix series Heartstopper, and I believe they are both credible enough to warrant articles while their contributions to the entertainment industry are unique in their roles. Please check them out and offer feedback on the AfD pages. --- FULBERT (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Whew, glad that both were kept... Historyday01 (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Florida

I think it would be a good idea if a neutral editor would have a look at the recent edits; I think Sloppyjoes7 is pushing a point, but I cannot pursue that further right now, nor am I that much of an expert. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• And right after I post this I run into this edit--I need an eye roll emoji. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

You can "roll your eyes" all you want, and make false accusations, but my edits were nevertheless accurate, precise, and factual. In fact, it is clear you have a personal agenda to purposely push bias by falsely accusing me of vandalism, and undoing my edit. By introducing your personal agenda and bias, you are not only introducing false information, but have apparently caused a "strike" against me in your personal agenda to silence dissent. All this over me saying that a "transgender woman" is not, in fact, "female". (Said in an edit comment, not even in the article itself.) Please refer to the relevant articles on this subject if there is any confusion whether or not my edits were factual. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Be careful that you're not cherrypicking from a primary source (the bill) and discounting secondary sources (like NPR). Your edit at LGBT rights in Florida excluded that by "male sex" they mean sex assigned at birth, which (as secondary sources note) is primarily intended to exclude transgender girls from girls' sports. Politanvm ^talk 03:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Edits should be based in the facts, not in (possibly erroneous) interpretations of said facts. Therefore, actually quoting what a law says and does is more useful and introduces less bias than using an article that potentially twists and distorts its purpose and intent. In fact, eliminating that biased interpretation is precisely what my edits did.

Furthermore, the secondary sources (and the addition of terms like "transgender girls") arguably reduces the understandability and clarity of the law in question, especially considering the law never mentions transgender individuals at all. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, edits should be based on reliable sources, which NPR generally is according to WP:RSP. Politanvm ^talk 02:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

(Putting this above the latest comment purely so the indentation level isn't misunderstood as a reply to their un-indented comment but rather to Drmies) Taking a look at their edits... at risk of sounding like I'm jumping to conclusions, I think the editing pattern is tendentious. At best. - Purplewowies (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, in this case articles on the subject are largely unreliable and opinion pieces. To eliminate this bias, it is best to actually quote the law in question instead of what a minority of people think about the law. Wikipedia should not be pushing fringe viewpoints not based on fact. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Your edit history shows you have been on a streak of promoting anti-transgender viewpoints that are not, in fact, based on reliable sources. If you keep this up you are cruising for a topic ban. Dronebogus (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Your accusation is not based in any facts. And ironically, the most recent edit that has come under question is regarding me quoting the actual law that the article section was about. I was actually accused of bias for quoting the law in question, instead of using a biased description of said law. This is utterly contrary to the purpose and goals of Wikipedia. The purpose is to build an encyclopedia (WP:HERE), not push advocacy positions. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: (and whoever else is interested) This discussion is now at ANI (posted there by Dronebogus, not me). Funcrunch (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Tyra Trent

I made a draft for Tyra Trent. I've seen other people post drafts they have made on this talk page, so I decided to as well. I would appreciate some help on it. --Roundish ⋆tc) 22:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I think an article about her would have to be more detailed, and cite more coverage than that, before it could actually be accepted. It's not our goal to indiscriminately maintain articles about every unsolved murder that ever happens at all; we need to see more enduring significance than just "this is a thing that happened". Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Retransitioning/ex-detransitioners

I think this is worthy of an article or a section. I made a brief section at Detransition#Ex-detransitioners but I think it needs a lot more work on it Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 01:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It's still there, I just rolled it into the Society and culture section where the citation was already being used. It was only a single sentence. Whether a section or full article is warranted depends on the length of content that could really be written on it - but a tiny section or stub article too soon isn't as good. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Pronoun and gender dispute at Talk:Quentin Crisp

Input from experienced editors is needed at Talk:Quentin Crisp/Archive2022/May#Transgender where there is a dispute over which pronouns and gender to use. The writer, who died in 1999, identified as transgender shortly before their death. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Dispute at Talk:Attraction to transgender people

Input from experienced editors is needed at Talk:Attraction to transgender people where there is a dispute over whether autogynephilia exists or not 92.0.35.8 (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

A user has requested that a topic within this WikiProject, Transsexual, be moved to Transsexuality. Interested editors may wish to join the discussion at Talk:Transsexual. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Gregory Maguire

I've made improvements to Gregory Maguire, including improving cites, adding a picture, and highlighting Maguire's marriage as one of the first same-sex marriages in Massachusetts. At present, the article is rated as start class, but I'd like to see it evaluated for a raise to B or at least C. In addition, Maguire's own website links to this article on the bio page. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia Summit - nominations for representative requested

meta:Wikimedia LGBT+

Hey, I know this is a lot of info. Ask questions if you like.

There is an organization called meta:Wikimedia LGBT+. It is a meta:Wikimedia Movement affiliate. Right now it has no legal incorporation and has received either no money, or probably less than $5000 in the last 10 years. It is relatively modest as compared to many others.

It is an organization in good standing as a registered community organization with the Wikimedia Foundation, and as such, it has an invitation to send one representative to the meta:Wikimedia Summit 2022 in Berlin in October.

I am writing to ask for nominations for anyone who might want to go as representative. See details at meta:Talk:Wikimedia_LGBT+#Call_for_Summit_nominations.

Probably the priority for representing the group this year is speaking with other wiki people about Queering Wikipedia 2022, the proposed first LGBT+ conference supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. Volunteers are also wanted to assist with presenting this conference.

There is a monthly Wiki LGBT+ video meetup. The next one is described at meta:Wikimedia LGBT/2022-04-16. Since this is English Wikipedia, I will share also that United States wiki community organizers also present video chats almost monthly as documented at meta:WALRUS and Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. All of this is done by volunteers so again, it depends on organizer's schedules, but check that out if you want an English language group discussion.

