Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 60

Use of word "poofs" on user talkpage
I am curious to know what other LGBT editors feel about seeing the image on the right on a (presumably straight) admin's talk page, as part of banter. Comments welcome. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I have checked the original discussion, and it's misuse of a talk page against the WMF terms of use as interpreted by Non-discrimination_policy. In my view the misuse of "poofs" as a defamatory word in this way should be sufficient to remove sysop privileges. This is not a lads' locker-room in the 1970s, so this is not a joke and that should not be accepted as a legitimate excuse. However on a project where using "fuck" and much worse is celebrated as a great use of free speech, I doubt that anything will actually happen. By the way, it's not hard to work out which user page this is on, I suggest you ping them to see if they wish to provide an explanation to their fellow volunteers on this noticeboard. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I already tried to discuss it but was essentially told that it wasn't up for discussion, so I don't know if pinging will achieve much. I believe the insertion of the image to have been an error of judgement, rather than an indication of prejudice, though the subsequent refusal to discuss the issue is a real problem for an admin as far as I'm concerned. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Just for clarity's sake, the image itself isn't at issue; it's the caption. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   23:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Now that Ritchie333 has defended their derogatory use of the word on their talk page as "silly banter" a few things can be said with clarity:
 * 1) the use of the word is being used as a term of offence, unambiguously used in British English to derogatively describe homosexuals and is highly unlikely to be read by fellow contributors or casual readers as anything else.
 * 2) the use as a derogatory term is intentional and defended.
 * 3) user talk pages are not private blogs or chat-rooms. WP:OWNTALK states this very clearly: "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively."

There have been three complaints raised on Ritchie333's talk page in the last day User_talk:Ritchie333. The complaints have been civil, in fact they have been complimentary of Ritchie333's contributions to the project as an administrator. However no amount of good work on the project as a trusted administrator should be an excuse to use talk pages to deride or defame LGBT+ people. Should Richie333 fail to address this problem within a few more days, I propose that this becomes an Arbcom case in order to establish, with no ambiguity, that deriding homosexuals with offensive language is taken by this project as seriously as we would a case of deriding groups of people based on their faith or race. Defending it as "silly banter" and refusing to remove the text, should not be accepted as an excuse as it sets a nasty precedent that if an administrator can behave this way, we can expect no more of any other contributor. --Fæ (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Has this been removed already as i've checked both the userpage and talk pages and cannot see this image/userbox/caption. Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 09:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * diff with the edit comment "good grief". I'd call that begrudgingly, and without recognition of doing anything wrong, but yes the word was removed not long after my statement mentioning Arbcom above. I suggest we consider this banked, and if there are any similar issues with the same people, this can be referenced from the archive to assess if there is a pattern. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The systom works! Huzzah! Great of Ritchie to see how it looked to others and act. ツ Jenova  20  (email) 10:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's my age, but "Great" is not how I describe people who are using words that defame LGBT+ people, who happen to stop doing it, with no recognition that it is a bad thing to do in the first place. I find the excuse that this incident was "silly banter" unacceptable, and that remains the only rationale put forward by this administrator for their behaviour. In this current state of affairs, I certainly have no confidence in this administrator to act appropriately in any incident requiring sysop tools on LGBT+ topics. Trust is easily lost and takes meaningful effort to restore, not "meh" and walking away. --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I missed the debate so i'm just seeing the big picture: Editor has an offensive userbox caption, user is told about it, he resists as he doesn't see it as a problem, community convinces him to change/remove it. Success. I don't see a problem here. It's not like the guy is clearly homophobic in any case (Or he'd have put up more resistance or used stronger wording than "poof"). Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 11:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've only just seen this thread, and have already addressed PaleCloudedWhite's concerns on my talk page. Since I've got nothing to hide - I believe the appropriate term is bi-curious, I did occasionally snog guys in my 20s and I think Nick Clegg's quite nice looking, but hard experience in life has shown my that I am not obviously straight nor obviously bisexual but sort of in the middle (although as I said on my talk I'm generally not interested in anything sexual full stop). If there's a word that is the male equivalent of tomboy, that would be quite appropriate for me. So if you think gays have a hard time, try being "stuck in the middle" of being straight and bi, without any serious idea which one you're "in", and getting it with both barrels as you're not in either "club". :-( In any case, I removed the picture as soon as I realised it was causing enough concern to be disruptive and as soon as I had a chance to read everything, as I would have done regardless who had asked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * He's clearly lying...No-one likes Nick Clegg... ツ Jenova  20  (email) 11:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Being gay is not necessarily about sexual intercourse. It is also about performative aesthetics. I find it rather reductive to suggest it is only about sex. I don't mean to sound too post-Lacanian, but many of us get harassed by people we'll never want to have sex with (e.g. homophobic women). I too was offended by that awful word you used; glad to see User:Fæ interceded for us. As a general rule, I never use swearwords; they are unnecessary. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't have an article on performative aesthetics, and neither does anyone else, as far as I can see, so I now I'm having an existential crisis. Anyway...yay, happy endings.  Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   12:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If you believe that sexuality is a spectrum (which the studies seem to show) then it's perfectly reasonable and easier to explin sexuality than simply, gay, straight or bi. Ever heard of the Kinsey scale? Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 13:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As the person using a defamatory word, whether you identify as LGBT+ is irrelevant to assessing whether your behaviour is acceptable for this project. Just as this project is not a lad's locker room, neither is it a gay pub where conversations may be entre nous. --Fæ (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:EEng (who the comment was originally directed at) has fallen foul of this sort of thing a number of times, and created Template:FBDB. What's your take on that template? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We've discussed this enough, as an administrator you know the policies that the community agreed years ago and that are supposed to encourage a welcoming and non-hostile environment for all good faith contributors. Someone's unofficial template does not stop WP:OWNTALK applying to user talk pages, no exceptions. --Fæ (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As the original "target" of this "offensive" diction, and being a fag myself, let me say I really am genuinely offended – by the crybabying and nannying. If you're gay (or some other member of the alphabet soup), grow some backbone, get a sense of proportion, and refocus your energy on things that really matter, like actual hatred emanating from actually hateful people. And if you're not gay (or whatever), then please let us handle this among ourselves (or amongst ourselves, if you're one of those poofy Brit grammar sticklers).


