Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 71

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65←Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73→Archive 75

List of media portrayals of bisexuality nominated for deletion

Hey everyone, the page List of media portrayals of bisexuality is currently being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media portrayals of bisexuality. Please leave a comment. --Historyday01 (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be good to keep. Otherwise how does that community retain visibility? In Australia, 65% of young LGBTIQQA+ young people attempt suicide due to bigotry and prejudice, and part of that is not having access to role models to get that sense of recognition in terms of identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaitlinKEMM (talk • contribs) 23:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft article of trans male author Mario Martino

I have currently submitted Draft:Mario Martino for review (early trans male author and autobiographer) through the Articles for Creation process. Any help this WikiProject could give to this article (additional info, style edits, etc.) would be greatly appreciated. --Bangalamania (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - can't help much on content (too busy) but I left some nice journal articles. If you need one or two, email me and I can send them. Though I think WP:Library should grant some access to at least a few. Urve (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of Lesbian and Gay News

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Lesbian and Gay News (lesbianandgaynews.com). If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Lesbian and Gay News. — Newslinger talk 04:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Received request to merge the LGBT themes in anime and manga article into the History of LGBT anime article in February 2021. Reason: Merge these ...following the guidance outlined on WP:MERGEINIT. However, after some discussion on Anime and manga WikiProject and looking at this page, I see overlap between the two pages... User:Historyday01. Discuss it >>>HERE<<<. –GenQuest "scribble" 04:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

definition of "binary"

Binary is a disambiguation page listing many articles, including Gender binary and Non-binary gender. I have just added to the first paragraph of Gender binary an explanatory footnote:

In this context the word "binary" often functions as a noun, unlike most other uses of the word, where it is an adjective. Thnidu (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

In preparing this footnote I looked in a number of dictionaries for this comparatively novel sense of the word, but did not find it. "Well," I thought, "maybe they're still working on it." Then I looked in Wiktionary, and to my dismay it's not listed there either

As a cishet ally I don't really know where to look for reliable sources for this usage, specifically the noun binary without gender or any other "clarifying" word. But if you agree that this is a serious gap, I hope somebody/somebodies from this project will fill it. --Thnidu (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

MeTooGay in France

Hello, Perhaps you would be interested in improving this page on the MeTooGay aspect. --Delfield (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Queer theory

It looks like the entire page Queer theory has been recently WP:DYNAMITED: started over from scratch as a stub, apparently due to a prior abundance of contradictions among its sources. Can any experts or interested learners/interpreters of queer theory begin to work on the page? The entire article is currently one sentence long. Wolfdog (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do because I did read a number of queer theory books in college and I still have most of them. --Historyday01 (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Amazing -- thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Good article nominations

Chi Chi DeVayne, Kameron Michaels, and Lady Red Couture have been waiting for Good article reviews forever. Do any project members feel like reviewing? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Publication dates for Gay Times

Hello! I've nominated Frock4Life for Good article status. I'd like to mention the single release dates but I'm struggling to find the publication dates for some of the Gay Times sources. Anyone able to tell when the Gay Times pieces were published? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The dates are available if you see the page sources. Nardog (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Leanna Keyes

Leanna Keyes is a new article created yesterday without going through WP:AFC. Would someone from this WikiProject mind looking it over and assessing it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Robina Asti

Someone should write up a stub bio for Robina Asti. She just died at 99, world's oldest flight instructor, and World War II veteran. Transitioned in the 1970s, and fought the government to get her veteran's rights. See NYT obit. (Similar post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red.) Mathglot (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft started at Draft:Robina Asti. Mathglot (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Student edits to Transgender article

A student editor recently made a large addition to the Transgender article. I partially reverted with suggestions for improvement, but realized there are more issues with their (good faith) additions than I have the energy to address, so I'd appreciate other editors taking a look. Funcrunch (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Just revert it all and message their instructor saying that new editors shouldn't be given stewardship of potentially controversial topics. If the student genuinely wants to learn, your message should help, but the overwhelming majority do it for a college credit and disappear after leaving their mess. WikiEd at the moment actively discourages students from interacting with "regular" editors and it has various other eminent problems, so I don't think it would be considered rude to just scrub the contributions if they're terrible. Kingsif (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the students are ever acting in bad faith, but it's design problems with the system. You need to know a lot about Wikipedia to pick the right articles. Pick a notable book on transgender history that doesn't have an article (or a notable stub that exists) and get a student to model it on a similar B-class article. I don't know where the professors even get involved, or how the topics are chosen, but it doesn't seem like the articles are ever chosen with how possible it's going to be for a student to improve it in mind. But surely if the professor asked literally any experienced editor, that editor will say, "it will not end well if the article you pick is Transgender". — Bilorv (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Mathglot and I ended up reverting almost all of the edit, with explanations in edit summaries and on the student's talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
That addition has problems with close paraphrasing. It looks like material from the cited sources was run through google translate or a synonym generator, yielding things like prohibits discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation source --> forbids segregation dependent on a person's sexual direction and Forty-seven percent of workers have experienced an adverse job outcome because they are transgender. source --> Forty-seven percent of laborers have encountered an unfriendly occupation result since they are transsexual. gnu57 14:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Mathglot noticed this and pointed it out in their edit summaries. Funcrunch (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this discussion would have better visibility here, or at the Wikipedia:Education noticeboard but I'll post a link there to this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Note also that the editor involved is a student at CSU Fullerton in enrolled in "Gender and Technoculture", which is a course affiliated with the Wikipedia Education program. Students in this class are also editing another three dozen articles related to gender, some of which may involve LGBT issues. Please see Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/California State University Fullerton/Gender and Technoculture (Spring 2021) for details. Mathglot (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Mathglot for pinging me on the Princessnjoku's talk page. It was an unfortunate article choice, and one I should have caught. I've been keeping an eye on their contributions since; this is the last week that they're supposed to be active on Wikipedia, so it's quite possible that they won't do more. If they do, I'll do my best to answer their questions, and ask the instructor for help if it's needed. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ian (Wiki Ed): thanks. (For the benefit of LGBT WikiProject members less familiar with Wiki Education: they are a small group under WMF who organize, mentor, and monitor "student editors... editing more than 6,000 articles each term" (data per User:LiAnna_(Wiki_Ed), here).) Questions or comments about the editing of any articles related to the Wiki Education program, including but not limited to LGBT-related articles, may be raised at the Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Mathglot (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging us Mathglot! One minor note: we are independent from WMF. We started the program there, but WMF spun us off into an independent organization seven years ago. But yes, you can see the activity in the spring 2021 term in the U.S. and Canada on our Dashboard. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, from my perspective as a trans person the main problems with this particular student's edits had little to do with the subject matter of the article. The main issues were the addition of large amounts of text at once (advised against for any article, in their course instructions as well as Wikipedia guidelines), and (as noted above) the apparent, awkward use of some kind of synonym generator to avoid charges of plagiarism. Funcrunch (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

JK Rowling/politics of JK Rowling

I want to draw some attention to these articles in the hope that someone specialised in covering trans issues on wikipedia and more patient than me can take a look at it. It's a hot mess in its current form and I'm going to permanently pull my hands off of it before I accidentally strangle some of my fellow editors. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Will take a look soon. Courtesy links: Politics of J. K. Rowling, J. K. Rowling. Urve (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Article: Sigmund Freud's views on homosexuality

I do not see this article much discussed Talk:Sigmund Freud's views on homosexuality and I wonder if there are informed experts to engaged with it? -- Zblace (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Who is ref "Duberman" at LGBT culture in New York City?

