Talk:LGBT symbols/Archive 1

Move (name change)

Resolved

It seems to be that the commonly used acronym is LGBT, not GLBT, and that this article should be chaged accordingly. Any comments? Wuzzy 20:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Both are used interchangeably but LGBT is the common form on wikipedia. Benjiboi 15:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

GLBT is fine--no need to move this page

Resolved

As the following sample from the Yahoo search engine shows, "GLBT" is also a very commonly used acronym; therefore, there is no need to move this page.

Also try: glbt expo, glbt community, glbt businesses, glbt youth More... SPONSOR RESULTS Glbt at Amazon.com www.amazon.com Buy books at Amazon.com. Low prices and easy shopping. GLBT Singles Network- 2 Million Pics glbtsinglesonline.com 100% register free. Huge active community. WEB RESULTS Technorati Tag: glbt ... I just watched this documentary about GLBT people in the developing world...called "Living ... effective and powerful advocates for GLBT equality. GLBT Ally buttons and magnets ...www.technorati.com/tag/glbt - 50k - Cached - More from this site - Save civilrights.org -- GLBT, Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered Information, Resources, and News Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D., is a Professor of English at Pennsylvania State University. ... Civil Rights EnforcementCriminal JusticeDisabilityEducationGLBTHate CrimesHousing/LendingHuman RightsImmigration ... full story | more stories. More on GLBT ...www.civilrights.org/issues/glbt - 71k - Cached - More from this site - Save Rice University GLBT Group for gay and lesbian graduate students, faculty, and staff. Category: Texas > Houston > Rice University > Clubs and Organizations www.ruf.rice.edu/~glbt - 30k - Cached - More from this site - Save [GLBT.CA] : cheese-puff82's profile GLBT.ca Dating Profiles - Indulge your bordem by surfing thousands of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual & transgendered profiles. Rate, chat, message, shout and more. All FREE at GLBT.ca. Dating made easier for the Canadian GLBT community! Montreal, Ottawa...glbt.ca/index.php?id=cheese-puff82 - 49k - Cached - More from this site - Save GLBT Home This page's full visual experience is available in a graphical browser that supports style sheets. Please consider upgrading your web browser. GLBT Services. GLBT HOME. ONLINE GIVING OPPORTUNITIES. PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS. CURRENT. RESOURCESwww.d.umn.edu/mlrc/glbt - 19k - Cached - More from this site - Save Gay-friendly Philadelphia :: gophila.com - The Official Visitor Site for Greater Philadelphia ... View All. Luxury. GLBT. Diverse Philadelphia. Family-friendly. Hip ...gophila.com/C/Your_Philadelphia/14/Diverse_Philadelphia/287/.../4.html - 45k - Cached - More from this site - Save GLBT.COM Listings of local businesses, organizations, social groups, night life and free classifieds. Category: Minnesota > Minneapolis/Saint Paul Metro > Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered (LGBT) > Local Guides www.glbt.com - 26k - Cached - More from this site - Save GLBT ... Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Group (GLBT).... The fabulous white lion took to the streets ... and congratulations to everyone participating in this year's 2004 GLBT Pride events ...www.buddhawest.org/glbt.htm - 20k - Cached - More from this site - Save Natalie Davis' All Facts and Opinions Site and weblog for award-winning GLBT, alternative, and mainstream press journalist and Web designer Natalie Davis. Features The Armchair Activist, progressive news, commentary, activism, and more. ... to advertise in gay media or to support GLBT organizations. To make its point, more than 40 right ... After tense meetings with GLBT community leaders and emailed outcry from customers ...gratefuldread.net/archives/cat/cat_glbt.html - 525k - Cached - More from this site - Save Flickr: Photos tagged with glbt ... Explore and refine glbt photos with our clustery goodness ... GLBT Pride Checks. Pay your bills with Pride with 69 check designs from Pink Inc ...www.flickr.com/photos/tags/glbt - 19k - Cached - More from this site - Save SPONSOR RESULTS Free GLBT Information www.hoovers.com Hoover’s, a D&B company, provides comprehensive, in-depth, free coverage on GLBT. GLBT Pride Checks www.mygaychecks.com Pay your bills with Pride with 69 check designs from Pink Inc. Also try: glbt expo, glbt community, glbt businesses, glbt youth More... SPONSOR RESULTSFree GLBT Information

Hoover’s, a D&B company, provides comprehensive, in-depth, free... www.hoovers.comGLBT Pride Checks

Pay your bills with Pride with 69 check designs from Pink Inc. Add... www.mygaychecks.comGayreaders.Com - Books And Discussion

GayReaders.com: gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender books &... www.gayreaders.comFree Week Trial of Premium Gay.com

Search & chat with millions of men. One free week of premium Gay.com. www.gay.comGlbt, Make This Your Homepage

A percentage of profits to Glbt causes and easy access to top web... www.deltadaily.comSee your message here...

Results Page:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.12 (talk • contribs)

• Google shows 9 million hits for GLBT but 15 million hits for LGBT. Also, LGBT is the term used most commonly in Wiki, with 6 pages of results for GLBT and 11 for LGBT. GLBT is not used for categories. There are only 8 articles that start with GLBT, including this one, but 27 articles starting with LGBT. Wuzzy 12:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's half a dozen of one and six of another. The best solution is to have redirects for these acronyms, as they are virtually synonymous.Gpscholar 00:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)gpscholar

Merge Proposal

Resolved

I created Pro-gay slogans and symbols about a month before this page came about, but this page is much nicer looking at this time. I think that either: A)"Pro-gay slogans and symbols" should be merged here or B)Both pages should be merged to LGBT slogans and symbols or something like that. I prefer option B because it includes slogans and symbols and has a more inclusive name. I remember spending a lot of time trying to come up with an inclusive name for the article and didn't really like the one I originally came up with. I can't believe I never thought of something as simple as that. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As I basically said on Talk:Pro-gay slogans and symbols, I think this page should be kept for symbols, and any useful non-redundant symbol content in "Pro-gay slogans and symbols" should be moved over here, leaving the slogans information for the other article. I'm not sure that symbols and slogans are similar enough that they have to be treated together in one article, and this article (LGBT symbols) is getting kind of long without slogans. AnonMoos 08:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed template

There has been no discussion for more than three weeks, and it's the other article which may have a lack of focus, not this article. AnonMoos 20:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing template again

No interest in merging as of yet and an effort to improve this article is underway. Benjiboi 13:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Purple Hand.jpg

Resolved

Image:Purple Hand.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Transgendered symbol

"The International Foundation for Gender Education (IFGE) logo"
is not a transgender symbol (although the website does show some TG-symbols).
– See also “Talk:Transgender#Other transgender symbols”. -- ParaDox 17:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Copied text?

Some of the text seems to be taken from the linked page http://www.swade.net/gallery/symbols.html . Is this a copyright violation? AnonMoos 17:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Bisexuality symbol (Pink and Blue Triangles)

No mention at all is made of the internationally-known badge of Bisexuality, a pink triangle overlapping a blue triangle so that the translucent colours combine in a small triangle of violet. This is usually called a Bi triangle or Bi Pride triangle:- http://www3.telus.net/hillwalker/images/graphics/s-bitri.gif http://www.anythingthatmoves.com/ http://www.bicon2006.org.uk/

Whereas, the article goes on:- Usually, to show a bisexual identification, women wear two of the biological symbols for female, the circles of which are linked. Bisexual men represent their sexual preference the same way, except that the biological symbol for male is used instead of the female symbol.

I am Bisexual myself, and I have never encountered Bisexuals declaring their sexuality in this way: it is in fact more typical of exclusively same-sex-attracted people. Nuttyskin 03:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually made a bi-triangles symbol for Wikimedia Commons, since there didn't seem to be one, and added it to Bisexuality. I'm adding a bi-triangles section in this page too. Switchercat 00:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Switchercat. It's a good image, but the article describes the overlapping area as being purple. It looks more like blue for me, so if it's not too much trouble it might be good to change the color slightly. -kotra 21:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I made a new version, much more purple in the middle, and with regular triangle ends instead of the rounded ends. I'm just about to edit the page so it shows the new picture. Switchercat 16:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

nice job, Switchercat! It looks better with pointed corners, too. -kotra 07:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Labrys goddess

First it said that it was associated with Demeter (Ceres), then someone changed it to read Artemis (Diana). I have no idea whether either, neither, or both are true, but someone should -- otherwise I feel inclined to rip out the whole section... AnonMoos 17:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

After a googling, I found that the Labrys is usually associated with Demeter (Ceres) though occasionally Artemis (Diana). I'm changing it back to Demeter (Ceres), though it probably needs a reference. -kotra 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks -- as long as it's not complete BS (which I was increasingly suspecting that it might be), then there's no problem... AnonMoos 14:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Leather

I have added a section on leather culture, but remain unsure on whether the leather pride flag is a "LGBT symbol". Afte ral, plenty of straight people are into it as well. Thoughts? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a little ambiguous -- the original leather culture was pretty strictly gay male, and though it has been claimed by some that the leather pride flag should not be considered an exclusively homosexual symbol, part of the reason why a number of other symbols were invented (BDSM Emblem, BDSM rights flag, Ring of O, etc.) seems to be that the Leather Pride flag was considered to have particular connotations which were too specific for a broad general BDSM symbol... AnonMoos (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If we can cite this history, then lets include it just as it's laid out here, giving both the gay-specific interpretation, and the view that it's not just that. Aleta (Sing) 16:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You can see a little of this at http://emblemproject.sagcs.net/history1.htm -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there's a gallery Commons:Sexual_identity_symbols on Commons (thougb I don't know whether it should be linked from this article). AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it. Aleta (Sing) 16:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The symbol for the leather community at Stonewall 25 was a leather high-heel. Benjiboi 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix

Is the phoenix-penis connection real or just a silly joke? 惑乱 分からん 14:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but it might have had some relevance to the choice of illustration to appear on this cover: Image:Lady Chatterleys Lover.jpg . AnonMoos 12:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That section appears to have been removed...Twitterpated. (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Double-Moon Bisexuality Symbol?

