Talk:Keri Hulme

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keri Hulme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927045250/http://www.republic.org.nz/node/6 to http://www.republic.org.nz/node/6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keri Hulme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317235816/http://www.nzlf.auckland.ac.nz/author/?a_id=70 to http://www.nzlf.auckland.ac.nz/author/?a_id=70

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Asexual people are LGBTQ+

Asexuality is officially considered LGBT. Instagram has the asexaul hashtag rainbow colors during pride month and Asexuality has a pride flag. Pride flags by definition mean flags that symbolize a variant of LGBTQ. LGBTQ means anyone not heterosexual or cisgender and the plus in LGBT+ stands for anyone not heterosexual or not cisgender. On Wikipedia, Asexuality is put under LGBT topics. On top of that asexuality is sometimes included in the acronym along with intersex making LGBTQIA+. That's why I think Keri Hulme is LGBTQ+. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarknessGoth777 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@DarknessGoth777: Hi there, thanks for explaining your reasoning. I absolutely agree that asexuality is within the bounds of LGBT and is often included in the acronym. However, the rules for categorising people are quite careful in their application. There's more information about that at the guidance here: Wikipedia:Categorization of people and Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. In general, inclusion of people in a category related to ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability must be based on reliable sources. Specific guidance is given on the Category:LGBT_people page:

Sexual or gender-related indetermination (e.g., asexuality, Klinefelter,...) is in itself not sufficient justification for inclusion in this category or its subcategories. Other subdivisions of Category:People by gender or Category:People by status might be more suitable in this case.

This is because not every asexual person considers themselves to be part of the LGBT community, and unless we know for sure someone does, it's best to err on the side of caution. Hulme was open about her asexuality and it's supported by many reliable sources, and is relevant as well to her artistic works, but I'm not aware of any reliable sources saying she considered herself part of the LGBT framework. Hope that makes sense, and happy to discuss further. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying that even though asexuality is considered an LGBTQ identity only add the category if an asexual person calls themselves LGBT? Is that what you mean? DarknessGoth777 (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@DarknessGoth777: Yup, that's my view. It's not about saying that asexuality isn't a valid part of the LGBT/LGBTQ/LGBTQIA+ spectrum (it absolutely is!), but more about erring on the side of caution when it comes to what might be seen as labelling a person in a way that they may not have labelled themselves. Thanks for raising this point, incidentally; it's a valid question to ask. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

OK thank you so much for explaining. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I just want to add that I completely back everything that Choc has said.

My personal view is that ace folks are not inherently LGBT, but that they are 100% welcome. Compare for example, men who have sex with men but do not self-identify as gay, bi or otherwise queer.

But key here is that broader consensus is summarised by the guidance at Category:LGBT people (as quoted by Choc above). And although I don’t personally recommend it, you absolutely could raise discussion there or (better yet) at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. In searching the archives, the last time this question was raised was in 2015: Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality/Archive 10#Issues with LGBT, LGBT people, and Queer categories. I don’t particularly suspect that sentiment will have changed though. — HTGS (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)