• 21 Aug, 2019

• By, Wikipedia

Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject LGBT Studies

Reports Alerts Assessment Watchlist Cleanup Alerts – Lists active discussions for all project-tagged articles, including proposed moves and deletions, requests for comment, and nominations for featured content. Bot-updated daily. Assessment – Lists changes to the quality assessment for all project-tagged articles. Can be used to review when articles are added to or removed from the project's scope. Bot-updated daily. Watchlist – Shows recent changes to all articles linked from WP:LGBTQ+/Watchlist. Cleanup – All project-tagged articles with maintenance templates. Bot-updated weekly. Article lists Core Vital Popular Drafts New Core – A collection of 120 articles of fundamental importance to the project's mandate. Vital – Project-tagged articles that have been identified as vital at WP:VITAL. Popular – The 500 most-viewed project-tagged articles. Bot-updated monthly. Drafts – A category containing all project-tagged draft articles. New – Search results for articles that match LGBTQ+ search terms. These may be reviewed to determine if they are in-scope. See WP:LGBTQ+/Editing for more.

Hi everyone. I see edit-a-thons for a lot of topics around, usually in regards to female biographies. Is there one coming up for LGBTQ+ pages? If not, would it be possible to create an edit a thon for LGBTQ+ pages? Amethystloucks (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have WP:Wiki Loves Pride, which is an ongoing yearly campaign to improve LGBTQ+ articles.

Pinging @Another Believer who spearheads that one to see if maybe we can have an edit-a-thon under that banner as you proposed :) Raladic (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information! Amethystloucks (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently concluded a conversation on Talk:Elagabalus#Category:LGBTQ Roman emperors about the inclusion of LGBTQ categories on their page even though their gender identity and orientation are disputed. This idea was rejected because Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity is already listed on the article, but that editor suggested that another category could be created for disputed sexualities. I was wondering if this met WP:CATLGBT or if it would be inappropriate to carry over this type of historical interpretation. This category would not be used to describe living or recently deceased people, only historical figures who were not able to come out. Rylee Amelia (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a good idea in principle. It makes sense and helps group things together, and it neatly avoids debates about whether an LGBTQ category should be applied at all. Lewisguile (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just created the Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality. Feel free to expand it if you'd like! Rylee Amelia (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the category is useful and support its application, but it will likely be necessary to get consensus to change the final paragraph of WP:CATLGBT if it is to survive. That advice in my view only makes sense when applied to BLPs, but the wording unfortunately does not reflect that.

Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity barely survived a deletion proposal a few years ago, so there is some hope, but unfortunately a fair number of editors do not seem to recognize the benefit of making it possible to find historical individuals on this basis, despite it being defining for many of them.--Trystan (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already ran into problems with people reverting my edits and citing WP:OR and claiming these are fringe theories. I'm not sure what type of category discussion would need to be opened, whether it be nominated for deletion or some form of reclassification? Rylee Amelia (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest waiting a couple days and seeing if someone wants to challenge the category itself. If not, it isn't reasonable for what appears to be primarily a single editor to argue against use of the category on articles where there are extensive, well-sourced subsections (and sometimes entire subarticles) discussing the subject's orientation.--Trystan (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. That section in WP:CATLGBT should clearly only apply to BLPs. The wording is also borderline offensive and seems to be quite outdated—e.g., allegations and suspected suggest being described as even possibly LGBTQ is a slur/bad thing.

It would be much better to refocus that section on not saying things that are untrue/not verifiable, including their gender identity or sexuality, and to leave a caveat for long-dead/historical figures to be grouped under a category such as the one mentioned above. And we should temove language such as suspected and alleged while we're at it.

