Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 50

Help with Simple English Wikipedia
Could some people help expand the following articles on the Simple English Wikipedia? You don't have to get it perfect, just expand it to the point where it is no longer a stub.


 * Bean_queen
 * Chub
 * Closeted
 * Faggot_(slang)
 * Gay_bashing
 * Gay_icon
 * Still looking for some help. Not much; five or ten minutes should be enough to get these to no longer be stubs. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with an editor on some sort of campaign
I've come across an editor, Parem, who clearly has issues with LGBT rights and is going through articles dealing with LGBT issues and replacing what he sees as "liberal" biases with what he thinks is neutral wording. Here's a taste of what he does. He seems to take issue with the word "pride" and is systematically changing the use of that word. I don't have time to deal with all his edits at the moment but other editors will need to step in.  freshacconci  talk to me  07:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * These edits were made in several articles like LGBT rights in Sweden, LGBT rights in Switzerland, LGBT rights in Portugal‎, LGBT rights in Greece, LGBT rights in Ukraine‎, LGBT rights in Bulgaria‎, or LGBT rights in Turkey. See also Dispute resolution noticeboard. Ron 1987 (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That user's name is Plarem and I had no idea this had become a wide spread issue. They are a bit of an aggressive editor and just got a talking to for calling an editor a dumbass in an edit summary over this very issue. I will ask for an admin to take a closer look. Thanks for the heads up here.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Misgendering in anime article
Fixed a misgendering of a character in an anime article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steins;Gate&diff=623114026&oldid=621767548 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glassemma (talk • contribs) 01:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:World Congress of Families#Neutrality
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:World Congress of Families. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of LGBT slang terms
I saw the List of LGBT slang terms article up for deletion yesterday. Speaking of terms that relate to LGBT, editors of this WikiProject might want to have a look at edits that made to the Anti-LGBT rhetoric article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 31
Following discussions on Talk:Gender identity disorder on September 2013 and July-August 2014, I have proposed creating a disambiguation page at Gender dysphoria to distinguish between the subjective experience of bodily incongruence and the DSM-5 medical diagnosis also known as "gender identity disorder" (c.f. the distinction between our articles on Depression (mood) and Major depressive disorder). You are invited to join the discussion here. --April Arcus (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Gopi Shankar on Genderqueer page
Could use some input on this issue, where IP editors are continually adding references for a single person and erasing discussion about it on the talk page. Thanks. Funcrunch (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Shequida
Is Shequida notable or not? Bearian (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC) I think he is. 71.175.26.106 (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This may be of interest to the project
Articles for deletion/Thefederalist.com I also have to wonder if we should be adding this to the project scope if it remains.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you like to help with the first LGBT+ editathon in the UK?
Re: WikiProject LGBT studies/Editathons/Bishopsgate Library, London

Hi,

If you are handy for London, you may be interested in helping on Saturday 18th October with the first UK editathon on LGBT+ topics. Please do add your name early if you can make it. If you have some thoughts on how to make the event a success, I would be happy to discuss them here.

Should you be unable to make it, you may want to help by suggesting some of the top topics on Wikipedia that might benefit from attention on the day and you might be able to help out on-line with editors that run into early problems. Please do add to the suggested topics section on the above editathon registration page.

Please feel free to email me if you prefer to follow up by email.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Marriage equality and Marriage equality (disambiguation)
Input from this wikiproject would be appreciated at Talk:Marriage equality (disambiguation) and Talk:Marriage equality.--Trystan (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For centralizing the discussion I have continued on Talk:Marriage equality (disambiguation).--Mark Miller (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Chevalier_d'Eon regarding pronoun usage
Alerting project to an RfC regarding pronoun usage for an 18th century French transwoman who lived a large portion of their life as a man. Somewhat complicated case, so input would be appreciated.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

LGBT culture by city articles
Hi! I'm announcing that I've started several LGBT culture by city articles, for those both inside and outside the United States.

If you are interested in starting or expanding articles, I have a few ideas:
 * Asia: Bangkok, Beijing, Delhi, Mumbai, Osaka (if you can find enough on it!), Seoul
 * Latin America: Mexico City and São Paulo
 * Middle East: Tel Aviv
 * North America: Atlanta, Miami (info on the LGBT community in Fort Lauderdale should be in this article!), Montreal, Seattle, Toronto, Vancouver, Washington DC
 * Europe: Amsterdam, Berlin, Brussels, Madrid, Milan, Moscow, Rome (and maybe some other cities if you can get info?)
 * Oceania: Auckland, Melbourne, Sydney (maybe Perth?)

