Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:01, 6 September 2013 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Robot: Archiving 4 threads (older than 30d) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 45.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:12, 15 January 2025 edit undoCagliost (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions17,919 edits →Sultan Qaboos RFC: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/header}}

{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/PageTabs}}
{{Skip to talk}}{{Talk header|wp=yes|search=yes|WT:LGBT|WT:GAY}}
{{skip to bottom}}
{{Talk header|wp=yes|WT:LGBTQ+|WT:LGBTQ|WT:LGBTQIA|WT:LGBT}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies}}
{{WikiProject Gender studies}}
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality}}
}}
{{pp-move-indef}} {{pp-move-indef}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive index |target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive index
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive <#> |mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0 |leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}{{User:MiszaBot/config |indexhere=yes
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 45
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{WikiProject LGBT studies|class=project}}
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies/to do}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies/Navigation}}
|counter = 80

|algo = old(30d)
== Could someone please enlighen me? ==
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive %(counter)d

}}
Hi there :)
{{old move|date=6 September 2024|from=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies|destination=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBTQ Studies|result=moved to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies|link=Special:Permalink/1248705219#Requested move 6 September 2024}}
Could someone please check http://en.wikipedia.org/Kinky_Lifestyle and let me know why it qualifies for speedy deletion?
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/to do}}
The author stated he works on adding english ref. - as far as I can see the german refs (incl. a german newspaper) proove the significance, which I also feel stated within the article itself. - as for advertising maybe someone here has an edit proposal? (pers. I don't consider it advertisment) - any insight would be really appreciated, cause I'm kinda baffled esp. when comparing this one to other bdsm organizations' articles.--] (]) 21:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/ReportBar}}
: Since it's now gone - thx for nothing, I guess :( --] (]) 07:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

== ] article ==

Can I get some comments/more eyes on from this project with regard to the ] article? Like I stated in that edit summary, I don't feel strongly about this matter (Dean being in the LGBT category). And I am the one who had Dean removed from the bisexual category years ago, as that hidden note points to. But it seems justifiable to have him in the LGBT category for reasons Bearcat and I stated in at the ] talk page. By linking his username now, I also invite ], who removed the category before I reverted him, to discuss this. I see that he is also with regard to the ] article. ] (]) 03:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
:And I see that he has now , which , and he has commented So, yes, outside input on this James Dean matter would help. ] (]) 03:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

:I feel quite strongly about it. The weight of evidence is compelling: he was definitely gay.] (]) 11:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
::Hey, Zythe. As always, thanks for weighing in. I'm not sure how you feel that he was definitely gay, though. I mean, it seems he had a clear sexual interest in women...unless that was an act. There are claims that he was gay. There are claims that he was bisexual. There are claims that he was actually heterosexual and was only ]. Needless to say, this is why I had him removed from the bisexual category years ago...because his sexual orientation/sexuality is not clear-cut and is a significant matter of debate among people who knew him, media and scholars. Here's a quick link to the aforementioned discussion that led to removing him from the bisexual category: ] (2009). And here is a discussion from 2012 about how to improve/format that article, which also includes the matter of covering his debated sexual orientation/sexuality: ]; given that a lot of what is in that sandbox is a better James Dean article, it should be integrated into the article...though it should be cleaned up first. ] (]) 11:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
:::Well, I wasn't splitting hairs about gay/bi (often this is an impossible behavioural distinction, and gay works as an umbrella term). More recent sources, such as later works by Bast, very convincingly indicate that he had a primary interest in men with at least a number of beards, in addition to some (earlier) heterosexual affairs, which is unusual. He was clearly a beneficiary of the casting couch, sure, but it does not seem to me he was gay-for-pay. But this is my personal conviction, and I wouldn't put this forward in arguing for a specific LGBT quadrant category. It ought to be uncontroversial to say he was LGBT, however.] (]) 11:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
::::Okay, thanks for clearing that up. And you find it unusual that Dean had earlier heterosexual affairs? Due to ], it's rare that I've come across a gay person who has not had a heterosexual experience (whether the experience was non-sexual, such as simply going out on dates, or sexual). ] (]) 12:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::No, but I think it unusual a man would require a beard if he was only gay-for-pay. I think dating women earlier on is perfectly explicable. I realise what I wrote before reads as very unclear!] (]) 12:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
::::::LOL, don't worry about it. Only the part I questioned was unclear to me. ] (]) 12:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::::And I apparently overlooked you having added in I just read that part about two minutes ago. ] (]) 12:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

== ] ==

Comments are needed with regard to the linked matter in the heading of this section. I've already ] (]) 14:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

== ]'s GAR ==

], an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] 02:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