 * And as for We've discussed this enough: who the hell fuck put you in charge of declaring discussions over?  E Eng  16:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Why hasn't anyone who is offended by this image and caption removed it from this thread? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's okay to analyse it scientifically, but it's not okay to use it as friendly banter between Wikipedians. That's the bottom line here.  Let's replace it with a picture of something far more friendly, like a dog. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would prefer a seahorse. Each to their own.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of the F-word
I have twice collapsed use of the F-word on this noticeboard. It cannot be imagined to be anything other than. The F-word is unacceptable on this noticeboard or anywhere else on Wikipedia unless when in unambiguously legitimate use for an article. It should be considered no less offensive and defamatory than using the N-word. The excuse that it is being used as a self-description is not acceptable as Wikipedia is a project where editors act anonymously, and anyone that wanted to troll other users would use this as a means to publish disruptive descriptions of minority groups in any discussion.

Rather than uncollapsing the above section, if anyone objects they should create a Request for Comment so the community can decide if we are going to change accepted practice, allow the use of the F-word and ignore complaints from people who may find it personally offensive and hostile when in gratuitous use on talk pages.

A second un-collapse so that the F-word becomes visible again, should be considered edit-warring in an attempt to cause serious non-collegiate disruption to this noticeboard, as well as a significant breach of WP:NDP and can be reported as such.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Noting MPants at work removing references here to the F-word being hard to imagine as anything other than offensive, could we have an explanation as to why calling it out, is now to be rejected as a personal attack? In "real life" gratuitous public use of the F-word where you don't have a social agreement from the people you are talking with, should always be considered offensive. Complaining about its deliberate use and calling it "offensive" is perfectly legitimate. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Using foul language isn't forbidden on Wikipedia; being uncivil is, and they're not the same thing. Likewise, using language that some people might find offensive is not the same as disparaging a particular user for their group identification.