It may be interesting to eventually make city-wide articles on places were persons who identify as LGBT are closeted due to unfavorable laws. But I do not know how much information you can collect on these cities WhisperToMe (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary table format
I have reverted a number of changes by new user Lagosia to the summary table format in LGBT rights by country articles which replaced ticks and crosses with disambiguation links to Yes and No. The edit summary provided on most of the articles was ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Sudan&diff=prev&oldid=627231724 A "red" X sign is judgmental, bias and opinionated. The article should be neutral and factual.]'' This type of mass edit should first be discussed in a central location such as here. Helen Online  07:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason we shouldn't use black symbols instead of red and green ones? Helen  Online  07:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We need to use symbols that are not judgmental and likely to move people psychologically to tow a line of thinking. Just being black is not enough. A tick represents right and a cross represents wrong even if they are not coded green and red respectively. I think it is essential to have a neutral and non-judgemental symbol. And a simple "Yes" and "No" does this adequately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagosia (talk • contribs) 20:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Just my two cents: I consider these summary tables an abomination. The infobox, which uses text, should suffice. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK I have reverted my reverts., please do not add wikilinks (coded as ) to the words "Yes" and "No" in articles as they do not have Wikipedia articles per se.  Helen  Online  07:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Creation of new article: "Homelessness among LGBT Youth in the United States"
Hello! My name is Magen, and as an educational project for an upper-level course at Rice University, I am planning to create a new article titled "Homelessness among LGBT Youth in the United States." I also plan to provide a very brief summary of this topic on the "Homelessness in the United States" page that links to this new article. The new article will draw upon scholarly research (e.g. The American Journal of Public Health, University of Brighton, The Journal of Law in Society, Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, etc.) as well as task force project papers (e.g. from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the California Homeless Youth Project) to thoroughly detail the overrepresentation of LGBT individuals among homeless youth in the United States, proposed explanations for this imbalance, nonprofits, activists and federal policies/projects related this issue, as well as the plethora of research on how certain factors like substance abuse, access to shelters, violence, etc. affect homeless LGBT youth differently than their heterosexual counterparts. I believe it is very important to create this page as soon as possible because although it is a highly prevalent issue affecting LGBT individuals, I currently cannot find any information on Wikipedia related to this topic. Especially since this is my first contribution to Wikipedia, I would welcome any advice, ideas, expertise or suggestions. Thank you so much! I look forward to working on this project. Magenstat (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a topic I know much about, but I think you're on solid ground here in that it's definitely a discrete topic that reliable sources have covered. You probably know this already, but make sure that you don't draw any of your own conclusions - only report the conclusions made in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to look into the fact that a number of homeless LGBT youth were kicked out of there homes because they are gay. This isn't me just speculating. it is a rather large percentage of the reasons from my own experience working for a LGBT community center. At any rate....reference your claims, of course, with reliable sources! I would be interested in collaborating in some small part.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

New Article: Intimate Partner Violence and LGBT
I plan to create an article entitled “LGBT Intimate Partner Violence”, as well as revise articles on “Domestic Violence”, “Sexual Violence”. The articles on domestic and sexual violence are overwhelming geared toward heterosexual relationships and sexual encounters. Even the article on male sexual violence looks at male-male sexual violence as an occurrence of prison rape, or child sexual abuse. This article ignores the significance of sexual abuse within homosexual male partnerships. This is a misrepresentation of the LBGT struggle, which includes violence perpetrated by individuals from within and outside of the community. My new article entitled “LGBT Intimate Partner Violence” will include sections on definition, prevalence, forms of IPV, perpetrator’s motivations, social implications, and counseling for victims. There will be many links to other articles within the new entry. Some of those links will be to the pages I wish to update, as well as “mental health”, “sexual abuse”, “HIV”, “hegemonic masculinity”, "LGBT" and “gender roles”. These topics all come up in references and research on same-sex intimate partner violence and are essential to understanding the complexity of IPV and the LGBT community.

I feel this new article should be added to the LGBT studies project, because it adds dimensions. This article would allow readers to better understand LGBT relationships as analogous to heterosexual relationships. I would hope to bring awareness to the issue of intimate partner violence in the LGBT community, creating a movement similar to that of domestic violence in heterosexual relationships. The social stigma of sexual orientation should not force the victims into silence and hiding.

Ratilley (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ratilley, for alerting this WP:WikiProject to this matter. For others, the section that Ratilley started at the Domestic violence article talk page about these topics is at Talk:Domestic violence. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. I commented there about it, including regarding the limited and conflicting research on LGBT domestic violence, what are the best sources to use for domestic violence information, and when it is best to create a WP:Spinout article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Should the Project have articles critical of the LGBT community under its scope?
I made a bold edit and added Thefederalist.com to the project scope. I believe that articles critical of the LGBT community do fall within this projects scope but it did confuse one editor and I felt inclined to ask what others felt about this and other articles with similar content. Thoughts?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. See National Organization for Marriage and Family Research Council. People too: Elaine Donnelly (writer). Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears the admin that closed that AFD has actually admitted that they only checked the sources after I added the LGBT template to the page. I am shocked and dismayed at this behavior. I really admirer and respect this editor/admin but may this needs a formal review now.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. The project isn't for pro-LGBT, it's for relevance to LGBT topics. Groups influential in opposing LGBT rights definitely belong. (That said, it's unclear to me how Thefederalist is relevant to the project; the article doesn't mention LGBT issues at all.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes...the article does not yet do so...but see the sources and then respond further if you feel so inclined. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of Feminist stripper
Ongoing deletion discussion for article Feminist stripper, comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Feminist stripper. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Categorization
I have not found a category that i fit in and would like help. For a long time i have felt that i am both male and female (but have female genitalia and have no wish to change or add anything to it) however i am much more attracted to males (whether they are born male or if they are transgender) than females. If their is a place where i fit i want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.168.167 (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you feel you are both male and female you could call yourself genderqueer, GQ, or non-binary, which are catch-all categories for gender identities other than man and woman (gender identities do not have to mean changing your genitalia, just about how you feel). If you are also more attracted to males you could also call yourself androphilic or androsexual, which means sexually attracted to males, men, and/or masculinity. Hope this helps! Maranjosie (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Syria
Some user edited the LGBT rights in Syria article in a misleading way, claims that homosexuality was decriminalized and same-sex marriage legalized. His/Her edits were reverted several times... Ron 1987 (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Changes at Murder of Larry King
This series of edits back in July changed the description of the subject from gay to transgender. I have no opinion on whether King was trans, but I do not believe adequate sources were provided for this change (and the sourcing for his being gay is more than adequate). I only noticed these edits today when someone made additional changes to all the pronouns. There were two constructive edits in the interim, so I'm reluctant to just revert, and I'd like more eyes on it anyway. Apparently I'm the only one watching the article anymore, and obviously I'm not really watching it. After much contention in the past, the article is in rather good shape otherwise and has been stable for ages. Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've commented at Talk:Murder of Larry King. Not easy. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Improving User:Zigzig20s/My Policeman
Hello. I have created User:Zigzig20s/My Policeman, a gay novel, and I was wondering if you thought it could be moved to a proper article as a stub, and/or how it could be expanded/improved. I could add a section with a listof characters. I could also flesh out the plot summary a little bit. There have been other reviews in The Times and other publications, but I don't have access to them. Are any of you able to find them? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about LGBT politicians
When Chris Pappas was first elected to the New Hampshire Executive Council in 2012, several media outlets credited him as the first openly LGBT person elected to that body. However, on at least two occasions since his Wikipedia article was created, editors (one signed-in, one anonymous IP) have removed that assertion from his article, both times claiming in their edit summary that he was preceded by Raymond S. Burton.