I am a wiki editor who also does outreach. I am organizing recruitment of a representative because I go to a lot of small meetups, know the agendas, but do not go to these big meetups. I would love for more people to get involved with international LGBT+ organization. The Wikimedia Foundation is only supporting one person to go to that conference, but anyone who wishes to do so can help plan the online Queering Wikipedia conference in ~6 months. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

re has received either no money, or probably less than $5000 in the last 10 years: Sorry to nitpick, but this seems at least misleading. If I'm understanding correctly, the WMF gave ~$32,000 for the meta:QW2021 event, the purpose of which was "to develop our internal LGBT+ User Group organization, structures, and operations". And it looks like the next one has an approved budget of ~$90,000. That's a lot of lettuce! Colin M (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Colin M: "Misleading" is not the right word but there is a flood of information that is difficult for me to share.

Links to the money are on the conference page and in the agenda of LGBT+ meetups.

WMF is providing money for events. I and others are grateful for that support, but also, 1) Wikimedia Foundation expects almost all labor, including administration, to be volunteer 2) It is a WMF decision to fund conferences and not other community organizing activity of the community's choice 3) Wikimedia Austria is fiscal sponsor here and receiving the money, so in addition to WMF constraints Wikimedia LGBT+ volunteers are negotiating with volunteer administrators at yet another organization 4) where there is money the pay is less than minimum wage for Western countries and requires high expertise including wiki knowledge, LGBT+ fluency, and complex event management across countries and languages 5) the Wikimedia environment does not provide safety, and history has proven that association with Wikimedia LGBT+ gets people doxxed and harassed.

Colin, thank you for bringing up the money. I know it seems like a lot, but the WMF plans its budget on a US$ billion dollar cycle and advertises LGBT+ diversity in all it does. For as important as LGBT+ inclusion is for the movement there is not much history of LGBT+ sponsorship with Wikimedia funds. There is a lot to be anxious about with the small amount of money they are giving and what they expect in return. It is not a windfall, it is not even enough to break even for labor costs, and any of the organizers would happily trade all the money to simply have the WMF pay an event management company to present an event to our modest specifications. I wish the WMF never gave money for conferences, and always instead paid professional contractors for this, because skill and interest at editing wiki is unrelated to desire to volunteer for event management. Volunteers love planning the program and talks, but in the history of the Wiki Movement no one seeks out opportunities to volunteer for logistical coordination, accounting, and grant reporting.

Again, I am very appreciative of the money, but also, investment in the Wikimedia movement's LGBT+ community is a necessity and deserved. If anyone feels service oriented please join conference planning. If anyone wants to talk to me about money or wiki community organization or anything else, I would meet by recorded video talk which we can post to the wiki. If someone knows an event management company who can present an event on the budget we have then please suggest them or have them post to the page, because the wiki community does these events continuously and as of yet no company has wanted any such contract.

I will be volunteering for this conference. My own position on WMF funding is that I wish most of it could go to wiki contributors in lower and middle income countries, because I think editors in such places make contributions as good as though in wealthy Western cities plus also the money goes farther in such economies. I am not getting paid for anything in this.

Thanks to anyone who can join any conversations or planning. Again, I am very grateful to be part of wiki and LGBT+; there is just a lot happening here. I have been an organizer for a lot of these conferences and every time it is complicated. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I really don't mean to be snarky, but I still don't see how the WMF giving money for a conference which is run by the LGBT+ group and the purpose of which is to talk about the organization and operation of the LGBT+ group is not, practically speaking, an example of the LGBT+ group receiving money from the WMF. That's all I meant by the "misleading" part. (And to be clear, I definitely didn't mean to suggest you were intentionally seeking to mislead.) Colin M (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. I get it. I just wish the WMF was giving $0, and instead they were organizing the logistics of the conference. If we could give the money back to professional event managers at WMF or a one-stop event management consultancy then we would. If the award were $0 and instead the WMF arranged administration of the conference, then Wiki LGBT+ would get the same desired result without volunteers having to do the undesirable labor of contracting vendors for event management. When awards are in-kind, that also does not trigger reactions about the financial value of award, or create misunderstanding someone is getting a financial windfall. I am grateful for a path forward and I want the conference. I like when wiki volunteers and community set the conference theme, call for presentations, vote on the program, invite guest speakers, and run all the participant activities. All of that happens with volunteers and no money. The money goes to setting up the conference as a container to hold that volunteer activity, and instead of that going WMF -> some fiscal sponsor -> Wikimedia LGBT+ -> globally crowdsourced business decisions -> vendors, I wish it were just WMF -> vendors.

It is challenging to talk publicly about these things. I wish there were more venues to do so. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Bluerasberry. You may recall that we have met in person on two separate occasions at meetups. I saw with my own eyes during the, shall we say, "uncomfortable incident" at Wikimania 2012 that you are a thoughtful person with a well-developed sense of empathy and fairness and you have my respect for that. So, to my point: As I'm sure you are aware, last year a prominent member of this group proposed formally banning me from any events hosted by the group. Since I was never informed I was banned, I'm assuming this did not happen, but it was clearly an attempt to label me as a dangerous and homophobic person, which I can assure you I am not. This same person tried to get me sanctioned on Commons, and reported me to Trust and Safety over the same incident, which had nothing at all to do with the LGBT user group, it was only about me being somewhat mocking of a fairly ridiculous proposal they had made on Commons. When no sanctions were forthcoming, , this person "went on strike" in protest, because I am so horrible but somehow nobody would do anything to stop me. Despite stopping all contributions under their usual user name, it is fairly obvious that they are actually still quite active in this user group, using at least three fairly obvious sock accounts on Meta-wiki over the last several months to assist in organizing and applying for this funding. To be clear, I fully support the mission of this group and I wish you nothing but success, but I have to question why the group continues to tolerate this person being so prominent in it's activities. I know this isn't what you came here to talk about, and for that I apologize but I feel like it needed to be said. For the record, if someone is going to Berlin to speak on behalf of this group, I think you'd be an excellent choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for speaking so truly about this, Beeblebrox. This is in line with what I've observed from the group - on wiki and elsewhere. Speaking personally, I have absolutely no reason or desire to ever engage with a group that condones this kind of behavior, has such an arcane governance structure that is determined entirely by fiat, and uses secret accounts to organise their events. Best of luck with the conference, and good luck to whoever is chosen to speak in October. But if I had choice in who to send to Berlin, it would be someone entirely uninvolved with QW2022 and Wikimedia LGBT+. Urve (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

    @Beeblebrox and Urve: Thanks for your support. I will not be the representative in Berlin at this time and want to support someone else. Urve, if you have someone to nominate then encourage them to sign their name. There is the summit this year but we need to grow a culture of more people volunteering for future summits as well. Even casual volunteers are welcome to self nominate.

