Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

 Home Talk Collaboration Editing Resources Showcase

Proposal: split off the history sections Gay literature and Lesbian literature pages into one page

( It was suggested to be taken here when I asked in the Teahouse, as it involves splitting multiple articles to create a third. If it's the wrong place, blame them, not me. I'm just a newbie trying to help and not make mistakes)

I propose that we split the history aspects of Gay literature and Lesbian literature into their own third article: History of Gay and Lesbian literature (1), or separate articles History of Gay Literature and History of Lesbian literature (2). --Lover of lgbt literature (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 2 with equal preference, as proposer, because the history aspect of the topics currently dominates both articles and can easily stand on their own, and I think splitting them off will allow other aspects of both topics to have some breathing room. I excluded Bisexual literature and Transgender literature, as their history section are small enough not to dominate their articles. I know it took me a while to get here from the teahouse, but things happened, and I forgot until now.--Lover of lgbt literature (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lesbian literature history is focused on the lesbian subject and should remain independent from the history of Gay male literature. And creating a stand-alone article titled "History of Lesbian literature" as an addition to the existing Lesbian literature article (which is historical) is senseless. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Gay literature has about 6.2K readable words and Lesbian literature has about 4.6K readable words. Neither is overly long at this point and both of them cover a lot of history. Moving history to one or two new pages would fragment the info and make all of them rather short. A better idea would be to wait and see if any particular section gets overly long, and then spin that off into its own section if needed. But that seems a distant issue for now. Lewisguile (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose it's two different subjects 2A01:CB0C:8805:3000:59F2:ECAF:5F35:F425 (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Karla Sofía Gascón

There's a discussion at Talk:Karla Sofía Gascón on whether Gascón's former name should be included in the article. Nardog (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Portal:Transgender

Portal:Transgender has been nominated for deletion. The deletion discussion is being conducted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transgender (2nd nomination). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow GA for Transgender health care misinformation

Check it Transgender health care misinformation

Started a month ago, and now at WP:Good article status. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Sultan Qaboos RFC

There is a new RFC underway at Talk:Qaboos bin Said about whether to include suggestions that the late Sultan of Oman may have been gay. cagliost (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Raegan_Revord#They/Them_Pronouns

If you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Manual of Style proposal for "LGBTQ+" and its variants

I'm not sure where to take this so I figured I would start here to see if there is support for the idea.

I propose that somewhere in WP's Manual of Style we instruct editors that LGBTQ+ functions as an adjective. It typically describes human beings and human concerns, groups, or activities. This applies to variations including but not limited to LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBTQIA2S and so on. These should always be used as adjectives modifying a noun (or nouns) and should not be used alone or with definite or indefinite articles as nouns. So The LGBTQ in China is incorrect while LGBTQ people in China or LGBTQ rights in China are acceptable. Additionally, these abbreviations should only be used in front of a noun that could plausibly be described as "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer." This applies in article titles and running text. As always, any exceptions must be grounded in consensus and well-supported by other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Titles of published works and demonstrably widespread common usage would be examples.

This seems obvious to me, which is perhaps why I haven't been able to locate external style guides or other authoritative sources that spell this out. I see these abbreviations misused as nouns and used as adjectives to describe things that cannot plausibly be LGBTQ+. I'm open to the view that WP doesn't need to "invent" guidelines where simple grammar and semantics should resolve these issues but it's frustrating to see improper usage here and it seems to be part of the broader confusion surrounding this terminology. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have examples of where LGBTQ+ has been used to describe things that cannot plausibly be LGBTQ+? Really the only thing that can be LGBTQ+ is people, but it can be used quite broadly for things associated with LGBTQ+ people (like the rights of LGBTQ+ people, the culture of LGBTQ+ people, the communities formed by LGBTQ+ people, symbols and slang used by them, etc.)--Trystan (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at Talk:Modern pagan views on LGBT people#Requested move 22 January 2025 where the proposal is to change it to "Modern paganism and LGBTQ." LGBTQ what? I've also raised the issue of what kind of noun can plausibly be modified by these abbreviations at Talk:LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory#Requested move 21 January 2025. (I hesitated to mention these initially but I believe it is appropriate to call attention to a relevant RM discussion on this talk page. Also, I acknowledge that people may raise a related objection to the concept of a gay frog, but surely that is more plausible than an LGBT chemical, and besides that is only part of my objection.) I fully agree that LGBTQ+ refers broadly to thing associated with LGBTQ+ people—theory, film, history, studies, literature, Pride, rights… --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I think these are just grammatical corrections that should not be controversial to correct when they arise. The only caveat is that WP:COMMONNAME has to take precedence when the world has already assigned a name to something, even if that name is stupid. So, with something like "LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory", if that really is the common name of the conspiracy theory then we would have to keep that name even though the phrase "LGBT chemicals" is obviously nonsense. DanielRigal (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I think these are just grammatical corrections that should not be controversial to correct when they arise. One would hope! I'm content to address these individually and follow RoxySaunders's suggestion if I find this is widespread. Thanks! --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The MOS does not need to give guidance on basic usage like this — avoid instruction creep. If there are a lot of article titles which are wrong, they should be discussed as a centralized WP:Requested move. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 21:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, thank you. An RM impacting multiple pages has the potential to generate robust participation and is a good way to establish and memorialize consensus. I guess I got a little excited seeing this problem in two RMs in a short period of time. If I encounter more one-offs I will raise the issue locally and consider a broader RM if there's a pattern. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act#Requested move 27 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act#Requested move 27 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBTQ in Mexico (disambiguation)#Requested move 9 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBTQ in Mexico (disambiguation)#Requested move 9 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Juno Dawson could use additional input

