Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject

LGBT studies
Startseite StartseiteTalk TalkCollaboration CollaborationEditing EditingRessourcen RessourcenShowcase Showcase
  • Skip to TOC
  • Skip to bottomSkip to bottom

JK Rowling RFC

[edit]

There's currently an RFC at Talk:J. K. Rowling § RFC "anti-transgender activist" in the lead. Editors are invited to participate. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improving List of people killed for being transgender

[edit]

The List of people killed for being transgender page is lacking. There are zero examples before 1991, and the list is far from exhaustive. Cases in the list are also almost exclusively in the United States, and the list could use more global cases.

Ideally, I'd love to add a historical section as well -- Joan of Arc comes to mind but more clear-cut historical cases would be useful, as I think Joan's case is pretty up in the air.

When contributing, please keep in mind that the list is for cases where transness is a clear motive (even if not the only motive); unfortunately cases like Pauly Likens's don't fit the bill without clear evidence of transphobic or trans-related motive. AmityCity (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for LGBT themes in speculative fiction

[edit]

LGBT themes in speculative fiction 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) 15:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drag and the Olympic Games

[edit]

New page: Drag and the Olympic Games

Improvements welcome! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:LGBT#Requested move 14 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBT#Requested move 14 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary project

[edit]

The Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group has been trying to work with GLAAD on an English Wiktionary project to update the definitions of some anti-Queer slurs and conspiracy theory terms (like "transvestigation", for example).

We did have a volunteer working with GLAAD, but they're no longer able to help. Does anyone with experience of editing Wiktionary (or who is comfortable learning it) who would be interested in helping here? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 21:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intersex healthcare draft feedback

[edit]

EDIT: Nevermind, my draft passed review :D If any of you all still have feedback feel free to add it to the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urchincrawler (talk • contribs) 04:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw that there was a page of intersex-related redlinks including intersex healthcare since the intersex medical intervention page focuses mostly on intersex children. I whipped up a draft but I've never made such a hefty article from scratch so I'd appreciate feedback. Here's the draft. Thanks. P.S. feel free to add stuff if you happen to be knowledgeable about this subject. Urchincrawler (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for John Maynard Keynes

[edit]

John Maynard Keynes 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) 02:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mystique Summers Madison

[edit]

I've nominated Mystique Summers Madison for Good article status, if any project members are interested in reviewing an entry about a drag performer. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for transgender studies researcher Cal Horton

[edit]

There is an Article for Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal Horton of transgender studies researcher Cal Horton that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Harriet Spofford

[edit]

Do the members of WikiProject LGBT studies think that this article (especially the "Personal Life" section regards to her documented close friendship with Elizabeth Coulson) is within the scope of this Wikiproject? Historyday01 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:LGBT community#Requested move 27 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBT community#Requested move 27 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lior Shamriz

[edit]

The pronouns in Lior Shamriz are inconsistent (is and they) and there is no in-article reference to the subject (Shamriz's new official website seems to use we/they). Can anyone find relevant sources, update the page content and fix the wording? Thanks, DGtal (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are these?

[edit]

Ernie Potvin 1931-1998

https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8xp7744/

https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8xp7744/entire_text/

https://www.gmcla.org/history

https://glreview.org/article/article-530/

GPA Wire Service

International Gay News Agency

Stonewall Features Syndicate

The Gayly Oklahoman

The computer of GPA's wire service, which has already begun to improve the speed and quality of news communication between gay publications, is owned by ...

15:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 98.248.161.240 (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what Flounder fillet (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the main article has been moved to LGBTQ, all sub-articles (including the Wikiproject) can follow suit

[edit]

Per the recent outcome of the Talk:LGBTQ#Requested_move_14_August_2024 move discussion which ended up with the main article being moved to LGBTQ, as the administrator who concluded the move noted, all sub-categories, templates and articles can now follow suit and should be migrated to LGBTQ.

