Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

Same-sex marriage terminology

In articles discussing same-sex marriage, which terminology is correct? I would presume, as per WP:NPOV, that the term "same-sex marriage" would be used, unless quoting individuals. If so, should all the instances where "homosexual marriage", "gay marriage", "marriage equality" etc. are used in the article text be changed to "same-sex marriage"? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely yes. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely "same-sex marriage" would be preferred over "homosexual marriage" or "gay marriage". However, "marriage equality" is also fine. Funcrunch (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"marriage equality" is purely and clealy liberal POV, and I have changed it everywhere I could find it in a search. Elizium23 (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Please consider the sources and context. In articles about a person it may be more appropriate to state they are married, and to whom, rather than using qualifiers. For more general articles about rights, law and marriage, then same-sex marriage is likely to be the most appropriate term, however this might depend on the wording used in the sources.

There is a second wrinkle that many may find confusing. I was in a civil partnership which years later has become a marriage after the law changed in the UK to allow for an "upgrade"; the confusing part is that legally my marriage is retrospective, so it can be correct to date my marriage back to the original date of my civil partnership and the marriage certificate uses that same date. At the same time, I have friends who have no plans to upgrade their civil partnership to marriage, though socially most will describe them as being married and may not be aware of the difference when writing about them. --Fæ (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Elizium23 - running around and changing wording in articles on the basis that they are "liberal POV" is not helpful. Who is to say that a "non-liberal POV" is any more desirable? I would rather we try and reach a position here via consensus about how to handle terminology on the use of "equality" and then only make amendments in light of that. Unilaterally making changes based on emotion is not the way to go forward. For many people this has been an issue of equal civil rights, and we should be careful to underplay that. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus cannot override policy. For many people this has been an issue of redefining marriage and that is definitely underplayed in articles at present. Would you equally support "redefinition of marriage" as an equal, neutral term? Elizium23 (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If polygamous marriage is recognized in some societies that surely marriage does not have one definition - ie one man and one woman - and thus the issue here is not about redefining something. That's why I think use of the term would be odd. Homosexual people have been specifically prevented from enjoying the rights of heterosexual counterparts and thus the argument about equality before the law is certainly more intellectually convincing. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not the right place to discuss any specific article. If you are making mass changes to these sensitive terms, then please seek a consensus covering those articles (such as an RFC) before continuing, or it is likely to be considered disruptive. --Fæ (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Per the WP:Alternative name policy, "gay marriage" should be in the lead, because it is a very significant alternative name for same-sex marriage; when same-sex marriage is not called same-sex marriage, it is usually called gay marriage. Yes, yes, people in the same-sex marriage might not identify as gay (which can be a broad term, by the way), but the WP:Alternative name policy is not about accuracy. Terminology is usually discussed lower in a Wikipedia article, in an Etymology and/or Definitions or Terminology section. The "same-sex marriage" vs. "gay marriage" aspect is similar to the LGBT community/gay community discussion that was had at the LGBT community talk page. In that discussion, I listed WP:Reliable sources to prove my point. And, to me, gathering sources is a pain. Zumoarirodoka's addition of "homosexual marriage" to the Same sex marriage article, however, was not needed, and I was close to reverting it. I didn't revert because I figured that someone else would likely revert, and it was not a big deal to include "homosexual marriage." The term was removed by Hazhk. Flyer22 (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Some editors seem to making unilateral changes to individual articles despite the fact that a discussion here is ongoing. I don't find this helpful and risks an inconsistent approach across the whole. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, @Contaldo80:, you are not helping by reverting everyone's changes to articles and breaking WP:3RR on LGBT rights in Europe. I would agree with @Fæ: about having a RfC on this topic, but I think that "marriage equality" is the term used by supporters of same-sex marriage, and hence is deemed their point of view, so it is not neutral. The article Same-sex marriage uses three terms: "Same-sex marriage", "gay marriage" and "gender-neutral marriage" and states that "same-sex marriage is sometimes referred to as marriage equality or equal marriage by supporters.", so it would not be a NPOV to include that in articles. – Sdino (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict; I meant to add my post before Sdino's, but my Internet connection started acting up]: Judging by this this, this, this, this, this and this, Contaldo80, I see that you mean Elizium23 and Ron 1987. And this is where I feel the need to advise editors to be wary of engaging in WP:Advocacy. We should be using "same-sex marriage," like the sources do. The Same-sex marriage article is not titled Marriage equality; nor should it be. Like the lead of the Same-marriage article currently states, "Legal recognition of same-sex marriage or the possibility to perform a same-sex marriage is sometimes referred to as marriage equality or equal marriage by supporters. The legalization of same-sex marriage is characterized as 'redefining marriage' by opponents." I don't see how "marriage equality" is more neutral than "same-sex marriage." Flyer22 (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

For the record, a quick search of changes related to same-sex marriage by Elizium23 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) in the last month shows the following diffs (links given using edit comments, mostly changing "marriage equality" to "same-sex marriage"):