== Categorization of LGBT people ==

This has probably been discussed before, so I wanted to bring it up here before taking any action. Why do we categorize people as "LGBT" something when more specific categories (especially {{cat|Gay men}} and {{Cat|Lesbians}}) exist? I thought it was odd that we have {{cat|LGBT people by nationality}} but not {{cat|Gay men by nationality}} or {{cat|Lesbians by nationality}}. So ] is an LGBT person from Canada, not a gay Canadian (or gay Canadian male, if "gay" is deemed too broad). I understand some individuals won't neatly fit into one letter of LGBT, but when they do, doesn't it make sense to have more specific categories? --] (]) 18:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
:See (and perhaps the one immediately above it) at ]. The short answer is this: Some people have ] as being a part of the ] community (sexuality-wise or both sexuality and support-wise)...without specifying their sexual orientation. And per ], they shouldn't be placed in a sexual orientation category unless they have identified with the sexual orientation in question. And then there are the historical figures whose sexuality/sexual orientation has been debated as being ], but their sexuality and sexual orientation has never been confirmed; not to mention...the concept of sexual orientation did not exist during the time that some of these historical figures were alive (though opposite-sex and same-sex sexual attraction has always existed). ] (]) 18:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
::Ok, you raise some really good points there. I hadn't considered that people who appear to be simply gay or lesbian may in fact be bisexual (] strikes again!). But where we have reliable statements that "he came out as gay" or "she came out as lesbian," surely we can categorize them more specifically than LGBT, right? So I could go ahead and create and populate {{cat|Gay men by nationality}} and {{cat|Lesbians by nationality}}, for example? --] (]) 18:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
:::Yes, of course. But I'd rather wait and see what others of this project have to state about this topic you've brought up and specifically the proposed categories, if anything at all. ] (]) 18:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
::::Actually...it can be tricky simply going by sources stating that a person came out as gay, lesbian or bisexual. And this is because the author (or authors) of any given source may have categorized the person as such when the person has not categorized him- or herself as such to the author and/or publicly. As currently noted above on this talk page (the "Sexual orientation/sexual identity discussions with regard to categorizing LGBT people" section), this has happened with ] (though I believe it's clear that Foster has at least come out as LGBT). This is why it's better to go by a statement from the person confirming his or her sexual orientation. ] (]) 19:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::Similarly, it seems to be quite common these days for someone to indirectly come out by mentioning their partner/spouse, and that doesn't actually tell us if they're gay/lesbian or if they're bi. - ] (]) 20:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

By and large, the practice of this project has been to avoid subdividing "LGBT" categories into distinct subcategories for each individual letter, except in a few very specific cases where a single "LGBT" category would be populated into the ''thousands''. That goes for occupational categories (a few of which have quadranted subcategories but most of which do not) and for "nationality" ones (''none'' of which have the quadrants and none of which have sufficient population to need them anyway).

Particularly because LGBT-related categorization is still a sensitive issue that raises ] concerns, the project's goal when it comes to "LGBT people" categories has always been to strike a balance: we want there to be enough categories for the tree to be ''useful'', but we also don't want there to be so many categories that the tree becomes too unwieldy to properly ''monitor'' for vandalism or BLP issues. And accordingly, part of the balance that was chosen was to keep most categories at the common "LGBT" level rather than comprehensively subdividing them, and to allow quadrant-specific subcategories ''only'' in cases where the common "LGBT" category was getting large enough to need the breakdown on ''size'' grounds.

Just as an example to illustrate the problem, let's say that you created "Gay men from Canada", "Lesbians from Canada", "Bisexual people from Canada" and "Transgender and transsexual people from Canada". A lot of people could be filtered down into the subcategories, true, but there would still be a few people who would have to be left in the main {{cl|LGBT people from Canada}} parent for the reasons noted above — with the result being that instead of having ''one'' category to monitor for vandals who still think it's funny to add ], you now have ''five''.

Now keep going, and maybe you'll see the problem even more clearly: ''every'' "LGBT" category that we have on Misplaced Pages turns into five categories instead of one? Dear gawd, please no. ] (]) 08:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

== Homosexual propaganda/promotion of homosexuality ==

While the world's eyes are on Russia at the moment, that phrase is not exactly a new concept. As British editors will recall, we had ] (which, thank Christ, only applied to schools and local councils) which got repealed ten years ago. However, the idea of homosexual propaganda still exists here (I've come across four schools whose SRE policies prohibit it, despite the Equality Act), and Section 28 is often brought up to compare similar proposed (but never passed) laws and bill amendments, both here and overseas. I seem to remember Tennessee had what was effectively Section 28 passed a few years ago, for example?

In any case, the idea of homosexuality as something that can be "promoted", and this being an excuse to oppose or roll back LGBT rights, is a possible case for an article; do others think this is the case? ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 00:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
:Do you have an overarching source for this or are you proposing we begin the research for such?--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">]</font> 00:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
::I'm gauging thoughts on this. The Telegraph today , if you were looking for sources to start with. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 05:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

== RFC on LGBT rights under international law ==

Members of WikiProject LGBT studies are invited to participate at a ]. —] (]) 12:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
:I hope editors will not be misled by your heading. The Africa-specific content is just a piece of this. The questions the RfC poses are far more general. ] (]) 12:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
::Well, the whole RFC arises because, before ] was created, its content was posted to a dozen or so "LGBT in <African country>" articles. One of the main questions of the RFC is to decide whether it's appropriate for the material to remain on those pages. But I suppose you're correct that the RFC isn't solely about that, so I've updated the section heading here and will see about changing it on other noticeboards. —] (]) 12:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

== More eyes at ] ==

Hi guys, can i get some more eyes at the ] article. I'm not able to scrutinise every edit at the moment and strangely the article is attracting more brand new users than it was when it was in the news on a weekly basis. Thanks ''']]</span> <sup>(])</sup>''' 10:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

== ] and ] ==

and are matters some of you might be interested in commenting on. ] (]) 22:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


==Standardizing 'by country' articles==
: Yes, I was just going to recommend that editors weigh in ] discussion as there are a lot of misconceptions flying around. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="Purple">'''''L'''''iz</font> <sup>]</sup> 00:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Our articles on LGBTQ people by country are quite inconsistent. There are variously articles titled ''LGBTQ people in foo'', ''LGBTQ rights in foo'', ''LGBTQ history in foo'', ''LGBTQ culture in foo'', etc., but little consistency between which countries have which articles. Often the articles contain content beyond what their name would suggest, just because it is the best available location for that content. There have been several proposed moves and related discussions on these articles in the past months, which has demonstrated the need for a centralized discussion.
::Noting here some different places this matter has spilled: , , , . And even a ] attempt by an IP to change ], which And, of course, there's the news (as in the media). ] (]) 05:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


It would productive to establish a consensus on a model structure for these articles, so that the work to bring them into greater consistency can have a clear goal. To that end, I propose the following:
== MOS:IDENTITY FAQ ==
*Every country should have ''LGBTQ people in foo'' as a ].
*Where there is enough content for a more specific topic to have its own article (on the rights, history, or culture of LGBTQ people in the country), there should be a ] subsection in the broad-concept article.
*''LGBTQ in foo'' should redirect to the broad-concept article. Per. ], disambiguation pages are not needed where the potential destination articles are conceptually linked and covered by a broad-concept article.