However, Burton's article mentions and sources exactly nothing about him having been gay, and a Google search offers up exactly zero sources which support the assertion either.

Frankly, I suspect that in reality Burton wasn't gay and the editor(s) is/are confusing him with Raymond Buckley, but I wanted to ask if anybody else could help sort this out one way or the other. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Award
It would be nice to have a WikiProject LGBT studies Award to reward those who advance the goals of WikiProject LGBT studies. Here is one I made:

What do you think? Maranjosie (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I always rather liked the one I made, but the more the merrier... —Tom Morris (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Since there are no objections, I will put it up. Maranjosie (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.26.106 (talk)

Amazing multilingual AIDS advertisements
Wellcome Trust is a UK-based charity which promotes health research. In February 2014 they were kind to host an editathon and over the past 1-2 years has been working with them on their Wellcome Images project, which is an effort to make some health-related media archives more available. Wellcome wanted the media they collected to be available under Wikimedia-compatible licenses. There were some questions about that and I trust Fae when he tells me that Wellcome was more diligent than most in sorting their rights to share these images, and that their images are appropriate for sharing on Wikimedia Commons.

Wellcome shared about 300 GB of health images. Sharing this much content was complicated. Most of these files are of no particular interest to this WikiProject, but the collection in Commons:Category:AIDS posters is amazing as an international multiyear record of the history of LGBT advertising and media in health. Many of these posters have never been publicly available otherwise, so this is a unique opportunity to add images to Wikipedia articles on a popular health topic in many languages.

This collection of AIDS posters is probably going to be featured in a post on the WMF blog. Could someone please give a comment about their impression of the collection and how it could be used, so that WikiProject LGBT studies members can be quoted in accounts of this donation? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  11:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Again on the "anti-gay" term at WinShape Foundation
There are a couple of new editors who wish to change "anti gay" to "conservative", and "anti gay groups" to "groups criticized by LGBT organisations" at  WinShape Foundation (the Chick-fil-A-aligned charity that has donated to Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Family Research Council, and Exodus International). Interested editors are invited to join the discussion here talk:WinShape Foundation.- MrX 13:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Facebook real-name policy controversy
I started this article since I moderate a large Facebook group and it has affected many of its members: Facebook real-name policy controversy. Feel more than free to make the appropriate edits. Thanks!--DrWho42 (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

LGBT critics categorization?
Why can't I find Fred Phelps in any anti-gay related category, I'd suppose something like Category:People who reject homosexuality, Category:Critics of homosexuality, Category:Anti-gay people or Category:LGBT critics? Maybe there's some prior history of anti-gay like people categories being deleted or so? Or I'm not looking in the right place, and Phelps was just overlooked when filling such category? Can somebody enlighten me? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When he died Wikinews reports: Kansas anti-gay church leader Fred Phelps dies at 84 (emphasis added), anti-gay is pretty much defining I suppose.
 * Phelps' biography is in following categories: 1929 births / 2014 deaths / African-Americans' civil rights activists /American civil rights lawyers / Baptists from the United States / Christian fundamentalists / Critics of Catholicism / Critics of Islam / American critics of Judaism / Disbarred lawyers / Disease-related deaths in Kansas / Eagle Scouts / Kansas Democrats / Kansas lawyers / People excommunicated by Baptist churches / People from Meridian, Mississippi / People from Topeka, Kansas / Westboro Baptist Church / People banned from entering the United Kingdom. At least the "Kansas lawyers" category seems against the recommendations of WP:COP#N (and redundant wiht the "Disbarred lawyers" category which seems justified). Anti-gay activity appears much more characterising imho.
 * You're looking for which was deleted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tx. OK, had a look at the last Cfd discussion, I'd not try to rescue either. Bad name to say the least. Which of these would appear better:
 * Category:People who reject homosexuality
 * Category:Critics of homosexuality
 * Category:Anti-gay people
 * Category:LGBT critics
 * Category:People who oppose homosexuality
 * Or other ideas that would make this something stable, as far away from pejorativity (like homophobes) as possible? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We do have Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights; maybe individuals could fit in with that? Funcrunch (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Phelps would fit into any of this. We do have things like, which is not the same thing as anti-semites for example, so if there were serious scholars or cultural critics who critiqued LGBT or the LGBT movement then such a category could potentially exist, but Phelps wouldn't fit in it, he was just a hate spewer - but for now we don't use the category system to categorize such extreme ideologies because of the potential for misuse for more tempered biographies.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Phelps would fit in Category:Anti-gay people, reminder: Wikinews Kansas anti-gay church leader Fred Phelps dies at 84. It wouldn't deform any of what he was vocal about. Phelps was an American civil rights lawyer (according to the categories), so level of critique = serious (this is not about the appreciation of whether he made sense or not). Again, I'd avoid any pejorativity.
 * Re. "but for now we don't use the category system to categorize such extreme ideologies because of the potential for misuse for more tempered biographies" - now that's sillyness, unknowingly I'm sure, no offense intended. "Assasin" and whatnot is quite more extreme than an ideology that limited itself to words, and we can have a category on them. We don't get rid of the Assassins category because it might be misused on more tempered criminals (like murderers, which is a different category and is apparently no big trouble to keep separate). Wikipedia can handle that. Apparently loosing touch with WP:COP caused more trouble than I imagined yet. Endless LGBT categorizations. Heterosexuals, never categorized as such, and I'm more than OK with that. People acting against LGBT people, in the open, publicly taking that stance to the point of becoming one of their most defining characteristics, can't be categorized for some lukewarm reason, while, on the other hand the principles of how to handle such sensitive categories in the Wikipedia system have been written down 10 years ago. "Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (...) an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the person's notability."
 * Re. "but for now we don't use the category system to categorize such extreme ideologies because of the potential for misuse for more tempered biographies" - now that's sillyness, unknowingly I'm sure, no offense intended. "Assasin" and whatnot is quite more extreme than an ideology that limited itself to words, and we can have a category on them. We don't get rid of the Assassins category because it might be misused on more tempered criminals (like murderers, which is a different category and is apparently no big trouble to keep separate). Wikipedia can handle that. Apparently loosing touch with WP:COP caused more trouble than I imagined yet. Endless LGBT categorizations. Heterosexuals, never categorized as such, and I'm more than OK with that. People acting against LGBT people, in the open, publicly taking that stance to the point of becoming one of their most defining characteristics, can't be categorized for some lukewarm reason, while, on the other hand the principles of how to handle such sensitive categories in the Wikipedia system have been written down 10 years ago. "Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (...) an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the person's notability."


