Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Lead image for Chelsea Manning

There's a perennial conversation on the talk page for Chelsea Manning about the lead image. Currently it's this image, which is a photo taken pre-transition. From time to time, someone suggests changing it to this image, which she currently uses on twitter and when writing for the Guardian. Both are in the public domain. Since photography is not allowed where she is being held, this is the closest thing to a high-quality image of a post-transition Chelsea Manning that we are likely to get.

No other WP:BLP of a trans woman leads with a pre-transition image of that person, and per MOS:IDENTITY, I think there's a strong case for leading with an image that accurately represents Manning's gender identity. The thing that brought me to this in the first place is that in search results, the primary image from Wikipedia illustrates the subject, and having a pre-transition image next to an article about a trans woman felt very disrespectful. Four months ago I tried to make this case; the response then was to keep the status quo. This week someone else brought it up, and there's a discussion going on about it on the talk page. I thought it would be wise to bring it to the attention of WT:LGBT since you're more seasoned editors who might be able to offer a more informed perspective than me. Joeycastillo (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I definitely see your point with using a post-transition photo, but is there precedent for using a drawing as the lead image? Would readers find it strange? Bali88 (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

We certainly use artwork for leads on people for whom no photo exists (individuals who predate photography, for example). However, it looks to me that in the understandable goal of supporting "depict them by their gender image" default, Manning is being treated as a presumed statistic, rather than an individual. The gender portions of MOS:IDENTITY are designed to avoid damage to the subject; the message we received from her lawyer makes it clear that she does not consider this damaging. (That guideline also notes that identifying them in context by their prior perceived gender is acceptable if the subject has indicated such a preference, and again the lawyer letter indicates that.) Were we to have an appropriate post-transition photo, then there would be arguments to be made on both sides (do we depict the subject as they are now, or as they were at their time of the source of their notability?) However, the inherently imaginative work of a drawing versus the genuine if composed capture of a photographic image tilts the situation heavily to one side. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I strongly support using the post-transition drawing. Drawings and photos are both attempt to depict reality, and it could be argued that photographs because they are an attempt to replicate reality, are also fictions in the way drawings are. Regardless of that technicality, I think we should use the image that corresponds with the current identity of a person, that's why I've always supported images that reflect the subject of biography's age even if there are higher res. etc. photos available. OR drohowa (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I recommended on the biography talk page that an RfC would be the best way forward and no one has suggested an alternative. As the policy is not clear-cut when it comes to balancing encyclopaedic/technical accuracy and the ethical respect for self-identity, I suggest anyone with a strong view help out with getting the RfC written and proposed in the normal way. --Fæ (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Need some help here

Resolved

We have an editor copy and pasting from Wikipedia age of consent info to all the LGBT country articles as seem here. We have 2 problems with the edits ...firstly ...Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given. Secondly I personally don't see how age of consent has to do with LGBT rights...let alone be the first thing people see on the pages inquestion. I simply dont have the time to fix all of them...did alot..but would like some help...pls see Contributions AlexMota300 -- Moxy (talk)

Update....I just used my rollback feature ...I hope thats ok as per Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback " revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor)" -- Moxy (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Age of consent is of interest when a jurisdiction sets different ages for same-sex vs. different-sex interactions. Otherwise not. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You are correct....but the cut and paste spaming of laws in there entirety that took place did not look to see if that info was already covered...as it is in many cases. -- Moxy (talk)

LGBT in Egypt

See:

• Saul, Heather. "Egypt condemned for upholding right to deport gay foreign nationals after court bans Libyan national accused of homosexuality re-entry" (Archive). The Independent. Thursday 16 April 2015.

Is anyone interested in exploring this subject further? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Ali Muhammad Brown 4 murder, 2 LGBT murder spree disruptively tagged

Ali Muhammad Brown is the prime suspect in a series of 4 murders including 2 LGBT who were lured on Grindr, he has told authorities he was motivated by vengeance for wars in the middle east and his religion, which would be a case of Islamists specifically targeting LGBT as a cover story for the actual anti-American terrorism motive, like targeting other groups such as Jewish or racial minorities. His story has been covered over the span of decades from a terrorism related fraud case to solving the case over the course of several months in 2014. The tags claim that Seattle and New Jersey media and CNN are not reliable, that a case of 4 murders and a fraud case over decades is not notable, and therefore the article is simply original research. Bachcell (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest raising the issue for discussion on the article's talk page, so that the other editors involved have a chance to explain their concerns. There does seem to be a case of WP:OVERTAGGING given the redundancy of the tags used, but, much more significantly, there are serious sourcing issues with that article.--Trystan (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

