Talk:LGBT/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

question about consensus

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

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

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

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

You have been reverted and warned to drop it then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wording of the lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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