Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 62

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Nadya Labi article keeps getting removed from LGBT in the Middle East

This article by Nadya Labi about homosexuality in Saudi Arabia keeps getting removed from the further reading section of LGBT in the Middle East by anonymous IPs. I suspect the removals have no factual argument/merit as the IPs never say why they're removing the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, one of the removers did claim in their edit summary that the link violates WP:BIAS and WP:RS. But it's from The Atlantic, which most certainly is a reliable source, and there's no obvious bias to it apart from the fact that the remover(s) probably don't like what it has to say — namely, it's an analysis of the fact that a flourishing LGBT subculture does exist in Saudi Arabia despite the legal status of homosexuality (i.e. something that some particularly obsessed Saudi opponents of homosexuality might not want publicized or acknowledged).

In terms of dealing with the situation, one option could be to pull it out of "further reading" and instead use it to reference some actual content in the article — frankly, I'm almost never a fan of "further reading" sections, which almost invariably just serve as a way to just throw a giant linkfarm of extra web URLs into an article without making an effort to actually do anything contextually useful with them. Such lists should, frankly, almost always be converted into footnotes for content, and removed from the article as a dedicated standalone section. And one other side benefit of making that switch would be that any further attempts to remove it from the article again would trip the "references removed" filter — which isn't tripped by removing an URL from a "Further reading" section. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

edit needed on Gender in Bugis society

§ Bissu of Gender in Bugis society says (fourth paragraph)

The advice of bissu* is typically sought to get a particular approval from the powers of the batin (hidden) world. One example is for Bugis who leave Sulawesi for the Hajj, the compulsory pilgrimage to Mecca. The bissu then seizes them and proceeds as an emissary of the batin.

* Androgynous bissu are priests, shamans, sorcerers, or mediums.

The underlined sentence is either nonsense, unlikely (kidnapping), or impossible (possession) and should be made understandable by someone knowledgeable.

I am also posting this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia.

See Talk:Gender in Bugis society #"seized"?, and please also put all discussion there. -- Thnidu (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Commented there. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the WP:TALK guideline discourage interleaving?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? #2. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Question about project scope

Hi all, I encountered the following question today regarding the scope of the project. If a BLP includes notable work on LGBT topics (in this case, had won a Lambda Literary Prize for Gay Poetry--but I'm also imagining, say, prominent historians or sociologists of LGBT topics, or lawyers notable for litigating major cases around LGBT rights), would that BLP be relevant to this WikiProject irrespective of the individual's orientation? Or do only BLPs of LGBT people fall within the project's scope? Thanks for any guidance you can give. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

BLP issues on Jacob Tobia

Could use more eyes on the Jacob Tobia page. I reported to the BLP noticeboard three hours ago but there's been no response there yet, and I don't want to risk going over 3RR by reverting again myself. Funcrunch (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Dating#LGBT Community

Dating#LGBT Community sounds homophobic to me. It is referenced but. I mean. Hello?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This entire section needs to be scrapped. The "report" cited by the WP article is functionally an OpEd. The section on India doesn't really impart any new information and uses some interesting word choices--just like its source. This study might be more worthwhile to include. PureRED | talk to me | 21:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is shockingly homophobic (especially shocking for a high-impact article). But I do think we need to keep an LGBT subsection. It needs better citations, however. Maybe some info about gay bars, dating websites/apps, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I definitely think it needs to be there, it just needs to be started over. I'll try tinkering with it some tomorrow if I find time. PureRED | talk to me | 21:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Shooting of Scout Schultz (major issue with he/they)

Hi. Could someone please expand Shooting of Scout Schultz? I created a stub and Shooting of Trayvon Martin could be a good example. I have to go to work, so I'd appreciate any expansion while I'm offline. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I've expanded it but an editor keeps reverting it to "he" instead of "they." I left a note on the talkpage and don't want to edit-war over this. Can someone else please take care of this?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The disruptive editor has been blocked. That was not mere edit warring, that editor was making blatant transphobic remarks and personal attacks both against the deceased subject and other editors. I nearly always leave a warning template, including a discretionary sanctions notice, in such cases. The editors' inflammatory remarks on the article talk page should probably be hatted or removed. Funcrunch (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I believe I was insulted on the talkpage. So instead of arguing with him, I decided to create completely different articles about historic buildings...This is my strategy to deal with hostile editors. But I'm glad he won't harass us any more.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments like that editors' create a hostile environment for trans and non-binary editors and readers in my opinion, hence I template and report. Funcrunch (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I ignore them because I try to avoid boomerangs as much as possible. But I'd like to see that insult levelled at me in a foreign language deleted from the talkpage. Anyway, feel free to expand the article if you can find the time! Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that they were intersex and the president of an LGBT organization on campus was removed from the lede. I left a note on the talkpage--can someone please chip in?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

John Campbell

It seems like two or more editors have seen fit to decide John Campbell's gender for her at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictures_for_Sad_Children and continue to use non-binary pronouns for her despite her stated wishes. Given the risk of harm to trans individuals who are misgendered, I really think it would be better to err on the side of caution and use her more recent stated pronouns. At the current rate, the only way to have this fixed would be for her to appear in the limelight again, which she has stated she doesn't want to do.

Is there any chance we could get some trans people involved in this, because so far I have just been talked over by editors who don't seem to see why it would be a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.230.155 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

What you have failed to do thus far is provide a reliable source that unequivocally indicates Campbell's pronoun preference. At the moment, the singular "they" is used in the article. That shouldn't misgender anyone because it is genderless. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The other thing you're missing, for the record, is that singular they is not used only to denote people who specifically identify as non-binary — it is also quite regularly used to denote people who have a conventional binary gender identity which is merely undetermined or unknown. So "they" pronouns are not exactly out of bounds in this case. And at any rate, as Rivertorch has already noted, there has yet to be a reliable source presented for Campbell's gender identity or pronoun preferences at all — if you've got one, then by all means bring it on, but nobody's shown one yet as of today. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Marriage equality

More eyes may be helpful at Same-sex marriage regarding use of the phrase "marriage equality" in the lede. See Talk:Same-sex_marriage#Marriage_equality. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Homosexual agenda

More eyes may be helpful at Homosexual agenda to determine the suitability of certain content. Please see Talk:Homosexual_agenda#Alleged_planning_documents_and_meeting. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I looked. The discussion does not seem productive, so would rather not make comments there. In terms of process, I would simply start listing sources and evidence, then try to get agreement that they are reliable sources and if that can be done, then suggest some words for the article. Once upon a time I did investigate sources for Gay agenda, but I'm not going back down that old rabbit hole, sorry. --Fæ (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of LGBT content

