Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Gay Pride Flag.svg WikiProject LGBT studies:

Ambox important.svg New articles with LGBT keywords (click "show" to view)
This list, produced by a bot, identified the following articles as possibly being within the scope of this project. Please add {{WikiProject LGBT studies}} to appropriate articles. The raw list is here and articles are removed after a week whether tagged or not.

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2019-09-20 20:47 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.

WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Project-class)
This page is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable
Drawing-Gay flag.png WikiProject
LGBT studies
Project navigation links
Main project page
 → Project talk page
Watchlist talk
 → Assessment talk
 → Collaboration talk
 → Community talk
 → Jumpaclass talk
 → Newsletter
 → Peer review talk
 → Person task force talk
 → Translation talk
Useful links
Infoboxes and templates
Guidelines talk
Notice board talk
Sexuality and gender
deletion discussions
Info resources
Bot reports
Newly tagged articles and
assessment level changes
Article alerts
Unreferenced BLPs
(Biographies of Living
Cleanup listing
New articles with
LGBT keywords
Popular pages
Recognized content
Portals we help maintain
Portal LGBT.svg LGBT portal
Portal Transgender.svg Transgender portal
edit · changes

Editor input neededEdit

There is some back and forth playing out at the LGBT rights by country or territory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that needs looking at. While there have been some posts on the talk page it is mostly playing out in edit summaries. As I am not familiar enough with the particulars of this any assistance that others can offer would be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 02:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Project coordination between projects for content dispute and LGBT label of Catholic Priest/sEdit

Would it interest anyone here to coordinate between this project and Wikipedia:Wikiproject Catholicism in order to help possibly form a consensus on disputed content at Theodore Edgar McCarrick that has become stuck. DRN may not be possible at the moment and perhaps this outreach between groups might at least move a stalemate. A copy of this message will be placed at the other project. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Mark Miller, I think you misunderstand the nature of the dispute. The editors are not disputing whether McCarrick is LGBT. Epiphyllumlover (talk · contribs) made that edit recently, but it is unrelated to the content dispute that was brought to DRN. McCarrick has not publicly self-identified as LGBT, so in accordance with Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Sexuality, he simply cannot be placed in that category. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand the content dispute. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Well you mischaracterized it. We are not disputing the LGBT label. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I have not characterized it at all.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
In the title of this section, you wrote "content dispute over LGBT label of Catholic Priest/s". We are not disputing the LGBT label. You should probably change the section title. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Typo. Meant to say "and" as you are also attempting to discuss LGBT categories that I do believe are related because you did remove the figure from LGBT categories.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I am still listed as a member here under my old account; User:Amadscientist. Aloha!--Mark Miller (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Article Children in the HolocaustEdit

While going through the list of unassessed articles for the Project, the article Children in the Holocaust was included. I wonder if it is really in the scope of LGBT studies (it may be tagged for the mention of jewish boys have to disguise as girls at times to avoid identification). So I'd like to ask for opinions: Should we just rate it and keep the tag or should we remove the tag? Gehenna1510 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I would have assumed it was not because of the cross-dressing, but because someone was mechanically or semi-mechanically tagging a lot of Holocaust-related articles with this project for obvious reasons. I would agree that it's probably not in scope. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Morgane Oger is surely deserves an article?Edit

Does anyone think Morgane Oger deserves to have a Wikipedia article she did run for public office in Canada. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Generally, simply running for office is not sufficient to confer notability. If someone meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO based on significant coverage in reliable sources they may still merit an article, but anyone can be a candidate. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Roscelese is correct: running for office is not a notability claim that gets somebody into Wikipedia in and of itself. To be eligible she would have to either win election to a notable political office (e.g. Parliament, the provincial legislature or Vancouver city council), or be properly sourceable as having had preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy that would already have gotten her an article anyway. In theory, a person might also be able to clear the bar if they're sourceable as representing a historic first, such as if she had been Canada's first-ever transgender candidate for political office, but Morgane Oger definitely can't claim that status as she was preceded by numerous other trans candidates — she can't even claim to have been the first in BC, let alone the entire country. I'll happily add her to the future-tracking list at WP:CANQUEER, but no, just running for political office is not in and of itself enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Bearcat, Roscelese are these source notable? [1][2] Dwanyewest (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The fact that one or two pieces of campaign coverage happen to exist in the candidate's own local media market does not constitute a free pass over WP:GNG that exempts them from having to pass WP:NPOLevery candidate in every district in every election can always show a couple of pieces of campaign coverage in their own local media market, so such coverage does not automatically make some candidates more notable than other candidates. So no, that is not enough coverage to get Morgane Oger over the bar she would actually have to clear — she still has to either win election to a notable office, or be properly sourceable as having already been notable enough for an article for other reasons independent of her candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Revisionist history in Transgender articleEdit

I left a comment on the talk page of Transgender. According to the current revision, two early publications of isolated uses of the term "transgender" have been discovered: one in 1965, and another in 1984. In the latter case, the author used the phrase "transgender community." This is now being used to imply that the community has used these terms to self-describe since the 1960s, and that there has been been common usage of "the transgender community" since 1984.

However... everyone here who is old enough knows that this is not true. Just because someone wrote it doesn't mean anyone read it, or used it. The term "transgender" saw some usage in the early/mid-'90s, but did not come into general community usage until after Feinberg published "Transgender Warriors" in '96; and even then, few people were using it until the '00s. Widespread usage is actually very recent - it didn't hit the mainstream until this decade. I don't know if this is an honest mistake or something else, but this needs more eyes on it. - CorbieV 19:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


There's an RFC going on at Talk:TERF about how to attribute the term "transphobic". Loki (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Homosexuality in association footballEdit

Shouldn't Homosexuality in association football be moved to Homophobia in association football?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This was discussed a decade ago (see Talk:Homosexuality in association football#Article name). Perhaps we need to rephrase the lede to include content that's not just about homophobia?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree, the lead should be rewritten/expanded to reflect the page contents. I prefer the broader scope of the current title. Cheers, gnu57 22:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Genericusername57: Would you like to do it please? I like reading about the business of sports in general, but I know nothing about football/soccer players.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I created another redirect, Homophobia in soccer.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Should Super Happy Fun America be a standalone or a redirect?Edit

If a redirect, Straight Pride#Boston, Massachusetts, U.S. (2019) seems a likely target. --Doug Weller talk 16:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Image at Pride paradeEdit

Your feedback is requested, at this discussion at Talk:Pride parade. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata conflation of gender identity and trans statusEdit

At present, Wikidata conflates trans status with gender. For example, trans women are often given the gender "transgender female", while cis women usually get simply "female".

I have started a discussion about this on Wikidata's project chat. I invite anyone to comment who can supply useful thoughts:

Marnanel (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Transgender talk page: Rewriting the first sentence of the leadEdit

An RfC has been started to see if there is consensus for changing the first sentence of the lead of the Transgender article. Link to the RfC: Talk:Transgender#RfC:_How_to_word_the_WP:LEAD.--MattMauler (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Editnotices for non-binary peopleEdit

I've just noticed on Sam Smith (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that there is a hatnote regarding their non-binary status. I think that might be a bit WP:UNDUE; on the other hand, I can envisage a bit of consternation even from experienced editors regarding the use of singular they. In that case, what are everyone's feelings towards an editnotice regarding pronouns in articles regarding non-binary people? Sceptre (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

A similar issue was happening with the article for Indya Moore, where many well-intentioned editors “fixed” the article’s “misgendering” by changing pronouns from they/them to she/her. What ended up happening was that someone brought up their gender/pronouns in the lede to try to make it more obvious for other editors what the accurate pronouns would be, although that also might be UNDUE. Unfortunately a lot of editors don’t really read hidden comments in the code. Umimmak (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, which is why an editnotice might be the way forward, as they show up in both VisualEditor and classic unless you deliberately suppress the notices. Sceptre (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Having reverted those "helpful" fixes many times, despite explanations in the lead, edit summaries, and talk page, I fully expect the "corrections" to resume moments after the protection on the Indya Moore article expires.... Funcrunch (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Doi, I've just notice we have {{pronoun notice}}. Excuse my ignorance, please. :) (That said, we should really expand it out more; I find it hard to believe there are less than a dozen BLPs that need this EN…) Sceptre (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd love to add that template to more articles (thanks to Kaldari for creating it), but I don't have the permissions for it. I have been adding the MOS-NB template (which I created) to talk pages of all nonbinary subjects, regardless of their pronouns. That said, my unfortunate experience is that, particularly in unprotected articles, notices of any kind are simply ignored by people who are deadset against using singular they pronouns. Funcrunch (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Updating of statement on List of LGB people articlesEdit

On these list articles the intro might need to be revised. I saw

Americans are divided – a thin majority (51 percent) believes homosexuality should be accepted, while 42 percent disagree."

Which looks to be sourced to 2003. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge discussionEdit

There's a merger proposal that may be of interest to this Wikiproject. You are invited to weigh in at Talk:19th century in LGBT rights § Merge discussion. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 18:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject LGBT studies".