Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 57

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60

Is Stephen Maglott sufficiently notable?

So many heterosexual journalists have Wikipedia articles. Should we create one about Stephen Maglott? There's a short bio here as well. But so far I can't find obituaries in the mainstream press. Not even on the website of The Advocate (at least not yet).Zigzig20s (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a simply Google News search on "Stephen Maglott" gives basically nothing, so I doubt that there are any reliable secondary sources talking about the person. Unless you can find some good sources, I would strongly advice against it. ~Mable (chat) 14:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
(search link: https://www.google.com/search?q="Stephen+Maglott"&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij1qXpksbOAhUDfRoKHdvCC0QQ_AUICCgB&biw=1536&bih=731 )
  • I also strongly doubt that an article about him would be genuinely viable — the obituary claims only that he was the founder of a Facebook group, which isn't in and of itself adequate notability to pass WP:JOURNALIST, and the Georgia Voice blurb doesn't add any particular evidence of anything stronger, mentioning only that he also worked as a local organizer of a local project and as a constituency assistant to a state legislator. But those aren't roles that are likely to attract enough media coverage to get a person over WP:GNG either. It's remotely possible that improved coverage of him might exist somewhere not indexed by Google News, but not particularly likely. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you that on second thoughts, he's not. I was just asking. I do think we should try to create more article about the LGBTQ press and such journalists, if we can, though.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it homophobic to say gays will be punished by God? (sic)

Closing discussion of misleading canvassing per request. Graham (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I think it's hate speech, but there is a discussion here. Feel free to chip in if you think it's an inclusive and tolerant thing to say, or homophobic. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: canvassing noted, but what do the sources say? WP:OR is still WP:OR regardless of the number of votes one way or another. VQuakr (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It would be canvassing if Zigzig20s said, "Feel free to chip in only if you agree with me", but that's not what OP said, so it seems like an appropriate use of the talkpage of a related project to me though it does seem like a rather unconstructive debate and other editors should probably weigh in on the issues with the article content as opposed to this tangential debate on the talkpage. —PermStrump(talk) 01:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
You may close this topic if you want. Editing Wikipedia about politics is tedious--not worth the aggravation. I will try to focus on historic buildings and formal gardens for a while.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
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.

Transgender task force?

Would anyone be interested in creating a task force for articles on trans and non-binary (and possibly intersex) people and related issues? Trans and non-binary people, as well as many intersex people, have needs and experiences that differ from cisgender lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and others under the LGBT+ umbrella. It seems that there are enough articles in trans-related categories that having a dedicated working group for them would aid efforts to monitor vandalism and improve coverage. Thoughts? Funcrunch (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Great care needs to be taken if attempting to tackle both transgender and intersex issues. Expertise on transgender issues does not translate into any special expertise on intersex issues, yet that is implied by tacking it on. I'm not sure that it is at all helpful to combine them, and I'd prefer to prevent more discussions like this one. There is even a separate Category:Intersex. Trankuility (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Understood, which is why I said possibly and many with respect to intersex. I wouldn't want to include intersex topics in this proposed subcategory without the approval of that community (which I am not a part of). Funcrunch (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I am much more interested in gender-related topics than sexuality-related topics, so this would sound like a good idea. However, I'm not entirely sure what the purpose would be. Keeping statistics would be cool, but we really don't need a separate talk page for gender-topics as we are now. I know there are some unique challenges to writing about trans people, but I don't feel like the current activity level here justifies a split in discussion. When it comes to organizations, magazines, and activists, there is also a good overlap between the two topics. Really what I'm asking is, what really would change if we split? ~Mable (chat) 08:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
A split might make it easier to monitor vandalism and disruptive editing on a subset of pages, for one thing. I'm overwhelmed looking at the watchlists for all LGBT topics, but could more easily review one for just trans articles. Funcrunch (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense. I've never even thought about keeping track of the watchlist of something like this WikiProject, so I can imagine that being a big plus of doing this. ~Mable (chat) 14:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm against it, but I think we should try to create more relevant articles.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Even if there isn't support for trans-specific task force, could we at least create a watchlist and new articles list specifically for trans and non-binary articles? I'd offer to do it myself, but I don't have any experience with bots and could use help. Funcrunch (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Safe Schools Coalition Australia

Hi folks, a user on this page is changing "same sex attracted" (a term used by the Safe Schools Coalition Australia) to "homosexual" on the basis that it is the common term. Is there a policy on this? Diff. thanks. Trankuility (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:EUPHEMISM & MOS:NEO could shed some light on this? I'm not aware of anything else on MOS that might be relevant. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm assuming from the lack of response on this talk page, the article in question's talk page and the other involved editor's talk page, that there are no objections with me replacing "same sex attracted" to "homosexual".
I can understand that some terms become outdated, and other terms are considered offensive by minority sections of society...However we are still using homosexual/heterosexual, gender specific pronouns, and we still refer to people as black
Would gay be a better term to use? I'm just trying to avoid a neologism, when there are perfectly acceptable alternatives available. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
"Homosexual" and "gay" are not strictly synonymous with "same sex attracted". What's the objection against "gay, bisexual, ..."? Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I was under the impression that gay was the preferred term for "same sex attracted" - well either that or LGBT. If there is one commonly used/understood term, then we should be using it, rather than jargon or euphemisms. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
People attracted to the same sex could be gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, or queer (or possibly some other orientation labels). Trans people (the "T" in LGBT) could be any of those things, in addition to straight. "Same sex attracted" is a perfectly reasonable term to use. (And what does referring to people as black, which is also perfectly acceptable, have to do with any of this?) Funcrunch (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I was basing my comments (in particular to the word "gay" - which now, seems more suitable for that article that "homosexual") on the source in the gay article from GLAAD - "Please use gay or lesbian to describe people attracted to members of the same sex." [[1]] - as per my own understanding "gay" covers everything that isn't straight and is generally an inoffensive term.
Oh and why did I mention using the term "black", because while you and I consider it to be acceptable, there are some people who are offended by it. Some people are offended by the term "accident black spot", so I'm sure that some people will take offense to anything. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Having visited the cited source (the subject of the article), it's clear that they use the term "same sex attracted", and your continual attempts to change that wording are bordering on disruptive. I suggest any interested editors continue this discussion on the article talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
They can use any term they want. We aren't quoting them, we use encyclopedic language, not neologisms or euphemisms. That's not disruptive, it's constructive. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hilary Rosen: LGBT advocacy

Hello! I've posted here a couple of times looking for assistance on the Hilary Rosen article. I'm back this time asking specifically about adding a Career subsection dedicated to her LGBT advocacy work, which does not currently exist, as well as expanding the top-level Personal life section a bit. The reason I ask for another editor to review and consider implementing it is because I am working on behalf of Ms. Rosen, as explained in more detail on the article's discussion page. Please see my request there for more information, and please let me know if you have any questions at all. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC -- Shell Park - Oakville

