Revision as of 02:15, 22 February 2023 editHistoryday01 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users30,976 edits →Anime Feminist is a "political" source?: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:22, 22 February 2023 edit undoYour Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,068 edits →Do trangender students have the right to have their names/pronouns be respected?: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
At ], there is currently a debate about whether transgender students have the right to not be misgendered/deadnamed in schools. Apparently, citations to US laws, UN statements, and human rights groups are meaningless if an editor loudly repeats their opinions that those sources don't count and trans students don't have that right, so outside input would be appreciated. ] (]) 14:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | At ], there is currently a debate about whether transgender students have the right to not be misgendered/deadnamed in schools. Apparently, citations to US laws, UN statements, and human rights groups are meaningless if an editor loudly repeats their opinions that those sources don't count and trans students don't have that right, so outside input would be appreciated. ] (]) 14:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | ||
: Lest this get unnecessarily heated, the question is simply whether ] should be in ], per ]. More opinions welcome. ] (]) 17:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | : Lest this get unnecessarily heated, the question is simply whether ] should be in ], per ]. More opinions welcome. ] (]) 17:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | ||
:I apologize for the misleading description here, I've started an RFC in the linked talk page. | |||
:Quoting the prompt from there: {{tq|can we categorize an organization as an "organization opposed to LGBT/transgender rights" in an instance where the organization is known for opposing a particular LGBT right, but the sources mentioning that don't say it's a right? For the simplest example: if an organization is known for campaigning against same-sex marriage, are our criteria for categorizing them as "an organization that opposes LGBT rights" based on 1) whether the WP:RS commenting on their opposition to same-sex marriage explicitly call same-sex marriage an LGBT right or 2) whether WP:RS generally consider same-sex marriage an LGBT right? }} ] (]) 17:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Proposed split of page for Amity Blight from ] page == | == Proposed split of page for Amity Blight from ] page == |
Revision as of 17:22, 22 February 2023
WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies |
Home | Talk | Collaboration | Editing | Resources | Showcase |
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
To-do list for WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-11-13
|
LGBTQ+ studies Project‑class | |||||||
|
LGBT Rights in the United States Taskforce Proposal
Main page: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies/LGBT in the United States work groupThere's a lot of anti-LGBT legislation that has been or is being introduced across the United States, yet the "LGBT rights in <State>" articles are often woefully lagging. I think it would be prudent to create a taskforce with a centralized page linking to the articles were people can self-assign to one or more states, so we can keep track of it all, see where work is needed, and split the workload. I'm thinking similar to WP:CANLGBT but with a table format with each row linking to the state, saying what may need to be done, and listing those who've assigned themselves. Does anyone else think this is a good idea or have ideas for implementation? Would anyone object if I just went ahead a created a page for it? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead. That sounds like a good idea. Historyday01 (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Went ahead and created WP:USALGBT, anybody interested please feel free to join and assign yourself a state! Currently nearly all of them are marked as needing review TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've added the group page to my watchlist. Would love to see an active collaboration here and invite others to join. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- This is a great idea. I would like to join this taskforce! :)
- — JuanGLP (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've added the group page to my watchlist. Would love to see an active collaboration here and invite others to join. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Went ahead and created WP:USALGBT, anybody interested please feel free to join and assign yourself a state! Currently nearly all of them are marked as needing review TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Should the "Wi Spa controversy" Article Identify the Suspect by Name?
Please consider contributing to the "Should the Article Name the Suspect?" discussion at Talk:Wi Spa controversy. Mox La Push (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Possible page for Kia Anthony?
When I was doing some work for WP:USALGBT, I came across Kia Anthony, a mayor of Spring Lake, North Carolina, since November 2021 (also see here) and has been noted in publications like QNotes Carolinas and Baltimore Out Loud (both quoting from the a paywalled article in the Fayettesville Observer), along with other articles in the Fayettesville Observer (also see here, here, here and others behind a paywall), Spectrum News, Charlotte Business Journal (behind a paywall), City View (also see here), CBS 17, Disability Rights North Carolina, 11 ABC, and WRAL. She also appears to have mentioned being a lesbian not on her Twitter, but on her Instagram account. Do you all think this is enough for a page, should I try and find more, or should I incorporate this somewhere else, onto another page instead? Historyday01 (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Historyday01: I guess that being mayor of Spring Lake makes Anthony a local politician, so per WP:POLITICIAN she would need "significant press coverage" to be notable. I think some of the content you link is either routine (coverage of all candidates' manifestos) or not significant coverage (formal comments on a news story). The Fayettesville Observer content looks in-depth and at least a couple of sources should contribute to notability but whether it gets over the threshold is not too clear to me. — Bilorv (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll wait a little longer and see if there's more for notability-sake, before creating a page. Historyday01 (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Project-independent quality assessments
See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Pre-transition photo of Gabbi Tuft discussion
Hello, members of this WikiProject are invited to join in this discussion: Talk:Gabbi_Tuft#Should_we_use_a_pre-transition_photo_of_Tuft_in_the_infobox_until_we_acquire_a_post-transition_photo? Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Do trangender students have the right to have their names/pronouns be respected?
At Talk:Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism#Category: Organizations that oppose transgender rights, there is currently a debate about whether transgender students have the right to not be misgendered/deadnamed in schools. Apparently, citations to US laws, UN statements, and human rights groups are meaningless if an editor loudly repeats their opinions that those sources don't count and trans students don't have that right, so outside input would be appreciated. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Lest this get unnecessarily heated, the question is simply whether Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism should be in Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights, per WP:DEFINING. More opinions welcome. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- I apologize for the misleading description here, I've started an RFC in the linked talk page.
- Quoting the prompt from there:
can we categorize an organization as an "organization opposed to LGBT/transgender rights" in an instance where the organization is known for opposing a particular LGBT right, but the sources mentioning that don't say it's a right? For the simplest example: if an organization is known for campaigning against same-sex marriage, are our criteria for categorizing them as "an organization that opposes LGBT rights" based on 1) whether the WP:RS commenting on their opposition to same-sex marriage explicitly call same-sex marriage an LGBT right or 2) whether WP:RS generally consider same-sex marriage an LGBT right?
TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Proposed split of page for Amity Blight from List of The Owl House characters page
Hello everyone! I would like your input on a discussion on the List of The Owl House characters talk page, about whether to split off the section for Amity Blight into its own page. Currently, the page is draft available at Draft:Amity Blight, and consensus in this discussion is important to determine whether this character should get its own article. Thanks and I hope to see your comments. Historyday01 (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Genderqueer categories merge discussion
There is a merge discussion here for the "Genderqueer" and "Genderqueer people" categories. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Queer categories merge discussion
There is a merge discussion for almost all of the queer-related categories here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Anime Feminist is a "political" source?
At Talk:Cardcaptor Sakura: Clear Card#Political piece added as reception, there is a currently discussion, with some editors claiming that Anime Feminist should not be added as a source in the reception section of the Cardcaptor Sakura: Clear Card page, claiming it is not "notable", "helpful", and the site is not "reputable", so outside input would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- The fact that the site is political is literally stated in its very name and they have never hidden it. However, for all its controversy in general, the site is quite authoritative in terms of feminist or one of the feminist content assessments. So if you're going to use it as an opinion on the show, I don't think it should be a problem. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- That was my thought as well. Most of the discussion currently is filled with IP addresses, which can be slanted against LGBTQ topics, so I'm not too surprised, to be honest, on the discussion on there. Historyday01 (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, if they have a global claim to AF as a source, then they can always discuss it on the source evaluation forum. Disagreeing with the resource's political stance or subjective discussions about the "importance" of queer topics in the show is pretty extraneous. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. I doubt they will discuss it there. Historyday01 (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, if they have a global claim to AF as a source, then they can always discuss it on the source evaluation forum. Disagreeing with the resource's political stance or subjective discussions about the "importance" of queer topics in the show is pretty extraneous. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- That was my thought as well. Most of the discussion currently is filled with IP addresses, which can be slanted against LGBTQ topics, so I'm not too surprised, to be honest, on the discussion on there. Historyday01 (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)