In the last few days I noticed an unreasonable removal of LGBT content from articles I have on my watch list. Both by ip addresses. In the first case [1] Katharine Lee Bates the removal of the refefence to Katharine Coman was explained witb "this is inappropriate, unproven, and unnecessary information. Please stop pushing your agenda on our children. Thank you." ; the second [2] on Dorothy Caruso removed reference to Margaret Anderson was not explained. Unfortunately Im watchlisting only article Im touching Im wondering if this is happening on a frequent basis? ETA: I forgot to add that both sentences were sourced. Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You might consider warning the IP that used no edit summary. At the moment, there's nothing else to be done about the other one: they gave a bogus reason for removing content which you've restored. If your question is, "Do homophobic people often edit Wikipedia", the answer is clear enough. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Ally Steinfeld

Should Murder of Ally Steinfeld be created?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably, eventually. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Logical Family: A Memoir

Feel free to expand Logical Family: A Memoir.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Feedback needed on project proposal: Investigating the Impact of Implicit Bias on Wikipedia

Hi Friends! Here is the current draft of my project proposal: Investigating the Impact of Implicit Bias on Wikipedia. I value your input and would greatly appreciate your feedback. Please share it on the project proposal discussion page. Thank you in advance! Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Category names for trans people

Hope this is the right place.

You can see, here, the problematic terms under which "transgender and transsexual people" came about as the major category back in 2004.

No more than "Gay writers" should be "Gay, homosexual and homophilic writers", "Transgender and transsexual artists" should not be the name of a category for artists who are trans. Understanding that some people do still use the identifier "transsexual", it nevertheless falls under the main trans umbrella of identities. Indeed, "Transgender and transsexual artists" is under a category called "Transgender".

I would suggest "trans people" as a second possibility, but Wikipedia:Category names#Categorization of people advises against abbreviations. The category seems to have been given this name as it started out from "Transsexuals" (literally) in 2004; it should simply be moved to, "Transgender people".

Additionally, why is the category Cross-dressers under "Transgender and transsexual people"? Drag queens and kings, nor cross-dressers, unless they are also trans, are not generally trans people. And it's really not okay to assert that those two things are at all the same thing.
× SOTO (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I know there are some transssexual folks, mostly older people, who vehemently object to being labeled as transgender. However they are likely a small minority. I don't have the time to dig up sources at the moment. Regardless, I have no serious objection to the category being renamed to Category:Transgender people. (A formal move discussion should take place at WP:Categories for discussion, however.) Funcrunch (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. If someone more familiar with WP reasoning, who understands why this needs changing, could write something up on that page, I would be very grateful. Otherwise, I can certainly do it myself if this gets no attention.

If anyone from within the community could help/support with the right arguments, I would, again, be most grateful. :)
× SOTO (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

this is an extract from "what does queer means anyway" that i think is a very illuminating book:

Lesbian. A lesbian is a female (or someone who identifies as a female) who is only sexually attracted to other females.

Gay. A gay person is a male (or someone who identifies as male) who is only sexually attracted to other males. Gay can also refer to a female who is attracted to other females but who would prefer to be described this way rather than as a lesbian. This word can often be used interchangeably with the word Homosexual.

Bisexual. This refers to a person who has the potential to be sexually attracted to more than one gender.

Transgender. A transgender person is someone whose gender identity does not match their biological sex. It refers to someone who feels they are living in a body that does not match their inner gender identity, whether or not they plan to surgically transition. Some may assume that T in LGBTQA+ stands for Transsexual, but that term is used with decreasing frequency and is considered offensive. Still others may think that this T has something to do with Transvestitism, but that is not always true.

Queer. In the past this word was used derisively for people of a non-heterosexual or non-cisgendered identity. When the gay rights movement gained strength in the 1990s and early 2000’s the younger generation of activists popularized the word being used positively. It has now been largely appropriated by people who feel their sexual and/ or gender identify is fluid and either shifts from time to time or is simply inadequately described by other definitions.

Intersex. An intersex person has unique anatomical or chromosomal structures, which means they physically do not fit into either a “fully male” or “fully female” identity. Intersexuality can be very subtle, or very obvious, depending on the characteristics of the individual’s biology.

Asexual. An asexual person may be of any physical or gender identity but does not experience sexual attraction.

a “+” sign is included in the acronym to indicate that its current form is not necessarily all-inclusive. This sign’s inclusion in the acronym can be read as an encouragement for those who do not find themselves fitting into any of the other groups, yet also do not identify as heterosexual or cisgendered, to feel supported in their exploration." Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Elisa.rolle: Would you mind posting a link to this source? Some of this language, like "cisgendered" and "biological sex", is dated or inaccurate ("cisgender" and "sex assigned at birth" are now preferred). Also seems unnecessary to add "or someone who identifies as fe/male" to the definitions of lesbian and gay, which could imply that trans women and men are not actually who they say they are. It is true that many consider the term "transsexual" to be offensive though. Funcrunch (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The source is at the beginning is a 2016 book, "What Does Queer Mean Anyway?: The Quick and Dirty Guide to Lgbtqia+ Vocabulary" by Chris Bartlett. I think the "or someone who identifies as fe/male" is to be inclusive not exclusive... but as stated above, these are not my words, and I do not want at all to imply they are mine. I do not have the necessary expertize to dare to write something. I thought indeed it was interesting they were confirming that the term "transsexual" is slowly taking an offensive tone and should be avoided. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

From the blurb on the book page it appears that the author is a straight cisgender man who is explaining to other straight cis people how to refer to people in the LGBT+ community. This is not necessarily bad or wrong - the LGBT+ community needs allies - but I feel it is more respectful and accurate to prioritize resources produced by people from within the community, like the GLAAD list I posted below. (I know people will cry "advocacy" at me for saying this; so be it.) Funcrunch (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