A user is adamant that Juno Dawson should contain information about a certain article the subject wrote, which was later retracted. Additional input is requested - see Talk:Juno Dawson#2017 Attitude article for more. Sam Walton (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

A message to American trans editors, trans editors generally, and allies

Hey y'all, things are pretty scary right now. In the last few weeks Trump has signed executive orders to ban trans healthcare for minors and legal adults age 18, kick trans people out of the military, and cease all federal policies protecting trans people. The federal government has redefined transgender people as a dangerous ideology and threat to the public who shouldn't have rights. This has been the greatest rollback of transgender rights in the US in recent history and seems to be just the start. It takes place in the context of worldwide organizing to roll back transgender rights and healthcare.

Elon Musk, who's opposition to trans rights is well known and is now part of Trump's administration, and the Heritage Foundation, who created Project 2025 upon which those policies were based, have both taken aim at Wikipedia recently.[1][2]

With that in mind, our honest coverage of transgender history, healthcare, and rights is more important than ever. You're probably organizing mutual aid networks, trying to figure out where/if to flee, and generally trying to deal with all of this IRL. While trans people have faced attempts at memoricide before - attempts to destroy the knowledge of our existence and history[3] - I urge you not to forget Wikipedia's mission. We aim to be the "the sum of all human knowledge".

Every article you write on transgender history or historical figures, every sentence you add on the state of trans rights, every image you add, every little thing you do here to improve the encylopedia matters. Take care of yourselves IRL, but if you can spare the energy, make sure our history isn't unwritten or buried here. We have only 10 articles on transgender history by country[4] and 13 on transgender rights by country[5]. Many of our articles are out of date or huge and unwieldy to read. A huge number lack translations to and from other languages.

All this is to say - if you're unsure of what to do and everything feels hopeless - write. While I'm primarily addressing this to trans editors in the USA, it applies to trans people of all nationalities, of allies of all nationalities. You are not alone. If you ever need help researching or writing, ping this noticeboard or even just me.

Solidarity forever, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

👏👏👏 Well said! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

✊🏳️‍⚧️ –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 23:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

We sure are living in interesting times, I hope everyone is staying safe. Would it be okay if I posted this message (with credit, of course) to social media? It might make some new people consider becoming editors. ForsythiaJo (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Please do! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, seeing lots of gleefully transphobic edits from new/IP editors on top of the usual transphobia I deal with in my watchlist. Funcrunch (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I just saw this. I'm not American, but I find it really strange that a sitting president can instruct a health agency what they can and can't talk about. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It is so disgusting... DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

❤️ --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 06:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Concerns about the impact of new CDC orders

I'm sure many of you, especially the Americans, are aware of these new orders. [6], [7], [8], etc. I'm wondering if any of you will be able to report what is actually happening to both journals and the academics involved. This is pretty scary. I'm also wondering about any possible impact on foreign journals. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:CDC links to "Current disambiguation collaborations" Flounder fillet (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I think Weller means the actual CDC. Historyday01 (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

This renders sources connected to the US federal government by funding and authors connected to the US government by employment unreliable on topics even tangentially connected to sex, gender, and LGBTQ+ people, especially transgender and intersex people. Do we have policies and guidelines that address this in a cohesive manner, or is that a gap we should fill? From a quick search it looks like WP:RSN has experience reviewing sources connected to the Chinese government on issues they censor.--Trystan (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I think this is something that can be appropriately handled by regular editing norms--editors can justifiably challenge the use of new CDC publications for as long as they deviate from what quality, peer-reviewed RS say, and the community can be trusted to rule in favor of the peer-reviewed sources every time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Damn, yes, CDC. Sorry, changed the secion heading. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 15:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Academics merely need to avoid publishing in a U.S.-based journal. There are plenty of reputable journals to choose from in many other countries. For example, Nature can't be touched by Trump. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Advocacy and organization

A Wikimedia Foundation employee representing the advocacy team invited a few people to briefly share what impacts they have experienced as a result of administrative changes. I will describe more, but the action response that I suggest is that if anyone has interest and availability to do community organizing or to recruit someone for the same, then now would be a great time to schedule regular wiki discussion meetings with any group of 5-20 Wikimedians. Part of the point of organizing is to have a network for sharing news and updating each other. I can help and have done this lots before but more would be timely.

