Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

 Home Talk Collaboration Editing Resources Showcase

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)

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)

Is this really good faith? Sheesh. ViolanteMD 18:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Where do you get precision from? It isn't a policy. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)