Jump to content

Talk:LGBTQ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleLGBTQ was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 24, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 26, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
February 9, 2014Good article reassessmentKept
January 25, 2019Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Requested move 14 August 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to LGBTQ at this time, per the discussion below, while recognizing that a significant minority of editors preferred LGBTQ+. This move may require changes to the article text to conform to the new title, and may imply that templates, categories, etc. should also be moved; please consider contributing to this sort of cleanup. Dekimasuよ! 11:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT → LGBTQ – Google ngrams has now released their newest dataset to 2022, so the time has come since the last discussion last year in June 2023 which already trended in the direction of LGBTQ, but was held of in light of not having enough clarity if LGBTQ had determinstically overtaken LGBT (with the old ngram data having been only up to 2019, where it was clear LGBTQ was on the path, but not over it yet. Well, we now have the latest Ngram data up to 2022 and shows that indeed this trend was confirmed and LGBTQ has squarely overtaken LGBT and furthermore, LGBT is on a now clear downwards trend since 2017. Google Scholar also supports this in the scholarly field with LGBTQ showing 20,000 results in recent years, versus LGBT a 17,800 results. Raladic (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support rename due to popularity in published sources and inclusivity. lizthegrey (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It seems fair enough that the Anglosphere uses LGBTQ more than other languages. Or at least LGBTQ+/LGBT+ with plus sign. See also this list. --MikutoH talk! 23:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming to LGBTQ since finding a source with only LGBT is getting pretty hard. win8x (talking | spying) 00:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom (i.e., WP:COMMONNAME). SilverLocust 💬 06:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with preference for LGBTQ+. As described in WP:COMMONNAME, a key criterion is precision - the title should unambiguously identify the article's subject. LGBTQ+ makes it clear that the subject is the broader range of identities commonly covered by the initialism.--Trystan (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: To accurately represent the entire community, seems like a necessary change. Waqar💬 15:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to LGBTQ+, because we might as well. As a functional umbrella term, it's incomplete without the Plus. Ngrams doesn't track punctuation in this way, so it would be useful to query other sources on this matter. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes unfortunately none of the sources we typically use to inform this accurately track punctuation and consider LGBTQ and LGBTQ+ synonymous in most cases. Though I agree, I'd prefer LGBTQ+ for more explicit completeness, it was just harder to suggest in my initial move proposal to make sure that the + doesn't become the stumbling block itself as at a minimum the expansion to Q has been long overdue. Trystan's point above is a very good one that the argument for the + is to make it unambiguously clear that it is about the wider community, just as all our articles already have discussed it for many years. Raladic (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Google Ngrams does allow you to search for some non-punctuation symbols like +. You just need to use brackets around a search term containing + - * / to indicate you aren't asking it to do math. Per Google Ngrams, LGBTQ+ is less common than LGBTQ and LGBT.
    You can also search Google News or Google Books for "LGBTQ" OR "LGBTQ+" to see results for both. SilverLocust 💬 23:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, including the plus, per RoxySaunders and Raladic. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 20:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose LGBTQ and LGBTQ+. I'm aware that this is going to pass in a blizzard, that the only PAG upon which my argument can be based is IAR, that it ignores the valid above arguments, that it runs afoul of NOTCENSORED and, arguably, PRECISE. However, I've been called "queer" as a slur more times than I care to count. I'm hardly alone in this. It's hurtful, even if "reclaimed". The viewers of this article can be divided into three nebulous groups: those unfamiliar with the topic or otherwise opinion-less, those pro-LGBT, and those anti-LGBT. For the first camp, such a title encourages them using a (ex-)slur, which could bring back bad memories were it to be used when talking to an older LGBT+ person. For those in the second camp, it is perhaps affirming, perhaps neutral, and perhaps insulting. Those affirmed would nonetheless be affirmed to an equal extent by the term LGBT+, unless they're genderqueer (a minority among minorities, I believe). For those in the third camp, it's a validation of the slur as something to be said frequently, rather than something cruel. If a slaver from 1800 were brought to today and heard a racial slur uttered by a member of the group it was supposed to insult, would they bemoan it being normalized or cheer it on? Sincerely, Dilettante 03:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your hypothetical about slavers is, frankly, weird. The opinion of the oppressor on terms used by the oppressed is irrelevant. It is not for members of the outgroup to police the language of the ingroup; white people don't get to opine whether or not Black rappers use words that sound like (or are) the N-slur that we should not use.
    Homophobes are going to be homophobic irrespective of the title of a Wikipedia article. Someone who is hostile to our community isn't going to care whether or not "queer" is reclaimed any more than they care whether "faggot" or "dyke" are acceptable terms for straight people to use. In just the same way as racists will continue to use the N-slur even though it is widely acknowledged as unacceptable.
