Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

WikiProject LGBT studies

Home

Talk

Collaboration

Editing

Resources

Showcase

Skip to TOC
Skip to bottomSkip to bottom

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject LGBT studies and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:LGBT WT:GAY

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78Auto-archiving period: 30 days

LGBT studies Project‑class

This page is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Hi, I just added suggestions for a couple of useful new subcategories to Category_talk:LGBT_speculative_fiction - I just wanted to make sure somebody sees this.

(I'm currently researching queer representation in geeky genres for an annotated recommendations list over on IMDb, so I have a list and I'm perfectly happy to put in the time to add the category tags to the individual media pages. But I don't know how to create subcategories - and in any case, that shouldn't be done by an outsider, I think.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:1ED0:3500:4886:EC7D:A008:E793 (talk)

Hello! There is an RFC at the reliable sources noticeboard regarding a subject relevant to this Wikiproject. Loki (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Project members are invited to participate in this year's Wiki Loves Pride campaign:

• Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2024

The goal is simple: to create or improve LGBT-related content on Wikipedia and sibling projects.

Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the right place for this comment but can someone please clarify how the furry fandom wikipedia article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT+ studies? I understand that a larger percentage of the group identify as LGBT+ compared to the general population yet I am pretty sure people are furries regardless of gender or orientation. The disproportionate representation may simply be due to fewer inhibitions expressing sexual orientation/gender predispositions among members and is indicative that the general population has a higher percentage of LGBT+ members than is currently disclosed. Heterosexual members of the furry fandom are not part of the LGBT+ community. This is a cultural subgroup and not a LGBT+ or gender/sexual orientation subgroup. Drocj (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The standard I usually apply when reviewing additions to or removals from the project's scope (which show up on Wikipedia:LGBT/Quality) is whether the article has a substantial amount of text that is about LGBTQ+ topics. Ordinarily, I would look for a paragraph or more that is relevant (other than for people, as all LGBTQ+ people are in scope by definition). In this case, the relevant content appears to be a single sentence, so I wouldn't oppose removing it from the project's scope.--Trystan (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only relevant line currently in the article is a statistic (10% genderqueer?) in a long list of similar statistics (ethnicity, religion, etc). I do think the article should probably have more text dedicated to its intersectional communities: the relation between furries and LGBT is long and interesting. Regardless, the other basis to add an article to a WikiProject is simply based on the general interest of the editors. This is not a public-facing thing: if many LGBT-focused editors are interested in how a semi-related community is written about, then that's fine. It also seems fair to me to remove the tag if there's no relevant text in the article, tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sorry for reverting my pervious comments they were honestly a bit lazy.

I do want to to throw this out there, the current version of article on the furry fandom is pretty dated and needs a lot of updating.

I should also mention there are a lot of wikipedia articles and sources on the topic that do show a connection between the furry fandom and the LGBT community.CycoMa1 (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, exactly. I mean Helluva Boss, which has a heck ton of LGBTQ+ characters, got a Ursa Major Award (which relates to "furry media, such as video, written works, and comics.") three years in a row, and there are certainly MORE awards than just "Best Anthropomorphic Comic Strip" which we have listed on here, as they have a "Best Dramatic Series" award (there's no page for it yet, but... presently the "Best Dramatic Series" have been awarded to the Helluva Boss episodes "Murder Family", "Loo Loo Land", and "The Circus", along with Beastars, BNA: Brand New Animal, Centaurworld, Aggretsuko, Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts, and Odd Taxi. I don't think Beastars, BNA, Odd Taxi, or Aggretsuko had LGBTQ+ characters, but since Helluva Boss and Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts did, and I think Centaurworld did (since it got some GLAAD award nominations), perhaps that can be added in to the Furry fandom page as well. I added in some sentences to the "Websites and online communities" section, with this edit, which incorporates what I said in this paragraph.

I did a search and only found the following mentions on the page (prior to my edit), showing it NEEDS to be updated:

In 2021 and 2022, media coverage in Canada and the United States focused on false rumors about litter boxes in schools being provided for furries, which was part of a cultural backlash amplified by conservative and far-right politicians against transgender accommodations in schools...While only 2% of furries identified themselves as transgender, 10% of furries identified themselves as genderqueer/non-binary."

