Talk:LGBTQ/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

question about consensus

Hey, @Lizthegrey, can you please go into why you reverted my recent edits, here? You mention "consensus" but I can't find any relevant discussion on the talk page you might be referring to. Let me know about your concerns and I hope we can find a way to move forward with improving the article. Cheers Tdmurlock (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Same concerns as raised by @Trystan with your edits to lede of Queer. It appears that you are putting unWP:DUE weight on critiques of the LGBT term and related community issues, and in many cases without proper citations. Of your edits, I would keep the "Split attraction model" para, but you also deleted the paragraph on "Asexual individuals"... at the same time, which I am confused by, it's cited. lizthegrey (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

the paragraph I deleted from "asexual individuals" had no actual relevance to the heading, it was just a list of definitions. I agree that the paragraph mentioning split attraction model is important context for that section. What, specifically, do you think was insufficiently cited? I added citations for edits without citations, and other edits were based off of readings of existing citations. Tdmurlock (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It appears you are back at trying to erase queer, asexual and aromantic representation from LGBT articles, as you have in the past last year.

You have been reverted and warned to drop it then.

I suggest you drop this repeated effort now or risk a topic ban on LGBT articles. Raladic (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Raladic: it's inappropriate to threaten fellow editors in this way. If you think that there's POV pushing or bad faith, I did send a gas ct/alert less than a year ago so you could take the issue to AE. But that is a matter for admins to decide, not for you to threaten.

For the record, I would not support a full topic ban though, but I do think that @Tdmurlock should stick to getting consensus on edits through talk pages before editing mainspace directly in this area, especially when it comes to being too bold with ledes. It's pushing it to say this is part of normal WP:BRD when the D has consistently gone in the way of supporting the R after Tdmurlock has made a bold edit over the past year. lizthegrey (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t trying to threaten and apologize if it came across as such (I was just trying to remind them that they are trying to push the same POV they did a year ago, with no consensus for doing so then, and it appears nothing has changed). Their actions are making the same edits they made a year ago, and were in fact blocked for 48 hours by an admin who agreed that they were POV pushing. So this repeated attempt now a year later just appears to be WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Raladic (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's see how the next batch of edits go, if you feel still it's tendentious then, please, do take to AE. lizthegrey (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Homie, neither of us want to "erase" asexuals, aromantics, and people who identify with the term queer. However, I do think an honest portrayal of the LGBT community is contingent on recognizing the complexity and diversity of opinions that exist within the community on these topics. As for when I was blocked for 48 hours- 1. it was a year ago and 2. I contend I have learned and grown and my behavior is not at all the same as it was. I don't think there's any point in us WP:HOUND-ing each other, homie. Tdmurlock (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I also think the split attraction model addition is a good addition. I support keeping the deleted paragraph in that section. (Though the "...it is crucial to acknowledge..." wording should be changed, as it runs afoul of MOS:INSTRUCT.)

The proposed edits to the lead rephrase things in less neutral language. I find "...may refer to..." more neutral than "However, it is sometimes interpreted as...". And "...those who identify as queer..." is far more neutral than "...those who reclaim the slur queer...". Similarly, the proposed changes to the "Transgender inclusion" section also read as less neutral to me.

The sentence proposed for the end of "History of the term" needlessly repeats the prior paragraph.

On a related note, the addition of non-heteroromantic to the lead a week ago could use a further look. It is currently sourced to Uncanny Magazine (?) and doesn't seem to reflect anything in the body of the article. Changes should be made first to the body of the article with reliable sources, and then the WP:LEAD updated to summarize them with appropriate weight.--Trystan (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree uncanny magazine is a bizarre source that could use cleaning up. Ought I try to reinstate some of my changes employing more diplomatic language? Tdmurlock (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no objections to you making a subset of these cleanups and edits with a more neutral tone that follows sourcing and DUE :) just wanted to make sure we discussed the concerns first. lizthegrey (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty more sources that back the term heteroromantic, so removal would not be WP:DUE as the currently article does discuss asexual, aromantic identities as well as GSRM which as a model expands beyond the narrow definition of LGBT.