    And yes, some people heard "queer" as a slur; other people heard "gay" as a slur — certainly I was called "gay" a lot more than "queer" when I was growing up (in the 1980s and early ’90s in the UK; I'll be 50 next year). I genuinely am sorry that the term still brings you pain and I hope that that pain continues to diminish as we move further away from the unaccepting world of our youth (even while some aspects of the world seem to be moving backwards right now; scary times).
    The most frequently used terms now are LGBTQ or LGBTQ+, as shown by the Ngrams mentioned above. That a minority of our community still consider "queer" to be a hurtful slur doesn't change that it is a widely-accepted term both within our community and without. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly could have been more clear (not least because the year given was off by a century) that I'm not referring to the n-word, but rather a non-English slur. I didn't name it because it was reclaimed without ever having been properly euphemized (as opposed the "n-word" or "f-slur"), and asterisks hardly make a word less rude to those who remember the original.
    Not to invalidate your experiences, or those of others who have been called a slur, but there's a crucial difference between being called the n-word or "gay" as opposed to "fag", "dyke", or "queer". The first two were used by members of the group it insulted as a descriptive word before it became a slur. To refuse reclamation would be to disrespect their (largely much worse) experiences. The other three originated with an outgroup, and to use it is to vindicate them.
    Returning to Wikipedia, the name change allows those moving (or stuck) backwards to use it in the original sense, and, when called out, claim it isn't meant to be hurtful and one is misunderstanding them. Though the title of an enwiki article is hardly a clincher, I've heard "it's even on Wikipeda" WRT to other things far too many times. An additonal excuse should not be given.
    Thanks for hoping I can further move past it. It seems unlikely, but one never knows. If any such terms hold negative memories for you too, I too hope it gets better. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Q is also for questioning, not just queerness. --MikutoH talk! 23:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dilettante who puts it best. The Q-word is a historic slur still highly offensive to many. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, LGBTQ(+) is a frequently used acronym—marginally more common than LGBT, and substantially more common than LGBT+).. Many people under the LGBT umbrella identify as queer, and nearly all initialisms beyond LGBT+ include a Q in that position.
    I would that we would not hash out the Perennial Reclaimed Slur Discourse at length here (this occurs enough off-site), because personal offense taken is not a persuasive criteria in RM discussions.
    If "LGBTQ+" were an unacceptable and offensive term we would expect it to occur less frequently in reliable sources and in the Google Books corpus, unless the vast majority of books were written by horrible bigots. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indisputably offensive to some, just not to the majority. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are various iterations around, getting longer and longer, but the commonest by far is still just LGBT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for LGBTQ even though as per WP:COMMON NAME, it should be LGBTQ+ which returns almost equal but slightly higher number of results. SriHarsha Bhogi (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with first choice for LGBTQ+ per WP:COMMONNAME. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for LGBTQ or LGBTQ+ they are the most common terms as of right now lgbt by its self is insufficient and "queer" while yes could be used in a derogatory way, gay can also be and as of now queer is commonly used by the community so either switch should be fine. Mkdasher64 (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Juwan (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion of whether a move is appropriate, and if so whether to move to LGBTQ or LGBTQ+ BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A survey of influential topic-specific style guides:
  • GLAAD media reference guide (and GLAAD's reporting) uses LGBTQ. LGBT and LGBTQ+ are also used, with the + added in recognition of all non-straight, non-cisgender identities. [...] Both are acceptable, as are other versions of this acronym.
  • The AP Stylebook revised in March 2023 to use LGBTQ+.[1]
  • TJA Stylebook and Coverage Guide doesn't prescribe an acronym, but consistently uses LGBTQ+.
  • NLGJA Stylebook favors LGBTQ+, calling it acceptable in all references. It calls out some alternatives LGBT, LGBTQ, and LGBTQIA as potentially less inclusive, more cumbersome or unfamiliar to general audiences and that writers should decide for themselves [...] whether more or less specificity is needed.. In 2023, the NLGJA changed its name to use LGBTQ+ over LGBTQ.
At least in the context of journalistic style manuals, things have moved pretty strongly in favor of LGBTQ+ since 2022. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like good convincing argument to favor LGBTQ+ over just LGBTQ.
Plus this way we only may have to do this rename once for a long foreseeable future, since as a follow up to this there’ll be a lot of renames across the board for other related articles that all followed the principal of using what this article here uses. Raladic (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 08:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I have not seen anyone use simply "LGBT" in quite a while, thus WP:COMMONNAME with the higher number of returned results. It's also more inclusive Witsako (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mast303 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Second to last actually—there was another one in between, but I'm assuming you're talking about the one you closed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move review requested