As this is a large volume of articles (see Category:LGBT) across the entirety of Wikipedia, it will take some time and help from people, including some pages will require extra permissions that some members of the project may have. Raladic (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose That discussion had nowhere near enough participation to justify a mass move. Before reacting to 20 people who discussed the issue for 10 days without referencing past conversations or recruiting multicultural perspective, let's give people more time to react. You are suggesting making several hundred thousand edits and that is too much, too fast. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you're saying we need to review that closure (understandable; 10 days is fairly short) or open an RfC for mass-renaming articles with "LGBT" in the name? I think WP:SNOWBALL applies to most of those cases.
    I do think it would be sensible to run a discussion on this talkpage as to whether this project should rename to "WikiProject LGBTQ Studies". Personally I'd much rather we include the Plus so we don't have to do this all again in three years. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You make it sound like it was some random move - it wasn't. It was the result of multiple years of discussion with the language evolving over time and away from the old LGBT to now the move inclusive LGBTQ, based on hard and supported data. Many of the people that were part of this years move discussion were also part of last years and have followed the trend and the discussions closely. And as was outlined in the move discussion that now concluded in support of the move, even last years discussion was already trending towards LGBTQ and was just waiting for that final data point to support our policy-based rename of the main article per our Wikipedia policies of WP:COMMONNAME which came and as such, the new move discussion of this year now passed in a WP:SNOWBALL. Now follows, just as the closing administrator has noted in the close that sub-articles follow as is our policy of WP:CONSISTENT (WP:CONSUB) sub-article titling.
    And many sub-pages themself have had move requests over the years, which always followed that they will be moved once the main LGBTQ article moves, which now the time has come as it has unequivocally overtaken the old less inclusive LGBT.
    I placed the notification here to ensure that there is wider awareness for those that may not have seen the move discussion (or the many before it that lead to it), but at this point, it appears absolutely appropriate to now follow suit with the sub article as the same argument for the move of the main article applies to why the sub-articles are now outdated with LGBT instead of LGBTQ. Raladic (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoxySaunders: Yes, I would like an RfC. I think that if there are to be 100k+ edits then it is fair to base that off an RfC rather than a 10-day, 20 person conversation. @Raladic: I am not disputing the validity of the arguments for the past move, but also, that brief discussion is not a summary or reflection of the whole discourse. I just opposed a move at Talk:LGBT_community#Requested_move_27_August_2024; could I invite you to respond to my opposition there? Bluerasberry (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds more like you want to reopen the RM discussion so you can have your say on a result you disagree with, rather than apply a local consensus on different articles beyond LGBTQ (per WP:CONSUB we're absolutely not going to do that). Post-mortem discussions of the RM should occur either at Talk:LGBTQ oder WP:Move review. I don't think the current form of your argument is likely to overturn the result. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with @Bluerasberry's call of caution and more extensive discussion before proceeding with mass renaming. Distinct communities, like lesbians, require careful consideration that a brief, limited-participation discussion simply cannot provide. Lesbians, for instance, have a rich, complex history and a distinct identity that could be inadvertently obscured by blanket renaming; usage requires careful consideration. Similar concerns likely exist for other groups as well. Each sub-community may want to discuss how they are represented and categorized on Wikipedia. Is there not a mechanism to democratize mass edits? I'm fairly new and trying to get caught up but curious how Wikipedia typically handles such large-scale updates? I had hoped it was in a way that ensured all perspectives were very carefully considered. ViolanteMD (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That mechanism is called WP:consensus. WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy—the titles of articles are subject to guidelines like WP:COMMONNAME, not to the popular vote. The discussion exists to establish what name most closesly matches Wikipedias guidelines; not what feels the most right/comfortable/sensitive/inclsuve to the most people (this is how you get 15-character monstrosities). Those things are important, but Wikipedia is not the place to WP:right great wrongs. Instead we hope that the majority of independent reliable sources get it right.
Frankly I don't understand how this change could meaningfully impact the L, G, B, or T's, considering we're strictly adding further characters which don't have to apply to them. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 22:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you for explaining. Consensus and democracy can feel like the same thing sometimes. Thank you for making me look up WP:COMMONNAME, I understand that it's about more than personal preferences or comfort levels but there is real cultural identity that is at risk of being lost in my opinion.
True consensus requires input from a wider ranger of editors and stakeholders, especially given the scale of the changes being proposed. Properly applying the guidelines of WP:COMMONNAME across such a broad range of articles must require more extensive review and discussion than this? While adding "characters" might seem straightforward, it could have an impact on whether the article represents the specific community appropriately or not. Would you like me to give you some examples of how that's the case? I'm happy to do so, but I just got a "contentious topic" warning message so I don't want to come off too aggressively. I understand feelings can run high when discussing these topics. Another reason to have a very careful discussion.
I think the changes need to reflect the usage across different contexts in this case but I'm also new here so I'm happy to just let it go. ViolanteMD (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, you got the contentious topics advisory because you happened to edit a page that's related to something that's been deemed a contentious topic by the Arbitration Committee, not because you seemed contentious while editing there. (It was more of a way to say "hey, just so you know, because this topic attracts more disruptive edits than usual, sometimes there are tighter guidelines so that things are less likely to get disruptive".) You probably got that template sent your way because you edited the Detransition talk page (but not because of anything specific you said there).
