Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No queerphobes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. There is a fairly solid consensus that this falls within the acceptable bounds of project-space essays. There is a minority who disagree with that interpretation, but it is insufficient to overcome the solid majority who interpret the WP:PAGS as allowing this essay. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:No queerphobes[edit]

Wikipedia:No queerphobes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

It's a political screed coatracking as an essay. People are free to believe what they will as long as they do not act in a manner that is disruptive. The "No (fill in whichever group or set of beliefs you want banned)" essays are getting out of hand. Trying to elevate social conservatives and gender critical beliefs to the same level as Nazism is an abuse of WP:ESSAYS and also of WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NOTFORUM. It smacks of an attempt to turn Wikipedia into an ideological echo chamber. We need to draw a line somewhere and this seems like a good place to start. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]

*Redirect to Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive All queer people should feel welcome to edit here. My own brother is queer, but we are both on the same page on this topic. However, this does not mean we have to indef everyone who does not agree with all of the LGBT community's demands. I know I am not. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete per Ad Orientem Okmrman (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
  • Keep a political screed is an insult without justification. If you don't like the essay, you can suggest improvements, be bold and make them, or write why you don't endorse it.
We currently have 4 other essays in this vein. WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE is about bigotry in general, yet we also have WP:No racists (which I don't see anybody saying should redirect there), and then we have WP:NONAZIS and WP:No Confederates about specific kinds of racists (and I see nobody clamoring for a redirect there). 3 essays on racism, yet none on queerphobia... Interestingly, WP:NONAZIS was nominated for deletion in 2019 and 2023 for the same vague charges of advocacy and foruming.
Trying to elevate social conservatives and gender critical beliefs to the same level as Nazism where does it do this? NONAZIS was the first essay of this sort written, but we also have WP:No racists. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
A discussion about whether all of these separate pages are worth retaining would probably be worth having. NONAZIS is by far the oldest, and I'd guess is also by far the most well-known and oft-cited. TonyBallioni moved WP:NORACISTS from another user's userspace into project space in 2021 for reasons that he's probably forgotten, but I'd be interested to hear whether he thinks it's still serving any purpose (I suspect it's not). I hadn't seen WP:No Confederates, but it came only slightly after WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE, which (sensibly, in my view) attempts to discuss the wider theme. It might be the case (I don't have a firm view on this) that all of these independent essays ought to be merged into HATEISDISRUPTIVE; certainly, I tend to feel that we do not need these 'WP:No...' essays to proliferate. Girth Summit (blether) 17:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
I quite like HATEISDISRUPTIVE which is why I cite it in the essay, my only qualm with it is that it leans more philosophical than practical - essays like no queerphobes/confederates/racists/nazis mean the community has some centralized points where we lay out what's inappropriate, the relevant historical context, and related policies and procedures so we can have shared working definitions of what is meant by hate. Personally, I wrote the essay partly due to being sick of years of people consistently writing in discussions (or even wikivoice) that "gender ideology" is real, that trans kids are actually just mentally ill cis kids indoctrinated to think they're trans, or that all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists, or whatever else - mostly without repercussions as long as they stop short of actual slurs (and from my discussions with other queer editors over the years, I'm far from the only one who's sick of it). I think regardless of the merits of merging them all into hate is disruptive (to which I can certainly see benefits), I doubt it'd gain traction with the community. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete 149.22.84.39 (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
The user above is a vandalism-only IP. Flounder fillet (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Arbitrary break 1[edit]
  • Move to Wikipedia:No Queerphobia. The essay, like all things on Wikipedia, is subject to change, and I think there is space here to do the core of what it is to do... or at least as I see its best possible function: to give specific examples of how a queerphobic editor might be editing that goes against what is covered at WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE. While anti-queer belief is sadly not fringe at this point in time, and while we certainly can't be simply banning edits that support views that do no serve queer-supportive goals, but there are things that editors do that target queer editors and queer topics that have some unique methods and textures. Having a page that specifically points to things like discussing an editor specifically using pronouns that are not their preferred pronouns, or claiming that someone has a COI on LGBTQIA topics simply by identifying themselves with one of those letters, is of use. My support for a move is based on the idea that we should not (and, practically, cannot) say that people who are against gay equality or any such things are not allowed to edit here, just that they cannot be disruptively showing their hate. (Same argument would go for similar essays.) The essay-creating editor has been very open to input. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Switched !vote to Keep -- while addressing what I thought that the essay should ideally be, for now the author's essay should be kept with her intent intact. Repositioning it should be a matter of discussion on the article talk page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[]