[edit]

Bluerasberry (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late comments for the rename of LGBT - > LGBTQ

[edit]

I am late posting comments for the above closed move review but I wanted to share anyway. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your video. Some thoughts:
  • Even in the move we did discuss adding the + and I think most of us (myself included) would have liked to see it for the same reason you called out on inclusivity. But we also acknowledged that the + is much newer and the data on its usage is still much smaller than the Q, so it was hard to suggest it as a policy based reason, since article titling on en-wiki follows the policies pretty strictly.
  • You mentioned there is no article on Queer people, which I find confusing, we do have an article for it and it does talk about a lot of the details of what it defines. Anyone is welcome to add to it of course as you know, but I don't think it's fully accurate to say it isn't discussed in our articles. And as it is understood as an umbrella term that is becoming more broadly used (as the data shows) now than LGBT, it seemed appropriat to expand to it.
  • You mentioned UN, which while doesn't have an office exclusive for us, it does advocate and has used the Q, alongside I and + for a long time when advocating for our rights and has a very public policy by the United Nations Secretariat on the UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT STRATEGY ON PROTECTION FROM VIOLENCE AND DISCRIMINATION OF LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, INTERSEX AND QUEER (LGBTIQ+) PERSONS.
Overall, I do very much appreciate your thoughts, and as I said above, personally I would love to see the +, but this was discussed in prior years as well and most people argued that the data doesn't support it and unfortunately it's one of those cases where Wikipedia does lag behind until the RS does use the + more than it doesn't, so we can't really lead the charge here without getting accused of WP:RGW, even if sometimes there may be cases such as this where extending it to LGBTQ+ would be explicitly more inclusive. Raladic (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could choose to diverge from the article for the wikiproject eg naming the wikiproject LGBT+ or LGBTQ+. It's only the mainspace that has to follow policy and RGW so strictly. lizthegrey (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imho the article and all the categories should speedily be moved back, the discussion above it not large/representative enough for such a massive change in long-standing convention.★Trekker (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed thoughts about renaming LGBT to LGBTQ for different reasons. On one hand, I understand that LGBTQ is more used than LGBT currently as it would be more inclusive towards anyone who are part of the umbrella and with the "studies" that shows that LGBTQ is common than LGBT. But on the other hand, there are some:
  • LGBT has a lot of acronyms so reading an article where LGBT and other similar acronyms like LGBTQ, LGBT+, LGBTQ+ etc. Appearing in the same sentence can be confusing to some. Not to mention some Wikipedia pages still uses the four letter acronym such as Portal:LGBT, Timeline of LGBT history, List of LGBT rights activists etc.
  • LGBT/LGB has been around longer than other acronyms and almost all of the terms have the same four letters in them. Queer can still be a slur against some people as well.
  • As for data and studies for which acronym is more common is not always reliable, for example a quick google search for "LGBT" has around 530,000,000 results while "LGBTQ" has around 383,000,000 results. The Ngram for the terms is not really reliable as both LGBT/LGBTQ in all caps and lgbt/lgbtq in small caps have different results on which term is more commonly used.
Imo, I feel like keeping LGBT as the title is fine the way it is but I also agree with LGBTQ+ being the title would be better if you to be more inclusive. LGBT/LGBTQ+ or anything similar could also work as a title if it were possible. Mangolemonz (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the two shows that the lowercase forms make up a tiny fraction of all occurrences compared to the uppercase forms, so are probably not significant to the discussion. This Ngrams query by SilverLocust shows all four terms; toggling the "case-insensitive" button (which counts "lgbt" and "LGBT" as a single word) makes no perceptible difference in the data.
Ngrams is a useful proxy for how often a term occurs in reliable sources (published books tend to be somewhat more reliable than random webpages). Google Search, by contrast, is not particularly reliable or useful for this purpose. The number of total results for any search may just be an artefact of their opaque indexing algorithm, and not necessarily representative. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the video, @Bluerasberry. It's definitely easier to convey nuance in a video than via text, so I think you add a bit more here that is helpful for illustrating where you are coming from.
A few thoughts come to mind:
  1. I wouldn't mind more info about queer people in the queer article. Or maybe a separate article altogether. However, I'm also not sure how different the latter would be from a page on LGBT(Q+) people more generally. I guess there is the added addition of people who don't identify as L, G, B, or T, who nevertheless identify as queer (e.g., heterosexual but non-heteronormative people as one example, but also I and A folks). But then that also strengthens the argument that the Q is necessary in LGBTQ, as it ostensibly covers those identities as well. If we need an article on queer people as distinct from LGBT people, then we also need LGBTQ. What RSes do we have on that subject?
  2. I still can't wrap my head around why LGBTQ is somehow more exclusive than LGBT. That doesn't really make sense to me. I get your point that adding the Q while not adding other letters may privilege English-language terms favoured by academics, but that's also a problem with the nature of RSes more generally, and we're not here to "right great wrongs".
  3. At least in the UK, and I suspect the US, terms like gay and LGBT have been seen as unrepresentative by some groups anyway. The former is especially seen as too focussed on cis white homosexual men. So I actually think LGBTQ is more acceptable for POCs in those places. In non-English-language countries, the issue is largely moot, because they have their own local language terms they can use anyway. That should have no bearing on what English-language Wikipedia uses. Where a specific group uses a specific term to refer to themselves even in English, we can of course respect that, but those would be exceptions rather than a blanket rule.
  4. I think the average person probably isn't super consistent with which letters they use anyway. Or at least, they'll be unperturbed by a mix of LGBT, LGBT+, LGBTQ+ and LGBTQ. Most people won't even notice (we as editors might do, but that's presumably part of the motivation for editing).
  5. The number of links and articles that need changing shouldn't be a major concern. Otherwise, Wikipedia would never implement widescale changes. Anything that can be done manually can be done manually, but anything left as LGBT will redirect to LGBTQ anyway, so it's not an issue for most users of the website and it's not an urgent task for editors and admins. Any piping that occurs in the meantime is unlikely to have an appreciable effect on the user experience.
  6. I fully expect to have the same discussion in a few years when we decide to add the +, and that's okay. Don't let perfection be the enemy of good enough, and all that. Incremental change is fine, and is preferable to delays. Just think how much time would've been saved if we'd settled this days ago and just got on with it. We can always change things back later on if RSes or other evidence suggests it was the wrong decision.
Lewisguile (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry Thank you for your extra dedication of putting in a video and wearing a formal attire for a bunch of Wikipedians.
The other comments have made great points about common name and reliable sources and not censored, but I would like to attempt to address your central point, although I am not well-versed in the topic.
In my opinion, LGBTQ is a word that will stick for a long time as it is unlike LGBT which consistently fell out of favor in the past decade.
Of course, it begs the question why. LGBTQ is arguably a synonym of LGBT+ as the Q is intended to cover all the +. LGBTQ is also seen as more meaningful as the Q which refers to all non-cishet persons is intended to capture the nature of all the +.
It helps to look at the common progression thread of the term, LGB -> LGBT -> LGBTQ -> LGBTQ+ -> LGBTQIA -> LGBTQIA+. Here we see that LGBTQ is intended to recognize the diversity of the community.
As we want to be more inclusive, we start to add more letters, then it gets awkward as it is never enough, we start to add the plus sign, then it gets ambiguous as to how many letters are hidden by the plus sign.
Ultimately we realize the previous LGBTQ has addressed all of these, making it not only the common name, but also the descriptive name. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of WikiProject LGBT studies