WMF Advocacy can speak for themselves. Their public-facing landing page is https://wikimediafoundation.org/advocacy/ and their wiki landing page is meta:Wikimedia_Foundation/Legal/Global_Advocacy. They have a focus that is useful and that I support, but it is not in scope for them to be members of the Wikimedia community or to be able to navigate and interpret Wikimedia community conversations. The ideal situation would be that Wikipedians organized their own conversations on policy, then ranked their own priorities and set their own positions on things. Anyone can start a wiki comunity organization. One-hour online talks are popular, and when those talks result in posted summaries or cross-reported in The Signpost, then non-live participants can develop those more online.

Wikimedia NYC, Wiki WALRUS, Wiki LGBT+ and more meet regularly online, and if someone wanted to affiliate or associate with those, then probably possible, but it would be helpful to have a tempo of monthly/quarterly meetings in place before doing formal affiliation.

As for me, I am a researcher at the School of Data Science at the University of Virginia. Part of what I do is demographics data, mostly to associate research with particular universities in the meta:WikiCite/d:Wikiproject WikiCite project, but demographics means a lot of things. Guidance like this affects my research.

• File:DEI - Division Extremism Ideology - How the Biden-Harris NSF Politicized Science.pdf

I sort research data from the HIV Vaccine Trials Network. I also do projects related to climate change preparedness. Demographics, LGBT+ health, and climate issues are less popular with the new American administration. In Wikipedia that has meant prose content development for environmental science, health, and open technology. In Wikidata that has meant structured data for all these things, especially to match open resources to people to institutions, and surface the open science ecosystem.

I gave my story to the Wikimedia Foundation advocacy team but even at their best with maximal resources they are way over capacity to approach issues in the way that would seem natural to Wikimedia community members. If anyone has their own stories for the WMF Advocacy team, then send them over as you like, as they are requesting brief summaries of a few sentences just to be aware of Wikimedia community impacts. Everyone is also invited to help The Signpost in telling stories. People tell their own stories, and no one will tell them for you. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine FRINGE RFC

There is currently an RFC on whether the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine is WP:FRINGE taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

List of your articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, 2025

Currently, this project has about ~22 articles in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references created via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, you can check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.

These could use some of your attention

1. Andy Warhol
2. Discrimination against LGBTQ+ people in Southeast Asia
3. LGBTQ history in Mexico
4. LGBTQ literature in Spain
5. Medical views of conversion therapy
6. Michelangelo
7. Nickelodeon and LGBT representation
8. North American Man/Boy Love Association
9. One Hundred Years of Homosexuality
10. Sambia Sexual Culture
11. Santa Muerte
12. Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror (poetry collection)
13. Sigmund Freud's views on homosexuality
14. Socialism and LGBTQ rights
15. Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine
16. Tamara de Lempicka
17. Timeline of LGBTQ history
18. Timothy Morton
19. Transgender
20. Varys
21. Virtually Normal
22. Yukio Mishima

If you could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Just fixed ref errors on Nickelodeon and LGBT representation. I got the sources from LGBTQ themes in Western animation which I created late last year. Thanks for posting this! Otherwise, I think this year is the year I should do an overhaul of the Nickelodeon and LGBT representation so it is structured a bit like the Cartoon Network and LGBT representation page, if I have time. Historyday01 (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to strike articles as they get taken care of. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I will. Historyday01 (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Today's Trump executive order on women's sports

The latest Trump executive order affecting trans people was released today, titled Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports. When I went to the redlink I made for this article (after adding it with appropriate citations to Transgender people in sports and 2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States), I noticed that the boilerplate text reads "This page is on the title blacklist, so only administrators, template editors, and page movers can create it." Since this is the actual title of the Executive Order, which has yet to be numbered, can someone with those privileges please either unblock it or create it as a temporary redirect or something? (I don't necessarily want to write the article myself, but it should be written.) Funcrunch (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Funcrunch I had success at Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports. Perhaps the curly quote is the problem. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Aha, that was it. Thanks, I've straightened the quote in the linked articles. Funcrunch (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Gay bathhouse

Gay bathhouse 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) 04:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Eyes requested at Gender-critical feminism

There's a discussion on the talk page of gender-critical feminism which I'd like more eyes on. Loki (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Jules Vaughn

For any Euphoria fans out there, article improvements are welcome at the newly created Jules Vaughn. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)