I don't have strong feelings right now on this section's actual topic (this is because my brain is fried from doing coding all day), but it sounds like you might have a specific example in mind where you are concerned adding the Q could be an issue. If you do, would you mind sharing an example of your own? - Purplewowies (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hope your brain gets a chance to rest! Thank you very much for taking the time to explain. It came from a user account so I thought it wasn't automated; apologies for the confusion!
What was in my mind at the time of writing was how different the experience of the term is for men (from my point of view as a woman, I can't hope to speak about it). Masculinity sure seems tied up in it from my point of view but that's as far as I'd be willing to guess. I've always been proud of being Q but I don't think that's everyone's experience.
Thinking about it a bit more, things like retaining generational (historical context) and cultural differences could be worth spending the time to discuss and factor in on a more granular level. Even the language itself could be valuable to preserve. I will think about it more though, as it is very late! ViolanteMD (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the closer to reconsider, as I think notifying only this project and not all projects that will be affected by a mass-renaming of categories could be interpreted as WP:CANVASSING, especially on a move as impactful as this, and I'd say that's valid grounds for a move review with more independent eyes on it to judge. Void if removed (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd even say it's not enough participation for the RM itself. I'm having war flashbacks to ABC News (United States). LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue that happened with the ABC News was that the move was based on a shaky argument on WP:PTOPIC from an existing disambiguation.
Whereas the move that occurred from LGBT to LGBTQ was based on the stronger basis for WP:COMMONNAME, which as was outlined in the RM was already trending there even at last years move discussion and was at a tentative “it looks like LGBTQ is getting there, but let’s wait a little longer for more data to confirm”, which now a year later has come with the worldwide scholar field continuing an increase in the use of LGBTQ (vs LGBT) supporting the move to LGBTQ, as well as ngram having released new data from previous up to 2019 (which LGBTQ had already overtaken LGBT, but only just, at the time) to the new dataset now going to 2022 which now overwhelmingly shows that LGBTQ is on a steep uptrend with a strong lead since 2019 and LGBT is on a clear downward trend in usage since 2017. All of these negate some of the points that Blueraspberry claimed above and in the other sub-topic RM (which isn't the appropriate venue to re-litigate this either) as this is worldwide data.
So there is no good policy argument at this point against the move, which is why it snowballed as even the one oppose in the RM called out, which itself conceded that at this point in time, there is no good policy reason not to move it, other than people opposing it because they personally don’t like it (be it for old historic context or other reasons, which are of course valid personal opinions, but not basis for move arguments, which are policy based).
Anyone is of course welcome to file a formal WP:move review if they do believe that there is a policy based reason against it, but personal opinion to maintain a now outdated non inclusive term on the basis of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT for the now worldwide more common LGBTQ acronym won’t be strong enough for that. A move review also can’t be initiated just because of personal disagreement with the outcome per WP:MRNOT, so there must be a strong policy based reason of why the community consensus that was based in support of the points raised in last years review and the now followed strong support this year would not reflect the policies of en-wiki (which personally as the opener of the RM and supporter last years, I do think that the move request was proper and well grounded in our policies and backed by the data and the community to support it, even if only 20 people voted for it).
Lacking a formal filing of a move review, with this note here, we should slowly focus on moving forward instead, which is why I raised the point here to begin with to discuss strategies of the follow up rename. This here is not be the right place to re-litigate the move if someone wants to formally challenge it. Raladic (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting about this here. In terms of moving pages, here's some I know of (and have significantly contributed to) which should be moved to new names:
Among many others... I don't know if I should put in moves for each page individually (which could get cumbersome), or if I should do some of these in batches (like all the Lists of animated series pages together). Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I should put in moves for each page individually - no we shouldn't need RM discussion for each of these articles and instead can do WP:BOLD moves per consensus that they are subtopics, so should follow the lead of the main article LGBTQ per WP:CONSISTENT - specifically WP:CONSUB for subtopics.
I just am holding off another day or so for the community to see the note here and then was going to start with page moves.
Another admin - @HouseBlaster has already helped with starting the category moves, which can be performed by bot-moves through the speedy move procedures for categories and following the same sub-topic consistent naming policies. Raladic (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the extensive discussion that led to the decision to move the main article to LGBTQ, and I understand the rationale behind wanting to update related sub-articles for consistency. Regardless, I remain concerned about the potential of a broad change causing us to overlook the unique historical and cultural contexts of specific communities within the LGBTQ+ umbrella. Appending a term that even a few people consider hate speech without careful consideration seems exceedingly unwise. Many pages have already been moved though so I see that this is a moot point. ViolanteMD 17:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as I noted on your talk page the other day, we have specific goals and policies on Wikipedia and we WP:SUMMARIZE the global consensus based on reliable sources.
This includes that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, so we do sometimes have terms that some people may take personal offence with. So with this, we follow and represent the wide worldwide consensus view (and often lag behind it in by many years, such as was the case here), which has now shown that LGBTQ has overtaken LGBT as the widely used term for the wider community and as such, we follow this. A large majority of the community has embraced and reclaimed queer and it was specifically added to the acronym by the community to signify this.
