Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 48

How to format quotations when written about gender A, but subject now identifies as gender B
Hello friends at WikiProject LGBT studies! Something came up at Inio Asano: A quotation in this article originally said "In 2010 Yomiuri Shimbun described Asano as 'one of the voices of his generation.'" However, there is indication that Asano is a transgender woman, and a user in good faith changed a pronoun in the quotation from "his" to "her", so that it read "In 2010 Yomiuri Shimbun described Asano as 'one of the voices of her generation.'" Per MOS:QUOTE, we typically remain faithful to quotations as printed, and only perform minor refactoring for grammar/spelling and such. Does the community have a perspective for the what should be done to quotations related to members of the transgender population? Should we refactor the pronouns in the quotation? Should we use brackets to indicate changes? Is there another approach that can help retain the accuracy of the quotation while still remaining respectful to the individual?
 * Totally fabricated examples:
 * (ORIGINAL) Leonard Maltin said, "Larry Wachowski is a visionary. He has a fantastic writing partner--his brother Andy."
 * (ALT 1) Leonard Maltin said, "[Lana] Wachowski is a visionary. [She] has a fantastic writing partner--[her] brother Andy."
 * (ALT 2) Leonard Maltin said, "Lana Wachowski is a visionary. She has a fantastic writing partner--her brother Andy."

Sorry if this has come up before, but if this has been addressed, it should be introduced in a more intuitive place, and maybe at MOS:QUOTE itself. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I mean, ALT 2 is obviously inappropriate because it's not an accurate reporting of the quotation. I don't reject ORIGINAL out of hand, but I also don't think that the necessary caveat "Ms. Wachowski was working under the name Larry at the time" can reasonably be placed in any given article where a quotation uses the wrong gender. What's wrong with ALT 1? (Okay, I can conceivably dream up a situation where something about the subject's perceived gender at the time is relevant - imagine if Hemingway had come out as trans late in life, and we'd surely have to find a special solution for quotations talking about masculinity in his life and work) but surely we can take those as they come.) ALT 1 seems best. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your thoughts and I'm interested to learn what other members of the community think. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As we talked about on my talk page, this is a tough one. ALT 1 would be my preferred choice.  But we can always just remove the quote and paraphrase instead.  Either way.  I agree with Roscelese that you could add something that mentioned the person's gender identity at the time the quote occurred.  EvergreenFir (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Go to Gender identity. One question being answered there is about quotes being exceptions to the rule. Feel free to discuss on the talk page if you have any improvements. Georgia guy (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oooh, interesting! Thanks for the lead. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Evergreen, ALT 1 seems to be the intuitive solution to me. My examples are pronoun-laden, which we might not experience in the real world. I agree that we could remove the quote and paraphrase, but then we might be cheating someone out of a really flattering quote! :) Obviously the decision should be on a case-by-case basis. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Kudos to Evergreen for this sane solution. David in DC (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cyphoidbomb gets credit for the idea too. :) EvergreenFir (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I like those rare Wikipedia moments when there is an amicable and reasonable solution between editors. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Update
There is a new post that may shed light on what we are reporting. Perhaps those with more experience in how this should be handled can take a look? Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Editor placing Curley v. NAMBLA in Category:LGBT history in the United States
You all might want to look at the edit history of, and judge whether or not it is appropriate that Slenderdan keeps placing Curley v. NAMBLA in Category:LGBT history in the United States. Also notice how he keeps removing the link to the Pederasty article, such as here. Flyer22 (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the same applies to the editor having twice placed Curley v. NAMBLA in Category:History of LGBT civil rights in the United States. Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the project tag on the talk page is fine, but the categories are not. I also removed one about activism, as this was a legal case. There just wasn't content showing this as big event of LGBT culture or history. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at ~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man ) 05:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_24#Category:Homosexuality_and_religion
You are invited to join the discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_24. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Jaiyah Saelua
This article about a fa'afafine, which doesn't mention fa'afafine and is tagged with Category:LGBT people from Samoa Category:Transgender and transsexual sportspeople Category:Transgender and transsexual women Category:LGBT association football players but the associated sources appear to indicate that she primarily considers herself a fa'afafine. We currently appear to have no Category:Fa'afafine. The team's exploits have been made into a film which has just signed a distribution deal, to the article is likely to get a lot of attention when it's released. Kaimahi (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We may want to inform wikiproject systemic bias of this issue. Different cultures have different concepts around gender, so perhaps "transgender" as a mostly western concept does not capture Fa'afafine, and our current category structure may reflect that bias. there isn't an easy solution to this problem IMHO...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Lesbian-identified male
More eyes looking at new article Lesbian-identified male would be nice. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