So instead of removing it from the lead, instead you can add additional sources if need be, such as [1] or [2] and [3] from just a quick first page search result. Raladic (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Wording of the lede

From the lede: "A popular variant, LGBTQ, adds the letter Q for those who identify as queer or are questioning their sexual or gender identity. Another popular variation, LGBTQ+, adds a plus sign "represents those who are part of the community, but for whom LGBTQ does not accurately capture or reflect their identity"." (italics my own ofc)

Neither of the sources for this statement actually use the word "popular". I contend that this usage constitutes puffery and propose to remove it per MOS:PEACOCK until it can be demonstrated through attribution that these constructions are indeed "popular". Tdmurlock (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree to remove popular; it may be possible to replace with "frequent" or "common" but, as you say, sourcing. lizthegrey (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Based on my own experience in English-speaking queer and ally communities, the fact that LGBTQ and LGBTQ+ are both exceedingly common variants strikes me as self-evident (WP:SKYBLUE), but I'm sure a source exists which verifies this. "Popular" in this sentence is synonymous with "frequently used" (not "beloved" or "well-liked"), but "common" would also be acceptable here. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 01:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a well-sourced discussion of the relative popularity of these initialisms, but the extant sources cited for that passage don't really actually go into whether one or the other is more relatively popular or unpopular whatsoever. I do think replacing "popular" with "common" or "frequently used" remains uncomfortably subjective, at least without fresh sources. If I had to offer an adjective, it would be "proposed" or "noted", personally. Tdmurlock (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no puffery here. I'm pretty sure that you are misunderstanding our usage of "popular", as explained by RoxySaunders above. I have changed the section heading accordingly because, even without a concern of puffery, it is still worth discussing the best word to use.

"Popular" is correct and I doubt that many people would misunderstand the way we are using it. There is no absolute need to change it but if we can find a better word or phrase, which nobody will misunderstand, then let's do that. "Proposed" implies that these acronyms have yet to be accepted into use, which would be misleading. (Also you just know that some joker would come along and slap a {{who}} tag on it.) "Noted" or "notable" might be OK but they could encourage adding lots more variants to the lede which are also notable but not notable enough to be worth putting in the lede. Also I think they sound a bit stilted. Any of "widely used", "frequently used" or "common" would be small but worthwhile improvements over "popular". My preference is marginally for "widely used" but there is very little in it. We do not need to count usages in order to say something like "widely used". Only if we wanted to say "most widely used" would we need to get into that. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's a minor angle on popular, that I wanted to throw out there. En-wiki is read by a lot of ESL speakers, and popular is a false friend in a lot of Romance languages, where it takes on the meaning "working-class" rather than (or in addition to) "well-liked". In French, it can mean the same as in English, but not always. Here's an example from CNRTL where it means "working-class" with whiffs of "shabby", "scruffy" or "dangerous":

C'est un quartier populaire où les Parisiens s'aventurent peu sans nécessité, ayant décidé qu'il appartient à une banlieue vilaine et mal famée.

"It's a working-class neighborhood where Parisians rarely venture, having decided that it belongs to an ugly suburb with a bad reputation."

You can get a sense of the same thing happening in English in the distinction of meaning in the word common between AE and BE, which in a general context in American English simply means "frequent", but in British English (esp. when referring to people) can have the meaning "vulgar; inferior" (defn. #7 here). There's even a specifically linguistic sense of populaire in French having the meaning folk etymology, such as with choucroute ('sauerkraut') which looks like it comes from the French words chou (cabbage) and croute ('crust') whereas in reality, it is a francization of sauerkraut; kind of what we do in English with chaise lounge. The point being, that a French person reading, "A popular variant..." might interpret that either as a folk etymology, or more of term used by the working class.

Like I said, this is en-wiki, so this shouldn't be the major point of consideration, but I did want to point out some possible pitfalls of popular for our foreign readers, and if an equally good word is available in English that doesn't suffer from that issue, then it might be worth considering. Mathglot (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Excessive detail

Wiki6995 you are adding excessive detail on the term SGM/GSM/GSRM. We do not need to cite every report that uses the term. One short paragraph covering the term would be adequate. This is WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:EXCESSDETAIL. I'd advise to trim it. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thinning of article

Can we please thin this article, specifically the "Variants" portion? This seems to have a little too much elaboration, and is somewhat confusing. I have not made any edits yet, as I would like to receive feedback on this issue. Pilotnance (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we do another WP:RM?

