Talk:LGBT and Wikipedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLGBT and Wikipedia has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 5, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
December 3, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 16, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Wikipedia editors have organized various campaigns to improve LGBT coverage on the site?
Current status: Good article

Source of basic LGBT information[edit]

There should probably be something about Wikipedia as a source of basic LGBT information for those in communities where this information is marginalized, a somewhat unusual example being Abby Stein [1]. Pharos (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if there's enough sources about that part of the topic. In any case, I'd say this BBC article should definitely be added into the main article, as what Stein has to say shows the importance of this site:

"My first search was whether a boy could turn into a girl - in Hebrew, I didn't speak English at the time - and on the first or second page of the results, there was the Wikipedia page about transgender people. That was the first time I learned the term and realised there were other people who felt like me."

Historyday01 (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection re: usage of preferred gender pronouns[edit]

Do we think there's enough coverage about preferred gender pronouns to warrant a subsection under "Coverage"?

Also, here's another source to consider adding:

  • The Atlantic: "For more than 15 years, Wikipedia discussed what to call the third child of Ernest Hemingway, a doctor who was born and wrote books as Gregory, later lived as Gloria after undergoing gender-affirming surgery, and, when arrested for public disorderliness late in life, used a third name, Vanessa. Last year, editors on the site finally settled the question: The Gregory Hemingway article was deleted, and its contents were moved to a new one for Gloria Hemingway. This would be her name going forward, and she/her would be her pronouns."

---Another Believer (Talk) 23:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be fine with adding a subsection on that topic. I mean, the links and sentence I added about Ina Fried could go there. Reading the whole deletion discussion of her page is a bit distressing, as the page was luckily brought back after that. Historyday01 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there guidance on Wikipedia that can be pointed to?[edit]

Sorry to show my ignorance, but where exactly is the Wikipedia policy about using preferred gender pronouns? Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WomenArtistUpdates See MOS:IDENTITY / MOS:NB ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Another Believer. I don't know why I could not find that before, but am glad to have it now. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia guideline(s)?[edit]

The article says, "Articles about transgender and non-binary individuals are often subject to vandals who edit the article to misgender the subject, despite Wikipedia's guideline that articles should use the gender corresponding with the subject's most recently stated gender."

I assume this guideline is specific to English Wikipedia? Should the text clarify?

Also, are there other LGBT-related policies or guidelines (English Wikipedia or otherwise) worth mentioning? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that guideline (the ones you mentioned before, MOS:IDENTITY and MOS:NB) is specific to English Wikipedia, so I think it would be worth mentioning. Historyday01 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More sources to consider[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 14:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all good. Replacing the Queering Wikipedia link at the end of the article with the one you linked here, as they are the same, except the Research Gate one isn't accessible, and readable, while the link you provided is. Historyday01 (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another good article to add would be this one: https://www.dailydot.com/irl/tenebrae-wikipedia-peppermint/, relating to the Peppermint (entertainer) article Historyday01 (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says, "There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated; there is community consensus that attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased or when the source is used to support contentious claims of fact. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." I cannot find any other sources about this, so I suggest we avoid mentioning Peppermint for now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Historyday01 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editor demographics[edit]

I don't have the links to hand, but WMF has done a couple of surveys of editors demographics that touch on aspects on LGBT identity, particularly with regard to gender identity. Pharos (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that would be a good idea to include that. Historyday01 (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source might (?) mention WikiProject LGBT studies[edit]

Can't view the text, but Google suggests mention of WikiProject LGBT studies. Or, any other sources we could use to mention the WikiProject for LGBT studies at English Wikipedia? What about similar projects at other Wikipedias? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still figuring out how to review that, but this similar article in The Guardian does mention LGBTQ articles. Maher is the CEO of Wikimedia.

The hard work here is done by Wikimedia’s community partners around the world, rather than by [Katherine] Maher’s team directly. She cites the example of Argentina, where Wikimedia’s local affiliates have served as a “powerhouse” for advancing women’s and LGBT rights.

That article links to a OHCHR press release about an editathon, jointly organized by Wikimedia and OHCHR, carried out in Argentina:

Gianluca participated in the first-ever edition marathon jointly organized by UN Human Rights and Wikimedia, carried out in July in Argentina’s capital city. The subject: women’s and LGBTI people’s rights.

That press release links to a Spanish-language one, the Spanish-language version of the OHCHR website, stating, when translated into English:

Held at the Diagonal Norte headquarters of the Universidad Nacional de San Martín, the day – known as the “editatón” – focused on content related to women's rights and sexual diversity, with a view not only to creating new content but also to to optimize the existing ones in “the free encyclopedia”.