My problem with the article is very specific. There is a sentence that states these are not transgender people. A lesbian is a female term period. A cisgender man can't be a lesbian. He cant understand the experience due to both male and heterosexual privilege. Any sociologist or psychologist would be able to explain that.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Argue to delete that article, per WP:NEO. No neologisms without a very good reason. Hopefully, the WP:AfD goes smoothly and does not branch out into other articles, especially if that branching concerns political nonsense. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And, on a side note, this is not the first time I have come across this concept. Usually, however, men are jesting when they call themselves a male lesbian. Flyer22 (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

And then there was Spaghetti girl … similar issues, I imagine. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Never heard of Spaghetti girl but once read LOL as meaning Lesbians on linguine....William 18:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Spaghetti girl does seem more possible but should probably be moved into a better article. I suggest heteroflexibility. Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2014‎


 * These articles appear to be class projects (see Student assignments); that's what my Wikipedia experience tells me. New editors ( and ) showing up and creating sourced (though not well-sourced) topics about lesbian neologisms, on the same day, and in a way that shows that they at least somewhat researched how to format Wikipedia articles? Yep, it's a class project. Same class. Flyer22 (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please WP:AGF that it is coincidence. I see all sorts of new articles due to my new page patrolling. That's how I learned of Lesbian-identified male. Two different editors posting on a similar subject or in a similar field in a short period of time does happen....William 18:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WilliamJE (...William), knowing and stating that this is class project is not a violation of WP:AGF, unless of course you think that all class projects are bad. I know that it's a class project because I've seen this type of thing many times, and so has the Education noticeboard. If you think that the above aforementioned instances are coincidences, then fine. But don't expect me to believe that they are or to even consider it a valid notion that they are. Flyer22 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Tomboy article
Comments are needed on this matter: Talk:Tomboy. Flyer22 (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Stuart Murphy
Efforts to remove sourced interview where he comes out, and project banner underway. More input is welcome. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Four-paragraph leads -- a WP:RfC on the matter
Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

LGBT issues
This isn't easy, but... LGBT issues shouldn't be a redlink! There are lots and lots of search results for it, but someone should write an article to navigate through them in some top-down way. Yes, organizing this well will take a certain uncommon level of skill. Wnt (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it might be best to direct it to LGBT rights, another idea might be to make a list of articles that are likely targets for someone looking under that term. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's such a wide range of things. There are the standard civil rights/civil liberties issues, issues about certain diseases and treatment, and a number of unique medical issues pertaining to transsexuals, and probably a lot more I'm missing. Wnt (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then option 2 seems wise, listing broad articles so readers can hone in on what they're looking for. The search hits I git for LGBT issues all seemed to be about LGBT rights but that just might be what's most in demand at the moment. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuimaono Karl Pulotu-Endemann / Category:Fa'afafine
After creating Fuimaono Karl Pulotu-Endemann I created Category:Fa'afafine, but populating it is complicated by the presence of the word 'Fa'afafine' in the some templates (make searching for uses of the word hard). Anyone aware of any other fa'afafine articles, please add them. Kaimahi (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Gopi Shankar mentions on Genderqueer page
I request more input on the issue of numerous references to Gopi Shankar being added to the Genderqueer page. This page now includes six references linked to the mention of Shankar in the Gender terms section alone. Funcrunch (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gopi Shankar, and 41 Wikipedia hits. There does seem to be an abundance of the same material on many articles although some if the claims in the Shankar article do donate some notability justifying a line here and there. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Matthew Shepard
More eyes would be appreciated at Matthew Shepard, where a dispute has arisen whether content recently added and re-added to the lede is appropriate for the lede. Rivertorch (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dallas Buyers Club RFC
There is an RFC that may be of interest to the members of this project Talk:Dallas_Buyers_Club Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikiconference USA
Hello! In New York City Friday 30 May - Sunday 1 June Wikiconference USA will be held as a national United States Wikipedia meetup hosted by Wikimedia New York City and Wikimedia DC. All are welcome to attend. Scholarship applications to cover travel expenses are accepted until the end of March and presentation submissions are requested until that time but can be accepted until closer to the conference.

In previous years New York City conferences have gathered 150 attendees. At this conference we are hoping for more people to attend.

It would be nice if participants and supporters of WikiProject LGBT could attend. Anyone with questions may contact me or any of the other organizers, or post on the conference website.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  22:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Created new article = Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars

 * Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars

I've created a new article on the book, Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars.

Help with researching additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Need more attention at LGBT rights in Russia
More editors are needed to check neutrality of LGBT rights in Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.27.46 (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Fauxmosexual/Celesbian
This might be a case where a parent article on LGBTQ identities or term might be better. Any ideas? Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

New article = Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence

 * Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence

I've created a new article on the book, Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence.