This isn't to say that we don't acknowledge that some people may not like the term, which is why the history of it is extensively discussed at the other main article - Queer#Origins_and_early_use and in move brevity at LGBTQ#History_of_the_term. Our articles continuously evolve and can be improved based on RS of course, but again, it does mean that sometimes we do have terms that some people of the population may take some personal offense with. Raladic (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the need to follow global consensus and reprint "widely accepted terms", especially as language evolves. My concern is less about personal offense and more about ensuring that our articles accurately reflect the nuanced experiences and identities they're attempting to describe. While I appreciate that you think the word has been widely reclaimed, the historical context and varying acceptance of the term across different demographics and regions should be carefully considered when applying broad changes. If you think this is as careful as Wikipedia is capable of being, you almost certainly know better than I do. I'm trying to get up to speed on how this process works but I feel obligated to at least say something at the moment because I know people who don't want the label attached to them. Thanks for hearing me out. ViolanteMD 17:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think changing category names erases things within those categories. Broad words are obviously broader than narrow words, and I think that's self-evident. You don't lose nuance just because an article on, say, lesbians suddenly says "Part of our LGBTQ series" instead of "Part of our LGBT series" (just an example I've made up). It has no material impact on the content of the article. Lewisguile (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I understand your point about category names not directly impacting article content. However, I believe the issue is more nuanced than that.
While it's true that changing "LGBT" to "LGBTQ" might seem minor, it can have broader implications. For some individuals and communities, particularly those who have been labeled queer pejoratively, I don't think it's fair to say it has no material impact on the content of the article unilaterally.
My concern is about applying this change universally without careful consideration to its history as a slur. ViolanteMD 10:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that vague concern is not a valid reason (especially if unsourced or not backed up by policy). We work based on WP policy and our decisions should reflect that. Wikipedia also doesn't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
Can you direct us to any specific examples of policy that would support your objection?
As there has been a concerted move by a small minority of editors to challenge any article with queer in the title, I think we need to be especially sure that objections are policy-based and not based on straw, motivated reasoning oder WP:POV pushing (even if well meaning). Lewisguile (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining the Wikipedia policies. I appreciate the need for policy-based decisions rather than personal opinions. However, I find it frankly insulting to suggest that objections to this change might be part of some "concerted move by a small minority of editors to challenge any article with queer in the title." This implication of conspiracy or bad faith is unwarranted and dismissive of genuine concerns. I've already explained my reason for raising the concern multiple times here.
While I'm still learning about Wikipedia policies, a few that seem potentially relevant are:
  1. WP:NPOV - Universally applying "LGBTQ" might inadvertently take a stance on the reclamation of "queer" that isn't universally held by all subgroups.
  2. WP:COMMONNAME - While "LGBTQ" may be becoming more common overall, it may not be the most common name in all contexts or for all sub-communities.
  3. Precision - In some cases, using "LGBTQ" instead of "LGBT" may be less precise, especially for historical articles or when discussing specific sub-groups.
I'm suggesting these points merit deeper consideration as widespread change is implemented. A more granular approach is taken for nearly every other topic I've dug into on this site. Why wouldn't it be the approach for topics as important as this? ViolanteMD 11:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head there's WP:BLPCAT implications once the category changes percolate down to eg. LGBT People, per Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question. If you don't have individuals using "LGBTQ" about themselves, you shouldn't either.
First example I see, Darren Grimes, a right-wing gay man in England who has vocally opposed usage of the word queer and regards it as a slur.
This page currently has 3 direct "LGBT" categories, and more implied by category hierarchy (ie English gay men is inside English LGBT men)
Now either you categorize their sexuality in a way they don't identify with (indeed, strongly oppose), in violation of WP:BLPCAT, or you take those categories off, and this is a decision that is going to have to be made on a page by page basis. Who knows, maybe there's only a handful like Grimes and it is no big deal to fix up, but it bears consideration. Void if removed (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an obvious misapplication of BLPCAT, which is intended to protect subjects from being outed, libeled, or having their religion/gender/sexuality described incorrectly. It does not exist to protect bigots from being grouped together with people they don't like—which, in this case, includes not only the identity queer but all gender and sexual minorities beyond lesbian, gay, and bisexual.
It's not necessary that we bend our terminology or our categorization system in order to accomodate the hate-filled ramblings of transphobes. Is there a more compelling example, ideally one which doesn't address its readers as body mutilators and attention-seeking twerps? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really good faith? Sheesh. ViolanteMD 18:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that VIR is arguing in good faith, but I'm not compelled by their argument—that implicitly categorizing someone who identifies as Foo within Category:Foo, Bar, and Baz people (the WP:COMMONNAME for a common and encyclopedic grouping, given their unifying struggles), is automatically a BLP violation solely because our Foo person is a vocal bigot who despises their more radical peers who stoop to calling themselves Bar, and the notion that one can even be Baz. They're not being miscategorized or labelled against their will because they are verifiably Foo, and therefore, Foo, Bar, or Baz, and we don't need to adjust or rename our hierarchy just because they feel gruntled by the latter two terms –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the discussion but I'm concerned that we're moving away from the core issues and policy considerations. While LGBTQ may be becoming more common overall, it may not be the most common name in all contexts or for all sub-communities. We should be open to nuanced application where appropriate.
While I agree the BLPCAT shouldn't be used to "protect bigots", it does raise valid questions about how we categorize individuals who explicitly reject certain terms. This deserves thoughtful discussion, not dismissal. Wikipedia typically takes a nuanced, context-specific approach to terminology. Why should this topic be treated any differently? Your comparison lacks the key piece of context here: this used to be hate speech and is still considered hate speech by some people in the community.