If anyone raises this on the relevant talk page, I will support changing the wording. It seems very unfortunate as is. Lewisguile (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a change.--Trystan (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seen and supported. Lewisguile (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same happened with me in Edward II of England yet his talk page still shows this project tagged. Other wikipedias also categorize him as LGBT. GustaPapp (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely a good example that shows the need for the new category. It's one of the main defining aspects of Edward II's treatment in reliable sources and is discussed at length in his article, but was captured nowhere in the categories.--Trystan (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People have been talking about his sexuality for decades. Madness. Lewisguile (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Henry Benedict Stuart covers his homosexuality and mentions a number of his lovers by name. The categories do not even mention his sexuality. Dimadick (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suggest that editors propagating this category make proposals on talk pages to generate consensus, especially on the articles for high-profile figures or vital articles. I'm also concerned the scope of the category may be overly vague: at least, I don't think it is a good idea to conceive of it at its maximum logical scope (i.e. inclusion of any figure upon any mention of potential non-heteronormativity in the article) Remsense ‥ 论 21:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think judicial application is a good idea. I.e., those articles with well-sourced subsections (or sub-articles) discussing the subject's sexuality, such that there was a clear deficiency in the applied categories not covering a significant aspect of the topic.--Trystan (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I think that's problematic and potentially a fundamental disservice to the concept. Categories should have clear criteria, and overbroad categories cease to be defining and cease to be meaningful altogether. Have we forgotten how diverse sexuality and identity are? Why are we smashing every historical example that falls through a sieve together into two piles? Remsense ‥ 论 01:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"inclusion of any figure upon any mention of potential non-heteronormativity in the article"

Well, it's about what the RSes say, isn't it? If it's notable enough to get a significant subsection on a page, then it's notable enough for a category.

I don't see any realistic harm, anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't fashion workable categories out of those minima; those categories get deleted for being worthless and counterproductive. See the "defining" link above: "no harm in it" is not a compelling argument, nor one borne out by experience. Given the issues I've brought up, I'd just as easily insist there's no harm in not doing it. Remsense ‥ 论 07:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I should have been clearer; it was early morning.

In this case, we were previously discussing the Edward II article, in which his sexuality is discussed in the lede (in comparative detail, in fact), but the subject itself is buried in a subsection. I didn't mean to imply that a maximalist approach should be taken for all articles, nor is anyone else (I hope). I was still talking about that article but I now see that other articles had also been mentioned which I didn't notice. I haven't checked those specifically to see if it's a defining category.

Either way, if there's disagreement about a category added as per WP:BEBOLD, it's relatively straightforward to remove it again and this will likely generate more discussion than a new topic on a talk page will. And as per WP:DEFINING, an article can always be added to a list if people disagree about adding it to a category, so there's an easy solution if consensus can't be reached. Lewisguile (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- was hoping to get a bit more feedback on this Talk page request about including Stephanie Burt's former name. Thank you for your assistance. Jessamyn (my talk page) 21:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

LGBTQ+ media could use some love, particularly with globalizing the article's focus. It could also use some a description of the historical change in media representation and the effects of that. Many of the sources (Google Books) are also all f'd up and could deffo use replacing. I'm certain that there are other issues as well.

Add a little or a lot; anything helps, especially because small edits can provide jumping-off points for other improvements.

Thanks all!

Happy to see what everyone does!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | 04:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute between User:Nikkimaria and myself in the article about historical character Eleno de Céspedes, specifically whether a certain original drawing of Eleno uploaded by an user can be used the illustrate the article or not. I argue the drawing fits Wikipedia's policies on original images as readable here, while Nikkimaria argues it does not. I therefore request users to visit the talk page and opine. Thank you in advance. Baal Nautes (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the dispute but wow. This article is bad in places. Lot's of speculative wording on uncited claims. It needs a pass from someone on this board and I'll probably give it a crack myself.Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reel Affirmations has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Heterosexual relationships among LGBTQ people#Requested move 26 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#GLAAD & anti-LGBT groups that may be of interest to this group. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’m making an article on the anti trans movement in the UK, in a similar vein as 2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States. Any help would be appreciated! Snokalok (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to restate the title. 21st century anti-trans movement in the United Kingdom Snokalok (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have copied some text from elsewhere on Wikipedia, resulting in errors due to refs with nonexistent names. Please, at minimum, repair attribution. Flounder fillet (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the refs and added WP:RIA dummy note for attribution. Raladic (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago I made the intersex healthcare article and added a to-do list for things to improve on the talk page. While I've worked on some of it, I was wondering if someone could help flesh out the advocacy section more. Thanks! Urchincrawler (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Sissy Bar (Portland, Oregon) for Good article status, if any project members are interested in reviewing. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is presently a discussion here as to whether an image, released by an official account, showing characters wearing clothes "resembling the pansexual pride flag" is enough to say that said characters are pansexual. Your comments in this discussion would be greatly appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Join Wikimedia LGBT+ and Dr Emily Garside to help improve Wikipedia’s coverage of AIDS cultural history in your language. 30 Nov 2024, English and Spanish, On Zoom. More details on Meta soon! —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 15:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an image for transgender-inclusive sex: File:Wiki-trans-cis lesbian sex.png. But there are no such image for transman sexuality. We need illustrations of penile-vaginal sex and other sex including trans people.

