Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

WikiProject LGBT studies

 Home Talk Collaboration Editing Resources Showcase

Institut für Sexualwissenschaft

This article seems to flit back-and-forth between using modern terms for gender and sexual identities ("gay" and "transgender"), but in other parts it uses outdated language ("transvestite", "transsexual"). Obviously this is a historical article and I am aware that terminology changes, but I think this could do with a copyedit from members of this Wikiproject for consistency (and any other edits you would reccomend for this article). Thank you! GnocchiFan (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Why just LGBT?

Does this project include asexuality and pansexuality? If not why not? If so why not call it WikiProject LGBTQ studies?

Thanks for reading. SigurdsSister (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

"LGBT" is just used as an umbrella term for the whole queer movement. "Queer studies" could be a reasonable alternative name. However, this discussion has been had a million times. Tons of move requests have been made to LGBT, our article about the initialism. It's just inconsistant, and in my experience, the alphabet soup is just a distraction from the actual goals of both this project, the wider community, and any LGBT-related movements. If there is a widely held belief that this WikiProject should change its name, I'm fine with it, but I really don't want another pages-long thread of people disagreeing with eachother about it. That's the inevitable result of proposals of LGBTQ, LGBTQIA, LGBT+, LGBTQ+, etc. It all means exactly the same in practice, but everyone has a slightly different preference. This is not an "LGB" exclusionary tactic we're doing here. I don't feel excluded as an enby ace myself, it's fine. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok that’s totally fine, just wondering.SigurdsSister (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No Queerphobes

I just published Wikipedia:No Queerphobes, an essay in the vein of WP:NONAZIS, WP:No Racists, WP:No Confederates, and WP:Hate is disruptive. I'd appreciate people's thoughts on it! Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this essay. Looks great as a central reference point. Raladic (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with a blanket reference to items of such concern as WP:FRINGE, as some of these views are sadly common. Some common beliefs are scientifically fringe, but some of what's being addressed is not a matter of science but of policy and belief. Not sure how best to address that.

I would suggest that "That marriage should only be available to heterosexual people." be edited to "...heterosexual couples", because for many of objectors to same-sex marriage, it's the gender of the participants and not the set of desires that is the problem with marriage; they are fine with a man and a woman who lack romantic attraction to each other getting married. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a useful essay. I've made these revisions, mostly focused on making the text flow (also elaborating somewhat on the various admin/arbitration noticeboards and enforcement mechanisms). I hope these are helpful.

I agree with Nat that some further clarification or specification may be required as to what is considered FRINGE, as opposed to constructive and neutral editing about highly flammable issues. Unfortunately transphobia (and all its related pseudomedicine and conspiracy theories) are popular in the same ways homophobia and racism were in the 50's, particularly with the British media, government, and medical establishment working to prop them up. Declaring them as unequivocally false/unverifiable will probably invite more controversy than Wikipedia:No racists. If nothing else, some citations might be in order. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for the advice and the help, particularly the article cleanup and arbitration expansion Roxy I love how it flows now!

I just tried to split the pseudoscientific narratives out and add some sources, ProveIt stopped working for me so the refs are a little messed up lol. I've got a busy day (but woke up early with time to kill) so won't be able to return to it until tonight. I'd appreciate thoughts on if the additions help clear things up wrt WP:FRINGE! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the capital Q is necessary in the title - it ought to be in sentence case, no? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:No queerphobes. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Definition of marriage