Historyday01 (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination?[edit]

@Historyday01 and MyCatIsAChonk: Thoughts on whether or not this entry meets Good article criteria? Do either of you have any interest in nominating, or co-nominating? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, I completely forgot about this, thank you for reminding me about it. Upon a quick glance, I think it's certainly in good condition. I'm not sure what the coverage requirements would be, but it certainly seems to touch on the important points and make use of a wide range of sources. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping for @Another Believer MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, its just that I've never been part of a good article criteria nomination before, so I don't know how it works, exactly. Historyday01 (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01 I am happy to initiate the nomination, per Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. If you are interested, I am happy to include you as a co-nominator, which just means you'd want to keep the article on your watchlist and help address any concerns which may come up during the review. Are you interested in collaborating? @MyCatIsAChonk: Just to confirm, would you be interested in being listed as a co-nom, too? ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that sounds good. Historyday01 (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll submit a nomination once MyCatIsAChonk confirms if interested. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer, absolutely! Please clarify somewhere that you get credit for the article and I'm just addressing concerns. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01@MyCatIsAChonk I've nominated the article for Good status, with the three of us as co-nominators. I think this shows a united interest in the topic and willingness to address any concerns which may arise. Looking forward to collaborating, and by all means please feel free to continue improving the article ahead of the review! Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01 and MyCatIsAChonk: Welp, looks like the article was failed before we even had time to address any concerns. Bummer. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That really is a bummer. I may write a response to their comments, which are pretty harsh, to be honest.Historyday01 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I very much welcome replies in the GA review + article improvements based on feedback. We can always re-nominate when we're ready for another review. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was so quick I didn't even get the chance to see the review. How disappointing- the GA backlog drive was great for cutting down the number of noms, but it also resulted in many bad-faith quickfails, which is an attitude that apparently carried on. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk I hope you'll join us in replying to the editor's concerns. Whether or not they revisit the discussion, I'm hopeful we can re-nominate for GA status when the three of us are ready. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will be giving it another look soon! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to the page. And I do also hope that we can re-nominate the page for GA status sometime in the future. Historyday01 (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01 and MyCatIsAChonk: Can you confirm when you're done making changes to the article based on the GA review? I'm happy to re-nominate when the time is right. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I've made changes to the article based on the GA review already. Historyday01 (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! @Bluerasberry, FULBERT, RachelWex, Varnent, and Zblace: Pinging a few people who might have some familiarity or specific suggestions for improving this article, if you're interested. Sure, there are COIs at play here (myself included) but I welcome comments here on the talk page you're able to identify any inaccuracies or content gaps. There are plans to re-nominate this entry for GA status, so any feedback would be helpful sooner than later. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer I don't have much else to add- might add a bit more from the journal article, but I think that's it. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll wait to see if any other folks leave comments, then re-nominate soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer Thanks for the ping. Some ideas -- I wonder if more inclusion of the LGBT+ User Group as an approved affiliate and its activisites, inclusion of more about the LGBT Portal, the various QW events, and where issues around the world (in other Wikipedias) have dealt with issues of harassment or mis/dis-information may be useful for this article? Likewise, additional publication about the overlap as well me be useful such as from this one in the NYTimes. FULBERT (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wexelbaum, Rachel; Herzog, Katie; Rasberry, Lane (1 January 2015). Queering Wikipedia. Sacramento, CA.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Some additional early history is in this source. As often is the case with these things, I feel that the current article reflects the available sources, while I also regret that there are so few sources at all. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need this one too:

  • Wexelbaum, Rachel (May 2019). "Chapter 5 Coming Out of the Closet: Librarian Advocacy to Advance LGBTQ+ Wikipedia Engagement". Advances in Librarianship. 45: 115–139. doi:10.1108/S0065-283020190000045011.

Bluerasberry (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found a readable copy here: https://sci-hub[.]se/10.1108/s0065-283020190000045011 (remove the period and brackets in the URL as Wikipedia put this site on a blacklist, which I get after reading Sci-Hub). The link you provided is great, but it link leads to a paywall... sigh. Historyday01 (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last one, that I think is worth citing, I can find in academic literature

  • Park, Chan Young; Yan, Xinru; Field, Anjalie; Tsvetkov, Yulia (22 May 2021). "Multilingual Contextual Affective Analysis of LGBT People Portrayals in Wikipedia". Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. 15: 479–490. doi:10.1609/icwsm.v15i1.18077.