1. 2015-07-21 01:49 Dan_Brown_(blogger) WP:NPOV
2. 2015-07-21 01:47 Civil_union WP:NPOV
3. 2015-07-21 01:45 Libertarian_Party_(United_States) WP:NPOV
4. 2015-07-21 01:38 LGBT_rights_in_Colombia WP:NPOV
5. 2015-07-21 01:36 Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Croatia WP:NPOV
6. 2015-07-21 01:32 Mary_Bonauto WP:NPOV
7. 2015-07-21 01:27 Davina_Kotulski WP:NPOV
8. 2015-07-21 01:20 Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom WP:NPOV
9. 2015-07-21 01:16 LGBT_rights_in_Europe WP:NPOV
10. 2015-07-21 01:12 Same-sex_marriage_in_Portugal WP:NPOV
11. 2015-07-21 01:08 Equality_Ohio WP:NPOV (struck as appears tangential)
12. 2015-07-21 01:04 Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Chile Challenges in court:
13. 2015-07-21 01:03 Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Austria WP:NPOV
14. 2015-07-21 00:59 Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Italy WP:NPOV
15. 2015-07-21 00:55 Equal_Love WP:NPOV
16. 2015-07-21 00:51 Religious_views_on_same-sex_marriage WP:NPOV
17. 2015-07-21 00:49 Religious_views_on_same-sex_marriage Christianity:
18. 2015-07-06 03:37 Washington_Referendum_74 Campaign fundraising:
19. 2015-07-06 02:37 Same-sex_marriage_in_Oregon Federal lawsuit:
20. 2015-07-06 02:36 Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Germany WP:NPOV
21. 2015-07-06 02:33 Same-sex_marriage_in_Mexico WP:NPOV
22. 2015-07-06 02:25 Maine_Question_1,_2012 Campaign:
23. 2015-07-06 01:36 Marriage_Equality_Express WP:NPOV
24. 2015-07-06 01:29 Same-sex_marriage_in_Minnesota Lawsuits:
25. 2015-07-06 01:27 Same-sex_marriage_in_California Timeline:
26. 2015-07-06 01:24 Same-sex_marriage_in_Maine 2009 legislation:
27. 2015-07-06 01:11 Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage WP:NPOV
28. 2015-07-06 01:05 Heather_Matarazzo WP:NPOV

This is a significant pattern, given that mass changes were made so close together that it is not credible that sources were carefully reviewed to support changes in terminology. If the same changes continue without establishing a consensus for mass changes, I suggest this evidence is taken for more formal dispute resolution. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

However, the proponents of the "marriage equality" term cannot come up with any evidence that it is an NPOV term, therefore all those changes aren't wrong, in my opinion... – Sdino (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If you think that the term isn't neutral, then don't you mean all those changes are wrong? Flyer22 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I see that Fæ was stating that Elizium23 was changing "marriage equality" to "same-sex marriage."

Elizium23, what is up with your changing directions? By that, I mean, now changing "same-sex marriage" to "marriage equality." Flyer22 (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC) And now I see that I initially thought that Elizium23 and Ron 1987 were changing text from "same-sex marriage" to "marriage equality." It is the other way around. My reading comprehension was off. Flyer22 (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sdino: Sure. The key point here is not about "being right" but being led by reliable sources and consensus. These mass changes in a wide variety of articles, happened on the basis of one editor's perception that "marriage equality" is "liberal POV" (their description). This is a sensitive area and more care than this should be taken before making mass changes, especially if it turns out that the sources underpinning specific articles use the phrase "marriage equality". --Fæ (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Fæ: Would a RfC still be a good idea or has this discussion solved the problem? – Sdino (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

At the moment I don't think there is an overwhelming consensus and loopholes have not been pinned down. Perhaps a clear proposal would help and we could vote on it locally (rather than a 30 day RFC), and specific exceptions could be noted in the discussion if needed. Say, for example,

Proposal: Same-sex marriage is considered a preferred neutral term over alternatives such as 'equal marriage', 'gay marriage' or 'homosexual marriage'. Exceptions may be appropriate for some articles where sufficient reliable sources use a different terminology to address the subject. For example an article on equal rights may discuss 'marriage equality' in the context of a political rights campaign that commonly uses those words in reliable sources. Rapid mass changes should be avoided, as an article's sources must be checked that they support the chosen terminology.

I'm open to alternatives or tweaks to wording, then running the !vote. --Fæ (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If sources discuss the topic as "redefinition of marriage" what do we do then? Just because RS have a term doesn't mean it's neutral and suitable for Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminology should reflect the reliable sources, otherwise either the sources are not reliable/insufficiently represent all points of view (and the action is to add more sources), or the English Wikipedia is suffering from being a bizarre walled garden by being based on internal style guides, and ignoring what reliable sources tell us, which is worse. --Fæ (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I welcome this debate and am happy to abide by whatever consensus is reached. My concern is that changes continue to be made by individual editors with a particular viewpoint (and who have stated that they are opponents to gay marriage). This is not the best way to determine an overall approach that ensures neutrality on a sensitive subject and consistency across all articles. Until this matter is resolved I would ask that individuals exercise restraint and respect the collaborative peer approach which is the hallmark of wikipedia. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I propose a few changes to the proposed text:

1. "Same-sex marriage is considered a standard neutral term over alternatives..." – 'Preferred' is usually used when dealing with opinions, so I don't think it should be used in this.
2. Either a more exhaustive list of alternative terms ("marriage equality", "redefinition of marriage", etc.), or "alternatives such as 'equal marriage', 'gay marriage', 'homosexual marriage', or words to that extent."
3. "Exceptions may be appropriate for some articles solely where sufficient reliable sources use a different terminology to address the subject, the matter has been discussed on the article's talk page and a consensus has been reached. For example, an article on equal rights may discuss 'marriage equality' in the context of a political rights campaign that commonly uses those words in reliable sources, and the editors have come to an agreement that it is suitable to use that term." – As this is a controversial matter, I think every editor should have a chance to discuss the matter of the terminology used in the article.
4. "Rapid mass changes should be avoided, as an article's sources must be checked that they support the chosen terminology. Bringing articles in line with this proposal is permitted immediately after the discussion has ended." – I think that a single rapid mass change should be permitted immediately after we finish discussing this proposal, in order to bring the articles in line with the new consensus.