It seems abundantly clear now that LGBT is an obsolete term in both academia and the mainstream media these days. The Associated Press seems to use LGBTQ+. Other sources appear to use LGBTQ. While I am uncertain as to which title is most appropriate, I can safely say that keeping the title at it's current position is inappropriate. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The previous RM was barely half a year ago. Be sure you can strongly overcome the oppose-reasons noted at Talk:LGBT/Archive 3#Requested move 5 June 2023 before bothering to nominate again. DMacks (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll try. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather do a RFC around queer/ace/non-binary inclusion, as I originally proposed to @Tdmurlock, to answer once and for all these questions about how big we consider the spectrum included in this topic rather than re-litigating this over and over across many different pages. Not to say that we cannot/should not include POVs that oppose the LGBTQ+ term in discussion of the term, but changing how we refer to the community in the lede, titles, etc. lizthegrey (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Moving to (initialism) and scoping the article entirely around the term and its variants, and having a separate more inclusive article about the community that is either at this title, or at a redirect target of this title, would probably be the best solution. People aren't talking about the term when they say LGBT, they're talking about the community, which includes people who don't fall just under the four letters... hence the constant title debates. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

To me, this is a more important consideration than whether we call it LGBT or a longer variant. I agree with Elli. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion isn't just about this article, but what we use as the universal term on english Wikipedia to refer to the LGBTQ+ community. So just moving this article to (initialism) it won't solve the discussion at the core of it - has LGBTQ+ overtaken LGBT as the term in the english speaking world and thus should be changed here per WP:COMMONNAME. As when we do make the change (which personally, I believe we should), we will also change the linked term on all other articles across Wikipedia to harmonize with the main article name.

Unfortunately, at this point, there still isn't a newer ngram available - the last one is still 2019, which did show a clear trend and that LGBTQ had overtaken LGBT just about in 2019, but it wasn't enough to convince the move discussion last June.

The trend and sentiment of most people involved in the RM discussion last year was that moving to LGBTQ (or LGBTQ+, the with or without + was less clear) was the right thing, just that the data was still too close to deterministically do it at the point in June last year.

This being said, one of the main tests that @Mathglot applied last June in the discussion was using the scholar results to see if the trend that we were seeing was indeed holding up and it wasn't clear with the data as of June, but now since June of last year, that trend has in fact continued - LGBT since 2022 at 16,400 versus LGBTQ since 2022 at 25,500. Even if we go for just last year, LGBT since 2023 has 9,580 versus LGBTQ since 2023 has 14,300 scholar results, so that is showing a pretty consistent almost 50% margin at this point in favor of LGBTQ over LGBT.

So maybe it is indeed time for another RM and this time we are over the cusp that was still a bit close to call last year?

I think between both the ngram 2019 for books, which showed that LGBTQ had overtaken LGBT and the clear trendline and the now much clearer scholar results with the margins favoring LGBTQ widening significantly it feels like we have enough backing from a quantitative datapoint (in addition to the qualitative one such as major news organizations, or the United Nations using LGBTQ or LGBTQ+ (some LGBTQI+ and fewer LGBTQIA+). Raladic (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

As per above, needs an RFC rather than a RM because of the broader change across the rest of WP and WikiProject LGBT studies. lizthegrey (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

If we just go by LGBT or LGBTQ, without excluding sources that mention both, then since 2022 LGBT has had 35,200 results, whereas LGBTQ brings up 30,700 results.

That said, I'm not personally convinced that going by ngram or google scholar numbers doesn't constitute WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. And even if it doesn't, I'm not sure that such evidence actually gets to the crux of whether one or the other constitutes WP:COMMONNAME. You'll probably find more academic results for "Columba livia" than for "rock dove", as we know. Tdmurlock (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that when you see ngrams results, you don't believe that the data represents books that actually contain the term, i.e., that Google is essentially presenting fake data? If not, and you believe the data is real, then how is looking at consolidated data about what hundreds or thousands of reliable sources actually say original research? It is the diametric opposite of original research. I must be missing something, because I can't make head nor tail of your comment. What is your definition of COMMONNAME, and how do you, personally, find out what it is for any given topic? What I do, is to try to assess what term the majority of reliable sources use to name the topic, and two important tools for that are well-formed, unbiased, search engine queries (not a simple task) and trusted WP:TERTIARY sources. How do you do it? Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