Perhaps some of the articles on Google Scholar, JSTOR, or elsewhere could help expand the page's connection to this project. Historyday01 (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Madonna#Requested move 1 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters has been nominated for deletion, with the discussion here. This page, about a proposed animated series of this name, was previously listed for Wiki Loves Pride in 2021 and 2022. This discussion may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Historyday01 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fictosexuality#Requested move 13 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about appropriate phrasing and "neutrality" as they relate to transphobia and transgender people is currently occurring at Talk:Britta Curl. The guidance of one or more editors experienced in navigating these topics would be most appreciated, as things seem to be going a bit off the rails.

For context: Britta Curl is an ice hockey player who was recently drafted into to Professional Women's Hockey League. Her selection has been somewhat controversial within the fanbase due to her history of liking and sharing content with conservative views, especially things broadly interpreted as transphobic and trans-exclusionary, on social media platforms. Spitzmauskc (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding that this section is painful to read, but I'm not brave enough to wade into whatever is happening on the talk page. Is anyone more experienced able to do so? Sock-the-guy (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korbin Albert had liked some allegedly homophobic/transphobic social media posts for which she apologized, and has subsequently been booed during US national team games [1] [2]. This has been covered in significant, independent, reliable sources. However, the Korbin Albert Wikipedia page currently describes this in a way that almost makes it seem as if nothing at all was homophobic/transphobic. I would like someone from this Wiki Project to take a look and ensure that section is written from a neutral point of view. Joeykai (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wow! That was both way too long and also misleading. I've attempted to clean it up a bit, although now the section seems to need more so it's not just a "controversy" section Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just started this list. Did it exist before? Because I couldn't find. There are probably more acronyms missing, but I think these were enough for a start. --MikutoH ^talk! 21:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MikutoH, it's well sourced, so thanks very much for that. The main problems I see with it are overlap, indiscriminate content, and a possible title issue involving selection criteria.

• There is considerable overlap with the LGBT article, which I believe includes most of these terms, although it might make sense to have this article for the ones that aren't , and especially if there were other acronyms that are not tied to the term LGBT itself.
• Wikipedia is not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of information, and do we really need to know about LGBTQQICAPF2K+ or MOGAI just because somebody, somewhere, mentioned it an article at some point? We shouldn't underestimate the number of people coining something or mentioning a coinage hoping to get a hit in Wikipedia, which would enormously boost their PageRank on the web. A legitimate acronym that has some sustainability or widespread usage, sure; but not something that is just a vogue word in a limited time or place. These are judgment calls, and list articles generally have more leeway on this sort of thing than at topic article, but still there is a limit somewhere.
• As for the title, what do you mean by -related? It's kind of vague term to use in a title, and could mean different things to different people. (This same question comes up in a different discussion; see § LGBT-relatedness of a film below.) Do you mean only terms related to the adjective LGBT, so all the extensions and forms of the term LGBT, but not other things? This question has to do with defining your selection criteria for the list of items that are to be included. For example, could your list also include LGBT organizations that have acronyms for their name, or part of it, like HRC, GLAAD, PFLAG, NCTE, ACLU LGBT Project, GSA?

I think attention to these issues will help define and improve it if you want to keep it separate from the LGBT article. Mathglot (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion happening at Talk:Sophie (musician)#Pronouns again that's relevant to this project. The subject of the article was transgender, and editors are revisiting the question of whether the article should use she/her pronouns or avoid third-person pronouns. hinnk (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French Wikipedia has an article on Les Veilleurs  [fr] (lit. 'Watchers'; or 'Sentinels') which is a French conservative movement with anti-lgbt goals similar to La Manif pour Tous. It's definitely a notable topic, and we ought to have an article on it. The French article is well sourced, and appears to be well organized and written. Mathglot (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that either the redirect should be deleted or the organization should be described in the article it currently redirects to. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the process of trying to update List of LGBT-related films of 2024 with the films that screened in the past couple of weeks at the Frameline Film Festival, I came across Good One, where the article has already existed for several months but had not been categorized or listed as an LGBT-related film, and I also could not find any sources whatsoever to clarify the matter — so I asked on the talk page, and another editor located a source that passingly states that the protagonist identifies as queer, but otherwise continues to reflect the same lack of evidence that her queerness is particularly central to the main plot.