In the article on Bisexuality, another symbol referred to as the "double-moon" is mentioned.

Quote: " This bisexual symbol is a double moon that is formed when the sex-specific attributes of the astrological symbol of Mars & Venus (representing heterosexual union) are reduced to the two circles open on both ends, thus symbolizing that bisexuals are open to either-sex unions...".

I think that this symbol should be included in this article, no?Twitterpated. (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Aleta (Sing) 19:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Aww, thanks babe. =D Twitterpated. (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to do it! :) Aleta (Sing) 23:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Lambda

The text notes that the Greek letter lambda (lower case, λ) was chosen as a symbol. I'm just curious as to why. Does it stand for Lesbos? Lacedaemon? or something else entirely? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

HRC

What about the HRC yellow equal sign on the blue square? Should that be added here? Nanobri (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No. It's a corporate logo/symbol and not a historic movement symbol. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 17:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Red Ribbon

Although this is now seen as just for AIDS we should mention as it took years to make that distinction. Also, check out the commons link. Benjiboi 15:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a rainbow ribbon too? Also, acoording to the [Lambda] website the White ribbon is sometimes used to represent Gay Teen Suicide awareness. 90.204.216.197 (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the rainbow ribbon is just one of many diversions following the success of the red ribbon to represent AIDS awareness. I think it deserves a mention in that respect, because I can remember the automatic assumption that those wearing it are gay - not sure of finding a reliable source that says that though. -- role^player 12:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Science fiction LGBT!

I've been making some symbols to represent LGBT aliens and robots, just for making various science fiction sexuality articles more handsome with free art. Not suggesting they get used here (yet ;-) ), but if editors want a look and have any suggestions, i'd be glad to hear. See Gender in SF for example. I'm currently making the combination symbols for Lesbots and Gayliens. Yobmod (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't imagine that they'll have a place in this article -- but have you seen http://www.othermag.org/blog.php?p=209&c=1 ? AnonMoos (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link1 I've seen them before, but fair use is a bit dubious to use them in an article :-/. Homosexuality in science fictionYobmod (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Specifying small number of pixels for image display

Adding specific small numbers such as "100px" to image tags, as was done in recent edits, is considered poor Wikipedia coding style in most cases... AnonMoos (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but generally that needs to be explained directly to the editor. -- Banjeboi 12:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Freedom Rings

Found a couple articles about David Spada, designer of the Freedom Rings. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/21/style/thing-freedom-rings.html He worked with Keith Haring and Grace Jones. http://www.haring.com/cgi-bin/art_search_lrg.cgi?id=00326&search=Grace%20Jones&start=0 A brief obit says that he died at age 34, May 13, 1996. http://articles.courant.com/keyword/godspell/featured/3 --Larrybob (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Article renaming Proposal

I propose the article be renamed from LGBT to LGBTQ due to new sections that can be added on Genderqueer symbolism such as the Genderqueer Pride Flag and the Genderqueer symbol of of an interconnected G & Q Iamiyouareyou (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OK I changed the name and the sidebar. Iamiyouareyou (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. CTJF83 13:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Rubber pride flag

The Leather pride symbol is in this article because there was a well-organized subculture of gay male Leathermen in the 1960s and 1970s which ended up being influential in several directions. However, I don't know of any strong association of rubber-fetishism with LGBTQ as compared to heterosexuals -- and since the person who added it to the article (User:Agge.se) doesn't seem to know of such an association either, I've removed it from the article, since I don't think we want it to end up being a general list of vaguely BDSM-related symbols... AnonMoos (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Should I start a article named "List of Pride Flags and various symbols for sexual gropes" instead whit the purpose to list different sexuality related flags and emblems on one location? Agge.se (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC) P.S. Do anyone have a better idea for a name for the article?

There is already a gallery commons:Sexual identity symbols on Commons, but if the Rubber pride image is on Wikipedia under "fair use", then it couldn't be uploaded to Commons. A simple image gallery wouldn't be welcome on Wikipedia, but if there were real information about each individual flag and symbol, then "List of pride flags and sexual identity symbols" might be successfully accepted on Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice I didn’t know about that gallery I could begin a "stub" that would list flags and other symbols in the beginning it wouldn’t have description an all flags but with help form the community it think that it cold be interesting in the end. If I am to write any longer part of the page I will need help with checking spelling and formatting. Agge.se (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Might want to ask around on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality first... AnonMoos (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Black triangle

According to the original chart I found and added to the article, the black triangle was not used to mark lesbians, prostitutes or women who used birth control as the article states. Instead, the black triangle was used to mark Germans shy of work (6th row from left) and other nationalities shy of work (7th and last row from left). So, ummm, eh? -- ALLSTARecho 15:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember that it did cover lesbians so more research makes sense. There's also that quaint notion that women aren't sexual ergo couldn't have sex without men so that may also play into it. Benjiboi 21:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I found what I was looking for and have changed the paragraph about the black triangle to reflect why it was used. -- ALLSTARecho 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Reich viewed women as baby making machines so the idea that lesbians would therefore count as "Germans shy of work" does make sense, in a sick kind of way. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It may 'make sense', but the evidence for it is very tenuous indeed. The main black triangle article cites discussions of this issue that seriously question whether the badge was ever used to identify lesbians, so this article should be changed accordingly. It should not say as if it were fact that the badge identified lesbians, when that is disputed. Paul B (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Arbeitsschau" translation may be contributing to confusion. "Shy of work" is literally correct, but colloquially inadequate. Better translations may include "Anti-social" or even"Lacking a sense of duty"; where "duty" refers to basic social contribution as well as having overtones of civilian state-loyalty. cite: I'm a native speaker of German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.177.213.142 (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Disputed content (Gender Queer flag)

It has come to my attention that some editors dispute the validity of the Gender Queer section content. So I am opening this discustion to get a broad consensus on weather at our present time to keep it or not.Iamiyouareyou (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You could just have replied in the previous section..? Oh well.

The content is clearly made up. It is neither notable nor properly sourced. I appreciate that you are keen for your flag pictures to be seen on wikipedia, but they do not belong in an encyclopædia until they are widely used in the real world. If you want to create cool new pictures, flags, or slogans on the internet, there are many internet sites for it, but wikipedia is not one of them.

Also: Please don't edit war. I have no intention of encouraging an edit-war so I have not reverted your latest edit. bobrayner (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We need more input from others. I put the section up months ago and since no other people have had anything against the content I just left it up. However if you can find others to back your reasoning that would be great.

P.S Given that Wikipedia is very large if your using Rules & regulations for your reasoning can you add the page & section links here please thank you. 15:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamiyouareyou (talk • contribs)

I have tried to wikilink relevant policies above. They're pretty basic policies. If there are any other policies that you're unfamiliar with, just ask. Since you asked for input from others, I requested a third opinion.