 * Overall, this is very quickly becoming a competition to see who has the most sensitive feelings, read a complete and utter waste of time, and should probably wind down to a close before someone get the idea to add "Wikipedia is not a safe space" to WP:WWIN. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As a point of fact, I removed a personal attack on another editor. I did not remove any reference to "fag". If you like, I can restore your comment to its original state, but at that point, I would feel the need to report your combative attitude, threats and personal attacks to ANI. I'm looking for a way to put this to bed. If that means seeing you blocked for a day or two, that'll work. But you dropping this and moving on would accomplish the same. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Madness. There was no personal attack with the use of the word "fag", unless you consider that someone referred to themselves as such.  Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * [No kidding, edit conflict with Timothy, and then Rambling Man, then Mr. Pants. In particular I mentioned "safe space" before seeing Timoty's post] Fae, if you can't imagine my post as being anything other than offensive, you need more imagination. We're not hostages to your personal worldview. I was making a serious point, and your incomprehension is not a license to suppress. And you've got a fucking lot of nerve taking it upon yourself to label my post as deliberately offensive. Really. You need to get out and around in the project more. This isn't your "safe space".  E Eng  19:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * What a day for me to return from a weeklong Wikibreak :-P Speaking as a queer black person, I disagree that the "F" word (the four-letter one referenced) should be viewed as offensive and defamatory as the "N" word. Context is important. I personally avoid using casual profanity on Wikipedia talk pages, but I generally overlook it unless it's clearly used to antagonize or disparage another individual or group (which might indeed be the case here, but I'm just speaking generally). Now the three-letter "F" word on the other hand, I would indeed prefer not to see used casually on talk pages, even amongst people who personally identify with it, for the same reason that the "N" word should not be bantered about on here even by black folks; that kind of language might be appropriate for private discussions or dedicated chatrooms, but not Wikipedia. (Obviously I'm referring to the sexual usage of the three-letter f-word, not to its slang equivalent of "cigarette" :-P) Funcrunch (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was referring to the three letter F-word and we agree that the issue is one of serious defamation, not simply "foul language" like "fuck". --Fæ (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, no, I wouldn't agree that using that word qualifies as "serious defamation" without specific additional context. I said I'd prefer not to see it used casually on talk pages. However, I don't think its usage merits serious penalties unless malice is readily apparent. And per your reply to downthread, I have certainly heard gay and bi men self-identify with that word. Funcrunch (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fæ, your attempt to dictate how someone else self-identifies is inappropriate, your attempt to edit war in your own view of the page but demand that anyone who reverts you is edit warring is quite inappropriate. You made your change, it was reverted, you made your change again, it was reverted again by a different user; you do not have consensus here. I myself am quite capable of imagining the things that you say "cannot be imagined", so do not assume that you speak for all. I realize that assuming good faith is sometimes difficult, but it should be achievable in this case. Given that we were discussing how terms that some deem offensive may be used in discussion, EEng was stating an example of something he clearly found acceptable when discussing himself - and as it turns out, it was clearer than your obfuscating use of the term "f-word" to indicate it, which confused some people. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of someone seriously self-identifying using the three letter F-word. I find the bending-over backwards in an attempt to justify its use as simply bad language, in the same way as "fuck", totally ridiculous. The word is defamatory and routinely used to offend LGBT people in real life. If you still disagree, and the rest of us should expect this disgusting F-word to randomly be shoved in our faces when we come across "banter", so long as they use the excuse that they were talking about themselves, then as suggested, have an RfC to establish that it's a perfectly good word for administrators and any other Wikipedia editor to throw into Wikipedia discussions when they feel like doing so. --Fæ (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My coworker self-identified with that word just today, as I was telling him about this discussion. I cannot repeat what he opined about you, but suffice it to say that (at least in my experience) the majority of the homosexual people whose sensibilities you seem to think you are protecting are more offended by your behavior than anything else. I might point out (since no-one has seemed to notice it yet), that there is an image prominently displayed on an LGBTQ discussion page with a caption on it which you claim is offensive, regardless of context. Indeed, the context of it being here is such that it comes across as far more offensive than it ever could at the talk page of any editor who doesn't identify as homosexual. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "If you still disagree, and the rest of us should expect", Fæ? If you review the discussion at hand, you seem to be putting the weight in the wrong direction. It's not me against the rest of the world; it's you against the rest of the folks discussing here (FunCrunch agreed with you in part, but only in part, it seems.) You are not "the rest of us", you are you. We do not all have to jump through your hoops. You are free to open an RfC if you feel one necessary. (I would not recommend it; I would recommend that you apologize to EEng, but I do not particularly expect you to follow my recommendation.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I have never heard of someone seriously self-identifying using the three letter F-word. Words fail. This is laughable. You think you know something about gays? What planet are you from?  E Eng  22:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm hetero, and I've been known to self-identify with the word (either as an act of solidarity, or as a "technicality" related to my admission at Ritchie's talk page earlier). I'm not the only one, either. A lot of people think that diluting the word is a great approach to dealing with bigotry. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Red dress party
I just created a new stub for Red dress party. I know this event takes place annually in many cities, but I started the article using the first reliable secondary sources returned via Google search. Project members are invited to help expand, thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Beirut Pride
Feel free to expand Beirut Pride, a stub I've just created about the first LGBT pride parade in the Arab World!Zigzig20s (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating this new stub! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Someone with experience writing non-free use rationales may like to review the use of two images recently removed by a bot from the article and, if the images qualify, write some. Rivertorch  FIRE WATER   15:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Indonesia
I'd appreciate more eyes on this article, specifically with regard to the appropriateness of the repeated addition of content the lede. Rivertorch  FIRE WATER   17:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Bump. Rivertorch  <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   02:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