LGBT history in

I think this series of articles is little known. Most states are in need of a caring editor. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Unable to add username to active member list

Hi. I was trying to add my username to the active members list but in edit mode it only allows you to add to the inactive members list, which it says people are moved to after 6 months of inactivity. It is not showing any input area for active members, only for inactive, it says "if you add your name here you are adding to the inactive list, please scroll up for the active section" but there is nothing at the top, only the start of the inactive section and this is reached by clicking the 'edit' link on the active section and also by clicking the "add your name to the list" main link. In fact as far as I can tell all links are taking you to the inactive section only. It says at the top that all are welcome to join and I wish to join, but it seems something in the formatting of this page prevents people from adding their names to the relevant section which means people are currently unable to join and contribute. Am I doing something wrong, or has the page been compromised? Thanks. Taurusthecat (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I had the same problem you did when working from an iPhone. Then using Firefox on a laptop, no problem at all. You can also access the Members file directly here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou so much for your help. Taurusthecat (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

For anyone interested: the problem was s sloppy edit by someone trying to add a user to the members list. That update added text in front of a heading (like this: junk==Members==), so the heading could not be recognized. I've cleaned that up. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Gay cover album reference on LGBT music page is being deleted by an editor with no understanding of it's relevance to the gay community and I am unable to maintain this entry without assistance