] and its sub-articles provide an example of this structure.--] (]) 19:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
After seeing the debates at ], ], and now ] regarding ], it seems like some sort of ] might be helpful explaining the basic principles behind the guideline. I don't think the level of understanding of trans issues in the general public is very high, and a quick overview might make a lot of things clearer for many editors. Do we have anything like that?


I've done up a draft ]; please feel free to edit, as I am not an expert on transgender issues. I think it would ultimately live best as a project space essay, perhaps at ].--] (]) 00:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC) :If we do choose to move forward with this (or a similar) standardization, I would be down to help work on such a project :) ] (]) 20:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:This works for me. ] (]) 09:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::I would like to add that if there is a DAB page, I think it should be at "LGBTQ topics in X" instead of "LGBTQ in X", which is grammatically wrong. ] (]) 18:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think the ] guideline suggests that DABs shouldn't exist in these situations: {{tq|However, if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page.}} There isn't really an ambiguous title in these situations that requires disambiguation between different meanings, but rather a general concept (LGBTQ people in foo) and sub-topics that spin off from that parent article. The BCA serves as the leaping off point to the more specific topics, so a DAB isn't needed.--] (]) 03:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yup that's fair. So if there is a clear BCA, then we don't need a DAB, but I'm saying for cases where there might be ambiguity if a "LGBTQ people in X" has been properly refacted into the BCA, if there is a DAB, it should be at "LGBTQ topics in X" so it is grammatically correct.
::::Else when there is a BCA, all of those "LGBTQ in X" or "LGBTQ topics in X" should redirect to the BCA at "LGBTQ people in X" as we're now establishing as a consensus standard here. ] (]) 06:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:Pinging @] who has been involved in a lot of these discussions. ] (]) 18:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::This is a good idea. Will countries that only have rights be revamped into main topics then? If people are interested in working in or expanding such articles, that would be great. --] ] 02:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What will happen with categories that use LGBTQ as a noun? Similar to how transgender and intersex categories were moved, or are we gonna add another word (such as community)? --] ] 02:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I thought it was going to be "topics", "people", "history", etc, depending on the scope of the article? ] (]) 09:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq| Will countries that only have rights be revamped into main topics then?}} I would say, if the "rights" article is really focussed on rights, it would stay as-is, and at some point hopefully a "people" BCA will be added. But I think a fair number of articles on rights have collected subsections on related topics that would be more suited for a BCA, so there won't be a one-size-fits-all solution.--] (]) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:Just noting that we may not want to assume that ''every'' country should have a separate "LGBTQ people in" page. Small countries or newly-formed states may be better covered as a section in a broader regional article. Doing a quick Google Scholar search to test this theory, I was sometimes able to quickly find country-specific sources (e.g. ), but not for some others (e.g. San Marino, Seychelles, Maldives, South Sudan). Results for these searches suggest that e.g. ], would more accurately reflect the scope of available high-quality sources (e.g. ) <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::That's a fair point. I suppose it would be more accurate to phrase it as, "Where reliable sources are available to create a stand-alone article (or articles) on LGBTQ people in a country, ''LGBTQ people in foo'' should be created as a ]."--] (]) 20:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hi. I think the suggestion in general is great. I created this list ]. Though I'm not sure if it's a mix of ] and what would be a "]" plus some related things in the same affix or similar naming. And I created with non-redirect (aka mainspace) articles only. I was also inspired by ] of this WikiProject. So it might be useful for y'all to fill the gaps, broaden the scope of some articles or rename (that would make the list inconsistent as time goes and no one updates it). ] (]) 05:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:I have gone ahead and created a ] to coordinate/discuss this project. ] (]) 20:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== LGBTQ to LGBTQ+ ==
:My thanks to the editors who have participated. I've gone ahead and moved it to ], with a redirect from the above.--] (]) 13:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Should we re-name pages from "LGBTQ" to "LGBTQ+"? ] (]) 23:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