    Regarding Wikimedia LGBT+ governance: I offer to speak about my activities in administration of Wikimedia LGBT+, and the roles that others play as I see things.

    Governance of any wiki community organization is difficult to discuss because there are always claims of harm and multiple stakeholder communities in conflict. I am in a position where I can join conversations where people put concerns in the open and talk through options for next steps. In difficult situations I feel that voice or video conversation is better than text on wiki. I have a coffee talk experimental forum set up at meta:Wikimedia Café; if you or anyone else wants to meet virtually and talk through power structures at Wikimedia LGBT+, then I would do this. We could record it, and we could publish it if others still consent after reflecting.

    Alternatives to meeting: anyone could give me notes or have confidential chat with me, suggesting what I should present. In that case, I could make and publish a video of me talking about governance of Wikimedia LGBT+.

    If Wikimedia LGBT+ has some power that you want for yourself or that you might want openly available to others, then we can talk about how that would look. I have had this conversation dozens of times and I wish that for the sake of all wiki organizations, more information about governance processes could be more accessible. Seem cool? I hope you feel that I am being direct in trying to address your concerns. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

    I can give you notes right here. these three user, at the least are all the same person, and I can't see how your group doesn't know that. It's not a good look to have a bunch of obvious sock accounts involved in securing grant funding, in particular since the person operating those accounts has been very publicly trying for years to find new ways to get money for themselves from the WMF. The whole giant dispute that set them on their campaign to have me sanctioned was because I mocked the idea that they could personally use Commons as a platform to directly solicit donations lke it was GoFundMe or Kickstarter. When that obviously ,failed, they suddenly became very involved in getting the WMF to give tens of thousands of dollars to this user group. With socks. I expect they will say they are doing this to avoid harassment, but to an outsider it certainly seems like trying to evade scrutiny and squeeze a little cash out for themselves. It taints the whole effort if the rest of the group just sits back and lets it happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

    @Beeblebrox: I am not going to adjudicate the activities of users. As we are both aware, there are processes for reviewing user behavior including Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, meta:Trust and Safety, meta:Stewards, and reporting to meta:Grants:Start. I am not defending anyone, and I am not deferring responsibility or making things more complicated. I sincerely believe that on-wiki mediation processes are easy to use and lead to good outcomes. Why not use them? I cannot replace the services of those networks of experienced responders.

    I recognize that you have complaints, but again, I doubt that either I or any human could satisfy you by typing text here in the discussion forum. There are limits to what text can communicate. My offer is to talk by voice or video about Wikimedia LGBT+ governance. I do not think this situation is complex or hard to explain; this just is not the sort of thing that is possible to discuss in text. If you find the person who would meet with me by video then send them to me. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

    I feel like we're not hearing one another. The issue is over at Meta where this user's socks are all over everything this group is doing. I'm not looking to tell you how to run the group, but I would hope yourself and the other members of the group would care about how bad that looks. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: The problem you describe is an odd one - it is the sort that no one wants to report in established channels, and which neither you nor anyone else wants to discuss with me publicly on video. I see that you have posted text on wiki; as I said earlier, and as you remark that we are not hearing each other, I do not think that it is productive to discuss in text. If I wrote pages of response I do not think it would satisfy anyone, but I do think that a person to person conversation would answer anyone's concerns. For your concerns about money not being watched: I encourage anyone to take those to Wikimedia Foundation grants administration. The issues you raise are not a problem for me at all. My problem here is that for a range of reasons, neither you nor anyone else spreading these rumors feel like you have an outlet for seeking transparency and answers. If you do not know how to phrase the complaint or request, then one option would be to send your questions to the WMF staffer, and ask them to meet me on published video chat to answer them. Minutes of conversation communicate much, much more than hours of writing pages of wiki text. I really feel like if anyone came to me by video with the concerns you are raising, then those concerns would evaporate. If you do not want to meet me for video or voice chat, then think through your social network and find someone you trust who would. We can publish the conversation. They can ask me anything. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Creating an article about LGBT youth

I made the start to a draft page called LGBT youth. There are a few articles about LGBT youth related topics, such as LGBT youth vulnerability, Suicide among LGBT youth, Homelessness among LGBT youth in the United States, LGBT sex education, and Transgender youth. However, it would probably be a benefit to have an article about LGBT youth in general and consider merging some of these articles into a single article called LGBT youth. Any help building the article is appreciated. Any comments, questions, or concerns about the creation of such an article in general? aaronneallucas (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Animals in LGBT culture

A comment over at Wikipedia talk:Wiki Loves Pride about the paw print in the campaign's gif prompted me to create Animals in LGBT culture. I get asked about the animal references within LGBT culture often. Here's a fun opportunity to create a very helpful 'guide' to readers.

