Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

 Home Talk Collaboration Editing Resources Showcase

Imane Khelif

Does the members of WikiProject LGBT studies think that the article about Imane Khelif is within the scope of this Wikiproject?--Trade (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No. She is not publicly L, G, B, or T. Funcrunch (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that Khelif is a cisgender endosex woman, the harassment campaign against her feels like a queer studies topic, given its obvious transphobic and interphobic motivations, and being propagated (at least in the west) by prominent TERFs and transvestigators. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Put more practically, it is an article that members of this project would be interested in watching and contributing to. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly enough most people in her home country seems to be defending her. Said campaign is pretty much just a Western thing Trade (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems so. But, yes, I think it would be a good topic for members of this project to contribute to. Historyday01 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer support this statement.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but I am concerned that tagging her article with the WikiProject LGBT studies category would imply to most readers that we are considering her to be a member of the LGBT community. Funcrunch (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that raising the issue here on the talk page has drawn sufficient attention from active project members, making the tagging unnecessary for immediate attention, and that the issue of so-tagging might be seen the same as putting her in an LGBT category is sufficient for us to say "we don't need to tag this time". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't all the other straight cisgendered people be disallowed from tagging then? Otherwise it just feels a bit arbitrary Trade (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Or perhaps a case of context matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If Ex-Senator Brenda Goldstarstraight who wrote the Federal "Gay is Cool" amendment and is now the host of the lesbian debate program Dykotomy gets tagged like that, well, she is someone who has chosen to associate herself with the LGBT grouping. Such is not the same for Khelif, who as far as I can tell has done nothing to associate herself with LGBT, it is merely something that has been weaponized against her. And as I said, Khelif is now someone who has been brought up in discussion on this board, so she doesn't need that tagging merely to draw the attention of this project's editors. So no, my statement is not a one-size-fits-all statement, it is directed at this very specific question, and not arbitrarily so. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

For the interested, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people from 2010. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That makes it very broad in terms of the ability to add WikiProject tags to biographies of living people. Historyday01 (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

My default assumption is that most readers don't look at the talkpage, but your point may have some merit in a wider sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "most editors". Funcrunch (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Then it gets more murky, but I hope most editors would see a difference between a WikiProject talkpage banner and an article category. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think, to the majority of readers, tagging her talk page as a subject of interest to an LGBT Wikiproject is the same thing as saying she is LGBT when she is not identified as such. BLP concerns override the desires of a few members of a Wikiproject especially since it isn't a consensus here that this article should be tagged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

to the majority of readers, tagging her talk page as a subject of interest to an LGBT Wikiproject is the same thing as saying she is LGBT when she is not identified as such--evidently this is the case based on people's replies in the ANI thread, although for the life of me I can't understand why people are reading it this way. It's WikiProject LGBT studies for a reason, a field which covers all questions of how individuals and societies relate to gender and sexual diversity, including how these phenomena affect non-queer people as well. A cis athlete who is attacked for her perceived transness absolutely falls within the realm of LGBT studies and is particularly an item of study precisely because she's not trans; I would expect to see papers about her treatment appear in peer-reviewed LGBT studies journals over the coming months. I understand people are justifiably taking BLP into consideration, but I feel like we are being overly accommodating to what fundamentally boils down to a failure of reading comprehension (or else an anticipated actively harmful failure of reading comprehension on the part of others) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Past consensus has always been that WP:LGBT can express interest in articles on non-LGBTQ+ individuals (eg, eg) in order to be notified of discussions, particularly where there is relevant content in the article. It is worth noting that the Wikiproject banner has been worded with exactly this concern in mind, and allows a note explaining relevance where it may be unclear (e.g., "While the subject is a cisgender woman, the article contains content of interest to the WikiProject, specifically content related to a harassment campaign falsely claiming that she is transgender.")

There would need to be a clear consensus among WikiProject participants that the subject is of interest, though.--Trystan (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we might need a note explaining relevance here. I would support the WikiProject banner being added to Khelif's page. Historyday01 (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not how I see it, but I may very well be in the minority. To me, "This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies" says something else. But again, I don't think the majority of readers look at talkpages. Compare [1][2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender studies (albeit inactive, apparently) if she doesn't fit under this project Iostn (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Being discussed at WP:ANI#User is threatening to report me for simply adding relevant Wikiproject tag to talk page Doug Weller talk 15:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a bit off-topic, but I looked around for something to compare to. Per article-content, I think WikiProject LGBT studies would fit the talkpage of Harry Styles. Am I right or wrong? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that's different. he already said he rejects labels, so he is technically non-heterosexual.