"Are you saying that when you see ngrams results, you don't believe that the data represents books that actually contain the term, i.e., that Google is essentially presenting fake data?" If I was saying that I would have said that. The data is certainly real, however I don't want us to fall foul of WP:POVNAME by way of WP:RECENTISM. If we remove the time constraint from our google scholar searches, you'll see LGBT has 536,000 results, whereas LGBTQ has 432,000. Even on ngrams which you cited, you can see that "LGBT" peaked around 2016 to a point which "LGBTQ" has yet to be noted to achieve. Moreover, if we zoom out to 1990, we can see a good decade from the mid-90s to circa 2006 where LGBT was demonstrating a what appears to be a firm foundation of steady growth while LGBTQ remained comparatively stagnant and unknown.

WP:ARTICLETITLES exhorts us to avoid "Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later". I don't think the extant data necessarily demonstrates that "LGBTQ" is anything more than a momentary fad, and I contend we risk buying into a transient bubble by going to bat for it prematurely. Tdmurlock (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

We're allowed to come to our own conclusions when determining how to present information or title pages... that isn't considered unacceptable OR. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Raladic, thanks for reminding me about the numbers. Even then, I was pretty sure LGBTQ would eventually prevail, but I just wanted to see a very clear trend that isn't just normal blips of variation, because the last thing we want to do, is rename it now, and then come back in six months and go, 'Oops, maybe we were a bit hasty'. Are we there now? I dunno; haven't looked at your more recent data in detail yet, but six months doesn't seem like a huge amount of time to establish a definite trend. The other thing is, do we have to do this every six months? Wikipedia is a tertiary source and a trailing indicator; just like, say, Merriam-Webster, which finally added cisgender to the dictionary in 2015. By that time, everybody had been using it for years. Were they late? No—they were doing what tertiary sources are supposed to do: wait till they are absolutely sure that this is real and is going to stick; Merriam-Webster is not Urban Dictionary. Wikipedia is also a tertiary source, and like M-W, we wait (or ought to) until it's clear that usage has shifted in WP:SECONDARY sources; that doesn't mean, that everybody in college and the student union is using it, it means that all the textbook authors that the next generation of college students are reading have now switched over, as well, so they see it in class, and not only on flyers about meetings posted around campus, or names of courses in the catalog. If we are at that point, and the shift in published, reliable sources is clear, then it's time for us to switch. And then: what happens if we switch it now, and six months from now (or three, or one) someone buoyed by the successful rename decides that actually, it needs the plus, or that actually, it should be LGBTQIA would be better? We'll end up burning everyone out if these keep happening all the time. Mathglot (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

your perception of a term as being "obsolete in academia and mainstream media" doesn't really preclude a title from being considered WP:COMMONNAME. Would argue "+" is sufficiently vague as to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE and that "Q" is sufficiently redundant as to fail WP:CONCISE, although one could also argue it, too, is almost as ambiguous as "+". (Does it stand for questioning or queer? if the answer is queer, is it for LGBT people who reclaim the term queer, or does the definition of the term queer include non-LGBT people? And if it includes non-LGBT people, who, specifically, does it include?) Tdmurlock (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I would support adopting LGBTQ+ as the default term. Of the three options LGBT, LGBTQ, and LGBTQ+, are all widely used, so easily recognizable. They only differ by a couple of characters, so there aren't any significant differences in naturalness or concision. The main factor that leaves is WP:PRECISION, which I think heavily favours LGBTQ+, as that explicitly conveys a broader meaning that is more consistent with the scope of our articles on LGBTQ+ topics. However, without some clearer indication that a new consensus is likely to emerge, I am not sure it would be helpful to take this to an RM or RFC at this time.--Trystan (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I'm growing increasingly convinced that it would be sensible at this point to simply split the article into "LGBT (initialism)" and something like "Additions to the LGBT initialism" for discussion of the history of "Q+" and similar interpolations. I think changing the title to "LGBTQ+" would only ossify article's unfortunate status as an indiscriminate WP:COATRACK.

I don't think a RFC would necessarily be the end of the world, but I agree that having a RM so soon after the last one would be pointless. Tdmurlock (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "(initialism)" would be a good addition to this article title, in order to make the scope different to our LGBT community article. I don't think "Additions to the LGBT initialism" would be a good standalone article, but structuring this article around the LGBT initialism and then having a section on additions would be a good idea. Personally I agree with the others above that this should have been moved to LGBTQ/LGBTQ+ as thus is increasingly becoming preferred – however it is far too soon to have another discussion on this. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The question isn't about the initialism; it's about the term we use across all of Wikipedia. Disconnecting this article from that term didn't solve anything in that wider question.