As it stands, I think the above article reads as an anti-gay marriage POV fork (not sure about the reliability of the source used for the quote used within) with a lot of outdated sources. Possibly due a merge into the main Marriage article or maybe a rewrite, was wondering what members of this WikiProject think about it? GnocchiFan (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Currently it doesn't seem like a particularly useful article, and the article for marriage already has a more useful section on definitions. I think a merge would make sense, unless someone wants to substantially expand the article to detail definitions of marriage across time, culture, etc. ForsythiaJo (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Propose a merge to Marriage#Definitions. Probably most of it will be cut before/after that merge. Wracking ^talk! 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and deleted a big honking quote in the middle of the page, which was sourced to a page that was a mirror of a 2003 version of a page that was turned into a redirect in 2004. The use of a mirror made that WP:CIRCULAR; the 2003 article cited it to a a no-longer extant page of talking points for the Concerned Women of America, not a proper analytic source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Given that Definition of marriage is a POV fork that is entirely the one-day work of a single editor, I do not think restoring the redirect to Marriage#Definitions would be controversial, so it should not require an AFD discussion to just go ahead and do so. The target section is in much better shape than the fork, and I do not see any content that would be worth consideration for merging.--Trystan (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you folks for the suggestions and edits! I've WP:BOLDly gone ahead and restored the redirect to Marriage#Definitions. If anyone wants to flesh out a halfway decent article on different definitions of marriage around the world and in different cultures, I would not be opposed to re-creation. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for taking the initiative. Wracking ^talk! 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2022–2023 mpox outbreak#Requested move 22 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2022–2023 mpox outbreak#Requested move 22 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Legal gender

I think that recent edits are biased and somewhat unordered. Sharouser (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a student editor, so it's not surprising that it has references but not in-line citations, and that it does indeed have a POV (even if its one that many of us agree with.) I would recommend dealing with this editor directly; they are clearly finding their way around. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No queerphobes

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No queerphobes concerning the essay Wikipedia:No queerphobes. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30 § Category:People with non-binary gender identities

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30 § Category:People with non-binary gender identities. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sapphic#Requested move 2 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sapphic#Requested move 2 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 21:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Can I get some help with Bathroom bill?

Hi all

I would really appreciate some help improving Bathroom bill, as far as I can see the main issues are

• It is extremely America focussed, there are many laws in the UK, France etc which are similarly aiming to descriminate
• There is no real historical context given, these kinds of arguments have been used for a long time (I added some more info on the talk page)

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Pushback from Wiki editors regarding "notability" and "relevancy"

Hello, all. I'm Jo (they/them), and I wanted to open up a discussion on pushback people in this group may have received from Wiki editors or even the site itself regarding LGBT topics. I'm especially interested in the ways the "relevancy" and "notability" policies for the site could be used to discriminate against unknown/marginalized/understudied histories.

As an archivist, I come across a multitude of primary sources on queer history in rural areas/American Midwest/American South every day, but very little secondary sources discuss these topics simply because these histories are understudied by academia/journalism/etc. Collection finding aids could count as a secondary sources, but LGBT-centric archival collections are only a small percentage of queer historical preservation. Oral histories, newspaper clippings, and other archival materials would only count as primary sources, I'd imagine.

I'm wondering if these policies lead to an endless feedback loop of sorts, such as "Wikipedia won't let you write a page on X topic because there aren't enough secondary sources" --> "There are not enough secondary sources because not many people know about this" --> "Not many people know about this because its not on Wikipedia" --> "Wikipedia won't let you write a page on X topic because there aren't enough secondary sources." If I write the secondary sources myself, or include ones associated with an LGBT activist organization, I imagine it would count as a conflict of interest.

Any input here would be very much appreciated, whether for giving advice or just to rant about your experiences with these policies. If there are specific pages out there that are examples of "notability" and "relevancy" being cited in controversial/highly contested talk pages, all the better. Thanks for your all's time! Theodorethearchivist (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our job is not original research, but I am grateful that this is the case. It is very valuable that we have a very well-defined responsibility as regards LGBT subjects vis à vis knowledge at-large, which complements those working in other areas, including doing that much-needed original research. We can't right great wrongs, but we can make people much more complexly aware about how wrongs are being righted. Remsense诉 16:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, side note: have you looked at our sister project Wikiversity? I think editors should make a habit of recommending it to people who are interested in doing original research or presentations of information, and the best way to make a sister site to Wikipedia more widespread in its use is to put valuable stuff like what you've been working on there somehow. Just throwing that out there! Remsense诉 17:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I had not heard of Wikiversity, would you recommend I start my own original research page? And could a Wikiversity page be cited on a regular Wikipedia page, like "Primary sources such as The Indianapolis Recorder allude to an event held at this ballroom in 1933, advertised as a 'pansy ball.'"[citation to Wikiuniversity link here]. Would that still violate "no original research" rules on Wikipedia? Thanks so much! Theodorethearchivist (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