Question at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I assume it's Martin Duberman's seminal Stonewall just from the article subject. Kingsif (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Rock M. Sakura

WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race's collaboration of the month for April is Rock M. Sakura, if any project members want to help expand this bio stub. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Super straight (sexual orientation)

Hey, just giving y'all a head's up that someone has tried to create a draft for this at Draft:Super straight (sexual orientation). I've declined it, but I wanted to make sure that the editor has as much help in improving it as possible. I've posted this at the sexuality WP as well. Fair warning, I'm not entirely certain of the editor's intent. It looks like it may have been intended to be a soapbox but it's possible that they were trying to operate in good faith as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I knew this would be popping up at some point. Good decline. This really seems like the exact sort of flash in the pan thing that we exclude per WP:NOTNEWS. I predict the only sources that will ever exist on it are from this period of a few days in March 2021; see the WP:10YT. Plus, so far it's only gotten coverage in more niche outlets; it's also covered at our article on /pol/ (link was being weird) and hatnoted from Super Straight, so nothing else is needed. Crossroads -talk- 06:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • That was a concern of mine as well, so I think the best option would be to decline the page and wait for more coverage over a longer period of time. To be honest, it's also getting harder to assume good faith of the editor who created the page, given their behaviors. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, good decline. I heard of the term, then the Draft, then came here. This is currently a proto-vogue word, which may go the way Crossroads has predicted. Given the current divisive political climate, it's possible it might get picked up as another culture war wedge to exploit for political purposes, in which case it might become notable. No way to tell now, so we just have to evaluate it based on policy as things stand now, and then reevaluate, if necessary, if things change significantly in the future. Mathglot (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
    And if we have an article on the topic, given how high-profile Wikipedia is, Wikipedia is then participating in raising the profile of the term, which is non-neutral and bad. Crossroads -talk- 05:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
A version of the rejected draft has been created in the mainspace at Super straight. Not sure if the consensus rejecting the AfC drafts justifies an expedited process, or if a full AfD is now needed.--Trystan (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Just for the record, this did eventually go to Afd (on 30 March), and the article was deleted and recreated as a redirect to a song. Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway's youngest child and gender

I recently saw the new PBS documentary on Ernest Hemingway, and it seems to me unclear whether the article on his youngest child should be at Gregory Hemingway or Gloria Hemingway. Or at the least there should be rather more thought given to the gender issue in that article than currently. If they had died not in 2001 but in 2021, just the two decades would probably have made quite a difference in how most of the obituaries would have appeared. We should probably also develop deeper guidelines about how to deal with historical persons who have ambiguities in their gender identity, and the range of ways to deal with that, as most of our guidelines are designed based on contemporary people.--Pharos (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

There's a debate to be had about using name and pronouns that align with how historic people identified, and using those with which they were contemporaneously identified by others. Kingsif (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Very difficult case. If the article is right at present then there's at least some doubt that Hemingway was trying to express a public female gender identity ("Hemingway's public persona remained male", "[Hemingway] had breast implant surgery on one breast and then had it reversed"... not that you need to want/have breast implants to be a trans woman). To throw some options out there, renaming to Gregory/Gloria Hemingway and/or avoiding pronouns entirely would follow the style of John/Eleanor Rykener (FA). Or switching to Gloria and she/her might follow the spirit of MOS:IDENTITY if that was Hemingway's primary expressed gender towards the end of Hemingway's life. It could be, though, that the current version of the article makes the most sense. — Bilorv (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


Draft:Rotraut Jampa Wurst

Hello I am interested in writing on prominent figures in the Buddhist and LGBTIQAA+ communities. I am very new and just learning. This is my first article which I have submitted for review, if anyone has any criticisms or comments I would appreciate it. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Rotraut_Jampa_Wurst

Thanks, Caitlin

Hi, @CaitlinKEMM:, that draft (courtesy link Draft:Rotraut Jampa Wurst) is long and, unfortunately, poor. I would recommend working on pre-existing articles first to gain some experience, both in formatting and wikistyle. I also recommend reading WP:MOS. You could also join Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Kingsif (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for letting me know it is poor and that I need to get more experience reading and editing existing articles. This is really useful information. I am most grateful for your time and energy in giving me this feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaitlinKEMM (talk • contribs) 03:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't totally tell if this is sarcastic, but "leave that poor draft for now and go get some experience first" is solid feedback. Kingsif (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not a sarcastic response, and my apologies for not being clearer in my response. I am trying to embrace making mistakes and learning from them. I feel lucky to be in a position when more experienced editors are willing to take the time to give me direct and clear feedback.

Multiple pronouns

Despite there likely existing hundreds of biographical articles whose subjects use multiple pronoun sets, there is no guideline for their formatting. While not universally the case, many individuals that use multiple pronouns (they/she, she/he, he/she/they, etc.) see the use of each, not just one, as integral to their identity. Not using all of one's pronouns is obviously very VERY different from using the wrong pronouns, but it still seems important to respect and affirm an individual's gender by using all of their pronouns. In lieu of a guideline, editors have decided on a writing style on an article-by-article basis, almost universally referring to the article's subject by binary pronouns. The article Rebecca Sugar (she/they), for example, offers this explanation after the first use of a pronoun: 

We use "she" because, as the article explains, Sugar uses both "she" and "they" pronouns, and because Sugar is covered by our sources as "she". This avoids confusing readers.

This reasoning seems to be the trend across articles that cover people with multiple pronouns, from Elliot Page to Sara Ramirez to Cavetown. This is highly problematic for two reasons:

  • There is no inherent reason why media sources use binary pronouns and/or pronouns assigned at birth over all else beyond personal bias among authors. It is not a reason for Wikipedia to continue this problematic trend - there is no reason why we are obligated to perpetuate preference for binary pronouns, and doing so is harmful.
  • Avoiding confusing readers should under no circumstances be a reason to perpetuate cis-normativity. Maria Gąsienica Daniel-Szatkowska might confuse readers - it's not phonetic. And yet, we haven't renamed the article to Maria Gasienitsa Daniel-Shatovska so that it makes more sense. Lots of things are confusing - why are pronouns the only area where we sacrifice core content for accessibility?