See Talk:LGBT music

Extended content

I need some help. Before I continue, I will disclose that I am the artist in question. Ok, I went to the LGBT music page and saw that it was pretty empty, there is not much on it, references to some people but little in the way of any real information and on the talk page, the person who created the page even stated that they did not have much knowledge of LGBT music. All up the page is pretty empty and anyone searching for answers on LGBT music on Wikipedia will be pretty disappointed with what they find, but more importantly they will get the impression that not much has been done or is around and this is just not the case. To help rectify this and to make a contribution to the page I added a section on an album I released back in 2008, it was produced and released because at the time (and for the 10 years before when I had first decided to make it) there was pretty-much nothing available mainstream for gay people to listen to unless it was dance music in a club, you never heard a gay song on a mainstream radio show for instance and I was angry that many songs which have been around for decades and which have male pronouns in them were only ever sung by female singers and that when listened to the guy had to translate in his head to a guy's voice or just have a girl singing a love song to him which is ridiculous when you are a gay man. I took 13 well-known classic songs, all with male pronouns in the lyrics and just sang them with a deep male voice. I released the album in 2008, it was played on JOY FM (gay FM radio station) here in Melbourne on several different radio shows, some songs received airplay on American internet radio shows also, and one song was even nominated for a 2009 OUTmusic award for best international song. The CD is now in the collection of the National Library of Australia and I have also done my very best as an independent operator to make sure it was available for the gay population to find in many and varied stores online. It never made any money, that was not the point of it, it was purely to right a wrong against gay people I had seen in place for decades, so I made it on a social justice basis. There is ample evidence out there to show that the album was released in 2008, there are still a couple of articles and interviews online about it, it's in several library resources online showing the release date and there are records online of one track from it being nominated for the OUTmusic award which proves un-reservedly that it was made by a gay person for a gay market (otherwise it could not have been included in the awards). All this is not in question and on the public record. Anyway, I wanted people doing research on these old songs (some of them are from the 1920's) to know that they had been covered by a gay man for a gay audience, so a couple of years ago I went to each page that existed for each song and in the "covers" section I put a simple reference to the album and artist name so that whoever reading through the covers would realize that this song has been covered as a gay track back in 2008. There were many other covers included at the time on all these tracks, some had links to the artist's Wikipedia page, many did not. Recently though, an editor has taken it upon himself to 'clean-up' many of the songs, citing that the cover versions are not 'notable' and he removed all entries relating to the tracks I put in. I reverted the edits a couple of times but the editor just kept changing them back and threatened me with a ban if I continued. All he was citing was that the artist 'Wilshier' is not notable enough to have a reference to anything on Wikipedia, and said that Wilshier had to have a Wikipedia page of his own in order to qualify to have these tracks mentioned which is incorrect, as many people mentioned on Wikipedia do not have pages and never will, in any case it is not the artist who is the point of these entries, it is the fact these songs were recorded and released back in 2008 in a mainstream way specifically for a gay audience, this is significant and important for our gay history and needs to be available for people to know when they are doing gay social studies research. The fact that there was really nothing else around in the way of normal gay music back in 2008 (these songs are not political, not sexual and not ghetto, they are just normal songs which straight people have enjoyed for decades, nothing else was around like that for gay people at the time) means that this release is MORE notable, not less, and that at the time something was made and released publicly which had significance for the gay community. This needs to be recorded on the Wikipedia LGBT area. So after the entries were deleted by this editor I went to the LGBT page (which did not even exist at the time the album came out by the way, gay music was still invisible in mainstream media then,) and saw how empty the page was and decided to make an entry about the album being released in 2008 there, it did fit perfectly with what the page was trying to say. Now this editor has started a personal vendetta against me, even though he doesn't know I am actually the artist, he does think I am connected to the artist and am trying to promote which is not true. He has now deleted the section I included on the LGBT page as well, I might say that I have tried to discuss this with the editor in question User:Binksternet but he refuses to respond to the relevance of the gay issues of these tracks being released and is making it all about the fact the the artist has not had a chart success a biography written or his own Wikipedia page. These things would only constitute that the artist was a probable self-promoter and it is not about the artist anyway, it is ALL about the relevance that a gay album was released back in 2008 when there was nothing else around and this is of historical importance to the gay community as a whole. As I said, it is on the public record that this album was made in 2008, released to the public in 2008, the nature of the album is gay and that it was even recognized and included in a major gay music awards show the next year. Whether or not the artist is notable, the album certainly does deserve to be included on the LGBT music page to reflect accurately what happened at the time and to show that there were efforts being made publicly to serve a gay market with mainstream music. I would love to put back the section I wrote, however it seems that this editor in question has me on a watchlist of some kind and whatever I do on Wikipedia he will check and remove if it is at all connected to the name Wilshier. This means he has made it impossible for me to include the album on the LGBT music page or anywhere else on any LGBT page, no matter how important or valid it is to the gay community's historical records. So I am asking for an editor connected to the LGBT Studies project, to please go to the LGBT music page LGBT_music and re-insert the reference to the album for the benefit of those doing research in future. I can't do it myself I have found (I am pretty new as an editor to Wikipedia and am only just learning things) as whatever I put up this editor will remove again and if I just keep trying to revert his destructive edits, he will cite an edit war and attempt to shut me down via a ban. It is not against the rules of Wikipedia for a person connected to a project or anything else to do their own edits, as long as the information is correct and verifiable and is neutral and not biased, but this editor has made up his mind that the artist is not notable enough therefore the release is not to be mentioned and this means one person who does not understand gay issues and our history is being allowed to adversely influence what other gay people read (or in this case are unable to read). I am just trying to be helpful to the gay community by having accurately recorded history of ours out there to find, that's why I did the album in the first place back then, to help because there wasn't anything around at the time, so it doesn't seem right that one person with a bee in his bonnet should be able to delete this reference which has importance to those in the gay community. The album was released back in 2008 to the general public for a gay audience, this is irrefutable and verifiable, so it needs to be included on the LGBT music page. Here are the links I used as external sources for the section, , but the section including external refs will still be in the pages edit history anyway. I don't care if the quote is removed though I felt at the time it was important to show why the recording was released and it was supported with an external ref to the interview anyway, I only care that the reference to the release is there, for all the reasons listed above. The editor has stated to me on the last instance; "Stop promoting Wilshier, who has not made enough of a splash to be notable by Wikipedia's standards." (ref to the conversation are here; User_talk:Taurusthecat , Talk:The_Man_I_Love_(song) #Wilshier cover version , but he just does not understand the significance of this release to the gay community in the context of the LGBT music page. Thankyou for your help. Taurusthecat (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Everything in Wikipedia must be a summary of significant information. Wikipedia cannot be the place for not-very-notable facts. Frankly it doesn't matter whether you are the artist in question, or an agent, or just a fan. The main point is that you must have WP:SECONDARY sources to establish the importance of a fact. None of your sources were sufficient. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

