![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
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)
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)
See:
Is anyone interested in exploring this subject further? WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
Thankyou so much for your help. Taurusthecat ( talk) 17:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
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, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], [6] 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
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)
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)
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) |
Conversation has been moved to Talk:LGBT_music Taurusthecat ( talk) 23:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]. 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. [2] Somewhere between 58-63% of males are sports fans, while only 36-41% of woman are fans. [3]
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)
See discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-06-03/Blog#Bruce Jenner was a man. Greg Kaye 12:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Notification to LGBT and Medicine wikiprojects of discussion at Talk:Gender identity disorder#Gender dysphoria as commonly recognisable and less judgemental name.
Greg Kaye 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)
Notification to LGBT and Medicine wikiprojects of discussion at Talk:Sex#Sex, facing ambiguity relating to a potential move/renaming of this article. Greg Kaye 13:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
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 are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
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!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)