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.
I've submitted a move proposal from "LBGT people in prison" to "LGBTQ people in prison" to keep the language of the article title in sync with the article, which uses "LBGTQ." An alternative is to keep the article title the same, and instead change the language of the article to "LGBT." Is there a reason to prefer "LGBT" vs "LGBTQ" for this article?
From what I have seen in other articles, usually it just gets kept as LGBT. Several of the sources in the body of that article actually refer to 'LGBT' however individual editors have written 'LGBTQ'. Best to sticking to the source wording for each paragraph.
Zenomonoz (
talk) 01:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
"LGBT" is the standard on-wiki initialism, as well as the name of the parent article (
LGBT). So I think this is standard for the titles of articles, although I've seen other variations of the initialism in the article prose itself. Not sure if there is a policy-based reason for this.
FWIW, I personally think there should be a move away from LGBT as standard; the last time I checked, LGBTQ is becoming more popular with style guides in the US and UK. But I think this would require a more centralised discussion and considering how many variants there are now, even if LGBTQ does become slightly more used, the discussion could end up being "no consensus" and effectively back to LGBT as the standard initialism for our articles.
(Hope the above makes sense).
GnocchiFan (
talk) 12:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Which of these sources' coverage would be considered significant for the topic of Nickelodeon and LGBT representation?
This discussion was originally started at the Wikipedia
help desk, but was moved here at the suggestion of another contributor. The original discussion has subsequently been closed for the sake of the move.
Cartoon Brew A History of the 'Gay Agenda' in Animation
@
MrPersonHumanGuy: see
WP:RSP for several of these. Deadline, Entertainment Weekly and Variety are as good as they come; I'm personally in favour of The Mary Sue but it typically needs to be attributed in prose; opinions on student newspapers are mixed but I might argue in favour of the Sundial piece as it's citing academics who would be
self-published experts (we just have to believe it's reliable to quote them accurately); Cartoon Brew looks good to me. Is there opposition to use of the sources or is this just to seek another opinion on something you're drafting? —
Bilorv (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, this is for a
draft for which I've produced a
source assessment table, though the table was created in response to my first submission being declined. (the person who declined my draft did thank me for the table though) The list above contains the sources I've already been able to determine as being independent and reliable, (though I excluded the SPLC Intelligence Report as that source is from the 2000s and would've only been able to cover the 2002 or 2005 controversies if it even covered Nick at all) and all I'd like to figure out now is whether any of the independent, reliable sources the draft cites contain significant—perhaps even sustained—coverage of the topic. –
MrPersonHumanGuy (
talk) 14:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I still want to know if any of these sources constitute significant coverage
The only response I've been given so far focused solely on reliability, completely dodging my question. When I asked, I had already counted all the sources above as being both reliable (per WP:RSP or existing comments) and independent of the topic, so if any of these sources are considered to cover the topic of Nickelodeon and LGBT representation in detail, they could help a potential article meet the general notability guideline. –
MrPersonHumanGuy (
talk) 11:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Do you think that any of those sources cover the topic of "Nickelodeon and LGBT representation" in detail? For instance, you link to
this Variety article on the 2022 GLAAD Media Awards. Can you find any in-depth coverage of Nickelodeon & LGBT representation in this article?
I've just skimmed the articles, so maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see that any of them obviously constitute significant coverage.
Caeciliusinhorto-public (
talk) 12:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. Each insight helps to get closer to determining whether Nickelodeon and LGBT representation is as much of an article-worthy topic as
its Cartoon Network counterpart. –
MrPersonHumanGuy (
talk) 13:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I would say it surely is as article-worthy as the Cartoon Network counterpart, as the person who created that article in the firs place... But, in terms the comment by Caeciliusinhorto-public, its certainly possible there's more coverage out there. The key is turning it from text which comes from list entries (which is how I originally constructed it) to those which aren't. Here are some articles which talk about Nick and LGBTQ+ rep which I know:
The GLAAD reports are good, but from my experience they primarily only briefly discuss characters, and they rarely focus on animation (which is mostly where the LGBTQ+ rep for Nick series had been I believe). I think this list of sources is at least a good start.
Historyday01 (
talk) 15:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
RuPaul's Drag Race, season 7 episodes
Sharing a list of recently created entries for Drag Race, season 7 episodes:
Not sure if any qualify for appearance in the Did You Know section of the Main Page, but article improvements are welcome! Thanks ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 15:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
"And the Rest Is Drag" at AfD
Related to an above section, "
And the Rest Is Drag" has been nominated for deletion.
Please can the above be checked by members of this WikiProject? Page was originally at
LGBT reproduction and included
Omegaverse speculative fiction, but if anyone can help find some good sources for the current title and scope I would greatly appreciate it 🙂
GnocchiFan (
talk) 19:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
WikiProject LGBT studies - person articles stats
Would it be worth adding something like this onto one of the project pages? I know some of the other projects like to show stats to motivate people to create more biographical articles. Use Source Editor to edit/copy the code to wherever you want to use it.
As of 15 June 2024, there are 5,767 articles within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies - person articles, of which 51 are
featured and 121good articles. This makes up 0.08% of the articles on Wikipedia and 0.47% of featured articles and lists, with 0.3% classified as good articles. Including non-article pages, such as talk pages, redirects, categories, etcetera, there are 16,116 pages in the project.
It could also be done for all LGBT articles:
As of 15 June 2024, there are 25,613 articles within the scope of LGBT articles, of which 138 are
featured and 587good articles. This makes up 0.37% of the articles on Wikipedia and 1.27% of featured articles and lists, with 1.48% classified as good articles. Including non-article pages, such as talk pages, redirects, categories, etcetera, there are 70,810 pages in the project.
Anyway, I thought I'd share this as someone off-Wiki asked me whether it could be done.
Jimmyjrg (
talk) 00:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what others think, but I think this is a great thing for us to have somewhere in this WikiProject!
GnocchiFan (
talk) 19:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
About a month ago, an anonymous IP made an edit to actor
John Mahoney's article, following up on the statement in the "Personal life" section that "To the surprise of much of the public, when he died, many tributes noted that he had lived privately as a gay man and was a well-known fixture on the Chicago LGBTQ scene" with the strange assertion that this was likely a lie concocted by LGBTQ activists due to "opposition" to the heteromasculinity of Martin Crane.
Now, firstly, LGBTQ people have very real issues sometimes with how we are portrayed in film and television, but there has never in all of recorded history been even one single, solitary example of the LGBTQ community ever being "opposed" to the basic existence of heterosexual characters. And even more importantly, it's frickin' Frasier — why on earth would LGBTQ people ever have to make up lies about the sexuality of John Mahoney just to get LGBTQ representation out of a show that already had David Hyde Pierce, Dan Butler and Edward Hibbert in it? Not to mention that John Mahoney himself also appeared in the gay-themed film The Broken Hearts Club, and played a gay character in an episode of ER, so why would we ever need to make stuff up about him just because of Frasier? And besides, I've known more than a few gay men in my day who openly wished their own father had been like Martin Crane, because he unconditionally loved his sons even if he didn't always understand them. Why would LGBTQ people ever have a problem with that? So the statement just doesn't make much sense at all, and obviously wasn't supported by sourcing for it.
Obviously I've removed the claptrap, but the fact that it survived a month in the article without getting noticed implies that it slipped a lot of watchlisters' attentions. So I just wanted to ask if a few more people could help look out for this in case somebody tries to readd it in the future. Thanks.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi all, I just pushed
The Abbey (bar) to mainspace. I am not great with
categorization or formatting citations uniformly, so any help in those domains would be especially appreciated!
Wrackingtalk! 22:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm seeing more and more where people with even a slightly ambiguous gender identity have pronouns stripped entirely from their article. I would like to bring attention to the concept of 'de-gendering' and point out that this isn't some perfect solution. I mean,
James Barry (surgeon) went to great lengths to hide his identity, used he/him pronouns until death, and referred to himself as a man. Why are we caving to transphobia to remove the pronouns he chose? Taking away pronouns only for genderqueer people isn't a permanent solution.
Sock-the-guy (
talk) 23:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
And more recently,
Nex Benedict who's friends clearly use he/him and they/them has lost the privilege of being referred to with the pronouns he chose. I just don't understand how this is being seen as a neutral solution, and would like a more clear consensus.
Sock-the-guy (
talk) 23:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
MOS:GENDERID states, in regard to terms relating to gender identity: Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources.
The MOS appears to agree with you. I would encourage reverting any further edits you find which remove self-designated pronouns.
Doughbo (
talk) 20:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I wrote my first draft (about a trans woman), could someone take a look and make sure that I properly followed the guidelines on the use of name and pronouns?
My
draft is here, I’m particularly unsure if the lead, early life and death are done properly?
Thank you in advance! :)
FortunateSons (
talk) 13:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I haven't read the sources, but the article seems to follow Wikipedia guidelines correctly. Draft looks nice. ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat) 13:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Great, thank you very much for your help! :)
FortunateSons (
talk) 13:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I already rearranged around your statement that she was "born male", which is not the current manner of discussing such things; current usage prefers that we treat the trans identity as always having been accurate, just misread. I raise my eyebrow a bit at the use of Confidentials as a source, as it's primarily a restaurant review site; were the subject a living person, I would object more strenuously. --
Nat Gertler (
talk) 14:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Appreciate the changes, they look great! I’m mostly using them for minor things and as backup, because I don’t have access to her aboutself writing
FortunateSons (
talk) 14:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Requested move: Genital mutilation and modification → Genital modification
I just finished writing
TikTok-A-Thon for Trans Healthcare, I would really appreciate some help with it, also please add it to your watchlist, I know trans related pages get trolls, vandals etc.
Hi. I discussed the dispute with the experienced editor involved, who raised relevant WP policy considerations, and I think we came to an understanding: it's fine to add a section on "Reception" to TDOV that would include positive and negative responses and criticisms, including afaik the political controversy you sought to include. I also added some content on criticisms of TDOV's visibility focus by Black trans activists and scholars. Please let me know if you disagree or find this useful, etc.
ProfGray (
talk) 04:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The confluence of the two events was a notable event that got substantial press coverage, but the wording is terrible and not in the slightest neutral.
Antisymmetricnoise (
talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Gay and Lesbian Teachers and Students Association has had extensive work since being assessed as C-class a year or so ago, such that I believe it now belongs in B-class or better. Would someone with expertise in classifications please take a look and either move up to B-class or better, or provide feedback on what the article still needs?
Chrisdevelop (
talk) 02:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
You've put incredible work into researching and writing this article. Rather than focus on assessment, I would think the priority would be to get feedback, as you say, and ideally the involvement of other uninvolved and experienced editors. I will comment on the Talk page.
ProfGray (
talk) 11:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
As an FYI, the user made some sweeping changes, some of which very erroneously implied that
Intersex,
Asexuality and
Aromanticism were separate from
LGBTQIA+ by creating new subcategories and moving things around.
Part of this may stem from the confusion that we currently still have all pages be titled just
LGBT, although we use it to mean the wider community.
This may need a broad cleanup to correct.
Raladic (
talk) 16:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I've also noticed that in the Category for LGBT people, part of the description reads "Sexual or gender-related indetermination (e.g.,asexuality,Klinefelter,...) is in itself not sufficient justification for inclusion in this category or its subcategories. Other subdivisions ofCategory:People by genderorCategory:People by statusmight be more suitable in this case." This may have contributed to the decision to make multiple new categories. Perhaps this is something we should discuss clarifying?
ForsythiaJo (
talk) 17:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
An editor has raised these changes at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7. A tremendous amount of editor time has been consumed in recent months by editors making sweeping, undiscussed changes to the LGBT people categories that subsequently get undone at
WP:CFD.
[1][2][3][4][5 (ongoing)] This doesn't seem like an especially productive way of doing things.
This got me thinking again about the arguments for implementing a shift from LGBT to LGBTQ+ on the basis of improving clarity and accuracy. I've added my thoughts on that at
Talk:LGBT § Revisiting WP:COMMONNAME.--
Trystan (
talk) 18:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to this category existing, but I believe a name like
Category:Non-binary gay people would make more sense. I saw you added this category to two pages I watch (
Alex Newell and
Toby Marlow), both of whom I think would object to being classified as men.
Aerin17 (
t •
c) 01:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Agreeing with Aerin, I am not sure Shea Couleé identifies as a non-binary man as they go by they/them and she/her pronouns out and in drag respectively. This category's value is in capturing people who specifically identify as non-binary men, it should be used more carefully
Antisymmetricnoise (
talk) 18:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the comments here. I think "Category:Non-binary gay people" would be a better name for the category.
Historyday01 (
talk) 18:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I have reviewed a couple more of the people categorised, a lot of this is just misgendering unfortunately. Even if it's in good faith this mostly needs to be reverted.
Antisymmetricnoise (
talk) 17:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
For BLP safety at the very least, I am going to remove anyone without he/him pronouns.
Antisymmetricnoise (
talk) 17:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for y'all's input. I fixed the category in the biographies. However, "gay people" includes lesbians, right? I categorized as such. I also noticed
Category:Gay people was deleted. --
MikutoHtalk! 00:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Why even create something with the "non-binary men" or "non-binary women" strings? It feels disruptive, to say the least. LilianaUwU(
talk /
contributions) 00:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Presently there is a discussion
here about whether Kino, the protagonist in Kino's Journey, should be included on the page listing non-binary characters (including all those which fall under the non-binary umbrella). I've responded to the original post, which asked in part, "Can someone familiar with this character please clear up the confusion? How is Kino's gender identity best described?", and challenged Kino's inclusion on the page, among other comments. However, your views would also be useful in this discussion. Thanks!
Historyday01 (
talk) 20:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
It may be relevant to this Wikipoject to know that this article has recently undergone a substantial pruning of content and reliable sources as well as changes in
WP:STRUCTURE, from e.g.
this on 6 April to
this on 11 April.
Changes include e.g.
examples of changes to the article between 6 April and 11 April
removal of reliably-sourced content from the lead with inaccurate edit summary
[1] "removing unfactual claim" (it is well sourced that family members had access to the full report when making their 14 March statement)
removal of one of the substantially reported
lasting impacts of the event from the lead
[2] with edit summary "Dept. of Education response doesn't need to be mentioned in lead"
removal of reliably-sourced content from a Benedict vigil reported by NBC News,
At the Owasso vigil, one participating friend said, "I want to start off by saying that Nex was
transgender, and he used he/him pronouns" and "He was so much more than his
transness."
with an edit summary "removing quote which is redundant and violates MOS:GENDERID pronoun rules"
[3] (this is despite the well-sourced note in the lead of the article about Benedict's preferences and the text of
MOS:GENDERID)
removal of reliably-sourced details (e.g. an interview with a school resource officer in the ER is now "a subsequent interview with police"), removal of content emphasized by reliable sources (e.g. Benedict telling the officer "I got jumped"), move of content so it does not reflect chronology of statements/events reported by reliable sources (e.g. Sue Benedict reporting past conduct by the other students towards Nex Benedict early on in the interview, after Nex said "I got jumped"), with an edit summary stating "rearranging ordering of events to be chronological"
[4] (there has been some discussion previously related to this, and it is a particularly challenging area of the article)
removal of an ACLU statement with an edit summary "removing primary source"
[5] (no indication of an attempt to find secondary coverage)
removal of reliably-sourced content not included elsewhere in the article with a generally inaccurate edit summary "removing stuff mentioned in investigation section"
[6] (the request for a DOJ criminal investigation is not mentioned in the Investigation section, and the brief mention of the Dept of Education request is context)
mass-removal of reliably sourced content[7] with the edit summary "removing non-notable reactions" (some of the removed content received international news coverage, and per
WP:NNC, The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles.)
change to the structure of the article
[8] with the edit summary "rearranging order of sections to put hard facts first"
mass-removal of reliably-sourced content, with national coverage by the Associated Press and USAToday
[9], including but not limited to content and a quote emphasized with secondary commentary as "one of the more poignant moments of the event" by USA Today:
Hundreds of people attended an Oklahoma City vigil, where a speaker asked
queer adults in attendance to raise their candles to identify themselves to youth in the audience, and said, "This is your family. These are the people who have your back. These are the people who made it through their teenage years and came out on the other side. They are the ones who are living healthy, good lives. You are not alone – do you understand? You are not alone."
mass-removal of reliably-sourced content with secondary and national coverage (i.e. nationwide Benedict vigils generally, Benedict vigils reported in groups, reliable sources about various Benedict vigils)
[10] with the edit summary "removing undue details -- no need for a laundry list of all the cities or mention of umbrellas". Reliably-sourced content that was removed also included
and the Parasol Patrol, a nonprofit LGBTQ+ support organization that uses items such as umbrellas to form buffers between environments such as schools and anti-LGBTQ+ demonstrators.
removal of attributed content from lead, replaced with not what Benedict's family said
[11], with inaccurate edit summary "concision and precision in lead" (precision might be quotes?)
restructure Reactions section to remove chronological order (this has discussed previously and opposed on the article talk), remove existing subheadings, create new subheadings that do not reflect subheading contents, etc, with the edit summary
[12] "trim and rearrange" (some reactions to the autopsy report have also been re-segregated, this content had previously been per
WP:STRUCTURE included in the related autopsy section according to NPOV policy)
removal of a quoted reaction from Olivia Gray, a citizen of the Osage Nation and Chair of the Board of Directors for the Northeast Oklahoma Indigenous Safety and Education Foundation (NOISE) to The Advocate[13], with the edit summary "Olivia Gray's opinion on this is not relevant to the article" (This source was discussed on the article talk, during pre-discussion about whether to move the article title from Death of Nex Benedict to Suicide of Nex Benedict
[14])
mass-removal of reliably-sourced content[15] with the edit summary "making reactions more concise" (removed content includes
But nobody should have to be brave just to be themselves.
from Biden's statement on Benedict, and all content related to
Chuck Hoskin Jr., principal chief of the
Cherokee Nation and their statement, which had been reported by NBC News)
mass-removal of reliably-sourced content[16] with the edit summary "concision" (includes removal of a quote including criticism of the medical examiner's office)
In general the idea of a concision pass to make the article more encyclopedia and less like news article with details and anecdotes is a good one. This is a lot of material changed though so definitely needs a run through. The parasol patrol one is a good example of how this editor is getting sloppy. I can see how removing the line explaining what the parasol patrol is, would be good concision aka "Rainbow Youth Project and Parasol Patrol." The editor removed mention of the parasol patrol entirely while leaving in the source related to it. Sloppy. This needs to be slowed down and reviewed.
Antisymmetricnoise (
talk) 07:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
A major review into trans healthcare, the
Cass Review, has been published in the UK, I'd really appreciate if people with an understanding of medical research could read it, its currently a very edited article with quite high traffic. To put it mildly the report is being used by politicians and press to push for restrictions to healthcare provisions. The report has been criticised by academics and trans groups in the UK for issues with both its research methodology and its recommendations, but I don't have experience in writing about this kind of thing on Wikipedia.
I think a problem we're gonna see in the article itself is that
WP:MEDRS might be mis-applied to suppress criticism. We should, though, be aware that Cass is a primary source and MEDRS says Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, so we should be watchful of this widely-criticised hatchet-job being accepted uncritically in other articles about gender.
Hi
OwenBlacker thanks very much, please could you post this on the talk page of the article as well? Thanks so much,
John Cummings (
talk) 13:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Does this project include asexuality and pansexuality? If not why not? If so why not call it WikiProject LGBTQ studies?
Thanks for reading.
SigurdsSister (
talk) 06:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
"LGBT" is just used as an umbrella term for the whole queer movement. "Queer studies" could be a reasonable alternative name. However, this discussion has been had a million times. Tons of move requests have been made to
LGBT, our article about the initialism. It's just inconsistant, and in my experience, the alphabet soup is just a distraction from the actual goals of both this project, the wider community, and any LGBT-related movements. If there is a widely held belief that this WikiProject should change its name, I'm fine with it, but I really don't want another pages-long thread of people disagreeing with eachother about it. That's the inevitable result of proposals of LGBTQ, LGBTQIA, LGBT+, LGBTQ+, etc. It all means exactly the same in practice, but everyone has a slightly different preference. This is not an "LGB" exclusionary tactic we're doing here. I don't feel excluded as an enby ace myself, it's fine. ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat) 07:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok that’s totally fine, just wondering.
SigurdsSister (
talk) 15:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
As it stands, I think the above article reads as an anti-gay marriage POV fork (not sure about the reliability of the source used for the quote used within) with a lot of outdated sources. Possibly due a merge into the main
Marriage article or maybe a rewrite, was wondering what members of this WikiProject think about it?
GnocchiFan (
talk) 16:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Currently it doesn't seem like a particularly useful article, and the article for
marriage already has a more useful section on definitions. I think a merge would make sense, unless someone wants to substantially expand the article to detail definitions of marriage across time, culture, etc.
ForsythiaJo (
talk) 16:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Propose a merge to
Marriage#Definitions. Probably most of it will be cut before/after that merge.
Wrackingtalk! 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and deleted a big honking quote in the middle of the page, which was sourced to a page that was a mirror of a
2003 version of a page that was turned into a redirect in 2004. The use of a mirror made that
WP:CIRCULAR; the 2003 article cited it to a a no-longer extant page of talking points for the
Concerned Women of America, not a proper analytic source. --
Nat Gertler (
talk) 16:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Given that
Definition of marriage is a POV fork that is entirely the one-day work of a single editor, I do not think restoring the redirect to
Marriage#Definitions would be controversial, so it should not require an AFD discussion to just go ahead and do so. The target section is in much better shape than the fork, and I do not see any content that would be worth consideration for merging.--
Trystan (
talk) 17:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you folks for the suggestions and edits! I've
WP:BOLDly gone ahead and restored the redirect to
Marriage#Definitions. If anyone wants to flesh out a halfway decent article on different definitions of marriage around the world and in different cultures, I would not be opposed to re-creation.
GnocchiFan (
talk) 18:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks for taking the initiative.
Wrackingtalk! 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for this essay. Looks great as a central reference point.
Raladic (
talk) 01:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with a blanket reference to items of such concern as
WP:FRINGE, as some of these views are sadly common. Some common beliefs are scientifically fringe, but some of what's being addressed is not a matter of science but of policy and belief. Not sure how best to address that.
I would suggest that "That marriage should only be available to heterosexual people." be edited to "...heterosexual couples", because for many of objectors to same-sex marriage, it's the gender of the participants and not the set of desires that is the problem with marriage; they are fine with a man and a woman who lack romantic attraction to each other getting married. --
Nat Gertler (
talk) 03:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I think this is a useful essay. I've made
these revisions, mostly focused on making the text flow (also elaborating somewhat on the various admin/arbitration noticeboards and enforcement mechanisms). I hope these are helpful.
I agree with Nat that some further clarification or specification may be required as to what is considered FRINGE, as opposed to constructive and neutral editing about highly flammable issues. Unfortunately transphobia (and all its related pseudomedicine and conspiracy theories) are popular in the same ways homophobia and racism were in the 50's, particularly with the British media, government, and medical establishment working to prop them up. Declaring them as unequivocally false/unverifiable will probably invite more controversy than
Wikipedia:No racists. If nothing else, some citations might be in order. –
RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (
💬 •
📝) 06:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you all for the advice and the help, particularly the article cleanup and arbitration expansion Roxy I love how it flows now!
I just tried to split the pseudoscientific narratives out and add some sources, ProveIt stopped working for me so the refs are a little messed up lol. I've got a busy day (but woke up early with time to kill) so won't be able to return to it until tonight. I'd appreciate thoughts on if the additions help clear things up wrt WP:FRINGE!
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (
talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the capital Q is necessary in the title - it ought to be in sentence case, no?
GirthSummit (blether) 15:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I've created
Damian Hubbard, if any project members are interested in improving articles about LGBT fictional characters and film/theatre. Thanks! ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 23:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that recent edits are biased and somewhat unordered.
Sharouser (
talk) 13:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
It's a student editor, so it's not surprising that it has references but not in-line citations, and that it does indeed have a POV (even if its one that many of us agree with.) I would recommend dealing with this editor directly; they are clearly finding their way around. --
Nat Gertler (
talk) 13:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)