I suggest we move away from categorizing each other's arguments and instead focus on how we can implement this change in a way that respects our core policies and the diversity of the communities we're attempting to write about. ViolanteMD 00:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get precision from? It isn't a policy. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right, it’s not. I wrongly assumed precision was part of capturing “encyclopedic” knowledge. I see how we’re not actually trying to capture “truth” though so precision isn’t relevant to the argument. It’s about representing the body of published work accurately. That feels very counterintuitive when talking about this topic. ViolanteMD 13:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ViolanteMD, I know you'd made previous comments but you didn't cite any policy or concrete examples before I prompted. You made what seemed to me to be vague comments so I asked for clarification so we could address any specific, policy-based concerns that you had.
You'll also note I didn't accuse you, personally, of anything. I said there has been a pattern of activity that has been undertaken by a small number of editors (largely stirred to action by the RM from LGBT to LGBTQ, at least this time), and that that was reason for each of us to be specific in relation to policy. I didn't say you were one of those people.
To address your points:
1. "Might inadvertently make a stance" is still a little vague. But the point is that we're not making a stance at all; we're reflecting the language used by RSes. Ignoring RSes is more likely to look like taking a stance than summarising what they say, since that's an active choice to go against consensus to make the point we'd prefer to make ourselves. In this case, however, category terms don't imply agreement with those category terms by the things within them.
Now, I agree that we shouldn't say "X is LGBTQ" when X has very clearly said they don't want to use the term to refer to themselves (at least, within reason). But that doesn't seem to me to be what we're doing. An LGBTQ category is just a category.
2. The whole point of the RM closure was that, actually, there is evidence that LGBTQ is the more common name among RSes. There has been a significant shift towards that term in the last decade or so, which we noticed over a year ago and specifically delayed so we could have more time to monitor the trends further, which gives an even clearer picture now that it's even more the case than before.
3. Precision is a fair point, and I agree with you that there will need to be exceptions. But this is something that can be addressed on a case by case basis because there will never be a blanket solution that does justice to everyone. Lewisguile (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed response and for clarifying the context of your previous comments. I really appreciate it.
In regard to reflecting language used by reliable sources, I agree that our primary goal should be to reflect that language, but we should be cautious about how we apply this principle, especially with evolving terminology. While category terms don't necessarily imply agreement, they do shape how information is organized and accessed. We should probably consider cases where RSes use different terms for the same concept, the potential impact on individuals or croups who may not identify with the term, and as someone else said, Wikipedia's global audience and how terms are interpreted cross-culturally.
I totally acknowledge the recent move request closure and observed shift towards LBGTQ usage. To ensure transparency and maintain NPOV, we could document this shift in relevant articles, citing specific studies or analyses that demonstrate the trend. Alternatively, we could consider creating a separate article/section for the evolution of LGBTQ+ terminology in academic and popular discourse. This would probably require frequent maintenance though.
I appreciate your agreement with my vaguely remembered point; we could develop guidelines for when to use more specific subcategories (like "transgender rights" instead of general "LGBTQ rights") or potentially create a process for reviewing and approving exceptions to the general categorization scheme? I appreciate that several people are already working on redirects/cross-references to help enhance discoverability. ViolanteMD 00:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Alternatively, we could consider creating a separate article/section for the evolution of LGBTQ+ terminology in academic and popular discourse. - We already have a lot of content on the history and evolution of the term at the article at LGBTQ#History_of_the_term and LGBTQ#Variants. Feel free to add to it of course.
As for your question on guidelines on more specific categories - that is the default Wikipedia wide guideline, so we are going to already be covered. You can check out WP:CATSPECIFIC for the details - basically the gist of this guideline is that if a topic is say Transgender rights in the US, that it is already categorized only in the most specific categories, which in that case are Category:Transgender rights in the United States and Category:Transgender rights by country. That is the default of how we do categorization for pretty much this reason. Most categories do roll up into a tree structure that users can move up through, but in general, we do always categorize Article subjects in the most specific categories already :) Raladic (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I understand that Wikipedia generally uses the most specific categories possible but my concern is slightly different. It's not about the specificity of categories, but about the terminology used within those categories. For instance, dispensing with the problematic history of the term for a moment, which I believe makes it obvious why we need to do this exceedingly carefully, consider a hypothetical category like "LGBT writers in 1860s America". If we change this to "LGBTQ writers in 1860s America", we would be applying contemporary terminology to a historical context where it wasn't used. I believe we need to be cautious and consider the implications very carefully. I suggest we review how the transition from LGBT to LGBTQ in category names and article titles might affect historical accuracy or context-specific usage and consider developing guidelines for when to use LGBT vs LGBTQ, especially in historical or specific communities contexts. This would also encourage editors to discuss changes on talk pages for articles where the terminology shift might be contentious, which would probably be very fruitful discussions. ViolanteMD 01:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think most of those letters were applicable back then. IIRC lesbian would have been sapphic or homosexual, gay homosexual, and transgender hermaphroditic (if they were even described). Sincerely, Dilettante 01:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, we call the inhabitants of many ancient cultures by modern English names with little relation to the original. Sincerely, Dilettante 01:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response but I disagree with what you said. The concept of homosexuality existed in the 19th century but qu**r meant something entirely different at that time. Qu**r is appropriated hate speech that could presently be used to describe people who would be considered heteronormative from a 19th century perspective. ViolanteMD 09:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, having RM discussion for each of these articles would be cumbersome. I support doing WP:BOLD "moves per consensus that they are subtopics, so should follow the lead of the main article LGBTQ per WP:CONSISTENT. Glad to hear another anime is helping with category moves as that is surely important. Historyday01 (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gay 45