Bluerasberry (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just tested and this link (from the link you provided) sends you to the PDF of the article, which is 12 pages long: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/18077/17880 Historyday01 (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the sources, these are very useful! @Another Believer, would it be worth adding an efn to clarify the various abbreviations used other than LGBT? A number of the quotes don't use "LGBT", so it may be worth clarifying. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could either include a note, or link to LGBT#Variants as needed. I generally see "LGBT" used across Wikipedia, but sometimes variants are helpful or necessary. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedian[edit]

Wikimedian of the Year says "Temple-Wood had created nearly 400 articles and improved hundreds more, many of which are about women scientists and LGBT and women's health." I can't tell which source confirms "LGBT", but assuming we can verify, should LGBT and Wikipedia mention Emily Temple-Wood's LGBT-related work? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Historyday01 (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01 Here are the four sources used for her over at Wikimedian of the Year: source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4. Do you see confirmation of work on LGBT content? ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing anything in the translation of source 1, while sources 2, 3, and 4 are about Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight. I think the line "many of which are about women scientists and LGBT and women's health" was just conjecture from the biographies she was written about, sadly. I found some other articles on her in Nature, It Web, Wikimedia here, here and here, Reader's Digest, Smithsonian Magazine, MIT and Wired. However, her X/Twitter profile (archived here, even though the archived version falsely says she hasn't posted) says she is "queer" and announced she was a "queer physician" in October 2020 (it is also archived here). So, the latter counts for something...
Otherwise, it is confirmed that Jess Wade has written "biographies of women, people of color and LGBTQ+ scientists" Wikimedia, with The Advocate writing "Last year, Dr. Jess Wade of Imperial College London made it her mission to help balance out the content on Wikipedia. Every day in 2018, she wrote at least one Wikipedia page dedicated to a woman, person of color, or LGBTQ individual in science in the hopes to combat the lack of diversity seen on the site, which is especially poor in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics)." And she is relatively supportive of LGBTQ people, as clear from a perusing of her social media, and possibly implied here. The sources from the last sentence probably can't be used, but I thought they were interesting.
Also, one article on Wikimedia mentioned Pax Ahimsa Gethen, i.e. @User:Funcrunch, noting that "Pax contributes photographs to Wikimedia Commons with a focus on LGBTIQ+ subjects, events, and social justice rallies. Active in WikiProject LGBT Studies, Pax has collaborated with other Wikimedians to counter anti-trans vandalism and improve guidelines for respectfully discussing trans subjects on Wikimedia projects." So, that's worth mentioning! Not sure if any of the others listed on the Wikimedian of the Year page are queer, though, but I don't believe so, after skimming through their profiles. Historyday01 (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01 I'd support adding mention of Jess Wade's LGBT-related work. I don't have a problem with Pax Ahimsa Gethen being mentioned, too, though I should note Pax does not have a standalone Wikipedia entry like Jess Wade.
@Rosiestep, Fuzheado, and SuperHamster: Might any of you be aware of any coverage about Emily Temple-Wood's LGBT-related work? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of media that mentions Emily's LGBT-related work. IMO, this is an oversight by the media. (As another example of the media's oversight, I've created hundreds of new EN-WP women's biographies as translations from ES-WP and FR-WP, but the media never mentions my translation work.) --Rosiestep (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosiestep Thanks for replying. Seems like we'll be unable to add mention of Temple-Wood here, and unfortunately, I think we'll need to remove mention of "LGBT" from her entry at Wikimedian of the Year. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is unfortunate. Maybe one day her LGBT-related work will be covered...somewhere. I couldn't find anything from some searches this morning, sadly. @User:Keilana, if you would like to add anything else to this discussion, feel free.Historyday01 (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the mentions, but FWIW I don't think I should be included on this page until and unless I become notable enough for a standalone Wikipedia entry. Funcrunch (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1, with much appreciation to User:Funcrunch for their contributions to the movement! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in any case, thanks for your contributions on here! It is greatly appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Wade[edit]

I've added a bit of content about Jess Wade's LGBT-related work. Feel free to trim, edit, expand appropriately. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a positive at least. Thanks for doing that. Historyday01 (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No sexual assault in 2023 Wikimania toilet[edit]

Restroom or trap?

The Wikimedia community offered a unisex public toilet at Wikimania 2023 in Singapore by converting a single gender toilet with gender neutral signs posted over the permanent installed signage. Local media reported speculation that this toilet might be a trap that sex offenders use to attack restroom visitors. I am one of the Wikimedia LGBT+ organizers. Our defense of the toilet was successful as no one reported harm in using it.

This is a notable milestone in Wikimedia history because it shows that Wikimedia events can introduce conversations about diversity into places which otherwise have had no exposure to the ideas. While this event needs more interpretation, we do have these sources documenting what happened.