Hello, I am an investigative reporter wishing to add the Shell Park police sting to LGBT sections here and could use some advice about categorizing the matter. It was a police-sting (http://images.halinet.on.ca/OakvilleImages/Images/OI0109567_004.pdf) that sought to out dozens of men who had sex with men in a supposed "cruising" spot in Oakville, Ontario, Canada.LGBTWikipedia (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the question here: are you planning to write a separate Wikipedia article on the sting, and are unsure how it should be labeled in the Wikipedia categorization system? Or do you want to add information on the sting to some other Wikipedia articles, and are unsure of which articles the information might be best suited? --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Low-rent housing for LGBT seniors

Just read this and I think we may need to create an article about Low-rent housing for LGBT seniors. Or possibly, separate articles about specific buildings, like 55 Laguna in San Francisco, California, the John C. Anderson Apartments in Philadelphia, Town Hall Apartments in Chicago. We don't even have an article about LGBT seniors apparently. What do you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, we have a little at Category:Ageing and LGBT topics. But probably not enough?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Also what about John C. Anderson? A city council member but notable in gay history?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems like LGBT ageing is covering the topic of LGBT seniors in such as way that LGBT seniors could possibly be a redirect to it. If you want to create an article specifically for retirement homes for LGBT people, go for it! Be sure to find some good sources on the topic; I'm sure they're there :3 ~Mable (chat) 13:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, a couple of redirects wouldn't hurt. Also, are there similar housing facilities outside the US? Any notable legal cases?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Not that I know of, but I could Google around a bit. I'm curious about it as well. ~Mable (chat) 18:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way to start a draft on this WP and work on it together before we move it to mainspace? I think John C. Anderson Apartments probably has enough references, but I've been the target of relentless AFDs lately and I'd rather create new articles with a few people.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I personally just tend to create userspace pages, à la User:Maplestrip/Arena.xlsm. It may not be the proper way to do it. Wikipedia does have a whole Draft thing going on. You can read everything about draft options through WP:Draft, be they userspace drafts or the draft mainspace. Technically, an article shouldn't be deleted if reliable sources on the topic exist. Are you certain that the article you want to work on meets the general notability guidelines? ~Mable (chat) 13:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I am no longer sure of anything, and rather discouraged. I have moved several articles to mainspace in the mean time. What I am suggesting is that we create a draft together as a team in this WP, and we eventually move it to mainspace. Is that possible? For example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/John C. Anderson Apartments?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think WikiProject pages are usually used in that way, though I'd rather leave that call to someone with more experience than me. I'm sorry you're starting to feel discouraged. In my experience, it's incredibly difficult to get people on board with a project you're working on. Regardless, I suppose you could create a draft on your own subpage (User:Zigzag20s/John C. Anderson Apartments) and link to that on this project's page or talk page. Anyone interested in joining can join. ~Mable (chat) 15:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
That wouldn't be copacetic.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If a userspace draft doesn't work, and a Wikipedia space (WikiProject subpage) doesn't work, then perhaps Draft space is the best option - Draft:John C. Anderson Apartments. With a note here to let everyone know about it. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested in working on this draft with me please?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Cisgender article

A rather large amount of content was recently added to the Cisgender article. Reading through the history of the editor's contributions (Disfasia - pinging as a courtesy) I don't think I want to get involved, but more people should probably look at it. Funcrunch (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


Yes, I added a substantial block of information that is consistantly removed for no reason. There are many articles published on this topic and I have put provided only a handful here. Also, I might add, one cannot claim a term is inoffensive when many of the 50% of the populaiton against whom this term is deemed offensive have spoken out against it. The only contestatory voice is by someone who only objects to this term in a very remote way. The more vociferous critiques are absent. This entry on cisgender is entirely unbalanced and needs to reflect some of the criticism of misogyny and and gender normativity that is presumed by such a turn of phrase (ie. nobody identifies with one gender, much less nobody "has a gender"). The entry speaks for itself. That said, I would like to know that Wikipedia monitors/censors are divided evenly between the two sexes. I am finding the censorphip of women's voices on Wikipedia alarming and reject some of the entries already allowed on this subject.

--Disfasia (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't transclude your talk page here. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
To reply to the issue, your text is simply inaccurate. The term is not "used by certain trans theorists"; it's a common term used by gender scholars. Your edit is rife of what appears to be your own opinion (or at least unsourced opinions of others), for example "Hungerford's critique is crucial to understanding how 'cis' a term intended to level the playing field of trans and non-trans individuals actually erases the difference of what feminist theory views as male privilege and the social oppression resultant of male supremacy." While critiques of the term are not something to preclude, your addition would need major revisions for WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Chad Harris-Crane - featured article candidate

I've nominated the article about the episode Chad Harris-Crane for Featured Article consideration. This article is about a fictional character on the American soap opera Passions. The character made daytime television and soap opera history for participating in the first instance in a soap opera of two men simulating sex, and has also been cited as expanding the representation of LGBT characters of color on daytime television.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chad Harris-Crane/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Intersex and LGBT

Hi people, I'm never sure how much intersex and LGBT issues should overlap, or even if they do at all, but I would welcome some assistance in working through some biographies, and improving other pages. Based on proposed (and cited) additions to List of intersex people, these include Jim Ambrose, Aaron Apps, Lisset Barcellos, Janik Bastien-Charlebois, Max Beck, Eleno de Céspedes, Alessandro Comeni, Holly Greenberry, Thea Hillman, Curtis Hinkle, Shon Klose, Emi Koyama, Ins A Kromminga, Esther Morris Leidolf, Gopi Shankar Madurai, Tebogo Nkoana, A.J. Odasso, Pidgeon Pagonis, Emily Quinn, Michaela Raab, Apostle Darlan Rukih Moses, Daléa Rundblad, Dawn Vago, Ela Xora, and Dana Zzymm.

Similarly, the list of Intersex civil society organizations is short compared to lists available online (example).

I have also just made a suggested name change, from Intersex surgery to Intersex and medicine, per its eponymous Category:Intersex and medicine. More information Talk:Intersex surgery#Proposed name change.

Thanks. Trankuility (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, User:Alison. Trankuility (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The lack of interest doesn't make me very confident about the intended meaning behind the shift in WikiProject scope to "LGBT+". Trankuility (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

LGBT acronym manual of style

Can anyone here list the main discussions for settling the LGBT acronym dispute?

@Castncoot: just moved LGBT culture in New York City to LGBTQ culture in New York City. Stickee reverted, and then Castncoot moved it again. I propose that we revert to status quo and talk it through.