  • Keep - The essay outlines and espands on WP:Hate is disruptive with clearer examples of what kind of hate speech is directed towards the queer community and regularly articles involving LGBTQIA+ topics, which is why we have specific arbritation enforcements such as WP:GENSEX that became neccesary precicely because of the queerphobia that drives many vandals to wikipedia, which are often banned and even regularly requires WP:Revdel. It is also improper to say that informing relevant wikiprojects would be canvassing, as that is regular procedure in any deletion discussion and as was already pointed out above, both endorsers and non-endorsers of the essay were informed. It is also inappropriate to equate queerphobia to be a political opinion and use this as the argument for deletion of the essay. Since the OP also brought up that saying that queerphobia doesn't rise to the same level as WP:No Nazis - Nazis did in fact have queerphobic beliefs and various members of the queer community were perspecuted by them, as outlined in Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and Transgender people in Nazi Germany. But also, using it as an argument of why other essays are more valid, but this one isn't, is just saying that some marginalization is more important than others, which is a fallacy as per the Oppression Olympics. Hate speech, no matter in what form does not have a place on Wikipedia. While editors are free to have their beliefs. If such beliefs run afoul of Wikipedias policies and lead to WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, then having an essay outlining some of the relevant policies that apply to this sub-topic is valuable to the community. Per WP:POLICIES, Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. - they are not subject to the same scrutiny as mainspace articles and do not represent all editors views, but as has already been proven by multiple people having endorsed the essay, it clearly does represent the view and consensus of some editors on Wikipedia. One last point I'd like to make is that this essay captures some of the essence of the disruption that LGBTQIA+ topics and editors often experience, which is why we even have a mainspace article on LGBT and Wikipedia as this kind of disruptive editing has even brought large attention of reliable source media on multiple occasions. It is most certainly not just a coatrack, but very much a valuable essay on itself as the topic of LGBTQ coverage and the harassment that users trying to improve its content do have to regularly experience as the article in the NY Times from 2019 has summarized quite well. Raladic (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
  • Delete as we already have the tools necessary to deal with DE and PAs; this 'essay' is just an attempt to make a particular issue a more substantial one than it is. It is generally less than useful to equate all things we dislike to Nazism. It is simplistic and disingenuous to claim that because the Nazis took X-view of something that musty mean that others are also Nazis. Nazis also had ideas on many other things, obviously many of them repellent. Tamzin has written a far more effective, overarching treatment of the issue in—the much clearer and comprehensive—WP:Hate is disruptive. As noted, this is merely a WP:COATRACK and a diversion from the simple fact that if editors are abusive we deal with them every day; it is singularly obtuse to suggest that seasoned admins (and patrolling editors for that matter) somehow need have the relevant policies that apply explained to them. ——Serial Number 54129 19:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per SN54129 BilledMammal (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I just updated the lead and nutshell to not mention NONAZIS as much - I think those saying it equates queerphobes to Nazis are missing the point: that was the first essay against hate, WP:NORACISTS also cites it, NONAZIS itself says in the lead neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, white supremacists, white nationalists, identitarians, and others with somewhat-less-than-complimentary views on other races and ethnicities – hereafter referred to collectively as Nazis. This was explicitly addressing a gap NONAZIS doesn't fill because one can be disruptively queerphobic without being a Nazi: we have 3 essays on why racism and openly identifying with racists is bad, one on general reasons we don't tolerate bigotry, and this single essay on queerphobia. I think a deletion discussion about the solitary one on queerphobia instead of all of them is misguided at best as many editors' arguments include dislike of the type of essay as a whole. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
  • Keep in Wikipedia namespace: from reading the above discussion I'm not sure we have clarity on what an essay is. From Wikipedia:Essays: There are over 2,000 essays ... Essays can be written by anyone and can be long monologues or short theses, serious or humorous. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints ... Many essays ... are obscure, single-author pieces.