So I'm of two minds: to me, personally, the fact that a lead character in the film is queer should be enough to warrant categorizing it as an LGBT-related film (queerfolk don't only want to see films where queerness is the drama per se, and do want to also see films in which queer people are just present in the world too), but I can easily see somebody reverting me on the grounds that it isn't "LGBT-related" enough to be defined by that if I tried to add the category myself. It would be much more clearcut that it wasn't particularly significant if a minor character's LGBTQ identity was passingly mentioned without being central to the storyline, but if it's the lead character it's obviously a harder call.

So I wanted to ask for some other opinions as well: if the central character's queerness is mentioned, but the film isn't particularly about her queerness per se, then should it be categorized as LGBT-related or not? Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to lean toward "no"; if it were a film that was about them queering about queerily, sure. If review sources and analysis are focusing on that aspect, sure. But if it isn't central, it's just a personal attribute, then yay for inclusion but it doesn't need to be on the list/in the category any more than a film where someone mentions having met someone at church would be "Christian-related film". It's not a defining aspect of the film, which is what we expect for categories. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor was able to find a source that had not turned up for me, which provided significantly greater context than just passingly mentioned it. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it depends, because a category with a name like "LGBT-related films" would not at all be the same if a lead character is queer but that fact plays no role in the film. Was Star Trek an "African American-related TV series" because Lt. Uhura was in it? I would say no. But if the category was, "Series with African-American actors", then I would say yes. The word related is a weak copula, and can mean different things to different people; hence the "it depends". If you change -related to something more specific, like -themed, then it becomes clearer whether an article belongs in that category, or at least, the gray area is narrower, and Star Trek (as a series) definitely does not belong in -themed (though a few individual episodes might). I'm not familiar with the Good One so wouldn't know how to make the call on that one. And per what you said about people also wanting to see films where queer people are not central but just present, there's nothing wrong with categorizing some film articles with both "LGBT-themed..." and "Films with LGBT characters" (let's say, or whatever the real categories are called) and other film articles with only the latter category but not the former. Would that work for you? Mathglot (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make a nerd objection. Of course Star Trek was not an "African American-related TV series" because Lt. Uhura was in it. Uhura was not African-American. She was from the United States of Africa. She was an African-African. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello! On behalf of SAG-AFTRA, I have submitted Draft:Duncan Crabtree-Ireland for editor review at Articles for Creation as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Sharing a notice here in case any WikiProject LGBT studies participants are interested in taking a look. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to above, I have also submitted Draft:V Pappas for editor review at Articles for Creation as part of my work at Beutler Ink. V Pappas is also known as Vanessa Pappas and their name is red-linked at 50 Most Influential (Bloomberg ranking). Sharing a notice here in case any project participants are interested in reviewing. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term "coupled lesbians" appears in several articles related to pregnancy. This phrase seems overly narrow, but I'm not sure what to change it to. Is "lesbian couples" appropriate? Jruderman (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to lean on "female couples" as an inclusive term (unless sexual activity is specifically involved.) It's not just a bisexual matter; coupled asexuals may also wish to form families. (However, take care to check the source; it may specifically refer to coupled lesbians.)-- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've been picking away at Draft: Gay Women's Alliance and I'm looking for help to find reliable secondary sources to meet WP:NOTE. Wormbug (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to it, but another Atkins source is this: Atkins, Gary L. (Summer 2009). "A Women's Place". Columbia: The Magazine of Northwest History. Vol. 23, no. 2. pp. 22–27. There are many sources of questionable reliability in Gale's Archives of Sexuality and Gender, including several issues of Pandora, but aren't great to establish notability.

I have two thoughts. First is that, like many contemporary LGBT organizations, sources which best establish notability are fragmentary, widely dispersed, rarely digitized, and sometimes not held by any libraries (or if they are, do not circulate as ILL since they're not microfilmed). I've had to purchase dozens of newspapers from various sellers to track down similar information from the gay 70s. Second is that, if we're unable to prove notability, the Gay Women's Alliance can become the background section of the more notable, redlinked Lesbian Resource Center, which is exceptionally well-documented in digitized newspapers such as Seattle Gay News (2001).

Pinging S0091 since they offered on the draft to help with finding sources. Sorry I can't be of more assistance. Urve (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]