For a reference on the use of "transsexual" and other terms, here is the glossary of transgender terms from the GLAAD Media Reference Guide. Funcrunch (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the issue isn't that "transsexual" was always considered a pejorative term; it's that just like terms for many other group of people, what's considered appropriate terminology has evolved in the intervening decade. In 2004, "best practice" — not just on Wikipedia, but in the world at large — was that "transsexual" was the standard and correct term for a person who had actually transitioned from their assigned-at-birth gender to their identifying gender, while "transgender" was a more general umbrella term for all forms of gender-variant behaviour inclusive of cis people cross-dressing for fun or profit. Even trans people themselves used the words that way at the time. Since then, the thinking on the terms has evolved — for much the same reason that the gay and lesbian communities started insisting on "gay" and "lesbian" instead of "homosexual", usage has since shifted toward "transgender" and away from "transsexual". (And for the record, WikiProject Canada has also been dealing with the fact that within the same time frame preferred usage on First Nations and Inuit topics has shifted away from "aboriginal" and toward "indigenous" — so WPCanada is also having to undertake a similar project of changing and reorganizing established content to accommodate a change in preferred terminology. Which, if nothing else, proves that these things happen sometimes.)
But again, it's not that Wikipedia deliberately used a term that was considered offensive in 2004; we used a term that was considered the norm in 2004 and then the preferred terminology evolved. I agree that we're now in a place where we should strongly reconsider the names of trans-related categories, and reorganize them in a manner that's more reflective of 2017 best practice. But I'm not on board with suggestions that any of this was improper at the time it was done — the issue is that nobody actually tackled reorganizing or renaming the affected categories to keep up with an evolution in preferred usage, not that any of it was in any way out of line with what the preferred usage was at the time they were created. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Media portrayal of lesbianism

I came across Media portrayal of lesbianism on a cleanup category, and it definitely needs cleanup. I'm not sure what should be done with this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Gay tortoise

Jonathan (tortoise).Zigzig20s (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red November contest open to all

		Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Honoring Harvey Milk

Hi all! This November 8th marks the 40th anniversary of Milk's historic election, and San Francisco's Illuminate the Arts is unveiling two works of art in his honor(see project description here). Part of that includes an incredible image of Milk created with the names of well over 100 trailblazers for LGBT rights. An interactive site is currently in the works that would allow visitors to scroll over names and have their corresponding wiki links pop up. BUT some wiki pages are missing, so I'm calling on wikipedia's LGBT community for help in creating these pages and being a part of this incredible initiative. Please find below the list of names (and one place) still waiting for their wiki pages. Any and all help would be so very wonderful. Thank you!

• Freda Smith (clergy)  Done – a pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church
• Robert Hillsborough (pl) – victim of homophobic violence in San Francisco in 1977
• Ally Lee Steinfeld – grisly murder of a transgender teen in Missouri in 2017
• Donna Ryu – civil rights attorney and law professor, first openly gay judge on U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
• Vicki Marlane – San Francisco transgender performer and community activist
• Sun Wenlin – Chinese gay man who sued to be allowed to marry his partner in Hunan province
• Tori Johnson – cafe manager in Sydney killed in the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis (currently a redirect)
• Diego Viñales  Done – Argentinian student gravely injured following a police raid on a NYC bar in 1970
• Central Station Bar in Moscow – gay nightclub in Moscow

Hd93 (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hd93: I've linked them so you can spot which are red links; hope you're ok with this, but if not feel free to revert. (You might need to add some more trailblazers when they all turn blue!) Mathglot (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging ru-en editors: @Brandmeister, Daniel Case, Halibutt, Aleksmot, Daniel Mietchen, DELACORADO, and Anthony Ivanoff: for possible assistance with Central Station Club; see below. Mathglot (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hd93: I've further modified the list to add a capsule description to each. Mathglot (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hd93:, can't help much with Russian these days, but I wrote an article on w:pl:Robert Hillsborough on Polish Wikipedia. Should be translatable to English (all references used are). //Halibutt 22:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Freda Smith

Presumably, your inclusion of "Freda Smith" is intended to refer to Reverend Elder Freda Smith, pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church. The page Freda Smith currently exists, and is currently a disambig page to two people of that name, not including Elder Smith; so I've modified the link to Freda Smith (clergy) to avoid confusion. I've searched around for sources, and there are a few, though perhaps not enough:

• an Oral history given as a 2007 interview to Melissa Wilcox
• an autobiographical sketch written in 3rd person as a biographical profile, to accompany the interview
• a sermon, entitled The story of the Purple Grass

Other than those, I've not found reliable, independent, third-party sources and I think it might be difficult to establish notability under the GNG. Mathglot (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Central Station Club

The name of the nightclub in Moscow at 19 Leninskaya Sloboda Street is "Club Tsentral'naya Stantsiya" (Клуб Центральная станция = Central Station Club). As there is not even a Клуб Центральная станция article on Russian Wikipedia, I think it might be tough going to write this first in English. Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Also posted a help request at the Talk page of the Russian sister project ПРО:ЛГБТ. Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Notes

Suicide terminology: "committed"?

Your opinion regarding the proper style of language to use when discussing suicide would be appreciated at the Manual of Style guideline. Mathglot (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I prefer "survived"!Zigzig20s (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Kevin Spacey from LGBT categories / project

Following Kevin Spacey's coming out a number of LGBT categories were added to his blp. However another editor has now removed them. I was going to simply restore them but I don't want to get into edit warring and I thought there were editors on this project that would have better knowledge about whether the categories / project should be attached. The discussion is here. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I saw the dispute before your note above. I think that the pedophilia aspect is part of the concern. People misusing the term pedophilia is one of my pet peeves. Anyway, I commented there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Page moves on transgender people in the military

AHC300 today moved Transgender people and military service to Gender identity and military service and Transgender personnel in the United States military to Gender identity in the United States military. I think these moves should have been proposed for discussion first. Please discuss on the respective talk pages. Funcrunch (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 Resolved, following discussion. Mathglot (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks, but this is only partially resolved because there's still the issue of the Gender identity in the United States military page move. Funcrunch (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

True; the "resolved" mark refers only to the first move, which was the only one that had achieved consensus at that time. The other one now appears to be ready for resolution as well. Mathglot (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 Resolved (both of them). Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing FAC

Members of this WikiProject might be interested in leaving comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lady Gaga/archive2. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence in LGBT rights in CountryName

I have a question/issue with the lead sentence in numerous articles with titles of the format LGBT rights in CountryName. There seems to be one article like this for every country, and of the dozen or two I looked at, many of those outside westernized liberal democracies have a common lead sentence, to wit:

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in CountryName face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents.

for example: Bolivia, Bosnia, Guatemala, Chad, Ghana, Iran, Morocco, Romania, Somalia, Thailand. In general, the second sentence (if there is one) follows up with some more specific information about the country in question. At first, I thought that the first sentence must be breaking some content rule, but as I thought about it, it seems like an accurate, if bland, introduction to the topic in question. One could, of course, challenge on a case-by-case basis whether the lead sentence sufficiently summarizes the body of the article (but, where don't they face challenges not experienced by others?) or, on PRECISION grounds. But in most cases, I guess I've made my peace with the sentence as formulated.

On the other hand, I wonder if there's a copy/paste issue since it's so clearly been pasted from some model into numerous articles. While WP:ATTREQ would seem to require attribution, to the extent that one person copied his own sentence, WP:NOATT would allow it unattributed. I've cross-posted a link at WT:CP to alert the copyvio honchos about this part of the issue.