For context - no one is completely happy with LGBT, LGBTQ, or any other ordering or mix of the letters. Lots of people have their own favorite version but we ought to have consensus here in wiki and order to the discussion. What has already been said and done? I presume that most people agree that this should not be argued for each of the many thousands of articles using the term. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, please see: [2]. I don't know about other cases, but in this case, this article involved the merge of the larger LGBTQ Americans in New York City with the smaller and less comprehensive LGBT culture in New York City, which I was fine with but with the intention of keeping the "Q" in the title. Clearly, this is where the title is moving universally, but other articles and locales may not have kept up with NYC, as you see in the cited source. It should remain LGBTQ, and other articles need to be updated. Best, Castncoot (talk)
Castncoot Can you provide more supporting documentation to establish that "Clearly, this is where the title is moving universally"? A mix of high-profile sources from different countries would be useful. Direct commentary from a manual of style addressing the acronym issue would help a lot.
Wikipedia articles typically try to use the same term. A change from LGBT to LGBTQ would mean changes in thousands of articles and many langauges, and is not a light decision. I notice that the filename of the document you provided calls it the "LGBT Directory of services", so I am not sure how confident the authors are. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wonder if we're looking at the same source or link - what I'm seeing says, "LGBTQ Guide of Services and Resources"? Best, Castncoot (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I do see your point overall, however. It's just that when we merged articles, I agreed with the intention of including (at least, at the start) the Q. Castncoot (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
"I agreed with the intention": Thankfully, Wikipedia operates on a consensus basis, not a negotiation basis. There's nothing obvious about the change. The majority of RS use the status-quo title. If a title change is opposed, a RM is needed. Stickee (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The GLAAD media reference guide currently refers to LGBT and GLBT, with no reference to LGBTQ. But a search of their site on the term LGBTQ returns numerous hits, for what it's worth. Funcrunch (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
In my view, the time where a "one size fits all" approach works has passed. Regional and population-specific approaches will differ. The U.S. State Department recently welcomed the establishment of a global Equal Rights Coalition, working on the rights of LGBTI persons,[1] a larger, different acronym that includes a larger, different population. Coalition founding principles. LGBTI is to LGBT as LGBT is to LGB. Reducing LGBTI to LGBT can have significant consequences, as NBC has discovered.[2] Trankuility (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Department Of State. The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs (2016-07-19). "US Welcomes Formation of Equal Rights Coalition". U.S. Department of State.
  2. ^ Compton, Julie (2016-08-10). "Editor's Note From NBC OUT". NBC News.
Interesting. NBC News apparently was being too specific, but the reverse can be problem, too. Applying any broad "acronym" across the board runs the risk of assigning categories to people (e.g., those who object to the 'Q' in "LGBTQ" or "LGBTQI") in ways they find objectionable. It also makes it way too easy to impose anachronisms on historical articles (e.g., calling the Stonewall Inn an LGBT or LGBTQ bar). It probably would be a very good idea to use the narrowest term possible at all times. Such an approach might lead to a greater degree of precision and also would make less work over the long haul when the next letter is tacked on (as it inevitably will be). Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the overall consensus of what I'm seeing here (if I'm understanding correctly) is that a broad, "one-size-fits-all" term across the board can have undesirable consequences and is neither always indicated nor always necessary – that a more narrow, population-specific title can reasonably be used if there is a reasonable basis for it – and that terms should be decided on a case-by-case basis. In the case of the NYC article, clearly both the City itself and the article itself describe the LGBT Q experience. Therefore, I believe the title should be reverted back to that LGBTQ form unless there is a rational consensus against such. Castncoot (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
That's largely the opposite of the consensus. RET argues the Q runs the risk of categorising people who shouldn't be. Stickee (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe that's what he's saying at all – rather, if you read his statement carefully, he's just basically saying, proceed with caution. In this case, the City has defined the supported group of individuals as LGBTQ, the resource guide the City has published is entitled LGBTQ, and both the City and the article detail the LGBTQ experience. These metrics are then what need to be followed, i.e., the article title needs to describe the content that it covers; less relevant would be what other similar articles may cover. The Q is additive and inclusive and not at all restrictive. I think there is reasonable consensus for the Q. Castncoot (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow, they're arguing over what I said? Castncoot and Stickee, you both were partially right about what I meant, but I don't think clarifying my opinion is going to help us find consensus on this. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't like getting assigned the Q... But yeah, if a specific subject is marketed or described as an LGBTQ thing, then that should return in the article. If it isn't, then it shouldn't. There exists no consensus, inside or outside Wikipedia, for what term to use to describe the LGBT community. Adding to the LGBT-acronym just creates a difficulty as to where to set the line. If we add another letter to it across the board, why not add the I as well? And why not add the A as well? It just doesn't work. Either we start using MOGAI and confuse the crap out of all our readers, or we just wait for more information and consensus in the outside world, I say. ~Mable (chat) 10:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm going to interpret your comment to echo what I've been saying all along. I believe there is reasonable consensus now to return the Q to this particular article, that there is no consensus to be achieved for the whole LGBT world, inside or outside Wikipedia. Castncoot (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
No, you have not established a consensus. If you want to spend more time on this please create a project wide RFC and seek out a lot more authoritative sources that can convince editors that to describe American LGBT culture, history, groups or individuals we have to define and add a "Q" to the acronym because LGBTQ is now more commonly accepted in the USA as the default replacement for LGBT. Note that if the change is supported, it would have to be made clear that this only applies to American English in the context of American current culture; it certainly does not apply to other international contexts. By the way, I'm fairly certain there is no common agreement on what the "Q" really means in terms of sexuality, orientation, or indeed the rejection of these things, but I'd be happy to be shown reliable sources that prove me wrong. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Relax, I think you've missed the point here. This doesn't redefine anything, for anybody, or any continent. It's just the appropriate title for a single article describing the content of that article. No need to categorize everything. Castncoot (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to note that I know nothing of the New York article in particular. I honestly have a hard time imagining that the majority of sources discussing LGBT(Q) culture in the city use "LGBTQ" rather than LGBT, especially historically. I was thinking more of specific groups or establishments. What sources are we referring to for the shift in common name? ~Mable (chat) 15:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The use as sourced is additive and inclusive, not restrictive, i.e., "A and/or B", not "the intersection of A and B". Castncoot (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC on how to include information on the impact of a character's death at the The 100 (TV series) article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:The 100 (TV series)#RfC: Should the article mention the national and/or iconic aspect of Lexa's impact?. If you don't mind being spoiled on the character death at hand, please take the time to assess the dispute and weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Drury Hotels and a transwoman of colour

This information is being repeatedly removed from Drury Hotels:

