→Transgender issues: comment |
Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) →Permit WP:Red links in WP:Navboxes?: new section |
||
Line 187: | Line 187: | ||
::::::[ [[WP:Edit conflict]] ]: As soon as I saw [[Miley Cyrus]] on the list, I was like, "Oh no, someone is taking liberty with her words. Where has she stated that she is genderqueer? A lot of kids were [[gender variant]] growing up or still don't feel quite one gender, but don't identify as genderqueer, non-binary, or as something similar to that." At least now there is a discussion at that talk page about it. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 16:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
::::::[ [[WP:Edit conflict]] ]: As soon as I saw [[Miley Cyrus]] on the list, I was like, "Oh no, someone is taking liberty with her words. Where has she stated that she is genderqueer? A lot of kids were [[gender variant]] growing up or still don't feel quite one gender, but don't identify as genderqueer, non-binary, or as something similar to that." At least now there is a discussion at that talk page about it. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 16:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Permit [[WP:Red links]] in [[WP:Navboxes]]? == |
|||
Opinions are needed on the following matter: [[Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates]]; subsection is at [[Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal]]. A [[WP:Permalink]] for the matter is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Red_link&diff=667586209&oldid=667585762#Proposal_regarding_redlinks_in_navigation_templates here]. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 06:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:47, 19 June 2015
LGBT studies Project‑class | |||||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
| |||
Project navigation links | |||
---|---|---|---|
Main project page | |||
→ Project talk page | |||
Watchlist | talk | ||
Members | |||
Departments | |||
→ Assessment | talk | ||
→ Collaboration | talk | ||
→ Community | talk | ||
→ Core topics | talk | ||
→ Jumpaclass | talk | ||
→ Newsletter | |||
→ Peer review | talk | ||
→ Person task force | talk | ||
→ Translation | talk | ||
Useful links | |||
Infoboxes and templates | |||
Guidelines | talk | ||
Notice board | talk | ||
Sexuality and gender deletion discussions |
|||
Info resources | |||
Bot reports | |||
Newly tagged articles and assessment level changes | |||
Article alerts | |||
Unreferenced BLPs (Biographies of Living Persons) | |||
Cleanup listing | |||
New articles with LGBT keywords | |||
Popular pages | |||
Recognized content | |||
Portals we help maintain | |||
LGBT portal | |||
Transgender portal | |||
· changes |
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)
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).
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).
Recognition of same-sex unions in the Republic of Ireland listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Recognition of same-sex unions in the Republic of Ireland to be moved to Same-sex marriage in the Republic of Ireland. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
- What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
- When? June 2015
- How can you help?
- 1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
- 2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
- 3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
Update: We are 1/2 way through June and on track to reach 100 new LGBT-related articles created. If you have not yet contributed to Wiki Loves Pride in some way, please consider donating even just a few minutes of your time by creating or improving an LGBT-related article and updating the Results page. Also, I am happy to share that this Facebook post by Wikimedia LGBT+ was shared by Wikipedia's account and therefore reached more than 46,000 users! Happy editing, ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Pronouns on Jinkx Monsoon article
There have been a few back-and-forth changes on the Jinkx Monsoon article in lieu of a comment Hoffer made about identifying as "genderless". It would be really helpful if some more experienced editors could comment on how to handle the BLP concerns. hinnk (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
MOS:IDENTITY clarification
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#MOS:IDENTITY clarification that may interest some of you. -- haminoon (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Discussion involving transgender issues