[edit]

Wikipedia:Words as words

[edit]

Should we unitalicize terms like LGBT, and/or LGBTQ? 213.132.76.9 (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 September 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. isn't it obvious that this, and other RMs, just serve to waste editors' times? I should listen to what I say sometimes. (closed by non-admin page mover) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ → LGBT – The fact that "queer" is still considered a slur by some in the community should be enough of a clue for the article to omit it. Also, isn't it obvious that this, and other RMs, just serve to waste editors' times? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lambda for LGBT...

[edit]

Lambda is used for LGBT. It is just the first letter in Greek. The current elongation of syllables has been the subject of derision.

Even if you don't want to change the article title, include a Greek letter lambda as short for LGBT.... Arbeiten8 (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not one of the initialisms, but one of many LGBTQ symbols#Lambda that may be used by the community.
If we were to include it in the lead, we’d need strong RS to support that it is widely used.
I think a better place is to add it to the List of LGBTQ acronyms which documents the many different terms used to refer to the LGBTQ community, or LGBTQ slang. Raladic (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's well placed in the symbols article. I agree with Raladic that we'd need stronger sourcing to mention it here (and I doubt such sourcing exists). I'm not sure it really belongs at the acronyms or slang articles, but that's a discussion for other talk pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 October 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per WP:SNOW. No arguments were presented that were not considered at Talk:LGBTQ#Requested move 14 August 2024. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ → LGBTQ+ – The name "LGBTQ+" is the name for the community. Kolano123 (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article titling policy is fairly strict on adhering to the WP:COMMONNAME, so it may yet be a few more years before LGBTQ+ may overtake LGBTQ. Raladic (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this would have been the consensus of the very recent move discussion if people thought it was the real common name. As in a lot of cases, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of usage and must wait for books/the press/the public to catch up with whatever the latest name is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snowclose. I strongly prefer LGBTQ+, but we had a well-attended discussion about this less than 2 months ago, plus drama afterwards and a Move Review from queer-exclusionists. It's too soon to revisit this. Let's come back once Ngrams updates with 2023 data; I anticipate this will be the last nail in the coffin. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 12:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBTQ&oldid=1257342406"