[edit]

The Gay 45 and Răzvan Ion articles are not great. Can someone improve them? Ideally, but not necessarily, someone who speaks Romanian? Polygnotus (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 September 2024

[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies → Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ Studies – The options are as follows:

  • WikiProject LGBT Studies (status quo)
  • WikiProject LGBTQ Studies
  • WikiProject LGBT+ Studies
  • WikiProject LGBTQ+ Studies
  • Any of the other names listed at LGBTQ#Variants.

Following the move of the page LGBT to LGBTQ, several articles and categories have been moved per WP:CONSUB and similar (which does not apply to projectspace). Though the move has been challenged, it will likely be closed as a SNOW endorse. On this page, it was discussed whether this WikiProject should be moved, but the dissent indicates a discussion is necessary. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

!Votes

[edit]
  • LGBTQ+ > LGBTQ > LGBT+ > LGBT - Since a WikiProject doesn't need to adhere as strictly to the data (which does show that LGBT is on a clear downward trend, while both LGBTQ and LGBTQ+ are on a steep upwards trend, with LGBTQ itself having overtaken LGBT several years ago) as the article space does with regards to following the data and a good amount of the community would have preferred even in the initial move request of LGBTQ that we could explicitly add the + to be LGBTQ+.
I propose that we combine the two factors that LGBTQ has clearly and strongly overtaken LGBT, which is fully supported by the data and acknowledges our community's acceptance and reclamation (if we didn't, especially when we now do so for the article space, then that would be hypocrisy) of Queer identities and the inclusion in the now most widely accepted term, but also use our community preference of adding the + to be explicitly inclusive of other parts of the community, which is partially supported by the fact that LGBTQ+ is also on a steep upwards trend since 2015 as I linked above. Raladic (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to Q+. I'll reiterate my analysis in the RM, that several LGBTQ+ journalistic organizations (NLGJA) and stylebooks (AP) have moved toward using LGBTQ+. Given the upward trend, and the broad scope of this project, I think the plus is important for inclusivity. It is probably what things are moving toward, and I don't want to run through this process again in two years.
Queers like me have been using queer as a positive umbrella term for forty years.[1] Wikipedia is allowed to say queer. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • LGBT+ > LGBT > LGBTQ+ > LGBTQ. I've been called "queer" as a slur more times than I care to count. I'm hardly alone in this. It's hurtful, even if "reclaimed". The viewers of this article can be divided into three nebulous groups: those unfamiliar with the topic or otherwise opinion-less, those pro-LGBT, and those anti-LGBT. For the first camp, such a title encourages them using a (ex-)slur, which could bring back bad memories were it to be used when talking to someone who was called it when younger. For those in the second camp, it is perhaps affirming, perhaps neutral, and perhaps insulting. Those affirmed would nonetheless be affirmed to an equal extent by the term LGBT+, unless they're genderqueer (which I'm sorry for, but any acronym must necessarily exclude some or include too many). For those in the third camp, it's a validation of the slur as something to be said frequently, rather than something cruel. The name change allows those moving (or stuck) backwards to use it in the original sense, and, when called out, claim it isn't meant to be hurtful and one is misunderstanding them. Though the title of an enwiki project is hardly a clincher, I've heard "it's even on Wikipeda" WRT to other things far too many times. An additional excuse should not be given.
There's a crucial difference between being called "gay" as opposed to "queer". The former was used by members of the group it insulted as a descriptive word before it became a slur. To refuse reclamation would be to disrespect their (largely much worse) experiences. The latter originated with an outgroup, and to use it is to vindicate them. Copied from my !vote on the other RM. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that people wanting to use a slur will do so regardless of its status on wikipedia. Someone using anything as an excuse is just an asshole. I generally think that most people either fall into the "call people slurs" category or not, and our page's name doesn't move them from one into the other. Sock-the-guy (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! Aaron Liu (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that people wanting to use a slur will do so regardless of its status on wikipedia. I agree, and actually supported the idea of the camps being static ("For those in the third camp" not "For those currently in the third camp or who will be moved as a result of a name change"). Someone using anything as an excuse is just an asshole. I agree, and never claimed otherwise. I merely stated another excuse isn't ideal. I generally think that most people either fall into the "call people slurs" category or not, and our page's name doesn't move them from one into the other. I stated the same thing, except divided the people who don't call others slurs qua slurs into two. If you disagree with me, there are plenty of points I made to engage with. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am disagreeing that using an academic term that has a history as a reclaimed slur is "a validation of the slur as something to be said frequently" and that it "allows those moving backwards to use it in the original sense."
If you are trying to engage in conversation with and debate people who use slurs against you then you are already making a mistake, the issue does not lie with them having yet another "excuse" when these people will simply make up their own. Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if someone is saying "it's even on Wikipeda" to you "far too many times" after they call you a slur intentionally I don't mean to be disrespectful but I think you are simply engaging with the wrong people. Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add, what I think is actually happening is you are going into conversations with people using the term queer *correctly* and not as a slur, telling them it's a slur, and then being corrected. Am I wrong? It has been reclaimed for over 40 years. It is now an academic and umbrella term to refer to the queer community. Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though the title of an enwiki project is hardly a clincher, I've heard "it's even on Wikipeda" WRT to other things far too many times. An additional excuse should not be given was about Covid-19, not slurs, but your point is valid.