On July 13, 2015, management at a Drury Inn in West Des Moines, Iowa had police arrest hotel guest Meagan Taylor, a trans woman of colour, falsely claiming her to be engaged in prostitution[1] as she and a travel companion were "men dressed like women."[2] Profiling based on race and gender identity is illegal in Iowa. The American Civil Liberties Union intervened before the Iowa Civil Rights Commission,[3] obtaining an out-of-court settlement.[4]

The matter was raised at Talk:Drury Hotels#Whitewashing and a third opinion obtained at WP:3O stated (in part) "That the Meagan Taylor incident was covered internationally shows it is not trivial, especially since Iowa specifically protects the rights of transgender people under its laws. (I will note that on June 29 of this year, the ACLU reported that the case had been settled – see this and this.) Receiving a major award for multiple consecutive years is also not trivial. Therefore, it is my opinion that having been awarded "the J.D. Power and Associates 'Highest in Guest Satisfaction Among Upper Midscale Hotel Chains' award for 11 consecutive years" is fitting for the article in the appropriate section, as is a brief description of the Meagan Taylor incident, given that both would be properly cited. I would admonish the editors not to go into so much detail regarding Meagan Taylor as to give that incident undue weight." Unfortunately, the removal of the content from Wikipedia (and, by extension, the erasure of Meagan Taylor from history as a trans woman of color) continues, despite plenty of WP:RS (those cited, plus [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]).

I'm not sure whether this issue belongs here or at WikiProject Discrimination - this is a racial incident, but there's also the gender identity question. Any input would be appreciated? 66.102.87.210 (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2015/11/10/arrested-transgender-woman-files-complaint-against-wdm-hotel/75508728/
  2. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/transgender-woman-jailed-for-eight-days-files-lawsuit-against-iowa-hotel-a6730841.html
  3. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/10/transgender-woman-jailed-iowa-drury-inn
  4. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/29/transgender-woman-meagan-taylor-iowa-hotel
This probably won't be a popular opinion, but since its a 6k article, just barely not a stub, and the proposed content is about 15% of that size, I think the WP:UNDUE argument is pretty convincing. One counter intuitive option here is to improve the article so that the criticism does not seem so outstanding as it does in an article with basically three paragraphs. TimothyJosephWood 21:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
One could also wonder if the controversy is one of the subject's major claims to notability.. ~Mable (chat) 21:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
That wouldn't surprise me. A US regional chain like Drury usually wouldn't even be on the radar for UK newspapers like the Independent or the Guardian. I've tried cutting this back from three lines of printable text to two to fit this stub of an article (per the WP:3O feedback), but it seems most of the byte count in the paragraph is footnotes, not actual body text. 66.102.87.210 (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
No need to remove any footnotes, of course. In practice, only the characters in the article proper matter. I don't think it needs to be cut back too much anyway. The best solution would of course be to expand the rest of the article, if that is happening. ~Mable (chat) 07:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad and Instaurare: as editors that removed the text above from the article, I would be interested to read any suggestions you have on how to proceed. I agree with the IP editor that the incident is notable and a legal case worth covering on Wikipedia. The best place for this to be covered and how to write about it neutrally are good things to advise on. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, my reasoning is what Tim said above; as such a small article, it seemed out of proportion. Plus, for a chain that's been around since 1973, it's seemed like a case of RECENTISM to have so much of the article be about one incident that appears to be isolated to the one hotel, but the chain as a whole, which is the actual subject of the article. A single case of local bigotry isn't exactly encyclopedia worthy. The trimmed version is better, but as Tim said, it'd be even better if the article was more filled out. oknazevad (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your views. It occurs to me that the notability of the case may be given better context in a different article, one on trans rights/law in the USA, or LGBT history of Iowa; I don't believe these exist right now. In a different context it may not appear to have undue weight, and in a timeline of LGBT milestones for Iowa, there would probably be far less concern about recent events outweighing the rest of the historical context. Should other articles give more detailed content, leaving the entry on this article as a one-liner would then be less of a problem for the casual reader who may wish to read more. --Fæ (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
That would definitely be a solution. ~Mable (chat) 14:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Fæ. There is a Transgender rights in the United States article, but this case (with a local, out-of-court settlement) probably isn't notable enough to include there. Funcrunch (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard#Arbitration request: Deletion of sourced content motivated by personality disagreements

Please see the above linked discussion and consider weighing in. It is about disputes regarding biomedical information at two different articles, and other issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Is shemale porn a correct term?

I would like to ask the question should Shemale porn should be redirected to Transsexual pornography if anyone wants to contribute to the conversation go to Talk:Transsexual pornography. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Wording that implies that all heterosexual, and gay and lesbian people are bisexual or sexually fluid

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Human sexuality#Wording that implies that all heterosexual, and gay and lesbian people are bisexual or sexually fluid. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Jason Graae

Until recently, the Jason Graae article was an unreferenced BLP. I have re-written, expanded, and referenced it. I've also added it to this WikiProject as Jason is gay. I have nominated it for DYK, which requires it not be a stub (which it isn't, though it is currently classed as a stub). Would someone please have a look and do a reassessment? I've made a similar request at the Biography WikiProject but things there seem fairly quiet. Many Thanks, EdChem (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done. See comments on talk. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:LGBT people opposing same-sex marriage

Please join this category discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

African Americans and sexuality

There is currently a discussion at Talk:African Americans which may be of interest to this project. TimothyJosephWood 12:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Domestic violence in same-sex relationships

Hello, I've been working on creating and editing the article Domestic violence in same-sex relationships and I was wondering if it could get added to this project's list of pages, be classified as important, etc. etc. I would also love any feedback and suggestions for improving the article, as well as any sources you may have on the topic. Thank you! Kmwebber (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Kmwebber

Chad Harris-Crane - featured article candidate

I've nominated the article about the episode Chad Harris-Crane for Featured Article consideration. This article is about a fictional character on the American soap opera Passions. The character made daytime television and soap opera history for participating in the first instance in a soap opera of two men simulating sex, and has also been cited as expanding the representation of LGBT characters of color on daytime television.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chad Harris-Crane/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Witch-hunt

Hi. Should we add some referenced content to the "figurative usage" subsection of Witch-hunt please? Is anyone able to find the right sources? There must be research about this. I do believe witch-hunts are part and parcel of the LGBTQ experience, don't you?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

What's "the LGBTQ experience"? Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I assume Zigzag simply means that 'witch hunt' is used often in a figurative sense with relation to LGBT topics ^_^; A quick Google search confirms this, though I suppose we should probably have a source commenting upon this usage of language rather than sources using language in this manner. ~Mable (chat) 12:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I agree. But the relevant instances are so varied in terms of time, place, and specific target, and the life experiences of the several elements of the LGBTQ population so diverse, that I'd be cautious about making generalizations. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree. ~Mable (chat) 10:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Moving "crossdresser" out of Gender Identities on Template:LGBT

Hello,

At Template talk:LGBT I have proposed that Crossdresser be moved out of the section on gender identities and into the section on Culture, where drag queen and drag king already appear. The reason: "crossdressing is an action, sometimes even a profession, or habit, but not a statement about a person's gender. People might identify as crossdressers the same way they identify as a political activist, but being a crossdresser or a political activist says nothing about your gender. On the other hand, being a trans woman, a cis woman, a non-binary person, etc., is a clear statement of gender identity." A crossdresser can be (and usually is) a cis man, but can also be a cis woman, a non-binary person, or even a trans person crossdressing as their assigned sex.

User:Flyer22 Reborn has suggested I ask WP:LGBT to weigh in, so hopefully I am doing so in the right place. Jan sewi (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed move of Intersex surgery to Intersex medical interventions

Following earlier discussion and subsequent changes to the Intersex surgery page, including the WP:SPLIT of some content from Intersex, I have proposed that Intersex surgery move to Intersex medical interventions. Comments are welcome at Talk:Intersex surgery#Requested move 29 October 2016. Trankuility (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

LBGTQ newspapers

See current discussion at WP:RSN#LBGTQ newspapers – please comment there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I left a comment.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Donna Brazile

Would any project members care to discuss the best wording for the Donna Brazile article regarding her LGBT advocacy and sexual orientation? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

There's a deletion discussion relevant for this project at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT characters in video games. Your comments are appreciated. Diego (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Carolin Emcke

I put her under this project, or is there something more fitting, such as LGBT rights? Please just change then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProjects seem to be in order. The female German journalist wrote a book on her homosexuality. ~Mable (chat) 13:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Pronoun and name issue

The author of Pictures for Sad Children seems to be coming out as transgender (or rather, agender, it seems?). The whole situation is a big mess, and I hope someone here might have a better idea for how the author can confirm their identity. They seem rather shaken up about the current situation, if anything. Here is a link. Please help.. ~Mable (chat) 05:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I posted to try to assist! Thanks for sharing the notice. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
No, thank you for being able to communicate this information so clearly ^_^ I'm afraid the user has left the discussion, however, so they might never see it. ~Mable (chat) 17:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Update

@Maplestrip: I collected evidence that this person did a name change and documented that in WP:OTRS and on that article's talk page. I then edited the Wikipedia article to reflect the name change. I would appreciate if anyone could review what I did and comment on it. Please see at Talk:Pictures_for_Sad_Children#Name_change_and_pronoun_change. Also, sometime soon perhaps we should organize broader conversation about how we should address this issue when it arises. There is no clear guideline and this situation is happening regularly. We should decide what is appropriate to do and draft instructions. I did one thing, but there are other ways this could have been handled and it would be useful to get feedback from others about whether anything should have happened differently. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This whole situation is pretty bad, but thank you for the work you put into it. I agree that guidelines for this situation would be optimal. I am imagining a page that describes the actions a public figure can go through when they transition and an explanation of how Wikipedia handles these things (such as how in this case, Graves' name at the time is still present in the article, as that was what she was known as). Perhaps even just an essay to refer to would be perfect for this. ~Mable (chat) 10:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Further issue

This article currently contains original research, including citations of self-published and primary sources. The article creates a narrative based on postings to social media websites. Instead, Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of what is published in third-party reliable sources. In the article, someone had a personal problem, and currently I feel that the Wikipedia article is going deeper than it should into self-published sources. If anyone would check the article, remove what is inappropriate, and clarify the sources which do give a journalist's perspective, then that would be helpful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota

Hello all,


I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.


If you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us, please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.


Thank you, Bowen Bobo.03 (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of an academic source re LGTB characters

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#LGBTQ Video Game Archive about an academic source for LGBTQueer characters in video games. Opinions are welcome regarding their reliability as a source for video game articles. Diego (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternate title for Michel Foucault's Surveiller et punir

At Talk:Discipline_and_Punish#Crime_and_Punishment_.3F, I have sought opinions regarding possible alternate translations for the title of Michel Foucault's Surveiller et punir. I encountered someone who felt it was known as Crime and Punishment rather than Discipline and Punish. Should we have a redirect at Crime and Punishment? Please comment there if you have an opinion on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments

Comments welcome on Talk:Sexual orientation‎ regarding a draft submitted to WP:AfC which significantly overlaps with a section of this article. TimothyJosephWood 15:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Rose Venkatesan (Round 2)

Hello, a minor edit war is flaring up regarding whether or not to include the birth name of transgendered TV personality Rose Venkatesan in her article. This has been discussed here before, but no firm consensus had been established. If you have the time, it would be great if you could weigh in on the article's talk page (even if you don't feel the same as I do). Thank you, GentlemanGhost (converse) 04:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos's alleged transphobia

Hello. I see at least two third-party sources about Milo's alleged transphobia, both here and here. I cannot tell if he is being camp and making fun of transphobes, however. I see him as a (camp) performance artist more than a journalist, and I think it may be wise to discuss this together here first. What should we add to the article please?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