AfD: RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
I'm not entirely sure the AfD has been initiated for multiple articles successfully, but I created some stubs for 4 RuPaul contestants, and they were all nominated for deletion: Nina Bo'nina Brown, Trinity Taylor, Valentina (drag queen), and Sasha Velour. I wasn't really given any time to expand these articles. You can view the discussion at Articles for deletion/Valentina (drag queen) (2nd nomination). --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

AfD: LGBT culture in Vancouver
LGBT culture in Vancouver has been nominated for deletion, if project members wish to help improve the article or participate in the AfD discussion. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Kept. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Fahad Al Kubaisi
The Fahad Al Kubaisi includes a category related to bisexuality, but the article's prose does not mention LGBT. See Talk:Fahad Al Kubaisi for an ongoing discussion about whether or not this category should be removed. Thanks, --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Pangender article nominated for deletion
The Pangender article has been nominated for deletion. Funcrunch (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Kept. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia at World Pride Madrid 2017

 * Thanks for sharing. I also added this event to Wiki Loves Pride 2017. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft template for nonbinary subjects
In light of persistent, deliberate misgendering of nonbinary people (some of whom identify as genderqueer) in Wikipedia articles, and the recent RfC on same which failed to gain consensus, I have drafted a MOS-NB template to complement the existing MOS-TW and MOS-TM templates for trans women and men. I invite constructive feedback, respecting that this draft is in my userspace and I myself am agender and prefer singular they pronouns. Thank you. Funcrunch (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me! = paul2520 (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I left feedback on the draft's talk page. Rivertorch   <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   20:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to those who gave feedback. The template is now live at Template:MOS-NB. I've already added it to the talk pages of several non-binary BLPs. Funcrunch (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Conversion therapy
Hello, I'm currently engaged in a dispute about the wording of the lead of the Conversion therapy article. I'd welcome the comments of interested editors whatever their views. See the discussion at Talk:Conversion_therapy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:GAY?
I'd like to update the style advice on the project page at WP:GAY?. As it is currently written, it gives the impression that homosexual should be preferred over gay in all historical contexts. Instead, I think it should note that while there are some historical contexts where it may be preferable to use homosexual, it is also a relatively modern word and its use can be anachronistic as well. The wording I would suggest (instead of the sentence that begins "For historical articles ...") is:
 * Care should be taken when writing about historical topics to avoid anachronism. As gay and lesbian gained widespread usage in the mid 20th century and homosexual'' in the late 19th century, there may not be a clear reason to prefer one over the other when writing about earlier topics.