:'''Yes'''. The acronym for LGBTQ doesn't account for aromantic people, asexual people, intersex people, or non-binary people. Nor does it account for varying non-cis and non-heterosexual identities, sexualities, gender identities etc from outside mainstream western media, like '']'', ], ], ], ], ] or ] etc. I think using "+" would account for all these and more without the need for a long acronym like LGBTIQA (which itself omits non-binary, among others). It would also help negate future moving over "why include Q but not A" etc. Many of the pages using LGBTQ in their title cover aromantic people, asexual people, intersex people, and/or non-binary, so I think this would be most relevant and applicable. ] (]) 23:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
== Splitting Homophobia in the black community ==
:Question: Wasn’t there a discussion recently about changing the acronym that was based on sources? I thought that that was for everything, but maybe not.
:] (]) &#124; :) &#124; he/him &#124; 01:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Prefer Q+, but snowclose.''' A move discussion at ] (the appropriate venue) occurred relatively recently, with many arguments put forth, which resulted in moving from LGBT to LGBTQ, based especially on Google Ngrams data. Let's revisit adding a plus once Ngrams gets data for 2023. –] (] • ]) 03:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Prefer Q+ but ]'''. As per Roxy. ] (]) 13:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Snowclose'''. I also prefer LGBTQ+, but it is too soon to revisit the consensus established in the recent RM that settled on ].--] (]) 13:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*This is ]. Please use the procedure described at ]. --] &#x1f339; (]) 17:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{U|Redrose64}} In this case it is because we are not talking about the move of a single page but mass moving many pages. Those template parameters are for single page moves. ] wouldn't be relevant as there are far, far too many pages starting with LGBTQ to list. ] (]) 04:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{U|Redrose64}} please respond. You removed the rfc far too soon, without any adequate chance of response beforehand and haven't responded to what I stated above a week ago. ] (]) 22:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::] says that subtopics should use consistent naming with the parent article, so articles have generally been kept consistent with the article currently at ]. This previously meant everything got standardized to ]. Since August, when that article was moved to ], other articles have followed suit. The move was very thoroughly discussed back in August, and despite it not resulting in my preferred outcome, I think it is much too soon to revisit it.--] (]) 23:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There is no harm in holding a normal discussion on this Wikiproject talk page. If you want to escalate it, but don't want to use the WP:RM process, you could try ]. --] &#x1f339; (]) 13:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*This should be checked on a case by case basis. Check the scope for each page first before any rename, as the + may or may not be relevant. It may or may not be meaningful to expand the topic of each page. So for a proper RFC or requested move, all the pages affected should be listed before any rename. ] (]) 21:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:This seems fraught. What makes an article have an ''LGBTQ'' vs. ''LGBTQ+'' scope? –] (] • ]) 22:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
** {{U|RoxySaunders}} we could either change all LGBTQ pages to LGBTQ+ or go on a case-by-case basis on whether or not the page covers sexualities and/or gender identities outside the LGBTQ paradigm. I'd go for the former as the vast majority of pages (especially the most substantial ones) that discuss these matters that use LGBTQ in their title are basically used as a catch-all for non-straight and/or non-cis sexualities and/or gender identities. ] (]) 20:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
**:I think case by case is better. ] (]) 21:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] move request ==
I have proposed that ] should be split into separate articles ] and ] anybody with opinions would be most welcome.] (]) 20:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


There's a move request, ] → ], that editors here may have useful expertise to contribute: ]. ] (]) 21:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Why not merge into ]? It's not exactly a lot of content and it's likely to duplicate a lot of the same sources and content. Thanks ''']]</span> <sup>(])</sup>''' 09:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
::'''Oppose''' I really don't think ] would be able to stand on its own. And as to Jenova20's question this is about a form of inter-minority prejudice not just one side. And very few of the sources are used in both articles.-] (]) 02:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== Someone to create a page for me and my work ==
:The titles, and the scope/POV they invite seems non-neutral. This goes for both ] and ]. Misplaced Pages doesn't have any other "Homophobia in X community" articles. If they are kept, they should be renamed and constructed neutrally, similar to how the articles in ] are handled. ] (]) 16:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
::Maybe "Homosexuality and race"? ]&nbsp;{{su|p= ] |b= ]|fontsize=1.5ex}} 17:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


I am a North Carolinian, queer poet, author of numerous books, some awards. The first gay poet in NC .... to remain in NC ... and be completely out. There were others of my generation who left the state and became well known, and some previous to me who also did so. But before me the ones that stayed behind were well hidden, or not out at all. Poet and publisher Jonathan Williams was my main mentor. Also James Broughton and Michael Rumaker. Many gay composers have set my poems to music. Anyhow, you can read and learn about me at my website https://jefferybeam.com/ There is more news (and one new book) not on my website as it has not been updated in a while. Born 1953. Hope someone can step forward from your group to add content about my life and work to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::Misplaced Pages does have other inter-minority prejudice articles please see ] as well as ]. If you would like Homophobia in the X community why not add it. However if you are going to take down the two articles in question you should address all four evenly so not as to show bias.-] (]) 20:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
:See ]. --] &#x1F98C; (]) 22:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hi Jeffery. To have a Misplaced Pages article about you, there must exist reliable and independent sources which provide significant, in-depth discussion of you or your work (see the ] and ] for the project's exact policy). Unfortunately, most people, even most published authors do not meet Misplaced Pages's definition of ]. If you're aware of reliable sources independent from yourself that would be useful for writing a biography about you, please list them. –] (] • ]) 23:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:To follow on from Roxy, I would suggest providing at least four independent, reliable sources (not primary or self-published sources) which discuss you and your work in depth. ] (]) 07:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::Five could be better if possible. ] (]) 21:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


== Proposal: split off the history sections ] and ] pages into one page ==
:::] appears to be neutrally named and constructed though. If it was named similar to ] it would be named "Anti-semitism in the black community" and/or "Anti-black racism in the Jewish community" (topics which are both covered more neutrally within the broader ] article.)
:::] looks like it might have neutrality problems too though. It's probable the intersection of race and LGBT could be covered more neutrally, maybe a broader article covering race and LGBT that includes the contents of the ], ], ] as well as other content like intersectional activism (ie, activism against racism as well as homophobia, transphobia etc.) ] (]) 04:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


(], as it involves splitting multiple articles to create a third. If it's the wrong place, blame them, not me. I'm just a newbie trying to help and not make mistakes)
::::I have already tried to do this with Racism in the LGBT community article long before the other two existed. How can we assure it will work this time?-] (]) 06:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