Help with researching additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Your help is needed - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Domino Presley
Hi. It would be great if someone could please review this article before it undergoes it's fourth decline by someone who might not have experience with these subjects. You can take a look here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Domino Presley. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Frozen (2013 film) -- gay themes topic
Opinions might be needed from this project on this matter: Talk:Frozen (2013 film). There are a lot of reviewers (I'm speaking of the ones who pass as WP:Reliable sources) who have interpreted, or have reported people as having interpreted, the film as having one or more LGBT parallels, and the talk page discussion concerns whether or not we should include material about that in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh Jesus... this again? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean it's been discussed before at that article (other than the two sections currently there on the talk page about it), or do you mean in general (that people often tie LGBT themes to the film)? Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Since I don't see an archives box at that talk page showing that the gay themes aspect has been discussed before the two sections currently there about it, you must mean the latter (that people often tie LGBT themes to the film). Flyer22 (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * More in general. Thought the issue had its 15 seconds in the news and fizzled out.  EvergreenFir (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't even know about the gay themes aspect until this Morning Movie News video: Leonardo DiCaprio, Movie Star! Frozen's Elsa and Lesbian Characters in Film - Beyond The Trailer (from a channel on YouTube). And I watched Frozen for the first time last week and with my 17-year-old sister, who also had not yet seen the film but already knew a lot about the film (though not too many spoilers about it, and I think not the gay theme aspect either). Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The initial post is obviously non-constructive, but if reliable sources discuss it as a way of reading the film, it would seem to merit a mention in themes or reception. That said, I took a look at the article and the reception section is a bunch of quotes. I would have said that based on comparative source discussion, the LGBT interpretation would need to be subordinated in weight to the responses that talked about the Girl Power themes (saving yourself, love for a sister and not for a guy) but I see that the article doesn't really talk about the latter. Both should be added. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, you mean the current (latest) section on the talk page about the gay themes aspect (the one I linked to above) begins with an unconstructive post. I actually see the question "Just curious why the issue is not discussed?" as being fine; the "Lesbian cartoon for children" heading can be argued as problematic, since the film is not a "lesbian cartoon" and neither is the film only for children...though lesbian aspects may be interpreted with regard to the film. That poster's followup comment obviously is seen as problematic, and perhaps that's the comment you feel is unconstructive, or both comments and the heading? Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 27/03
Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Geiger v. Kitzhaber. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

72.11.53.145's view of TS and TG
Go to Talk:Trans woman and study the comments made by User:72.11.53.145. She says that TS and TG are 2 separate kinds of people. Any arguments supporting her statement?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Before you replied to her, I'd already replied to her here. There are always people at that article, the Transgender and Transsexual articles and other transgender Wikipedia articles expressing their personal definitions of what it means to be transgender, despite transgender very clearly being an umbrella term that includes transsexual people, and trying to apply their definitions to everyone like them; Wikipedia doesn't go by that, of course; it goes by WP:Verifiability and WP:Due weight in cases such as this. Flyer22 (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hook ideas?
I've DYKed Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher Senyonjo, but one of you could probably come up with a spiffier hook than I did. ALTn's welcome at the DYK page. Wnt (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder
Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC).

Jack Halberstam (more commonly known as Judith Halberstam) -- what to title the article
When seeing this edit at the Butch and femme article, I almost reverted back because Jack is more commonly known as Judith and because I'm familiar with the pronoun matter with regard to him, but then I saw that the Wikipedia article about him was recently moved from Judith Halberstam to Jack Halberstam by Therequiembellishere and I was reminded that Halberstam currently goes by the name Jack or maybe it was my first time noticing that he now exclusively goes by that name "off the record"; and by "off the record," I mean what is stated in this interview about his name still officially being "Judith Halberstam" on newly published books. For example, on the book where he started going by Jack, it states "Judith 'Jack' Halberstam." Before, I thought it was a matter of him going by either name in his everyday life. And, indeed, he states in the aforementioned linked interview that "some people call me Jack, my sister calls me Jude, people who I've known forever call me Judith" and "I try not to police any of it. A lot of people call me he, some people call me she, and I let it be a weird mix of things and I'm not trying to control it." So given that Judith Halberstam is still Halberstam's WP:Common name, as even alluded to in the aforementioned linked interview and by the author name of his recent books, and considering that he is seemingly comfortable with people referring to him by feminine pronouns and his feminine name, is this a case that should have his Wikipedia article title at the masculine name over the feminine name? While MOS:IDENTITY applies with regard to the pronouns in this case, does it apply to the article title?

I'll alert WP:Manual of Style editors to this discussion, so that editors there may weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Names are not inherently gender, though they may certainly be suggestive of it. As he is continuing to identify himself by the Judith name on the books, which is what Jack is primarily known for, then it would seem to meet common name and appropriate use. (For a parallel, James Tiptree, Jr. is under her author pseudonym.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll just say that I was simply under the impression that Halberstam was currently going by Jack in his daily life now and wasn't aware of how fluid he was about his name (I knew about the pronouns, of course). So if it moved back to Judith, I wouldn't at all be opposed. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say "Jack Halberstam", based on WP:COMMONNAME.    KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh   20:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * KoshVorlon, how is "Jack Halberstam" his WP:Common name, given what I stated above? He's used "Judith Halberstam" for much longer, and "Judith Halberstam" shows up on his newer books as the author name, which "Jack" placed in the middle with quotation marks or scare quotes around it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Moving the LGBT rights by country or territory article
Opinions are needed on this matter (WP:Permalink): Talk:LGBT rights by country or territory. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"In the News": Transgender legal status in India
Project members may be interested to know that I've just nominated a news story for the front page, about India's recognition of transgender as a 'third gender'.
 * In the news/Candidates