But that's debatable, because many transphobes reject their cisness. Would they be non-cisgender? Web-julio (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

There might be some model of analysis where that category's useful. The labels used by researchers and those by anyone else needn't align. Remsense诉 20:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like that discussion has ended / been closed and now the discussion has moved to Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 1#WikiProject LGBT studies. I would suggest interested individuals of this WikiProject comment there if they see fit. Also, another relevant discussion, to this WikiProject, is: Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 1#"Prominent anti-trans figures". Not sure if there is more on that talk page of interest or not. Historyday01 (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What category? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Does that mean you think the WikiProject LGBT studies template would fit on the Harry Styles talkpage, since Talk:Non-heterosexual has it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No, she is not publicly LGBT. TarnishedPath^talk 23:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Update: I have proposed possible text for Imane Khelif's page regarding the present controversy. If you are interested, please weigh in below my comment which proposes the text. Thanks. Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 1#WikiProject LGBT studies.Historyday01 (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: The text has been stricken, so this comment NO longer applies.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What you're proposing, for the sole purpose of advertising the interest of a handful of editors, would give UNDUE weight to the irrelevant views of those who have no say on the subject (that's not their expertise). M.Bitton (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are going to insist this comment remain, fine. I still stand by what I said: that it is inflammatory. I also suggest you restrict your discussion to Talk:Imane Khelif, as it would be more productive to all involved. Thanks. Historyday01 (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer agree with this statement.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't play games with me: the fact that you removed my comment suggests some kind of ownership over this talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

LOL. I have no ownership over this page, obviously. Not at all. In fact, there are many LGBTQ discussions I don't even participate in. Sometimes I only do reversions of content to make a point about an edit. That's what I did here. That's it. While I still have my own views about your comment, I'm not going to contest your restoration of your comment. Historyday01 (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer agree with this statement, because I believe it was too hardnosed and harsh, even though I obviously follow existing Wikipedia rules.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You can contest it all you want, but if you ever dare to redact my comments again, you'll take a trip to ANI. M.Bitton (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. I sure hope to never cross paths with you again. I'm not sure why you are openly threatening another user on here. Yikes. Please do not ever contact me again about ANY topic. Thanks. Historyday01 (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer agree with this statement, as it was unnecessarily harsh.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

As a neutral party not involved in this conversation, I am commenting to make you aware of WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. I hope this helps you understand what went wrong here, and helps you avoid making similar mistakes in future. Best regards, JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that, that's very helpful. I'll save it somewhere so I remember it next time. Looking at that rule, I do think their comment isn't necessarily a "harmful post...including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism" but... I would say it is uncivil and arguably "disruptive." However, that section also states that "posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." So, their comment would fall under the latter and shouldn't have been removed. Historyday01 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer agree with this statement.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I also suggest you WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. M.Bitton (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be "uncivil" and "disruptive" only to the degree that it disagrees with what you're aiming for, and disagreement is to be expected in a discussion. This is nowhere near a borderline case. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, but I do not wish to discuss this matter any further. I will say that I will make sure to do better in the future. I'm not sure how much longer I will be on here, to be honest. I may even permanently retire by December 31st, the ways things are going. It almost seems more of a drag to do edits these days. I wish I had the energy and time that I had even a few years ago, sigh.Historyday01 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for this. I updated my talk page with excerpts from that rule you mentioned and some other related ones, just to remind myself in the future, so I can refer back to it.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's probably best to just not tag her for our project. If she speaks about transphobia or intersex rights or such as a response to this, then sure, but I think it's generally just preferred not to tag someone with a WikiProject because of a harrassment campaign. Everyone here now knows this article exists too, so the article is getting plenty of attention from our project :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

According to LGBT rights in Algeria, homosexual activity in Algeria is a criminal offence. So anything on Wikipedia which suggests that Imane Khelif is L, G, or B may be a danger to her. So I strongly oppose any reference to this project being added to her article. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the Imane Khelif article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I read the lead. I am not interested in boxing. What is your point, please? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