I do think something like LGBTQ+ is likely to be the term that sticks, given how the community and its terminology has evolved in the last 50 years. And it's a term I tend to use myself. But we had an RM discussion too recently to be rehashing the topic again just now.

We have better things to do than argue over terminology every few months. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Revisiting WP:COMMONNAME

I've been thinking about the above discussion, and wanted to further explore an argument that might help coalesce a consensus in favour of an RFC or RM. WP:COMMONNAME states "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly." I think it is fair to say that LGBT, LGBTQ, and LGBTQ+ are all sufficiently widely used that the advice to evaluate them directly on the criteria applies. In other words, the policy says we shouldn't resort to debating ngram numbers and trying to perform WP:OR to pick a numerical winner, but should instead apply the general criteria.

Those criteria are:

• Recognizability: LGBT, LGBTQ, and LGBTQ+ are all are in widespread common use, and all are very similar. Little reason to think one is significantly more recognizable than the others.
• Naturalness: All are short initialisms. No significant differentiation here.
• Concision: All options are between 4 and 6 characters, so no signficant difference here either.
• Consistency: A proposed move from LGBT to LGBTQ or LGBTQ+ would be implemented across Wikipedia, so this does not apply.
• Precision: The title should unambiguously identify the article's subject. This to me is the only factor that distinguishes the options, and it strongly supports LGBTQ+. When we say "LGBT", do we mean just Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender? Do we include Queer in the intended scope? Or do we mean the broader umbrella, of anyone who is non-heterosexual, non-heteroromantic, or non-cisgender? I think the intended scope is almost always the last one, and LGBTQ+ is the term that unambiguously conveys that meaning.

I'd be interested in hearing other's thoughts--Trystan (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The consistency aspect only works if there's a broader RFC to change it anyways, so IMO we need to follow the RFC procedures. You've omitted one option though which is LGBT+ (where the + implies the Q) lizthegrey (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, LGBT+ would be an easier suggestion. --MikutoH ^talk! 04:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. In many ways this reminds me of the discussions about moving "Genderqueer" to "Non-binary", where the same trendline was evident, in both the broader world and (as a result) in the discussions, as is evident here; the earliest RM of this was closed as "Not moved", the next as "Not moved for now", the next as "No consensus", the support for the move growing over time, because it keeps becoming clearer that the 'newer' name has become the more used, more precise name. (And the need for that greater precision keeps being made evident, like in the recent CFDs where people created various 'Queer LGBT people' categories because they didn't realize we were silently including the Q.) -sche (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

"LGBTP" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect LGBTP has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 5 § LGBTP until a consensus is reached. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"LGBTZ" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect LGBTZ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 17 § LGBTZ until a consensus is reached. मल्ल (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2024

Under the headings "Variants":

"Although identical in meaning, LGBT may have a more feminist connotation than GLBT as it places the "L" (for "lesbian") first." → The more widely known version of "LGBT" has L before G due to historical reasons and should be explained:

During the AIDS pandemic of the 1980s and 1990s, many gay men died. The ones that did not die were struggling to survive. Lesbians began gathering together and caring for gay men with AIDS/HIV. Lesbians nursed them, took care of them, donated blood to them , provided food, clothing and shelter for them. At this time, this was significant because they were not unified together like they are today. They often were against each other. The first acronym was GL, soon after adding the B and then the T.

Many gay mens lives were saved by lesbians. Gay men put the L in front of the G and started using the term “LGBT” instead of “GLBT” as a way to thank lesbians and for everything they did. ACqq (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now:Multiple concerns here. First, the first paragraph is only supported by a single source which is just an another Wikipedia article. Wikipedia doesn't consider itself reliable, so you probably should find a reference for the 1st part. The 2nd paragraph is a WP:REFBOMB and the amount of references should be cut down at at least 3 or 4. Might be worth checking if some sources are not usable, by looking for the source's entry on WP:RSP. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 10:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

"QTPOC" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect QTPOC has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 6 § QTPOC until a consensus is reached. Un assiolo (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)