    Wikipedia:Essays (itself an essay!) indicates that essays can be moved to userspace or deleted if problematic, typically because they contradict existing community norms. I do not believe this essay does so. It outlines some information that is uncontroversial (e.g. medical fact or Wikipedia behavioural policies) as well as some opinion by the author about how Wikipedia policies should be enforced and what queerphobia looks like in the context of Wikipedia. None of it violates a core policy such as WP:NPOV. Though I support its contents, I would object to it being upgraded to an explanatory supplement or guideline etc.
    The highly referenced WP:NONAZIS is a contentious essay that some Wikipedians disagree with (for instance, those who believe somebody should only be blocked for actions, not beliefs). It lists views that are widely held e.g. supporting forcible sterilisation of disabled people (which is done on a large scale today) and describes them as beliefs that characterise modern-day Nazism. Nonetheless, it has enormous support and consensus at MfDs have found that its status as a Wikipedia-space essay is appropriate. This is because there has been widespread disruption to Wikipedia caused by neo-Nazis and Nazi-adjacent editors and it is an ongoing problem that requires a high level of knowledge and organisation among the community to combat. A similar analysis applies to "No queerphobes". — Bilorv (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
  • Delete/userfy/redirect/do whatever to get this out of projectspace: S# puts it perfectly. This is a coatrack and doesn't help. And for the record, I was "canvassed" to this because I put myself as a non-endorser. Queen of ♡ | speak 21:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
  • Keep in WP namespace, as it represents the opinions of multiple editors rather than one. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
  • Keep in Wikipedia namespace per what was said above, mainly by YFNS, Loki, Raladic and Bilorv. They, pretty much, summed up all the most important arguments regarding this essay and its importance, so I wouldn't want to simply repeat their words. I can only add that possible deletion/removal of this essay would be very undesirable and even dangerous, as it could be understood as a "licence" to discriminate LGBT people on the project, and that such behavior is acceptable. I want to make it completely clear: I am absoultely sure that the nominator didn't have such intention when they started this MfD discussion; I am just saying how all of this could be interpreted by some people, if the discussion result in deletion of this essay. In order to avoid such problematic conclusions by certain users, we should make it clear that, as a community, we stand behind this essay and its proclaimed values. The core message of the essay is clear: LGBT people must not be discriminated here, and that is more than enough for it to be kept and endorsed by more users in the future. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 21:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
The problem is that this page has about fifty "proclaimed values", and maybe five of them have anything to do with actual discrimination against LGBT editors, whereas the rest are just random progressive activist tweets being said in wikivoice. There is a very long list of "groups known for spreading misinformation about and legislatively targeting the LGBT community" -- what in the world does this have to do with editing Wikipedia? There is then the non sequitur claim that these groups "and affiliated groups" should be avoided as sources. Is the idea here that if you have good enough politics opinions, you can bypass WP:RS entirely and just write a polemic essay deciding which sources are bad? This is silly. jp×g🗯️ 22:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
random progressive activist tweets being said in wikivoice - have examples? Is the idea here that if you have good enough politics opinions, you can bypass WP:RS entirely and just write a polemic essay deciding which sources are bad - The list, since deleted, concerned multiple groups people have tried to cite as sources which are known for misinformation. Off the top of my head, here's the last time somebody tried to cite one[1] (who cited the groups dozens of times on other wikis and is a pretty good example of who the essay is talking about). These are groups which reliable sources concur are known for misinformation about the LGBT community, which is not only confirmed by a quick read of their articles but by RSN itself.[2][3][4] Which of the deleted ones do you think actually counts as anything close to a WP:RS? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Okay, here is one of the "anti-LGBT narrative"s from the essay: That cisgender or heterosexual people are "more oppressed than" or "actually oppressed, unlike" LGBT people. What does this even mean? "Pete Buttigieg is more oppressed than Malala Yousafzai"? "Ellen DeGeneres is more oppressed than Anne Frank"? Is it about aggregates across populations? How can that even be measured? Is this sentence also saying "oppression from war and famine is directly comparable to oppression from homophobia, because this is a single quantity that exists along a single axis, and also the second is worse than the first"? Is the essay saying these sentences are true? Is it saying that they're true and also somebody who disagrees with them should be removed from the project? Ignoring, for the moment, that most LGBT people are either one or the other of those things (e.g. most homosexual people are cisgender) -- the sentence just does not make sense. It's either meant to be read at face value, in which case it's utterly ludicrous, or it's meant to be read as a hashtag-like statement of vibes where the words do not actually mean what the words say, in which case it is a vague activist tweet. I understand that writing stuff that doesn't have a coherent literal meaning for the purpose of signaling political coalitional allegiances is important. However, I am opposed to an essay that goes way out of its way to emphasize "Muslims/Catholics/Presbyterians aren't welcome on Wikipedia unless they recant". jp×g🗯️ 00:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Very curious to know how one goes from "some cishet people wrongly believe they are more oppressed than queer people" to "Ellen DeGeneres is more oppressed than Anne Frank". Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[]
The quote you've posted is not from the essay, so I couldn't "go from" it to anything; the only thing I could "go from" was the actual words that were written there (which I quoted directly). jp×g🗯️ 02:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[]
The claim being referenced is the idea that people are oppressed for being cisgender/heterosexual (moreso than being LGBT), and not about all pairs of individuals. In a similar way, Nazis believe that white people are "more oppressed" than other races because they are "becoming minorities" in their "own country" (by racist "one-drop" rules). If this is unclear perhaps it can be reworded. — Bilorv (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[]
@JPxG I updated the text to try and clarify, but Bilorv put it well. This is not a dig at intersectionality, I know plenty of cishet people more oppressed than Ellen Degeneres, and as a brown trans girl to be frank I spend 25% of my time complaining about nonsense from white affluent LGBT people who think they've single-handedly discovered oppression since coming out, but there are people who sincerely argue that LGBT people overall are a privileged group who hold societal power over cisgender heterosexual people as a whole. Not that there are rich/privileged LGBT people better off than most (which is obvious and true for any minority), but that LGBT people as a whole are systematically treated better than non-LGBT people, which is ridiculous (ie, the argument that if you account for race/gender/class, then an LGBT person is more privileged than a cis-het one). If you look at WP:No racists, they list the belief Their race is the most oppressed, often justified by convoluted logic, rather than actual examples of oppression as an example.
However, I am opposed to an essay that goes way out of its way to emphasize "Muslims/Catholics/Presbyterians aren't welcome on Wikipedia unless they recant". Religion is not an excuse to be an ass. One can be religious without being queerphobic, and it's silly and frankly insulting to frame "don't be an asshole to this minority" as religious persecution. One can be queerphobic regardless of religion, one can treat people with respect regardless of religion, so this essay has fuck all to do with religion. Also, I'm not as devout as I should be (sorry grandma if you ever see this), but y'know I'm a Muslim right? I've managed to 1) edit 2) not be queerphobic while 3) not recanting...
P.S. for better comparisons in future, Anne Frank was bisexual, and the majority of transgender people are also LGB. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Thanks, I appreciate that you have edited the essay to say something more accurate. jp×g🗯️ 02:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[]
No problem! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
"However, I am opposed to an essay that goes way out of its way to emphasize "Muslims/Catholics/Presbyterians aren't welcome on Wikipedia unless they recant" So am I, thank god no-one here proposed such an essay. C'mon man, you're being patently ridiculous. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Funny you should point this out, as precisely that point of groups known for spreading misinformation.. was just a week ago the center of such a focus in light of the Cass Review, there was a discussion of some sources from the UK that contribute to it, directly linked to LGBT topic on the Talk:Cass Review#Don't use sources by The Telegraph and The Times, which has now led to an RFC prep to discuss the limiting of them as RS for transgender topics due to their regular coverage spreading of misinformation. This is not just a theoretical topic, but the lived reality of people trying to uphold Wikipedia's values and trying to improve LGBT content on Wikipedia and the uphill battle that it often represents. As you can see from there, editors are now collaborating to collect the evidence and will subsequently bring it for discussion, following the processes we have in place for such discussions.
The focus of the essay is not just on editors, but also the content of LGBT topics and how editors often have to fight an uphill battle against people trying to spread misinformation in such articles. Raladic (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Well, my lived reality is that I've spent several years participating in a collaborate attempt to write a free encyclopedia -- and I've had many colleagues in this effort, from all walks of life. All of us were able to behave as colleagues, not because we all shared a completely identical set of beliefs about intersectional oppression, but because we agreed to basic standards of civility. It's really not that hard to understand: to be a Wikipedian you have to treat other editors with respect.