I would also ask for a separate vote on every change to the proposed text, both mine and any other change that other editors may have, and then a final vote on the amended proposal. – Sdino (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you rewrite the proposal incorporating your changes? Many relate to the suggested process, rather than changing the intent, so I doubt that extra voting is needed, we just need to run with a version. Minor improvements can be factored in later if needed. --Fæ (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

My proposal:

Same-sex marriage is considered a standard neutral term over alternatives such as 'equal marriage', 'gay marriage', 'homosexual marriage', or other words to that extent. Exceptions may be appropriate for some articles solely where sufficient reliable sources use a different terminology to address the subject, the matter has been discussed on the article's talk page and a consensus has been reached. For example, an article on equal rights may discuss 'marriage equality' in the context of a political rights campaign that commonly uses those words in reliable sources, and the editors have come to an agreement that it is suitable to use that term. Rapid mass changes should be avoided, as an article's sources must be checked that they support the chosen terminology.Bringing articles in line with this proposal is permitted immediately after the discussion has ended.

– Sdino (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Why same-sex marriage and not gender-neutral marriage? That's a common term used in many places that have adopted legislation. Likewise why not the term "equal marriage rights for same-sex unions". One of the concerns I have with a blanket adoption of same-sex marriage is that it allows opponents to make the claim that it isn't the same as having a proper "marriage" - it's a "same-sex" pseudo-marriage. Marriage is the same for a man marrying a woman or a man marrying a man. Thus equality. I don't want articles using language that rather permits a position that it's only the same if you think it's the same. Legislatures and judiciaries that have changed law in this regard have done so solely on the grounds of ensuring the same rights for all citizens within the State. Incidentally Sdino you haven't yet explained why you think such a mass change is necessary - what is wrong with the way that articles are currently worded? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This time, let's turn to Google for help. The term "same-sex marriage" gives me about 119,000,000 results. The term "marriage equality" gives me about 25,200,000 results. The term "gender-neutral marriage" gives me about 1,270,000 results. The term "gay marriage" gives me about 110,000,000 results. Therefore, "same-sex marriage" is the most commonly used term for what we are discussing, hence it is one of the best ways to describe it. We could eventually add that "gay marriage" is acceptable, but "same-sex marriage" is the norm and preferred over "gay marriage", in my opinion. – Sdino (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but I also think that "marriage equality for same-sex couples" (or similar wording) is also appropriate when discussing legislation and the like. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

But, why? I would agree conditionally on that. I think there would have to be enough reliable sources and consensus to introduce that term into an article. – Sdino (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a bit of a tangent, the proposal allows for variation depending on sources so we don't have to get too trapped into alternatives that are less common or more specialized, such as in legal or scientific usage. In practice I think we could put Sdino's revised version to a vote. Aside ... searching Google is little 'proof' of anything, let's not rely on this rather than finding good quality reliable sources;for example "butt sex" gives over 10 times more returns than "sodomy", but these numbers have little bearing on whether these words are appropriate for a Wikipedia article on the history of homosexuality, this is a trap I ran into myself when trying to justify neologisms a few years ago. --Fæ (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I agree completely. I just felt that I should mention it – but, as you said, this can be decided on a page-by-page basis. I would certainly be in favour of Sdino's amendment. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Fæ: When you put it like that, I have to agree... So, when are we going to put this proposal to a !vote? – Sdino (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Now. --Fæ (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinging all editors involved in discussion to make them aware of !vote. @Zumoarirodoka:@Contaldo80:@Elizium23:@Flyer22:@Funcrunch:@Ron 1987: – Sdino (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I suggest the !vote is left open for at least 10 days (allowing for 2 weekends), longer if there is anything about the wording that causes contention or anyone asks to leave it open for longer; there's no particular rush. Strike suggestion as the proposal was converted to a full RFC, so cannot work in the same way. --Fæ (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't help feeling this has all been a bit rushed. We have failed to establish why a change is necessary. Nor have we established why same-sex marriage should be the terminology used across the piece. Nor have we satisfied ourselves that there are no risks in that.

Is it a change, though? It seems to me that we're basically just formalising what is already the status quo. - htonl (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Contaldo80 (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for "same-sex marriage" as a standard neutral term

Same-sex marriage is considered a standard neutral term over alternatives such as 'equal marriage', 'gay marriage', 'homosexual marriage', or other words to that effect. Exceptions may be appropriate for some articles solely where sufficient reliable sources use a different terminology to address the subject, the matter has been discussed on the article's talk page and a consensus has been reached. For example, an article on equal rights may discuss 'marriage equality' in the context of a political rights campaign that commonly uses those words in reliable sources, and the editors have come to an agreement that it is suitable to use that term. Rapid mass changes should be avoided, as an article's sources must be checked that they support the chosen terminology. Bringing articles in line with this proposal is permitted immediately after the discussion has ended.