I propose that we split the history aspects of ] and ] into their own third article: ] (1), or separate articles ] and ] (2). --] (]) 10:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Well, from a quick look at ] it seems that it has been nominated for deletion several times, but a formal move request to see if consensus can be found for changing/broadening the scope has not been tried, so maybe that would be a good place to start? ] (]) 08:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
::::::I'm somewhat convinced. I really do think that having all three topics addressed neutrally sounds better. Besides I was going to add articles on Homophobia in the Asian diaspora, Homophobia in the Native American community, Homophobia in the Arab Community and Homophobia in the Jewish community anyway. That might be easier in one article on LGBT-Ethnic minority relations.-] (]) 08:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
<span class="outdent-template" style="display:block; margin-top:-0.5em; color:#AAA;"><!--
--><span style="display:inline-block; overflow:hidden;">┌</span><!--
--><span style="display:inline-block; overflow:hidden; width:{{#expr:10*1.6-0.8}}em;"><!--
-->────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────</span><!--
--><span style="display:inline-block; overflow:hidden;">┘</span><!--
--></span><!--
--><span></span>
Yeah, a larger article covering several ethnicities sounds like a good idea. Some might not have enough material to warrant stand-alone articles. Maybe model it after the ] article? There would also be some overlap where we already have articles like ] for example. I still don't think the "Homophobia in..." format is neutral, and indeed, some of the content already in the ] (like the number of openly LGBT people, or president Obama speaking out against homophobia) would fit better under a more general "LGBT and the Black Diasporic community" rubric. ] (]) 09:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
:Follow up after thinking it over. How about a more general race/ethnicity and LGBT article with a listing (similar to ]) of all the ethnicities you mentioned, as well as the ones in ], and then under the header for each ethnicity mention racism experienced by LGBT members of that ethnicity, homophobia and/or acceptance within the ethnicity, gay rights and other activism within that community (like Obama's statement) and any other more general information (like the number of out people.) I think that could come out workable and neutral. ] (]) 11:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


* '''Support 1 and 2 with equal preference, as proposer''', because the history aspect of the topics currently dominates both articles and can easily stand on their own, and I think splitting them off will allow other aspects of both topics to have some breathing room. I excluded ] and ], as their history section are small enough not to dominate their articles. I know it took me a while to get here from the teahouse, but things happened, and I forgot until now.--] (]) 10:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::Ok so I have basically three things I think I should mention. A) I think its going to be difficult to convince the people at ] to agree to this and B) I need to know whether I could still create the other articles even though they are going to be infused later. C) I think it should be known that Jewish and Judaism are two very different things. And that not all homophobia in the Jewish community is due to Judaism.-] (]) 03:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


* '''Oppose'''. Lesbian literature history is focused on the lesbian subject and should remain independent from the history of Gay male literature. And creating a stand-alone article titled "History of Lesbian literature" as an addition to the existing ] article (which is historical) is senseless. ] ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black">Ol' homo.</span> 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::I've added a new article ]. I've decided to continue creating them and when we are ready we can fuse them all into one.-] (]) 03:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


:'''Oppose''' for now. ] has about 6.2K readable words and ] has about 4.6K readable words. Neither is overly long at this point and both of them cover a lot of history. Moving history to one or two new pages would fragment the info and make all of them rather short. A better idea would be to wait and see if any particular section gets overly long, and then spin that off into its own section if needed. But that seems a distant issue for now. ] (]) 12:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
== Article titles for transgendered people ==
:'''Oppose''' it's two different subjects ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Cass Review page in need of consensus ==
may be of interest to readers of this talk page. ] (]) 23:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


Morning all,
== ] ==


I suspect it's still too soon after Christmas to get many people involved right now, but there are some ongoing discussions over at ] which could benefit from more input. At the moment there are just a small handful of us discussing, so it tends to be one-on-one discussions, and then any emerging consensus gets overwritten as soon as the new one-to-one discussion starts. There have also been some overlapping edits made around the same time which have resulted in accidental restoration of text which no one was happy with, thus making the article worse than it would have been. Some extra eyes on this might help.
Totally serendipitously, I've stumbled upon what looks to me like an aspect of the "List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films" pages that is out of synch with the Manual of Style guideline on flag icons. Beyond notifying this wiki-project about it, I'm going to leave the issue alone. It's my hope that there will be a recognition here that the flags provide no additional information beyond that already conveyed by the names of the countries they decorate. That's the logic behind the guideline. Happy editing. ] (]) 03:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


Key discussions:
== Merge discussion for ] ==
* Background: How much do we need to include about the history of GIDS here?
* Methodology: How much space should be given over to the systematic reviews versus other forms of evidence included, and the nature of synthesis itself?
* What counts as valid evidence per MEDRS – e.g., is the systematic review by RAND Health & Wellbeing valid, and does it matter that the Cass Review itself wasn't peer reviewed if the systematic reviews were?
* Should the responses of gender critical groups be removed or should they stay in the responses section?