I got the ball rolling with a couple sources, but certainly there are ways to expand and improve this article. Surely there are other animals representing various subgroups, but also, how else do animals appear in LGBT culture? Improvements welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Update: I could use some help over at Animals in LGBT culture. One editor is focused on merging this content, but in my opinion, the page is NOT specific to slang terms. The Unicorns section has nothing to do with slang. Are any project members interested in helping to expand this entry and participate in Talk page discussions? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Another Believer, maybe it would be worth working on in Draft space for a little bit, until the case for the standalone article is clearer? The bulk of the article could fit within list of LGBT slang terms, and if the main example of an animal that isn't just a slang term is Unicorns, then maybe the article should be about Unicorns in LGBT culture. I see the potential value in a standalone article, but really there's no deadline to get it into article space. It's worth getting the article right first, or at least built out enough to demonstrate standalone notability and differentiation from simply "LGBT slang". Politanvm ^talk 15:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes there's also LGBT_symbols#Unicorns where that can go (and perhaps Unicorn trend should have a mention). But the current page is just WP:SYNTH. All sorts of animals are have all sorts of roles in language, media, and culture, but there's nothing unifying here. Reywas92^Talk 15:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I've also added some info about animal roleplay, furry fandom, and fictional LGBT animals. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Even worse. Pretty weird to combine Furry fandom with Arthur, unicorns, and slang. Where are the overarching sources tying these together? Reywas92^Talk 15:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I did not think covering the intersection of animals and LGBT culture would be seen as controversial or problematic. I dunno, I'm going to step away for a bit and see if some other editors will weigh in on these various Talk page. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying the topic is controversial, just that parts of it already seem to be covered at LGBT slang, List of LGBT slang, and LGBT symbols (and maybe others), and it could be worth expanding those articles instead of this standalone one. That's why it might be helpful to just put it in draft space for now, to take off some of the heat, pressure, and urgency. Politanvm ^talk 16:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to move this page into the draft space. There's a merge template directing readers to this entry, which is actively being expanded, and there's currently a consensus to NOT merge the page into the list of slang terms. Tangentially related, I support merging LGBT slang and List of LGBT slang terms, at least until the list is long enough to justify a content fork. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but it seems a bit strange that it was jumped on almost immediately. I've created all sorts of LGBTQ pages before and no one has given a rat's ass about them, so I'm not sure why this one is a bit of a lightning rod, and I don't understand the urgency by Reywas92 on this topic. That seems strange to me. I can say, here and now, that I would oppose any moves of the page to the draft space, as I'd say this page is important enough to be a stand-alone article. Historyday01 (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals in LGBT culture

---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Animals in LGBT culture would benefit from more participation

Animals in LGBT culture is a page that focuses on animals as symbols within LGBT culture. The deletion discussion is currently being discussed here. Input from more editors would be appreciated. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking for peer review of Paul Goodman

Hi all, I'm looking for peer reviews of our article on the American public intellectual Paul Goodman, who spoke publicly on homosexuality and bisexuality prior to the 60s, before it goes to FAC, if anyone would be so inclined: Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Goodman/archive1. No prior experience necessary—just want to know how it reads for a general audience, given that the content gets a bit obtuse. czar 19:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The Wire at FAR

I have nominated The Wire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Stating a person's sexual orientation

I'm sure this is covered elsewhere, but I can't seem to track it down. An editor has said to me that merely stating that a subject is "openly gay" is discriminatory, because we never say that a straight person is "openly straight". Aside from the use of "openly", there are hundreds of thousands of articles in which the subject is stated to be gay, not to mention any relevant LGBT categories they may be in, so it must not be contrary to policy. Can anyone help me with this? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

A quick search on this project brought up a discussion with a consensus to use it only in certain circumstances, with one editor saying to only use the word gay "unless there's some historical context that makes the distinction important for that particular person" and another saying "it is still a meaningful clarification in many historical contexts" and another editor saying "the complication is that it is entirely possible to be gay but not out...the language around all of this is tricky and complicated, but there's a genuine reason why that's the case." Also, in 2008, the "openly gay" page was redirected to the coming out page after some discussion, and has been used occasionally in past discussions in this forum. In one 2018 discussion, an editor stated that "...reasonable people may disagree on the exact definition of "openly gay"" adding that "there are shades of gray". Then, there's a 2012 discussion where one editor said "it is not necessary to include "openly," and in my view it could imply that there's something wrong with it" but another said "how exactly things are worded is going to vary between subjects, but in this case the word "openly" conveys that the subject has indeed self-identified, something that makes a crucial difference under current wikipedia policy." So, I guess it could be on a case-by-case basis, or only used in specific instances? That's what I'm gathering from the discussions within the discussion board of this project in the past Historyday01 (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this particular context, but there are some cases where a statement might not make sense without "openly". It happens particularly with "first gay/trans/etc. person to do _____". Likely another person with that identity has done that thing, but was closeted. So we need to caveat the first person we know of with "openly". In general, I would defer to whichever phrasing is most prevalent in reliable sources. Politanvm ^talk 03:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I've used "openly gay" or "openly lesbian" on some LGBTQ pages I've edited in the past, but I'll definitely have to revisit that. Historyday01 (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It is tricky and complicated, I grant, but the key issue here is that Wikipedia articles are often misused as a platform for attack editing against people the editor dislikes by casting unsourced aspersions on the person's sexual or gender identity, and/or involuntary forced outing of people the editor perceives as closeted queerfolk (but who still may or may not actually be that in reality). So articles about LGBTQ people always have to explicitly state and reliably source that the person is self-identified as being out, but there may not always be any other natural way to do that. I try to find alternate ways around the phrase "openly gay" whenever I can, but there aren't always a lot of good alternatives — but it's unavoidable that Wikipedia does have to be very, very vigilant about the distinction between out-gay and closeted-gay, because we can't touch closeted-gay allegations with a ten-foot-pole. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I personally removed the word "openly" from a bunch of pages I had edited (mainly about certain voice actors who are lesbian, gay, etc. and the characters they voice are the same), as I don't think the word "openly" really added much. But, I hear what you are saying, that it definitely is tricky, complicated, and requires finesse in editing. Historyday01 (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

James Robert Baker Featured article review

I have nominated James Robert Baker for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Kathleen Freeman (classicist)

Lajmmoore, Another Believer and I have been discussing how to describe Freeman's sexual orientation at Talk:Kathleen Freeman (classicist)#"Freeman was gay", advice from other editors will be welcome. TSventon (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Wanted: event manager for Queering Wikipedia 2022

