Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies
Project navigation links
Main project page
→ Project talk page
Watchlist	talk
Members
Departments
→ Assessment	talk
→ Collaboration	talk
→ Community	talk
→ Core topics	talk
→ Jumpaclass	talk
→ Newsletter
→ Peer review	talk
→ Person task force	talk
→ Translation	talk
Useful links
Infoboxes and templates
Guidelines	talk
Notice board	talk
Sexuality and gender deletion discussions
Info resources
Bot reports
Newly tagged articles and assessment level changes
Article alerts
Unreferenced BLPs (Biographies of Living Persons)
Cleanup listing
New articles with LGBT keywords
Popular pages
Recognized content
Portals we help maintain
LGBTQ portal
Transgender portal

Mark Merlis

Two anonymous IPs have edited Mark Merlis, the writer of the award-winning LGBT-related novels American Studies and An Arrow's Flight, to claim that he died earlier this week — one claiming that he died on Monday, and the other claiming that he died on Tuesday. However, neither of these editors has provided a reliable source to confirm the claim, and I haven't been able to locate one on a Google search either — but Wikipedia is a place where death hoaxes have been perpretrated or replicated for people who were or are still alive, so we cannot simply accept unsourced claims of death. I've applied a week of semiprotection to the article accordingly, but this may need a bit of a team effort — can people keep an eye out in case a proper source for his death does emerge in the next couple of days? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Added to watchlist. Did you try emailing him? There's a link on his website. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Even if somebody were to do that, it wouldn't result in a published reliable source that we could cite either way. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

But if one got a reply, it would be a damn good reason to keep the article protected and revert further death reports on sight. Finding a RS saying that someone is still alive is frequently a tall order. Moot point now, perhaps. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Friends of Mr. Merlis on social media are posting that he has, indeed, died. No doubt a reliable source will be forthcoming shortly. Ping me if you need an additional admin for protection issues. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not WP:RS as it's FB, but Mark Merlis's husband has announced his death to Wesleyan, Mr. Merlis's alma mater. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Gay Mafia sources

I want to know if these sources are credible to avoid a edit war over Gay Mafia I think [1] and [2] are acceptable for to describe the insult. Any opinions are welcome. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's see.... A polemic published by a notorious right-wing publishing house and written by a former Breitbart editor who believes that Sesame Street is left-wing propaganda? A book about the Illumnati written by a noted conspiracy theorist? They don't appear to be reliable sources for much of anything. I suppose they might be primary sources for "describing the insult", but you really need secondary sources for that purpose. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Gays for Trump

Gays for Trump has been tagged for lacking notability, if anyone is interested in expanding the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

We've discussed this before. We feel microaggressed by the warning at the top of the talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess you're still using the Royal we, as in the previous thread on this page you were the only editor claiming to feel this way. Also, El_C removed the editnotice in response to your complaint, but noted the page does still fall under discretionary sanctions. Funcrunch (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to have the same discussion here. I was just posting a general invite for anyone who wants to expand the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Manual of Style for Trangender people who has a radically different name prior to transition.

Would somebody advise me how to deal with such cases. It is relatively easy for the cases of Caitlyn Jenner and Chelsea Manning where they only changed their first name but how about the case of Jake Zyrus, whose claim to notability is his singing career under his pre-transition name "Charice" or "Charice Pempengco". I understand that all feminine pronouns should be appropriately replaced with masculine ones irregardless of when but do we replace all instances of "Charice" with Zyrus and take note that he performed under the name Charice and was not publicly known as a trans-man then? I want to avoid potential confusion while maintaining respect to his gender identity. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The guidelines relating to trans people in MOS:GENDERID and MOS:BIRTHNAME should apply regardless of what portion of the name the trans person changed. If they were well-known under a different name before transition that can and should be stated once at the beginning of the article, then the new name should be used thereafter. Funcrunch (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

With regard to Chelsea Manning and MOS:GENDERID, I'd been meaning to note (for a few months now) that Manning did express a preference, as noted by SlimVirgin, but her Wikipedia article currently does not use that preference. That stated, I do not know if Manning changed her mind on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Given that he was already notable before coming out as transgender, it is necessary for us to acknowledge that he was formerly known as Charice. But we also have to balance that against not giving his old name undue weight compared to his current name — once we've acknowledged the former name, it's not necessary to dwell on it any further. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy#Article issues - August 2017. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"Looking for Now" (Looking television episode)

"Looking for Now" has been nominated for deletion, if project members want to contribute to the ongoing discussion and/or help expand the article. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Inquiry on how "age of consent" should be defined?

See Talk:Age_of_consent#Defining_what_.22age_of_consent.22_means.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Removing gay athletes from gay categories

User:Kevin_McE is wholly invested in removing the entry Colin_Jackson from the appropriate LGBT sportspeople categories, using what I can only describe as a nonsensical argument that Jackson doesn't belong in the category because he's identifying as gay is irrelevant to his public life - despite the fact that he's come out and did so in a public venue (on TV no less). Jackson previously denied being gay, and the entry has covered his denial for years. It makes sense that it must now acknowledge his admission. Kevin insists on not accepting that point. Can you all please add your two cents on the Talk Page to the entry? Thanks. Rafe87 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe I am applying WP:CATEGRS as intended: maybe there is grounds for discussion there. Kevin McE (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Why the Removal?.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You can look at the lengthy discussion on the article's talk page, but the content has been restored so the discussion has ended. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Transgender personnel in the United States military article split discussion