This is not the first time that the topic of the LGBT rights in CountryName articles have been discussed, even if not about this exact subject. Other discussions I'm aware of are here, here, and here. Mathglot (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• That is a pretty simple sentence, I suspect it may well be OK to use it without attribution. In any case trying to track down where something like this originated is extremely difficult. Hut 8.5 06:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• One could use WikiBlame to try and track down when each instance of this lead text was inserted, and check which was the oldest edit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Danica Roem and Andrea Jenkins

The Danica Roem and Andrea Jenkins pages may be getting a lot of traffic the next few days, if any project members can think of any improvements to make to the existing articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

"Discretionary sanctions" categories and trans people

Hi, I don't know if this is really the right place to bring this up, but I figured people in this project might have thoughts and know more about Wikipedia. I noticed on an article I recently edited, Danica Roem, that Template:discretionary sanctions was added to its talk page. It adds the message: "The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), including this article." Apparently, according to the template's documentation page, there's a topic code |topic=pa which groups the two together.

This seems pretty heedless and tone-deaf to group the two together, adding to people's misconceptions that trans people are sexual deviants or sexual offenders by associating the two in a group...

But I don't know much about the inner workings of Wikipedia to know how to progress / if this should even be something people care about.

Any thoughts?

Umimmak (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Lumping transgender with paraphilia is offensive as it promotes the idea that transgender means abnormal sexual desires. This should be revisited by Arbcom and either the discretionary sanctions lifted for transgender articles, or the topics clearly separated.

This issue is now raised on the Arbcom noticeboard. See (moved as below). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Looked it over, that looks great! Definitely more eloquent than anything I'd have been able to write. Thank you for taking the initiative :) Umimmak (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. It is bizarrely difficult to ask Arbcom to look at something without doing it officially. --Fæ (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah the whole process seemed byzantine; thank you again for taking action :) Umimmak (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC for pedophilia terminology at the Milo Yiannopoulos article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#RfC: Should the article include text/sources analyzing Yiannopoulos's statements on pedophilia?. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not to mention that sources note that Yiannopoulos's definition of pedophilia is technically correct, but also that the term is used more broadly than the technical definition (to include adults engaging in sexual activity with minors, or specifically committing child sexual abuse). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Albert Cashier

Your opinion would be welcome at Talk:Albert Cashier#Pronoun gender. Mathglot (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Deadname issues for trans biographies

Looking at a current dispute, Talk:Danica_Roem#RFC, do we have any current evidence of how often there are disputes over whether to include trans people's past identities or how exactly to apply Wikipedia guidelines? I'm asking to check is there is a reasonable evidence base to push for further improvement to guidelines. At the moment MOS only helps with what might be added to lead paragraph text, pretty much leaving the detail of implementation to be by consensus for each article. This seems a poor use of volunteer time, having the same sorts of debates along with having to educate people with "outdated" beliefs about the subject. It could be that a few more points added to the official guidelines could avoid much of this. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender of rearing

Gender of rearing is up for deletion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Georgia's same-sex marriage ban

I would like to notify here that there is a discussion/dispute in regard to recently enacted new Georgia's constitution, which include ban on same-sex marriage, and its inclusion in the Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe article. See Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe#Georgia Constitutional Ban. Ron 1987 (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Tamara Ching

Hi, could I get some help over at Tamara Ching? An anonymous user added in some text that might have some useful information in it, but was uncited and potential copyvio(havent checked for copyvio yet), so I went ahead and removed the content and posted to the Talk page. Thanks, Evilphoenix ^Talk 16:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Will & Grace episode nominated for deletion

Resolved

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11 Years Later. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Kept. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Yas (slang)

I created a stub for Yas (slang), if any project members are interested in helping to expand. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

WEHOVille

Hello. Is anyone able to find reliable third-party sources to create WEHOVille, the main LGBT publication in West Hollywood please?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

John Paul De Cecco

John Paul De Cecco, the long-time editor-in-chief of the Journal of Homosexuality and a "pioneer of sexuality studies", died 11 days ago. I am surprised we didn't have an article about him. Please help me expand it if interested.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I am also struggling to find/add a coherent bibliography. Is this a book, or simply an issue of the Journal of Homosexuality for example?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks like some articles from the Journal of Homosexuality were reprinted as books, and he was the editor of those volumes. However, I am not sure frankly, because all their issues are (were?) printed as leather-bound volumes. User:Fæ: Do you know more please?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe we have a copy at home, but it may be mixed with our journals rather than the novels and nonfiction bookcases. I'll check with my husband later today. Certainly De Cecco was the editor, and from the descriptions in online catalogues, it collates papers from the Journal of Homosexuality into a book. Hm, looking at his publications list, I'll take a second look with my glasses on as I can't believe we don't have something by him.

... There might be a problem of tracking his works due to use of pseudonyms, certainly post-2012 reprints show him being attributed where the original print did not. I'll look into it.

Parking pseudonym question, the main issue is that De Cecco did a significant amount of work as editor, both for the JoH and as the chief editor for Harrington Park Press. Husband suggests checking via Copac rather than Worldcat as his role as editor does muddy the lists, so I may look into that later; added a few works in the meantime. --Fæ (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. And if you can expand the body of the text with more RS, feel free to do so. I am horrified to see we didn't have an article about him before he died.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Fæ: Any progress with this please? I see you expanded the works section, but it would be good to expand the body of the text, too. Are there book reviews we could cite for example?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It's problematic as JPDC was named as editor for many works, including the Festschrift dedicated to him. I'd have a second look, but I'm committed to urgent real life stuff for the moment. --Fæ (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Real life stuff can be so heteronormative...I say ignore them!Zigzig20s (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Ed Buck

Please expand Ed Buck if you can. There are lots of matches on Newspapers.com... Very interesting history of gay activism, homophobia, strategic alliances, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Links to Trans*

Resolved

Hello. One article links to disambiguation page Trans, and there are several wikilinks to Trans* which redirects to Trans. I'm not sure how best to fix these. Do you think we can make them into piped links to Transgender (still showing the same text) without changing their meaning? That article has an early link to Transsexual, so I think Transgender is the nearest thing we have to an article on "Trans*". Better ideas are welcome. Thanks, Certes (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the article on transgender doesn't explicitly say trans is a shortened form for transgender, it sort of just presupposes the reader can figure that out. I think ideally the article on transgender should briefly say transgender is often clipped to trans, especially in an attributive or informal use, and have a note about the asterisked form trans* once being more common. (Obviously those would need reliable sourcing.) I think transgender is more generally accepted as an umbrella term (though of course there are some people who identify as "transsexual" and reject being categorized as "transgender"), but I think you're right that right now they should probably go to transgender, unless an article gets created which explicitly discusses the word trans(*) itself, its usage, its meanings, its history, etc. (Compare how we have articles on the word gay and homosexuality). It's my understanding, as a cis person, that the asterisked form trans* is at best dated and passé so those should perhaps be changed unless they're in direct quotations?