Bluerasberry (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry Thanks. I can't tell if the last source is reliable, but I've updated the article a bit based on the first two sources. Wording adjustments/feedback welcome! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just say I'm incredibly surprised this made the news (my local sports centre has always had a unisex bathroom, as it only had space for one bathroom, and nobody thought twice about having their kids in swimsuits use it in the 90s – only recently have bathrooms become a concern for TERFs and their kin), nor do I think unisex bathrooms relate to the LGBTQI+ community specifically – nor do I like the conflation that such spaces are more likely to generate sexual assault. For these reasons, I would be opposed to including it as just simply out of scope. But we are dictated by coverage, so while this may be more appropriate at an article about gender in Singapore, if there is enough relation to the Wikimedia LGBT+ group in the sources (not just Wikimania, not just 'a convention'), then I suppose it's fine. Kingsif (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTIQ+ and Wikimedia[edit]

More generalized approach would add more sources and would be more inclusive in naming from the start. I am no fan of sticking to LGBT as the norm since about 15 years, so I hope we can agree to move on. Meanwhile quite a few Wikidata papers have been published recently. Zblace (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zblace, we use "LGBT" across the encyclopedia, including in the Wikiproject dedicated to the subject. The discrepancy between acronyms is clarified by footnote a. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a big fan of the continued use of the acronym instead of more inclusive ones, but it is the consensus currently, and I'd say it should be respected, at least until a consensus proves it otherwise. Historyday01 (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support broader discussion. At Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity there are 100 discussions about managing transgender pronouns. In my view, almost all of those discussions are differences of opinion from trans-rights activists and the LGBT+ community itself, so even among stakeholders we often find ourselves with conflicting interests. I expect that similarly, a group could find and list 100 on-wiki discussions about which letters of the alphabet to use. If we collected all those discussions, perhaps totaling the equivalent of 1000 pages of original prose, then we could use that as a foundation for what to do next. I take this topic seriously and I think it would be worth developing a Wikipedia-specific guideline for this because the issue is not going to resolve itself, and because so many other media organizations look to Wikipedia with no hope of addressing this without us. I expect we could find very strong arguments for several possible options, but till now, no one has yet attempted to centralize discussion. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bluerasberry, would opening an RfC to add "LGBT" (or otherwise) to the table of standard acronyms at MOS:ABBR be the next step? I can open it- adding this acronym to the table would standardize it across the Wiki. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument pro is as people are too often lazy to write + and elaborate, so it ends up being far less inclusive then it could be. In most of EU even the institutions switched to LGBTI long ago and activist and academics perceive LGBT as old-fashioned and dated.
    Aside from this I think extending the scope of page from Wikipedia to Wikimedia should also be considered. Zblace (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that RFC has been open for a pair of weeks by now. Cambalachero (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to that discussion? Historyday01 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources for this? It strikes me as curious, given a) the debate amongst intersex people over whether they should be included in the acronym, and b) the variety of languages spoken in the EU, so non-English speakers would use a different acronym or term for this community. Funcrunch (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree. However "Wikimedia" is a sub-division of Wikipedia, at least as far as I understand it, so Wikimedia is implied. Historyday01 (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the other way around. Funcrunch (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. Well, then the title should be changed from "Wikipedia" to "Wikimedia" then. Historyday01 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIMOVE podcast on harassment and trans issues[edit]

Not sure if it's a usable source for this page, but @Tamzin and I were interviewed for a WIKIMOVE podcast just published today that covers harassment and related issues facing trans editors. Funcrunch (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it forward- I'll take a listen soon! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit regarding deadnaming[edit]

Since I am the specific deadnamed editor referred to in the cited article I will refrain from reverting, but I feel this edit, along with the edit summary rationalizing it, is spurious at best. Funcrunch (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed before I even saw it was made by a notoriously transphobic editor. The source refers to your case, but also makes general points, so the edit is unwarranted. If 1RR is still in place on gender topics, you should be able to revert and still discuss it here. Kingsif (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif Funcrunch has said they would prefer not to revert because of their COI. If you agree, could you revert then? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents § Willbb234

---Another Believer (Talk) 16:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another source?[edit]

Queer Identities, Normative Databases: Challenges to Capturing Queerness On Wikidata

  • KATY WEATHINGTON, University of Colorado Boulder, USA
  • JED R. BRUBAKER, University of Colorado Boulder, USA

---Another Believer (Talk) 19:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 November 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consenus is against the proposed title, no prejudice against alternative suggestions. (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