From Epistemology of the Closet by Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick: "There is, I believe, no satisfactory rule for choosing between the usages 'homosexual' and 'gay,' outside of a post-Stonewall context where 'gay' must be preferable since it is the explicit choice of a large number of the people to whom it refers. Until recently it seemed that 'homosexual,' though it severely risked anachronism in any application before the late nineteenth century, was still somehow less temporally circumscribed than 'gay,' perhaps because it sounded more official, not to say diagnostic. That aura of timelessness about the word has, however, faded rapidly — less because of the word's manifest inadequacy to the cognitive and behavioral maps of the centuries before its coining, than because the sources of its authority for the century after have seemed increasingly tendentious and dated. Thus 'homosexual' and 'gay' seem more and more to be terms applicable to distinct, nonoverlapping periods in the history of a phenomenon for which there then remains no overarching label." Thoughts?--Trystan (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I put the original text together based on what I saw as best practice. Over the years I have talked to many academic historians about LGBT+ related history, and there is a distinction to be made between accurately using our terms for the topic of LGBT+ history, or gay history, as covering early periods where neither these terms nor the same concept existed, and then going on to describe individuals as having been gay or LGBT+. The intention of the guidance was to discourage unqualified use of these words. I agree that our modern understanding of "homosexual" is different to what it was in 1890, however as per History of homosexual terminology, it would be correct to use the word "homosexual" in the sense of sexual practices rather than identity; but to use "gay" in the same context would be confusing as it is loaded with meanings of identity. Going back further in history we would need to remain cautious in any terminology. For example it may seem obvious that Antinous was the homosexual lover of Hadrian and has become a modern gay icon of homosexual love and male beauty, however technically we cannot state that Antinous identified as homosexual, nor can we state that Antinous was gay (no "gay identity" existed in that period) or practiced gay sex. In fact some historians would still argue that an unqualified "homosexual" to describe the physical love between Antinous and Hadrian may be misleading, though in that instance I'd not automatically agree.
 * Please recognize that words in their technical and encyclopaedic correct sense may lag behind recent conventions, I'm open to our views shifting based on well sourced definitions. It should also be made clear that it is encyclopaedic and correct for the article on Antinous to include the fact that he has become a modern gay icon, as well as an icon for homosexual freedom in earlier periods; and indeed his Wikipedia article already does exactly that and uses those words in the modern sense. --Fæ (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Dispute on An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
Could use more eyes on An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code where there is a dispute over the description of the proposed legislation (regarding gender identity and expression). Funcrunch (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Cancel that, turns out the disputing editor is now banned for sockpuppetry. Funcrunch (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Knock Out (Transformers: Prime)
This newly-created article (Knock Out (Transformers: Prime)) says "he" is gay. Is sourcing for this claim appropriate? If not, should the claim be removed? If so, should LGBT-related categories be added, and should the WikiProject LGBT studies banner be added to the article's talk page? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:Citation overkill RfC
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride
The fourth annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which seeks to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, is being held during the month of June. Project members are invited to add their new and improved content here. WikiProject Women in Red is supporting the campaign again this year. You can learn more information here. Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants to help bring Sophia Parnok to GA, contributions would be welcome. SusunW (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

*bump* Just a reminder about the ongoing Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the end of June. If you've created or improved any LGBT-related articles recently, please feel free to show off your work here: Wiki Loves Pride 2017/Results. Or, just note your work here and I'd be happy to update the list accordingly. Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Subcategories for Category:LGBT writers from the United States
Category:LGBT writers from the United States has over 1,400 entries. Would creating subcategories by U.S. state by helpful? Ditto Category:LGBT entertainers from the United States. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My instinct is that if subdivision is necessary, medium/genre of writing would be of more use than separating those from North vs. South Dakota. (Of course, this is all a condemnation of the category system, which should be a flag system anyway.) Particularly since location for a writer is so fluid. Some LGBT writers go from New York to California to work in Hollywood. Some from California fly out to NYC to work in publishing. And some LGBT writers go both ways... --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I know you do a lot of category work. Do you have an opinion or recommendation? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My instinct is always to break up a geographic category with a geographic subcategory. And I would only break up the U.S. category by genre if there is an existing scheme for authors by genre. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with Nat Gertler; since people don't necessarily spend their entire lives living in one place, subcategorizing by location tends to be fluid and not always the most useful way to break up a large category — it's permissible, certainly, but it's not always the most meaningful point of distinction. If subcategorization is desired — which, now that the parent category is over 1,400 articles, it probably is — I'd be inclined to believe that subcategorizing by type of writing (i.e., , etc.) would be more useful in this instance. The substantive and WP:DEFINING difference between an LGBT novelist from California and an LGBT poet from Michigan hinges much more strongly on the poet-novelist distinction than it does on the California-Michigan distinction, so "type of writing" categories should come first. If state of residence isn't a defining characteristic in and of itself, then it should normally be a last, rather than first, resort when looking for ways to diffuse a large category. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, categories by genre would be more useful than by state/city (with the caveat that some authors produce works in multiple genres, of course). Funcrunch (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