For article specifics, my personal gut reactions are:

• Bronx Academy of Arts and Dance: just delink trans since you have [[transgender|trans people]] in the same paragraph
• non-heterosexual: change trans* to trans or transgender and delink it as transgender is already linked above, especially as the reference for the sentences with "trans*" mostly uses the form "trans" with only one use of "trans*"
• Sexual orientation and the Australian Defence Force is a bit tricker as in the article it's part of an indirect quotation...
• The Transgender Archives at the University of Victoria seems to be directly quoting uses of "trans*", but the archive now seems to use the form without the asterisk (except in reference to earlier events and the like)--again that's tricky as the source from 2014 uses "trans*"
• LGBT ageing uses "trans* in a Notes section, but the only time it's actually used in the article is in reference to sources which use the unasterisked form. The note itself seems a bit like synthesis; who were the authors refs 21 and 22 referring to when they used the word "trans", since that's relevant in this discussion, not the use of "trans*" as as the cited refs actually about aging didn't use that variant.
• Sex differences in autism has [[trans*|trans]]; that can probably just link to transgender.

These are my gut thoughts, but ideally people better aware on wikipedia's policies and transgender-related issues should weigh in. Umimmak (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that all sounds very reasonable. I'll change the links based on the suggestions above unless other ideas appear in the next few days. Would anyone like to add an explanation of Trans/Trans* to Transgender? Certes (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Buck

Members of this WikiProject may or may not be interested in this AFD.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Wes Goodman

Hello. I don't come to this Wikiproject, but I'm having an issue over the inclusion of Category:LGBT state legislators in Ohio to the Wes Goodman article. This person has not come out publicly and I read the guidelines from Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines. Unfortunately, the removal of the category keeps being reverted. I prefer not to revert again and wanted to ask for guidance. FunksBrother (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Changing term "related" to "inclusive" in categories for LGBT characters in TV

A blowback regarding identifying television programs that are LGBT-inclusive has reared its ugly head. There are four categories used to identify a TV series and movie that includes LGBT characters: Category:Lesbian-related television programmes, Category:Gay-related television programs, Category:Bisexuality-related television series, Category:Transgender-related television programs. In the past I have encountered resistance from editors who do not want to include these categories in the TV articles they edit.

The most recent is an editor who explained his deletion of category with (his words) "categories should be defining. Merely including something in an episode, or even several episodes, doesn't justify including a TV series in the category." I've lived long enough to have heard the multitude of variations for justifying the exclusion of LGBT subjects in many areas of interest. The above-referenced categories state that they are not to be interpreted as designating a TV program as being L/G/B/T-focused. (Most recent examples of category deletions: Brooklyn Nine-Nine (main character is Gay), The Sopranos (recurring character is Gay), My Family (main character is Gay), The Walking Dead (three openly Gay characters). I posted reliable sources supporting the category in their talk pages.).

The antipathy results from the term "related". Many editors don't want their articles associated as an LGBT series. So...I propose a solution that I think is reasonable and logical: change the term "related" in the category titles to "inclusive" (as in, for example, Category:Lesbian-inclusive television programmes), which is what the categories are about. Is this suggestion agreeable with other WikiProject LGBT studies editors? Thank you. Pyxis Solitary talk 12:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: Category:Gay-related television programs has been nominated for deletion. Pyxis Solitary talk 15:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Many editors don't want their articles associated as an LGBT series - That's not the case. Categories should be defining, not merely inclusive, per WP:CAT. Should Eureka (U.S. TV series) be included in Category:Subaru vehicles just because there is a Subaru Legacy wagon (likely the same vehicle) in almost every episode? Regardless, the category tree provides for inclusion of LGBT characters in list articles, which is more appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, some editors are homophobic and sometimes they accidentally reveal it in their summary, but no editor in their right mind is going to admit it. Subaru? Please don't be absurd, Aussie. There is a huge difference between the coverage of LGBT subjects in Wikipedia and a frivolous comparison such as the one you gave. If you look at the List of LGBT characters in television and radio and List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters, for example, you'll find that they are not alphabetical by TV program, whereas the categories are and, thereby, present a better reference. You're comparing apples with oranges. Pyxis Solitary talk 02:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the summaries where your addition was removed, I see no evidence of homophobia so your claim doesn't seem valid. As for the alphabet, articles can be made to be alphabetical and the tables in the articles you've mentioned are sortable. You could, of course, create List of TV programs with gay characters quite easily and sorted by series name. Done properly it would provide far more useful information than a category. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Did I say anywhere that those were the summaries I was referring to? Pyxis Solitary talk 08:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• You started this when you said The antipathy results from the term "related". Many editors don't want their articles associated as an LGBT series. If you weren't talking about those specific summaries then why even make the comment since it's obviously not relevant. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• I also wrote: "In the past I have encountered resistance from editors who do not want to include these categories in the TV articles they edit." Your defensiveness has turned this into a personal target. Consider this my final response to how you interpreted my post. Pyxis Solitary talk 02:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• You seem to be missing my point, which was simply that your claims are irrelevant here. There is no homophobia involved. The opposition is simply that the category itself is not appropriate because it is not defining. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• I certainly wouldn't consider B99 a "gay-related program" because of Holt. The list articles are better for treatment of this situation, where a character - even a major character - is gay, but the program isn't about that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• That's why I proposed that the word "related" be replaced with "inclusive", which is the more appropriate term (Gay-inclusive..., Lesbian-inclusive..., Bisexual-inclusive..., Transgender-inclusive...). But as with many other things in Wikipedia, once a category is created with a particular wording — other related categories adapt the similar wording. Pyxis Solitary talk 04:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• However, categories are supposed to be defining, not merely inclusive, which was my point with the Subaru analogy. That's why we don't have categories like Category:People with brown hair. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: the category name follows from the idea of the category that conforms with our policy. We don't need to change the category title so that it clearly encompasses any program that includes a gay person, we need to keep the category functional by only using it to hold programs that are meaningfully about gay people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• So, then, please point to where it was decided long ago that these specific categories were to be named "related". Wikipedia is not static. It is always evolving. And categories, like other content, aren't stuck in a time warp. Also, how and who decides that a program with an L or G or B or T, one or more, is "meaningful"? Who decides the value of "meaningful"? Pyxis Solitary talk 08:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