 * applies to people who have as most notable points "Kansas" "anti-gay" and "church leader" as much as to anyone who has sensitive and non-sensitive categories attached to his or her biographical article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus has been against creation of such categories. Anti-gay is equivalent to "Homophobic" more or less. See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9. It's not silliness Francis, this is long-standing consensus. If you can find sources which call him a critic of gay rights or something like that, perhaps a category of could be created, but not .--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tx for Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9 - outcome of that discussion seems logical to me.
 * was my least favorite one in the list above, most pejorativity / least neutrality.
 * , no that's not what this is about.
 * Category:Critics of homosexuality would probably do best, along a myriad of other categories like Category:Critics of alternative medicine, Category:Critics of atheism, Category:Critics of feminism to name only a very few. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I forsee a mess on our hands, so I think we should think carefully about this. Critics of homosexuality has a v. different meaning than critics of LGBT rights. Critics of LGBT rights may say "I do not judge them, I have nothing against them, I just don't think they should be able to get married", whereas a critic of homosexuality is someone who says "Being gay is unnatural, we should forcibly convert them", etc. Better to go with a tighter category rather than the broader which would again cause problems with tons of politicians being "gay-critic" tagged.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We need to differentiate. Above I wrote ", no that's not what this is about," I should have added in Phelps' case. For (most of?) the ones now removed from Category:Discrimination against LGBT people the other one would be more appropriate I suppose. Most importantly categorizations on such sensitive topics need to be correct, there's no software impediment to create more than one category: an applied category should cover the topic with an acceptable degree of accuracy. See also WP:COP, second bullet "If still needed, (...) create a more appropriate category, for re-categorizing this single article." --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

We normally categorize people in situations like this based on what they do, and usually in an active vs passive sense - and not on what they believe - thus we have white nationalists and neo-nazis instead of racists and anti-Semites. In this case I think there may be a way out - this certainly describes Phelps and is how he is described in reliable sources, but this would filter out politicians who simply voted against gay marriage for example, and also couldn't be used to tag people who have simply expressed anti-gay sentiment. Instead we focus on those who have taken direct action - who could be called - and are called by reliable sources - anti-gay activists: can you think of 5 other names that fit? If so that may be enough for a category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Doing a web search for "anti-gay activist" I came up with a list from the Southern Poverty Law Center which I tried to parse (very hard to stomach) for commonalities that might translate into a non-loaded term we could use. As the very nature of this proposed category is controversial I think it's going to be nearly impossible to come up with something that won't raise NPOV complaints. It seems clear that anti-gay activists almost universally have a religious agenda, usually from the Christian Bible. They speak of "traditional values" but obviously using that as a category is misleading. I wish I knew what to suggest. Funcrunch (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (e.c.) Yeah (@Funcrunch), Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights is about the rights (like marriage and so). Would be too narrow for someone like Phelps who opposes the whole idea of being gay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Category:Discrimination against LGBT people has mixed people/non-people entries, against Keep people categories separate. I don't think that's a very good situation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, that should be purged of people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is, people differ significantly in how they reject homosexuality. I'm not sure a category is necessary, because it would be too broad.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. That's why one of my proposals was - this is a more narrow category, into which Phelps wouldn't fit, but for which one could likely find some notable people who have written or critiqued extensively extensions of certain rights and privileges to gay people.  is at the other end of the spectrum, and too broad and too liable to abuse.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "I'm not sure a category is necessary, because it would be too broad.": ??? Wikipedia has broader categories (e.g. Category:People, Category:Critics of religions) and narrower (e.g. Category:Rosicrucians, Category:Critics of Objectivism). Don't think broadness is an argument. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Two categories

 * Fred Phelps
 * Scott Lively
 * Donald E. Wildmon
 * Tim Wildmon
 * Bryan Fischer
 * Peter LaBarbera
 * (see more in list from the Southern Poverty Law Center — of course needs to be checked against their current Wikipedia biographical articles, just an outline here)
 * (see more in list from the Southern Poverty Law Center — of course needs to be checked against their current Wikipedia biographical articles, just an outline here)
 * (see more in list from the Southern Poverty Law Center — of course needs to be checked against their current Wikipedia biographical articles, just an outline here)