So, there's a disgusting discussion going on at WP:VPP in regard to Caitlyn Jenner. Basically, it boils down to a bunch of jocks and male sports fans saying, "Caitlyn cannot be credited using her chosen name for past accomplishments because she is not male anymore". This is in direct contradiction to MOS:IDENTITY, which correctly states that we defer to a transgender subject's chosen name and gender pronouns throughout their life. The sports boy who are *ahem* uncomfortable *ahem* with transgenderism are too dense to get they are denying ethical attribution and are basically trying to disassociate Caitlyn's achievements and accomplishments as a male from her current chosen persona. Are we going to stand for this? Skyerise (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- While I understand your frustration with the discussion, you might want to check out WP:CANVASS. Invitations to a discussion should be presented as neutral notifications to interested parties. Attempts to rally editors to express a specific view in a discussion are generally counterproductive, as they are often taken into account by the closer and weighed against the side that canvassed. You might want to consider hatting and re formulating the above.--Trystan (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting readers of this talk page know about the discussion. --Fæ (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
A note on why the current discussion process on WP:VPP is completely invalid
I'd like to point out that this whole survey process is pretty much invalid. Transgender people make up an estimated 2 to 5% of the population. [1]. The 2013 study The Wikipedia Gender Gap Revisited measured gender bias in survey completion and estimated that as of 2008, 84% of English Wikipedia editors were male. In the worldwide Wikipedia Editor Survey 2011 of all the Wikipedias, 91% of respondents were male. There are significant differences in the acceptance of trans people between males and females surveyed, with men being significantly less accepting than women of transgender individuals, with white males being the least accepting among males and with the widest gap between white male and white female opinions. [2] Somewhere between 58-63% of males are sports fans, while only 36-41% of woman are fans. [3]
So, 60% of the 84% male editor population is about 50% of Wikipedia editors, while 40% of the 16% female editor population is 6.4%. Even assuming the unlikely high number of 4.6% for the trans editor population, that puts the expected ratio of female+trans to male editors responding at 1 in 6. Basically, there is no possible way that the outcome can be anything but a "male sports fans" opinion, which would be in no way representative of what our readers want and would necessarily be significantly skewed toward the less accepting male view of transgenderism. Unless a better way can be found to do this, these results are completely invalid and should be ignored, leaving MOS:IDENTITY as it is, as the previous consensus was arrived at through discussion about transgender individuals who were not athletes, leading to a more balanced and more accepting result. That is, the past consensus more accurately reflects the general opinion of Wikipedia editors as the inherent biases were not exaggerated by the attraction of sports fans to the previous discussions.
This is also why the alleged canvassing above cannot be expected to change the outcome in any significant way. Skyerise (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Stay cool. I suggest thinking carefully about the guidance on systemic bias, which is accepted as an issue generally by the Wikipedia community. A possible supplement to !vote type discussions is to have the discussion broken into viewpoints. If self identified members of subgroups (like LGB, T and women) were clustered, this might ensure reflection on how to ensure a wide variety of viewpoints are encompassed in changes to policy. --Fæ (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Campus rap gender sentence
There is currently a discussion happening at Talk:Campus rape#Both genders#Both Genders Vs. All Genders as to weather the sentence "Rape on college campuses occurs against against both genders and all ethnicities, and social classes." or "Rape on college campuses occurs against all genders, ethnicities, and social classes." would be more appropriate, with a user citing reliable dictionary definitions as reasoning to use the first option. I'd appreciate anyone chiming in on the discussion. Thanks, Azealia911 talk 19:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
"Homosexual" vs. "Gay" – Wikipedia policy?
I'm sure this has been brought up before but I can't remember seeing it anywhere: There are a few LGBT related pages I've been editing, where certain Wikipedia editors have insisted every use of the word "gay" be replaced with "homosexual" instead, and vice versa. I just want to know what Wikipedia's official policy/consensus is on the issue, or isn't there one? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- There is no direct policy. Usage will depend on sources and context. In the modern age people self identify as gay rather than homosexual, and changing this to homosexual can be pointy or even deliberately offensive. For example mass changes of gay marriage to homosexual marriage would be disruptive and is not supportable by neutral sources. Historical use however may well be accurate, so a big difference between BLPs and articles about dead people.