→ Adding this as food for thought: I just included character Isaak Sirko from Dexter to the List of LGBT characters in television and radio. Dexter ran from 2006 to 2013. Depending on lists as the only source of identifying TV programs that include an L or G or B or T character, one or more, is not good enough. Dexter is not an "LGBT-related" series, so it does not contain an "LGBT-related" category. Pyxis Solitary talk 03:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Lily Madigan

Could I get some more eyes on this article? I've created as a short and neutral stub, but if you search for her name online you can find plenty more unreliable sources who have stronger opinions on whether she should be a woman's officer, and I've got a nasty feeling that it only takes one of them to wander onto Wikipedia before they could create a whole bunch of trouble. Or am I just being paranoid? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Without getting into the substance of your question (yet), the article should perhaps either note her birth year, or mention that she was elected as a teenager, which seems relevant. In addition, the string "...and a party women's officer" grates slightly to my ears, due to the possible false parsing ((party women's) officer) rather than (party (women's officer)), and the first parse has echoes of "party girl", which is not a sense you want to convey. A simple reword of some sort might help. Mathglot (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Biographies must comply with WP:BLP policy. Per WP:DOB: you can only include "dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." Re reliable sources at: WP:RELIABLE. Pyxis Solitary talk 11:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Why are 'LGBT rights in X' articles so weird?

I came across the LGBT rights in Poland article and I found it quite baffling. You start reading it as the history of the Polish success in not putting homosexuals in jail and you would need to read through at least a few paragraphs to figure out that in fact same-sex couples have no rights whatsoever in the country: they can't marry, they can't form any other form of union and they can't adopt. Then you read a list of four political parties which speak for a 'change in legislation' relating to LGBT rights: no mention what the current legislation is, no mention that all these parties combined have a single (!) seat across both houses of the parliament, no mention that the ruling party has a very strict anti-LGBT policy and that popular opposition to LGBT rights is widespread. The opening of the article sounds very manipulative to me, with the authors going to great lengths to select only these facts which put the country in an LGBT-friendly light.

My attempt at reducing this bias was swiftly reverted. So I looked at other pages in the same category of 'LGBT rights in X' and many of them have similar 'elephants in the room', highlighting mostly the fact that 'same-sex sexual activity is legal'. This is not really the information that readers seek when they come to these pages. Why are they so bad at answering readers' most obvious questions first? Pear-on-willow (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pear-on-willow, I'm sorry you had a bad experience trying to improve the LGBT rights in Poland article. Some of the text you added seems like it might be an improvement to the article, but I think you pulled the rug out from under yourself, by adding an edit summary that sounded like fighting words, and almost guaranteed a revert from somebody.

Even had that not been the case, LGBT articles in general can be considered an area that engenders some controversy, and people are more alert to changes, and will scrutinize carefully everything you (or anyone else) does. One of the core principles of Wikipedia is verifiability, and the information you added needs to have citations added for reference. Another core principle is to be civil and to assume good faith on the part of other editors. When you say that some content is "manipulative", or even that you are attempting to "reduce this bias", naturally people are going to feel criticized and under attack. Remember, nobody is paid to edit here. Could there be another reason for the missing content about same-sex unions that you wished to add, other than "manipulation" and "bias"? How about, they simply haven't gotten around to it, yet?

You could be the one to add it: just assume that everybody else is trying to improve the article, just like you are. Add your edit back in again, this time, with one or more citations from reliable sources, preferably in English, and add a descriptive, helpful, non-jdugmental edit summary. I'd suggest doing it as two separate edits: for edit 1, I'd put a summary of "Non-recognition of same-sex relationships; gay adoption forbidden" or similar. For edit 2, I'd put a summary of "Levels of popular support for same-sex rights, compared to EU countries" or similar.

If you need any help with how to find reliable sources, create references or format citations, please start a separate section on your own talk page, and add {{HelpMe}} somewhere in your question. Good luck! Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot gives very good advice. Here are a couple more things to think about. One is that Wikipedia's volunteer editors are spread very thin: there are a lot of those articles and not enough people watching them. I have several on my watchlist, and I've noticed a fair amount of back-and-forth between users who to all appearances are writing on behalf of a country's tourism-promotion office and others who know first- or second-hand the discrimination faced in that country and are righteously angry about it. In both cases, there's usually a lack of reliable sourcing, and I've reverted edits on that basis a few times. But why are these articles frequently sub-par? Quite simply because there aren't enough Wikipedians working on them. So thanks for being here and rising to the challenge. Also, you should be aware that Wikipedia articles generally follow a set structure. Content in a lead section generally summarizes what follows, so starting off by adding information to the lead section—even if it's reliably sourced—may be seen as a problem unless that information is expanded upon later in the article. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_LGBT_studies

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 16:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rodw: Please move Timeline of LGBT history with d-link "Tumbez" to the WikiProjects WP:PERU and also (if possible to have 2 projects listed) to WP:ECUADOR. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed that one, since it was obvious. bd2412 T 02:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with these - this sort of issue is exactly why specialist input into some of these is needed.— Rod ^talk 08:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Alan Sinfield

Alan Sinfield died on December 2, but I am looking for an RS. In the mean time, I've added this.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Fæ: Thought you might want to know and possibly help me expand it.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Homosexuality in India

It would be helpful if someone would review recent edits at Homosexuality in India. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Christopher Karas

Hi all, just dropping a note to point out there's a draft brewing at Draft:Christopher Karas that might be of interest to this WikiProject. This draft has been created numerous times as seen here (maybe... I'm not sure if non-admins can see this) as well as here. There was a deletion discussion in 2013 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Karas. Maybe they're notable now, I don't know, but I thought I'd bring it to y'all's attention. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, just bumping this. A key issue in the past was a concern that this article had been created prematurely. There were also indications that it may have been created by the subject himself and/or by his friends. Socking did come up. That's not to say that the subject is not notable, only that a notability pass would be appreciated, given the history. One thing I note, is that a prior builder went through the requested articles process before building the article themself. This is not dissimilar from the most recent editor, who went through the requested articles process before building the recent draft themself and who claimed to be a new user, but who also said they were creating a page with different content. If you are new, how do you know the content is different? How do you know there was content before? Obviously, I do not think the new user is new. Eyes capable of determining notability would be appreciated. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right, Cyphoidbomb: non-admins can't follow the link in your first post. In giving this draft a quick once-over, my sense is that it fails PEOPLE and GNG, although in the case of the latter it may be close. What's missing is evidence of any in-depth coverage of the subject as a person and not merely as a key player in an event that may or may not itself be notable. I'm also seeing several sources in the reflist that do nothing to help establish notability—and that may in one or two cases be propping up a bit of synthesis, I'm not sure. (I'm unclear about the protocol for commenting on drafts and am in a rush. Feel free to copy the above to the draft's talk page or whatever.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: Thanks for your commments. As for the draft, (not the original article) it was deleted January 1, 2014 because it was a weird redirect or something. We can ignore that. After that, it was deleted twice afterward on Jan 11, 2014 and June 17, 2014 under G4 speedy "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". Your comments are helpful because it seems like there might be some possibility of notability. I guess the ideal result here would be if you and a couple of other members of the project could please add the draft as well as Christopher Karas to your watchlists, so that if/when it is released into the wild community scrutiny can decide whether it lives or stays. Thank you mucho! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Feel free to ping me if I don't see it. Things have a way of getting lost on my watchlist sometimes. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Amelio Robles Ávila