Switching between pronouns without a visible explanation would probably confuse the majority of readers, who are likely not particularly familiar with the concept of multiple pronouns, so it does make sense that articles avoid using multiple pronoun sets. An easy solution, however, that would both avoid reader confusion and respect and affirm the identity of the article's subject would be a set of templates that bypass misunderstanding issues. Slavic names are confusing - and yet instead of modifying Vladimir Putin to adhere to English naming standards, we just say "In this Eastern Slavic name, the patronymic is Vladimirovich and the family name is Putin." at the begining of the article. Excluding one or more of the pronoun sets that an individual has claimed as theirs doesn't seem preferable to including an explanation at the top of the page; something along the lines of:

I'm not super familiar with MOS guidelines in this area, so please let me know if I'm missing something! If there is support/consensus for this or really any sort of solution that results in the inclusion of multiple pronouns in biographies, I would really appreciate help/guidance in eventually working towards institutionalizing (obviously after lots of discussion) some sort of guideline in WP:NONBINARY; If this is a stupider proposal than I realize in my current caffeine-induced 1am state, please ignore it :). This might be the wrong place for me to be posting this, so apologies in advance if this should be somewhere else.

I left out mention of neopronouns in multiple pronoun sets because as far as I'm aware their inclusion in Wikipedia articles is discouraged over just they/them; there's a high chance that might not be the case and I'm missing something, and if so they should be discussed accordingly.

Thanks! Cran32 (talk | contributions) 04:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC).

Pronoun hatnotes came up before in the context of drag performers and consensus was against them.
You appear to be making the argument that, despite what the WP:Reliable sources actually use for an individual, Wikipedia should right this great wrong and do differently than reliable sources. However, Wikipedia does not engage in advocacy on this or any other topic, aside from writing an encyclopedic and neutral summary according to how reliable sources treat a matter. In fact, I don't see any basis for the premise that most people with multiple pronoun sets actively want people to switch between both. A statement like "he/they", in and of itself, is simply a statement of being good with being described as "he" or "they" and grammatical equivalents. The example of Elliott Page is pertinent; while he did say he uses "he/they", sources all or nearly all describe him as "him". You suggest that media sources use certain pronouns due to "personal bias among authors"; this is unlikely since these very same sources are almost always very supportive of the individuals who have come out as transgender. Crossroads -talk- 05:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Crossroads: Hatnotes are definitely not the only solution, just an idea. The article JayR Tinaco offers another answer: just a note after the first pronoun. Many reliable sources do use multiple pronouns when covering non-binary people (from Forbes to PinkNews); it differs wildly among media outlets which is why the idea that we're using only binary pronouns to follow reliable sources isn't entirely the case. Many people with multiple pronouns don't care one way or the other, but many people also do. Elliot Page isn't a 100% pertinent example because he prefers he/him pronouns over they/them, so it makes sense that those would correspondingly be used by the media and in turn by Wikipedia. Gender and pronouns are both obviously very complicated, and because of that there isn't a universal preference among people with multiple pronouns. However, the profiles towards the bottom of this article pretty effectively explain why many people with multiple pronouns actively want people to switch between both. I still think that some sort of guideline that mandates the use of multiple pronouns for individuals that have expressed they want to be referred to as such is necessary. JayR Tinaco does this pretty well; the use of the note in the lead ensures that the rest of the article isn't confusing to readers. In short, reliable sources vary wildly, and many people with multiple pronouns explicitly state that they want them to be used interchangebly. To me, it seems appropriate to utilize multiple sets of pronouns for such individuals rather than default to binary ones. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 14:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we need to stick to binary ones when it comes to pronouns, I agree, but I also think there should be consistency in the article itself when it comes to pronouns used. I personally think that the use of the Article pronouns template on the talk page of specific articles is fine, and I would hope it is used on more pages. I say this as a person who has extensively edited the pages of Molly Ostertag, Noelle Stevenson, and Dana Terrace, and has followed the creation of the pronoun template earlier this year. And you are right that multiple sources use various pronouns, as I remember an article in Out using "she," "he," and "they" when talking about Stevenson, and it was determined at the time that this would be too confusing to use multiple pronouns in the same article. I would also say that that only one (like they/them or she/her) should be used in an article, rather than switching back and forth. As for the JayR Tinaco article, I just added in the Article pronouns template. That article does switch back and forth between he/him and they/them, but should be consistent instead, using only one set of pronouns. has just been changed to use only set of pronouns, they/them. Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I oppose switching between multiple pronouns within an article, as confusing to the average reader. I struggle to picture a person who experiences dysphoria or suffering at someone using only some but not all of the pronouns they use: is the idea not "I don't mind you calling me by any of these"? Whether to prefer binary, non-binary or neo-pronouns when given the choice is another matter—I would expect the community as a whole to strongly prefer binary pronouns.
I would have supported the hatnote thing if I'd seen it, because in practice we are using hatnotes for this sort of thing (like for different last name / first name conventions in, for instance, some Asian countries) and the guideline here should follow practice, not lead it. — Bilorv (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Same here with the hatnote thing and I agree with you on pronouns. It does seem that binary pronouns are preferred, from what I've seen across pages I've edited. I didn't even know about that discussion. On a related note, I already updated the JayR Tinaco article today to remove a note for pronouns because it was already noted in the "Personal life" section. Historyday01 (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A couple things:
    1. The hatnote discussion did not result in consensus against hatnotes. The official result, visible at the top, was that the hatnote creator draftified the template to [s]ave us from a pointless discussion. And it was shown that the rationale for deleting the template was based on a misrepresentation of existing guidelines.
    2. Many RS do use multiple pronouns to discuss certain individuals, such as here and here, so one cannot make a blanket statement that it contravenes RS to use multiple pronouns.
    3. Even if it were true that using a hatnote or similar notice were against policy (and it's not), I would say there'd be a clear case to WP:IAR. As evidenced by the above discussion and others (e.g. here), it does more harm than good to to ban this type of helpful clarification for those unfamiliar with this type of article subject. Armadillopteryx 22:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
That is a valid point, but I would still say that bio pages should try to only use one set of pronouns, whether binary, neopronouns, or non-binary pronouns. There are probably some pages out there in the wild, wild world of Wikipedia which use multiple pronouns, but I'd say consistency is important when it comes to these pages. I don't have an issue with the discussion, either, as it could helpful to those who have similar questions about this topic in the future. Historyday01 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The main situation where I encounter multiple pronouns is in articles about drag queens, as these are individuals whose notability is usually established through a persona that has a different gender than the private individual. It's not accurate to use the private individual's gender for the drag persona (or vice versa), and the drag persona's gender can't be omitted since it's the notable one. But that one does not apply to the subject's personal life/childhood, for example. Armadillopteryx 23:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, I suppose that would make sense, but I still would say that for consistency sake, generally, only one set of pronouns should be used. Historyday01 (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Just for clarity, my comment wasn't intended to apply to drag performers—using a different pronoun for a drag persona is like using the right pronoun for a fictional character, even though the gender of the actor may be different to that. Not in the sense that the drag persona is fictional, as I'm sure drag performers would have widely varying opinions on that question, but in the sense that it's not the same persona as the out-of-drag persona, and that using the drag pronoun for the persona is the only acceptable option. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The hatnote discussion was 7 deletes to 3 keeps, but was relisted for some reason, at which point the creator brought it into userspace and thus an official statement of the community's consensus on it there was never made. The only justification for the violation of WP:HATNOTE that's been made is that non-navigation hatnotes already exist for certain nationalities' names; however this does not address (1) how that is not also a violation of WP:HATNOTE and thus should be corrected and (2) why this justifies extending this from names to pronouns. In any case, it's moot now. Crossroads -talk- 06:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
was 7 deletes to 3 keeps, but was relisted for some reason – that reason being that Wikipedia is not a democracy; argument quality and consensus take precedence over a tally of !votes.
More importantly, applying policy just for the sake of applying policy—especially when doing so hinders improvement of the encyclopedia—contravenes WP:IAR. There is certainly no need to rehash the hatnote discussion, but the problem that the hatnote solved has still not been addressed, as evidenced by this new thread. Armadillopteryx 17:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Especially given that the informal consensus in this thread seems to be friendly to the idea of hatnotes for the purpose of pronoun clarification, I don't think it makes sense to use one consensus against a specific template reached by seven users as a reason to never again introduce hatnotes for anything other than navigation. That's something that can and should be discussed again. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 17:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There are several different issues here. Let's see if I can identify them, and state a preference:

  1. Should we use multiple pronouns in an article, where RSes or the person involved does so?
    • My answer, generally, no, we shouldn't; this is encyclopedic prose, we should pick one acceptable set and stick to it. But there are exceptions.
  2. Should we have guidance for readers, regarding non-traditional pronooun usage? If so, what should it be?
  3. Should we have guidance for editors? If so, what should that be?

The exception to the first point, would be someone like Conchita Wurst, where different traditional pronouns are used consistently in different contexts, such as in- or out of drag, or pre- or post-transition. As long as switching back and forth causes no confusion, I'm not against it for those cases. I'm against switching, for someone like Leslie Feinberg, who accepted multiple sets of pronouns, but where they do not designate different parts of her life, or different parts of her personality, or "real life" vs. performance. The Feinberg article uses she/her, which Feinberg has explicitly stated is okay with her, and that is called out on her Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I largely agree with this comment. Re: the second point: I'm not wedded to a specific clarification format, but I do think it needs to be more conspicuous than a footnote. Footnotes are easily missed by many (most?) casual readers. Armadillopteryx 17:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I can see the point about how an explanatory note could be missed. I actually really like the presentation format of template {{clarify span}} which generates a faint, rectangular border around a piece of text (and optional mouse-over pop-up text on some devices). Combining that with an explanatory note, might do the trick. In practice, this might look like this:
Rain Dove Dubilewski (born September 27, 1989) is an American model, actor, and activist, best known for their[clarify] work in subversive fashion, as a gender-nonconforming model,[4] posing alternately as male and female in photoshoots, productions, and runway shows. Dove was voted as SheWired's Most Eligible Bachelorette in 2014[5] and named one of Elle Magazine's 12 Women Who Are Redefining Beauty in 2015.[6]
or this:
Elliot Page[1] (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987[2]) is a Canadian actor and producer. He[clarify][a] first became known for his[clarify] role in the film and television series Pit Pony (1997–2000), for which he was nominated for a Young Artist Award, and for recurring roles in Trailer Park Boys (2002) and ReGenesis (2004).
Note that the Dove example doesn't use an explanatory note, because the second paragraph of the lead immediately after (not shown; see Rain Dove) goes into sufficient detail about pronouns, and the Eliot Page example does have one, which links down to the #Personal life section of that article, for a more detailed account of pronoun usage. We could even create a new redirect, so that {{clarify pronoun}} could be used in line, which would be a much better flag for wikicode editors than "clarify span" would be. Mathglot (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I really like these - they solve seemingly all issues with pronoun usage, and they're a very viable option for both articles covering individuals with multiple pronouns and articles like Conchita Wurst. I'd be very happy to see {{clarify pronoun}} become a norm. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 21:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd prefer something slightly less major formatting-wise, such as {{Abbr}} (e.g. they), but broadly agree with this if it works on mobile and screen readers. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Bilorv: as a first cut, you can try the Wikipedia:Mobile view sidebar for presentation questions, although that doesn't necessarily address device-bound limitations. I checked it on a smartphone, and in standard mobile view the little boxes are easily visible; a little fainter in desktop view on a mobile device, but still visible. The hover feature, as you're probably aware, does not work on mobile, so neither does your abbr-they example; it just displays plain-text "they", and tapping the bracketed superscript clarify just gets you to Wikipedia:Please clarify on mobile, not what you want. But this is nothing new; for mobile, the clarify borders work, and so do the explanatory notes, of course.
@Cran32: If the little, bracketed[a] wasn't enough of a trigger on mobile and might easily be ignored, we could use the 'ref group' feature, to do it this way:
She[Pronoun note 1] first became known for her[clarify] role in Godzilla Meets Bambi.
which is less likely to be overlooked, especially on mobile view, plus the link would work. Could even combine that with {{H:title}} for hover pop-ups on desktop. (This last example was simulated with some Html, but could be embedded in a straightforward "pronoun note" template, that would do the same thing, without the fancy footwork.) Mathglot (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, this has been proposed multiple times before, and been rejected. There is no reason to think consensus would have changed on it. No, we do not need to make a big deal of this. Our editors and readers generally do not have severe brain damage; most editors can write material about a such a subject in a sensible manner, and most readers will understand it just fine when they do so. No, we do not need new rules; we need an increase in application of common sense, and a sharp decrease in "abuse Wikipedia as my language reformation campaigning platform" activism. No, we do not need new, reader-pestering or reader-confusing inline templates, which will probably just create additional accessibility problems and will complicate the markup (in the lead of all places) for no objective benefit at all. If we really, really, really feel a need to explicitly annotate something about someone's pronoun(s), a regular footnote will do just fine (see Genesis P-Orridge for example). Nor do we need hatnotes about this. Just the introduction of name-order explanation hatnotes like proved to be a bad idea, RfCs had been deprecating them, and TfD nuked most of them; a forthcoming proposal is expected soon, to just get rid of the few that remain and use – guess what? – footnotes. The hatnotes proposed above would certainly be included in that proposal. I estimate the proposal's passage chances at about 90% (and I'm not partisan about it – I'm the one who created most of those templates in the first place!). Finally, "Wikipedia [should not] continue this problematic trend" (in the original post) is counter-to-reality nonsense. Long-established language practice that is resistant to efforts to change it is the exact opposite of a trend, and is not disturbing. Wikipedia never leads when it comes to shifts in English usage, we only follow, and we don't follow until a change has become quite dominant throughout contemporary reliable sources, across genres and registers. Cf. WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:GREATWRONGS. We need to stop wallowing in threads like this, which consume too much valuable volunteer-editor time and goodwill. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