 * Category:Critics of LGBT equal rights
 * Anita Bryant
 * (and more recently purged from Category:Discrimination against LGBT people)
 * (and more recently purged from Category:Discrimination against LGBT people)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the "critics" categories are in large part a way of avoiding labeling hateful people with hateful labels in instances where some Wikipedia users share their opinions. (Not referring to anyone in this discussion, this is a general observation of WP's preference for this term.) Someone like, I don't know, Maggie Gallagher isn't really any more a "critic" of homosexuality than Fred Phelps. Homosexuality isn't a belief system, there isn't really matter there to criticize in the sense in which we usually talk about critics. It's unfortunate that Phelps isn't categorized according to the thing he's far and away the best known for, but creating a weaselly "critics" category isn't the way to go. Instead, consider trying to change the system by which people who virulently oppose the rights of others are gently labeled as "critics." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tx, maybe I wasn't clear: I propose to create both categories mentioned above (with Phelps expressly in the first). Maggie Gallagher could be in Category:Critics of LGBT equal rights (judging from Maggie Gallagher): rational criticisms, written down in writing, explaining why etc. and axed on a "rights" retoric. Whether she should be in too: judging from the present content of Maggie Gallagher I'd play on the safe side (not judging people on what they don't want to be part of their public image), and leave her out of that category. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. Critics categories and belief systems: most "critics of ..." categories are not about belief systems (see subcategories of Category:Critics) — or is Wikipedia a belief system (Category:Critics of Wikipedia)? We do have "Critics of ... rights" categories that are not about rights related to belief systems (Category:Critics of animal rights). So no, I don't see an argument there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Category:Critics and Category:LGBT
 * Category:Critics of LGBT topics
 * (other parent cats: Category:Activists, Category:Discrimination against LGBT people)
 * Biographical articles included: e.g. Fred Phelps, Scott Lively, Donald E. Wildmon, Tim Wildmon, Bryan Fischer, Peter LaBarbera,... (see more in list from the Southern Poverty Law Center — of course needs to be checked against their current Wikipedia biographical articles, just an outline here)
 * Category:Critics of LGBT equal rights (other parent cat: Category:LGBT rights)
 * Biographical articles included: e.g. Anita Bryant, Maggie Gallagher,... (and more recently purged from Category:Discrimination against LGBT people)

Would that work as a categorization scheme? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Would like to go through with this, and would appreciate any more comments? --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @, it's not possible to go through with this if WP:COP wouldn't automatically apply to these newly proposed cats per WP:SNOW. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think anti-gay activists could work, it avoids the problems that homophobes had for example. I'm not yet sure on critics of lgbt equal rights, let's wait on that till we get more input. I don't understand what your point is on COP#N however.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Celebrities might take a stance on gay marriage. Without WP:COP#N active on these categories just about anyone with a few soundbites on the topic could be categorized in such "critics" cat.
 * I think it is important to start the Category:Critics of LGBT equal rights at the same moment. Otherwise there would be no other option than to label any activist having a strong viewpoint on some topic relating to LGBT rights (and not completely approving) as "Anti-gay". Which would be trouble all over the place (especially for the BLP ones). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Francis, wikipedia wasn't built in a day, and we've somehow survived all these years without such categories, as they are delicate. I'd suggest start with the anti-gay one, and put some clear inclusion criteria. WP:COP, before your recent unilateral/no consensus change, applied just to occupations, which "activist" is by default, as is "critic". Someone can be a film critic, or a critic of theater, or a critic of Judaism, and this can be seen as an occupation, in that they derive some income from it or they are known for this as an activity - that is quite different from classifying someone according to their belief, which we usually don't do.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going WP:SNOW on this. Foundations need to be strong, superstrong before attempting a new go at this contentious matter involving very, very sensitive categories.
 * (clarify:) when an "interpretation" is needed for occupation w.r.t. these categories the foundations aren't strong enough in my view.
 * Yes there is time. Just saying: I'm not missing the courage to go forth with this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe attempt a category definition for the proposed Category:Critics of LGBT topics (keeping an eye on WP:COP): "This category is for people who criticised LGBT topics:
 * criticism about ideas, practices, etc. — not merely criticism directed at one or more (LGBT) people;
 * outspoken criticism, explaining the grounds of the criticism, outdoing a context of parody or loose remarks;
 * acknowledged as such criticism by the critic, more than merely something the LGBT community might take issue with."

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For the two suggested subcategories the category definitions can include:
 * "... with activism against the whole idea of what LGBT entails ..."
 * Category:Critics of LGBT equal rights: "... not rejecting all LGBT issues per se, but rejecting equal treatment of LGBT people in legal provisions like marriage ..."
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Last call
OK, I think I'm going to get this started in a few days. Any remaining objections before rolling this out? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be late to contribute here. I respect your effort but I think this is poorly phrased and doesn't serve the reader. The phrase "Critics of LGBT topics" is strange. Specifically the word "topics". What's meant is something like "interests" or just "stuff". These subcats don't provide us with recognizable topics. If I start with the 2 subcategories, we're looking for a heading that covers both rights and identity/existence. The two are very different, which is why it's hard to come up with a single term. And "topics" doesn't work. Is there a parallel on WP?
 * And your 2 subcats are, in essence, anti-gay activists and anti-gay rights activists. But most readers read the first term to mean the second. Few imagine that people oppose the concept of gayness, like "gay deniers". Critics of gay identity?
 * I have no objection to your proceeding as you think best, but I doubt this scheme will have a long life. Maybe your work will provoke a better discussion with a broader range of voices. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with "Critics of LGBT rights" if we can't get an "activists" category off the ground, but I think having two would be redundant. (For instance, you identified Anita Bryant as a "critic", but although activism was not her primary profession she may be best remembered for it.) Nor do I see that there's a substantial body of people who oppose or criticize "LGBT" and do not also oppose anti-discrimination, marriage, etc. Can you give some more examples of how you would divide people up?
 * As Bmclaughlin pointed out, "topics" is a strange word choice in this context - while it might be in line with the "topics" language elsewhere in the tree, it just doesn't make sense here. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "topics": well, there is a whole host of "LGBT topics" categories:
 * Category:LGBT topics and Islam
 * Category:LGBT topics and Judaism
 * Category:LGBT topics and Hinduism
 * Category:Ageing and LGBT topics
 * Category:Historians of LGBT topics
 * Category:LGBT topics and Christianity
 * Category:LGBT topics and Buddhism
 * Category:Documentary films about LGBT topics
 * Category:LGBT topics in the African diaspora
 * Category:Multiculturalism and LGBT topics
 * Category:Immigration and LGBT topics
 * There is one for which a renaming discussion (directed at removing "topics") is ongoing: Category:LGBT topics and religion. Let's see which way that one goes and whether a better solution is offered, but until then I don't see "LGBT topics" included in a category name as something exceptional.
 * I'd rather avoid something like Category:Radio critics: critics with a radio show? people who criticise radio? (the latter in fact, reading the category definition but I suppose that could be made clearer in the category name). "Category:Critics of [a bunch of adjectives]" would be out of the question for me too. LGBT is either a bunch of adjectives, or, otherwise, only referring to people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (or another qualification under the LGBT umbrella). "topics" would be needed to avoid the impression the category is only about critics of people (belonging to a certain group). For comparison: we have Category:critics of feminism, not Category:critics of females, and even less Category:Critics of Female --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Update, no better suggestions are offered in the Category:LGBT topics and religion renaming proposal, and in the end I opposed the removal of "topics" from that category name, for reasons given in that CfD discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Could I ask that some wider commentary be sought, for example from WikiProject Conservatism, WikiProject Religion, and so on? While they obviously have nothing much to do with Phelps and similar individuals, they may have ideas on how different styles of categorisations might be perceived by those who are about to receive them - there are some WP:BLP considerations here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done for the two suggested projects  Feel free to add similar messages to other relevant pages that might attract more input. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. BLP considerations: yes and no, taken to the letter "critics" of the categories listed in WP:BLPCAT fall outside that policy (...self-identify with the ... orientation in question...). For the same reason atheists fall out of its remit. WP:COP, somewhat repairing that, applies though. I also agree critics of LGBT topics categorizations falling under WP:BLP, including (in a broader sense) WP:BLPCAT. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