To add, what I think is actually happening is you are going into conversations with people using the term queer *correctly* and not as a slur, telling them it's a slur, and then being corrected. Am I wrong? If I were so ardently opposed to the term, I wouldn't have opened this RM. I'm not so much an idiot as to fail to realize the likely outcome is LGBTQ+. People can use it in the reclaimed sense and I won't say anything; only because this discussion centers about its acceptance do I point out its history.
If you are trying to engage in conversation with and debate people who use slurs against you then you are already making a mistake... I think you are simply engaging with the wrong people. They almost certainly should be blocked, but not everything is so cut and dry. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not having any luck finding other slurs we use in a similar way. Do you have any examples? ViolanteMD 09:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Crip is commonly used by disabled people, for one. But whether or not similar examples exist in other cases is probably irrelevant. For our purposes, what matter is that the initialism is used in this situation by RSes. Lewisguile (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really great place to look for examples; I wish I had thought of that. Thanks! ViolanteMD 09:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • LGBT+ > LGBTQ+ > LGBTQ > LGBT for me. shorter and succinct while still including diverse categories carries the day. lizthegrey (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • LGBTQ+ > LGBT > LGBTQ > LGBT+ - Look, if we were using my pet version of the acronym, it'd be WikiProject LGBTQIA+ studies... but I'm not sure my personal preferences for acronym (I like my letter being present) should push the project name to be that long. I'm in preference of the Q and + slightly over other options because it's in line with increased LGBTQ usage and implies a broader acronym with the plus. Absent that, I think we should stay at LGBT, and the other options I prefer less than just not moving in the first place, though I'm not against them. (Personal side comment: I think defining certain letters being discussed here as an outgroup whose experiences just aren't as bad feels... Oppression Olympics-y? Gatekeepy? I'd probably have kept my feelings on that to myself except that I feel like bringing it up in a discussion of this nature is a bit unproductive, a la a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument.) - Purplewowies (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not talking about whether some groups were discriminated against more or less. I'm saying the average LGBT+ anglophone with an internet connection is much better off than the average LGBT+ person 100 years ago, whether homosexual, transgender, intersex, asexual, nonbinary, xenogender, or any other group. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree that people now are better off in many cases than people 100 years ago. That just didn't look like what you were saying when explaining "gay" as originating in an in-group with worse experiences who would be disrespected if you didn't reclaim it and "queer" as originating in an out-group with presumably less bad experiences who would be vindicated if you did, in the context of your broader !vote discussing your relative opposition to options that include the Q versus those that don't. A "that's an outgroup, these experiences are worse" sentiment is the one that came through for me. If that's not what you meant to convey then I apologize for misunderstanding you. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my bad for not being more clear. I'm using ingroup to refer to anyone who is LGBT+ and outgroup anyone who is not. "Queer" came from the opressors, not the oppressed is another way to put it. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • LGBTQ+ > LGBTQ > LGBT+ > LGBT Queer is the umbrella term used in academics that fits this project best, and the + allows for a broader inclusion of people who don't identify as L, G, B, T, or Q such as intersex or other minorities.  :Sock-the-guy (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is an excellent point that you mentioned that I forgot above - the scientific field that focuses on us as a group is called Queer studies or LGBTQ studies, which futher strengthens the case for LGBTQ+ or LGBTQ. Raladic (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. I really don't see the need for change here, there are countless variations out there in recent years, but LGBT has been the standard for decades, it reeks of recentism to want to change it to one of the countless alternatives.★Trekker (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • LGBTQ+ > LGBTQ > LGBT+ > LGBT as per others. It's consistent and it reflects common usage (and it's forward-thinking, in the case of the Q+). Lewisguile (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • LGBTQ+ Honestly my personal preference would have been for queer studies (which, by a huge margin, is the most common term for the "X studies" construction; cf. another ngram), but I think the LGBTQ+ construction is the most inclusive in what this WikiProject tries to cover (and isn't that the point?). Unlike the articles, we can let the name of the WikiProject be purely descriptive of what subjects the WikiProject aims to cover. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • LGBT > LGBT+ > LGBTQ+/LGBTQ The current abbreviation is fine. It already includes everyone. A plus can be added to make that more explicit, though I don't consider it necessary. As StarTrekker said, "LGBT" is the long-established abbreviation and the one with the highest name recognition and I don't see why we should prefer one of the countless newer variations. --Un assiolo (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the reason, as was also outlined in the RM of LGBTQ is that LGBT is NOT the term that is most highly used anymore, as LGBTQ has overtaken it as the most used term, so that argument is pretty shaky. Raladic (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • LGBT+ > LGBTQ+ > LGBTQ > LGBT Honestly I'd rather that the term "LGBT" wouldn't be a list of identities and rather something like SGM (Sexual and Gender Minority), but it is what it is and everyone know what LGBT is. So with that in mind I'd prefer LGBT+ or LGBTQ+ as it doesn't suggest an end to a list, but shows there are more identities beyond just LGBT or LGBTQ. I prefer LGBT+ over LGBTQ+ because it keeps it short and sweet DimensionalFusion (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other Comments