There's probably more, but those are off the top of my head. I reckon we can get some quick consensus so I've held off on doing a formal RfC for that reason. I think it's more a problem of few editors engaging right now, rather than one of intractable disagreement. ] (]) 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
] An article in this WikiProject, ], has been proposed for a ] with the article ]. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going {{ #if:Talk:Genderqueer#Merge proposal |]|to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article}}, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ] (]) 07:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


== Missing topics page == == The Vivienne ==


British drag performer ] has died. Article improvements welcome. ---] <sub>(])</sub> 20:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I have updated ] - ] (]) 10:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


==Discussion at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 9#Categories:LGBTQ in}}==
== Lawsuit article needed, any takers? ==
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 9#Categories:LGBTQ in}}. --] ] 23:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Maddelynn Hatter ==
Hey all, after reading about a victory for same-sex couples in the case of ''Cooper-Harris v. United States'', I went looking for the wikiarticle but all I can find is one short mention ]. Since this case has major effects regarding veterans benefits for same-sex couples, seems like it deserves its own article. I don't have time to create one and track down refs and legal citations - anyone else want to give it a go? ] (]) 17:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


] has been nominated for deletion, if any project members are interested in weighing in or improving the article. Thanks! ---] <sub>(])</sub> 04:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== More eyes at ] ==


== Karla Sofía Gascón ==
Can I get more eyes at the ] article. IP users are making many questionable and POV edits. Thanks!--<font face="bold">]]</font> 19:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


There's a discussion at ] on whether Gascón's former name should be included in ]. ] (]) 06:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== Template:MOS-TM and Template:MOS-TW have been nominated for deletion ==


== ] ==
] and ] have been nominated for deletion. Please comment at ]. --] (]) 19:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


] has been nominated for deletion. The deletion discussion is being conducted at ]. ] (]) 05:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==


== Wow GA for Transgender health care misinformation ==
Go to the bottom of ] and you'll see a discussion between just 2 users; myself and ]. JanetWand appears to believe that I don't understand the difference between gender and sex. The truth is that I do, but that gender is the method that Misplaced Pages is supposed to use when determining how to refer to trans people. Anyone (besides JanetWand) able to reveal their thoughts on the discussion?? ] (]) 17:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


Check it ]
Georgia guy does not seem to be able to demonstrate his understanding of the terms, and is making a superfluous edit of the term male to female when referring to the process that Ms. Jorgensen underwent in her transition, going from male to female. He seems to think that using male is offensive here, but I say it is not, but is merely the truth in describing what occurred and the conventional expression. I am a transwoman, and it does not offend me, however, we would like to hear from others. I feel confident that I can demonstrate that this is how medical professionals refer to the procedure, which by itself should be enough to render GeorgiaGuy's argument baseless. GeorgiaGuy is working with another user, both of whom seem to have the agenda of revising gender terminology, which is a noble cause, but one which oversteps its usefulness here, in my opinion. At the very least his argument represents a fringe movement, not the concensus view. However, the subject is open to discussion. ] (]) 20:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


Started a month ago, and now at ] status. ]] 20:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
For clarification, I have a big concern that people who see the term "male-to-female" on Misplaced Pages will think that it's '''perfectly okay''' for Misplaced Pages to say that trans women actually '''were''' men, as opposed to women trapped in men's bodies, before the surgery operation. ] (]) 01:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
:As I understand the discussion so far, Janet's argument is that using the term "male-to-female" does not imply that trans women were men before; it means that they had men's bodies. So why all the fuss? ] (]) 06:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
::The term literally gives equality to the 2 bodies as if the earlier body wasn't wrong. We need to refer to trans women as follows: they were women throughout their lives; they simply had the wrong body before being corrected with surgery. Their gender identity is unambiguously female. Can you (someone other than JanetWand) explain why the term "male-to-female" doesn't imply that they actually '''were''' men before the surgery operation?? ] (]) 12:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


== Sultan Qaboos RFC ==
== Category:GLAAD Media Award winners ==


There is a new RFC underway at ] about whether to include suggestions that the late Sultan of Oman may have been gay. ] (]) 11:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
] has been nominated for deletion -- ] (]) 06:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:12, 15 January 2025

WikiProject

LGBTQ+ studies
Home HomeTalk TalkCollaboration CollaborationEditing EditingResources ResourcesShowcase Showcase
    This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
    Shortcuts
    Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
    This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
    It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
    WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
    WikiProject iconThis page is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
    WikiProject iconGender studies
    WikiProject iconThis page is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this page, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
    To-do list:

    		 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
    WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality
    WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality

    On 6 September 2024, it was proposed that this page be moved from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBTQ Studies. The result of the discussion was moved to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies.

    To-do list for WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-11-13

    • Alerts – Lists active discussions for all project-tagged articles, including proposed moves and deletions, requests for comment, and nominations for featured content. Bot-updated daily.
    • Assessment – Lists changes to the quality assessment for all project-tagged articles. Can be used to review when articles are added to or removed from the project's scope. Bot-updated daily.
    • Watchlist – Shows recent changes to all articles linked from WP:LGBTQ+/Watchlist.
    • Cleanup – All project-tagged articles with maintenance templates. Bot-updated weekly.
    • Core – A collection of 120 articles of fundamental importance to the project's mandate.
    • Vital – Project-tagged articles that have been identified as vital at WP:VITAL.
    • Popular – The 500 most-viewed project-tagged articles. Bot-updated monthly.
    • Drafts – A category containing all project-tagged draft articles.
    • New – Search results for articles that match LGBTQ+ search terms. These may be reviewed to determine if they are in-scope.
    • See WP:LGBTQ+/Editing for more.

    Standardizing 'by country' articles

    Our articles on LGBTQ people by country are quite inconsistent. There are variously articles titled LGBTQ people in foo, LGBTQ rights in foo, LGBTQ history in foo, LGBTQ culture in foo, etc., but little consistency between which countries have which articles. Often the articles contain content beyond what their name would suggest, just because it is the best available location for that content. There have been several proposed moves and related discussions on these articles in the past months, which has demonstrated the need for a centralized discussion.