We require illustrations of opposite-gender same-genitalia sexual activities or same-gender heterogenital sexual activities immediately. Illustrations which describe same-gender same genitalia sexual activities of trans people will be eventually required. Sharouser (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seedfeeder has been inactive for over a decade now, so we will not have any new "Wikipedia style sex illustrations", well, at least certainly not "immediately". Flounder fillet (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The linked image isn't currently used on English Wikipedia. Is there an article or project where an image like this is desired, let alone required immediately? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 23:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all obvious to me that it's a particularly useful image for illustrating trans lesbian sex anyway – it could just as easily be read as cis-het sex. Indeed, of the three uses across the entire Wikimedia ecosystem, the one on en.wikiquote is accompanying a quote about heterosexual sex. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; I can't imagine an enWP context where these would be explanatory, and several where it would be degrading. Transgender sexuality could use images, but not much is elucidated by literal depictions of transgender people having sex. Many already associate trans bodies primarily with fetish pornography, and conjuring mental images of our genitals is perhaps the one thing they have very little trouble with... –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 00:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph McCarthy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Films about intersex#Requested move 14 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trans#Requested_move 15 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've translated from Russian Wikipedia Category:Anti-LGBTQ activists (well there was a similar but more specific category here though). There's Category:Anti-same-sex-marriage activists but none for anti-trans rights activists yet. Recently, Category:Feminism and transgender topics was renamed and purged. However, not every biography that were directly there was technically "anti-trans" (such as Buck Angel) I guess. Another possibility is to create Category:Gender-critical feminists based on gender-critical feminism mainspace article. I also created c:cat:Gender-critical people because some of them aren't feminists, but I'm not sure if that would be allowed on English Wikipedia. Though many would fall under wp:OPINIONCAT, some would qualify as defining. Also what title would be the best? The sentence from Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights could be used ("... that oppose transgender rights"), but that sounds like a WP:BLP issue. Web-julio (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at WP:FTN#Stephen B. Levine relevant to the wikiproject. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Trembling Before G-d for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any difference between the topics of Pride flag and Rainbow flag (LGBTQ). Before I start a WP:MERGE discussion, maybe someone can explain it to me. The first line of Rainbow flag even bolds Pride flag as a synonym. (Here's one data point to consider.) Feel free to start a merge discussion if you like; I'm likely to be tied up for a few days. Please ping me to it, if you do, otherwise I'll get around to it eventually, barring something really persuasive here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pride flag is a parent article summarizing the 9 or so articles about pride flags, including Rainbow flag as well as other identity-specific pride flags like the Asexual flag, Transgender flag and Lesbian flags. We have enough to say about each of these individually that they qualify for their own articles. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 11:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup pretty much this. The Pride flag article is basically a WP:BROADCONCEPT-ish article about Pride flags and all the different Pride flags. Whereas the Rainbow flag one is specifically about the history of blue the rainbow flag.

i don’t think merging them is in the best interest of our readers as it would bloat and blur it.

Another reason for separating them is to not raise the importance of the rainbow flag over the pride flags of the other sub communities like trans, lesbian, ace, aro, intersex and so on, which all are also pride flags. Raladic (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing articles about people § Proposed update to CATLGBT. Raladic (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]