PS: The one useful thing that could come from this would updating MoS to specifically forbid doing things like 'We use "she" because ...' in the actual article text. This is obviously covered by MOS:SELFREF and MOS:1STPERSON alread, as a general matter. But if people are ignoring those MoS section and are doing it anyway, restating the rule for this specific context and putting that MOS:GENDERID where it'll be noticed, should do the trick.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not sure about what "rules" or "language activism" applies to above, but what I've been proposing isn't part of it. I agree with most of what you said: English resistant to change, non-activism, avoiding trends, being conservative, following and not leading; all of that. None of that is counter to anything I've proposed here; I'm talking exclusively about flagging to the user something already determined by sources, MOS:GENDERID and consensus; that is, following, and not leading. There's nothing about a new template that would in any way be WP:RGW, any more than {{clarify}} is. I do agree that the superscript expression[clarification needed] is somewhat obtrusive, but that can be fixed with a template that doesn't do that. Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I just don't see the need for any of that. It greatly increases the complexity of how the matter is handled in order to fix... something, apparently. It just seems like a solution in search of a problem. We do not need to create new templates that place undue emphasis on pronouns by 'highlighting' them with a box (which would be unprecedented for non-problem text) and which editors will be tempted to overuse. There is no reason not to just use without fanfare the correct pronouns that match both the person's identity and use by reliable sources, in cases like Elliot Page and the vast majority of cisgender and transgender people. If we need a footnote or edit notice in a few cases where singular they is used, then we already have the framework for that. Crossroads -talk- 02:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally I think articles about individuals who use multiple pronouns should just mention it once. Like “Bob goes by he/she/they pronouns” and when the article talks about Bob we use pronouns they\them when talking about Bob.CycoMa (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. For instance, the article on Noelle Stevenson says in the personal life section "She identifies as non-binary and uses any personal pronouns." Even with that, there continues to be a stream of people on the talk page who declare that the "wrong" pronouns are being used, even though she has literally said that ANY pronouns are fine... It's a bit tiring to deal with. Historyday01 (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Editors in this thread that oppose the idea of a template/hatnotes to clarify pronouns as proposed by Mathglot: is anyone against just adding an explanatory note after the first pronoun in articles about individuals that use multiple pronouns as such?[b] That seems to solve the issues that some of us see while also not creating unprecedented changes that could be prone to overuse as pointed out by Crossroads. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 17:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cran32:, for your question, I think WP:BOLD applies. I don't think you need permission, or consensus, to use existing features in the way they were designed for. You can just do it; if anybody opposes, you'll find out when they revert or modify; that's just standard editing procedure. Mathglot (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough; I'm just hesitant to implement footnotes universally without support because some of the articles seem to have reached consensuses against them (albeit with only a few editors and quite a while ago). Cran32 (talk | contributions) 18:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
In theory, an explanatory footnote could be good, but, generally, I don't think its necessary if the article (like the Noelle Stevenson article I noted earlier) says later that someone uses specific pronouns already... and it is mentioned on the talk page too, using the existing Article pronouns template. Historyday01 (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Given that a. most readers probably aren't reading the entirety of a given article, especially if it's as lengthy as something like Elliot Page, and b. most readers don't open talk pages, I still think it makes a lot of sense to note it in the lead at the first use of a pronoun. Moreover, I think the acknowledgement/explanation aspect of a footnote - that this person uses multiple pronouns but for the sake of consistency and legibility this article only uses one - is still valuable even if pronouns are mentioned in the article text itself. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 18:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I second the first point made in this comment. Most readers do not visit an article and read it from beginning to end; they're likely there to find a specific piece of information or to read a section or two. Adding an explanatory note at first mention is certainly better than nothing, but I think the clarification needs to be conspicuous enough that a reader who is only skimming through or reading one section will notice and understand what is going on with the pronouns. Too many well-meaning but ultimately disruptive edits like this: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. For this reason, I do oppose using just an explanatory note. I am open to trying Mathglot's suggestion above to see if it is enough, with the provision that something easier to spot should be implemented if people still seem to be missing it. Armadillopteryx 20:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree. At the end of the day, most readers won't notice a footnote, especially if it looks like a reference. In the meantime, I've added better-than-nothing notes to some of the more pressing articles, but I strongly support the implementation of something more eye catching like the suggestions above. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 22:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Cran32, regarding your question above, explanatory footnotes are already an accepted practice, so it's okay to use them. However, we can't make a rule that any such article should have one, per WP:CREEP. Armadillopteryx, some of your examples of disruptive pronoun edits go back to 2018. If there are any articles where it happens a lot, the way to go is to get a WP:Editnotice. And frankly, we all put up with disruptive IP edits at all sorts of articles - the solution to these can't be worse than the problem. The idea of permanently highlighting many or all pronouns would need acceptance at the Village Pump, not at any one WikiProject. Crossroads -talk- 02:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I copied an old list because I'm on mobile and may not be near a computer for awhile. The point is that I see edits like this on a weekly basis, as do others who edit heavily in the area of drag biographies. It is a persistent, common problem (despite ASSERT-esque arguments to the contrary). I'm not at all opposed to a discussion at the Village Pump or on a similarly visible platform. I think that would be a good idea. Armadillopteryx 03:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
+1 Armadillopteryx 03:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I like the idea of a template and making a note in the article itself, and i am thankful you all are talking about this. My pet peeve about these biographies is many come across as overly dependent on pronouns. It's a common writing style issue, but i find it's more prevalent in articles that have transgender subjects. And i'm certainly prone to doing it and am making a more conscious effort in my own writing. It also seems to be the issue that is causing a lot of 'war editing.' What made me decide to see if anyone was talking about this was the [Christine Jorgenson] biography. For individuals with multiple pronouns, i believe it's best to use multiple pronouns, but i can see how that is frustrating for consistency. Fred (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Refs

  1. ^ This article uses masculine pronouns. See full explanation of pronoun usage in section #Personal life.
  2. ^ Cran32 uses x/y and z/a pronouns. This article uses x for consistency.

  1. ^ This article uses feminine pronouns. Here, we could place a link to something.