If the quotes I read in The Advocate piece are accurate, this speech is clearly trans-antagonistic, not "camp" humor. I didn't read the other link because the first one was triggering enough. (I am trans, for the record.) Funcrunch (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I hear you. The thing is I don't know if he is making fun of transphobes by pretending to be one on the stage. That would be camp. Both articles seem to take him at his word though.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Considering Milo's history of antagonizing marginalized people, I would indeed take him at his word. Funcrunch (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
There would be some truth to the idea that he's more of a performance artist than a journalist — if there's one thing what he does definitely isn't, it's "journalism" — but that description doesn't inherently imply that he doesn't mean any of what he says. Performance art doesn't inherently have to be "campy" or "ironic", after all — performance art can be a real statement of the artist's real views on things, and I just don't see a lot of evidence that his statements could be taken as more of an attack on transphobia than on trans people. Is there some substantial evidence that he's actually more trans-positive than his public statements would suggest, or are you just guessing at ways in which he might not really be as vile as he sounds? Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I have a hard time believing that a gay man like Milo could be transphobic, so I tend to think he must be playing a character and he doesn't mean it. However, he could be clueless, too. What worries me is that I don't want his page to become an attack page--this could set a precedent for other pages about gay men who say outrageous things.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Cisgender gay people can absolutely be just as trans-antagonistic as cisgender straight people. I know this from personal experience (which I know is not relevant to the article, but this is a talk page). Funcrunch (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I could also show plenty of sources of cisgender lesbians being trans-antagonistic; this isn't just about gay men. Funcrunch (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Regardless, I tend to agree with User:Fæ: perhaps we should simply relay the information that's been published by The Advocate and Pink News. I wonder if User:Bearcat could add it, as it is controversial and they are an admin. Should we try to reach consensus on a couple of sentences here first though?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I do still think they may be taking him too seriously though. But perhaps we shouldn't worry about that, especially if we say, "The Advocate and Pink News, two LGBT publications, have expressed concerns over the transphobic content of his speeches." What do you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
By the way, User:Funcrunch, why do you use the term "trans-antagonistic" instead of "transphobic"?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I prefer "trans-antagonism" to "transphobia" because not all oppression of trans people is rooted in fear (phobia). Also, some consider the terms "transphobic" and "homophobic" to be ableist. Funcrunch (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Who does? Sorry, slightly off topic, but I have never heard this. I've seen "homophobic" and "transphobic" in countless LGBTQ Studies journals and books.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
It's an emotive issue for many editors, so whatever is done should be done with care. In line with policy, it would be reasonable to add the fact of what reliable sources say, i.e., these multiple sources make the allegation of transphobia, or perhaps they effectively allege that he's being disruptive on the issue of transphobia, but we cannot say that Milo is transphobic unless Milo makes that self-identification in an interview. I would put both Pink News and The Advocate down as perfectly good reliable sources, though even better if the story has been picked up in "non-LGBT" related press. Saying something about it on the article talk page makes sense, no doubt you were planning on doing that. --Fæ (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I actually don't plan to add anything to the article talkpage or the article itself until we've reached consensus here, because I don't want to be dragged into endless Wikidrama. I think it is more productive if we decide what to do here first. You are welcome to discuss it directly on the article talkpage if you have the energy for it, though. Why do you think non-LGBT sources would be better by the way? (This is slightly off topic, but I don't think our sourcing needs to be heteronormative.)Zigzig20s (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The last thing I'd want to do is encourage heteronormativity. I was suggesting that in addition to LGBT+ related press, it would be good to have some alternatives. Sometimes the only place a news item can be found is the LGBT+ press, it depends on context and the potential for bias whether that can still be considered encyclopaedic. To draw a comparison, if parts of a biography article about a politician were all from traditionally left-wing leaning press, this can be legitimately challenged for bias especially if the sources were being used for their editorial content rather than neutral facts.
@Zigzig20s: A brief check of LexisNexis, which is very good for tracking down sources not published online, finds the following (I only scanned the results, drop me an email if you would like a PDF dump of the full list for research):
  • The Eagle: American University; April 23, 2016 Saturday; Milo Yiannopoulos greets polarized campus at Young Americans for Liberty event; quote: "Titled "Say NO to Milo," the Facebook event called for students to protest Yiannopoulos' "deliberate expressions of transphobia, racism, and rape-apology." Leibowitz said.
  • Emory Wheel: Emory University; April 13, 2016 Wednesday; Yiannopoulos Will Bring Hate, Not Insight, to Emory; quote: In the same article, he consistently refers to trans-women using slurs, cites a study of trans-women being forced into prostitution as evidence that they're more likely to be "criminals," claims they're really just gay men and claims that transphobia is "fueled mostly by theatrics from the uptight trans lobby."
  • The Times (London): October 9, 2015 Friday; Provocateurs banned from university debate on free speech; quote: A later statement from the executive committee of the union said it would be extending the ban to Mr Yiannopoulos, a commentator on the American website Breitbart, after being made aware of his "derogatory and debasing ableist language when describing members of the trans community".
--Fæ (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I think we could/should cite The Times, not the campus newspapers though.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Archive copy of The Times article, from a Facebook post. --Fæ (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. On second thoughts, it looks like it's a direct quote from the student union at the University of Manchester. I don't think we can cite a student union representative (who is just a student).Zigzig20s (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Just for general background on what Yiannopoulos might or might not be up to, this feature article may be helpful. It doesn't answer the question, but it might provide a little insight. And Bearcat is correct; the word "journalist" does not apply. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As long as there aren't any sources that describe Yiannopoulos' speeches as a parody of the alt-right movement, I see no reason to suggest such a thing in his article here. The proposed text below is good, but I don't think there would be any issue in simply calling his speeches anti-transgender in some manner as a fact. ~Mable (chat) 11:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed text