New category: United States same-sex union case law
I've created a new category, Category:United States same-sex union case law, to filter out the US cases from Category:Same-sex union case law and the marriage/civil union/domestic partnership cases from Category:United States LGBT rights case law. I've edited a lot, but may have missed some, especially as some of the ones related to domestic partnerships weren't in Category:Same-sex union case law. Feel free to move anything I've missed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Speech therapy and Voice therapy
There is a disambiguation page at Voice therapy leading to 1. Voice therapy (transgender) and 2. Speech therapy which in turn redirects to Speech-language pathology. I am an editor primarily editing medical articles and felt that even though voice therapy may be contexual in transgenders, it is basically identical to speech therapy is done by speech-language pathologists. Except for the application, it is also practically the same as voice training as is the role of vocal coach for singing. I think these should be merged into Voice therapy. Need inputs and cooperation.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 16:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have also opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine  D ip ta ns hu Talk 16:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

New Article: Queerness and Rurality
Queerness and rurality is such a broad category that we decided to break it up into five individual sections, each examining different aspects of the topic. The topics that we will discuss include: queer Anti-urbanism, differences between urban and rural queer lives, queer farmers, rural queer activism, and The Kansas City Trilogy. The objective of our compilation is to add to public knowledge about queer people who live in and interact with rural environments.

Since there are few articles pertaining to queerness and rurality on Wikipedia, we plan to create a new article for the articles that we create. We will then post categories in which each of our separate topics will be covered in more detail under that umbrella article.

We will start our article with the concept of Queer Anti-Urbanism. The goal is to create a piece that sufficiently relates that queer people exist in rural space, in many ways. The article will connect queer separatism, queer ecology, queer ruralism, queer intentional communities in rural spaces, and rural queer utopias, all under an umbrella of queer anti-urbanism. This is to make visible the experiences of those who oppose the queer rural-urban migration, the narratives that surround it, and invisibility which comes with being a queer person in a rural place.

Out of the Closets, Into the Woods: RFT, Country Women, and the Post-Stonewall Emergence of Queer Anti-Urbanism uses the history of Rural Faerie Digest, the first publication catered to rural gay men, and Country Women, the first publication for rural lesbians and predecessor of RFD, to articulate that the predominant narrative of queer rural-urban migration is not wholly true. Many queer people have existed in rural spaces and have not suffered there, but thrived. The narratives analyzed in RFD and Country Women show clearly that a significant body of queer people have lived in rural space and did not long to move to the city, but celebrated their rural lives. This articulates the conscious pushback of many queer people to the gay urban “ghettoization” that has been put forth as the norm and instead shows that radical resistance to queer rural invisibility, obscurification, and defamation.

Also, Lesbian Separatist Communities and the Experience of Nature toward Queer Ecology uses the rich history of rural lesbian separatism and queer ecology to articulate a clear counter-narrative to queer urbanization. The article shows that many queer collectives have formed, many by formerly urban folks, in rural space as a conscious means to get back to the land, to live in a distinctly non-metropolitan way, and to experience nature and sexuality together. This is a counterexample to the queer rural-urban migration, and the dominance of gay nightlife and cosmopolitan “culture” as “proper” ways to be gay. These communities represent a strong contingent of queer people that celebrate rural queer community as a valid choice aside from urban queer community, which further shows that queer anti-urbanism in its breadth exists as conscious opposition to contemporary gay-in-the-city narrative.

Taking this broad idea and condensing one aspect of it, we will then analyze the comparisons between the lives of queers in rural versus urban settings. There is very little information about what it is like to be queer in a rural area, and almost all queer life examinations are within urban areas. To better shed light on what it is to be a rural queer, comparing the two lifestyles will allow for a more precise view of what makes being queer in a rural area unique.

In the article Urban, Suburban, and Rural Geographies, Colin R. Johnson provides a brief history of what it was and is to be queer in urban and rural places, as well as specific examples of queer life in these areas. The history will add context to our work, and the examples will strengthen the article with definite evidence of clear events and real people.

Space, Place, and Sex: Geographies of Sexualities by Linda Langston includes a chapter called “Rural Erotics,” which intently examines queer lives and their communities. This will be the main source for this section, as Langston goes into depth about the subject, discussing many versions of rural sexuality, stereotypes of rural sexuality, and the realities of being queer within a rural community. She also has a section on queer city spaces, “Sex and the City,” which will add information to our comparisons.