My point is that considering the article content, a banner on the talkpage, where comparatively few readers look, in a collapsed section, saying "This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies", will not increase her danger from the WP-direction. It is quite possible there are/will be people who became aware of this "thing" via WP, but the template will not be be where they notice it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The talk page section was collapsed temporarily and wouldn't remain that way. As Maplestrip said, everyone here now knows this article exists, so the article is getting plenty of attention from this project. Insisting on tagging it (for no valid reason) despite the ramifications that it could have on the life of living person makes no sense whatsoever. M.Bitton (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The valid reason is that it's common practice to use these templates when they fit, presumably because they can bring interested attention and whatnot. I'm not insisting (and this is the wrong talkpage to insist anyway), consensus will be what it will be, but even uncollapsed, the template stating "This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies" will not increase her danger from the WP-direction.

Sure, the discussion here has brought some current attention, but it will be archived fairly soon, and the article will not have whatever potential benefits the template can bring in the longer run (I'm not too clear on what they are, tbh). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That's your point of view, that I happen to disagree with. As far as I'm concerned, her life is far more important than the potential interest of some editors in her. M.Bitton (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll get back to you when I've found the policy that says you can't disagree with me ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply of 14:46 above. I was and am aware that this discussion is about whether to refer to this project on the Talk page of the article. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. I am opposed to having this project mentioned anywhere on that Talk page, for the reasons I have already given. I see that other editors have the same view. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a good way to put it. and what you are saying makes sense. Historyday01 (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on BLP article

There's a discussion at Talk:Aubrey Plaza#Lead about the removal of significant information from the lead. As is categorized, the article is within the scope of this WikiProject. Input is appreciated. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Imane_Khelif RFC

There's an RFC concerning how Imane_Khelif genetics and gender should be referred to in the lead at Talk:Imane_Khelif#RfC_lead. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 10:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

JK Rowling RFC

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)

Improving List of people killed for being transgender

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)

Good article reassessment for LGBT themes in speculative fiction

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)

Drag and the Olympic Games

New page: Drag and the Olympic Games

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

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

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)

Wiktionary project

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)

Intersex healthcare draft feedback

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)

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)

Good article reassessment for John Maynard Keynes

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)

Mystique Summers Madison

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)

AfD for transgender studies researcher Cal Horton

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)

Grace Harriet Spofford

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)

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

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)

Lior Shamriz

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)

What are these?

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)

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

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

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

@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)

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 or 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• Pets and the LGBT community to Pets and the LGBTQ community
• LGBT representation in children's television to LGBTQ representation in children's television
• Netflix and LGBT representation in animation to Netflix and LGBTQ representation in animation
• Disney and LGBT representation in animation to Disney and LGBTQ representation in animation
• LGBT themes in anime and manga to LGBTQ themes in anime and manga
• History of LGBT characters in animation: 2020s to History of LGBTQ characters in animation: 2020s
• History of LGBT characters in animation: 2010s to History of LGBTQ characters in animation: 2010s
• History of LGBT characters in animation: 2000s to History of LGBTQ characters in animation: 2000s
• History of LGBT characters in animation: 1990s to History of LGBTQ characters in animation: 1990s
• History of LGBT characters in animated series to History of LGBTQ characters in animated series
• List of LGBT characters in radio and podcasts to List of LGBTQ characters in radio and podcasts
• List of animated series with LGBT characters to List of animated series with LGBTQ characters
• List of animated series with LGBT characters: 1990–1999 to List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 1990–1999
• List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000-2004 to List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2000-2004
• List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2005-2009 to List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2005-2009
• List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2010-2014 to List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2010-2014
• List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2015-2019 to List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2015-2019
• List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present to List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2020–present
• List of animated films with LGBT characters to List of animated films with LGBTQ characters
• Lists of LGBT figures in fiction and myth to Lists of LGBTQ figures in fiction and myth
• List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction to List of LGBTQ characters in modern written fiction

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 or WP:POV pushing (even if well meaning). Lewisguile (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Move review requested Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_September#LGBTQ Bluerasberry (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Gay 45

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)