Please see discussion above for a background of why this proposal is needed and options already discussed. --Fæ (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Amendment changing 'extent' to 'effect' in the first line, making no change to intended meaning. Apparent mistaken phrasing in the original. --Fæ (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Votes

• Y as proposer. --Fæ (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y – Sdino (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y - I stumbled on this discussion entirely by accident, but it seems like a common sense proposal, comparable to references to interfaith and interracial marriages. bd2412 T 15:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y - Funcrunch (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• N - local consensus cannot override WP:NPOV Elizium23 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing here overrides NPOV. The proposal explains how best to comply with the policy and avoid any apparent point of view warring in this sensitive area. --Fæ (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y - this seems eminently sensible. "Same-sex marriage" is quite clearly the most appropriate neutral term; it is simple and descriptive; and, I would venture to guess, it has the greatest "market share" in common usage (maybe second to "gay marriage", but there are good reasons not to use that). - htonl (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y – "Same-sex marriage" is neutral and most precise term. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y - "Same-sex marriage" is the preferred term and should be used when possible; exceptions would be usage in quotes, headlines, laws etc —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not the intent of the proposal... Elizium23 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• That's exactly what the proposal states, or at least how it reads to me. How am I getting it wrong? —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Y - that's the most common neutral term used by other sources as well. Should be used here too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y - It's the most plainly descriptive term, though there are shades of difference in meaning among the alternatives that suggest there might sometimes be a reason to depart from it (particularly when discussing legislation that uses different language.)--Trystan (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y - Chase1493 (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y - Same-sex marriage seems to be the best terminology. Gay marriage, homosexual marriage, marriage equality, and marriage redefinition are all biased and/or problematic in some way. Drewmike (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y – gobonobo ^{+ c} 22:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Y - "Same-sex marriage" is the most neutral and precise term and to be honest is the only I think of that's not biased in any way. –Davey2010^Talk 01:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support, and apply this to parallel constructions ("same-sex relationships", "same-sex partnerships", etc.); marriage per se is not special/required, but just one form of relationship (well, multiple forms, since legal, religious, and civil unions can differ yet still be regarded as marriages depending on the personal and cultural milieu).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  I would be cautious in making any sweeping changes if extending this proposal. For example an article that currently uses terms like "gay relationships" or "homosexual partners" may be considered correctly worded given the context and available sources. --Fæ (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Y - with the proviso that this only applies to articles in American English, other dialects of English have quite different connotations around some terms. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  Can you provide an example of a recognized English dialect that you would propose as an exception (this may need to be broken out as a new discussion thread if it needs sources and detail)? The proposal was written with any English in mind, certainly I did intend to write it in American English, as I do not use it. --Fæ (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for W. H. Auden

W. H. Auden has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MusicAngels (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion related to LGBT and Queer categories

There is currently a discussion related to LGBT and Queer categories at WT:CAT/EGRS#Issues with LGBT, LGBT people, and Queer categories. Please feel free to join the conversation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Kellie Maloney

There is a content dispute at Kellie Maloney. Please discuss at Talk:Kellie Maloney#Do we refer to a trans woman by her male birth name in Wikipedia?? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The Tenant

Just wanted to point this article out to you people after having recently seen this little known 1976 Roman Polanski film and having been pretty floored by it, enough so as to add a new Themes section to the article. I thought maybe you peeps wanted to include it in your group of sites covered by your project and add your label to its talkpage. I mean, the film has Polanski run around in drag and pretty much turn into a woman, all happening in a way that's highly disturbing to his character, although just like in Kubrick's The Shining, it's not quite clear if it's either "ghosts or cabin fever".

Unfortunately, I didn't find any source for another of my personal interpretations (besides those kafkaesque ones that could be sourced and hence are in the Themes section now), which is that the film seemed to use gender roles, (both physical and civil) death, and (both physical and mental) disease as a nightmarish chiffre for forbidden and repressed sexuality in a way that occured highly reminiscent of Thomas Mann to me (cf. the 1991 book Zwischen Selbstzucht und Verlangen - Thomas Mann und das Stigma Homosexualität by Karl W. Böhm). Yes, I know, the film was released shortly prior to when Polanski's legal troubles began, but still. --80.187.106.89 (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

I'd like to ask the members of this project to take a look at Lesbian non fiction. It's an extremely brief and not especially substantive article which cites no reliable sources, and which names just six books within the entire history of the genre — one of which is a not especially notable book written by the same person who created the article (thus igniting the suspicion that the real point here was to promote her book rather than to write a genuinely encyclopedic article about lesbian non-fiction as a thing in its own right — especially given that she specifically offlinked her book's title to its page on Amazon.com, in violation of WP:ELNO.)

As well, I'd like to note that on the gay male side of things, fiction and non-fiction are both covered in one merged overview article on gay literature, while lesbian literature is now covered by two separate articles on lesbian fiction and lesbian non fiction. So in the interest of ensuring that we're giving gay male and lesbian literatures comparable levels of coverage, I wanted to ask for input:

1. Should we split the gay male genre out into separate fiction and non-fiction articles so that they parallel the lesbian ones, or should we merge the two lesbian articles into a single article on lesbian literature (currently a redirect to the fiction article) so that it parallels the gay one?
2. And secondly, is anybody here willing to actually assist in either creating the merged lesbian literature article if that's the preferred option, or expanding the lesbian non-fiction article into something genuinely substantive if there's a preference to keep them separate? As a gay man, I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about lesbian literature, beyond a few of the obvious big names, to tackle that by myself.

Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Note examples of LGBT literature in LGBT writers in the Dutch-language area, including Lesbian non fiction not covered in that article (e.g. Maaike Meijer, Judith Schuyf, Saskia Wieringa, J. ten Duis).