Relevant articles (and of course any assistance in improving them, and updating them to show this latest decision, would be much appreciated) are:
 * Hijra (South Asia)
 * Transgender
 * Legal aspects of transsexualism
 * Supreme Court of India
 * Third gender

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This news story is now present on the Wikipedia English home page, with the following text:


 * The Supreme Court of India recognises a legal third gender for Hijra and transgender individuals.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for promoting and developing this. It looks great!  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDENTITY on Mykki Blanco?
Requesting people comment on Talk:Mykki_Blanco. I know very little about this artist, but from an interview I found, it sounds like the stage persona is identified with feminine pronouns and the artist out of character is identified with masculine pronouns. Any help on the issue would be appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Reminder
Of Skysmith's list of missing topics about LGBT - not all will qualify as stand-alone articles, but even those that don't will be valuable redirects. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 07:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC).


 * I hadn't seen that before, there are some good ideas there. One correction, though, the red link for Stu Rasmunssen is almost certainly a typo (perhaps an implausible one) for Stu Rasmussen. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lots of them are typos, different versions of the name etc, but often worth creating a redirect for. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of Skysmith's LGBT article suggestions are covered elsewhere. And a good number of them are not simply LGBT matters. Gender categorization, for example? That's covered by the Gender, Gender role, Gender binary, Gender variance, Childhood gender nonconformity, Genderqueer, Third gender, Transgender and Androgyny articles (and addressed in enough other Wikipedia articles). While some of these gender articles are solely or mostly LGBT topics, such as Gender variance, my point is that we have a variety of articles covering gender categorization. In other words, I hope that editors don't spring to action in making redundant articles (inappropriate WP:Content forks) that, term-wise, are not WP:Notable, and instead look for an existing article to add that material to. That is, if the terms are covered by WP:Reliable sources. The articles Gender bender and Genderfuck, for example, should be merged, as the 2013 merge proposal suggests; where the 2013 merge proposal gets it wrong is that it's not Gender bender that should be merged into Genderfuck; it's Genderfuck that should be merged into Gender bender, since gender bender is the more mainstream and WP:Notable of the two terms. Genderfuck is more of a neologism, and, per WP:NEO, Wikipedia generally does not like neologisms. Flyer22 (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Gender bender is, perhaps, an older neologism. I don't see the concepts as remotely synonymous,  but that doesn't mean they couldn't share an article. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 02:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC).


 * I doubt that anyone would argue that the Gender bender article should be deleted per WP:NEO; I can definitely see someone arguing WP:NEO for the Genderfuck article, however, which is why I addressed it. I don't understand how you don't see the two "concepts as remotely synonymous," considering the way they are defined, are often mentioned and used as synonyms and are essentially noted as synonyms in the Genderfuck article. I know that the term genderfuck has a stronger connotation of intentionally screwing with people's perceptions of gender, but I don't see where gender bender and genderfuck are truly distinguished, distinguished enough to be considered somewhat distinct or to warrant separate Wikipedia articles. Having both of those articles on Wikipedia is definitely the type of WP:Content fork issue that Wikipedia advises us to avoid, as far as I can see. So I agree to disagree on the not "remotely synonymous" argument. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are right. The usage I was familiar with for "gender bender" in the 1970s in North London was more or less interchangeable with "bender", so I tend to view it as a reclaimed term. Oh and "older neologism" was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.  All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 02:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC).

Some more needed articles...

Houseboy Article
Hi, unsure if I am posting this at the right place (new, shiny and confused Wikipedian here...). I was bothered by this article and how it makes mention of the gay community, based on prejudice and lacking any source. Made mention of it on the Talk page but unsure if it reaches the right person. Could anyone have a look at this (see my edit on the talk page for more detail)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Houseboy KatQ (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride
I invite project members to view the recently-constructed project pages for Wiki Loves Pride and its subpage for this year's campaign, Wiki Loves Pride 2014. Wiki Loves Pride is a global project to expand and improve LGBT-related content across several Wikimedia projects, but mostly Wikipedia.

This year will mark the first attempt at organizing a one-day international edit-a-thon, modeled after the Art+Feminism edit-a-thon. It is being supported by Wikimedia LGBT, a proposed user group that promotes the development of content on Wikimedia projects which is of interest to LGBT communities. Also, I submitted this "idea" at IdeaLab for feedback and to get the ball rolling on possible funding for events. An exact date is still to be determined, but feel free to add your name to this list to receive updates. And of course, please create an event subpage here if you are willing to host an LGBT edit-a-thon in your city.