After analyzing the similarities and differences between rural and urban queer lives, we plan to create another subtopic pertaining to queer farmers. This topic is important because it examines the correlation between queerness and rural life in its most literal form, which provides an excellent backdrop for further queer rurality studies. Also, examining queer people’s entry into farming, how they make their livings in it, and how their communities treat them is important for understanding one of the most simplistic forms of queer rural life.

To strengthen this part of the article, we plan to research the history behind queerness and farming, the ways that queer farmers make a living and how they forge connections in their rural environments. We may also talk about the eco-queer movement which has spawned documentaries like Out Here: A Queer Farmer Film Project.

There are two sources to start that we have come up with so far which pertain to this topic. Joshua Sbicca’s Eco-queer Movements: Challenging Heteronormative Spaces through (Re)imagining Nature and Food considers the role of queer people in reshaping food production, which will start the conversation about queer people producing food in rural environments. David Bell and Gill Valentine’s Queer Country: Rural Lesbian and Gay Lives discusses the history of the connection between queerness and rurality, how lesbian and gay-identified people build connections in rural environments, and the resources that are or are not available to them. This article will help to exhibit some of the ways that queer people develop a sense of community in their rural environments.

To go along with the eco-queer movement, we will create a section about how rural queer activism adds to the LGBT movements in the United States. The article that currently exists regarding LGBT movements in the U.S. includes a fairly extensive breakdown of queer political movements in the country, but it has very limited references to the political battles in the rural parts of the country.

The article by Greteman summarizes key points in Out in the County: Youth, Media, and Queer Visibility in Rural America, and looks at the influence of new media on queer visibility, especially in rural America. It will be a good resource for talking about the influence of technology and new political strategies to increase queer political power in rural communities.

Jerke’s article focuses on judicial restraints on queer politics in rural America. Current legislation is limiting as it treats queerness as something that exists exclusively in urban spaces. The result has been an uphill battle for queer activists in rural communities. He includes personal stories from activists and specific judicial battles in states which will help provide a history of rural queer political progress as well as a breakdown of impediments to social change.

Related to activism and the portrayal of rural queers in media, we will discuss The Kansas City Trilogy, an influential late 70s series of gay porn films featuring rugged and rural men. The series is still widely beloved, with all three films placing on Best Gay Porn lists in the 21st century. It is credited for breaking the masculine-feminine partners mold of early gay porn, instead showing masculine-masculine partnerings. We suspect that this topic will use academic sources less than the other topics discussed, and instead rely more on queer media commentary. Since there are currently several Wikipedia pages dedicated to each film specifically, we hope to focus more on the series and how it portrays rurality and queerness.

Joe Gage, the director of the Kansas City Trilogy, was particularly opposed to schmaltzy relationship gay porn, according to “Queers in American Popular Culture.” His trilogy reimagines gay porn with more attention to sexual freedom. With the last installment coming in 1979, the series immediately predates the gay American male AIDS epidemic and corresponding safe sex movements in porn. Gage’s stars were not coded as gay. In the Kansas City Trilogy world, identity was not sexuality-based. Rather, the men were hardworking blue collar men, and their sex was “more about camaraderie than romance.” Gage introduced a new kind of gay porn by stripping the “gay” identity from it, something he views with great pride in his interview with Butt Magazine.

Overall, our goal is to create an article that discusses the topic of queerness and rurality. It is important because few people know that such a topic exists, and we aim to educate readers about how diverse this population is. Furthermore, this topic is very much related to current LGBT issues, and it deserves recognition among these ranks.

References:

Bell, D., Valentine, G. (1995). Queer Country: Rural Lesbian and Gay Lives. Journal of Rural Studies, 11(2), 113-122.

Elledge, J. (2010). Queers in American Popular Culture, 2, 258. Santa Barbara: Praeger.

Greteman, A. J. (2012). Country Queers: Queer Youth and the Politics of Rural America. Journal Of LGBT Youth, 9(1), 63-66.

Herring, S. (2007). Out of the closets, into the woods: RFD, Country Women, and the Post- Stonewall Emergence of Queer Anti-Urbanism. American Quarterly,59(2), 341-372.

Jerke, B. W. (2011). Queer Ruralism. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, 34(1), 259-312.

Johnson, Colin R. (2004) Urban, Suburban, and Rural Geographies. Encyclopedia of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered History in America. Ed. Marc Stein. Vol. 3. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2004. Gale Virtual Reference Library. 217-222.

Langston, Linda. (1964). Space, Place, and Sex: Geographies of Sexualities. 79-112.

Rodriguez, F. (2007). Top Pornographer Loves to Bang Out a Load while Watching His Own Legendary Films. Butt Magazine.

Sandilands, C. (2002). Lesbian Separatist Communities and the Experience of Nature toward a Queer Ecology. Organization & environment, 15(2), 131-163.

Sbicca, J. (2012). Eco-queer Movement(s): Challenging Heteronormative Space through (Re)imagining Nature and Food. European Journal of Ecopsychology, 3, 33-52.

Ollielover11 (talk) 03:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

LGBT in media
rfrank8

A summary of how I will expand and improve sections. There is already a wikipedia page specifically addressing LGBT people in the media.

In the wikipedia article on lgbt and media portrayal, there are 5 components and a overview. Excluding the overview, the other sections are quite short. In the section media portrayal of LGBT in color and media portrayal of LGBT of gender are the shortest. Not only are they short with grammatical errors, but the content in those sections are fairly confusing. My intentions with the two sources listed is to expand the sections with more detail of the poor representation of LGBT people of color and gender in the meda.

What I will do :

Add content explaining the stereotypical figures that are typically used to portray lgbt of color. Explain the consequences that may arise from the inaccurate portrayal of lgbt in color. Analyze why media tend to focus on the gender of gay people of the lgbt community in media, than any other.

Sources

Hannah, Darryl. "Redirect Notice." Redirect Notice. Huffington Post, 1 Apr. 2012. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.