Queering Wikipedia

I am writing as an organizer for the Queering Wikipedia conference to advertise a position for project manager. The budget for that is US$30,000; this is in addition to about US$60,000 for managing the rest of the conference. The budget is public at

• meta:Grants:Conference/QW22/QW2022

and the project management call is at

• meta:QW2022/call for project management

This virtual conference is for about 300 attendees. Like other Wikimedia conferences community participation is desired; differently than many other conferences, we need more LGBT+ participation from outside the Wikimedia community especially to discuss social and ethical issues in collaborating to present LGBT+ media resources. Examples of other Wikimedia conferences which could be an inspiration for this one are

• https://wikiconference.org/wiki/2021
• mw:Wikimedia Hackathon 2022
• meta:Celtic Knot Conference 2022
• meta:Wikimania 2021

If anyone is curious - there are few standards or guidelines which are published and common among Wikimedia conferences. There are ~100 online Wikimedia conferences to consider as models.

The conference team does not have any favorite service provider. Individuals and organizations are welcome to apply. It is unlikely that we will select someone with no prior experience managing an online conference.

For anyone interested in being involved in the conference in any way, feel free to post on the talk page at meta:QW2022. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Groomer rhetoric

There's been a lot of coverage of the groomer rhetoric against LGBT people coming from conservatives. But there does not appear to be an article on the general phenomenon, nor do I see much coverage of the phenomenon elsewhere on Wikipedia. But I'm not even sure what to call the article. Maybe "Groomer rhetoric"? X-Editor (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

As I often do, in this case also I think the most appropriate treatment is probably in Anti-LGBT rhetoric, as a new section. Newimpartial (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the "conflation with child abuse" section of that article mentions grooming. There's an article on child grooming as well. Funcrunch (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I thought the "Groomer rhetoric" X-Editor was referring to was the trope that essentially all LGBT awareness education and promotion is equivalent to grooming - which doesn't seem identical to the existing topic(s). Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it overlaps to some degree but the "groomer" rhetoric is so deranged and so indiscriminate in its targeting that it seems to apply to the notional "grooming" of adults too. I think we want to keep it out of the child grooming article in any case as that needs to be about real child grooming and should not be diluted with this nonsense. (I have a personal suspicion that part of the aim of this rhetoric is not only to slur LGBT people but also to distract attention away from actual child grooming and child abuse, which some of the people pushing this rhetoric have a surprisingly relaxed attitude to.) I think a separate section in Anti-LGBT rhetoric is a good idea. I hope it will not grow to the point where it needs its own article but, given the way many demagogues are going absolutely ham on it at the moment, I fear it might do if sanity does not reassert itself soon. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

review of Doriane Lambelet Coleman

Hello. I wrote an article on law professor Doriane Lambelet Coleman for the 100 DC Women project. As I was putting together the article I learned that many feel that Coleman's work on sex in sports is transphobic. She, naturally, disputes this and considers herself a supporter of trans women in sports. I feel that I am not enough of a subject expert to properly assess this. I tried to use neutral language in the article and a wide variety of reliable sources, but I am concerned it may be too neutral and I'd love it if someone with a stronger background in trans women in sports could take a look and either edit or suggest edits. Thank you. Jessamyn (my talk page) 18:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Good article nominees: Bolivia Carmichaels, Flawless Shade, Poison Waters

I've nominated Bolivia Carmichaels, Flawless Shade, and Poison Waters for Good article status, if any project members are interested in reviewing. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Poison Waters. One down, two to go! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

LGBTQ+ History Month and Pride Month 2022

Hello, with LGBT+ and Les sans pagEs user groups, we are organizing the LGBTQ+ history month and Pride Month in the month of June. For participating in the 2022 French version, please check our page here: Mois des fiertés 2022.

If you are interested in organizing a local event as part of improving the LGBTQ+ history on Wikimedia projects, please check the LGBTQ+ History Month on Meta for global events.

Since it is the first time that we are organizing such an event related to documenting the local and global LGBTQ+ history, we are also interested in your feedback and participation. You can also suggest us some articles here. Thanks. Jsamwrites (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Move request at LGBT

A user has requested that a topic within this WikiProject, LGBT, be moved to LGBTQ. Interested editors may wish to join the discussion at Talk:LGBT#Requested move 28 May 2022. Thank you Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Origin of Term "Pride"

I wanted to request a particular edition to the article discussing "Gay Pride" I wanted to ask if it's possible to include the origin of Pride used in 1967 after the Black Cat police raid and subsequent demonstration from 1967. The organization formed at the time was called P.R.I.D.E.(Personal Rights in Defense and Education) and thought it would be appropriate to add that to the article since PRIDE is not first encountered at Stonewall.

Also I've never added to the Talk section of Wikipedia before so I hope this is the appropriate place to request this. Thanks so much -Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pzappia (talk • contribs) 21:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

AfD discussion for article The OC wall calendar

There is a discussion now open for the deletion of the article The OC wall calendar, an article that falls under this WikiProject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2022

Join us! Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2022

Happy editing and happy pride! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Yay, its begun! Historyday01 (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed changes to opening sentence of Stonewall riots article

Hello! I am proposing changes to the Stonewall riots article opening sentence, which I proposed on the talk page here. It does not seem like the talk page has a lot of interaction, so wanted to get some feedback about possibly updating the language. If interested, discussion should probably happen on that talk page. --Kbabej (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Lesbians during the conservative government of José María Aznar?

I see this extensively researched draft was started by a "vanished user" (looks like someone was blocked and their account was renamed to that?).

It's not my area of expertise, but I would be willing to help get it published. Any thoughts on what should be improved? = paul2520 💬 16:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Paul2520: User accounts aren't renamed on a block, and "vanished user" is specifically typically used for courtesy vanishing, which is generally only requestable if your account is in good standing. - Purplewowies (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Generation Drag

This will be deleted soon if it is not improved. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

On it! Working toward a WP:HEY! --Kbabej (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Update: The AfD has been withdrawn. --Kbabej (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Great work, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I second that -- awesome job, Kbabej! Do you/Another Believer want to nominate it for DYK? It definitely meets the "5x expanded" criteria.