The current Lesbian non fiction article is problematic in several directions: prose that needs a lot of copy-editing ("fictionnal"; "prospective" used in the meaning of "perspective" – just two examples from the first sentence); maybe not even a stub. So I see three possibilities: (1) expand/rewrite without delay; (2) merge into a single article on lesbian literature; (3) AfD. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thinking this over probably the second solution would work best, also for the numerous fiction/non-fiction cross-overs in lesbian literature, e.g. for some it is difficult to determine on which side of the Roman à clef/(auto)biography line they are. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Move request: Kim Davis (Kentucky politician) → Kim Davis (clerk)

B A requested move discussion is taking place at Talk:Kim_Davis_(Kentucky_politician)#Requested move 2 September 2015. Interested editors are invited to comment. - MrX 14:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Save Our Children

Hi!

I am translating into French your article about Save Our Children. It is an interesting work and I am happy to make it part of the French wikipedia (although I am only working on a subpage now). Unfortunatly, some paragraphes need citations and I am not sure that the articulation of all the ideas is always well-done... I wanted to tell you that because I think Anita Bryant's campaign is one of the most important moments of LGBT history in the US. And perhaps someone here has material which could improve the actual page...

Sorry for my English, I read it better than I write it.

Konstantinos (from the French Wikipedia)

Phyll Opoku-Gyimah

Could use some fleshing out. There's a couple of sources in the "External links", and more available on-line. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC).

Laura Lam

Lam is a YA author who's works so far heave an intersex protagonist. The article is listed at AfD. Her article would benefit form attention, and in particular needs research to meet WP:AUTHOR and/or WP:GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

RfC

An RfC, Should this biography include commentary or reactions from politicians?, has been posted at the talk page for Kim Davis (county clerk). Interested editors are invited to comment. - MrX 17:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Help with an article?

I'm going to post this in another WP so we can get a lot of editors in on this. Basically, I think that this draft article has a good topic, but the article is written like a personal research paper. It also has too many citations, which kind of give off the impression that the editor in question picked and chose from the sources to back up their original research. It basically just needs a re-write and to have the citations pared down some, since there is some definite citation overkill going on here. The draft article in question is Draft:Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Trans* (LGBT*) Ageing. Anyone interested? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In the spirit of IAR, more editors may get involved if it's boldly moved into article space. I doesn't seem that bad. I don't have access to most of the sources, so I probably can't help much. - MrX 16:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Rose_Venkatesan

An editor's started an edit war, trying to add Rose's dead name. Could use some help. Anniepoo (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. In a reliable source she says, "I was born and raised as a boy named Ramesh Venkatesan. This March, I became Rose Venkatesan."

Wouldn't a birth name typically be in the lead of a bio? - MrX 16:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anniepoo: Leave me alone. Rubbish computer 16:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember the link to the policy, but I believe that for trans people, we only include the birth-assigned name if that's the name they became notable under. Funcrunch (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The only related guideline that I'm familiar with is MOS:ID, but it doesn't say anything out birth names. WP:BIRTHNAME provides guidance for names used in other articles. As far as I know, the norm is to include birth names. See for examples Caitlyn Jenner, Chelsea Manning, and Chaz Bono. - MrX 22:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

All of the people you mention became notable under their birth-assigned names. Laverne Cox, for example, did not, and each attempt to include her birth-assigned name in her Wikipedia article has been reverted thus far. The Gender Identity essay (which is admittedly not a policy) explains that "[...]the old name should be kept as a re-direct if it is still a well-known name likely to be searched for by people unaware of the name change." Funcrunch (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. Absent a clear guideline, I think it just needs to be decided through the normal editing and dispute resolution process. Of course, someone could also propose adding it to the MOS. - MrX 01:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Request

Could somebody take a look at this source and help me understand how it doesn't support describing and categorizing Camilla Gibb as LGBT under WP:BLPCAT? This is now the fourth source for her outness about her sexuality that has been removed from the article since 2013 for being "not good enough" — and the second in a row to have been entirely suppressed by somebody with oversight rights as some special class of BLP "violation", instead of just being reverted the way inadequate sources for sexuality usually are. And I'm still failing to comprehend how this even is an inadequate source for her, when it would be entirely good enough for absolutely anybody else — it's in a newspaper of record which falls within the elite class of gold standard sources for Wikipedia content, and even more importantly it explicitly demonstrates that she explicitly wrote about it right in her own new book — but the person who suppressed this source isn't responding to my request for clarification of how the source fails to be sufficient. So I'm simply at a loss as to what the problem is here; it's beginning to look and feel very much like there's a special secret sourcing standard, head and shoulders above and beyond what would be sufficient sourcing for anybody else and deliberately designed to be entirely unmeetable, that's been created just for her and her alone. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It pretty unambiguously says that she had a wife. Not knowing much about her, she seems to be bisexual from the article. Last time I looked, Toronto Star was a good reference. How about using her memoir to source it too? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Suppressing the edit seems pretty extreme in this case, but if she is not currently married to a woman, we shouldn't assume that she currently identifies as a member of the LGBT community, bisexual or otherwise. Funcrunch (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Has she made any more recent statements indicating that she now identifies as straight? It's laughable to suggest that people who aren't currently in a relationship have a null sexual orientation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a good enough source for LGBT-ness. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I added some LGBT categories along with supporting text, using the following three references:

• Donaldson, Emily (August 22, 2015). "Camilla Gibb carves out her own kind of happy". The Star. Toronto.
• Houpt, Simon (July 25, 2014). "Does Heather Conway have what it takes to save the CBC ?". Coalition pour la diversité culturelle. Retrieved September 7, 2015. Originally published in the Globe and Mail.
• Demers, Patricia. "CanWWR: Biography of Camilla Gibb". Women Writing and Reading in Canada from 1950. Retrieved September 7, 2015.