There is a discussion regarding the creation of a new article, Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, as a split from Transgender personnel in the United States military. Discussion is happening on the talk pages of both articles (not ideal, I'm aware). Funcrunch (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Munroe Bergdorf/L'Oréal

Hello. I've just added some referenced info about Munroe Bergdorf's dismissal. Could someone please double-check (possibly rephrase) it please? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks good! I added a little bit of L'Oréal's comments from a NYT article and clarified where Munroe made her comments. PureRED | talk to me | 14:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Frances X. Frei

Hello. I am looking for an RS confirming that Frances X. Frei is a lesbian. If you google her name and "lesbian", Taki's Magazine comes up but I don't think that's an RS, is it? I've been looking for a wedding announcement in The New York Times, to no avail. Are you able to find an RS please?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. I've found one.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

More eyes appreciated on edit request

A proposed change to the History section of Homosexuality could use some careful attention. Please see Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2017. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what this person is looking for. Like you mentioned, the phrase "same-sex behavior" is really functionally useless. I brushed my teeth today and I'm a gay man--does that belong in the article? :P PureRED | talk to me | 16:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on the matter. I'm trying to figure out why this editor wants the content added and if it contains any more WP:Synthesis. The proposed text mostly looks like WP:Synthesis to me. For the record, "same-sex behavior" usually refers to "same-sex sexual behavior," like it does in this 2009 "Same-Sex Behavior Found in Nearly All Animals" Live Science source. And I see that Rivertorch asked the editor if he/she/they mean "same-sex sexual behavior." The term currently redirects to the Same-sex relationship article, however, which is probably better than it redirecting to the Homosexuality article since the term is missing "sexual" and since the Same-sex relationship article does currently note that a same-sex relationship can be platonic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I also see that the term did redirect to the Homosexuality article before the editor in question redirected it to the Same-sex relationship article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Nadya Labi article keeps getting removed from LGBT in the Middle East

This article by Nadya Labi about homosexuality in Saudi Arabia keeps getting removed from the further reading section of LGBT in the Middle East by anonymous IPs. I suspect the removals have no factual argument/merit as the IPs never say why they're removing the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, one of the removers did claim in their edit summary that the link violates WP:BIAS and WP:RS. But it's from The Atlantic, which most certainly is a reliable source, and there's no obvious bias to it apart from the fact that the remover(s) probably don't like what it has to say — namely, it's an analysis of the fact that a flourishing LGBT subculture does exist in Saudi Arabia despite the legal status of homosexuality (i.e. something that some particularly obsessed Saudi opponents of homosexuality might not want publicized or acknowledged).

In terms of dealing with the situation, one option could be to pull it out of "further reading" and instead use it to reference some actual content in the article — frankly, I'm almost never a fan of "further reading" sections, which almost invariably just serve as a way to just throw a giant linkfarm of extra web URLs into an article without making an effort to actually do anything contextually useful with them. Such lists should, frankly, almost always be converted into footnotes for content, and removed from the article as a dedicated standalone section. And one other side benefit of making that switch would be that any further attempts to remove it from the article again would trip the "references removed" filter — which isn't tripped by removing an URL from a "Further reading" section. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Eduardo Berizzo

Good day to you all,

i have kindly been directed here by fellow user User:Hmlarson, and my question is the following: is the "remarks on homosexuality" section found in this sportsperson's article notable or just dispensable trivia (even if sourced, which it is)? Some users keep removing it for no (valid) reason at all, hence my "putting down of the wikifoot", so to speak.

I am of the opinion it should remain, this may be one of those cases where one's bigotry (speaking of Mr. Berizzo) gets the best of them and then they think "Oops, i screwed up big time", and then they have compose their speech by saying (in this case) "No, i have nothing against homosexual people" or "No, i did not say that". I might be wrong in this analysis, but bottom line is that i think section should remain, if it needs rewording is another matter.

Attentively, thank you very much in advance from Portugal --Quite A Character (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Ideally, you would begin a discussion at Talk:Eduardo Berizzo. In brief here, I question whether the translation of the second quote is accurate. (What "note" is referred to?) Other than that, what you apparently have is a public figure who allegedly said something and then denied saying it. The Telegraph is reliable, but was it covered in any other media? If not, it may not be noteworthy. If it was, then it probably is noteworthy. (By the way, please try to avoid using needlessly inflammatory edit summaries like this one. This is a content dispute, not vandalism.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 23:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Shooting of Scout Schultz (major issue with he/they)

Hi. Could someone please expand Shooting of Scout Schultz? I created a stub and Shooting of Trayvon Martin could be a good example. I have to go to work, so I'd appreciate any expansion while I'm offline. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I've expanded it but an editor keeps reverting it to "he" instead of "they." I left a note on the talkpage and don't want to edit-war over this. Can someone else please take care of this?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The disruptive editor has been blocked. That was not mere edit warring, that editor was making blatant transphobic remarks and personal attacks both against the deceased subject and other editors. I nearly always leave a warning template, including a discretionary sanctions notice, in such cases. The editors' inflammatory remarks on the article talk page should probably be hatted or removed. Funcrunch (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I believe I was insulted on the talkpage. So instead of arguing with him, I decided to create completely different articles about historic buildings...This is my strategy to deal with hostile editors. But I'm glad he won't harass us any more.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments like that editors' create a hostile environment for trans and non-binary editors and readers in my opinion, hence I template and report. Funcrunch (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)