I will defer to you, but would be happy to nominate it on your behalf if you would like. = paul2520 💬 18:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Great idea @Paul2520!I usually only think of DYK after GA approvals. I'd be happy to nominate this! --Kbabej (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Jaimie Veale

Is she trans? It looks like some people who study transgender are wrongly categorized to Category:Transgender and transsexual academics Sharouser (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

In this article, she refers to trans people as "us":

Surveying 1178 trans and non-binary people aged between 14 and 83, Counting Ourselves is the first comprehensive research project into the health and wellbeing of trans and non-binary people in New Zealand. It's trans-led research, funded by the Health Research Council with support from the Rule Foundation and the University of Waikato.

"This was a chance to have ourselves be counted," says Dr Jaimie Veale, the study's Principal Investigator and Senior Lecturer in psychology at the University of Waikato.

;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Transsexual

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Transsexual#Citation cleanup and article state, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. The Transsexual article is in need of a cleanup and update with modern sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change to List of fictional non-binary characters edit notice

You are invited to join the discussion here, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Presently, the edit notice for the List of fictional non-binary characters states that only character "is eligible for this list if the character or work they appear in is notable, specifically if the character is a main or recurring character. This is meant to keep the list meaningful and useful." This replaced the previous version which stated that only characters are eligible for the list if "their gender identity matches in some way human experience of gender." Comments from members of this project would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Should we categorize drag performers as LGBT?

Should categories like Category:African-American drag queens be kept under an LGBT parent category? Sure, most drag queens might be LGBT, but not automatically. For example, Maddy Morphosis is a drag performer who is not LGBT. I'm not convinced Wikipedia should ever suggest to readers that all drag performers are LGBT. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I can agree that Wikipedia shouldn't suggest to readers that all drag performers are LGBTQ. I think if specific drag queens within that category are LGBTQ, then they can easily be put into Category:LGBT African Americans... which maybe needs to have sub-divisions, although that's a bit of a different discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this might give off the wrong impression. Despite the problems, the classification scheme has a lot of navigational value. Whether that outweighs the impression or not, I'm unsure. Urve (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Right, that was my thought too. I think the classification system, generally, is fine, but in this case, African-American drag queens shouldn't be within a LGBT parent category. Historyday01 (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean in a more basic sense that this scheme is navigationally useful when trying to find articles related to LGBT people. A basic example, using WP:PetScan, is that Yvie Oddly is in both the 1993 births and LGBT African Americans categories; if I have to run PetScan twice - separately for LGBT African Americans and for African-American drag queens, against 1993 DOB - she would be double counted. This doesn't actually matter all that much, but I don't think the parent-child relationship of our categories really matters to readers, either. Urve (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that the LGBT African Americans category should be taken off. It is not defining. Drag is a part of LGBT culture, and I can see why articles and categories about drag culture should be in the appropriate LGBT categories, but I don't think that extends to lists or categories of individual people who may not all be LGBT. For comparison: Category:Rhythm and blues is in African-American music, which makes sense because it is African-American musical culture, but Category:Rhythm and blues musicians is not, which also makes sense because some people in that category are not African-American. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Same here. Additionally, nothing would be lost if specific Black drag queens are added individually to the "Category:LGBT African Americans" category if they are LGBTQ. Historyday01 (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Lots of gay men don't self-identify as LGBT (i.e. g0y/MSM) but they are classified as LGBT in Wikipedia. It's simpler. Drag culture is part of Feather Pride, which is LGBT culture.

I agree in moving the category from the subcategory to the articles, if the individual is LGBT. Of course there are cishet drag performers, but some consider them LGBT as well. GNC is sometimes considered trans* in some definitions, Category:Androgyny is classified under Category:LGBT and List of androgynous people under Category:Lists of LGBT-related people, even though androgyny is a gender expression sometimes and there are androgynous cishets. — Tazuco 02:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I'm not sure. While drag is definitively a form of LGBTQ culture and, often, an LGBTQ performance art, it isn't necessarily so. I do think of the cisgender/heterosexual individuals who perform in drag, especially locally. I also remember the non-LGBTQ drag that is part of our wider culture, such as on Halloween when it is typically permissible to crossdress as part of festivities.

Examining categorization, Category:Drag (clothing) is a subcat of Category:Gender roles in the LGBT community. Category:Drag performers is a subcat of Category:Drag (clothing) itself and Category:LGBT entertainers alongside Category:Performance artists and Category:Cross-dressers. I think given the specific overlap, we either need to overhaul all of these categories, or we need to try to rectify that not all categorization will be perfect, especially if we get into niche ethnicities, gender identities/roles, communities, sexualities, etc. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 15:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

While it's true that non-LGBTQ drag performers exist (e.g. Maddy Morphosis), I strongly doubt that we've yet reached the point when there's any non-trivial number of notable cishet drag performers with Wikipedia articles to worry about. One concern that has to be addressed here is that directly categorizing every LGBTQ drag performer as an "LGBT entertainer from [Country]" would be required if this is pursued — but most of those categories are already too large as it is and need to have their contents subcategorized by the particular type of entertainer they are (actor, musician, comedian, drag queen, etc.) — so pushing more people into "LGBT entertainers" categories would be at cross-purposes with the fact that those categories need to be made smaller, not bigger, and thus would necessitate the future creation of a new "LGBT drag queens from [Country]" scheme to balance "a couple of heterosexual drag queens exist now" against "the LGBT entertainers categories need to be diffused for size". The day may someday come when that's actually necessary, but I don't think it's arrived yet — I don't know what the right answer is here, but it cannot include filing the overwhelming majority of drag queens directly in "LGBT entertainers from [Country]" categories and thus making those even larger than they already are. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