I hope you will consider supporting and participating in this effort to improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Additional details to follow! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, "Wiki Loves Pride"? Nothing POV about that. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There are many advocacy groups working to improve Wikipedia articles. This is just one more. Is it wrong to have advocacy groups that work to improve articles on Christianity or conservative politics? They do exist. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 17:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess I just misunderstood. This is my first experience with WT. Sorry. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The campaign's goal is to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics, not to disseminate a particular ideology such as support for gay marriage, or similar. This is about promoting LGBT culture and history... articles should follow Wikipedia's guidelines and be written with a neutral point of view, just like any other. I hope project members will consider hosting or attending an event! -- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 15:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_30#Category:Androgyny
You are invited to join the discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_30. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Jodie Foster, again
Is she, or isn't she, and which cats should she be put in? Join the fun at Talk:Jodie Foster.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The saga continues at Talk:Jodie_Foster
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Basic question regarding articles in Category:Drag queens
This is a rather basic question that I'm certain that someone who participates in this group could answer for me: has there been a consensus-supported guideline created in regards to if a subject in a biographical article who is primarily known for performing as a drag queen is referred to in the masculine or feminine sense in an article? I'm asking this since I recently changed all feminine pronouns in Tandi Iman Dupree to masculine after using RuPaul as a reference. But then, I started looking at other pages in Category:Drag queens and noticed that articles in this category are not consistent in using masculine vs. feminine pronouns. Steel1943 (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This whole section can be disregarded. I just read the "Guidelines" section of this project's page, and it makes perfect sense to me now. It has to do with their personal preference, and there is no blanket term for it. My question has been answered, and a revert of my edits on Tandi Iman Dupree will happen here shortly. Steel1943  (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual article exists again after years of being merged
For those interested (and I noticed this three hours ago), an IP unmerged the Homosexual transsexual article, which redirected to an article about Blanchard's transsexualism typology since September 2010‎; that redirect was also made by an IP. The recent IP has added things to both articles, and seems to have identified on the article talk page with a newly registered username --. On the username page, SylviaMariaJuanitez identifies as a transsexual woman. Whatever the case, I'm certain that SylviaMariaJuanitez is not completely new to editing Wikipedia. As some of you likely know, the Blanchard's transsexualism typology/homosexual transsexual topics are highly controversial. Because of that, and because I have enough contentious topics to worry about and don't need further stress, I usually will not be involved with these two articles. I alerted this WikiProject to this recent development instead. Flyer22 (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't this under the auspices of some ArbCom case or other, some time back? - A l is o n  ❤ 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Georgia guy moved the article to Homosexual transsexual (term), with the explanation: "This article is NOT about actual homosexual transsexual people." However, the current state of the article is not only about the term; it's about the concept as well, which is why, per the WP:Refers essay, the first line of the lead should have been altered away from "is a term" and replaced with "is a concept." Also, per the WP:Refers essay, moving the article to "Homosexual transsexual (concept)" or "Homosexual transsexual concept" would not be needed because the concept focus would already be clear from the lead. But again, I'll mostly leave this article to others. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * But do you really think that these people are homosexual?? The answer is no. Transgender women are women. If a trans woman is attracted to a man, she is straight. If a trans woman is attracted to another woman, she is a lesbian. Thus, what the article refers to as "homosexual transsexual" is in fact a straight transsexual. Any problems you have here?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As many at this site know, and as is stated on my user page, I go by WP:Verifiability, other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and some widely used Wikipedia essays. I don't engage in WP:Activism. Flyer22 (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But is "homosexual transsexual" still a widely used term even by people who know that these people are in fact straight?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I see something wrong here with an individual user making changes based on their own opinion. I support reverting Georgia Guy.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How easy is it to understand these words: I have a big concern people will think that the kind of person this article is about actually is homosexual. Georgia guy (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Easy enough to understand that is a bias that should not be influencing your edits. As flyer22 has already stated, we do not edit by our own opinions. We use secondary sources.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do plenty of Wikipedians believe that these people actually are homosexual?? WP:MOS says we normally don't treat transgender people like members of their birth-assigned gender. Look at Gender identity if you want detail. Georgia guy (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue. We don't have to believe something to include it on Wikipedia. It has to be notable, verifiable, and well sourced. I honestly know nothing about this topic, so I'll leave it to others to determine if the pages makes the cut.  But I just want to clarify that BLP issues like WP:IDENTITY would not preclude the creation of such an article. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're arguing that we need (term) in the page title. Don't think it's necessary, but also not sure that page should even exist... EvergreenFir (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * is correct. Friendly reminder that all transgender related topics are subject to discretionary sanctions per ArbCom. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Part of this discussion is weather the term "Homosexual transsexual" exist separately and apart from "Blanchard's transsexualism typology" where it was "merged" (If one looks at that article the term is barely mentioned at all. Given that, as the article now cites, it has been used in studies as a criteria for picking subjects.  Studies which showed that transsexuals do have brains which are more similar to those of their target gender...the one they identify with... the term has relevance beyond what's given on wikipedia.
 * I know many find the term distasteful... but Wikipedia covers other terms.
 * Consider the article, Nigger (Like many hispanic people I am part black so I can raise this argument). It's not called "Nigger term".  As offensive as "Nigger" is to me if I proposed moving that or merging it to say the article on racism that would not fly.  As offensive as "Homosexual Transsexual" is... it is a term of art in use right now by sexologist around the world and in the past long before Blanchard.