The CanWWR source is a website run by an English professor but researched and checked by a group of scholars,[1] so that makes me consider it reliable. The Simon Houpt piece was published in the Globe and Mail and then it was republished by the Coalition pour la diversité culturelle, so both of these give reliability. The Star and the Globe and Mail are the top two mainstream Canadian newspapers. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Um, I didn't say or imply anything about a "null" sexual orientation. Though some people indeed change orientations to become asexual (Caitlyn Jenner for instance). I'm simply stating that we can't assume her sexual orientation unless she's stated it explicitly. (I am queer myself, for the record, and don't have any agenda to keep people from being listed as LGBT.) Funcrunch (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The goal of the guideline isn't to impose upon BLP subjects the necessity of using a specific word to describe their sexual orientation - it's to prevent categorization based on tabloid-style "Gibb and her Secret Lesbian Lover on vacation! pics inside!" Gibb wrote about her marriage to a woman in her memoir, I think that's open enough for WP standards. Her sexual orientation hasn't changed, just because she's not currently in a relationship, unless she's made a statement to that effect. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Shortcut to transgender section in project guidance

Someone created WP:TRANSGENDERED as a shortcut to the guidance that contains "Transgendered is also offensive and deprecated by style guides and should also not be used" (Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines#How to write about transgender, non-binary, and intersex people).

Agreed that on Wikipedia some shortcuts mean the inverse of what the guidance is about (e.g. WP:BITE) I still think the TRANSGENDERED shortcut to be offensive, and should be eliminated (including a deletion of the WP:TRANSGENDERED redirect page).

I have no proposal for a more appropriate shortcut (WP:TRANSGENDER is unused, but WP:Transgender redirects to WP:WikiProject LGBT studies) and that's why I brought it here: maybe a more appropriate shortcut can be proposed – as long as there's no consensus on that, however, I think it better not to have a shortcut to that project guidance section, so I'll revert again, leaving a link to this talk page section in the edit summary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

& re-redirected the TRANSGENDERED shortcut to this talk page section ([2]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

We should not be using offensive terms as shortcuts, IMO. Doing so is not comparable to using an antonym of a guideline, e.g. using WP:BITE to get to "don't bite". I also think it's confusing for WP:TRANSGENDER, WP:Transgender, and WP:TRANSGENDERED to not all redirect to the same place. Wikipedia:Transgender pronouns currently redirects to the MOS; I suppose we could create a shortcut like WP:Transgender terminology. -sche (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Or WP:Trans? like the WP:Gay? redirect leading to another section on the same page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I can understand not wanting Transgendered to be the suggested shortcut listed on the page, but redirects are often there for people who are casting about and may not know the right answer. That "transgendered" is offensive and "transgender" not is not something commonly known in the general community, and it's in our interest that the person who is casting about for it should be able to find that information, rather than not. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I support Trans? as a memorable generic shortcut. I have used the term this way often enough in dialogue elsewhere and never had a complaint, or a suggestion of a better word to use. --Fæ (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Implemented. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Demond Wilson

I would like to invite any members or participants of WikiProject LGBT studies to join the discussion concerning "Homophobia controversy" at the talk page of the Demond Wilson article.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Czhang28/sandbox

Dear editors: This old draft will soon be deleted as stale. It was declined at AfC as too promotional. Right now, Boystown, Chicago is a redirect because its former content has been merged into Lake View, Chicago. Should any of the information in the draft be merged into either a revitalized Boystown, Chicago article, or into the Lake View article? There are plenty of references online about this topic. ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7])—Anne Delong (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the draft about Boystown, Chicago has been deleted under db-g13. If anyone wants to work on it, it can be restored.—Anne Delong (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Lesbian non fiction

The article Lesbian non fiction was nominated for deletion. The AfD has been relisted twice because no clear consensus has emerged; I would be grateful if project members could take part in the stalled discussion. Thanks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Re-organization of WikiProject Women

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women § Complete reorganization proposal

There currently is a discussion about the future organization of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women and several other women-related Wikiprojects and taskforces at the above link. Some aspects may be of interests to editors of this project and your participation in the discussion would be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

New Gaydar Study - where to post?

I thought this would be the best page to ask - I am a research assistant at the University of Wisconsin - Madison in a lab that recently published a study on the "gaydar". I would like to add bits about this to relevant pages, but I've only been able to get it onto the Gaydar page and the LGBT stereotypes page. Any suggestions for where else it could go? I was also hoping to have a full paragraph for this study on the Gaydar page - information about previous studies on that page are about a paragraph long, but my edit was edited down to only a sentence. Does anyone have any suggestions for what I should do? Thank you! Socialpsychra (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I appreciate your enthusiasm in seeking to have your lab's work reflected in Wikipedia. Having said that, whenever you have something that your group did that you want to share through Wikipedia, you are dealing with a conflict of interest. As such, my main suggestion is that you read through Wikipedia's guide to dealing with conflicts of interest. While it does allow for citing your own work within reason, when you have a study and go around looking for places to insert it, that can be read by some as your having an interest in promoting the study rather than serving Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! I read through the COI page. I understand why I shouldn't be looking for places to fit the research in! I guess my only concern now is the Gaydar page specifically. Because it is the most recent research and it did suggest conclusions that were different from previous studies, would it be okay for me to write a bit more than what is currently on the page? Another sentence or two? Or, in order to avoid a conflict of interest, do I have to wait until someone that isn't affiliated with this lab wants to add it to the page? Thanks again Socialpsychra (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Take it to Talk:Gaydar, the page for discussing the editing of Gaydar. Make your case there, suggest what you'd like included, and see how the other editors respond. Make clear when you post there your link to the lab. You may or may not get the result you want (none of us get all of what we want here), but it's the best way of presenting your argument. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion notification

A new discussion has been started at: Talk:Sodomy#POV and "Sodomy". Comments appreciated. GregKaye 11:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

LGBT History Cornwall UK 'One Queer Gay Life'

LGBT History Cornwall UK 'One Queer Gay Life' http://www.gayhistorycornwall.com The above site added to the UK National Community Archives. License issued for inclusion in British Library UK Web Archive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.249.211 (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals, and in other articles

A Village Pump thread has opened (link) to determine how the Manual of Style should guide editors to refer to transgender people in articles about those people. Concurrently, a thread has opened (link) to determine how to guide editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Pursuant to discussion on WT:MOS, I am notifying the two WikiProjects which are directly concerned with this topic: this one and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style. -sche (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Identifying LGBTIQ Public Figures

Hello LGBT Wikimedans,

In the spirit of National Coming Out Day, I thought I would edit some Wikipedia entries dealing with LGBT public figures who have come out. In the first sentence of the Ricky Martin entry, I added "gay" before "Puerto Rican". Another editor told me that this was not necessary since the entry mentions his homosexuality (way, way, way down at the bottom of the entry). I said that I thought it was necessary to bring it up in the first sentence of the entry for younger generations of LGBT people looking for role models. Not only that, but it is a part of his identity, just as much as Puerto Rican and singer. An anonymous editor later removed "gay" from the entry.

So my question is this--does Wikipedia have any conventions or rules related to this issue? Has WikiProject LGBT ever discussed this issue? I look forward to hearing more about it.

RachelWex RachelWex 23:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelWex (talk • contribs)

"I said that I thought it was necessary to bring it up in the first sentence of the entry for younger generations of LGBT people looking for role models."—An encyclopedia isn't exactly the place to be looking for role models; nor should it be a goal of an encyclopedia to provide people with role models. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you know for a fact that being gay is such an important part of this person's identity? For some people, being gay, bisexual, lesbian, asexual, etc. is not any more important to point out than a straight person's sexuality would be. We shouldn't be forcing people into the part of "role model," and I agree that that's not really the role of an encyclopedia. If they are added to an appropriate category for LGBT musicians or entertainers, people looking for role models can find them that way. Funcrunch (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOAP. We should definitely be including it in cases where being gay is key to their notability (such as Harvey Milk), but it's not one of the default pieces of information such as birth year and nationality (look at the many, many biographical articles we have, and few if any of them identify the individual as "straight"). It's not key to Ricky Martin's notability, as his greatest notability was before he was out. None of this is to say that you shouldn't be doing things to point out to those who might be coming out all of the great known out folks out there, I think there is much good to be doing so... but this is not the venue. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

An article's introductory paragraph is meant to summarize the key details of what makes a person notable, not every single detail about their entire life. If their sexuality is a key aspect of their notability (as it is, say, for Harvey Milk or Svend Robinson) then it can be noted in the introduction — but for the vast majority of people, their sexual orientation is not a detail that needs to be noted that prominently right in the introduction. Rather, it's a detail that rarely needs anything more than a brief acknowledgement in the body of the article. Kids who are "looking for role models" aren't going to lose that ability just because the word "gay" appears on line 300 of the Wikipedia article instead of line 1 — we already have entire categories for and lists of LGBT people, and browsing those is a much easier and more reliable way to find LGBT public figures that one isn't already familiar with than randomly deep-scanning individual articles over and over again for the presence or absence of the word "gay" in their body text. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This came up a while ago at Dan Savage. My view in that discussion, which I still hold, is:

The first sentence will unavoidably be read as a statement about why this person is notable. We generally steer clear of race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation as independent components of that statement, I think for good reason. For whom aren't those important characteristics? Where gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation is for a specific reason a fundamental part of notability, it's best to make explicit why (e.g., not "...is a female race car driver", but "...is the first female to win an AMA Pro Racing sprint road race").--Trystan (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@RachelWex: Thanks for raising the question. Sorry there has been a bit of a "pile on" here, but there are plenty of good viewpoints given. I suggest a practical way forward is to search through what lists currently exist for globally notable public figures who are significantly known for being role models for the LGBT community (such as appearing in the various "top 100 most influential gay people" on websites and in magazine articles). It may be that creating a list article for leading LGBT figures using the best sources, might be a practical suggestion for a future editathon or a wiki-loves-Pride event. If you have a look at the Wikimedia LGBT+ portal, there are some useful resources and on-line places to discuss and raise this further if you (or anyone else here) is interested in taking it forward. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"... public figures who are significantly known for being role models for the LGBT community (such as appearing in the various "top 100 most influential gay people" on websites and in magazine articles)."—I'm not sure using those lists is the way forward, as they typically have people like Tim Cook, Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, etc. Being gay is hardly a significant part of their public personas. And even with people like Larry Kramer, I don't think it would be quite appropriate to start the article with words "... is a gay American author...". Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, if someone like Tom Daley is in several "top 100" LGBT lists in well recognized publications (he's been in Attitude and GLAAD's), then this is a significant part of his public persona and cultural influence of encyclopaedic note. I agree that putting this in the first line of a BLP is highly controversial, however my suggestion is to make a list article and then the discussion moves to a simpler one of what is, or is not, a suitable reliable source. The question of what might be appropriate for lead text is a long and tricky one that I would not want to invest an awful lot of time on. At the end of the day it's mostly a question of layout, as relevant BLPs should still be categorized in ways that make them list-able for those searching for LGBT related notable people. --Fæ (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Rainbow flag GAR