Zuby temporary gender "identification"

If possible can someone please take a look at the Zuby article, I'm seeing a possible issue with the matter of "identifying" and how we are representing the claim. See Talk:Zuby#Lead_size. Acousmana 19:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Roderic O'Gorman

An RFC has been opened at Talk:Roderic O'Gorman on 'Should a subheading in the article Roderic O'Gorman contain the wording "and harassment by far-right activists"? Proponents contend it is an accurate summary of the contents of the section and of events themselves, while critics argue the inclusion of the wording in the subheading is not neutral in tone. Please read the rest of the talk page for further context.'

Contributions welcome. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Child drag articles need to be rewritten

It’s been several months since child drag articles such as Desmond Napoles were stubbed due to the main author being a sockpuppet and the articles still haven’t been rewritten. I think It’s about time someone or multiple people take up the task of rewriting these articles, which is why I came here. I wish I could help, but I’m using mobile rn since my laptop broke and editing using mobile is a pain. X-Editor (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Genericusername57:, seeing as you stubbed the articles, I’m pinging you here. X-Editor (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry about that; I kept meaning to rewrite the Desmond Napoles article but pushing it off. It's an absolute BLP minefield due to things like this and this. Cheers, gnu57 14:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Genericusername57: It’s okay. I think there are also other articles about other child drag stars that were stubbed by you as well, which also need to be rewritten. Hopefully you can get to the rewriting soon and I hope that, once I get my laptop back, that I can help out as well. X-Editor (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Um I’m not very comfortable with the concept of child drag in general. CycoMa (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You don’t have to participate in any rewriting If you feel too uncomfortable handling the subject. X-Editor (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Sandra Caldwell (actress) and Draft:Sandra Caldwell (actress)

Will someone please compare this draft and this article? The draft has been in draft space for more than six months. The article was created in the past 48 hours. They appear to be the same person, except that the difference in birth years between 1952 and 1969 is a little hard to explain. In further review, the mention in the draft (which says that she was born in 1969) says that she had a role in 1976 (not as a child star), which makes me think that the 1969 may be wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that the error is simply one of transposing the birth year and the current age (as someone born in 1952 is 69 this year) 202.65.87.89 (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Gender euphoria

Cross-posted from WP:MED. Relevant to this wikiproject, comments are needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender euphoria. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 07:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Transparent (TV series) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Transparent (TV series) to be moved to Transparent. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Categorization of drag performers

I wanted to ask what people here think about an idea I've been batting around about rethinking how we categorize drag performers. I can see arguments on both sides, so I wanted to propose it for discussion to see where consensus stands rather than imposing it arbitrarily.

In recent years there's obviously been a significant increase in the number of notable drag performers who identify as transgender or non-binary, thus forcing queer culture to rethink traditional notions of the "correct" relationship between performer gender and character gender in drag. Then, too, there are a significant number of emerging performers who break the king/queen distinction less through their own personal gender identity, and more through downplaying or entirely eliminating gender as the primary purpose of their art — even the boundary between drag and cosplay is much blurrier and more porous in 2021 than it was 10 or 20 years ago, because an increasing number of drag performers at least sometimes do work that is less about gender per se and more about presenting as aliens, monsters, animals or abstract artworks. (Not to mention that as risky as it was at the time when Kennedy Davenport decided to do Little Richard as his Snatch Game character on RPDR all those years ago, we've now reached the point where almost every new Snatch Game is practically guaranteed to have at least one male character in it — which means it's now much more obvious that even a person playing their own gender can still count as drag.)

Then there's the parallel coexistence of Category:Drag queens and Category:Female impersonators categories: I've never been convinced that there's enough of a meaningful distinction between those two things that two separate category trees were necessary — they're not so much different things as they are an evolution in the historical vs. contemporary terminology for the same thing — but an attempt to get them merged at CFD a couple of years ago landed no consensus.

And to top it all off, while there still aren't really enough notable drag kings to justify subcatting Category:Drag kings by nationality yet, there are more notable drag kings now than there used to be — but as things stand right now, this means that drag queens get subcategorized for nationality while drag kings don't, which means queens and kings are technically getting gender-based unequal treatment.

So, for all of those reasons, I'd like to propose that we consider and discuss collapsing our Category:Drag queens, Category:Female impersonators and Category:Drag kings categories into a single gender neutral Category:Drag performers tree rather than continuing to segregate them by gender. Since the target category already exists as a parent for the others, this would mainly entail renaming the subcategories in the tree and category-redirecting the gendered terms appropriately. Thoughts? Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bearcat:, certainly worth a discussion, but a better venue would be WT:WikiProject Categories. Consider possibly moving it. Mathglot (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The LGBTQ-specific issues in this matter mean that it needs to be discussed specifically by editors with particular expertise in LGBTQ issues first. So I don't agree that WikiProject Categories is a better place for it, because the queer context is the most important issue here and the fact that it happens to pertain to categories is very secondary to that. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
If you want LGBTQ-specific issues to be discussed first, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but in that case you should be inviting discussion first on that point. However, since you started this discussion naming it "categorization" and are discussing categorization, but don't wish to move the discussion, I've invited members of the WikiProject Categories here, so they can give a better response than I'm able to. Mathglot (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_20#Category:Female_impersonators
  • My pick for best arguments for merging:
    • the Wikipedia community has not identified sources which distinguish the concepts of "drag" and "female impersonation"
    • the Wikipedia community has not identified sources which even recognize concepts of female impersonation other than drag
    • we have lots of sources which tell the story that female impersonation is drag without presenting the possibility of other modes
  • My pick for best arguments for not merging
    • without sourcing, the common view is that Western "female impersonators" in the past never self-identified with the modern concept of drag
    • we have little editor representation of those familiar with non-Western concepts of female impersonation, which is part of a broader problem because also much of contemporary Western LGBT+ culture does not apply to much of the world
    • various commentators raise, without being able to cite sources or point to existing Wikipedia articles, that there are various types of "female impersonation" performance, and that drag is only one of these, and that if we center all conversation on drag that would block inclusion of these other, unidentified types of female impersonation performance
I favor merging with a note somewhere to say that if someone has sources, then they can make new categories or articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

At one level, I consider female impersonators and drag queens similar, in that they are both involve cross-dressing. In the context of categorization, they have (or should have, in my view) a common parent category. I also consider female impersonators and drag queens opposites, in that in the former case, the ideal is to be indistinguishable from a biowoman, often a particular, well-known woman. A female impersonator who looks exactly like Marilyn Monroe, would be the ideal to strive for. The look is not exaggerated, the makeup is not exaggerated, the gesture, and voice, and singing, and acting, all strive to emulate Marilyn Monroe to a T. What makes them a female impersonator, is that they are on stage, and advertised for a paying audience *as* a female impersonator, namely, as a man dressed as a woman. A drag queen is nothing like that, and exaggeration in every aspect is key: exaggerated makeup of a typical, "drag" nature, exaggerated clothing, hair, gesture, gait, performance, and often no attempt at voice modulation. It may or may not be for pay, or simply enjoyed for its own sake. If on stage for pay, then nobody would dream of advertising them as a "female impersonator". They are "sister" categories, with a common parent.