- It has been discussed before, worth searching the archives. --Fæ (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- I believe modern style guides favor "gay" over "homosexual." There's a feeling that "homosexual" is better in historical articles, but really "homosexual" is no less anachronistic than "gay" in articles on people who lived before the word's coinage in 1892. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- For discussions regarding the offensiveness and/or flexibility of the term homosexual and/or homosexuality vs. gay and/or lesbian; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40#LGBT instead of homosexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46#Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 47#Replacing "homosexuality" with "LGBT" in article titles. There was also a discussion at WP:Med about it: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 56#Use of the term "homosexual.". Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the archive search, very useful . I had in mind the GLAAD media reference guide when making my first comment, and I have successfully used it in discussing similar issues. This is the NY Times guidance from the GLAAD page which nicely could be used to hit the nail on the head:
- gay (adj.) is preferred to homosexual in most references. Generally confine homosexual in specific references to sexual activity or clinical orientation.
- --Fæ (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the archive search, very useful . I had in mind the GLAAD media reference guide when making my first comment, and I have successfully used it in discussing similar issues. This is the NY Times guidance from the GLAAD page which nicely could be used to hit the nail on the head:
- In the WP:Med debate, I also pointed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 49#Homosexual vs Gay in articles; like I mentioned there, we should do a FAQ on this because it keeps coming up. Use of homosexual is definitely a case-by-case basis at times. And use of homosexuality, as opposed to homosexual, is usually more accepted because it more often refers to behavior instead of to a person or to a person's sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I was thinking of the FAQ going at the top of this page. And as can been seen in the "Style guideline of gay vs homosexual" discussion I linked to above, there was a minor attempt to make this matter into a guideline; see the vote there at the end, in the Suggested guidelines for gay and homosexual section. I have my doubts that a guideline on this would work, given that homosexual should be used in some cases and Wikipedians have a tendency to blindly cite Wikipedia's guidelines without thinking of the exceptions and when they are hurting instead of helping; I see that often with WP:Words to watch, and there is currently ample debate at that talk page showing it. Flyer22 (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I support amending LGBT project level guidelines with a clarification similar to the NY Times quote above (nobody seems in disagreement to this sort of distinction between gay and homosexual). This would be a nice uncontentious first step and would be good evidence for how this specialist project has established a consensus for any further steps to promote the guidance more widely, or just as something solid to link to (along with a handy shortcut?) to use in article discussions.
- I sympathise with a feeling of pointlessness at the prospect of trying to get this explicitly in MOS, Wikipedia being 'democratic' in a way that more often that not means that minority views are too easily put aside as 'fringe', 'advocacy' or just trolling. Establishing a local guide along with identifying the best supporting independent sources, such as GLAAD and the NYT, is a powerful friend to prop up your point of view. Times change, and the wide Wikipedia community reflects evolving social values, so it is worth testing the waters with an RfC on this type of issue, even if similar proposals were wikilawyered away a year or two ago. --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I was thinking of the FAQ going at the top of this page. And as can been seen in the "Style guideline of gay vs homosexual" discussion I linked to above, there was a minor attempt to make this matter into a guideline; see the vote there at the end, in the Suggested guidelines for gay and homosexual section. I have my doubts that a guideline on this would work, given that homosexual should be used in some cases and Wikipedians have a tendency to blindly cite Wikipedia's guidelines without thinking of the exceptions and when they are hurting instead of helping; I see that often with WP:Words to watch, and there is currently ample debate at that talk page showing it. Flyer22 (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Gay is for people, homosexual is for when absolute specificity is needed, e.g. in sociological, psychological, etiological or medical contexts. That should be the policy.Zythe (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposal
As the issue of when to use, or swap, the terms "gay" and "homosexual" to describe a living or deceased person is a perennial subject (as per the archive links above), it seems worth setting down a standard in project level guidelines.
