WikiProject LGBT studies

Home

Talk

Collaboration

Editing

Resources

Showcase

Skip to TOC
Skip to bottomSkip to bottom

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject LGBT studies and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:LGBT WT:GAY

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, 78Auto-archiving period: 30 days

LGBT studies Project‑class

This page is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Natalie Clifford Barney/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status.

Hope it is okay to ask here, was not sure where to post. I stumbled on what seemed a strange edit [1] in the LGBT in Islam page. In looking over the editor's log after, thought I made a mistake, as that person has edited a lot in LGBT pages for a long time. Some other [2] changes are strange to me too. Could someone else look, and if I have done the wrong thing put them back the way they were. I don't think those things are right, though. Also, LGBT rights in Bhutan LGBT rights in Hong Kong. If good, I apologize. 203.0.31.200 (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)‎[reply]

I'm lost. I tried to read some policy, and I think I did the right thing in edits. My changes on a couple were undone though. I dunno now. Don't want to do the wrong thing, and what do I know, anyway? but some of the those things put in by 1 or 2 people look strange. Is anyone able to tell me if I did it wrong or if I can put it back again. This place is complicated. Left a message on the Maldives talk page, and will put one on the also reverted LGBT rights in Mongolia, but I'm not sure if that is the right place, even. 203.0.31.200 (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have Sally Ride up for FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sally Ride/archive1. She was the third woman to fly in space, and the first LGBT one. Reviewers welcome. It would be to seen some new reviewers. Or old ones. Or anybody at all actually. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened up a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images regarding LGBTQ+ image galleries (prompted by a particular edit of mine on the trans woman page). As this discussion is of importance to this Wikiproject, I thought I'd leave a notification here. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[This deletion discussion] concerning a new article contains argumentation that might be of interest to those interested in LGBT studies. Newimpartial (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section at Talk:Respect for Marriage Act#RfC concerning polygamy.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion which you might want to participate in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information, which especially concerns the Respect for Marriage Act and articles relating to it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if this WikiProject has a working list (or a to-do list)? I came across Bois Frederic Burk [Wikidata] (1906–1993), while looking closer at his notable father (Frederic Lister Burk, the founding former President of SFSU). Bois Burk has an archive at the GLBT Historical Society^[1] and I did not see any Wikipedia article yet. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...even if it's just to tell me I'm wrong.

There's a long, tedious wrangle over sources and inserting things like "vigilante executions, vigilante attacks, torture, beatings, forced anal exams" into infoboxes at, among many others, LGBT rights in United Arab Emirates. A new twist from the editor I have been at odds with is to put laws and cases relating to sex crimes and child abuse into these pages. I find this frightening.

Perhaps I have not always handled it in the best way, so I might be partly to blame for the conflict, but things just keep getting worse. The articles are being slowly but surely degraded in quality by this editor, who is persistent and highly focused on adding their favourite themes of "torture" etc, however tenuous their sources. I think in a previous life, it has been ongoing at UAE since 2019, and elsewhere even earlier.

I only want the articles to be accurate, or near-accurate. Wild tangents and synth and now sexual abuse brought into mix? I think I'm done, now that I have been accused of falsifying quotes, and I might have come dangerously close to edit-warring. I do not want to cross that line. I am tired. Is anyone here interested in taking a look? I hope so for the sake of these articles; but I'll bow out and close my eyes to whatever mess continues if more eyes aren't on the case. Thanks and good luck. AukusRuckus (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have just added three pages to the People watchlist that regularly have gay content removed by an editor who calls themselves 'William Oxford Orwigg'. The articles are John Hays Hammond Jr., A. Piatt Andrew , and Henry Davis Sleeper. MisterWizzy (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created Draft:Aditya Tiwari please see if you can contribute to this topic and help for its approval. Plushwiki21 (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The topic Draft:Aditya Tiwari is being held from inclusion due to homophobia. A user named "AngusWoof" keeps rejecting the draft, when changes were made by other Wikipedia users. Plushwiki21 (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Plushwiki21: are you personally accusing @AngusWOOF of homophobia, after they've explained quite clearly that the subject failed WP:GNG, the article was deleted, and the situation hasn't changed? Elizium23 (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Plushwiki21, in looking at the draft, I can see why it was rejected via AfC. The sourcing isn’t the best I’ve ever seen, and the subject has very few articles solely about them or their work. Facebook should not be used as a source on a BLP. See WP:RSP. And there’s the issue of the podcast; while the BLP talks about the podcast, it never says the name (or perhaps I’m missing it).