Now, having said that, I realize that there are certain requirements for categories, and if there are too few items in a category, it might be subject to merger with another. If that is the case here, I have no objection to merging female impersonators with some other category; but I *do* object to merging it with its sister-opposite, "drag queens"; that would be an abomination, imho. Sort of like telling the Catalans, that they're going to be merged with the Basques, no no no; if they have to be merged, then UP, into something like "autonomous regions of Spain". Same thing here: if female impersonators needs to be merged, okay, but then merge UP with a parent category which does not deny the essence of what female impersonation is, but merely describes it less fully, but accurately. If there's a parent category like "Men who cross-dress", then you could merge it with that; but not with drag queens. Mathglot (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The crossdressing footer, currently contains Blanchard's transsexualism typology (Autogynophila) under the sexuality section. This is not a recognized paraphilia by the current DSM, or a constructive theory by WPATH or AASECT. I have attempted to speak to correct this on my own, yet the author of the footer is resistant to this alternation, suggesting I seek support here. I have remained NPOV on this, and request others to assess this footer further.KillingsBjorn (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Pinging @*Treker: so they're aware of this discussion. I don't think it matters whether the typology is considered scientifically outdated or discredited. For example, we link to Conversion therapy in the Template:LGBT navbox. The question is whether it's relevant to the topic at hand (that being crossdressing). I'm not a subject matter expert here, but it seems like there is prima facie case for relevance based on, for example, this line from the intro: Blanchard's typology broke from earlier ones which "excluded the diagnosis of transsexualism" for arousal in response to cross-dressing. Colin M (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner and trans rights activism

There is discussion on Talk:Caitlyn Jenner (which has expanded to several sections of the talk page) as to whether it's appropriate to describe Jenner as a transgender rights activist. Funcrunch (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC concerning Caitlyn Jenner article

See here. Question is as follows: "Should Caitlyn Jenner be described as a trans rights activist or no?" Casspedia (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

LGBT to LGBTQ

Hello there, so i was wondering if y’all (I haven’t contributed as of yet, and as such don’t consider my self to be apart of this, at least for the moment) are planning to changing the name WP:LGBT to WP:LGBTQ. Thanks Aiden LaBonne, That One Strange Child,⚔️🗡🔪 Memerman69 14:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure about that, here on Wikipedia we usually rely on mainstream views and language. Doing a quick google search on LGBT gets about 198,000,000 results and LGBTQ gets about 60,500,000 results.CycoMa (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. For now it is staying as LGBT, based on what CycoMa said, and other reasons. Personally, don't have the time, or energy, to propose a global change right now, either. --Historyday01 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
This gets asked often enough that we should probably eventually organize an FAQ for this and some other common questions. Hmm... Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I can agree with that. That sounds like a good idea. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay thanks Aiden LaBonne, That One Strange Child,⚔️🗡🔪 Memerman69 17:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Memerman69 - my impression is that when @CycoMa was saying: "...here on Wikipedia we usually rely on mainstream views and language." was actually refering to English Wikipedia, to anglophone contributors and mainstream USA media as a context. So if you are active in other language projects, languages and contexts, it might be different, as for example many European institutions and NGOs already use LGBTI+ or even LGBTIQA+
It really depends on many aspects, but for sure is not written in stone. If you identify as queer and feel this should be change you should find others who feel similar and propose it. I will for sure do it in other languages, projects and contexts. Best --Zblace (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh I agree, it isn't set in stone and I'd support a FAQ or discussion on this, as people bring this up all the time.Historyday01 (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Jessica Yaniv

We would appreciate your thoughts and help at Talk:Jessica Yaniv#"Male waxing" wikilink. The discussion regards a trans woman being refused waxing services, whether or not Male waxing should be linked, and whether or not the term "male genitalia" should be used. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Catholic Church and homosexuality

There is an RfC at Talk:Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality#RfC_on_the_teaching_section about what content should be included in a section about the Church's teaching on homosexuality. Your participation would be appreciated. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Bree Lowdermilk

Would somebody here like to take a look at the article on playwright Brian Lowdermilk? The content now refers to her as Bree, with pronouns changed accordingly, but the original title remains. I'd move it myself but I looked to sources for verification first. It's clear that the person referred to today as Bree Lowdermilk is the same person, but I didn't encounter anything declaring it explicitly. Further, I looked at their own website, but it appears not to have been updated since 2018 and still says "Brian".

I'm not sure how to balance Wikipedia's WP:V requirements with proper and respectful treatment of the transgender subject of a bio article when the transition affects an existing article and if/when the transition itself isn't covered in sources (in contrast to, say, Elliot Page). Also, I wasn't sure whether an article about a creative artist should note the name under which the artist was credited for earlier works. Rather than take a chance of goofing it up, I thought I'd see whether somebody is available who will handle it more adeptly than I would. Largoplazo (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Update: It's been taken care of. Largoplazo (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The Eagle (bar)

Thrilled to see the creation of The Eagle (bar). I've never quite understood the history of "The Eagle" as a franchise-but-not-really. Further article improvement welcome, of course! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Queering Wikipedia 2021 User Group Working Days: May 14–16

The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.

We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.

More information, and registration details, at QW2021.--Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 03:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


History and accomplishments

At this event we want to present a history of Wiki LGBT+. What suggestions does anyone have for major events or accomplishments to put on a timeline?

  • What were the biggest discussions in wiki LGBT+ history?
  • What is the best collection of LGBT+ content?
  • What LGBT+ activism in the wiki platform does anyone want remembered?

Post here or anyone shy can email me.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Starting today

The user group's Working Days start today, and continue through the weekend.--Pharos (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

AfD

---Another Believer (Talk) 13:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Terminology: Sexual minority, LGBT and "gender and sexual minorities"

There is a redirect discussion going on about whether Gender and Sexual Minorities should redirect to the LGBT article (which discusses the term as a more inclusive form of the LGBT(QIAP+) acronym), or the Sexual minority article (and a proposal to move that page to Gender and sexual minorities or something similar). I thought this would be of interest to this WikiProject. --Bangalamania (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Toys category?

While Stub-sorting I found Everyone Is Awesome, which "is the first Lego set representing the LGBTQ+ community." I wanted to give it a category reflecting this, but the nearest I could find was Category:LGBT and society. Is there a category for LGBTQ-inclusive children's games, toys, etc? If not, perhaps there should be? Over to you as the experts. PamD 10:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Modern Mètis Woman AfC

Can I kindly call on a volunteer to please help with editing the "tone" of this registered charities (AfC) Article for creation Draft:Modern Métis Woman that promotes the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) within the indigenous/aboriginal community. The AfC is awaiting review, and it's my first article, it's an amazing registered charity, and if anyone could help with officially reviewing it for approval, that would be even more amazing. I'M trying to be sure the article is suitable in tone and content for the wikipedia community, Super thank you "all volunteers."