But every single reason you have given for removal of any and all refs to this cover album were stated by you from the start to be regarding the fact the the artist was not notable enough, this was the sole reason you gave and there was no mention of the ext refs. It is only now since a 3rd party got involved through 3rd opinion on the talk page of one of the songs questioning your notability argument and then citing that maybe the refs were doubtful, that you have now changed it to being about the refs. Now you are saying that it is because references are not sufficient and it is looking more and more like you are just trying to prevent any mention of this release for any reason possible, citing that it is being promoted. It is not being promoted, it is an old album almost 10 years old which was never intended to be a hit, and the artist who made it had no desire to be famous, the only important thing is that it was offered to the gay public where there was no music around in the mainstream arena, and for correct history of gay music and efforts to make it socially acceptable, for anyone doing research in the future, it is important to show that this release was made at the time it was. You appear to be following my every move manually (which could be construed as harassment/bullying) by checking my contributions because you have got it in your head that this entry is to promote and nothing more, yet you do not understand the significance of the release to the gay community. I cite the refs I do because I was NOT a self promoter at the time and as the release was in 2008 many of the interviews and articles are now gone as many online mags and other places do not keep old copies of their issues online. I could provide links to many many online stores which show the release date and that it came out when it did, however I would not link to these in a pink fit as it would then be seen to be promoting a product. People can find the release easily by doing a simple Google search at any time, it is not for Wikipedia to have links like that, Wikipedia is for information and research. You may not understand, but the release was notable at the time and still is for what it tried to achieve, and needs to be recorded. It's release date is in the public domain, it is included in a gay award ceremony which means it was a gay record made by a gay person for a gay audience, all this is verifiable, so your new excuse that the refs are not sufficient to allow the inclusion of this release on a LGBT page is not convincing. Taurusthecat (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

And I will also say that the LGBT music page is almost bare, it has little or no information on it about LGBT music, other than a few references to people like Elton John and Sylvester, for anyone visiting that page they will see more or less nothing of any interest other than a few extremely famous people are gay and a few other extremely famous people are gay sympathizers. The page desperately needs input and more content and this piece I put in was to help with that and assist in giving some information on gay music history. It is factual and it is verifiable. Taurusthecat (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus at WP:SONGCOVER is that the artist must be notable in Wikipedia's terms to mention a cover song performed by the artist. It's the most basic threshold that all the editors agree upon. That's why I hammered on notability right off the bat. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This was already discussed by another editor here; Talk:The_Man_I_Love_(song) #Response to Third Opinion Request where it is stated that: "...but I disagree that either SONGCOVER (which is not a "guideline" as defined by Wikipedia) or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias #Selection based on notability of article topics controls in this matter. Both of those are statements at WikiProjects which have no weight as "rules" and WikiProjects do not have the right to set standards for articles, unless those standards are approved as "true" policies or guidelines via the process set out in the Policy policy; see this section of the Consensus policy." Even though this 3rd opinion was offered as an informal dispute resolution, it is still offered by someone who seems to know what he's talking about but you have chosen to ignore it. In the case of this release, it is not notable (as I keep saying) because of the artist who made it, it is entirely notable for being a gay release to mainstream where there were none or little at the time and where the LGBT page was talking exactly about this topic. A track from the release was included in the gay version of the Grammys held following year (2009) for heaven's sake and this is completely verifiable through several sources, if this does not make a release notable what does? (And this is ignoring the importance of the release to the gay community, something which is not in your area of expertise so you can be forgiven for not understanding, and trying to apply 'straight' rules of notability to a gay issue which is different due to the smaller size and more invisible nature of out gay people and product within various industries). In any case, just linking to someones supporting OPINION in an article or website that it was a notable release to the gay community (which is what you are requesting) does not mean nearly as much as showing hard evidence that it was included in a major gay music awards event just after release. Taurusthecat (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to Talk:LGBT music, where it belongs. It would have sufficed in the first place to ask anyone interested in the subject to join the conversation there. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The LGBT music talk page Talk:LGBT music has a banner at the top which requests people with text and a link to come to this page to discuss, however I have moved the conversation to the talk page as you have requested. It is currently not possible to add a new section or concern using a normal edit link on that talk page, there is none on the page to auto add a new section, but I did manage to use an existing section and add to that and it has added a new separate section underneath it. But it is still not possible to add a section or comment on the talk page there using the normal means, which may explain why the main page is so bare of content and the talk page only has two very old sections on it created in 2011. Anyway, I apologize and have moved the conversation there. Taurusthecat (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I can understand how you could have interpreted invitation to discussion on the project banner in that way, but that's not its purpose. The project banner is merely drawing attention to fact that the article is relevant to this project. Frankly I find the whole concept of an article on "LGBT music" inherently confused. It seems to be about LGBT-related lyrics in songs, which is not even "music" at all by definition (it's words sung to music). It vaguely gestures to the idea of music - or rather popular music - associated with or popular with sections of the LGBT community, but that's all. I think a case could be made that the whole article could be mereged with something more coherent. Paul B (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel it is not possible to add a new section there using a normal edit; I just did so as a test edit (and then undid it.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping anyone adding a section by 'normal means'. I think s/he means that there is no "Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic" link at the top of the page as there is here. Paul B (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia editing and still learning, I have just seen the edit tab next to the read one at the top of the talk page so comments and sections can be added normally, I was looking for a blue edit link in the page itself. With regards to LGBT music, if it is music released by gay artists for a gay audience, it is by definition gay (or LGBT) music. That's why the OUTmusic awards and other gay music festivals were created and run, in order to specifically recognize LGBT music. If there was no such thing as LGBT music these events would not exist. Taurusthecat (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I know nothing about about music and less than nothing about LGBT music, but it may be useful to have a conversation on the talk page of LGBT music about what the criteria is for inclusion. I'm not sure that the music is notable enough to be included on pages about the songs you did covers of, but it may warrant inclusion on the LGBT music article (honestly I have no idea). I recently started similar conversations on List of LGBT and LGBT-friendly fraternities and sororities and List of miscarriage of justice cases. The LGBT article, I felt that as long as it was a national organization, it should be included, regardless of whether it meets GNG. There aren't that many LGBT organizations and I think it makes sense to have lower inclusion criteria for that article because the number of LGBT sororities and frats is very low. Requiring organizations to have enough media coverage to have wikipedia articles excludes too many organization to have a good article. On the other hand, on the miscarriage of justice page, I felt like it made more sense to be more exclusive because there are thousands of possible entries and without strict inclusion criteria, the list will be unmanageably long. When it comes to LGBT music, it might make sense to have entries that don't meet GNG but have some notability in the gay community. That would be my suggestion: start a conversation, get consensus, have an objective set of inclusion criteria that can side step any bias issues. Bali88 (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Conversation has been moved to Talk:LGBT_musicTaurusthecat (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

