This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more transgender people. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBTQ+ WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about International Transgender Day of Visibility, gender, or sex. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about International Transgender Day of Visibility, gender, or sex at the Reference desk.
I still disagree with this content removal, which has been covered in multiple RS. Yes, this controversy is US-based, but I don't think that is sufficient reason to not mention it considering the holiday did originate in the US. Note, I am a trans atheist and do not in any way support the argument that celebrating this holiday is somehow un-Christian; I just feel it is notable enough to be included.
Every time it was reverted, the people (myself including) that did the reversions cited the appropriate policies on why the inclusion is not warranted as it was WP:UNDUE and ran afoul of WP:NOTNEWS and the article is about an international event and should read as such, which is why I added the globalize tag and created this talk section to discuss. In the edit note, we did also suggest people go to the talk page prior to re-adding the content and yet it was added again.
In terms of globalizing, I added similar (to Biden) criticism of Labour in UK for supporting TDOV on Easter. Also created section Criticism with some concerns raised by those on left or by people of color. ProfGray (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a specific event, TDoV, not general Transgender visibility, so the additions you added in the new section you created are not about the focus of this article and, if appropriate, may fit on other articles.
To Raladic -- hi, you reverted the ~220 word Criticism section that I added, including reliable sources. This section specifically addressed your stated concern about a US focus by adding criticism in the UK. You gave two reasons. First, "not general Visibility" -- however, the sources cited, including a law review and a GLQ article, specifically refer to TDOV. Indeed, it included a quote about the day itself. Would it suffice for me to add the page numbers for their discussion of TDOV? It's 1546-7 in the law review article ([[1]]) and p.259 of Jaden Janak; "(Trans)gendering Abolition: Black Trans Geographies, Art, and the Problem of Visibility." GLQ 1 April 2022; 28 (2): 259–276. p.23 of the OSU thesis.
Your second reason is "criticism section should be avoided per WP:CSECTION" -- ok, would you accept the section title Reception, as recommended in WP:CSECTION? Please discuss before continuing to revert properly sourced content. ProfGray (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content you added didn’t specifically call out TDoV, but read more as general criticism of visibility of Transgender individuals. Your additions appear to cite research articles and a dissertation, without proper citation templates formatting or linking. They are likely WP:PRIMARY and would not qualify as reliable secondary sources.
Please read the WP:CSECTION, ideally content is included in the general sections of an article. Separate sections on reception can be appropriate in some circumstances, but they need to be balanced to make sure the article maintains a WP:NPOV, which would have to include content about positive or negative reception, or else it is just a criticism section in hiding. Raladic (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Let's discuss the UChicago piece. It states:
"Starting in 2009, activists have celebrated International Transgender Day of Visibility to “acknowledge the determination it takes to live openly and authentically,” and “lift up the violence and discrimination that many transgender and non-binary people, especially trans women of color and Black trans women, still face.”169 Because most Americans learn about transgender people from the media, GLAAD launched a transgender media program “to fairly and accurately tell the stories of transgender lives.”170.... A growing chorus responds that visibility without protection invites surveillance and backlash.173 Professor Eric Stanley points to the “grim reality that the expansion of even ‘positive’ representation might not have simply a neutral corollary to violence but perhaps a causal one as well.”174 Visibility’s dual nature has been called a “fundamental paradox.”175 Some criticize these campaigns for promoting a sanitized image of transgender people, duplicating the implicit racial and class exclusions in the respectable gay figure of the homophile era."
This content refers specifically to TDOV, right, including where it refers to these campaigns, right?
Um, when WP:CRITICISM says alternative titles "avoid a negative connotation" that means that the alternatives such as 'Reception' are less biased than the word 'Criticism' and thus more NPOV and acceptable. Reception can include both negative and positive responses to TDOV. I may be mistaken but please look again. ProfGray (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it references TDoV, but the content you added to the article only included the criticism, which fails WP:NPOV if that was the only thing included.
If you scroll further down in the linked reference, you'll find that if including a "reception" section, it needs to balance positive and negative view - Wikipedia:Criticism#"Reception"_type_section - These sections include both negative and positive assessments. This approach usually conforms to the WP neutrality policy, because it avoids being "all negative" or "exclusively laudatory" about the topic.
So if we did add a reception section, it needs to include positive and negative reception to be balanced and maintain a neutral point of view. Raladic (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I agree that reception need to include positive and negative and whatever is properly sourced. But does that really mean that a single contribution, or editor, has to add both sides at once. I mean, can't we allow some time for cooperative editing?
In any case, Biden's and Labour's support for TDOV are properly sourced and are part of the positive side of the reception, right?
Please give me a minute (or a day?) to restore my content and then add some positive reception.
As this is a WP:contentious topic, it would be better for you to make an edit in your own WP:SANDBOX and then if you feel like you have a complete and balanced section that maintains WP:NPOV, add it in one go to the article. Or possibly better yet, bring it here to the talk page for discussion. One more small note ad you make the section - any criticism needs to be speficially about the topic of the article - TDoV, not general visibility of Transgender people, as that may constitute WP:SYNTH, which is the point I tried to make earlier. The paper "Trans Futures: A Consideration of Transgender Youth, Transgender Visibility, and Transgender Citizenship." does not mention Transgender Day of Visibility, so it's inclusion would likely be synthesis/WP:OR as it is not about the topic of this article, but more broadly, general about visibility, which may need to go on a different article such as Transgender itself. Raladic (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ProfGray please self-revert the reversion you just made per my reply above until the section is complete. Per the WP:NPOV policy, the "reception" section as it stands runs afoul of it until it is balanced, so it can't be in the article until that point. Raladic (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Let's revisit this tomorrow and see if other editors can improve the section. It does have some positive and some negatives, even if it's not ideal. Thanks, ProfGray (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added about 200 words from multiple sources, AP, Ms., Austin Chronicle, Ford Ftn, UNAIDS, with various positive views and reception to TDOV. Do you think this helps address your concerns about balance? It also mentions Melbourne and England and includes views of supporters from Thailand and Belize. Raladic fyi. ProfGray (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes that looks more balanced now. There is still the one sentence that I tagged synth that we should remove as it doesn’t specifically talk about TDoV, but the rest looks more balanced now. Raladic (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)