 * Last but not least let me point out, the article contains a long long section explaining just why transsexuals who are attracted to men are not in fact homosexual and why that kind of thinking is wrong and offensive. The article on Blanchard's theory does not cover that at all. --SylviaMariaJuanitez (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * centralize discussion for the purposes of maintaining history of this article, I suggest concerned editors visit the talk page at the article in question. If there is a dispute about the title, file a RM. If you continue the debate here, in the future editors looking at the talk page of that article won't know about the discussions here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll make a note at the article talk page about the discussion that is being had here, similar to what I did in the edit history. Once this discussion was over, I was already going to note on the article talk page that the matter had been discussed here. And centralizing the discussion is of course ideal; Talk page guidelines addresses that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have requested the arbitration committee look into this.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving discussion from the Talk page to keep everything in one place, as requested: If this is to be unmerged, against the consensus established several years ago, then it will need a *substantial* rewrite - not simply sticking a section on the end. The article was hugely out of date even when it was merged, and now uses terminology so out of date in mainstream usage that it's simply confusing. I think it would be hard to handle this in a way that's not better handled by expanding Blanchard's transsexualism etiology, but seems reasonable per WP:DEADLINE to let someone have a go at it first. ~ Excesses ~ (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Uhmm if the term is out of date then why id the paper published in a mainstream journal use it repeatedly? That seems to prove your assertion factually incorrect.  Explain what I'm missing there?
 * Also why is the "term" in the title here. I'll repeat that wikipedia discusses term such as racial slurs without "term" near them. I.e. Nigger.  Taking that as an example we could revert the name and put something like this at the top...
 * This article is about the word and its history.--SylviaMariaJuanitez (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is very much, as written, not about the historical use of the term and trying to establish common mainstream usage based on one particular paper (From PLoS ONE to boot) is a rather weak argument. I am not necessarily arguing against inclusion of *an* article and I would judge any rewritten article on it's own merits, but *this* article is not the substantial rewrite that's required. Problems with the language (varying from ambiguous to outright confusing, whilst being unnecessarily offensive by modern standards) and citations are legion, there's even uncritical inclusion of a now-discredited academic - citing the very book that eventually ended his career.
 * For clarity, I have no opinion on the title and I don't believe including (term) or not makes any significant difference. I am happy to leave that discussion to others. ~ Excesses ~  (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to a book called "The Man Who Would Be Queen". The career of it's author wasn't ended. He did resign from being a department head but he's still a psychology professor and still publishes research.
 * As for one paper from PLOS ONE. PLOS ONE is a well respected peer reviewed source.
 * As for the offensiveness of the term again I cite the fact that Wikipedia has for years covered offensive terms. Wikipedia has articles about Nigger and Cunt.  Wikipedia is clearly not censored.
 * Everything in that article is cited cited cited so many different ways. Every other sentence in that article has a citation to a source WP finds acceptable.  If I am not mistaken the editors here aren't supposed to sit in judgment of these things but to simply report what there is.
 * How about this. If you feel it needs rewriting please do so. Too many chefs spoil the soup.  Rewrite it how you like and I'll come back in a couple weeks and tweak it a little.  After reading about all the things that happened here it seemed wrong for all that information to simply be buried. --SylviaMariaJuanitez (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Pictures of Richard Addinsell and Victor Stiebel
Hello. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could add copyright-free pictures of gay couple Richard Addinsell and Victor Stiebel. Also feel free to expand their pages with more references. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you mean freely-licensed? Creative Commons photos are still subject to copyright, but are normally free to use on Wikipedia. (As are public domain photos which are indeed copyright-free.) Funcrunch (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, whatever we can use. I am not an expert on this admittedly--I only add pictures I take and upload on my own wikimedia commons account. So, whatever works. Let me know if you manage to figure it out please! Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Parada Równości
My new DYK may be of interest to members of this project. Feel free to copyedit, expand and discuss. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Conchita Wurst
Could folks have a look at this article; apart from benefitting from extra eyes in the run-up to Eurovision (I should say vandalism is quite likely), the subject's gender description has been changed several times within the last 24 hours or so, and I don't know what the usual recommended approach is. The edit summaries since my last one on 6th May are self-explanatory. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * According to the article lede, Wurst prefers the use of female pronouns. Wikipedia, following the recommendations of most national and international news services, uses the pronouns preferred by the subject. So, she's a she. I will put this on my watch list and try to keep an eye on this, thanks for bringing it up. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 04:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I added some hidden text above the lede, pointing out Wikipedia policy regarding choice of pronouns when said choice is supported by reliable secondary sources. Hopefully, that will help. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 04:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This is, for the record, really quite an odd and ridiculous dispute to me. This differs not a whit from exactly the situation as it would apply to any other drag performer on earth — when they're presenting as themselves you refer to them by their own gender, but when they're presenting as their character you refer to them by the gender of the character. That's not a point of dispute, or even really a BLP compliance issue; it's just how drag works. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What isn't apparent looking at the article now is the fact that in this edit a source was added to the article which was used as the basis for the statement that Neuwirth identified as gender-neutral, thus taking the question of identity away from being simply drag. I checked the source at the time and—unless I'm losing my marbles—it did use the term "gender-neutral". Now, however, the same source doesn't state that - I believe it's been changed, perhaps due to all the attention from Eurovision. But it was its previous wording which started all the dispute. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Diane Marie Rodriguez Zambrano
Just noticed the new article on Diane Marie Rodriguez Zambrano when it was added to the List of transgender-related topics (a page I'm watching). The Zambrano article appears to have multiple problems with gender and grammar that could use some oversight. Funcrunch (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also the author has added the article to a huge number of categories and quite a few pages where it may not be appropriate... Funcrunch (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed changes to "List of LGBT characters" pages
I figured I'd come here and see what everyone thinks before I make the bold change. There are currently a number of pages that list LGBT characters in various media found under Category:Lists of LGBT fictional characters. Most of the pages I've looked at begin with something like ''The following is a list of LGBT characters in foobar organized by orientation. This list includes notable gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered fictional characters that appear in various foobar. Indeed, Category:Lists of LGBT fictional characters itself says Lists of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) fictional characters''.