"LGBT in Media." GLAAD Media Reference. 9th ed. Vol. 1. GLAAD, 2014. Print.

Huey, Asher. "Saving Santana's Storyline." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 23 Jan. 2012. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.

Rfrank8 (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Please review Hitachi Magic Wand
As part of a Quality improvement project, I've recently put the article Hitachi Magic Wand up for Peer Review.

Participation would be appreciated, at Peer review/Hitachi Magic Wand/archive1. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

New article on graphic novel Bucko
I've created a new article on graphic novel Bucko.
 * Bucko

Help or suggestions with additional secondary sources would be appreciated on the article's talk page, at Talk:Bucko.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Trans icon Laverne Cox defamation -- reinserting her birth name against her wishes
User NeilN is engaged in an edit war to keep reinserting the male birth name of transgender actress/Emmy nominee/advocate/icon Laverne Cox. NeilN's only two sources for this name appear to be THEMSELVES using Wikipedia as their main source for this information, since their wording is very similar to the NeilN's Wikipedia language about Laverne's birth name. This qualifies as Original Research, since Wikipedia is now the main source for Laverne's birth name -- it is Wikipedia citing Wikipedia as a source in a feedback loop of nastiness. Laverne has publicly said that she does not want to ever discuss her birth name, since that was never her real name.

I don't have time to get into an edit war over this. Does anybody else have an opinion about this and want to weigh in on Laverne's Talk page? Aroundthewayboy (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Aroundthewayboy is forum shopping, as there has already been a thread at WP:BLPN covering this issue where Aroundthewayboy has been found incorrect in application of BLP. A third source has since been found for Ms. Cox's former name and been used in the article.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the third place you've accused me of attacking the subject. Please stop. It's obvious you haven't gone through my other edits on the talk page or the article. --Neil N  talk to me 08:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the rule about a trans person's former name is that no matter what reliable sources you can find for a transgender person's name, it is still an inappropriate WP:BLP violation for us to publish that information in most cases — the only time it is ever acceptable to do so is if the person's encyclopedic notability had already been established under that name before they transitioned. We mention Laura Jane Grace's former name and Chaz Bono's and Alec Butler's and Chelsea Manning's, because they were already encyclopedically notable under those names before coming out as transgender, and it would be misrepresenting the context of their notability to pretend otherwise — but in the case of a person like Laverne Cox, whose notability was established under her current name, it's a violation of her privacy rights for us to publish the former one. It doesn't matter a whit if you can find a million reliable sources for it — it's a WP:BLPPRIVACY violation, period. No ifs, no ands, no buts, no nothing. Bearcat (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see absolutely nothing in WP:BLPPRIVACY backing up your assertion. --Neil N  talk to me 10:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Allow me to rephrase then: it's still an unacceptable violation of her privacy rights. But regardless, WP:BLPPRIVACY doesn't have to specifically mention trans issues to be applicable to them nonetheless — the requirement to take an article topic's personal privacy rights into account in a BLP still applies whether the specific situation has been explicitly spelled out in that document or not. Bearcat (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And again, there is nothing in WP:BLPPRIVACY about suppressing birth names. We have tens of thousands of biographies listing birth names for people who became notable under a different name. --Neil N  talk to me 10:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have opened a broader discussion here. --Neil N  talk to me 10:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

How exactly can we "suppress" a birth name when it's been widely published in reliable sources? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We can try. Elizium23 (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * But what about the problem of circularity? It has now been established that USA Today used Wikipedia as their source for the alleged birth name. The author of the USA Today piece (by far the "best" source for this alleged fact) just confirmed that Wikipedia was her main source for this alleged fact. She responded as such to someone's Tweet asking "was Wikipedia your source for Laverne's birth name in this article? http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2014/09/01/best-summer-ever-iggy-azalea-brenton-thwaites-lizzy-caplan-john-green-laverne-cox/14747241/ Would help settle a debate. Thx!" She replied:

"Donna Freydkin @freydkin 2h2 hours ago

Yes.The name was up there and out there long before I wrote the story.It still is."


 * The author is incorrect that the name was "out there" anywhere other than Wikipedia and one Alabama newspaper blog (which was subsequently edited to remove this piece of information, which suggests that the editors had a problem with its factual sourcing). The only source is Wikipedia and one quickly removed version of a local newspaper blog.
 * The relevant issue is that this journalist who the argument hangs on has publicly admitted that she used Wikipedia as her primary source. THAT is a huge circularity problem.
 * As for forum shopping, that is very odd to me, since the top of Laverne's talk page explicitly says to post problems in two places: the BLP and LGBT forums. That is what I did. Please remember to always assume good faith (as I am trying my best to do). Aroundthewayboy (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The question of circularity is a red herring. Has anyone alleged that the information is false? Are there other sources out there with conflicting information? Has someone checked public birth records to see if there is a match? Until some kind of credible information turns up that the information is FALSE, or even dubious, the question of circularity is a moot point. It was reliably published in the beginning. Just because Wikipedia picked it up in the middle doesn't make it less reliable now. Elizium23 (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In general, there does seem to be a intrusive element to how we write biographies of LGBT and especially trans people, which we may have picked up from the press. See for example,, where an editor was derisive about the fact a LGBT person might want a bit of privacy about how they're out. Sceptre (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Help a person at AfC?
I almost never ask for someone to help a person in the draftspace, partially because I know that AfC articles tend to be easily abandoned. However in this case it looks like this is about something that does appear to be notable, but would require some pretty good digging for sources. The topic in question is Draft:Thing: She Knows Who She Is, a zine that was released in Chicago back in the 90s. There are some sources on the page, but only one really looks to be usable as an in-depth source. The other two are pretty trivial but do give me the hope that there are better sources out there. I couldn't really find that much out there, but I figured that it'd be a good idea to ask here for help since you all might be able to find things that I've missed. Anyone want to give this one a whirl? I'd hate for this to languish in AfC as a declined, abandoned draft when there's the potential that someone could improve it to the point where it'd be mainspace ready. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)