The point is, it’s not a “slam dunk”, and to accuse an editor of homophobia because they haven’t accepted it is, in itself, not acceptable behavior on WP. What has the editor done besides not accepting the article to warrant that accusation? If that’s all there is, I would strike your comments, apologize, AGF, and try to work collaboratively on creating an acceptable article, because you will not get far on WP hurling unwarranted accusations. —Kbabej (talk)| Kbabej (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The editor has blanked the draft. --Kbabej (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I declined the draft, not rejected it. I also worked on the previous version of the article subject when it was tendentiously resubmitted and then placed in mainspace briefly before it was AFD'ed and deleted in 2021. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF, can the title be salted? It was deleted twice in 2021 (Aug & Feb), then resubmitted to AfC with accusations of homophobia when it wasn't accepted carte blanche. Seems like some very determined editors for a NN BLP. --Kbabej (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kbabej, are you asking that the draft spot be salted or the mainspace one? Has there been abuse of either spot? I know there used to be a number of usernames for Aditya Tiwari that were blocked prior to 2021 but Plushwiki21 wasn't associated with those. Plushwiki21 was indeed involved in the August 2021 draft, but the August 2022 version is different from that as it includes a few lines of activity since 2021. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking mainspace, in case an SPA/IP/etc. moves a yet another new draft over. But perhaps not needed. Just thinking out loud! —Kbabej (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is appreciated here. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get some feedback on this. If it's problematic or otherwise not noteworthy, I won't pursue it.

There's a bizarre group of conspiracy theorists derisively called "Transvestigators" who illustrate and propagate a strange kind of transphobia and gender essentialism, to the point where some believe that nearly every famous person is an "EGI" or "Elite Gender Invert." The most notable instance of this conspiracy theory is the belief that Michelle Obama is a transgender woman. That one in particular is a sickening example of how transphobia and gender essentialism can interact with racism and sexism. The investigative journalism podcast QAnon Anonymous recently did a bonus episode exploring the landscape of these particular conspiracy theorists.

Is it in the purview of Wikipedia to cover, debunk, and explain the dimensions of phobia and bigotry involved in this family of conspiracy theories? --Gebble (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen people laughing at them on Twitter. At one point one of them was trying to claim that Marilyn Monroe was trans as evidenced by her "male spine". It's a complete clown show and I'm not sure that it is suitable for an article. We don't want to give them the attention that they so obviously crave. Have a look for significant coverage in reliable sources. If you can find anything, particularly anything academic, then maybe it has a chance but I'm very doubtful. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find one source online that would be appropriate, which is from MEL Magazine. Other than that, it really hasn't made it into even LGBTQ press yet. If it gets RS sigcov in the future, could be an interesting article. But I don't think the topic meets notability requirements just yet. --Kbabej (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your thoughts! With queerphobia on the rise in the US I fear this trend will become more popular. But for now I will set a google alert and quarantine it to my "cursed content" feed.

We don't want to give them the attention that they so obviously crave.

Yes, this is my biggest concern as well. As Daniel noticed, I'm a new contributor, so thank you for your guidance on what constitutes notability.

Re: the spotlight issue I wonder if you could recommend any articles or policies that address how the community balances notability and the desire to keep certain trends of queerphobia subterranean? Is it strictly determined by the amount of significant coverage from reliable sources?

Finally, is there an extant list of LGBTQ press that are considered reliable sources by the project? Gebble (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gebble: we treat LGBT topics no different intrinsically to any other topic. If something is notable then it is notable; however, in articles about "fringe theories" (including outright nonsense), we must make clear what is either the mainstream view or the factual reality (depending on just how fringe it is).

In QAnon, we say QAnon ... is an American political conspiracy theory ... QAnon centers on false claims. In Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, we start off with After Joe Biden won the 2020 United States presidential election (presupposing that Trump and supporters were wrong). In Irreversible Damage, we say that "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution and is not backed by credible scientific evidence.

It should be self-evident that no source giving any credence to the claims of "transvestigators" is reliable; thus, it's either notable and can have an article that makes the truth of the matter clear, or it's not notable and would be undue weight in any article where the subject is factual e.g. transgender. But if it's correlated with other conspiracies like QAnon then it possibly could be mentioned there. — Bilorv (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with @Bilorv's thoughts. A list of commonly-used sources is available at WP:RSP, where a couple LGBTQ+ sources are discussed and categorized, such as PinkNews (generally reliable) and Pride.com (no consensus). --Kbabej (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've created a draft about Heidi Saadiya, the first transgender broadcast journalist from Kerala, India. kindly help me to expand? Imperfect Boy (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Eli Erlick (a trans BLP) could use more eyeballs. Funcrunch (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an RFC on whether Holly Woodlawn's deadname should be used in her article at Talk:Holly_Woodlawn#Request_for_comment. Rab V (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]