No, absolutely no-one has heard of Wikiversity, & even fewer read it. I wouldn't bother. And no, you can't cite it here. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

In part to avoid intractable issues like circular referencing, user-generated websites in general are almost never considered reliable sources, unfortunately. But I think there's a lot of value in putting together some treatment exploring this subject, I would personally want to read and share it! Not enough people have heard of Wikiversity, but I think it has a lot of potential culturally to be a place where independent researchers share their work. Remsense诉 00:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

What you're facing is not just a notability issue, it's an WP:original research issue -- to take a bunch of primary sources and provide analysis is really not what Wikipedia is here for. This is an encyclopedia, not a journal. It actually does seem to correct the world's imbalance in topics a bit by having fairly achievable standards for notability. And I would like to think that these standards can actually be an incentive to do original research in the places that call for it -- if you can get articles on this into two appropriate journals, hey, there's probably room for a Wikipedia article on it! (But certainly I've run into many occasions where someone is arguing that there should be more attention paid to Topic X -- and they're generally right -- and that Wikipedia is therefor the place to do it, and they're wrong, we're meant to be a lagging indicator, not a leading one.)

Whether newspaper clippings are primary really depend on what they are and what they are being used for. Certainly, newspaper articles are used as references in plenty of Wikipedia article. But a two-inch clipping from 1930 about Mary and her longtime companion Shirley opening a new grain store in Dubuque might be a useful reference in an article on Shirley, but it doesn't do much for us for an article on Lesbian Depression-era Agriculture. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! Most of my research thus far, if I edit it to Wikipedia, would add context to already existing articles in my area. These articles (usually specific streets, places of business, or historical sites in my city) don't have any mention of the LGBT history held in these places, simply because people don't know or have not thought to add it to Wikipedia. Would my addition of new primary sources onto these existing articles (where the guideline of 3 to 5 secondary sources to justify the existence of the article has already been reached) still be going against rules prohibiting original research? I expect that my mention of specific drag balls, protests, and other major events in LGBT history onto "mainstream" articles (like my city's monument or City Hall, etc.) could be met with a "well, you don't have enough secondary sources to justify this inclusion." I'm not assuming bad faith on the part of other editors, I just want all my basis covered before I fight to include what I've found. Theodorethearchivist (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY explains that you can use primary sources, you just have to use them with care. That doesn't guarantee that someone else may not see the material covered there as being of insufficient import to the matter at hand, but that just puts it to the normal level of editor discussion. I realize that is not comforting; much of Wikipedia editing is not some simple application of mechanical rules, but building consensus. An announcement that Thus&Such Drag Ball will be held at This Location is far less effective than showing import than a history of drag balls mentioning it, and that less effective than a history of This Location. This will be worked out on a case by case basis. Give it a try, and be willing to accept that it may not work out. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Would my addition of new primary sources onto these existing articles (where the guideline of 3 to 5 secondary sources to justify the existence of the article has already been reached) still be going against rules prohibiting original research? I expect that my mention of specific drag balls, protests, and other major events in LGBT history onto "mainstream" articles (like my city's monument or City Hall, etc.) could be met with a "well, you don't have enough secondary sources to justify this inclusion."

Sorry to throw yet another complex policy into the mix, but what you are thinking about here is less a question of original research (though depending on what your primary source actually says there could be an original research issue) than due weight. (Of course from a practical perspective of "will this edit stick", other major considerations are how good the article currently is and how actively it is maintained.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"If I write the secondary sources myself, or include ones associated with an LGBT activist organization, I imagine it would count as a conflict of interest" – it's less about conflict of interest, and more that sources need to be 'reliable' secondary sources (e.g. academic journal, book or sometimes news outlet depending on the coverage). Also, notability guideline does not determine the content within articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article. Content within an article is subject to WP:DUE guidelines. People commonly confuse the two. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'd go pretty easy on things like demos & protests. Key public sites have loads of these, & few will stick in the article, however important the participants thought them. But the current Gaza-related ones may be exceptions. Johnbod (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Damian Hubbard, from Mean Girls

I've created Damian Hubbard, if any project members are interested in improving articles about LGBT fictional characters and film/theatre. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move

An editor has requested that Nemo (rapper) be moved to Nemo (singer), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)