Noapplause (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

PamD, you should not be edit warring in stuff like unsourced asides about how "women" is supposedly an objectifying term (it's not and that idea is not in the source) as well as use of "womxn" (also not in the source). We should not be writing in such language; see WP:PLAINENGLISH. We also don't say "self-identifying women", as this draws inappropriate attention to identification as though it is separate. Just say "women". Crossroads -talk- 18:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The term "self-identifying" was being used about Metis identity, not identity as a woman, in that draft. (Strange coincidence to find myself discussing two quite different issues on this talk page, which I don't often visit, on one day.) PamD 10:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"He and she" on Wikipedia

I launched a discussion at Wikipedia talk: Gender-neutral language last June about prospects for replacing "he and she" on Wikipedia. I didn't stick with it long at the time; the discussion has picked up some steam recently, and it occurred to me to wonder whether folks who frequent this page were aware of it and might be interested in contributing. Largoplazo (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia podcast

Hi everyone,

I hope you're all well. I'm a podcast producer from the UK and am making a documentary about Wikipedia - it's all about the people who make it what it is, and the communities that exist within it. I'm looking to speak with someone who feels their life's been changed by Wikipedia in some way, maybe they found a solid group of friends or partner on here, or it brought them out of a tricky period. I'm especially interested in speaking to someone in the LGBTQ+ community, and was speaking with user Another Believer recently and he suggested I ask on here. Would anyone who feels they've really had their life changed by it be up for talking with me? It would just be a quick half-hour chat in the next week or two.

Thanks so much, looking forward to hearing from you!

Wearecrowd (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wearecrowd: Can you share more about who you are and what your podcast is? Can you link to any podcasts you have produced? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Blue Raspberry, thanks for the reply. Of course! I'm from Crowd Network in Manchester, UK, and the Wikipedia pod won't be out til later this year, but for now these are some of the other podcasts I've made with them: We Didn't Start The Fire and Death of a Film Star. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like, or you can contact me directly at annas@crowdnetwork.co.uk. Wearecrowd (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wearecrowd: This is everything I wanted. Welcome, and thanks for your coming here to ask. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Henrietta Hudson

I couldn't believe this didn't exist. Just cobbled together a stub, but would love some help if anyone has time. I thought about waiting for June 1, but no patience, as I think this could have existed before. Thanks! Star Mississippi 20:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

and Cubbyhole (lesbian bar), subsequent to Armadillopteryx's note in an edit summary on Henrietta Hudson. Bars & nightlife aren't my typical area of work, but there's a ton of sourcing on Cubbyhole and I'll try to flesh it out in the coming days. Of course, all the help is welcomed. I feel like there's a story to tell with these historic bars ahead of Pride. Star Mississippi 02:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
👍 Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject

Peter Marc Jacobson 67,226 2,240 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Stonewall diversity programme

If anyone is an expert on Stonewall's Diversity Champions programme, I have recently created their article. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I just came here to raise that very article as I think it is extremely poorly written with what seems like a strong anti-Stonewall POV. It makes almost no attempt to cover what the programme actually is/does and focusses almost exclusively on the accusations made against Stonewall. I think the article should either be rewritten or be merged into the article about Stonewall. Either way, more eyeballs are urgently needed on this! --DanielRigal (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy Pride!

Happy Pride! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2021

Project members are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride, an annual campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content on Wikipedia and sibling projects. Any and all ideas and article improvements are welcome! We're hoping to showcase new and improved content, so feel free to document your work on the project editing. Happy pride and happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds great! I already signed up for notifications. So, events take place from June to October, cool. --Historyday01 (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Whenever we do an edit-a-thon, there's usually the suggestion to add this in your Edit Summary; like for example "Added new page with the goal to increase women's representation in Wikipedia" - Is this a good idea? Any suggestions on what to add during these Pride months? --Jolarti (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Jolarti, You're welcome to use edit summaries referencing Wiki Loves Pride, but doing so is not required. We are collecting new and improved content here if you wish to share. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/LBT Women and Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/Tasks may give you some ideas. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I'll have to do that when updating some pages this month and beyond. --Historyday01 (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Some input appreciated

Hi everyone, I don't often edit in this area, and I need some assistance figuring out how to add content on an individual to the drag queen article. I just created an article on Arthur Blake, the most famous female impersonator of the post World War II era, who had success in classic Hollywood films and even played the White House for F.D.R. and Eleanore Roosevelt in which he impersonated Eleanore. My main issue is, that Blake doesn't really match the narrative currently in the article which asserts that drag was increasingly marginalized at this time. That's probably overall true, but it certainly wasn't the case for Blake whose nightclub career spanned from the gay community to mainstream entertainment. Regardless, I feel like an expert in this area with sensitivity to the history of framing narratives from this community would be more suited to crafting a narrative which includes Blake while not overlooking the challenges being experienced by a marginalized community. I don't think that's me. So if anyone cares to lend a hand, I would appreciate it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a couple sentences to the nightclub section. If anyone has any different ideas on presentation, feel free to adjust.4meter4 (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
That looks like a good addition to the article, thanks!--Trystan (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This is a good point. It seems the article may be overstating (or oversimplifying) the degree to which drag was pushed out of the mainstream at this time. It would be good to get page numbers for the Boyd citations so we can see the context. Incidentally, I recently created an article for Frederick Kovert, who had a moderately successful Hollywood career performing in drag in silent films of the 1920s - another data point for drag (or at least some strains thereof) having mainstream acceptability in the early-to-mid 20th c. The drag queen article could probably use some more content on the use of drag in early films. Colin M (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

James E. Webb

There's a bit of a kerfuffle over whether to include a line in James E. Webb#Legacy that could probably use more attention. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Article request - Gavin and Tim (The Brittas Empire)

The couple of Gavin and Tim from 1990s British sitcom The Brittas Empire may be one of the first openly gay couples on TV, and there has been much written about the importance of their relationship being portrayed in a non-tokenistic and non-stereotypical way. I wonder if anyone here would be interested in writing an article? might be a good place to start.--Coin945 (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

review of 1950s American published gay erotica 🏳️‍🌈🌈

Ed Fury

We have some art and photos from a 1950s United States magazine if we can confirm that the content is in the public domain, as it seems to be.

Comments on copyright are welcome and needed at Wikimedia Commons village pump for copyright. The photographer is Bob Mizer, his studio is Athletic Model Guild, the magazine is Physique Pictorial, and also in this magazine is the work of Tom of Finland.

Happy Wiki Loves Pride 2021. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBTQ%2B_studies/Archive_71&oldid=1249345124"