As a side note, the pages under Category:Lists of LGBT fictional characters could really use some revamping and lots of citation. If any of you are fans of particular shows with LGBT characters, perhaps take a moment to go to the page and add a citation for that character?

However, as many of us probably already know, LGBT is really an umbrella acronym for a variety of other sexual minorities (sometimes elongated with the acronym LGBTQQIAAP). The article LGBT says: "The initialism LGBT is intended to emphasize a diversity of sexuality and gender identity-based cultures and is sometimes used to refer to anyone who is non-heterosexual or non-cisgender instead of exclusively to people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender." Last night, while watching the latest episode of Game of Thrones, I was excited to see Varys confirmed as asexual and thought I should add his name to List of LGBT characters in television and radio only to find that the page was restricted to "notable gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered fictional characters".

As such, I would like to propose we expand the scope of these pages to include any identity/orientation that falls under the "non-heterosexual or non-cisgender" umbrella. This would include queer, asexaul, pansexual, demisexual, genderqueer, etc. What do you all think? Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * List of LGBT characters in video games is not even a list. There a discussion whether it should be moved to LGBT characters in video games or rewritten to actually be a list, (I started a very rough draft at User:JDDJS/List of LGBT characters in video games). As far as the proposed change goes, it will make sense to include asexuals in those articles, but we might want to use a more accurate title to reflect the expansion of the scope, though the best i could come up with would be 'List of non-heterosexual or non-cisgender characters in..." JDDJS (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "List of sexual minorities in ..."? EvergreenFir (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Might it also be good to look at merging the page now at LGBT characters in video games with the page at LGBT themes in video games, which was itself formerly at the title LGBT characters in video games? I performed the move from List of LGBT characters in video games and closed the RM because there was a strong consensus and it was a definite improvement with no obvious downside, but the situation still seems far from ideal IMO. Andrewa (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is in a pretty poor state. I mean, one entry in particular (Isabelle) is entirely speculative. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Cathryn Mataga
Would anyone have any reliable sources to add to this BLP article about a TS woman who worked as a video game programmer for more than 20 years for Broderbund, SSI, and more? BOZ (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This designer has been credited many times under her birth name, William. We have numerous sources which assert this distinction, but one user claims that these do not establish her birth name. Can anyone independently assess the situation and comment on whether or not these sources are reliable enough to establish her birth name? BOZ (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject LGBT Studies At Wikimania 2014
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project? We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply. For more information, click the link below. Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Female bisexuality and Male bisexuality
I am not the best person to write these articles, but I have a suggestion. Would it be a good idea for there to be articles on Female bisexuality and Male bisexuality? I think so. Thanks in advance, if anybody wants to create them. Solar-Wind (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, . That is needless WP:Content forking. The Bisexuality article is there to cover both aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for category
The never-ending Jodie Foster debate has spilled over into a different discussion about the inclusion criteria and lede for. You can read the discussion at Category_talk:LGBT_people if you like, but I propose bringing the discussion here to get more eyes since so few people watch category pages. For now it has just been a discussion between myself and User:Francis_Schonken, so I'm hoping to get more eyes and opinions on this.