I wouldn't mind including the flag if it actually got substantial use in the real world. However, a tumblr page dedicated to making up new flags doesn't really count. bobrayner (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

True, that page is discussing the flag, not using the flag. Additionally, the flag (or at least the image) has changed this year. More examples of documented use would be great. Is there any objection to the letters? BitterGrey (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

My objection to the letters was that they claimed to be a "universal" symbol, but again there are no sources, no matches on tineye, and no matches on google images. It's just another image that somebody made up one day. The symbol was added back into the article again and again without any of these flaws being remedied. If it really were a symbol for a whole sector of society, where are the real people wearing it on a tshirt or flying it on a flag?. bobrayner (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bam! first result on google http://genderqueerid.com/about-flag Iamiyouareyou (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on LGBTQ symbols and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: Wikipedia policy says that no material may remain in Wikipedia unless it is supported by a citation to a reliable source. The one source given for this section (which is the same source identified just above by Iamiyouareyou) is clearly not a reliable source, so the section is subject to being removed at any time. The best practice is to {{fact}}-tag the material and then delete it if no reliable source has been provided in a reasonable amount of time (while I usually recommend 30 days, since this section has been up without being sourced for months I'd say that a week would be sufficient). However, Wikipedia policy also allows it to be deleted immediately. It is the burden of the person introducing or reintroducing the material, in this case Iamiyouareyou to find and provide the reliable sources.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 17:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to provide a third opinion. (I got an edit conflict whilst writing a more detailed reply; won't bother posting it now). bobrayner (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Various images

I've noticed that a number of the symbols added here are unsourced, and generally created by the uploader. Some don't seem to be used at all in the real world; for others, real-world usage seems to postdate - and copy from - their presence on wikipedia.
If people want to create cool new symbols and flags and display them to the world, there are many exciting websites for that purpose, but wikipedia is not one of them. This is an encyclopædia article; it should document things which are already widely used in the real world, not things which an editor recently made up. bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The section with the most severe tagging -- on the interlinked gender symbols -- actually discusses some of the most solidly established symbols (think that the interlinked gender symbols have been reasonably prominent for at least 25 years...). AnonMoos (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The computer character code chart http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2600.pdf (part of the Unicode standard) defines "26A2 DOUBLED FEMALE SIGN = lesbianism" and "26A3 DOUBLED MALE SIGN = male homosexuality", but I'm not sure whether this a solid source (and the very next character "26A4 INTERLOCKED MALE AND FEMALE SIGN" is given a meaning which seems to be wrong with respect to its most-frequently observed use...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Alan Turing and the Lambda

Doesn't Alan Turing and his treatment deserve a point in the symbolism of the lambda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.254.100 (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

Hello. I hate to do this, but as I was copy editing the article I checked a source and happened to notice that Lambda section from this version appears to be copy-and-pasted from this page. I copy edited the section before I noticed this, so there might be some slight variations, which is why I included the permalink to the pre-Braincricket revision. I think the proper course of action is to remove all of the copyvio text, but I am not that experienced in this area, which is why I tagged the article. Regards. Braincricket (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Duplication Detector Report. What is to be done? Braincricket (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I decided to be WP:BOLD and remove the copyvio text, according to Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101. Braincricket (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.lambda.org/symbols.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Braincricket (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

inconsistency

I don't really want to get involved in any dispute as to whether "LGBT symbols" is better than "LGBTQ symbols" (or vice versa), but as things now are, the article title is inconsistent with the article lead section. AnonMoos (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ya, I'd like to avoid a dispute, but I agree. For one thing, "genderqueer" is only mentioned in the lead and not in the body (WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY). Also, the title of the article should be the subject of the first sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE). I am going to respectfully change the lead accordingly. Regards. Braincricket (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Leather subculture section

The Leather sub-culture section was recently removed by another user because a kink, not a sexual orientation. It was restored, removed by me, and then restored again after Trankuility pointed it that it's been on the page for 7 years.

I was going to suggest we remove it as WP:OFFTOPIC, but I found that sources generally put this flag in with LGBT symbols (Mashable and Buzzfeed for example). I was concerned that leather was included on these sources because it's in the article (we all know that writers sometimes look at Wikipedia first), but over on LGBT community is a reference to lambda.org from 2004 which includes the symbol (link). So it would seem that even though this is a kink subculture and is not exclusive to LGBT folks, it's considered an LGBT symbol by reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the section a bit in these edits. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Intersex

Can I ask why Intersex in included in the LGBT symbols article, if the 'I' part isn't included in the acronym? I'm just curious, as this article seems to have become a catch-all for all sorts of symbols and flags that come under the overall queer umbrella term. Also, the Intersex Pride flag seems very much like an unsourced piece of original research. Thoughts? - Alison ^❤ 06:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This article has been pretty much a miscellaneous grab-bag almost from the beginning; not sure that including intersex is as problematic as including non-LGBT-specific BDSM symbols (which seemed a possibility at one point). Many don't understand the difference between intersex and transsexual, so intersex could be considered to come under the umbrella of LGBT at least in that respect, whether people want it to or not... AnonMoos (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So, again - do we have a reliable source which shows that this flag is in common usage? When I check, it all seems to just go back to one or two sites that don't meet WP:RS. There is also the matter that many people who are IS don't consider themselves members of the LGBT community, FWIW - Alison ^❤ 20:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. Many intersex people I've talked to do not like being considered LGBT on the basis of being intersex. The section should be removed. Qtzb (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

LGBT is an umbrella term which includes MOGAI generally. See LGBT. Asexuality and intersex are often included under this umbrella. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on LGBT symbols. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120423151101/http://www.lesbian-friends.com/lesbian-symbols.htm to http://www.lesbian-friends.com/lesbian-symbols.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160121131355/http://www.gogogloglo.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/1/L/1LFPinkJack.jpg to http://www.gogogloglo.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/1/L/1LFPinkJack.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed the gogogloglo one. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 22:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on LGBT symbols. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131007062240/http://thoughtstoberemembered.tumblr.com/post/53367943568/genderfluidity-so-i-couldnt-find-a-flag-that to http://thoughtstoberemembered.tumblr.com/post/53367943568/genderfluidity-so-i-couldnt-find-a-flag-that
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120812202246/http://blogs.sfweekly.com:80/exhibitionist/2012/08/10_fun_facts_lesbian.php to http://blogs.sfweekly.com/exhibitionist/2012/08/10_fun_facts_lesbian.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Even though we don't need the one for blogs.sfweekly (the original still works). -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 23:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Restored doubled/interlocking male and female symbols

The double male (Mars) and double female (Venus) symbols have been very common in some contexts for 20 years or more, and are formally included as part of the Unicode character set standard, so it would be a little absurd to remove them from the article, regardless of whether sourcing is inadequate. It's generally good to insist on sources, but this shouldn't be taken so far as to make articles ignore obvious prominent realities... AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I will take your word for this and let it hang for a while, but in a month I will remove it again, unless sourced. If LFBT people really care for their pride, then they should substantiate it. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

1) What does "LFBT" mean? 2) If your remark is aimed at me, then it's rather off-target, since I'm personally flamingly heterosexual. 3) If you know almost nothing about what does and doesn't exist out there in the real world, then you may not be the best person to perform radical surgery on this article... AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

LFGT is a typo. It was not aimed at you. It was aimed at people (LGBT) who are supposed to have best interest and knowledge on the subject. May be I know nothing about real world, but I think I know a thing or two about the efemeral world of wikipedia, with its rules of sourcing and verification. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The Mashable.com source already used on the page elsewhere discusses the double, interlocking, and superimposed Venus and Mars symbols. Here also is another one. And here, also already used in the article. If you really care for sourcing every sentence in an article, perhaps you should find them. --Equivamp - talk 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, see WP:BURDEN. BTW, I did confirm/restore one flag. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is equally tempered by WP:PRESERVE. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016

It should be mentioned that the asexual flag has been used at pride events.

Gatikmaverik (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 22:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, people have been vandalizing the asexuality entries on several pages for a while now. Asexuality is definitely considered part of the LGBT community by most people and major organizations, it has a place in this article. It's mostly kids from Tumblr who have been making these edits, apparently. HeyThereRobot (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Several sources have been provided below for BOTH the bisexual and asexual flags, can we please have this page protected? It's stunning to me that we are going around and around on a flag that's 18 years old (bi pride flag) and a 5 year old flag (asexual).MercyStreet (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

THis page already is semi-protected. Stickee (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Random flags

I am in the process of removing various invented flags sourced from blogs and flaf author's websites. In order to a symbol to be presented here, it must be described in reliable, independent sources as commonly accepted by the corresponding community. This is the rule of wikipedia. Please don't restore them without valid references. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Staszek Lem, regarding this edit you made, I understand why you removed most of that material, but something about the bisexual pride flag should remain. There are reliable sources that note it, including this Mashable.com source that is used lower in the article for the pansexual pride flag material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Some of this is more or less inevitable according to Wikipedia policies, but flags which have appeared in physical cloth form at multiple events should generally be kept... AnonMoos (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