LGBT project marker or not?

I just completed an article as part of a project to increase the coverage on English language pages of things on corollary other-language wikis. The subject was a Mexican actress Anita Blanch. There was a reference to her life partner Josefina Vicens in one of the articles. Verified with multiple articles on Vicens (found no others on Blanch). When I checked to make sure the article was not an orphan, I found that it links to Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles. Don't know who put it there. Don't know if there is interest in expanding the files. Certainly Vicen's page could use work. It would appear their relationship was not a secret, but I did not know whether it was appropriate or not to mark them as part of the project. SusunW (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

LGBT coverage in bio?

Just looking for advice on how to cover the LGBT connection at Draft:Gordon Naccarato. He was interviewed by The Advocate in an article about the gayest city in America (Tacoma). I don't want to over- or under-emphasize this. Collaboration on the draft is invited and welcome. — Brianhe (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Name discussion on Legal aspects of transsexualism page

There's a discussion on the talk page of Legal aspects of transsexualism in the United States regarding renaming the page, possibly to Transgender Rights in the United States; more input would be helpful. Funcrunch (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Recognition of same-sex unions in the Republic of Ireland listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Recognition of same-sex unions in the Republic of Ireland to be moved to Same-sex marriage in the Republic of Ireland. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Pronouns on Jinkx Monsoon article

There have been a few back-and-forth changes on the Jinkx Monsoon article in lieu of a comment Hoffer made about identifying as "genderless". It would be really helpful if some more experienced editors could comment on how to handle the BLP concerns. hinnk (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY clarification

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification that may interest some of you. -- haminoon (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Campus rap gender sentence

There is currently a discussion happening at Talk:Campus rape#Both genders#Both Genders Vs. All Genders as to weather the sentence "Rape on college campuses occurs against against both genders and all ethnicities, and social classes." or "Rape on college campuses occurs against all genders, ethnicities, and social classes." would be more appropriate, with a user citing reliable dictionary definitions as reasoning to use the first option. I'd appreciate anyone chiming in on the discussion. Thanks, Azealia911 _talk 19:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion involving transgender issues

So, there's a disgusting discussion going on at WP:VPP in regard to Caitlyn Jenner. Basically, it boils down to a bunch of jocks and male sports fans saying, "Caitlyn cannot be credited using her chosen name for past accomplishments because she is not male anymore". This is in direct contradiction to MOS:IDENTITY, which correctly states that we defer to a transgender subject's chosen name and gender pronouns throughout their life. The sports boy who are *ahem* uncomfortable *ahem* with transgenderism are too dense to get they are denying ethical attribution and are basically trying to disassociate Caitlyn's achievements and accomplishments as a male from her current chosen persona. Are we going to stand for this? Skyerise (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

While I understand your frustration with the discussion, you might want to check out WP:CANVASS. Invitations to a discussion should be presented as neutral notifications to interested parties. Attempts to rally editors to express a specific view in a discussion are generally counterproductive, as they are often taken into account by the closer and weighed against the side that canvassed. You might want to consider hatting and re formulating the above.--Trystan (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I'll speak as I like, write as I like. Skyerise (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise, free speech has limits: WP:NPA. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting readers of this talk page know about the discussion. --Fæ (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A note on why the current discussion process on WP:VPP is completely invalid

