Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

Add topic
Active discussions
Drawing-Gay flag.png WikiProject

LGBT studies
Home HomeTalk TalkCollaboration CollaborationEditing EditingResources ResourcesShowcase Showcase

Stock post message.svg To-do list for Gay flag.svg WikiProject LGBT studies: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2022-05-10

WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

LGBT rights in FloridaEdit

I think it would be a good idea if a neutral editor would have a look at the recent edits; I think Sloppyjoes7 is pushing a point, but I cannot pursue that further right now, nor am I that much of an expert. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  • And right after I post this I run into this edit--I need an eye roll emoji. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

You can "roll your eyes" all you want, and make false accusations, but my edits were nevertheless accurate, precise, and factual. In fact, it is clear you have a personal agenda to purposely push bias by falsely accusing me of vandalism, and undoing my edit. By introducing your personal agenda and bias, you are not only introducing false information, but have apparently caused a "strike" against me in your personal agenda to silence dissent. All this over me saying that a "transgender woman" is not, in fact, "female". (Said in an edit comment, not even in the article itself.) Please refer to the relevant articles on this subject if there is any confusion whether or not my edits were factual. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Be careful that you're not cherrypicking from a primary source (the bill) and discounting secondary sources (like NPR). Your edit at LGBT rights in Florida excluded that by "male sex" they mean sex assigned at birth, which (as secondary sources note) is primarily intended to exclude transgender girls from girls' sports. Politanvm talk 03:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Edits should be based in the facts, not in (possibly erroneous) interpretations of said facts. Therefore, actually quoting what a law says and does is more useful and introduces less bias than using an article that potentially twists and distorts its purpose and intent. In fact, eliminating that biased interpretation is precisely what my edits did.
Furthermore, the secondary sources (and the addition of terms like "transgender girls") arguably reduces the understandability and clarity of the law in question, especially considering the law never mentions transgender individuals at all. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, edits should be based on reliable sources, which NPR generally is according to WP:RSP. Politanvm talk 02:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
(Putting this above the latest comment purely so the indentation level isn't misunderstood as a reply to their un-indented comment but rather to Drmies) Taking a look at their edits... at risk of sounding like I'm jumping to conclusions, I think the editing pattern is tendentious. At best. - Purplewowies (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, in this case articles on the subject are largely unreliable and opinion pieces. To eliminate this bias, it is best to actually quote the law in question instead of what a minority of people think about the law. Wikipedia should not be pushing fringe viewpoints not based on fact. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Your edit history shows you have been on a streak of promoting anti-transgender viewpoints that are not, in fact, based on reliable sources. If you keep this up you are cruising for a topic ban. Dronebogus (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Your accusation is not based in any facts. And ironically, the most recent edit that has come under question is regarding me quoting the actual law that the article section was about. I was actually accused of bias for quoting the law in question, instead of using a biased description of said law. This is utterly contrary to the purpose and goals of Wikipedia. The purpose is to build an encyclopedia (WP:HERE), not push advocacy positions. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@Drmies: (and whoever else is interested) This discussion is now at ANI (posted there by Dronebogus, not me). Funcrunch (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia Summit - nominations for representative requestedEdit

Hey, I know this is a lot of info. Ask questions if you like.

There is an organization called meta:Wikimedia LGBT+. It is a meta:Wikimedia Movement affiliate. Right now it has no legal incorporation and has received either no money, or probably less than $5000 in the last 10 years. It is relatively modest as compared to many others.

It is an organization in good standing as a registered community organization with the Wikimedia Foundation, and as such, it has an invitation to send one representative to the meta:Wikimedia Summit 2022 in Berlin in October.

I am writing to ask for nominations for anyone who might want to go as representative. See details at meta:Talk:Wikimedia_LGBT+#Call_for_Summit_nominations.

Probably the priority for representing the group this year is speaking with other wiki people about Queering Wikipedia 2022, the proposed first LGBT+ conference supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. Volunteers are also wanted to assist with presenting this conference.

There is a monthly Wiki LGBT+ video meetup. The next one is described at meta:Wikimedia LGBT/2022-04-16. Since this is English Wikipedia, I will share also that United States wiki community organizers also present video chats almost monthly as documented at meta:WALRUS and Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. All of this is done by volunteers so again, it depends on organizer's schedules, but check that out if you want an English language group discussion.