    It would productive to establish a consensus on a model structure for these articles, so that the work to bring them into greater consistency can have a clear goal. To that end, I propose the following:

    • Every country should have LGBTQ people in foo as a WP:Broad-concept article.
    • Where there is enough content for a more specific topic to have its own article (on the rights, history, or culture of LGBTQ people in the country), there should be a WP:Summary style subsection in the broad-concept article.
    • LGBTQ in foo should redirect to the broad-concept article. Per. WP:BCA, disambiguation pages are not needed where the potential destination articles are conceptually linked and covered by a broad-concept article.

    LGBTQ people in Mexico and its sub-articles provide an example of this structure.--Trystan (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    If we do choose to move forward with this (or a similar) standardization, I would be down to help work on such a project :) ForsythiaJo (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
    This works for me. Lewisguile (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
    I would like to add that if there is a DAB page, I think it should be at "LGBTQ topics in X" instead of "LGBTQ in X", which is grammatically wrong. Raladic (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think the WP:BCA guideline suggests that DABs shouldn't exist in these situations: However, if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page. There isn't really an ambiguous title in these situations that requires disambiguation between different meanings, but rather a general concept (LGBTQ people in foo) and sub-topics that spin off from that parent article. The BCA serves as the leaping off point to the more specific topics, so a DAB isn't needed.--Trystan (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yup that's fair. So if there is a clear BCA, then we don't need a DAB, but I'm saying for cases where there might be ambiguity if a "LGBTQ people in X" has been properly refacted into the BCA, if there is a DAB, it should be at "LGBTQ topics in X" so it is grammatically correct.
    Else when there is a BCA, all of those "LGBTQ in X" or "LGBTQ topics in X" should redirect to the BCA at "LGBTQ people in X" as we're now establishing as a consensus standard here. Raladic (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    Pinging @MikutoH who has been involved in a lot of these discussions. Raladic (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is a good idea. Will countries that only have rights be revamped into main topics then? If people are interested in working in or expanding such articles, that would be great. --MikutoH 02:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    What will happen with categories that use LGBTQ as a noun? Similar to how transgender and intersex categories were moved, or are we gonna add another word (such as community)? --MikutoH 02:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    I thought it was going to be "topics", "people", "history", etc, depending on the scope of the article? Lewisguile (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Will countries that only have rights be revamped into main topics then? I would say, if the "rights" article is really focussed on rights, it would stay as-is, and at some point hopefully a "people" BCA will be added. But I think a fair number of articles on rights have collected subsections on related topics that would be more suited for a BCA, so there won't be a one-size-fits-all solution.--Trystan (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Just noting that we may not want to assume that every country should have a separate "LGBTQ people in" page. Small countries or newly-formed states may be better covered as a section in a broader regional article. Doing a quick Google Scholar search to test this theory, I was sometimes able to quickly find country-specific sources (e.g. East Timor), but not for some others (e.g. San Marino, Seychelles, Maldives, South Sudan). Results for these searches suggest that e.g. LGBTQ people in Sub-Saharan Africa, would more accurately reflect the scope of available high-quality sources (e.g. ) signed, Rosguill 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's a fair point. I suppose it would be more accurate to phrase it as, "Where reliable sources are available to create a stand-alone article (or articles) on LGBTQ people in a country, LGBTQ people in foo should be created as a WP:Broad-concept article."--Trystan (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hi. I think the suggestion in general is great. I created this list Draft:List of LGBTQ topics. Though I'm not sure if it's a mix of Outline of LGBTQ topics and what would be a "LGBTQ by country" plus some related things in the same affix or similar naming. And I created with non-redirect (aka mainspace) articles only. I was also inspired by this table from Spanish-language version of this WikiProject. So it might be useful for y'all to fill the gaps, broaden the scope of some articles or rename (that would make the list inconsistent as time goes and no one updates it). LIrala (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have gone ahead and created a separate page to coordinate/discuss this project. ForsythiaJo (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    LGBTQ to LGBTQ+

    Should we re-name pages from "LGBTQ" to "LGBTQ+"? Helper201 (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

    Yes. The acronym for LGBTQ doesn't account for aromantic people, asexual people, intersex people, or non-binary people. Nor does it account for varying non-cis and non-heterosexual identities, sexualities, gender identities etc from outside mainstream western media, like two-spirit, Faʻafafine, fakafifine, takatāpui, vakasalewalewa, māhū or palopa etc. I think using "+" would account for all these and more without the need for a long acronym like LGBTIQA (which itself omits non-binary, among others). It would also help negate future moving over "why include Q but not A" etc. Many of the pages using LGBTQ in their title cover aromantic people, asexual people, intersex people, and/or non-binary, so I think this would be most relevant and applicable. Helper201 (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    Question: Wasn’t there a discussion recently about changing the acronym that was based on sources? I thought that that was for everything, but maybe not.
    JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 01:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Prefer Q+, but snowclose. A move discussion at Talk:LGBTQ (the appropriate venue) occurred relatively recently, with many arguments put forth, which resulted in moving from LGBT to LGBTQ, based especially on Google Ngrams data. Let's revisit adding a plus once Ngrams gets data for 2023. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 03:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Prefer Q+ but WP:SNOWCLOSE. As per Roxy. Lewisguile (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Snowclose. I also prefer LGBTQ+, but it is too soon to revisit the consensus established in the recent RM that settled on LGBTQ.--Trystan (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Redrose64 In this case it is because we are not talking about the move of a single page but mass moving many pages. Those template parameters are for single page moves. WP:RMPM wouldn't be relevant as there are far, far too many pages starting with LGBTQ to list. Helper201 (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    Redrose64 please respond. You removed the rfc far too soon, without any adequate chance of response beforehand and haven't responded to what I stated above a week ago. Helper201 (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    WP:CONSUB says that subtopics should use consistent naming with the parent article, so articles have generally been kept consistent with the article currently at LGBTQ. This previously meant everything got standardized to LGBT. Since August, when that article was moved to LGBTQ, other articles have followed suit. The move was very thoroughly discussed back in August, and despite it not resulting in my preferred outcome, I think it is much too soon to revisit it.--Trystan (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    There is no harm in holding a normal discussion on this Wikiproject talk page. If you want to escalate it, but don't want to use the WP:RM process, you could try WP:VPR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    Matthew Shepard move request