There are several points of dispute:
 * 1) Should the inclusion criteria for  be broad - e.g. non-cisgender, non-heterosexual, or should we specify every single identity which is considered to be under the umbrella?
 * 2) Should lists like List of gay, lesbian, or bisexual people and List of transgender people be listed as the "Main" articles for the category at the top of the page, (like Category:American_novelists and many other examples), or as a "see also" since those lists are not going to be all-inclusive of everyone in the category (since they don't include Queer people for example).
 * 3) Should WP:COP be used to exclude people for whom being gay isn't a defining part of their public personality. For example, if there is a writer who has self-identified as gay, but never uses gay themes in his writing, isn't a visible part of the gay community, doesn't advocate for gay rights, and basically besides a single self-identification, keeps his sexuality to himself, should he still be added to ? There are multiple views on this it seems, but in practice as far as I can tell, EVERYONE who has self-identified is added to these categories. Another instance, more complex, would be a gay writer who is also a politician; let's suppose that in his fiction writing he covers gay themes extensively, but in his political life has left sexuality completely out of the picture. Would we then put him in  but NOT in ?

So we have a starting point of discussion, here is my proposed version of the lede and inclusion criteria:

LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender/Transsexual. The initialism LGBT is intended to emphasize a diversity of sexuality and gender identity-based cultures and is used here to refer to anyone who is non-heterosexual or non-cisgender instead of exclusively to people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.

This category groups articles on people who have publically identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or transsexual, queer, pansexual, or who otherwise identify as being under the umbrella of LGBT. Those who are no longer living can be added to the category if there is a consensus of scholars in reliable sources that the person was LGBT.

Here is Francis' latest version: LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender/Transsexual. Queer, pansexual and Radical Faeries are included in the LGBT concept.

This category groups articles on people,
 * who have come out to the general public as homosexual, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, Queer, pansexual or Radical Faerie, or, for historical figures, who are recognised thus by consensus of scholars in reliable sources,
 * and for whom, apart from the previous, LGBT is or was a significant part of their public life and notability.

The content of each biography contained in this category should clarify how being LGBT is a significant part of the public life and notability of its subject, according to reliable published sources.

See also:
 * List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people
 * List of bisexual people
 * List of transgender people
 * List of pansexual people

The main differences are:
 * 1) Use of Catmain instead of listing the lists as "see also", which IMHO is different than every other category I've seen, where the list (or lists), if they exist, are listed as the 'main'
 * 2) Francis' version enumerates several identities that are currently subcategories. However several others are missing, some of which are currently sub-categories, and some of which should arguably be subcategories, such as Category:Hijra_people, Category:Fa'afafine, Category:Kathoey_people, Category:Two-Spirit people, Category:Genderqueer_people, and a great deal many other identities some of which we may not have specific subcategories for as yet (see  for a picture of some of them which are considered under the "transgender" umbrella). I'm not sure if it is profitable to attempt to enumerate ALL such identities in the lede that are considered under the umbrella. An alternative may be to list ones which we consider to NOT be under the umbrella by consensus - I believe  and  are two examples that aren't normally considered under LGBT here.
 * 3) Use of WP:COP and WP:BLPCAT to suggest that if LGBT identity isn't an important part of their notability, they should not be placed in these categories. There is conflicting guidance and conflicting practice: WP:EGRS states: "Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question (see WP:BLPCAT)." while WP:BLPCAT states that "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." However, actual practice seems to disregard the second portion, and people are "gay-tagged" even if being gay isn't that relevant to their public life or notability. This is especially true for people who weren't openly gay during their lives, and are then determined to be gay by scholars. Anyway, thoughts welcome below. I do fear that having some vague standard of "sexual orientation relevant to their public life" is a recipe for edit wars, and it may be simpler to just say "As long as the person has self-identified, they can be added to all relevant LGBT+(whatever) categories."--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality under discussion
I placed a discussion tag Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, as the opening sentence of that section (" is apparently used as an excuse to circumvent WP:BLPCAT, see argumentation #3 above.

Apparently the wording of the WP:EGRS guideline is no longer in line with the WP:BLP policy. I suggest it would be better that the wording of the guideline reflects the policy requirements. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the main thing that is needed is clarification on what the BLPCAT is trying to say. How do we decide whether being gay or bi is relevant to person X's public life? Do they have to talk about it a lot? Lots of articles that talk about it? Whats the threshhold?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, Francis, your proposed edit above reads " LGBT is or was a significant part of their public life and notability.", whereas BLPCAT isn't that strong - it doesn't require that it be SIGNIFICANT in the way you are proposing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Related topic: make Category:LGBT people non-diffusing?
Currently discussed at Category talk:LGBT people --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Kelly Mantle
The article on Kelly Mantle has been nomianted for deletion. Please contribute to the deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Kelly Mantle. Angr (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)