I propose the following basic text be added as a new section to Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Guidelines, with its own easy to remember shortcut (perhaps WP:gay?) to refer to in future discussions for preferred style:
--Fæ (talk) 10:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I think it would be better to briefly quote (and cite) the GLAAD style guide rather than simply external link it. Don't force users to unnecessarily go outside Wikipedia for basic information. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should provide a few references to support this point of style, it would help to give it weight in any discussion? I'm happy to see the GLAAD link turned into a footnote as the text I have used closely follows the NY Times reference in the GLAAD guide (the guide is actually a list of citations from other sources). --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Fæ Rather directly quote and cite mainstream guides such as AP and NYT because GLAAD could be regarded as non-neutral per WP:RGW. When I was involved in creating the WikiProject Disability style guide objections were raised against using "activist" style guides as sources. Try to find a few non-US sources too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'll try having a hunt around such as checking the online full OED, may take me a few days so I'm happy to others to step in. Yes, citing AP and NYT directly makes sense. I think the last time I searched around this area was two or three years ago, and finding credible non-US centric sources proved almost impossible. Hopefully a few other style guides have addressed this specific terminology since then. --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Found a few British guides - Guardian newspaper, The Telegraph newspaper (both unfortunately very brief) and an interesting blog, Clarity about 'the gay thing', on the Oxford Dictionary website. Our own list article List of style guides links many different guides. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestions Roger; quick Sunday morning feedback, but yet to do a proper search myself:
- The Telegraph's guide is a mixed bag of poor quality or even misleading, I suggest parking it/discouraging anyone from using it as it seems poorly maintained.
- The Guardian's style guide is weak, the entry for gay being okay, but there is no entry for homosexual, only "homosexual rape" which guides you to drop the word homosexual and if necessary use "male rape" (perhaps there is more guidance for the word homosexual somewhere non-obvious, I could not find it).
- Gary Nunn's article is informative, it could be considered an advocacy piece (he did work for Stonewall) but does expand the issue. I've sent Gary a tweet, hoping that he knows of some credible sources.
- As I suspected finding non-US alternatives may only find weaker or less up to date guides. I have stumbled across this sensible Canadian Press based alternate:
- Sexuality
- Gay is usually preferred as an alternative for homosexual men and is also commonly used for women, although lesbian is preferred by many women. Use sexual orientation, not sexual preference. Language is still evolving on what to call the individuals in a same-sex relationship or marriage. Partner, husband and wife are all acceptable options depending on preference.
- Ref ucalgary.ca and j-source.ca --Fæ (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestions Roger; quick Sunday morning feedback, but yet to do a proper search myself:
- Found a few British guides - Guardian newspaper, The Telegraph newspaper (both unfortunately very brief) and an interesting blog, Clarity about 'the gay thing', on the Oxford Dictionary website. Our own list article List of style guides links many different guides. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'll try having a hunt around such as checking the online full OED, may take me a few days so I'm happy to others to step in. Yes, citing AP and NYT directly makes sense. I think the last time I searched around this area was two or three years ago, and finding credible non-US centric sources proved almost impossible. Hopefully a few other style guides have addressed this specific terminology since then. --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Fæ Rather directly quote and cite mainstream guides such as AP and NYT because GLAAD could be regarded as non-neutral per WP:RGW. When I was involved in creating the WikiProject Disability style guide objections were raised against using "activist" style guides as sources. Try to find a few non-US sources too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support new section being added (although why only "gay man"? Surely the same applies for lesbians?). Although style guides from a wider variety of English-speaking countries could be somewhat more useful, as there may be cultural biases in cases like this. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Good point about 'man'. I have amended slightly, by all means suggest further improvements to wording, noting that the objective is to address use of homosexual as an adjective rather than any other frequently problematic words. If there are no strong objections, I suggest this is created as a new subsection by, say, the end of June; after which as better, credible alternative non-US, or new sources/style guides become available, the examples can be updated. --Fæ (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
More Jenner gems
See discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-06-03/Blog#Bruce Jenner was a man. GregKaye 12:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Transgender issues
Just letting people know about the following deletion discussion which has veered into transgender issues so is therefore relevent to this project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial transformation (individual).
Also I note that the Rachel Dolezal and Racial transformation (individual) articles now contain content about transgender issues. Does this mean they are covered by discretionary sanctions and should they be tagged accordingly? -- haminoon (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- And now also this article: Trans-racial. -- haminoon (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- And now this article: Transracial identity. -- haminoon (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Discussion notification: Gender identity disorder article
Notification to LGBT and Medicine wikiprojects of discussion at Talk:Gender identity disorder#Gender dysphoria as commonly recognisable and less judgemental name.