I'd like to point out that this whole survey process is pretty much invalid. Transgender people make up an estimated 2 to 5% of the population. . The 2013 study The Wikipedia Gender Gap Revisited measured gender bias in survey completion and estimated that as of 2008, 84% of English Wikipedia editors were male. In the worldwide Wikipedia Editor Survey 2011 of all the Wikipedias, 91% of respondents were male. There are significant differences in the acceptance of trans people between males and females surveyed, with men being significantly less accepting than women of transgender individuals, with white males being the least accepting among males and with the widest gap between white male and white female opinions. Somewhere between 58-63% of males are sports fans, while only 36-41% of woman are fans.

So, 60% of the 84% male editor population is about 50% of Wikipedia editors, while 40% of the 16% female editor population is 6.4%. Even assuming the unlikely high number of 4.6% for the trans editor population, that puts the expected ratio of female+trans to male editors responding at 1 in 6. Basically, there is no possible way that the outcome can be anything but a "male sports fans" opinion, which would be in no way representative of what our readers want and would necessarily be significantly skewed toward the less accepting male view of transgenderism. Unless a better way can be found to do this, these results are completely invalid and should be ignored, leaving MOS:IDENTITY as it is, as the previous consensus was arrived at through discussion about transgender individuals who were not athletes, leading to a more balanced and more accepting result. That is, the past consensus more accurately reflects the general opinion of Wikipedia editors as the inherent biases were not exaggerated by the attraction of sports fans to the previous discussions.

This is also why the alleged canvassing above cannot be expected to change the outcome in any significant way. Skyerise (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Stay cool. I suggest thinking carefully about the guidance on systemic bias, which is accepted as an issue generally by the Wikipedia community. A possible supplement to !vote type discussions is to have the discussion broken into viewpoints. If self identified members of subgroups (like LGB, T and women) were clustered, this might ensure reflection on how to ensure a wide variety of viewpoints are encompassed in changes to policy. --Fæ (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

More Jenner gems

See discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-06-03/Blog#Bruce Jenner was a man. GregKaye 12:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion notification: Gender identity disorder article

Notification to LGBT and Medicine wikiprojects of discussion at Talk:Gender identity disorder#Gender dysphoria as commonly recognisable and less judgemental name.

GregKaye 22:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I altered the heading of this section by adding ": Gender identity disorder article" to it so that it is specific as to what the section is about and will be easier to locate once archived. Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion notification Sex article

Notification to LGBT and Medicine wikiprojects of discussion at Talk:Sex#Sex, facing ambiguity relating to a potential move/renaming of this article. GregKaye 13:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Should this draft be allowed to enter mainspace?

Please see Draft:List of people who identify as being genderqueer, which is pending review at AFC. While the current content might be properly sourced per WP:EGRS, I'm pretty sure future additions will sooner rather than later violate BLP. By it's nature such a list is a magnet for improperly sourced (and even malicious) additions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You're very right to have reservations. The various Lists of LGBT people have often been a magnet for tendentious or inappropriate edits, having frequently had people added to them who definitely aren't LGBT, who are rumoured to be LGBT but haven't come out, or who sometimes don't even have articles at all (such as classmates) as a form of vandalism or attack editing — and then even once we instituted a rule that everybody had to have a source before they could be added at all, people started adding fake sources that didn't actually support the person they were adding (e.g. just copying and pasting a source that was already present to support somebody else), or didn't even exist at all.

What we've ultimately done is to keep the lists under permanent semi-protection, so that only users with autoconfirmed privileges can edit them directly — an unregistered or new editor who wants to edit the list can do so only by making an edit request on the talk page. In theory, a more established user could still come and "vandalize" the pages with impunity, but that's not who was normally doing it — it was typically coming from drive-by editors of the IP or new-username varieties, who are properly controlled by the protection.

That, or pending changes so that the users can technically edit the page but would have to have their edits approved by a more established editor before they actually appear in the article, should be done in this case as well — I know Wikipedia doesn't like locking pages any more than it absolutely has to, but there are certain cases where it's entirely appropriate, as the WP:BLP sensitivities are too high. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bearcat, if I pass it into mainspace now, will you see to the necessary protection? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

There's already a section listing notable genderqueer people on the Genderqueer page, so this seems redundant anyway. And as I recently commented on the talk page as part of an argument for renaming the page, there are a number of people who id as something other than male or female but not as specifically genderqueer. Funcrunch (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody's suggesting that the list should include everybody who identifies outside of the gender binary in any way at all; it should include only people who can be reliably sourced as identifying with the term genderqueer in particular, and not those who reject it or prefer an alternate term. And the presence of a list in a topic's head article is rarely if ever a reason to avoid spinning off a standalone list — in many other cases on Wikipedia, a list in the head article is treated as the first step toward the eventual spinoff of a standalone list, once either the number of entries to list and/or the length of the main article justify the creation of the standalone. So this isn't duplication — it can easily be a replacement. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the talk page with my concerns. Agreed that there's no problem having a standalone list; my concern is with terminology and self-identification. Funcrunch (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: As soon as I saw Miley Cyrus on the list, I was like, "Oh no, someone is taking liberty with her words. Where has she stated that she is genderqueer? A lot of kids were gender variant growing up or still don't feel quite one gender, but don't identify as genderqueer, non-binary, or as something similar to that." At least now there is a discussion at that talk page about it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Update: We are 1/2 way through June and on track to reach 100 new LGBT-related articles created. If you have not yet contributed to Wiki Loves Pride in some way, please consider donating even just a few minutes of your time by creating or improving an LGBT-related article and updating the Results page. Also, I am happy to share that this Facebook post by Wikimedia LGBT+ was shared by Wikipedia's account and therefore reached more than 46,000 users! Happy editing, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Transgender issues

Just letting people know about the following deletion discussion which has veered into transgender issues so is therefore relevent to this project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial transformation (individual).

Also I note that the Rachel Dolezal and Racial transformation (individual) articles now contain content about transgender issues. Does this mean they are covered by discretionary sanctions and should they be tagged accordingly? -- haminoon (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And now also this article: Trans-racial. -- haminoon (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

And now this article: Transracial identity. -- haminoon (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh gawd. Skyerise (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Permit WP:Red links in WP:Navboxes?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sexual preference

There is no article about this like we made in the German Wikipedia de:Sexualpräferenz. Sexual preference is mostly not like Sexual orientation and it is the trend in the sciencific publication to not use it for sexual orientation. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 13:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Fg68at (Franz), given that we have the Sexual orientation and Sexual identity articles, and that "sexual preference" is commonly taken to mean "sexual orientation" (though scholars often distinguish the two these days), why do we need a Sexual preference article? It would be wholly redundant to the Sexual orientation and Sexual identity articles. As you've surely seen, "sexual preference" currently redirects to the Sexual orientation article and is currently addressed in its lead. Every time an editor has created a Sexual preference article for Wikipedia, it has turned out poorly.

KateWishing, any thoughts on this? Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel we need a separate article because the concepts are already covered at Sexual orientation, Paraphilia, and Sexual fantasy. There's no independent literature on "sexual preference" in English. Google Scholar shows the term is still not used in any precise way. At most it could be a disambiguation page. KateWishing (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, there is also Sexual Preference, which redirects to a book. (I looked this and wrote it here in lower case)

• Sexual Orientation has more Measures: sexual behavior, sexual/romantic attraction, sexual (orientation) identity ("sexual orientation identity" was "prominent" used in an 2009 APA document to clarify what change mostly in ex-gay-therapy)
• Sexual identity can have also more parts: From biological sex (new more different: genetical sex, gonadal, hormonal sex, genitals), gender identity, social sex role until sexual orientation (identity) on the top. This makes i.e. a gay cismale or androphile cismale or other exaple: a androphile transmale / gay transmale; he looks before (he knows himself) as androphile ciswoman / straight ciswoman. Sexual identity is part of the whole identity of a human. So sexual identity is often used as a synonyme to sexual orientation identity, in English it seems much more as in German and much more in the present, but is not always. The root of this identity-tower/sandwich/layers goes back to Ulrichs or Hirschfeld.
• Components of Sexual Identity, 1977
• Sexual Identity PFLAG Canada
• Should Your Sexual Identity Be Standard Information On Your Medical Records? "A person’s sexual orientation and gender identity should be noted"
• Sexual Identity (German University, Diversity Management) "Besides gender, ethnicity, age, and religion, sexual identity is also a major contributing factor to a person’s identity. [...] In addition to biological and social gender, sexual identity also includes sexual orientation, which refers to the object of a person’s sexuality."
• THE SEXUAL IDENTITY OF ATHLETES, 1968 (without sexual orientaton)
• Sexual Identity (here with preferences)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sexual_preference is not complete. But there is a good explanation: " as they see sexual preference as incorrectly suggesting that sexual orientation is a matter of choice."

• sexual preference (the term used in ICD-10) or paraphilias (the term used in DSM-IV)
• ICD-10:2015 F65 Disorders of sexual preference (Incl.: paraphilias) Fetishism, Fetishistic transvestism, Exhibitionism, Voyeurism, Paedophilia (A sexual preference for children ... (There is some dispute if is an preference or an orientation because of the early development and unchanability)), Sadomasochism (A preference for sexual activity which ...), Multiple disorders of sexual preference, Other disorders of sexual preference, Disorder of sexual preference, unspecified
• Psychiatry
• Handbook of Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders
• Pathways to Sexual Aggression
• The evolution of sexual preference, 1915
• Adult Dating Site Hack Reveals Users' Sexual Preference, Extramarital Affairs (I think there was more then sexual orientation)
• Stop Saying “Sexual Preference” "One can speak of sexual preferences correctly, perhaps, when it comes to people of the same sexual orientation having different tastes or being attracted to different types, such as a straight woman who prefers men with beards while another is more into the clean-shaven look, or a gay man who prefers more masculine partners while another is into campy characters. It’s also logical enough to use “sexual preference” in the sense of sexual activities—a lesbian who prefers to give rather than to receive oral sex, for instance, or a straight man who prefers sex while standing up rather than lying in bed."
• The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination: Bias based on gender ..., "For example, the term sexual preference is considered to bie scientifically and politcally incorrect when refering to sexual orientation because it implies that one chooses or that one can choose a specific sexual orientation."
• Comprehensive List of LGBTQ+ Term Definitions "(1) generally when this term is used, it is being mistakenly interchanged with “sexual orientation,” creating an illusion that one has a choice (or “preference”) in who they are attracted to; (2) the types of sexual intercourse, stimulation, and gratification one likes to receive and participate in"

I see, in English it is much more used for sexual orientation then in German. But not complete like some dictionaries claims. (You must train your people in the US, so they know it is no choice! ;-) :-) )

Especially roman catholics use the term "homosexual tendencies" (German "homosexuelle Neigungen"). Evangelicals use more "Same sex attraction" (no long used term in German, sometimes "Gleichgeschlechtliche Anziehung"). This is not choosen. In their world there is mostly no sexual orientation or they take the term for sexual orientation identity which is choosen in their view. (This makes much confusion in the Ex-Gay-diaolog or dialog with conservatives. You speak te same words, but mean totally differnt parts and in most conversation you don't recognice it.) Same Sex Attraction is also used in sciencific for the whole range of attraction.

--Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 23:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Category for discussion

I believe, for many LGBT YouTubers, especially those who have found fame or increase fame through a coming out video, being an LGBT YouTuber is a defining characteristic, just like the Gay politicians or Gay writers category. However, a user has nominated the category LGBT YouTubers for deletion. [see the discussion here] AusLondonder (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

SCOTUS ruling and Wiki Loves Pride

• More images at Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2015/June 26
• 
  Rally for marriage equality, in front of the Supreme Court, April 2015
• 
  Celebrations in front of the Supreme Court, June 26
• 
  Lowry Avenue Bridge, June 26
• 
  Laverne Cox, SF Trans March, June 26

I realize Wikipedia requires a NPOV, which I very much respect, but I think it is safe to assume that many WikiProject LGBT studies participants are very excited and personally affected by today's Supreme Court ruling. This is an historic day! Surely there will be a whirlwind of updates to Wikipedia articles today and for the next few days. I invite project participants to commemorate today's ruling by creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. The annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign ends in a few days, so now is the perfect time to contribute and share the results of your work here. If you need some inspiration or ideas, you can find a sampling of possible articles to create or improve here. All constructive edits are welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hurrah! Just in time for the Gay Pride march in London tomorrow.ref I'll have to find an American to kiss. --Fæ (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I created a page specifically dedicated to photographs taken on June 26, the day of SCOTUS' ruling on marriage equality. I encourage project members to add photographs (ones you've taken or transferred via Flickr) to this page to illustrate the impact of this ruling around the United States. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you notice the significance of the date? Lawrence v. Texas 26 June 2003, Windsor 26 June 2013, and yesterday's ruling? SusunW (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Gary C. Ross

Can somebody help out with this article about the first US military officer to have a same-sex wedding? I declined a WP:CSD#A7 and I've had a look around for sources and his wedding is all that seems to be covered - I'm not sure his military career meets WP:MILPEOPLE. I'd rather not send it to AfD per WP:BLP1E as it would be a worthy Did you know? nomination for LGBT history month. Who fancies helping out? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)