National Pride March
Do any project members have a sense as to whether or not moving Draft:National Pride March into the main space would be appropriate? I see some upcoming events are being billed as "in conjunction with the National Pride March", but this event doesn't seem to have as much preceding press coverage as some other recent national (U.S.) protests. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and moved the article into the main space. Project members are invited to help expand National Pride March. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about pronouns for a genderfluid book character
A task force of WikiProject novels, WP:RRTF, has a draft in progress for a book which contains a gender-fluid character. There's been some discussion about how to describe the character, as they make a point in the books of discouraging the use of "they" or "she/he". Does anybody know of a policy to guide us? Or an example? Please leave suggestions on Draft talk:The Hammer of Thor. Thanks! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

List of LGBT characters in television and radio
A situation is happening in List of LGBT characters in television and radio that needs scrutiny. Characters that were previously included in other sexual orientation sections have been transferred to Pansexual or deleted by one editor. I am not singularly qualified to know all the television series characters that are factually pansexual. I restored deleted bisexual characters only to have them deleted again by same editor. I just re-restored one, Maggie Lin from Saving Hope. Are there other editors with knowledge about pansexual characters seen on TV? Are the recent edits involving the Pansexual section correct? What is to be done about the deleted characters? Input about, and attention to, this situation would be appreciated. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture
I added the WikiProject LGBT studies banner to the Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture article's talk page, which was removed by another editor. Not a huge deal, but do project members think the article is relevant to this project? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The project banner has been added back per a discussion on the article's talk page. Feel free to add your 2 cents if you feel inclined. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Wording for the lead sentence of the Trans woman article
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Trans woman. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

New York City Isn't On the List of Largest Gay Pride Events
I'm from NYC and I just happened to be looking to see who has the largest event so I was on the "List of largest LGBT events" page. I would have thought NYC or San Francisco. SF is on the list but NYC isn't? That doesn't make sense at all. I don't want to edit it for a number of reasons. There's the "coordinator" column and authorities. I thought the cited sources would be either the organizer webpage or government but I saw news articles listed as sources so I would have thought my link would have been allowed but then everything is in order which means there would have to be all sorts of footnote edits in order to put NY in it's place and I have no clue how to do this. This is an article which mentions a figure for attendance though the article doesn't cite where it got the 2 million from. Maybe that's why it wasn't used. Like I said, NYC is supposed to be on that list somewhere for sure.Cpossert (talk) 06:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)cpossert

Problematic editing on Chelsea Manning talk page
There is a discussion on the Chelsea Manning talk page about repeated edits on there questioning/denying trans identity (despite a FAQ on the page), and what to do about them. Funcrunch (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have stared a new discussion Talk:Chelsea_Manning. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Stockholm Pride Edit-a-thon
During the Stockholm Pride week we (Wikimedia Sverige, Swedish History Museum, LSHsv, Nationalmuseum, Upplandsmuseet and The Unstraight Museumsv) are hosting an edit-a-thon/Wiki workshop, and for that I would like to have some input on articles to work with. It could be both translations between Swedish and English of missing articles or articles that needs updates or expansions, or topics related to Sweden that you find within scope of this project. Feel free to add articles or topics to the list on the page (or talk page) for the edit-a-thon, or here for me to move there. Thanks in advance. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing. I added a link to the event page at Wiki Loves Pride 2017 and Template:Wiki Loves Pride. Feel free to share the results of the event! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding this. And of course, welcome to the edit-a-thon if you are in Stockholm at the time. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Requesting style correction, and peer review
Hi, everyone. I need for someone to peer review, check, and reevaluate the article Cross dressing ball. It's a translation form Spanish, and English is not even my second language, so expect some strange sh...things. I'd be very thankful if someone takes the time to polish, and imporve the article. --Ecelan (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

LGBT Scientists
I am organizing an editathon on July 8th in Northridge, California. We will be focusing on LGBT Scientist, Technicians/Technologists, Engineers and Mathematicians. If anyone has ideas for contributions or wants to join us please do! CSUN Queer STEM Edit-a-thon Asteres (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I added mention of this event at Wiki Loves Pride 2017. Feel free to adjust the details, if you prefer. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Transgender legal history in the United States

 * (This announcement is cross-posted to WT:HR.)