Amelio Robles Ávila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I filed a Requested Move here procedurally. There are multiple SPAs present at this discussion, and the relevant references are all in Spanish. Could somebody from the project comment on the RM? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I responded in two places at Talk:Amelio Robles Ávila. Mathglot (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't think of anything constructive to say on that talk page, but I did warn one of the SPA meatpuppets about not assuming good faith. I don't suppose they'll ever be back to see the warning, but wow—such fractiousness over something that maybe, just maybe isn't quite as clear-cut as either camp would have us believe. If the LGBT community and its allies can't get along with each other any better than that, it doesn't bode well for our unity when confronting a common adversary. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"Symbolic" anti-same-sex marriage resolution in Hamblen County, Tennessee.

Too soon to add this to Same-sex marriage in Tennessee. Scheduled for December 21st...Zigzig20s (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Mississippi governor on same-sex marriage

There appears to be a disagreement about Phil Bryant's views on same-sex marriage. I was tempted to restore this referenced content, but there is a note on the talkpage from another editor saying it is undue. Would anyone else like to jump in please?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I jumped. The turbulence seems to have subsided, at least for the moment. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal at Genderism

Your opinion is requested at Talk:Genderism#Merge redux. Mathglot (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the inclusion of an infobox on Talk:Cary Grant

You are invited to comment at Talk:Cary Grant where there's an ongoing RfC on the inclusion of an infobox. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Armistead Maupin

Can someone please expand Armistead Maupin's lede?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Vicky de Lambray pronous

An editor keeps insisting on adding a "transgender and transexual persons" category to this article, claiming that they count as transgender, but the article uses mixed pronous and seems unsure of what the person really identified as. I think the other editor in question is qlueless becuse they kept trying to add "transgender and transexual men" to the article despite them being born male and presenting as female. Not sure what to do to fix this.★Trekker (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion nomination for List of unlawfully killed transgender people

In case any editors are interested, please share your input at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_unlawfully_killed_transgender_people_(2nd_nomination). Rab V (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Kirk Humphreys

I've added a bit about Kirk Humphreys who made anti-gay remarks in Oklahoma, but this reference suggests it was on television, while this one says it was on the radio.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it was television. The show named in the second source, Flash Point, is actually on KFOR-TV, and indeed is mentioned in WP's own article on the station. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

He apparently just resigned from the OU Board of Regents...Zigzig20s (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:LGBT academics

Category:LGBT academics needs work. There must be many uncategorized articles. I also wonder if we should create the sub-category, Category:Gay academics, as we have Category:Lesbian academics?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I went ahead with this and created Category:Gay academics. There are many more who are either not categorized, or who don't yet have an article on Wikipedia, even though they are tenured and have multiple book reviews to their names. Anyway, while working on Rob Latham, I realized I can't find anything about his early life...Is anyone able to find out where he went to college and earned his PhD please?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

List of LGBT articles to create

Would it be useful to add a section to this WP with a list of LGBT articles to create please? I have vague memories of seeing this years ago (circa 2008), but my memory could be faulty.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s:, I would also be interested in such a list. Here's one list: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/LBT Women. = paul2520 (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

What about gay men? Total discrimination...I guess we need to create our own list...Zigzig20s (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Phillipe Cunningham

I started this article today, and would welcome feedback/improvements. I plan to submit it as a DYK either tonight or in the next few days, with a hook along the lines of "...that Phillipe Cunningham is one of the first openly transgender people of color to be elected to public office in the United States". = paul2520 (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK approved!Zigzig20s (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Zigzig20s! = paul2520 (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Intersex rights in India deletion discussion

Editors here may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intersex rights in India. There is a prior relevant discussion at Talk:Intersex rights in India, and a related deletion request denial at Transgender rights in Tamil Nadu that can be found here. Trankuility (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:COMMONNAME, in place of WP:BATTLE. Raymond3023 (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Take the issue on their talk page if you think it's a problem instead of bringing it into a simple notice section. Nothing here implies any direct opinion from OP, no need to introduce it.★Trekker (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

LGBT and LGBTI

The result of the above deletion discussion was: "redirect to LGBT rights in India. The key issue is that this is a CFORK and content should all sit at LGBT rights which should include an intersex/Hijra section."

Intersex and LGBT describes the complex relationship between those two issues, and notes that the LGBT umbrella (dealing with sexual orientation and gender identity) does not generally include intersex unless explicitly broadened to LGBTI. Additionally, this WikiProject's guidelines state:

Some intersex people may be LGBT, while others are heterosexual and cisgender. Care has been taken to limit the interrelationships between LGBT pages and intersex pages because of these issues.

My question is, where intersex rights are incorporated into an LGBT rights article, should the article be renamed to refer to LGBTI rights? The India article may be a special case, due the Hijra identity that includes intersex and transgender. However, at least one contributor to the above deletion discussion supported redirecting all intersex rights articles to LGBT rights articles, so we may see many more of these.--Trystan (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

LGBT historical markers

After reading this, I wonder if we have articles about LGBT historical markers, or a relevant category... PR stunts or not, they're still historic...Zigzig20s (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: My first thought was the statue of Alan Turing in Sackville Gardens. Yes, markers and statues may be great for PR, but they do a lot to commemorate and educate the public about people who may otherwise be unknown or forgotten. = paul2520 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The plaque looks homophobic to me. "Victim of prejudice" is an understatement if ever there was one. Are there other LGBT historical markers in the US and beyond?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the plaque was made before he was pardoned - hence the language choice? As for other markers, my searches have revealed the Legacy Walk, the Stonewall National Monument, the Walk of Fame mentioned here, a plaque mentioned here (UK), and one mentioned on Columbia Queer Alliance. Also Pillar of Fire (sculpture) for healthcare workers during the AIDS epidemic.