GregKaye 22:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: I altered the heading of this section by adding ": Gender identity disorder article" to it so that it is specific as to what the section is about and will be easier to locate once archived. Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Discussion notification Sex article
Notification to LGBT and Medicine wikiprojects of discussion at Talk:Sex#Sex, facing ambiguity relating to a potential move/renaming of this article. GregKaye 13:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Should this draft be allowed to enter mainspace?
Please see Draft:List of people who identify as being genderqueer, which is pending review at AFC. While the current content might be properly sourced per WP:EGRS, I'm pretty sure future additions will sooner rather than later violate BLP. By it's nature such a list is a magnet for improperly sourced (and even malicious) additions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- You're very right to have reservations. The various Lists of LGBT people have often been a magnet for tendentious or inappropriate edits, having frequently had people added to them who definitely aren't LGBT, who are rumoured to be LGBT but haven't come out, or who sometimes don't even have articles at all (such as classmates) as a form of vandalism or attack editing — and then even once we instituted a rule that everybody had to have a source before they could be added at all, people started adding fake sources that didn't actually support the person they were adding (e.g. just copying and pasting a source that was already present to support somebody else), or didn't even exist at all.
- What we've ultimately done is to keep the lists under permanent semi-protection, so that only users with autoconfirmed privileges can edit them directly — an unregistered or new editor who wants to edit the list can do so only by making an edit request on the talk page. In theory, a more established user could still come and "vandalize" the pages with impunity, but that's not who was normally doing it — it was typically coming from drive-by editors of the IP or new-username varieties, who are properly controlled by the protection.
- That, or pending changes so that the users can technically edit the page but would have to have their edits approved by a more established editor before they actually appear in the article, should be done in this case as well — I know Wikipedia doesn't like locking pages any more than it absolutely has to, but there are certain cases where it's entirely appropriate, as the WP:BLP sensitivities are too high. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Bearcat, if I pass it into mainspace now, will you see to the necessary protection? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sure thing. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- There's already a section listing notable genderqueer people on the Genderqueer page, so this seems redundant anyway. And as I recently commented on the talk page as part of an argument for renaming the page, there are a number of people who id as something other than male or female but not as specifically genderqueer. Funcrunch (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody's suggesting that the list should include everybody who identifies outside of the gender binary in any way at all; it should include only people who can be reliably sourced as identifying with the term genderqueer in particular, and not those who reject it or prefer an alternate term. And the presence of a list in a topic's head article is rarely if ever a reason to avoid spinning off a standalone list — in many other cases on Wikipedia, a list in the head article is treated as the first step toward the eventual spinoff of a standalone list, once either the number of entries to list and/or the length of the main article justify the creation of the standalone. So this isn't duplication — it can easily be a replacement. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I started a discussion on the talk page with my concerns. Agreed that there's no problem having a standalone list; my concern is with terminology and self-identification. Funcrunch (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody's suggesting that the list should include everybody who identifies outside of the gender binary in any way at all; it should include only people who can be reliably sourced as identifying with the term genderqueer in particular, and not those who reject it or prefer an alternate term. And the presence of a list in a topic's head article is rarely if ever a reason to avoid spinning off a standalone list — in many other cases on Wikipedia, a list in the head article is treated as the first step toward the eventual spinoff of a standalone list, once either the number of entries to list and/or the length of the main article justify the creation of the standalone. So this isn't duplication — it can easily be a replacement. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- There's already a section listing notable genderqueer people on the Genderqueer page, so this seems redundant anyway. And as I recently commented on the talk page as part of an argument for renaming the page, there are a number of people who id as something other than male or female but not as specifically genderqueer. Funcrunch (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sure thing. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Bearcat, if I pass it into mainspace now, will you see to the necessary protection? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- [ WP:Edit conflict ]: As soon as I saw Miley Cyrus on the list, I was like, "Oh no, someone is taking liberty with her words. Where has she stated that she is genderqueer? A lot of kids were gender variant growing up or still don't feel quite one gender, but don't identify as genderqueer, non-binary, or as something similar to that." At least now there is a discussion at that talk page about it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)