Announcing new article Transgender legal history in the United States, which is a move of about 68kb of content from History of transgender people in the United States to the new article, in a size split. Additional refactoring and section re-org may be needed in both articles, as well as other cleanup to complete the split. You are invited to contribute. Mathglot (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Jake Zyrus
There's a conversation about pronouns here that could use participation by editors with a clue. David in DC (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Willing to help with an article?
Hi! A student created the article LGBT Life in Guatemala last semester, but it has several issues, one of which is that it's written more like an essay than an article. I do think that this topic deserves to be on Wikipedia, but this needs a lot of work to really fit guidelines. Would anyone here be interested in taking this article under their wing? I'd like to work on it and will try to go back to it, but I don't know when I'd get the chance to do this and I don't want it to be deleted without it receiving a good fighting chance at being fixed. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're correct that it's a valid article topic — in fact, it's a topic for which "LGBT in [Country]" pretty routinely exists for many countries (although obviously not all yet, since Guatemala was missing.) But you're also correct that the article needs a fairly significant quality overhaul. I don't have the necessary expertise in Guatemalan topics or sourcing to really do very much with it — specifically I can't read Spanish, which one would need to access most potential sources — but I want to note that I have moved the article to LGBT in Guatemala in accordance with our naming conventions for this type of article. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bearcat. I made a few minor MoS edits to the article, but much work is still needed. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Guidance requested re MOS:BIRTHNAME
Hi, I was suggested to ask here after raising a question in the IRC channel :) There is a back-and-forth of edits on the page for Peppermint (drag queen), specifically regarding whether or not her birth name should be listed (Peppermint is the drag persona of a trans woman). Any feedback from you in the talk page Talk:Peppermint_(drag_queen) as to how to interpret MOS:BIRTHNAME and how strictly it should be applied would be appreciated. Best! Umimmak (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Philippa York
Philippa York has publicly announced today that she has changed gender. York was famous as Robert Millar, a British professional racing cyclist in the 1980s and 1990s who won the 'King of the Mountains' classification at the 1984 Tour de France, and is one of Britain's most successful racing cyclists. She 'disappeared' from public life during the 2000s following hostile newspaper reports that she was living as a woman, but has continued to write as a journalist under the name of Robert Millar until today (you'll find articles published as Robert Millar dating to July 2017).

I've attempted to rewrite her article to take into account her gender transition, but I'd appreciate someone casting an eye over this. Almost all of York's notable activities have taken place as Robert Millar so this identity needs to remain on the page: I've attempted to write with a balance reflecting this but I'm sure I've made mistakes so please do look over it! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on this article. Another editor has moved the article back to Robert Millar; see the talk page. I'm not comfortable messing with moves and redirects myself in contentious cases like this which could devolve into edit wars, but I feel the article title and language clearly should reflect York's current name and gender identity, per MOS:GENDERID. Funcrunch (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

White people doing sex things
This is probably not best place to post this, but... I figured it was the right crowd anyway. So, when you poke around human sexuality articles, you see a lot of really high quality images like this, but (and I've been poking around for a few minutes now), it's all white people doing sex things, and using this image as an example, it's used on like 30 different language projects. So... what's the best route to get like, literally a single black person, or southeast Asian, or... you know, the actual human race? The person who created them seems to be retired, and they are all good images, so I'm guessing we need to find someone with some photoshop skills. Any takers? Suggestions? Timothy Joseph Wood 21:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your post might be more appropriate at WikiProject Sexuality, but no worries. For the record, there are some images of non-white people at commons:Category:Sex drawings by User:Seedfeeder, and I'm not sure what you mean by "actual human race", but your point is heard. Yes, Seedfeeder has retired, and I'm not skilled in photoshop, but I just wanted to share the Commons category in case you wanted to browse. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Sexuality would have been more topically appropriate, but no way I would have gotten a response in under 15 minutes there, dead as it is. By "actual human race" I mean that even with what diversity is actually in that category, its under-representative even for an under-representative country like the US, Canada, or Australia. The selection is poor even for the West. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume you've read Seedfeeder, which says there was some controversy over the apparent heritage of some of the figures in the images. I'm not sure I see why, but if you're talking about these images in general and not just the ones by that one user, I think you have a point. And they shouldn't be so very hard to Photoshop, if that would solve the problem. Maybe WP:RP would help? Then again, I've never been quite sure that realistic-looking drawings or paintings, such as the ones Seedfeeder created, are the best way to illustrate those articles. They frequently manifest the negative qualities of both line drawings and photos (i.e., contrived and not quite realistic but still deeply NSFW). Rivertorch   <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   04:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I like the idea in principle. They're probably equally illustrative as actual pictures, without being overtly pornographic, and of course they can help avoid a cycle of "look honey, I put a picture of my junk on Wikipedia", as well as avoiding any possible Revenge porn ethical issues. My biggest concerns are obviously diversity on our own project, and... almost passively compounding an issue of double/triple discrimination as a POV, especially on articles that are closely related to obviously LGBT related acts. Plus... I dunno, the idea of some Indian teen getting their sex ed from articles illustrated with people who basically 100% don't look like them at all, its... pretty full of globalize-cringe. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

LGBT media genre categories
I've created Category:LGBT-related media by genre. Requesting assistance with population/subcategorizing. I was thinking something like the setup of Category:LGBT-related films by genre, but for all media types. Oornery (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Unlilateral move of Transgender Day of Remembrance
Your feedback is requested at Talk:International Transgender Day of Remembrance. Mathglot (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Feedback also requested on layout changes to the above page as well as to International Transgender Day of Visibility. Funcrunch (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Help establishing notability of Butch Mystique
I came across the article for the film Butch Mystique in PROD, listed as such because of failing WP:NFILM. I just wondered if anyone here might test whether that's the case or not, as my very preliminary search turned up a few references such as this, which hint that the necessary sources for this do exist.Landscape repton (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about infobox at A Young Man's World
I started the discussion about the infobox used at A Young Man's World. Join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Femme article
As I stated before at Talk:Femme, I intend to merge this article with the Butch and femme article. I also intend to downsize it before merging it. There continues to be issues with the article and there continues to be POV-pushing at the article, such as this recent edit stating that "This is a lesbian specific term. I've taken out bisexual as it erases the history of how it formed from lesbians. Femme should only be used for lesbians and by lesbians." Yes, we know how the term originated, but the term is used by the broader LGBT community as well these days. If anyone has any opinions on merging this article and/or how to improve this article, now is the time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with a merge, and while being careful to avoid any POV-pushing, I think we also need to make sure that we're reflecting high-quality sources (eg. bisexual femmes yes, because RS say so, but the trendy "women and femmes" usage no). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The lesbian vs. bisexual woman topic is often a pain on Wikipedia because of the tension between lesbian and bisexual women, including the broad usage of the term lesbian, which I've addressed before with reliable sources. It's why we keep getting edits like this. Newbies in particular obviously do not understand our WP:Neutral policy, specifically the WP:Due weight portion of it, and then edit our articles with their own POV mindset regarding lesbian vs. bisexual women and the term lesbian. It does not matter how much I explain with sources and/or with Wikipedia rules, I have to deal with this time and time again. I will ignore future problematic edits made to the Femme article since I will be merging the content (with care, of course). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Elijah Daniel for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elijah Daniel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Elijah Daniel (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not too often you see articles nominated for deletion and good article status simultaneously. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a neutral deletion debate notification so I will not comment on that here. Suffice it to say it is a valid and legitimate good article nomination. Sagecandor (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Debated text inclusion on Discrimination against non-binary gender persons
There's an edit war developing on Discrimination against non-binary gender persons over the insertion of text regarding the term "phobia". Discussion on talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Genderqueer people has been nominated for discussion
Category:Genderqueer people, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Funcrunch (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding clarification to the ambiguous template message: I've proposed renaming Category:Genderqueer people to Category:People with non-binary gender identities. Please discuss at the Categories for Discussion entry. Funcrunch (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The Federalist (website)
See my comments at Talk:The Federalist (website). This and groups such as Alliance Defending Freedom need attantion. Doug Weller talk 12:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Can someone create an articled for Kristin Goodwin?
"Brig. Gen. Kristin Goodwin to assume command of cadet wing" at the US Air Force Academy. Trump nominated her! She has a wife and two children and, no surprise, is already having problems. Doug Weller  talk 16:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC about White House petition to make Party in the USA the national anthem
There is an ongoing Request for Comment about whether to include a petition started by Elijah Daniel in the article about him, which was a White House petition to make Party in the U.S.A. the national anthem.

You may comment, if you wish, at: Talk:Elijah_Daniel. Sagecandor (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)