    There's a move request, Matthew Shepard → Murder of Matthew Shepard, that editors here may have useful expertise to contribute: Talk:Matthew Shepard#Requested move 22 December 2024. Davidwbaker (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for American Horror Story

    American Horror Story has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Someone to create a page for me and my work

    I am a North Carolinian, queer poet, author of numerous books, some awards. The first gay poet in NC .... to remain in NC ... and be completely out. There were others of my generation who left the state and became well known, and some previous to me who also did so. But before me the ones that stayed behind were well hidden, or not out at all. Poet and publisher Jonathan Williams was my main mentor. Also James Broughton and Michael Rumaker. Many gay composers have set my poems to music. Anyhow, you can read and learn about me at my website https://jefferybeam.com/ There is more news (and one new book) not on my website as it has not been updated in a while. Born 1953. Hope someone can step forward from your group to add content about my life and work to Misplaced Pages. Jeffbeam (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    See WP:PROUD. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hi Jeffery. To have a Misplaced Pages article about you, there must exist reliable and independent sources which provide significant, in-depth discussion of you or your work (see the WP:General notability guideline and WP:Notability (people) for the project's exact policy). Unfortunately, most people, even most published authors do not meet Misplaced Pages's definition of notability. If you're aware of reliable sources independent from yourself that would be useful for writing a biography about you, please list them. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 23:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    To follow on from Roxy, I would suggest providing at least four independent, reliable sources (not primary or self-published sources) which discuss you and your work in depth. Lewisguile (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Five could be better if possible. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Proposal: split off the history sections Gay literature and Lesbian literature pages into one page

    ( It was suggested to be taken here when I asked in the Teahouse, as it involves splitting multiple articles to create a third. If it's the wrong place, blame them, not me. I'm just a newbie trying to help and not make mistakes)

    I propose that we split the history aspects of Gay literature and Lesbian literature into their own third article: History of Gay and Lesbian literature (1), or separate articles History of Gay Literature and History of Lesbian literature (2). --Lover of lgbt literature (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    • Support 1 and 2 with equal preference, as proposer, because the history aspect of the topics currently dominates both articles and can easily stand on their own, and I think splitting them off will allow other aspects of both topics to have some breathing room. I excluded Bisexual literature and Transgender literature, as their history section are small enough not to dominate their articles. I know it took me a while to get here from the teahouse, but things happened, and I forgot until now.--Lover of lgbt literature (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Lesbian literature history is focused on the lesbian subject and should remain independent from the history of Gay male literature. And creating a stand-alone article titled "History of Lesbian literature" as an addition to the existing Lesbian literature article (which is historical) is senseless. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose for now. Gay literature has about 6.2K readable words and Lesbian literature has about 4.6K readable words. Neither is overly long at this point and both of them cover a lot of history. Moving history to one or two new pages would fragment the info and make all of them rather short. A better idea would be to wait and see if any particular section gets overly long, and then spin that off into its own section if needed. But that seems a distant issue for now. Lewisguile (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose it's two different subjects 2A01:CB0C:8805:3000:59F2:ECAF:5F35:F425 (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Cass Review page in need of consensus

    Morning all,

    I suspect it's still too soon after Christmas to get many people involved right now, but there are some ongoing discussions over at Cass Review which could benefit from more input. At the moment there are just a small handful of us discussing, so it tends to be one-on-one discussions, and then any emerging consensus gets overwritten as soon as the new one-to-one discussion starts. There have also been some overlapping edits made around the same time which have resulted in accidental restoration of text which no one was happy with, thus making the article worse than it would have been. Some extra eyes on this might help.

    Key discussions:

    • Background: How much do we need to include about the history of GIDS here?
    • Methodology: How much space should be given over to the systematic reviews versus other forms of evidence included, and the nature of synthesis itself?
    • What counts as valid evidence per MEDRS – e.g., is the systematic review by RAND Health & Wellbeing valid, and does it matter that the Cass Review itself wasn't peer reviewed if the systematic reviews were?
    • Should the responses of gender critical groups be removed or should they stay in the responses section?

    There's probably more, but those are off the top of my head. I reckon we can get some quick consensus so I've held off on doing a formal RfC for that reason. I think it's more a problem of few editors engaging right now, rather than one of intractable disagreement. Lewisguile (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    The Vivienne

    British drag performer The Vivienne has died. Article improvements welcome. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 9 § Categories:LGBTQ in

     You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 9 § Categories:LGBTQ in. --MikutoH 23:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Maddelynn Hatter

    Maddelynn Hatter has been nominated for deletion, if any project members are interested in weighing in or improving the article. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Karla Sofía Gascón

    There's a discussion at Talk:Karla Sofía Gascón on whether Gascón's former name should be included in the article. Nardog (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Portal:Transgender

    Portal:Transgender has been nominated for deletion. The deletion discussion is being conducted at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transgender (2nd nomination). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Wow GA for Transgender health care misinformation

    Check it Transgender health care misinformation

    Started a month ago, and now at WP:Good article status. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sultan Qaboos RFC

    There is a new RFC underway at Talk:Qaboos bin Said about whether to include suggestions that the late Sultan of Oman may have been gay. cagliost (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Categories: