Review changes — See recent changes on the project watchlist, or visit article alerts to discuss proposals for featured articles, deletions, moves, and more.
This page is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
I want to improve the LGBT_speculative_fiction category lists[edit]
Hi, I just added suggestions for a couple of useful new subcategories to Category_talk:LGBT_speculative_fiction - I just wanted to make sure somebody sees this.
(I'm currently researching queer representation in geeky genres for an annotated recommendations list over on IMDb, so I have a list and I'm perfectly happy to put in the time to add the category tags to the individual media pages. But I don't know how to create subcategories - and in any case, that shouldn't be done by an outsider, I think.)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:1ED0:3500:4886:EC7D:A008:E793 (talk)
"S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters" at AfD[edit]
A discussion about appropriate phrasing and "neutrality" as they relate to transphobia and transgender people is currently occurring at Talk:Britta Curl. The guidance of one or more editors experienced in navigating these topics would be most appreciated, as things seem to be going a bit off the rails.
For context: Britta Curl is an ice hockey player who was recently drafted into to Professional Women's Hockey League. Her selection has been somewhat controversial within the fanbase due to her history of liking and sharing content with conservative views, especially things broadly interpreted as transphobic and trans-exclusionary, on social media platforms. Spitzmauskc (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding that this section is painful to read, but I'm not brave enough to wade into whatever is happening on the talk page. Is anyone more experienced able to do so? Sock-the-guy (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Korbin Albert had liked some allegedly homophobic/transphobic social media posts for which she apologized, and has subsequently been booed during US national team games [1][2]. This has been covered in significant, independent, reliable sources. However, the Korbin Albert Wikipedia page currently describes this in a way that almost makes it seem as if nothing at all was homophobic/transphobic. I would like someone from this Wiki Project to take a look and ensure that section is written from a neutral point of view. Joeykai (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wow! That was both way too long and also misleading. I've attempted to clean it up a bit, although now the section seems to need more so it's not just a "controversy" section Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should the section about it be called 'personal life'? It's part of her personal life sure, but when it's the only thing in that section it's kind of odd. I assume her personal life does not revolve around reposting homophobic/transphobic Tik Toks. Urchincrawler (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just started this list. Did it exist before? Because I couldn't find. There are probably more acronyms missing, but I think these were enough for a start. --MikutoHtalk!21:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MikutoH, it's well sourced, so thanks very much for that. The main problems I see with it are overlap, indiscriminate content, and a possible title issue involving selection criteria.
There is considerable overlap with the LGBT article, which I believe includes most of these terms, although it might make sense to have this article for the ones that aren't , and especially if there were other acronyms that are not tied to the term LGBT itself.
Wikipedia is not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of information, and do we really need to know about LGBTQQICAPF2K+ or MOGAI just because somebody, somewhere, mentioned it an article at some point? We shouldn't underestimate the number of people coining something or mentioning a coinage hoping to get a hit in Wikipedia, which would enormously boost their PageRank on the web. A legitimate acronym that has some sustainability or widespread usage, sure; but not something that is just a vogue word in a limited time or place. These are judgment calls, and list articles generally have more leeway on this sort of thing than at topic article, but still there is a limit somewhere.
As for the title, what do you mean by -related? It's kind of vague term to use in a title, and could mean different things to different people. (This same question comes up in a different discussion; see § LGBT-relatedness of a film below.) Do you mean only terms related to the adjective LGBT, so all the extensions and forms of the term LGBT, but not other things? This question has to do with defining your selection criteria for the list of items that are to be included. For example, could your list also include LGBT organizations that have acronyms for their name, or part of it, like HRC, GLAAD, PFLAG, NCTE, ACLU LGBT Project, GSA?
For me, it could include acronyms such as GSA, which reminds GLA. In fact, I included GSA, but Raladic removed it. SAGA, for example, is used for both GSA and LGBT community concepts. It could be renamed to "...related to the LGBT community".
I agree that LGBTQQICAPF2K+ was a disparate, but some legit adopted it, and it's verified by the cited sources along with searchable nonciteds. And it's the most known acronym that include K for kinks, which many put in the acronym. Though LGBTQIAPK+, LGBTQIAPD+, or some similar would fit better in this article; while for MOGAI, it's mentioned in the LGBT article. I agree that including such acronyms would open the Pandora's box to strange and extremely unusual acronyms or variants. But I avoided many and many other acronyms I know because they don't even have usage in scholar articles.
The overlap was already debated in the talk page but there were disagreements as well in that discussion.
In fact, I'd want to list verifiable (with reliable sources) letters, and adjacent acronym variants, that are put in the LGBT acronym, that's why I didn't repeat them in the article. --MikutoHtalk!22:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer about the title seemed tautological to me, and didn't really answer the question. As I said, the term -related is a very weak connector, and makes it harder to know what the selection criteria are, which should be specified in the article; see WP:SELCRIT. This is an unusual situation, as I can't offhand think of another term which has had so many variants proposed, and it may not be obvious how to determine what should be included.
For example, if some university group creates a new LGBT organization with a new, long acronym of LGBTQQIAPNDK3G+ with '3G' standing for "third gender", maybe because they want to "get on the map" by having some local newspaper report on it, and then bootstrap that published news account into an appearance on Wikipedia, do we include it? Inclusion in a list article has a lower bar than creation of a new article, but WP:INDISCRIMINATE argues against including everything that exists if it has no encyclopedic value. So, where do we draw the line?
clearly widespread use, or use in durably archived media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year
That is how Wiktionary decides inclusion of terms as standalone articles, and since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that would not suffice for creating an article about a term here, but it seems like a reasonable criterion for inclusion of a neologism in a list article like this one. However, that is just my opinion, and we don't have a guideline about this, as far as I know, because I don't think this situation of very many alternate names comes up often enough to have a whole list article naming all the variants. (But look at how they do things at articles like Names of God, or Names of Japan, which are not list articles, but deal with the issue of multiple names and having to source them.) Somewhere, there is a line or threshold of weak or few citations, below which we should not include a term that is attested, but only barely, but I can't define that line; that should be up to consensus, in my opinion. How do you feel about the three independent citations over a year idea?
Another issue is whether this article is about English acronyms, since this is English Wikipedia, or about all acronyms in every language? I am not sure that the latter would be a legitimate topic for a list article, unless that topic itself is notable, meaning that there are secondary sources that discuss variants of LGBT in multiple languages all in one source, to avoid the problem of WP:SYNTH. If it is only about English acronyms, I think that is easier to defend, but then some entries only have citations in another languages, like LGBTTT; I can't find anything for it in English at all; do we include that because it has been seen in Brazilian Portuguese, even if it hasn't in English? Mathglot (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you believe the title isn't the only problem, it's also the content that needs fixing? I accept improvements from other editors, feel free to got that boldly. If you have a better suggestion for the title, I can move it if I agree. --MikutoHtalk!16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion happening at Talk:Sophie (musician)#Pronouns again that's relevant to this project. The subject of the article was transgender, and editors are revisiting the question of whether the article should use she/her pronouns or avoid third-person pronouns. hinnk (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
French Wikipedia has an article on Les Veilleurs [fr] (lit. 'Watchers'; or 'Sentinels') which is a French conservative movement with anti-lgbt goals similar to La Manif pour Tous. It's definitely a notable topic, and we ought to have an article on it. The French article is well sourced, and appears to be well organized and written. Mathglot (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the process of trying to update List of LGBT-related films of 2024 with the films that screened in the past couple of weeks at the Frameline Film Festival, I came across Good One, where the article has already existed for several months but had not been categorized or listed as an LGBT-related film, and I also could not find any sources whatsoever to clarify the matter — so I asked on the talk page, and another editor located a source that passingly states that the protagonist identifies as queer, but otherwise continues to reflect the same lack of evidence that her queerness is particularly central to the main plot.
So I'm of two minds: to me, personally, the fact that a lead character in the film is queer should be enough to warrant categorizing it as an LGBT-related film (queerfolk don't only want to see films where queerness is the drama per se, and do want to also see films in which queer people are just present in the world too), but I can easily see somebody reverting me on the grounds that it isn't "LGBT-related" enough to be defined by that if I tried to add the category myself. It would be much more clearcut that it wasn't particularly significant if a minor character's LGBTQ identity was passingly mentioned without being central to the storyline, but if it's the lead character it's obviously a harder call.
So I wanted to ask for some other opinions as well: if the central character's queerness is mentioned, but the film isn't particularly about her queerness per se, then should it be categorized as LGBT-related or not? Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to lean toward "no"; if it were a film that was about them queering about queerily, sure. If review sources and analysis are focusing on that aspect, sure. But if it isn't central, it's just a personal attribute, then yay for inclusion but it doesn't need to be on the list/in the category any more than a film where someone mentions having met someone at church would be "Christian-related film". It's not a defining aspect of the film, which is what we expect for categories. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor was able to find a source that had not turned up for me, which provided significantly greater context than just passingly mentioned it. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it depends, because a category with a name like "LGBT-related films" would not at all be the same if a lead character is queer but that fact plays no role in the film. Was Star Trek an "African American-related TV series" because Lt. Uhura was in it? I would say no. But if the category was, "Series with African-American actors", then I would say yes. The word related is a weak copula, and can mean different things to different people; hence the "it depends". If you change -related to something more specific, like -themed, then it becomes clearer whether an article belongs in that category, or at least, the gray area is narrower, and Star Trek (as a series) definitely does not belong in -themed (though a few individual episodes might). I'm not familiar with the Good One so wouldn't know how to make the call on that one. And per what you said about people also wanting to see films where queer people are not central but just present, there's nothing wrong with categorizing some film articles with both "LGBT-themed..." and "Films with LGBT characters" (let's say, or whatever the real categories are called) and other film articles with only the latter category but not the former. Would that work for you? Mathglot (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to make a nerd objection. Of course Star Trek was not an "African American-related TV series" because Lt. Uhura was in it. Uhura was not African-American. She was from the United States of Africa. She was an African-African. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term "coupled lesbians" appears in several articles related to pregnancy. This phrase seems overly narrow, but I'm not sure what to change it to. Is "lesbian couples" appropriate? Jruderman (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to lean on "female couples" as an inclusive term (unless sexual activity is specifically involved.) It's not just a bisexual matter; coupled asexuals may also wish to form families. (However, take care to check the source; it may specifically refer to coupled lesbians.)-- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My instinct with sapphic is that while technically the definition does not require romantic/sexual attraction, that is not the common understanding. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my concern with sapphic would be with bisexual men there's no commonly used equivalent. (The male equivalent is Achillean but a layperson reading Wikipedia probably wouldn't know what that means.) I think female couples and male couples would be easier to understand, but my only issue is if it can cause confusion between whether you female sex or female gender. If you're including same-gender couples where one or both partners could be transgender, than female and male might be confusing as those words are often associated with sex rather than gender. Urchincrawler (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to it, but another Atkins source is this: Atkins, Gary L. (Summer 2009). "A Women's Place". Columbia: The Magazine of Northwest History. Vol. 23, no. 2. pp. 22–27. There are many sources of questionable reliability in Gale's Archives of Sexuality and Gender, including several issues of Pandora, but aren't great to establish notability.
I have two thoughts. First is that, like many contemporary LGBT organizations, sources which best establish notability are fragmentary, widely dispersed, rarely digitized, and sometimes not held by any libraries (or if they are, do not circulate as ILL since they're not microfilmed). I've had to purchase dozens of newspapers from various sellers to track down similar information from the gay 70s. Second is that, if we're unable to prove notability, the Gay Women's Alliance can become the background section of the more notable, redlinked Lesbian Resource Center, which is exceptionally well-documented in digitized newspapers such as Seattle Gay News (2001).
I've been trying to fix up the issues on the passing (gender) article since it is tagged with multiple issues and was kind of a mess. I tried to fix some of the more obvious things like adding sources to unsourced info, removing fake sources and self-published stuff like personal blogs, and removing some weasel words. Since this is my first time doing a major clean up on an article, I was wondering if another editor could maybe look over it and let me know if it's ready to have the multiple issues tag removed and what else there is to correct if not. I'm particularly having trouble understanding how to best make the article cohesive. Thanks. Urchincrawler (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