They should not be under an LGBT parent category because this is not accurate. Perhaps the solution to Bearcat's problem is to have a subcategory of both (in the example given) Category:African-American drag queens and Category:LGBT African Americans called Category:African-American LGBT drag queens. Or, we could question if it's even useful to track whether drag queens are LGBT by categorisation. Is this actually a defining feature? — Bilorv (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Angela Lynn Douglas

I just wrote an article about Angela Lynn Douglas, a transsexual activist most prominent in the 1970's. Trying to track down an image but not having much luck. Reviews and editing would be greatly appreciated! TheTranarchist (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

I've done some copyediting just now, and added some links form other articles to de-orphan it. I noticed you've paraphrased the sources quite closely, it'd be better to write more in your own words. // Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 13:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

There seem to be pictures here, but you need special permission to publish those. There's some info on Commons:Volunteer Response Team too if someone wants to follow through with it. // Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 14:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist: Because she is deceased, you can use a non-free image as the main image on her article as long as it's small (both in dimensions and also in resolution) and is used as the main image on her page. Here is the relevant section, look at #10. If you want to see an example of what a fair use criteria would look like, I often do this for images of deceased librarians and others, and you can see an example on this image's page. Feel free to leave a message on my Talk page if you'd like more help with this. Jessamyn (my talk page) 21:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Richard Barnfield

In case anyone's hankering for some early modern literary work, have a look at Richard Barnfield, unsurprisingly neglected in his time, surprisingly still neglected (I've only just tagged him with this Wikiproject): besides Shakespeare, the author of the only Elizabethan sonnet sequence celebrating a male love-object; associated with Sidney's circle; author of some poems once attributed to Shakespeare; candidate for Shakespeare's "Rival Poet". Current article is thin and (I say) not fantastically sourced. As an inducement, I've added a "Further reading" section with modern scholarly sources, all but 1 of which are available online... which maybe you'd like to turn into citations? Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Should REVDEL be mentioned as a possible remedy for DEADNAMING?

Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion regarding WP:DEADNAMING and WP:REVDEL at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Jul' Maroh, French Wikipedia

• Jul Maroh
• fr:Jul' Maroh, and see fr:Discussion:Jul'_Maroh

This is a non-binary French person whom I think uses they / them pronouns in English.

There is no controversy here in English Wikipedia, but on the French Wikipedia talkpage and buzz elsewhere there seems to be tension. I do not understand French, but as I am told about the the discussion there, some LGBT+ editors wish for this biography to use some French version of gender neutral pronouns. French people are more resistant to changes to French language than English speakers, and French Wikipedia currently does not allow the equivalent of they / them or nonbinary pronouns. No one is requesting non-French speakers to participate in this discussion, so I am not suggesting that anyone contribute to this discussion in English.

English Wikipedia is influential of policy on other languages so any of the following could be useful:

• Reviewing that policy for English language is in order
• Considering whether, when, and how stakeholder communities, like the LGBT+ community in this case, should ever be named as supporters of any policies. Currently our manual of style is supposed to be the Wikipedia-wide consensus, but in the case of other language Wikipedias, editors might find it useful to know if there is support from local communities.

As always, if there is anyone interested in joining LGBT+ global governance meetings please speak up on the talk page of meta:Wikimedia LGBT+ and consider joining future meetings in video chat. These meetings do not plan for solutions to problems such as this, but they are a venue for planning community organization which would support other wiki editors in having discussions to plan for solutions to problems such as this.

Bluerasberry (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback re: Category:Queer culture at Queer Bar (Seattle)

Could other editors weigh in re: appropriateness of Category:Queer culture at Talk:Queer Bar (Seattle)?

This has more to do with category structure than LGBT vs. queer...

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge at Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts

I have proposed merging the article Sexual orientation change efforts into Conversion therapy, which are of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited join the discussion at Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts § Proposed merge to Conversion therapy. Regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 17:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Representation - LGBT image change

Hi all, I wanted to propose a change to the image of this WikiPorject and subsequent relevant pages. I think the LGBTQ+ flag provides greater representation and would open up this project further to those on the Queer spectrum: LGBTQ+ rainbow flag Quasar "Progress" variant - please do let me know what you think. Jamzze (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Do not support. While I appreciation the suggestion, @Jamzze (see WP:AGF), I do not support this change. There are dozens of variants of the mainstream flag, which has been used by the LGBTQ community since 1979. What makes the Progress variant any better than the other of the dozens of interpretations/updates/variants (the 2017 nine-stripe flag by Gilbert Baker; the 2018 nine-stripe flag by Estêvão Romane; the 2018 Social Justice Pride Flag by Moulee; the 2017 Philadelphia eight-stripe flag; the 2018 New Pride Flag by Julia Feliz; the 2021 Intersex-inclusive flag; etc, etc)? The Progress variant isn't even notable enough to have its own WP article; it's simply covered in relation to the other major variant updates.

The Progress variant has received criticism for highlighting certain intersectional communities above others (seen here and here, for example, among others). That variant highlights "marginalized people of color, trans people, and those living with HIV/AIDS and those who have been lost" (per the rainbow flag article). While it lists "people of color", it really just shows representation for black and brown identities. What about the AAPI community? The Indigenous/Native American community? The disabled community? The intersectionality list goes on, and there's a flag variant for most every intersectional identity/subgroup/kink/etc. There's a Bear flag, a trans flag, a pansexual flag - WP even has a category specifically for LGBT flags. The Progress variant is not so all-inclusive as originally thought.

I think it's best to stick to the 1979 mainstream flag version, as currently incorporated in the project, which covers that point of the project without giving undue weight to two marginalized communities. --Kbabej (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Note on the above comment: While certain editors may point out AAPI and Indigenous/Native American can identify as "brown", that is far from a settled debate and is an ongoing conversation with much analysis. I only include this point in an anticipatory rebuttal for another editor perhaps claiming all racial and ethnic minorities can be included in the flag.

NPR has a series of articles about if AAPI people calling themselves "brown", which Kat Chow (herself of Asian descent) states is "complicated" (article here). A second article by NPR has an opinion piece about if East Asians vs. South Asians can call themselves "brown", with members of each community not agreeing (article here). The Brown (racial classification) article has a subsection on this topic for use within the United States.