[edit]
  • To prevent the request from getting too lengthy or unconsciously biased, I'll briefly summarize the arguments I'm aware of in favor of each:
  • LGBT: the status quo and traditional term. Describes the historical groups in the Anglosphere. Is concise. Does not include a reclaimed slur.
  • LGBTQ: now the most common term per Google Scholar and Ngrams. Can be considered more inclusive due to the Q including those who identify as queer and questioning. Affirms a once negative term as something good and to be embraced.
  • LGBT+: The plus includes all people falling under the broad umbrella of gender and sexual minorities, rather than just those identifying as queer. It does not include a reclaimed slur, which could be alienating to those who remember it as a slur.
  • LGBTQ+: This lists the most groups. The plus includes all people falling under the broad umbrella of gender and sexual minorities and the Q makes explicit queer and questioning are included. Affirms a once negative term as something good and to be embraced.
Sincerely, Dilettante 16:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that while many style guides prefer Q+, GNgrams does not differentiate between Q+ and Q. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed thoughts about renaming LGBT to LGBTQ for different reasons. On one hand, I understand that LGBTQ is more used than LGBT currently as it would be more inclusive towards anyone who are part of the umbrella and with the "studies" that shows that LGBTQ is common than LGBT. But on the other hand, there are some :
  • LGBT has a lot of acronyms so reading an article where LGBT and other similar acronyms like LGBTQ, LGBT+, LGBTQ+ etc. Appearing in the same sentence can be confusing to some. Not to mention some Wikipedia pages still uses the four letter acronym such as Portal:LGBT, Timeline of LGBT history, List of LGBT rights activists etc.
  • LGBT/LGB has been around longer than other acronyms and almost all of the terms have the same four letters in them.
  • As for data and studies for which acronym is more common is not always reliable, for example a quick google search for "lgbt" has around 530,000,000 results while "lgbtq" has around 383,000,000 results. The Ngram for the terms is not really reliable as both LGBT/LGBTQ in all caps and lgbt/lgbtq in small caps have different results on which term is more commonly used.
Imo, I feel like keeping LGBT as the title is fine the way it is but I also agree with LGBTQ+ being the title would be better if you to be more inclusive. LGBT/LGBTQ+ or anything similar could also work as a title if it were possible. Mangolemonz (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC) — Mangolemonz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Mangolemonz If you don't mind me asking, how did you find this discussion? You've done nothing wrong even if this was linked from an external site, but I will have to place a message on top providing an overviewof the rules if that is the case. If you just monitor this page or came from Talk:LGBT, feel free to ignore. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See [2] Sincerely, Dilettante 16:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it can as someone pointed out in the initial move. And I linked it above in my vote.
  • Here is the differentiated ngram between the 4 terms - LGBT (without +), LGBTQ (without +), LGBT+ and LGBTQ+.
It shows that LGBTQ and LGBTQ+ have been on a steep upwards trend. It shows that LGTQ has been on a downward since 2015, and that LGBT+ has shown a very small adoption (likely by people that oppose the Q).
  • Here is the agnostic ngram, which will have LGBTQ versus LGBT ignoring whether they use + or not. This one shows that LGBT has been going downwards since 2017 and LGBTQ has overtaken it in 2019 and continues with a much steeper rise.
Raladic (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies&oldid=1244529403"