If a random gal sews a flag and carries it to all "pansex pride" events and tweets about it all over the place, this does not make this personal flag automatically symbol of "pansex" movement, per WP:UNDUE. We need independent reliable sources to describe it as a "pansex symbol". Otherwise we will have as many symbols as people who have sex. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking more parades and such; normally people aren't entirely eager to march behind symbols that they aren't familiar with or that may not represent them... AnonMoos (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Staszek Lem, that is not what I argued. My argument is that you removed the entire bisexual flag section but have retained the pansexual flag section when both flags are covered by the Mashable.com source, which is a reliable source. Furthermore, there are currently some poor sources in that pansexual flag section. Why should the pansexual flag section stay, but not the bisexual flag section, especially considering that pansexuality is often considered a subset of bisexuality? The bisexual community includes pansexual people, after all. The bisexual pride flag is covered by reliable sources, such as this 2005 Youth, Education, and Sexualities: An International Encyclopedia book, from Greenwood Publishing Group, page 701, and this 2016 The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies source, from SAGE Publications, page 123. All one needs to do is add reliable sources for the bisexual pride flag material. And, in my opinion, the bisexuality and pansexuality material should be merged into the "Pride flag and colors" section. They don't need their own sections. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Bi Flag sources: Burleson, William (2014). Bi America: Myths, Truths, and Struggles of an Invisible Community. Routledge. p. 165., For organizational adoption, see "FAQ". BiNet USA., "BOP Events: Look for the Bi Flag to Find Us!". Bisexual Organizing Project (BOP)., "Bisexual Conversations 101". American Institute of Bisexuality.. Also, see Hutchins, Lorraine. "Making Bisexuals Visible" (PDF). National Parks Service. LGBTQ America: A Theme Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer History. p. 08-32. for documentary example of the flag in use. I didn't use the Bisexual Resource Center as a source although they do feature the color scheme prominently and sell promotional items using the flag. This is in addition to the documentation on the page covering the bisexual flag. Are any of those sufficient? Ksluder (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Ka'ahumanu, Lani; Hutchins, Loraine (2015). Bi Any Other Name, Bisexual People Speak Out (25th Anniversary ed.). Riverdale Avenue Books. p. 10. "The international bisexual pride pink, blue and lavender flag has flown for almost 20 years." 15:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please revert this edit for the flag at least, citing independently published descriptions of the flag by Burleson in Bi America and Ka'ahumanu in Bi Any Other Name (25th Anniversary Edition) Ksluder (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ksluder, stick to secondary and tertiary sources, the kind I cited above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Bi America is a secondary source (interpretation of surveys, interviews, and other sources). The frontmatter to Bi Any Other Name is also a secondary source (commentary on essay submissions). Unfortunately the availability of print nonfiction in this area is very limited, so they're what we have to work with. The National Parks Service theme study is a also secondary source (synthesis of primary and secondary sources), and is quite a bit stronger than the Mashable link. The primary sources were referenced specifically to support organizational adoption by three of the leading advocacy organizations in the United States, which is within the bounds of WP:SECONDARY and addressing the concern raised by Staszek Lem regarding individual vs. organizational use. GLAAD's reporting guide on bisexuality refers reporters to those organizations, so I think they can reasonably be taken as representative of bi communities.

Again, I recommend restoration of the section using any of the sources you consider to be strongest. It is a symbol one is likely to encounter in reading articles about bi people. Ksluder (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Mediation outcomes

The matters discussed above were brought to the WP:DRN, and I have acted as volunteer mediator. I am also a member of the LGBT community, and so am claiming a foot in two camps: that of Wikipedia and that of the LGBT community. I am familiar with most of the symbols (I did not actually know that the pansexuals had a flag, but then perhaps I should have guessed), and I do not see any myself at this point that should be removed. A gentle reminder to those wishing to include additional symbols: you need to be certain that your symbol has been discussed non-trivially in reliable, independent, published sources before adding it here— blogs are notoriously unreliable (with certain exceptions) and though not prohibited, will always lead those NOT familiar with the LGBT community to doubt their authenticity. If the symbol/ flag in question really "is" the flag of some subsection or other of the community, then it should not be difficult to find adequate sourcing to verify this; symbols/ flags used once in a parade somewhere and "documented" only in someone's blog are not appropriate for inclusion in this article until that flag/ symbol has made its way into suitable published sources. In summary: let's make it easy on everyone and stick to good old fashioned reliable sourcing for this article's content! The further away from the Internet those sources are, the better— yes? This subject no longer appears to require additional mediation, though I encourage any involved or future editor with concerns to contact me if this changes. KDS4444 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"Asexuality"

The section is removed again, since it is based exclusively on sources not admitted in wikipedia:,forums, tumblr, etc. Please learn the policy WP:RS about sources which are allowed in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do not restore the section without proving that the sources you use are valid reliable independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The removal was initially removed for the simple reason of said removal not being explained. Now that you have given a reason for the removal, re-addition will probably not happen again, and if it does, a link to this section can be provided (or, you know, it's been supported by reliable sources). JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Below are some source links for use of the asexuality flag which are not forums or Tumblr. I apologize if they're not formatted properly, I'm not a habitual editor, I'm just tired of the asexuality edit war and vandalism of the asexuality pages.

• • Trevor Project resource PDF on asexuality - flag is shown on 2nd page.
    • Dead link Staszek Lem (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • website referencing the Mashable post above
    • Blog no permitted. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• • AVEN wiki entry and the entry on

[development] with linked sources and the flag "in the wild" at Pride events.

• • • Wiki not permitted. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• • ALGBTICAL (Association of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues in Counseling of Alabama) Resource Page.
    • Dead link. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

If this isn't enough in the way of sources showing that both the asexual AND bisexual flags are widespread symbols within the community I can provide more, I don't want to spam the talk page, ty. MercyStreet (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

No this is not enough. This is not spam. This is discussion. And it seems you are not familiar with our policy about admissible sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Fusion News on Asexuality Mashable on LGBT Symbols GLAAD USA Today

And the following will be some common asexual websites that use the flag: Asexual Outreach ACES (Spanish) What is Asexuality?

Many of those sites also have pictures of people with asexual flags in person as well as online, at Pride events. In the future, please discuss the lack of reliable sources on the talk page prior to deleting content or mark the items with a "needs citation" mark rather than deleting a whole section outright. Ariadne (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I second that; I thought that was how Wikipedia works; unless something is entirely outlandish, the [citation needed] and variants are to be used. 69.49.78.232 (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The Asexuality section has been restored. Please add [citation needed] markers where you need further citations, and discuss on talk page before removing the section again. As Flyer22 reminded you on a previous issue, please also keep in mind WP:PRESERVE when editing pages.

---

Please don't edit my actual commentary, that seems pretty darn rude. Put your comments after mine, please and thanks. Updated and additional links below:

• Huffington Post from their series on asexuality displaying the flag - please note this is by a HuffPo Senior Writer.
• Is Asexuality a Disorder by the same Senior Writer.
• LGBTICAL (Association of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues in Counseling of Alabama) Resource page - if this link doesn't work (it appears to be an issue with how the original link is formulated - you can follow this link and then click on 'Resources' and then 'Asexuality' in the right-hand column.
• Trevor Project PDF on Asexuality I'm not sure why this link doesn't work for you, it works for me. If you have difficulty loading it, please follow this link and click on 'Asexuality 101 PDF.'
• asexual awareness week is a GLAAD project and here is its resources page with the ace flag all over it.
• GlAAD official blog post see below as to why this should count. This article was written by Thomas Arbuckle II, who at the time of writing held the title of "Public Relations, Programs, and Communications Intern" at GLAAD. Therefore...

As far as disqualifying blogs entirely, yes, I am familiar with the admissable sources, which is why as far as blogs are concerned I only included the official GLAAD blog, which I believe falls under "Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Additionally, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met... "

So, yes, I do expect that the GLAAD blog would be acceptable, because a) it's a blog that falls under the first exception and b) it's a blog that's written by queer people about queer people and so even if a) didn't apply, b) should. This isn't rocket science, this is whether or not the asexual flag is a recognized symbol of the asexual community, which it clearly is, as it's been in public usage for half a decade and exists in resource posts from the major LGBTQ orgs. MercyStreet (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

---

I apologize, I'm still fairly new to talk pages and Wiki Markup as I prefer to use the visual editor. I did not intend to edit your actual comment but to add a comment below. Ariadne (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

---

I apologize, I didn't mark clearly - I wasn't talking to you but to Staszek Lem, who did cut up my comments and mark in the middle so it wasn't clear what I'd actually said. That said, I am curious who is actually a member of the LGBTQ community in this conversation, and who isn't, and if, as it seems, SL isn't a member of the community, why policing what symbols are 'in use enough' seems to matter so much to them. What is our path for going forward, since, despite SL's comments seeming to set himself up as final arbiter, I'm fairly sure that he isn't, and if he isn't a member of the community, why it matters to him to be removing symbols from an encyclopedia article about that community and dictating what is 'enough.' I'm not interested in going rounds in a discussion about an article which is essentially about us with someone if this is an academic exercise for someone rather than a representation of their community. The bi flag has been a symbol for myself I've used for near on 20 years since it came out in 1998, and the colors were around for much longer, so... what is our way forward here? MercyStreet (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

When editing wikipedia we don't ask people who they are: black, Russians, women, transgender, Republicans, or Muslim. We don't discuss editors, we discuss article content. Period.

That said, the fact that you've been using a certain flag does not say anything whether this flag was accepted by a wider community. It does not even matter it is used in some high school. Only if a flag was used by some notable community, notable enough to be reported by independent sources, then it can make its way into wikipedia. You know the joke about on the internet nobody knows you are a dog, right? Just the same, anybody can start a website and claim his group is huge and wide all over. For example, some 10 years ago some joker invented a new religion, claimed tens thousands of followers on his website and tried to push his article in wikipedia. Therefore it is extremely important to have independent' sources to write about topics covered in wikipedia. Please peruse our policies WP:RS and WP:UNDUE and WP:COI.

So, the way forward here is to find solid sources to support your claims. I rattled your little walled garden a bit, let's see what will come out of this. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

So you've answered my question: you aren't someone who is involved in the community, or you would know that the bi pride flag (as verified on the Bisexual pride flag article right over there, with all its resources, has been in use by the wider community since 1998, and we've provided many, many, many independent usages of both flags by a wider community, one for five years, and one for almost twenty. This isn't about you 'rattling my walled garden,' this is about you coming in and editing something that you clearly don't know anything about. I'm aware of the policy, which is why I've been looking up exactly how to report you for violating the 3RR. There are solid sources, they have been provided, I've shown you where in the Wikipedia policies the sources are legit. At this point, I am seeking mediation because you are violating edit policies and clearly not interested in the actual independent verified sources that several people have given. MercyStreet (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that mediation should be sought, and that several proper sources have been provided. Independent reports on the community and flag in question have been provided both on the wider scope (LGBT) and the smaller scope (Asexual). As MercyStreet mentioned, you consistently have edited on a topic you are unknowledgeable about, deleted large sections (ignoring WP:PRESERVE, which you have also violated several times), and then ignored credible and independent sources. Please refrain from further deletions until we can seek mediation and see this resolved. Ariadne (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Tone down with your belligerent attitude. You are not on the internets, you are editing wikipedia. Please comment on article not editors. I was answering in the talk page about the sources you (or somebody) listed. I dont have time until Christmas, so cool down. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Asexual flag discussed by Bilić, Bojan; Kajinić, Sanja (2016). Intersectionality and LGBT Activist Politics: Multiple Others in Croatia and Serbia. Springer. p. 95-96. and Decker, Julie. The Invisible Orientation: An Introduction to Asexuality. Skyhorse.. Both references are accessible through Google Books. University sources: "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual: Symbols". Old Dominion University. and "Asexual". UCLA Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource center.. Also I went back and fixed trivial markup errors to some links. Ksluder (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Both good sources. I found the following: best suitcase is Rutgers University news that describes the colors and flag here as well as school newspaper of University Alabama. Also found U of Alberta, UC Santa Barbara, Illinois Wesleyan University, and UCLA. Montclair mentions colors. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Everyone, stick to secondary and tertiary sources, and there should not be a problem. Wikis and similar are not WP:Reliable sources. In the #Random flags section above, I pointed Staszek Lem to reliable sources for the bisexual pride flag content. So, yes, bisexual pride flag content should be in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources, including the Mashable source you included above, have been cited.Ariadne (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The .edu sources seem sufficient to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LGBT symbols. 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/20120119045626/http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/ to http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150705201921/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/san_francisco%2C2.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/san_francisco%2C2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312091511/http://www.butch-femme.com/content.php?23-Gender-Terms-and-Linguistics to http://www.butch-femme.com/content.php?23-Gender-Terms-and-Linguistics

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) 19:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Full protection

I have fully protected the article to stop the edit warring and get you to come here and talk about the issue: Do symbols of asexuality belong on this LGBT page, or don't they? Why or why not? Work it out by discussion, please. --MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: This is not a dispute, it's socking vandalism. We've discussed this in the past (Talk:LGBT_symbols#.22Asexuality.22 above). The user seems to use proxies and various IPs to continue their disruption from months ago. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'm going to leave the protection in place. That earlier discussion agreed that there is such a thing as an asexual flag, but I didn't see any explanation or discussion about why it is included in this article. Is there a new grouping called LGBTQA? Does the lede mention "asexuality" as falling within the scope of this article? Are there reliable sources saying that aces are considered part of the LGBT community? I'm not arguing one way or the other, I'm just saying the person who is removing the section might have a valid point; protecting the article should encourage them to expound it. Presumably you have a valid reason for including it, but you haven't explained your reason at this talk page, as Wikipedia expects. So hopefully the protection will encourage you to explain your reasoning as well. (BTW you asked for semi-protection, but I'm sure you know that semi-protection cannot be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in a content dispute.) --MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: yes I know it cannot be used in that way. I maintain this this socking vandalism. But here are sources that show aces & aros are included under the lgbtq umbrella:

• UNC's LGBT Center groups ace/aro under LGBTQIA+
• Huffington Post
• UC Davis's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual Resource Center
• UCLA also groups them under the lgbtq umbrella
• Advocate explicitly says they're part of the lgbtq label
• USA Today
• GLAAD

EvergreenFir (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"Do symbols of asexuality belong on this LGBT page?" Yes, they do. The inclusion of genderfluid, genderqueer, intersex, and other symbols seems to be non-controversial. If we are going to include them -- and effectively accept the widely held position that "LGBT" is an inclusive label rather than an exclusive one -- then there is absolutely no basis for excluding asexual. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 06:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Good, you now have sources and consensus to establish this point. And a talk page discussion you can point to when you restore this material. And now you have documented justification for calling it vandalism if someone persists in removing it. You might consider making this broad definition of LGBT clear in the article, but that's up to you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: would you kindly semi protect the page now? The vandalism resumes soon after the full protection started. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LGBT symbols. 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/20131105200436/http://www.sapphooflesbos.com/lesbian-symbols.htm to http://www.sapphooflesbos.com/lesbian-symbols.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160115130147/http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/intersex-advocates-address-findings-of-senate-committee-into-involuntary-sterilisation-12237.html to http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/intersex-advocates-address-findings-of-senate-committee-into-involuntary-sterilisation-12237.html

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) 12:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Leather pride flag

It was decided years ago that this page would not include general BDSM symbols without specific LGBT-relevance (see the discussion somewhere in the archives to this talk page). However, that DOES NOT apply to the Leather Pride flag, since the gay-male "leathermen" of the 1960s and 1970s (now retroactively known as "old-guard leather") were a prominent subculture of the time -- they were better organized than most non-BDSM gay groups of the time, and were also better organized than most non-gay BDSM groups of the time, and ended up being fairly influential in several directions (of course the term "BDSM" itself was not coined until ca. 1990). Since leathermen were pretty well known for decades before a number of other groups whose symbols have been included in the article, it would be blatant historical revisionism of the worst sort to remove the leather pride flag from this article (not to mention that variations of it are widely publicly displayed in physical cloth form). AnonMoos (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Just restored the Leather Pride flag after it was removed more than a few edits ago. Wish people would learn their queer history instead of trying to erase it. I know I saw discussion of this in the archived Talk page for this article where the conclusion was it belonged on this page. Caterfree10 (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Equals sign

In recent years, the equals sign has also been used to symbolize LGBT rights. The symbol has been used since 1995 by the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for marriage equality, and subsequently by the United Nations Free & Equal, which promotes LGBT rights at the United Nations. HRC Story – Our Logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.105.250 (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Restored gallery

I have restored the gallery found in LGBT symbols#LGBT pride flags. these seem important, and I don't see any reason to remove them from the display on the page. Frietjes (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

You misrepresent your edit as being a restoration of a deleted gallery. However, you deleted the original gallery. I reversed your edit. What you now did (re-add your edit with smaller sizing) displays no different than what existed before. Furthermore, when you first deleted the existing gallery your summary explanation was: "per discussion at Template talk:Flag entry" -- which is hogwash, because not only did you fail to identify the specific discussion you based your edit on, but the discussions in that talk page do not support your edit and your summary. You want to take bold edits to heart? Fine. But you're not the only editor in town. Pyxis Solitary yak 20:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Lesbian flag

For the last few years, i have seen an upsurge of people using this flag for lesbian flag on social media such as tumblr (but also ive seen it in pride related shops, i can provide link(s)). I don't have any info on when and who started repurposing original lipstick lesbian flag and why some people have concerns over labrys flag, but i think the topic is worth researching and probably including in this article. KamillaŚ (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Now image File:Lipstick Lesbian flag without lips.svg on Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know when the lipstick flag was re-interpreted as a "lesbian pride" flag, but I have not seen it on display in the lesbian events I've attended. IMO, the original flag with lipstick kiss has been hijacked by women within the LGBT community that identify as "queer", and who'd lose their shit if you called them "lesbian". Pyxis Solitary yak 07:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I've seen numerous responses from people claiming the creator of the lipstick flag is in fact racist and transphobic. I have found sources for racism, not for transphobia. I've added a note about the racism. Should anyone find a source confirming the transphobia, feel free to add it. PPP (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Accusations made against the creator of the flag belongs in the Lipstick lesbian article, where the flag is included. A generalized statement regarding the flag not being used by members of the lesbian community needs to be supported with a verifiable source that specifically covers that subject. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Restored leather pride flag

For the reasons explained at length at Talk:LGBT_symbols/Archive_1#Leather pride flag, the Leather Pride Flag must be included in any lengthy listing of miscellaneous LGBT symbols and flags... AnonMoos (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Tumblr blogs are not accepted as reliable sources

FYI: Tumblr blogs are user generated content. Additionally, Tumblr is a social networking site. Tumblr blogs are not considered reliable sources and cannot be used as citations. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Reversal of transgender and genderqueer/non-binary category umbrellas

Also under the trans or transgender umbrella are all those who identify off the gender binary. There are many different identities within this category including genderqueer, two-spirit, gender fluid, third gender, and androgyny.

This seems wrong and unsupported by the citation; rather the relationship is inversed: transgender identities are included under the genderqueer or "off the gender binary" umbrella, not the reverse. The second sentence may therefore more correctly belong under the Non-binary heading a few sections above this one.

--passcod (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. I read the source and also did a web search. The citation, however, was a Tumblr blog and therefore unacceptable in Wikipedia as a reliable source. I moved the sentence to / Non-binary / and provided two sources that are not a social-networking origin. Pyxis Solitary yak 03:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Complete overhaul and updating of flags

Hi all,

I feel that many of the flags added on this page are not widely-use and are not backed-up by WP:RS. I plan on removing those flags and feel we should have a criteria of at least two reliable sources to indicate a flag's adoption and use. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 03:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the following flags since they lack any citation, and some seem to be proposals:

• Agender Re-added 16:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Aromantic Re-added 16:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Demisexual
• Feather pride
• Twink
• Israeli transgender and genderqueer

Two reliable sources should be required for the readdition of these flags. I'm going to try to find additional citations for the other flags already reliably covered in the article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 03:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

When someone says "I plan on removing those flags", he/she is suggesting that feedback from other editors is being sought before making the edits. You didn't even wait for 30 minutes to pass. Bold editing doesn't mean: "F__ what other editors have to say".
"Two reliable sources should be required for the readdition of these flags." -- (1) Is there a section in WP:RELIABLE that requires two reliable sources for any content to be acceptable? (2) WP:CITENEED exists to alert readers and editors that a reliable source is missing. The template guidelines do not require a set number of sources. And (3) WP:SIGCOV states: "'Sources' should be secondary sources....There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." In other words, one source that complies with the notability guidelines is enough. Pyxis Solitary yak 09:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: I was shooting for two reliable sources since many reliable sources appear to be engaged in circular reporting from what I've already tried to find. That was my only concern!

I also decided to put in the talk page conversation, but then decided to go WP:BOLD since I was just removing unsourced content anyways. I think it's apparent my edit was constructive in the end. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, File:Israeli Transgender Flag.svg is used 4 times on Hebrew Wikipedia (in two articles and two portal pages), and they're the ones in the best position to know whether it has a real-world existence... AnonMoos (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, and three of the four articles/portals where the file is used are just collections of LGBT symbols. If we find reliable sources, we could add it to the location-specific gallery. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not offering it as a source, just saying that it's highly probable that if File:Israeli Transgender Flag.svg were one person's individual thing only, then it would have been summarily ejected from the non-userspace of Hebrew Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I recognize all of those flags in use at colleges around the United States. I think your deletions are unwarranted. Esprix (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Esprix: Yea, and that's original research. We need reliable sources. If you can find an article about colleges flying the Twink and Feather pride flags, be my guest to readd them. I'm not opposed to having any of these flags unless it becomes an issue of WP:UNDUE. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletions by User:Nice4What

Since many editors who have been involved in editing this article don't have it on their watchlist, they may not be aware of the deletion and substitution edits. Therefore, I am pinging the 2017, 2018, and 2019 editors who have edited the article three or more times so that they may have an opportunity to participate in this discussion, if they so choose. The list of editor names is located in Wikipedia Page History Statistics. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinged editors

@EvergreenFir: @AnonMoos: @Another Believer: @LadyofShalott: @Weegaweek: @Nihkee: @Realmdee: @Equivamp: @StephenWade: @MelanieN: @Trankuility: @Darlingv: @Thespoondragon: @Thomas Linard: @Oshwah: @Adam9007: @Frietjes: @Periaster: @*Treker: @SkyWarrior: @Esprix: @The Anome: @ELmaupin: @Jmoss chud: @Jim1138: @Acolossus: @TheDoDahMan: @Actiondegrace: @Materialscientist: @Penrose Delta: @MoroFromPeterboro: @Spaceapathy: @Sro23: Red-link names have not created a user page, but do have a user contributions history.

Consensus is needed before this article continues to have text, sources, flags, and symbols deleted. Between 19:36, 2 July 2019‎ and 02:20, 7 July 2019, User:Nice4What has deleted several files, added his own preferred files, deleted material and sources, and questioned the validity of content. Wikipedia encourages bold editing -- but these "bold edits" are more disruptive than productive and have become tendentious. They have been the opposite of building an article. Major changes warrant caution and discussion before being made. I know it will be tiresome for many to review the series of edits made within the above-reference range of time, but I believe it's necessary to discuss this matter because what's good for the article is what's important -- not what's good for the preferences of any editor. Pyxis Solitary yak 09:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Actually, I believe per WP:RS you need reliable sources to keep content. Sorry, but there is no point keeping unverified flags. Plus, I've gone back to update every flag subsection and find citations. What I've done is constructive – continue to complain about what I've done in theory, but look at the actual work done.

@Pyxis Solitary: To add to this, for you to gender me and to write Nice4What continues to twist this article into his personal preference shows you actually made no effort to see what changes I've actually made; what did I do to merit such an attack? I see no "personal preference" being imposed – it's simply WP:RS and this article is very lacking in quality. Many of the sources that were previously used cited Wikipedia as their source for the flag (Again: Circular reporting). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if you are male, female, or non-binary. In such case, referencing someone with the generic "he" or "she" subject pronoun is grammatically correct. It would be useful if you stated your preferred manner in your user profile page. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis_Solitary -- You can see if any user has specified gender in their user profile by including the following in a "Show preview" edit: {{GENDER:Nice4What|Male|Female|Unknown}}. Currently this resolves to "Unknown"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

"made no effort to see what changes I've actually made".

On 03:39, 4 July 2019 you deleted 7 files of flags/symbols from the gallery.

On 21:12, 6 July 2019 you tagged the Star Observer source as "Failed verification"; deleted a source; tagged the Taxon journal source explaining Venus symbol with "Relevance" needed template; tagged the Revue Archéologique journal source with "Specify"; deleted the source that created and published a flag, and then added a citation needed for the information -- but because you failed to read the second source provided you failed to see that it also verified the origin.

On 21:19, 6 July 2019 you added an HM requiring 2 sources; deleted one flag file in the gallery (L Pride Flag) and added your preferred version of the same design (Rainbow flag with white Double Venus).

On 21:25, 6 July 2019 you deleted two flag files and added your preferred version of one; deleted a source explaining creation of a flag and a second source for it (The Advocate) then added a citation needed template for the flag.

On 21:25, 6 July 2019 you deleted the file that'd had The Advocate as a source from the gallery section.

On 01:21, 7 July 2019 you tagged a source as Unreliable.

On 01:28, 7 July 2019 you tagged another source as Unreliable.

On 01:40, 7 July 2019 you added Lesbian Pride Flag 2019 file in the gallery.

On 01:42, 7 July 2019 you added the LPF 2019 file to the section and removed the rainbow flag file.

• On 08:54, 7 July 2019 I reversed the flurry of deletions and edits, and requested consensus in the talk page before major edits like the above-referenced, then created the talk page consensus topic at 09:13, 7 July 2019.

On 18:39, 7 July 2019 you reversed the article back to the 08:54 status -- even though the consensus topic in the talk page had been created and replies from other editors is pending.

Pyxis Solitary yak 10:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we should honstly stick with flags that are notable. Otherwise we end up with a billion of them on the page.★Trekker (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Flags and symbols included in the article should be shown to be notable, and in widespread use. Otherwise, the page will fill up with DIY symbols, often added to the page by their own creators. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day -- The Anome (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@*Treker: I agree, that's why I had reshaped the gallery to include those commonly reported on by reliable sources... not blogs. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: You're missing the picture... again. I didn't think you'd go through each of my edits one-by-one. Instead, I was hoping you'd look at the before and after – citations added, unsourced material removed. I'm not going to remove the double-venus flag for now but you need reliable sources such as the ones (BBC and Refinery29) I've provided, not Getty Images. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I feel you may have a bias towards this double-venus flag because, as you've said yourself, you own the flag in person. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no guideline in WP:RELIABLE that exempts an image published in a highly-regarded editorial photography source to be used as a reliable source for the purpose of verifying information about an image file in an article, nor is Getty Images included in WP:RS/P. Nitpicking sources because they don't benefit your agenda is reckless editing. (And it's a good thing you struck out that sentence. But it doesn't change the fact that you used a comment made in my talk page ... about a different flag.) Pyxis Solitary yak 05:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Please tell me what sort of "agenda" I'm trying to push here lol. I just want this article to be well written is all! 😂 Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Also wanted to add that I removed The Advocate as a source for the labrys lesbian flag because that article cites DeviantArt! There are better alternatives out there – such as the Refinery29 article which covers the same topic. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't "cite" DevianArt -- it provides a link to DA about several LGBTQ flags. The information written and published by The Advocate is legitimate. Let's not try to ignore that many of these publications reporting on the flags and symbols probably researched Wikipedia, and each other (aka circular reporting), for the information; and where they procured their image files is not made available to the reader. Pyxis Solitary yak 05:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Other sources that are more reliable than The Advocate were easily found. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

One of the more visible changes I disagree with is the addition of adoption/creation dates to the captions of images, as I believe these can be kept in the body text of the article. I will be looking at the other changes made when I have a chance. --Thespündragon 15:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comments - Using this as my starting point. My main concerns are (1) that the "2 RS" requirement is not supported by any policy I'm aware of and (2) the removal of some flags seems unwarranted. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that only one reliable source is needed per policy (my mistake), but if you feel the removal of certain flags seems unwarranted, please find a reliable source and readd the flag. I was able to find sources for the Aromantic and Agender pride flags. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems the me the vast majority of those changes have been unwarranted Acolossus | Talk | Contributions 22:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Acolossus: Unwarranted...? Just find reliable sources to readd any removed flag, it's the simple. As said before, I've done my part on readding some flags. However, it'd be tedious to readd every flag that exists simply because they exist – we need a standard for notability. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

If you're advocating for notability, then "new" flags whose use has not been firmly established within any segment of the LGBTQ community should not be included in the article. A new flag creation may have recognition as being new -- but that doesn't make it notable. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: What I'm looking for is reliable sources indicating a flag's use. If you're still hung up about the new lesbian flag, there is no doubting that the BBC solidifies that flag's notability. The video doesn't even call it new or talks of its creation, so lets not tread on original research – find reliable sources. But if that's not the flag you're talking about, what other "new" flag currently in the article is in question? (By the way, I was calling back to another editor's previous mention of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day...) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Re notability: WP:SIGCOV - "received significant coverage"; Notability Template - "sources that ... provide significant coverage ... beyond a mere trivial mention." Pyxis Solitary yak 04:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Yes, and the BBC didn't report on the flag in a trivial manner. And please feel free to respond to my other messages/questions left for you above. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay. The person in the BBC video holding the "new lesbian flag" states: "This is the new lesbian flag...I think it's great that a flag like this exists...." You provided a source for a "new lesbian flag", which leads to the question: which is/what are the "old lesbian flag"? You can't have one (new) without the other (old). Pyxis Solitary yak 11:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That's how you choose to interpret it based on emphasis, it could just be that the flag is both 'new' and represents lesbians. Not that it is the new lesbian flag. Maybe the "old" one is the revised lipstick lesbian flag, hmm? I don't know, I can't interpret on my own. I'd love if you were to respond to my other questions/comments related to the matter left all over this talk page. :) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 22:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"Not that it is the new lesbian flag". Nope. "New flag" is precisely what the source says: "This is the new lesbian flag." Pyxis Solitary yak 00:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to give you the benefit of believing that you overlooked my use italics, alright? My point would be that instead of being understood as the new lesbian flag (that is, there was a lesbian flag before), she may be referring to the fact that this flag design is both new and lesbian (two separate adjectives). Also... no reply to the fact that the old flag in question was the "lipstick lesbian" flag? Isn't that what the petitioners for this "new" flag initially indicated, due to the creator being allegedly transphobic/racist? 😋 Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"due to the creator being allegedly transphobic/racist". So now you're bringing junk social media allegations and gossip that began here into this. (+ See above LGBT_symbols#Lesbian_flag). Pyxis Solitary yak 01:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis, stop picking the smallest detail of all my replies. These are simply reasons why there were calls for a new flag. Look at what's more important here: the BBC indicated this symbol was a lesbian flag. I feel like you are just arguing to argue at this point – like what is your point here? You've mentioned you've been editing for 11 years, so act like it. Before replying, consider if your comment might be more appropriate for talk page than here. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Pyxis Solitary:. Thanks for tagging me.

To go back a bit, the "old" flag was the lipstick lesbian flag without the lips. The new lesbian flag is one of two new lesbian flags, the other being the similarly colored one with 7 stripes.

I think a large portion of this conflict is produced by the question of what counts as a good source. For example, the Medium article isn't a good source, but Nice4What is correct that it DID inspire change within the community. It might be worth mentioning as a primary source. In an article dealing with consensus within a community, the ultimate source is the community, which isn't "reliable". Therefore, on pages about community consensus, I prefer to relax standards of "reliability" and am in favor of deleting less content if possible.

I'll go look for a source for the demisexual flag now, since it's accepted and more notable than some other flags here. Penrose Delta (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: I found two sources. Are either of these good enough?

https://www.entitymag.com/demisexual-flag-meaning/ This talks about the meaning behind the colors.

http://demisexuality.org/articles/what-is-demisexuality/ This second one seems to reference the flag appearing on the cover of a book about the topic. Penrose Delta (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Penrose Delta: The second link doesn't say anything about the flag so it couldn't be used as a source. I would want to agree that the second source may suffice, but that source's reliability may also be questioned; the author of that article was an undergraduate student at the time and it appears the publication Entity Mag takes in a lot of summer interns (around the time this article was published). I'll try to look for other sources about this flag. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I have found this article from UK PinkNews. However, that source's reliability is debated so I think something else may need to be found. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Acolossus. Many of those flags are in use and recognizable by the communities they represent, so even if it's not in WIDE use, I'd say they still qualify as legitimate and notable entries to this page. Esprix (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Esprix: Read the Wikipedia policies WP:RS (← most important for all editors), WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. If you want to see these flags readded, take action and find sources that back what you see. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Double-Venus flag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The flag in question

Started a direct discussion about the matter (though it's briefly covered in #Deletions by User:Nice4What, there is dispute about the inclusion of the double-venus flag.

I have no opposition to the inclusion of the flag so long as:

1. Reliable sources indicate its use as a lesbian flag
2. Reliable sources indicate that it has been adopted as a lesbian flag

I initially removed the flag and have been trying to find sources that would allow its inclusion on the article. However, User:Pyxis Solitary readded the flag and insisted on these four sources as being reliable:

• San Francisco’s Pride Parade 2016, article includes a captionless image that shows another flag with a blue canton and double-venus being used
• Thousands gather to celebrate lesbians, article that shows the same blue canton flag but says nothing of it
• Dyke March 2017 Berlin, an image file that says "The marchers made their way [...] waving pride rainbow flags and signs in support of the LGBTQ community", so nothing about lesbianism
• Group of participants of LGBTQ Pride Parade in Montreal, another image file that speaks of "an assortment of the diverse LBGTQ2+ flags" but not much else

I decided to bring the matter to the WP:RS noticeboard. It's too early to say what the consensus there is. However, I think it's fair to start another conversation here in order to find these reliable sources (if they exist). I think the difficulty in finding articles that don't exclude this flag says a lot about the flag's notability itself, but that's just my opinion.

I'm pointing to:

• WP:RS/WP:OR – These policies speak for themselves.
• WP:PRIMARY – If you view these images as primary sources, this policy states "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
• WP:WHATPLACE — An editor has decided to say the flag is sometimes used, which isn't specific, isn't directly backed by sources, and could be said about many symbols.

Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Usually we require sources to explicitly say something, not be something we can infer (see wp:v). Thus being used at a general gay pride rally does not tell us it is explicitly a lesbian flag (as opposed to say used by transgenders). Being very generous we might say that it being used at explicitly lesbian events indicates it maybe a lesbian flag, but that still (it can be argued) fails verififiability, because it might still be there to represent other groups, and not just lesbians. We really do need a source that says it is a lesbian flag and not really on how were interpret sources. But it is clear it is being used by someone at gay pride (and even lesbianism pride) marches.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I agree that we need a source that says it's a lesbian flag because we can't interpret these sources on our own. There are many flags used today at pride events, but the inclusion of such symbols in reliable lists of LGBT symbols may indicate notability. If this double-venus flag is never mention by reliable sources, does that not say anything? If this flag was widely used, widely adopted, notable in any sort of way, surely we could find a reliable source about the flag being used for lesbian pride. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

There may be issues with wp:undue (which is not the same as wp:n or wp:v), yes. But lets give users more then a couple of days to find sources.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that we can wait some time until consensus is reached 👍 I added {{Disputed inline}} to the double-venus flag to notify editors of this discussion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Lets make this clear, the content has been challenged, if no attempt is made to defend it then it is going to be removed sooner rather then latter.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget that several projects have been notified about this matter at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Sociology, WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, WikiProject Reliability. Many editors aren't glued to Wikipedia, and particularly since we're now in summer may not be checking in with your frequency. Pyxis Solitary yak 01:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Many editors aren't glued to Wikipedia, and particularly since we're now in summer may not be checking in with your frequency. Again with attacking other editors who don't agree with you. Will you ever quit? I appreciate you're putting a heads-up that other projects have been notified, but will you add something of substance to this discussion? (But let's be honest, a consensus seems to be forming quite quickly over at the other discussion...) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Which I why I say above "But lets give users more then a couple of days to find sources.". So far none have.Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be stretching things to call Pyxis_Solitary's remarks which you quoted a "personal attack". I'm not sure why, if we've established that two juxtaposed Venus/female symbols in general have Lesbian symbolism, we have to re-establish it again in a flag context. However, it seems that the blue-canton version has higher-prominence than the File:Lesbian Pride rainbow flag with white Double Venus.svg variant... AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hawaii has a union flag as part of its state flag, that does not mean it is British. Sometimes people juxtapose different symbols for reason other then "well it means the same thing". Now it may mean it is a lesbian pride flag (but that still does not mean a major or significant one, rather then one knocked up in someones shed), or it may be "gays who stand with lesbians" or "transgenders can be lesbian too" or god knows what else.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

What I'm stating here can be also be found in what I stated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
For the lesbian pride double-Venus flag, the text states: "A lesbian pride flag design sometimes seen at pride festivals and dyke marches is the rainbow flag with two interlocked astronomical Venus symbols". The keyword being seen. The text does not include the who/what created the flag and when. The double-Venus lesbian flag is composed of the double-Venus symbol that represents the lesbian community, and the rainbow flag concept that represents Gay pride. Double-Venus symbol + Pride rainbow flag = Lesbian pride rainbow flag. I have not been able to find who was the first to put the two together and when it first appeared at a Pride parade, festival, and Dyke March with a Google and Duck Duck search; it's probably buried somewhere in a general book about the community then-known as L & G or an out-of-print publication. However, when the flag came into use and who created it is not what the text is about, only that it is "seen at pride festivals and dyke marches". You are demanding sources for what is "seen" and the flag has, indeed, been "seen" at Pride events and Dyke marches because at least two RS articles include it in their story. You want to ignore what two interlocking Venus symbols has represented within the lesbian community since the 1970s? That's the choice you've made. You want to ignore what the Gay pride flag stands for? That, too, is your choice. But me? I'm not into splitting hairs and denying the obvious. Pyxis Solitary yak 23:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

As said in the initial post, what's been searched for here is that:

1. Reliable sources indicate its use as a lesbian flag
2. Reliable sources indicate that it has been adopted as a lesbian flag

Many symbols + flag combinations may exist, but there are so many issues at hand here. Also related to WP:PRIMARY (as seen above) which states: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

No we are demanding that A, it is show it is a lesbian pride flag and B. that it is demonstrated that this is more then just some flag knocked up in a shed, that it is in fact a significant flag.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: That's why I specifically did not call it a "personal attack". Also, not all symbols are necessarily equal in the context of a flag (see Slatersteven's comment right above mine). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see that we shouldn't just go with the flag that Pyxis Solitary has pointed to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: The issue is that there are no reliable sources for the use of this double-venus flag as a lesbian pride flag, and the difficulty in finding such sources make it somewhat apparent that inclusion of this flag may be an issue with WP:UNDUE. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Well for a start he has pointed to at least two slightly (but significantly) different designs. Added to which none of his sources identify it as a lesbian pride flag, or that it is anything more then 1 of 100s of minor flags. We cannot (and should not) have a list of every g=flag that has appeared in 2 or more marches, how many would that be? Or do you disagree?Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven and Pyxis Solitary: Just so both of you are aware, the discussion at the RS noticeboard has been archived. Seems to be a clear consensus that the images don't suffice as reliable sources. I'm prepared to soon close this discussion and remove the double-venus flag until reliable sources are found and there's no issue with WP:UNDUE. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The RfC was specifically about using Getty Images as reliable sources.
The RfC was not about using reliable sources associated with lesbians and lesbian-related events that include images of the double-Venus rainbow flag, and are not photographic media sources such as Getty Images. Such decision requires its own RfC. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lesbian pride rainbow flag visual sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Message struck out (collapsed by Nice4What, see note)

"A lesbian pride flag design sometimes seen at pride festivals and dyke marches is the rainbow flag with two interlocked astronomical Venus symbols". Han, Alex (June 2016). "San Francisco's Pride Parade 2016". Bay City Group. (used in article) Rubenstein, Steve (June 29, 2008). "Thousands gather to celebrate lesbians". San Francisco Chronicle. (used in article) Goodfriend, Wendy (June 28, 2017). "The 25th San Francisco Dyke March 2017". look2remember. Bolcer, Julie (February 16, 2010). "NM Domestic Partnership Bill Dead, For Now". The Advocate. Shields, Derica (May 22, 2013). "Money, Sex, Power & Christian Evangelicals in Roger Ross Williams' 'God Loves Uganda'". OkayAfrica. Garcia, Adrian (October 8, 2013). "Watch: Rainbow-American Flag Stirs Up A Storm Of Controversy at Tennessee College". The Gaily Grind. "Impressions of Pride Events around the World". InterPride. 2018. MacDonald, Jocelyn (January 13, 2017). "Today's shameless lesbians won't be queered". Feminist Current. AV media Claudia Schmidt (June 14, 2019). Vienna Dyke March 2019 Video 2. Vienna, Austria: YouTube. Event occurs at 2:03. Minna Eggzahn (August 3, 2018). Dyke March Hamburg 2018 passing from Kirchenallee into Ernst-Merck-Str. on a hot August day. Hamburg, Germany: YouTube. Event occurs at 0:16, 0:40. William Brougham (March 3, 2019). Dykes on Bikes at Sydney Mardi Gras 2019. Sydney, Australia: YouTube. Event occurs at 0:24, 2:03, 2:17. Always Askew (March 2, 2019). Dykes on Bikes 2019 Mardi Gras (Slo Mo). Sydney, Australia: YouTube. Event occurs at 4:38, 4:54, 5:50. Wendy Goodfriend (June 26, 2017). San Francisco Dyke March Dances Down Castro Street. San Francisco, California: YouTube. Event occurs at 0:15 –. Elliot Stoller (July 2, 2019). Seattle Dyke March. Seattle, Washington: YouTube. Event occurs at 0:00. Warren walks NYC (June 30, 2019). NYC Dyke March, Part 1 of 3. New York, New York: YouTube. Event occurs at 0:52. Find more? Please add. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC); updated 00:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC); updated 10:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC) (added more) Note: I've decided to collapse this section as it was completely struck out by the editor. This is to free up space. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have checked the first three, none of them say it is a lesbian pride flag. None of them in fact metion it, it is just pictures. So rather then wasted my time. do any of these sources EXPLICITLY say (in the text) it is a lesbian pride flag. Do any of them even mention this flag in the text? We do not challenge its existence, we challenge its notability. Ohh and YouTube videos are not generally RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

You're just listing more of the same sources (read WP:PRIMARY!) It should say something that none of the other reliable sources that list notable flags include the double-venus flag, drawing into doubt its notability (not its existence!). There are so many flags that exist:

• American LGBT pride
• Jewish LGBT pride
• Indian LGBT pride with black chevron
• New York Color Guard pride
• Transgender symbol imposed on LGBT pride (hmmm... look familiar?)
• Amsterdam canal pride
• I think the point is made

Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

RTo add, if this is the best you can find, it rather reinforces the idea that this is just another homemade flag, no more important then 100 other flags we do not mention. Read wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, post one source (just one) that explicitly (using words) says this is a lesbian pride flag. We know it exists, so does every post I have ever written, that does not make then notable.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Updating the list with a lot of unreliable sources ≠ one reliable source. You're not proving your point by updating the list with more of the same sort of sources. Also choosing to abstain from responding to the comments left for you doesn't make for a good case either. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Since the purpose of this thread has confused at least one or two of you, I am going to delete it and create a new thread that will be less confusing. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Pyxis Solitary yak 04:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lesbian flag history

@Pyxis Solitary: I'm not really into this business,^[1] thanks for fixing the reference. It's a popular topic on tumblr, over 60K likes/comments/reblogs for a history presented by @erinptah, but blogs are useless here per WP:RS or WP:UGC. I'm sure about one historic detail, the labrys was a symbol for feminism in the 80's, not limited to Lesbian pride. –84.46.53.209 (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I read sources, and burn more hours than I should making sure that details in articles are correct; because many writers who are too lazy to go to a library and conduct a thorough research about a topic use Wikipedia as the go-to information bank, ignoring that every word in this "cyclopedia" was created by Jane and Joe Blow volunteers who, more often than not, have zero credentials in whatever they contribute. When I see the yada yada on Tumblr about "the lesbian flag", my mind hears Ring a Ring o' Roses playing in the background. The labrys was around long before lesbian feminists adopted it as a symbol of power in the 1970s. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 02:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Lipstick lesbian Pride Flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)