"The Advocate and Pink News, two LGBT publications, have expressed concerns over the transphobic content of his speeches.".Zigzig20s (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem with it. I have gone through the sources in LexisNexis and my impression is that the reports are confirming his shock jock tactics to get social media attention by offending as many people as possible, of which targeting transexuals is one part, but nothing to confirm whether he actually believes in the stuff he puts out. The Bloomberg piece linked above is useful background, and his own words during an interview on Channel 4 give good insight, as transcribed by the Sunday Herald on 20th November:
In an interview on Channel 4 last week he was challenged over telling offended women to log off the internet and saying mass Muslim immigration must stop or it will result in "rape culture".
In response he said: "I delight in offending people. I think that the grievance brigade, victimhood - the idea that feelings are some kind of special currency - I think that needs to come to an end. And America agrees."
He went on: "America has been ruled for 30 years by people who are too worried about what other people feel, not what other people think. And too worried about feelings versus facts.
"For decades, America has been run by the grievance brigade, by social justice warriors, handwringers, feminists, Black Lives Matter. All these groups are preoccupied with feelings first and facts later. They spread conspiracy theories and propaganda about the wage gap, campus rape culture. This stuff isn't real."
It's a shame to attract any more attention to this (as the sources show) remarkably shallow person, but that's a separate issue of good taste, which Wikipedia has no guidelines for... --Fæ (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that simple sentences, absent quotes with good citations are the perfect way to go from a moral standpoint. It also happens to be a very viable method of providing verifiable information to WP readers. I think the proposed text above is good. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Yiannopoulos is targeting marginalized groups specifically with his speech. Whether he "believes" everything he's saying or not isn't relevant unless he has explicitly disavowed his statements, which he clearly has not (unless someone provides a source saying otherwise). What's relevant for Wikipedia purposes is what has been reported in reliable sources, and if those sources report that people have described Yiannopoulos as transphobic then that's fair game to include here. Funcrunch (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
There appears to be consensus to include the proposed text. User:Bearcat, since you're an administrator and this is somewhat controversial, would you mind adding it please?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Here, yes. But this proposal is conspicuously absent from Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos. I'm placing a notification there, to see if any objections spring up. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Why don't we just add it now and if someone else objects, we can discuss it further? How much consensus do we need? I feel like this may never end.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It seemed like you wanted to take it slow and cautiously, but I don't have any objection to that; WP:BRD and all. Want me to add it? I don't mind getting reverted if anyone objects. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Text as proposed is not appropriate; it states, in Wikipedia's voice, that Yiannopoulos' speeches contain "transphobic content"; this needs to be attributed and couched in the voice of the source. Suggest: "The Advocate and Pink News, two LGBT publications, have expressed concerns over the content of his speeches, describing itthem as transphobic." or similar. I also note that a significant proportion of the discussion above is firmly on the wrong side of both WP:FORUM & WP:BLP; and that it would have better taken place on the article Talk page than here. Editors are reminded of their responsibilities in respect of these policies, and that these extend to all topics & all living persons. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC) edited Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Um... No, it doesn't. You should probably read the proposed text at the beginning of this subsection again. It clearly uses source voice. As for whether the content was actually transphobic, it'd take a pretty bizarre interpretation of it to argue that it wasn't. Did you read the sources? Also, did you read the comment where I said I put a notice on the article talk page? Or did you read the notification on the talk page? I'm a little confused how any intelligent person could come up with the complaints you just made. They're bizarre and bear little relationship to what has actually been said or taken place. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully, you should read the proposed text at the beginning of this subsection again. It clearly does imply that the content is factually transphobic, something which we cannot do based on opinion sources, such as these are. You should also try harder to focus on content and to direct your comments towards it, rather than commenting on other editors. Your article talk page comment brought me here (although I have posted to this project page previously) and I thanked you for it; but the existence of that talk page post, at this late stage, does not alter that this discussion would have been better to have taken place wholly there, not here. Confusion as to how intelligent persons operate is, respectfully, your challenge to bear, not mine. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I mean, The Advocate says he referred to transgender people as "mentally ill". I don't think anybody could describe this speech act as not transphobic.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
No person, WIkipedian or otherwise, is requested to describe this speech act as not transphobic. And it really does not matter whether we, Randy from Boise or the man on the Clapham Bus, consider that it is transphobic. What does matter, by multiple policies (including WP:V, WP:NPOV) is that we are required to attribute opinions, and these sources are clearly opining that the content of Yiannopoulos' speeches is transphobic; they are not verifying it as fact. Nor are our own interpretations of those speeches, or our agreement with those opinions, relevant. The change I have proposed is a simple one (which does not dilute the message or proclude inclusion of the opinions), but it also a necessary one, as it does the align the inclusion with policy.
Our standard on attributing opinion is that we do not even state as fact that "Genocide is evil". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully, intelligent behavior does not confuse me. That was implied in my post, though you may not have caught it. Bizarre behavior confuses me, and your objections are bizarre.
You have complained that editors at the article were left out, after thanking me for notifying editors at the article about this discussion. Then you brush off the fact that you knew you had been invited by implying that the discussion was over and the proposal set in stone. This is, of course, despite participating in the ongoing discussion whose existence you implicitly deny.
You have asserted that a description of something given by two reliable sources, which is easily verifiable through those sources (or any other source of excerpts from these speeches) is wrong because... Well, you haven't given any reason why it's wrong. You simply assert that it is, or perhaps that it's unverifiable, despite the easily and previously established fact that it is not. You've accused the proposed text of using wikivoice when the subjects of that text are clearly the two sources, and used your own insistence to justify this.
Your whole argument is predicated upon the insistence that a speech denigrating transgendered people by making verifiably false claims about them cannot be described as transphobic because... reasons? Because you say so? You have yet to give any explanation of why that might be.
Finally, WP:YESPOV refers to opinions, and explicitly includes the advice "Avoid stating facts as opinions. ". However, 'transphobic' is both a well-understood and well-defined term. It is a term which includes the making of verifiably false claims denigrating trangendered people by definition, in the most literal sense. "Genocide is evil" is a moral judgement, and thus an opinion. It is subjective. Whether or not Milo's words were transphobic is not. Even if it were a judgement, it's attribution is clearly to the sources, which are -once again- the subject of that sentence. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Almost every statement in the comment above is a personally directed misrepresentation of what I have said, and as such is rejected outright.
You have complained that editors at the article were left out - false; no complaint was made, I asserted that the discussion would have been better held at the article talk page.
implying that the discussion was over and the proposal set in stone - false; no such assertion was made.
discussion whose existence you implicitly deny - false; no such assertion was made.
You have asserted that a description of something given by two reliable sources, which is easily verifiable through those sources (or any other source of excerpts from these speeches) is wrong - false; I have not asserted that the writers in The Advocate or PinkNews are "wrong", I have asserted that their statements are, for Wikipedia's purposes, opinions. I further assert that, for Wikipedia's purposes, they are biased sources (in much the same way as Yiannopoulos would be for any of his opinions). I further assert that a Wikipedian interpretation based on the speeches themselves would be original research.
You simply assert that it is, or perhaps that it's unverifiable - false; no such assertion was made. I assert that, on this point, the sources verify the authors' opinions.
Your whole argument is predicated upon the insistence that a speech denigrating transgendered people by making verifiably false claims about them cannot be described as transphobic - false; no such assertion was made, and I reject such scurrilousness wholeheartedly and unequivocally.
Less generous minds would question whether such misunderstanding is wilful. I do not; but Hanlon's razor has clearly needed to be sharpened this day.
Misunderstanding of comment is at times inevitable, but editors who find it a common occurrence are advised to read carefully, and to not read more than is written; and are reminded that misrepresentation of other editor's comments and straw manning is deeply incivil.- Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

If it makes anyone feel better, various non-LGBT RSes have described the subject as "anti-transgender". Not that there's anything whatsoever wrong with LGBT RSes, of course, but if part of the dispute here involves the term "transphobic", using "anti-transgender" instead (or simply "anti-trans") might be a workable compromise. Not that there's anything whatsoever wrong with the term "transphobic" either, of course—in fact, it's arguably more descriptive—but Wikipedia wording disputes being what they are . . . well, it's a thought. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) (veteran of the lengthy battles at Talk:Homophobia) 08:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Rivertorch's Evil Twin, I thank you for the kind suggestion; there is no objection to either these sources or to the use of transphobic, as that is the term used by those sources. The objection is to couching this term in Wikipedia's voice, which I believe is done by the proposed text. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I find this disturbing. Why should LGBT newspapers be treated as second-class sources?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
They shouldn't, and I find it disturbing, too. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe that any editor has suggested or implied that LGBT newspapers should be treated as second-class sources. They should clearly be treated in accordance with Wikipedia's policies & guidelines; the same as any other source. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
You called them, "biased sources". Why?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I did. But this is neither pejorative nor criticism; it is simply acknowledgement that both journals are engaged in advocacy journalism (PinkNews explicitly so[10], The Advocate by history & content), and acknowledgement of the fine work that they do in their advocacy on LGBT issues & of LGBT rights. "Biased" is, unfortunately, Wikipedia's term of art for this; if it is helpful, please substitute advocacy sources. Note: I am happy to expand on this further on my Talk page should you wish. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ryk72:, there is a fair informal consensus here for the proposed text, with yourself as the lone objector but raising a lot of words on the subject in a very short time, some criticising some of the contributions here. This noticeboard is seen by many users as a safe space for LGBT+ related discussion, and a way to attract opinions from those with a lot of knowledge on LGBT issues; it's a good thing. Keep in mind that many of the contributors here have a lot of experience as Wikipedians, so can be expected to be highly aware of policies such as bias and reliable sources, some of us even helping to originally create those policies. I suggest you consider raising a !vote for the proposed text on the article talk page. This will avoid the process becoming unnecessarily adversarial, and provide a collegiate way to reach a formal consensus. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Fæ, I acknowledge that I am critical that this discussion is held here, rather than at the subject article's Talk page, and I am critical of the sections of discussion which discuss (and disparage) that subject as a topic; policy requires me to be critical, and this would be true of any subject so discussed. I do not believe that I have made any more general criticisms. I also acknowledge, respect and am profoundly aligned to the goals and scope of this WikiProject; which I believe reinforce that this is a sub-optimal venue for individual article content discussions such as this. I would hope that we would both recognise within the community of those with a lot of knowledge on LGBT issues a diversity of experience and a diversity of thought, and would respect that diversity. I am certain that we do not suggest that a failure to agree on all points is a failure to understand.
I thank you for the kind, and wise, suggestion that an RfC be raised, and concur. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