There is the same discussion around Indigenous/Native American communities as well; not going to link those as I have for the APPI examples, as I think I've made the point "color lines" (a term used in the second NPR article listed above) are ambiguous, subjective, and change over time.

Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

applying modern terms to historical figures

(Originally posted this question in Teahouse, reposting here on the advisement of GoingBatty -- sorry this is very long winded) Hi! I'm wondering what the policy/norm is on using contemporary identity terms (like transgender, nonbinary, etc) when discussing individuals who died before those terms came into use.

For example, in the article on the history of crossdressing: "Harry Allen (1888-1922), born female under the name Nell Pickerell in the Pacific Northwest, was categorized as a ‘male impersonator’ who cross-dressed, rather than as a transgender male which is how he identified." I understand why the term is used here; it's the term that's the most legible to the most people that we currently have for someone like Allen, who was assigned female but lived as a man. However, it feels inaccurate to say that he identified as a transgender male when the term transgender was created decades after his death (although early versions of it existed towards the end of his life); it seems that, if the term is being used as shorthand for how he lived his life, a qualifier is needed to clarify that he never explicitly called himself transgender.

To my mind, it would make the most sense to use terms people used during their life and make reference to modern identity labels where it's relevant (ie: Allen lived as a man and fit the modern definition of transgender etc). It seems that it's somewhat common to use the term transgender for historical figures without qualifiers--and including modern terms can be very helpful in terms of people being able to find what they're looking for without having to comb through every term that's ever been used--but using trans as shorthand seems like it could flatten the complexities of identities across different time periods and places and lump existing third genders into a term that emerged out of western conceptions of gender (along the lines of describing medieval French women who had romantic and sexual relationships exclusively with other women as lesbians; the contemporary concept of a fixed/named sexual identity didn't exist in that time and place).

Some of this is likely unanswerable--applying consistent labels to anything humans do is complicated and imperfect--but I'm curious where the conversation is at on this and if there's any kind of consensus.

Trashheel (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The only piece of this I feel any confidence addressing is that, in editing WP articles on these figures, many editors feel strongly that we should defer to the terms used by highest-quality recent RS writing about the figure in question.

One limited exception to this is set out in MOS:GENDERID, which specifies that we defer to the most recent gender identity expressed by biographical subjects, including deceased ones (though the limits to this principle can be seen at Talk:Quentin Crisp, a case where the last expression of gender identity was only published decades postmortem and where the identities reflected in earlier coverage are particularly well-entrenched).

I will follow the rest of this conversation with interest. Newimpartial (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping more people would respond, since I agree it's difficult. My current practice can be seen in Lavinia Edwards, which does not use the word trans in the prose, for the reasons you describe ("it could flatten the complexities of identities across different time periods"). However, you're right that there is benefit to using modern terminology for people who never used it themselves, so the short description reads "Lavinia Edwards – Transgender actress in the 1800s" and she's been placed in Category:Transgender actresses. Whether this approach - dispassionately saying "When her body was dissected, she was determined to have been born male" rather than "she was a trans woman" - can work for other articles, I can't tell. Urve (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Newimpartial that the answer is to reflect the language in the best available sources. It is a complex question with several factors at play. We do want to avoid anachronism and exporting modern identities wholesale into the past. At the same time, we don't want to treat homosexuality as something that sprung into existence in the late 19th century when that term was coined, or transgender people as suddenly existing in the mid 20th century. This is part of a broader issue in writing about history where modern scientific understanding recontextualizes our understanding of historical people and events. I think the general approach that reliable sources take is to describe the facts as far as they can be ascertained, and apply qualified interpretations as appropriate.--Trystan (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Genspect review request

Hello all! I recently created Genspect, forked from Stella O'Malley. I wanted write some articles on trans rights this pride, and ended up doing the opposite lol. Can anybody review it and lend their two cents on whether it meets notability guidelines? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

What about Gays against Groomers?

Does any anyone think that Gays Against Groomers should have a wikipedia page? Dwanyewest (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You mean the conservative Twitter account? Like another Libs of TikTok article? Newimpartial (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It's WP:RECENT WP:FRINGE. But I guess it could be a section on Anti-pedophile activism. — Tazuco 15:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Arielle Scarcella is part of the group, an article about her could be enough — Tazuco 15:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tazuco I'm actually really surprised to hear Arielle Scarcella doesn't have an article yet. She's had coverage in a wide variety of sources for years, including three articles from PinkNews here; a dozen or so articles from SheWired here; After Ellen here; Affinity Magazine here; etc. She was also nominated for a Shorty Award here. Perhaps a good project for an interested party? --Kbabej (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kbabej Apparently Arielle Scarcella had, at least two times (edit: four times actually), the first time it was deleted and last month it was draftified. The draft can be useful for that. — Tazuco 18:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tazuco good to know. Looking at the draft I can see why it was draftified. The sources there (YouTube, Influenex, etc) aren't the best. But, yes, a good jumping off point. --Kbabej (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

For context, this appears to be a Libs of TikTok clone. The only reliable sources I can find about the account (DailyDot, them.us) don't really demonstrate WP:GNG yet I think. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest (and others), I'd be interested in seeing how this movement progresses. At this point, I think it's too soon. The Daily Dot source is in depth and a green-level source on Internet content at WP:RSP, but the them source is just a rehash of the Daily Dot article. There's an article from PJ Media, a conservative commentary site, but it's behind a paywall (here). The other sources I can find (MRCTV and The Post Millennial) are both unreliable, per RSP. So at this point we've got one RS for a very contentious topic. I think it's best to wait for now, though I'm sure this isn't the last we'll hear of the organization. --Kbabej (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Reynolds

Hunter Reynolds, an American visual artist and AIDS activist, has died. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC notification

Members of this project, and readers of this page, might be interested in participating in the RfC here: Talk:TERF#RfC: Oxford English Dictionary. DanielRigal (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)