Rainbow flag, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. sst✈ 13:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ramchandra Siras

I have raised Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 11#Ramchandra Siras. The film about Siras' case and life was premièred in London yesterday (Aligarh (film)), and I was amazed to see that this article had been created and deleted. Anyone interested in India's re-criminalization of homosexuality may want to help out with improving the article and giving an opinion in the undeletion review. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The article has been undeleted and a second deletion discussion opened at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ramchandra_Siras_(2nd_nomination). Please add to the article or put your viewpoint on the AfD. --Fæ (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

New FAC of Murder of Dwayne Jones

I just wanted to bring the attention of this WikiProject's editors to the fact that I have recently nominated the Murder of Dwayne Jones article for Featured Article status. For those not familiar with this incident, it was a prominent anti-LGBT killing that took place in Jamaica in 2013. This is actually the third time that I have nominated this article, with the previous two FACs having failed primarily due to lack of interest. I'm certainly not insisting that the folks on here automatically lend my nomination their support, but it really would be nice if some could take a look and offer their opinions here if they feel the desire to. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jack_Monroe#Use_of_former_name_in_article

I wonder if we could get some more eyes on this? I suspect editors here are more familiar with these arguments than I am (particularly, justifying the idea that it is bad form to put a deadname all over the talk page while discussing whether or not it goes in the article), and (Lordrosemount aside, who is perfectly civil and who I am pinging here so they know I have made this request) there does seem to be a bit of an influx of anons coming with all the usual repugnablogger talking points. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed at Talk:CHiPs

Hi all, some clarification is warranted at Talk:CHiPs, specifically about the proper way to credit individuals who worked in notable projects in the past and who were credited under Name A, who now identify as trans and are now credited under Name B.

The CHiPs example focuses on Bruce Jenner, who was one of two actors who replaced Erik Estrada and Larry Wilcox as the leads on the 1977–83 American television series CHiPs. Jenner, as some might be aware, is an Olympian-turned-actor-turned-Kardashian-reality-star who in the last year or so revealed his identity as a woman, Caitlin Jenner. It may not be quite clear to the rest of the Wikipedia universe how to best treat these situations, and I think it's a smart idea if members of this project reach out to seek global consensus for the inclusion of specific guidelines for the related media WikiProjects as to how to sensitively and academically address these issues. Your thoughts are welcome here, but maybe there's a better global venue for this discussion? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Discusion on article title for List of unlawfully killed transgender people

Please contribute to the discussion held here. The current title is awkward, though descriptive of the scope of the article. Is a better one possible? Fiddle Faddle 16:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Frank Rickwood

Hello. I have just created Frank Rickwood, an article about a BP executive who received a CBE from the Queen herself and led quite the fabulous life internationally. He was also gay, had a partner, but he was closeted at work according to John Browne's memoir. Is anyone interested in expanding it? It could be a good candidate for DYK: a very successful gay professional, yet closeted at work. Note that he was in charge of a huge oilfield in Alaska, where gay rights are not ideal. Even worse in places like Somalia, Papua New Guinea, etc. I think there is potential to turn it into a feature article. Please ping me or write on my talkpage. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Angela_Mansfield

Nominated for deletion, this could use a lot of work. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Glass Closet: Why Coming Out Is Good Business

Hello. I'm working on The Glass Closet: Why Coming Out Is Good Business by the former Chairman of BP. Feel free to help me expand it. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Need new article for 26 yr old woman being sentenced to male jail

See [8] Sorry I don't have time.Doug Weller (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting it. I would have liked to pick it up but it fits Arbcom's wide definition of 'sexuality', hopefully someone else will draft it out. It would take careful sourcing to avoid WP:BLP1E. --Fæ (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Bullycide

A move discussion is taking place at Talk:Bullycide to change the title from Bullycide to Bullying and Suicide.

Since Bullycide has largely but not always affected LGBT kids I felt it appropriate to ask members of this project to contribute to the discussion. Fiddle Faddle 11:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm against the move.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Homoflexibility

Someone brought to my attention that we have an article on heteroflexible but not homoflexible. Indeed, Homoflexible redirects to Heteroflexibility, where they're both discussed, with an emphasis on the former. At first, I thought this sounded like a wrong I could go right, but looking over that article, I'm not so sure. Is homoflexibility notable on its own—has it been the subject of the sort of high-quality references we have on heteroflexibility? I'd like to think so. Maybe someone could take a look. --BDD (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

And certainly the article is not so full that it cannot be expanded with material on homoflexibility if we have it; as concepts they would seem at first blush to have more in common then in differences, and can be explored more efficiently together. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Robert Oscar Lopez

Feel free to expand this new stub. Has anyone read his books? I don't have the patience to read his articles. Apparently they're allegedly homophobic!Zigzig20s (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Kirk Snyder (author)

Anybody want to help me expand Kirk Snyder (author)? Very important.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)