I also see a plaque memorializing the victims? of an arson on the LGBT history in Louisiana page; maybe other state/country pages would mention other markers. = paul2520 (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"The attack, which was never officially solved by New Orleans police, was a historical marker for LGBT people in Louisiana, as memorialization of the victims by local clergy proved just as difficult as finding proper burials for the dead.". By marker I think they mean traumatizing experience. Perhaps this should be rephrased to avoid confusion.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to "...a memorial plaque laid..." Looks like a similar memorial is expected to open in 2020 at/for Pulse nightclub. = paul2520 (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added a "citation needed" tag. The state history format is a good idea by the way. We could try to write similar articles for Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, etc. Newspapers.com should have sources; the trick is how to find them.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the Tennessee marker may be not just a PR stunt for Amazon, but also a distraction from:

• Sawyer, Ariana Maia (January 31, 2017). "Nashville police investigate attack on man outside gay bar". The Tennessean. Retrieved December 28, 2017.

I wonder if we could add it to Church Street? Would we have to wait for it to be classified as a hate crime first (if it ever is)? We have begun to add anti-black lynchings from the 1900s-1930s to articles thanks to data from the Equal Justice Initiative.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

We could create List of LGBT monuments and memorials. List of Confederate monuments and memorials is a good example in terms of layout, state by state. We could include Transgender Memorial Garden, the Stonewall National Monument, the aforementioned marker in Tennessee... It won't be as long as the Confederate list though! It might make sense to start a short list here and double-check that there are more than, say, 20 at least.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there a historical marker in Wyoming for Matthew Sheppard?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Another Believer and User:Carptrash: Are you interested in working on this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

there is a memorial garden in NYC, one in Los Angeles, one in San Francisco e one in Toronto all to AIDS victims. Without forgetting the AIDS quilt that I think is stored inside the Grace Cathedral. And the lets the public not forget installation inside the New Museum. I cannot do the work for conflict of interest (I wrote a travel guide about it) but Im willing to help. Elisa.rolle (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I think there should be two separate lists, which may overlap then. Millions of heterosexuals have AIDS. Lots of LGBT individuals don't have it. Can we please have a list focused on LGBT culture?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think an installation inside a museum would qualify. What we have in mind here is, historical markers, buildings and streets named after LGBT people, etc. Take a look at the Confederate list.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

the AIDS gardens are made by the gay community and indeed they are part of the LGBT historical places by the National Park System. That said you are welcome to research other places and I suggest you to browse the NP website and the New York LGBT places website and myself I will bow down. Good luck with your search. Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The first thing that comes to my mind is defining the parameters. So if we have a List of LGBT monuments and memorials and we were add the Harvey Milk statue [3] someone will come along and demand that unless the phrase "LGBT" is connected to the work it can't be included. I am assuming (always a dangerous practice) that the Milk monuments is the sort of memorial we'd want in the list. So would/could it be List of monuments and memorials connected to the LGB or T movement or any LGB or T person or persons? Not very elegant. Or can we write a good introduction explaining what the scope of mon & mem in the list is? I am a fan of picking some name and starting to build the article (which I see as being a chart) and we can always change the name if we so desire. The AIDS Quilt is an interesting issue since (to me) it is a collection of many individual memorials and lots of those are to gay men, probably some LBT folks too. I'd like to see it included. Carptrash (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget (perhaps this was mentioned above) we have Category:LGBT monuments and memorials, so that's a good place to start. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The Mattachine Steps (with a historical marker), which can be seen in Stuart Timmons's article, should also be included.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I was bold and created List of LGBT monuments and memorials. There is much room for improvements, but this is a start. Please feel free to expand and move discussion over to the list's talk page appropriately. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow. OK we need to add when they were installed and where they are located and cite that. And reorder them by location (country, then state if US).Zigzig20s (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the Circle of Homosexual Culture Mario Mieli is an organization, not a monument, doesn't it?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Circle is a bad translation of Italian word "Circolo" (I'm Italian). Circolo in Italian means ALSO circle, but it means also a place where people meet to discuss (because they used to sit in circle and discuss). And yes, Circolo Mario Mieli is an association, not a monument. Actually I would suggest to change the title of the page, it's misgiving. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added sections by location. Now the trick is to find more monuments and also add a line or two with an RS each time.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The people managing this website: http://www.nyclgbtsites.org/, have national sponsorship (they are those who managed to have Stonewall and the Alice Austen House named as Historical Landmarks) and your can find more US LGBT places here: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/tellingallamericansstories/lgbtqheritage.htm Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Morris Kight: "There is a Chinese magnolia tree and a bronze plaque dedicated to him at the Matthew Shepard Triangle in West Hollywood. Morris Kight used to visit this park weekly to tidy up the area, water and plant new flowers. He encouraged others to do the same." Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Barry Winchell

Is anyone able to find an RS that says he was killed in Nashville please? There is already one saying he died in Nashville, so I've fixed the error in the infobox.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, instead of "murdered", shouldn't we say "gaybashed"?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Where in the article would "gaybashed" be more appropriate than "murdered"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"Gaybashing" for "murder" (noun not verb) in the lede and subhead.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Gaybashing does not imply killing. Barry Winchell was murdered, not just gaybashed, or beaten because he was gay. He was killed. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Right. Do any RS say where specifically he was murdered please?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

He was attacked at Ft. Campbell, KY (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2000/05/kentucky-murder-200005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/aug99/winchell11.htm), died at Vanderbilt Hospital in Nashville (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rowe/taps-for-barry-winchell-r_b_226004.html. although I'm sure other sources can be found). -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "gaybashing" does not imply "murder", Winchell was obviously murdered (Glover was even convicted of it, ffs). Using "gaybashing" instead of using "murder" a) does not follow WP practice with regard to other victims of anti-LGBT hate crime and b) if it were our practice to write about victims of anti-LGBT hate crime differently from other murder victims, that's a practice I'd try to change. If there's a way to include it, "gaybashing" can be linked elsewhere in the piece or as a see-also. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

He was gaybashed to death. Anyway, "murdered" works too. I did add to the List of LGBT monuments and memorials that Mathew Shepard was "gaybashed to death". Should this be changed to murdered?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that usage appears to be highly irregular in a way that comes across as flippant, even if that's not what you meant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I mean it the other way around. He was murdered because he was gay.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Gay characters in television discussion

You are invited to participate in the discussion at Category talk:Gay-related television programs. This is an issue of which you may be interested. 217.61.14.127 (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)