As per the polite request from Ryk72 on my talk page, I have gone ahead and created a !vote for the proposed text at Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos#Off-page_discussion. I suggest we avoid re-opening discussions already covered here, please cross-reference them, but new points and issues may be relevant to add to the article talk page. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

  • @Ryk72: I have read your response, and your claims have simply become more convoluted as you attempts to explain away the original convolutions. This is not the hallmark of a well-considered but misunderstood argument. Rather, it is indicative of an argument that will be maintained against all reason and logic. Given that and the unambiguous personal attack made via your reference to Hanlon's razor, I think it should be apparent that there's little to be gained from trying to convince you of anything. Thus far, I have found your objections to be adequately refuted by a reading of WP policy, the sources and the proposed text. Everything I and anyone else has said in response is only additional confirmation that you aren't trying to improve the article, but trying to whitewash the criticism. Therefore, I think you will understand if I (and apparently, the other editors here) look to others for their thoughts, and set yours aside. If you don't, well, I'm sorry. That's not something I can help you with. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I reject your assertion of adequate refutation as being wholly without merit; based as as it is on straw men; and I reject the assertion that a general support for inclusion of the content, but proposing alternate text ... expressed concerns over the content of his speeches, describing them as transphobic. in place of ... expressed concerns over the transphobic content of his speeches. is whitewashing. An assumption of misunderstanding over misrepresentation is not a personal attack. I do not, however, believe that anything positive will be gained by any further discussion between you and I in this location. Please feel free to continue the discussion at either your Talk page or mine. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Ryk72, reject away. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

West Virginia University incident

There's a new incident with Yiannopoulos, a gay professor, the LGBT center and the Mormon university chancellor at West Virginia University:

His article talkpage appears to be a mousetrap, so I am posting this here first. I guess it could be added to the section about his tour, and possibly in Gordon Gee's article.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding an importance scale

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment

I would like to add an importance scale.--Lava03 (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Criticism section on Everyday Feminism

An editor just added a large "Criticism and controversies" section to Everyday Feminism, mostly centered on issues concerning trans women. I think the edits are unbalancing, probably NPOV-violating, and borderline (if not overtly) trans-antagonistic, but as I created the article I'd like other editors to weigh in on it. Funcrunch (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I share many of your concerns, and have opened a discussion on the article Talk page. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 57 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on mention of LGBT victims of Oakland fire

There's a discussion on the page for the Oakland warehouse fire over the inclusion of content relating to LGBT+ victims. Input welcome. Funcrunch (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

State legislators

I know everybody's a little spooked by The Main Headline right now, but if anybody's looking to help out with something productive and distracting, here's the list of new LGBT state legislators elected on Tuesday night, according to the Victory Fund, who don't have Wikipedia articles yet:

I note, encouragingly, that several of them are people of colour. There's also one other one that I'll be tackling myself, because there was a premature campaign brochure about him AFDed earlier this year which I'm going to restore and update. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. While we're at it, we may want to add more in-line references to Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and get rid of the ugly tag.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I've created Nelson Araujo, but I haven't added Category:LGBT state legislators in Nevada yet because even though he has a page on the Victory Fund website, I haven't found a reference saying he is gay. Is there a newspaper article we could cite please?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I have stumbled upon Diversity in the Nevada Legislature, whose talkpage has our WP tag, and it looks racist and potentially homophobic to me. It's not "diverse" to be African-American or Asian or gay; it's just normal. Should we not get it deleted?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The title may certainly need discussion, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with the existence of a list or anything specifically homophobic or racist about its actual content — for all the progress that has been made over my lifetime, we do still live in a culture where many groups (people of colour, LGBTs, women) are still significantly underrepresented in politics, so there is some research value in grouping the ones who have broken through the barriers. "Diversity", of course, is a buzzword which means "anybody other than straight white men", and is perceived by some people as ideologically loaded with assumptions about affirmative action, so it may not be the best title for such lists, but I'm not sure I see the content as inherently invalid. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Update for Transgender health care

Hi everyone! I have been working on the Transgender health care article and believe that it has improved beyond a Start-class article. I would love to have people take a look at the article and let me know what they think! Brookeenglish (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Charles Butler (author) transgender?

The author's most recent books are listed as by "Catherine Butler", and other evidence supports the hypothesis that this is more than a pseudonym. I'm evidently not the first to suspect this: The last paragraph of the article says

Butler is the sibling of Martin Butler and the grandchild of Montagu C. Butler.

I don't think I've ever seen these gender-neutral kinship terms used on Wikipedia before with reference to a specific individual (as opposed to someone's "siblings" and "grandchild(ren)").

But putting this in the article without reliable evidence would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS, and especially inadmissible under WP:BLP. I've listed my observations on the Talk page there, at Talk:Charles Butler (author)#Gender transition?, for anyone who wants to take this up.

--Thnidu (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

After some helpful input from Bearcat on the Talk page, I've added a section "Personal" to the article containing the best refs, and moved the page to Catherine Butler. --Thnidu (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This seems to be something we could really use a primary source (Catherine herself, as I'm presuming the "transitioning" theory is correct) on. We don't need to put it in wiki voice, but an archived tweet or FB status supporting something like "According to a tweet by Catherine, she is currently transitioning from male to female." would be nice, and would allow us to clear up which pronouns to use. Does anyone with twitter feel presumptuous enough to ask her? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
No need, we've found some written sources in which Butler identifies as transgender. There is a bit of an open question about whether Butler's pronoun preferences are female or gender-neutral ones, but the basic identity issue issue of whether Butler is transgender has been covered off. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Absent any indication, I think we should stick with the apparent gender, then (female). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBTQ%2B_studies/Archive_57&oldid=1249345080"