LGBT and Wikipedia → LGBT people and Wikipedia – Grammar: the article is not about the constituent identities in the LGBT acronym, it is about the people who hold those identities. Puts article in line with LGBT people and Islam, Chick-fil-A and LGBT people — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The article is not about how Wikipedia as an organisation/body treats LGBT+ people, it is about how LGBT+ issues are dealt with on Wikipedia and in how society uses/perceives Wikipedia. The subject matter is not similar or comparable to those presented in the opening statement, and accuracy is preferred over arbitrary consistency. By changing the title to mimic articles with a different focus, we would only mislead readers. A somewhat generic title is also preferred for this article due to a reasonably broad scope. Kingsif (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Like Kingsif said, this article isn't about how Wikipedia as an organization or body treats LGBTQ+ people, but how issues relating to those people are dealt with on here, and how society uses and perceives Wikipedia for that. Misleading readers is the last thing we want to do here. Historyday01 (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kingsif's comment. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's about much more than just the people, but also how topics relating to LGBTQIA+ issues are treated on Wikipedia. Raladic (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of what the subject of the article is, "LGBT and Wikipedia" is not grammatically correct. LGBT people may not be the correct scope, but the article title needs to change. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome to offer suggestions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As said, RMs are closed in scope to keep discussion/!votes on track. Feel free to open another RM with this comment as your reasoning. Kingsif (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Participants at a Wiki Loves Pride event to improve LGBT-related content on Wikipedia, in Serbia (2019)
Participants at a Wiki Loves Pride event to improve LGBT-related content on Wikipedia, in Serbia (2019)
  • Miquel-Ribé, Marc; Kaltenbrunner, Andreas; Keefer, Jeffrey M. (December 21, 2021). "Bridging LGBT+ Content Gaps Across Wikipedia Language Editions". The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion. 5 (4): 90–131. doi:10.33137/ijidi.v5i4.37270. hdl:10230/52360. ISSN 2574-3430. JSTOR 48641981. S2CID 245573982. Archived from the original on January 13, 2022. Retrieved January 18, 2022. (p. 93)

Improved to Good Article status by MyCatIsAChonk (talk), Another Believer (talk), and Historyday01 (talk). Nominated by MyCatIsAChonk (talk) at 13:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/LGBT and Wikipedia; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: There is some overly close paraphrasing of the NYTimes article that I think would benefit from tweaking. It's probably down to my own ignorance but in Alt 1 (which is my preferred) the term suppressive communities confused me and I wonder if oppressive is the better word here? Recently passed GA and nom within 5 days so passes newness requirements. Never been on the main page. Length is good. Once the paraphrasing is dealt with, and some clarification about the ALT 1 hook working, and it will be ready to promote. Looks good. Suggest Alt 1c. Seddon talk 23:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon, I believe the WL on suppressive communities is supposed to provide clarification, but I do see problems. Proposal below. Fixed paraphrasing. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1a: ... that coverage of LGBT topics on Wikipedia has helped people in areas that censor LGBT issues discover their identity?
MyCatIsAChonk I feel that looses snappiness. What about:
ALT1b: ... that coverage of LGBT topics on Wikipedia has helped people discover their identity?
ALT1c retains censorship wikilink: ... that coverage of LGBT topics on Wikipedia has helped people discover their identity?
Seddon talk 14:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seddon sounds good to me. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that this should probably run on 15 January, Wikipedia's birthday.--Launchballer 01:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article history template[edit]

First, congrats on the Main Page appearance and thanks for submitting a hook nomination. Nice to see the readership spike! There are a lot of banners at the top of this page. Anyone able to apply Template:Article history easily? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to mess around with it- I know there's a bot that goes through articles once in a while (User:DeadbeefBot I believe) but I don't know how to activate it on a specific page. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same, I wasn't sure how bots played a part. Thanks for any banner clean-up. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bot is still in trial stage. After it passes BRFA I will have it work on talk pages periodically so there's no need for manual triggering. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New source[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 12:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am coordinating the inclusion of this story in WP:Signpost. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in French and transidentity[edit]

During the last weeks, there is a strange atmosphere in Wikipedia in French. A poll about the opportunity to mention the deadname of trans people in the introductory part of an article has divided the community.

Many French medias have related the controversy. See for instance, Le Monde (https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2024/03/08/sur-wikipedia-la-communaute-francophone-se-dechire-autour-du-deadname-des-personnes-trans_6220937_4408996.html) and Next Inpact (https://next.ink/131199/la-neutralite-sur-wikipedia-la-question-du-deadname-des-personnes-trans-relance-le-debat/). See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Suggestion_by_PAC2_(2024-03-25).

PAC2 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBT_and_Wikipedia&oldid=1216476598"