I am a wiki editor who also does outreach. I am organizing recruitment of a representative because I go to a lot of small meetups, know the agendas, but do not go to these big meetups. I would love for more people to get involved with international LGBT+ organization. The Wikimedia Foundation is only supporting one person to go to that conference, but anyone who wishes to do so can help plan the online Queering Wikipedia conference in ~6 months. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

re has received either no money, or probably less than $5000 in the last 10 years: Sorry to nitpick, but this seems at least misleading. If I'm understanding correctly, the WMF gave ~$32,000 for the meta:QW2021 event, the purpose of which was "to develop our internal LGBT+ User Group organization, structures, and operations". And it looks like the next one has an approved budget of ~$90,000. That's a lot of lettuce! Colin M (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@Colin M: "Misleading" is not the right word but there is a flood of information that is difficult for me to share.
Links to the money are on the conference page and in the agenda of LGBT+ meetups.
WMF is providing money for events. I and others are grateful for that support, but also, 1) Wikimedia Foundation expects almost all labor, including administration, to be volunteer 2) It is a WMF decision to fund conferences and not other community organizing activity of the community's choice 3) Wikimedia Austria is fiscal sponsor here and receiving the money, so in addition to WMF constraints Wikimedia LGBT+ volunteers are negotiating with volunteer administrators at yet another organization 4) where there is money the pay is less than minimum wage for Western countries and requires high expertise including wiki knowledge, LGBT+ fluency, and complex event management across countries and languages 5) the Wikimedia environment does not provide safety, and history has proven that association with Wikimedia LGBT+ gets people doxxed and harassed.
Colin, thank you for bringing up the money. I know it seems like a lot, but the WMF plans its budget on a US$ billion dollar cycle and advertises LGBT+ diversity in all it does. For as important as LGBT+ inclusion is for the movement there is not much history of LGBT+ sponsorship with Wikimedia funds. There is a lot to be anxious about with the small amount of money they are giving and what they expect in return. It is not a windfall, it is not even enough to break even for labor costs, and any of the organizers would happily trade all the money to simply have the WMF pay an event management company to present an event to our modest specifications. I wish the WMF never gave money for conferences, and always instead paid professional contractors for this, because skill and interest at editing wiki is unrelated to desire to volunteer for event management. Volunteers love planning the program and talks, but in the history of the Wiki Movement no one seeks out opportunities to volunteer for logistical coordination, accounting, and grant reporting.
Again, I am very appreciative of the money, but also, investment in the Wikimedia movement's LGBT+ community is a necessity and deserved. If anyone feels service oriented please join conference planning. If anyone wants to talk to me about money or wiki community organization or anything else, I would meet by recorded video talk which we can post to the wiki. If someone knows an event management company who can present an event on the budget we have then please suggest them or have them post to the page, because the wiki community does these events continuously and as of yet no company has wanted any such contract.
I will be volunteering for this conference. My own position on WMF funding is that I wish most of it could go to wiki contributors in lower and middle income countries, because I think editors in such places make contributions as good as though in wealthy Western cities plus also the money goes farther in such economies. I am not getting paid for anything in this.
Thanks to anyone who can join any conversations or planning. Again, I am very grateful to be part of wiki and LGBT+; there is just a lot happening here. I have been an organizer for a lot of these conferences and every time it is complicated. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I really don't mean to be snarky, but I still don't see how the WMF giving money for a conference which is run by the LGBT+ group and the purpose of which is to talk about the organization and operation of the LGBT+ group is not, practically speaking, an example of the LGBT+ group receiving money from the WMF. That's all I meant by the "misleading" part. (And to be clear, I definitely didn't mean to suggest you were intentionally seeking to mislead.) Colin M (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Sure, thanks. I get it. I just wish the WMF was giving $0, and instead they were organizing the logistics of the conference. If we could give the money back to professional event managers at WMF or a one-stop event management consultancy then we would. If the award were $0 and instead the WMF arranged administration of the conference, then Wiki LGBT+ would get the same desired result without volunteers having to do the undesirable labor of contracting vendors for event management. When awards are in-kind, that also does not trigger reactions about the financial value of award, or create misunderstanding someone is getting a financial windfall. I am grateful for a path forward and I want the conference. I like when wiki volunteers and community set the conference theme, call for presentations, vote on the program, invite guest speakers, and run all the participant activities. All of that happens with volunteers and no money. The money goes to setting up the conference as a container to hold that volunteer activity, and instead of that going WMF -> some fiscal sponsor -> Wikimedia LGBT+ -> globally crowdsourced business decisions -> vendors, I wish it were just WMF -> vendors.
It is challenging to talk publicly about these things. I wish there were more venues to do so. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi Bluerasberry. You may recall that we have met in person on two separate occasions at meetups. I saw with my own eyes during the, shall we say, "uncomfortable incident" at Wikimania 2012 that you are a thoughtful person with a well-developed sense of empathy and fairness and you have my respect for that. So, to my point: As I'm sure you are aware, last year a prominent member of this group proposed formally banning me from any events hosted by the group. Since I was never informed I was banned, I'm assuming this did not happen, but it was clearly an attempt to label me as a dangerous and homophobic person, which I can assure you I am not. This same person tried to get me sanctioned on Commons, and reported me to Trust and Safety over the same incident, which had nothing at all to do with the LGBT user group, it was only about me being somewhat mocking of a fairly ridiculous proposal they had made on Commons. When no sanctions were forthcoming, , this person "went on strike" in protest, because I am so horrible but somehow nobody would do anything to stop me. Despite stopping all contributions under their usual user name, it is fairly obvious that they are actually still quite active in this user group, using at least three fairly obvious sock accounts on Meta-wiki over the last several months to assist in organizing and applying for this funding. To be clear, I fully support the mission of this group and I wish you nothing but success, but I have to question why the group continues to tolerate this person being so prominent in it's activities. I know this isn't what you came here to talk about, and for that I apologize but I feel like it needed to be said. For the record, if someone is going to Berlin to speak on behalf of this group, I think you'd be an excellent choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you for speaking so truly about this, Beeblebrox. This is in line with what I've observed from the group - on wiki and elsewhere. Speaking personally, I have absolutely no reason or desire to ever engage with a group that condones this kind of behavior, has such an arcane governance structure that is determined entirely by fiat, and uses secret accounts to organise their events. Best of luck with the conference, and good luck to whoever is chosen to speak in October. But if I had choice in who to send to Berlin, it would be someone entirely uninvolved with QW2022 and Wikimedia LGBT+. Urve (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
      @Beeblebrox and Urve: Thanks for your support. I will not be the representative in Berlin at this time and want to support someone else. Urve, if you have someone to nominate then encourage them to sign their name. There is the summit this year but we need to grow a culture of more people volunteering for future summits as well. Even casual volunteers are welcome to self nominate.
      Regarding Wikimedia LGBT+ governance: I offer to speak about my activities in administration of Wikimedia LGBT+, and the roles that others play as I see things.
      Governance of any wiki community organization is difficult to discuss because there are always claims of harm and multiple stakeholder communities in conflict. I am in a position where I can join conversations where people put concerns in the open and talk through options for next steps. In difficult situations I feel that voice or video conversation is better than text on wiki. I have a coffee talk experimental forum set up at meta:Wikimedia Café; if you or anyone else wants to meet virtually and talk through power structures at Wikimedia LGBT+, then I would do this. We could record it, and we could publish it if others still consent after reflecting.
      Alternatives to meeting: anyone could give me notes or have confidential chat with me, suggesting what I should present. In that case, I could make and publish a video of me talking about governance of Wikimedia LGBT+.
      If Wikimedia LGBT+ has some power that you want for yourself or that you might want openly available to others, then we can talk about how that would look. I have had this conversation dozens of times and I wish that for the sake of all wiki organizations, more information about governance processes could be more accessible. Seem cool? I hope you feel that I am being direct in trying to address your concerns. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
      I can give you notes right here. these three user, at the least are all the same person, and I can't see how your group doesn't know that. It's not a good look to have a bunch of obvious sock accounts involved in securing grant funding, in particular since the person operating those accounts has been very publicly trying for years to find new ways to get money for themselves from the WMF. The whole giant dispute that set them on their campaign to have me sanctioned was because I mocked the idea that they could personally use Commons as a platform to directly solicit donations lke it was GoFundMe or Kickstarter. When that obviously ,failed, they suddenly became very involved in getting the WMF to give tens of thousands of dollars to this user group. With socks. I expect they will say they are doing this to avoid harassment, but to an outsider it certainly seems like trying to evade scrutiny and squeeze a little cash out for themselves. It taints the whole effort if the rest of the group just sits back and lets it happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
      @Beeblebrox: I am not going to adjudicate the activities of users. As we are both aware, there are processes for reviewing user behavior including Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, meta:Trust and Safety, meta:Stewards, and reporting to meta:Grants:Start. I am not defending anyone, and I am not deferring responsibility or making things more complicated. I sincerely believe that on-wiki mediation processes are easy to use and lead to good outcomes. Why not use them? I cannot replace the services of those networks of experienced responders.
      I recognize that you have complaints, but again, I doubt that either I or any human could satisfy you by typing text here in the discussion forum. There are limits to what text can communicate. My offer is to talk by voice or video about Wikimedia LGBT+ governance. I do not think this situation is complex or hard to explain; this just is not the sort of thing that is possible to discuss in text. If you find the person who would meet with me by video then send them to me. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
      I feel like we're not hearing one another. The issue is over at Meta where this user's socks are all over everything this group is doing. I'm not looking to tell you how to run the group, but I would hope yourself and the other members of the group would care about how bad that looks. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: The problem you describe is an odd one - it is the sort that no one wants to report in established channels, and which neither you nor anyone else wants to discuss with me publicly on video. I see that you have posted text on wiki; as I said earlier, and as you remark that we are not hearing each other, I do not think that it is productive to discuss in text. If I wrote pages of response I do not think it would satisfy anyone, but I do think that a person to person conversation would answer anyone's concerns. For your concerns about money not being watched: I encourage anyone to take those to Wikimedia Foundation grants administration. The issues you raise are not a problem for me at all. My problem here is that for a range of reasons, neither you nor anyone else spreading these rumors feel like you have an outlet for seeking transparency and answers. If you do not know how to phrase the complaint or request, then one option would be to send your questions to the WMF staffer, and ask them to meet me on published video chat to answer them. Minutes of conversation communicate much, much more than hours of writing pages of wiki text. I really feel like if anyone came to me by video with the concerns you are raising, then those concerns would evaporate. If you do not want to meet me for video or voice chat, then think through your social network and find someone you trust who would. We can publish the conversation. They can ask me anything. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Animals in LGBT cultureEdit

A comment over at Wikipedia talk:Wiki Loves Pride about the paw print in the campaign's gif prompted me to create Animals in LGBT culture. I get asked about the animal references within LGBT culture often. Here's a fun opportunity to create a very helpful 'guide' to readers.

I got the ball rolling with a couple sources, but certainly there are ways to expand and improve this article. Surely there are other animals representing various subgroups, but also, how else do animals appear in LGBT culture? Improvements welcome! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Update: I could use some help over at Animals in LGBT culture. One editor is focused on merging this content, but in my opinion, the page is NOT specific to slang terms. The Unicorns section has nothing to do with slang. Are any project members interested in helping to expand this entry and participate in Talk page discussions? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Another Believer, maybe it would be worth working on in Draft space for a little bit, until the case for the standalone article is clearer? The bulk of the article could fit within list of LGBT slang terms, and if the main example of an animal that isn't just a slang term is Unicorns, then maybe the article should be about Unicorns in LGBT culture. I see the potential value in a standalone article, but really there's no deadline to get it into article space. It's worth getting the article right first, or at least built out enough to demonstrate standalone notability and differentiation from simply "LGBT slang". Politanvm talk 15:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes there's also LGBT_symbols#Unicorns where that can go (and perhaps Unicorn trend should have a mention). But the current page is just WP:SYNTH. All sorts of animals are have all sorts of roles in language, media, and culture, but there's nothing unifying here. Reywas92Talk 15:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I've also added some info about animal roleplay, furry fandom, and fictional LGBT animals. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Even worse. Pretty weird to combine Furry fandom with Arthur, unicorns, and slang. Where are the overarching sources tying these together? Reywas92Talk 15:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I did not think covering the intersection of animals and LGBT culture would be seen as controversial or problematic. I dunno, I'm going to step away for a bit and see if some other editors will weigh in on these various Talk page. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying the topic is controversial, just that parts of it already seem to be covered at LGBT slang, List of LGBT slang, and LGBT symbols (and maybe others), and it could be worth expanding those articles instead of this standalone one. That's why it might be helpful to just put it in draft space for now, to take off some of the heat, pressure, and urgency. Politanvm talk 16:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to move this page into the draft space. There's a merge template directing readers to this entry, which is actively being expanded, and there's currently a consensus to NOT merge the page into the list of slang terms. Tangentially related, I support merging LGBT slang and List of LGBT slang terms, at least until the list is long enough to justify a content fork. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe, but it seems a bit strange that it was jumped on almost immediately. I've created all sorts of LGBTQ pages before and no one has given a rat's ass about them, so I'm not sure why this one is a bit of a lightning rod, and I don't understand the urgency by Reywas92 on this topic. That seems strange to me. I can say, here and now, that I would oppose any moves of the page to the draft space, as I'd say this page is important enough to be a stand-alone article. Historyday01 (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals in LGBT culture

---Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Tyra TrentEdit

I made a draft for Tyra Trent. I've seen other people post drafts they have made on this talk page, so I decided to as well. I would appreciate some help on it. --Roundishtc) 22:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I think an article about her would have to be more detailed, and cite more coverage than that, before it could actually be accepted. It's not our goal to indiscriminately maintain articles about every unsolved murder that ever happens at all; we need to see more enduring significance than just "this is a thing that happened". Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Good article nominees: Bolivia Carmichaels, Flawless Shade, Poison WatersEdit

I've nominated Bolivia Carmichaels, Flawless Shade, and Poison Waters for Good article status, if any project members are interested in reviewing. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

(tumbleweed...) ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Retransitioning/ex-detransitionersEdit

I think this is worthy of an article or a section. I made a brief section at Detransition#Ex-detransitioners but I think it needs a lot more work on it Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 01:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It's still there, I just rolled it into the Society and culture section where the citation was already being used. It was only a single sentence. Whether a section or full article is warranted depends on the length of content that could really be written on it - but a tiny section or stub article too soon isn't as good. Crossroads -talk- 02:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Stating a person's sexual orientationEdit

I'm sure this is covered elsewhere, but I can't seem to track it down. An editor has said to me that merely stating that a subject is "openly gay" is discriminatory, because we never say that a straight person is "openly straight". Aside from the use of "openly", there are hundreds of thousands of articles in which the subject is stated to be gay, not to mention any relevant LGBT categories they may be in, so it must not be contrary to policy. Can anyone help me with this? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

A quick search on this project brought up a discussion with a consensus to use it only in certain circumstances, with one editor saying to only use the word gay "unless there's some historical context that makes the distinction important for that particular person" and another saying "it is still a meaningful clarification in many historical contexts" and another editor saying "the complication is that it is entirely possible to be gay but not out...the language around all of this is tricky and complicated, but there's a genuine reason why that's the case." Also, in 2008, the "openly gay" page was redirected to the coming out page after some discussion, and has been used occasionally in past discussions in this forum. In one 2018 discussion, an editor stated that "...reasonable people may disagree on the exact definition of "openly gay"" adding that "there are shades of gray". Then, there's a 2012 discussion where one editor said "it is not necessary to include "openly," and in my view it could imply that there's something wrong with it" but another said "how exactly things are worded is going to vary between subjects, but in this case the word "openly" conveys that the subject has indeed self-identified, something that makes a crucial difference under current wikipedia policy." So, I guess it could be on a case-by-case basis, or only used in specific instances? That's what I'm gathering from the discussions within the discussion board of this project in the past Historyday01 (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this particular context, but there are some cases where a statement might not make sense without "openly". It happens particularly with "first gay/trans/etc. person to do _____". Likely another person with that identity has done that thing, but was closeted. So we need to caveat the first person we know of with "openly". In general, I would defer to whichever phrasing is most prevalent in reliable sources. Politanvm talk 03:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I've used "openly gay" or "openly lesbian" on some LGBTQ pages I've edited in the past, but I'll definitely have to revisit that. Historyday01 (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
It is tricky and complicated, I grant, but the key issue here is that Wikipedia articles are often misused as a platform for attack editing against people the editor dislikes by casting unsourced aspersions on the person's sexual or gender identity, and/or involuntary forced outing of people the editor perceives as closeted queerfolk (but who still may or may not actually be that in reality). So articles about LGBTQ people always have to explicitly state and reliably source that the person is self-identified as being out, but there may not always be any other natural way to do that. I try to find alternate ways around the phrase "openly gay" whenever I can, but there aren't always a lot of good alternatives — but it's unavoidable that Wikipedia does have to be very, very vigilant about the distinction between out-gay and closeted-gay, because we can't touch closeted-gay allegations with a ten-foot-pole. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I personally removed the word "openly" from a bunch of pages I had edited (mainly about certain voice actors who are lesbian, gay, etc. and the characters they voice are the same), as I don't think the word "openly" really added much. But, I hear what you are saying, that it definitely is tricky, complicated, and requires finesse in editing. Historyday01 (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Pronoun and gender dispute at Talk:Quentin CrispEdit

Input from experienced editors is needed at Talk:Quentin Crisp#Transgender where there is a dispute over which pronouns and gender to use. The writer, who died in 1999, identified as transgender shortly before their death. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Dispute at Talk:Attraction to transgender peopleEdit

Input from experienced editors is needed at Talk:Attraction to transgender people where there is a dispute over whether autogynephilia exists or not 92.0.35.8 (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progressEdit

A user has requested that a topic within this WikiProject, Transsexual, be moved to Transsexuality. Interested editors may wish to join the discussion at Talk:Transsexual. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Gregory MaguireEdit

I've made improvements to Gregory Maguire, including improving cites, adding a picture, and highlighting Maguire's marriage as one of the first same-sex marriages in Massachusetts. At present, the article is rated as start class, but I'd like to see it evaluated for a raise to B or at least C. In addition, Maguire's own website links to this article on the bio page. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Creating an article about LGBT youthEdit

I made the start to a draft page called LGBT youth. There are a few articles about LGBT youth related topics, such as LGBT youth vulnerability, Suicide among LGBT youth, Homelessness among LGBT youth in the United States, LGBT sex education, and Transgender youth. However, it would probably be a benefit to have an article about LGBT youth in general and consider merging some of these articles into a single article called LGBT youth. Any help building the article is appreciated. Any comments, questions, or concerns about the creation of such an article in general? aaronneallucas (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Animals in LGBT culture would benefit from more participationEdit

Animals in LGBT culture is a page that focuses on animals as symbols within LGBT culture. The deletion discussion is currently being discussed here. Input from more editors would be appreciated. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking for peer review of Paul GoodmanEdit

Hi all, I'm looking for peer reviews of our article on the American public intellectual Paul Goodman, who spoke publicly on homosexuality and bisexuality prior to the 60s, before it goes to FAC, if anyone would be so inclined:   Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Goodman/archive1. No prior experience necessary—just want to know how it reads for a general audience, given that the content gets a bit obtuse. czar 19:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The Wire at FAREdit

I have nominated The Wire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Should we categorize drag performers as LGBT?Edit

Should categories like Category:African-American drag queens be kept under an LGBT parent category? Sure, most drag queens might be LGBT, but not automatically. For example, Maddy Morphosis is a drag performer who is not LGBT. I'm not convinced Wikipedia should ever suggest to readers that all drag performers are LGBT. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I can agree that Wikipedia shouldn't suggest to readers that all drag performers are LGBTQ. I think if specific drag queens within that category are LGBTQ, then they can easily be put into Category:LGBT African Americans... which maybe needs to have sub-divisions, although that's a bit of a different discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this might give off the wrong impression. Despite the problems, the classification scheme has a lot of navigational value. Whether that outweighs the impression or not, I'm unsure. Urve (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Right, that was my thought too. I think the classification system, generally, is fine, but in this case, African-American drag queens shouldn't be within a LGBT parent category. Historyday01 (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I mean in a more basic sense that this scheme is navigationally useful when trying to find articles related to LGBT people. A basic example, using WP:PetScan, is that Yvie Oddly is in both the 1993 births and LGBT African Americans categories; if I have to run PetScan twice - separately for LGBT African Americans and for African-American drag queens, against 1993 DOB - she would be double counted. This doesn't actually matter all that much, but I don't think the parent-child relationship of our categories really matters to readers, either. Urve (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

James Robert Baker Featured article reviewEdit

I have nominated James Robert Baker for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Kathleen Freeman (classicist)Edit

Lajmmoore, Another Believer and I have been discussing how to describe Freeman's sexual orientation at Talk:Kathleen Freeman (classicist)#"Freeman was gay", advice from other editors will be welcome. TSventon (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)