There is not a requirement that all editors profess a specific set of factual claims regarding feminist theory, or viral news stories about schoolkids pissing in litter boxes, or any of the things in the long list of things that this essay asserts to be homophobic beliefs which are not welcome here. jp×g🗯️ 00:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[]
I've had many colleagues in this effort, from all walks of life. All of us were able to behave as colleagues - How many of them have repeatedly said the majority of people like you (trans youth) are mentally ill and indoctrinated by a cult? And keep trying to put it in wikivoice? How many times have you seen editors say your opinion should be invalidated because you're openly LGBT? Without repercussions naturally. to be a Wikipedian you have to treat other editors with respect 100% agree - it is simply my unfortunate experience and that of many LGBT editors that to be a Wikipedian, you have to put up with a baseline level of accepted queerphobia, while being extremely careful about ever calling it out because you're more likely to get in trouble than the person saying "LGBT editors shouldn't edit LGBT articles and LGBT magazines are inherently unreliable on all LGBT topics".
I leave you with a Baldwin quote I think of often We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression, and denial of my humanity, and right to exist. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[]
It is not my experience that this happens on Wikipedia; it is my experience that people who do this are generally quite swiftly reverted and blocked. "editors say your opinion should be invalidated because you're openly LGBT? Without repercussions naturally" -- if this is a genuine description of an event happening on Wikipedia (i.e. people are actually saying this, and not doing some other thing which you are summarizing as saying this), please let me know who is doing it, and I can block them immediately on the basis of the twenty-two year old policy against personal attacks. jp×g🗯️ 19:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[]
When the MFD runs it's course and I have some time, I'll send you a list because I recall a few examples off the top of my head (just regarding the "LGBT editors/authors/publications are inherently biased on LGBT topics" arguments). If personal attacks also covers "the majority of transgender youth are actually just mentally ill and/or gay and that makes them think they're trans" - be prepared to block many more. And as I was typing this, I can recall a few more editors who have vociferously argued that it's not conversion therapy when done on the basis of gender identity instead of sexual orientation and tried to edit articles to reflect that belief and ignore the RS about what is and isn't conversion therapy. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]

*Delete/userfy/redirect/do whatever to get this out of projectspace per Queen of Hearts. Also agree with JPxG; this essay is of questionable utility. There's the potential to mis-use this essay to subtly attack or intimidate those they're in disagreement with in LGBT-related content or MOS discussions. Some1 (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep in namespace largely based on the points of what others have said, especially Bilorv Snokalok (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Arbitrary break 2[edit]
I felt it was relevant to rebut the argument that notifying WikiProjects is always appropriate. However, in response to your comment, I have attempted to determine whether they are partisan. To do this I created a list of editors involved in the project and assessed how these editors !voted in two recent discussions.
Editors were deemed involved in the project if they were listed as members or have made five or more edits to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies.
The two most recent relevant discussions with broad community input and binary options were chosen; Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 182#RFC: MOS:GENDERID and the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Names of deceased trans people.
Assessing these discussions, we see that editors involved in the WikiProject have opinions that vary significantly from that of the broader community; in other words, we see that WikiProject LGBT is partisan and thus notification of it is a violation of WP:CANVASS and likely to result in a false consensus.
Comparison of support and opposition to past proposals based on affiliation with the WikiProject
Discussion Group Support Oppose
Count Percent Count Percent
RFC: Names of deceased trans people Members 9 82% 2 18%
Non-members 32 52% 30 48%
Both 41 56% 32 44%
RFC: MOS:GENDERID and the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons Members 10 83% 2 17%
Non-members 26 37% 45 63%
Both 36 43% 47 57%
Applying the same analysis to this discussion, we can see how this CANVASSing can - and may still - result in a false consensus; editors uninvolved with the project are strongly in favour of deleting, redirecting, or moving to user space, while editors involved with the project are unanimously in favour of keeping.
Comparison of !votes on this proposal based on affiliation with the WikiProject
Group Keep Delete / Redirect / Userfy
Count Percent Count Percent
Members 9 100% 0 0%
Non-members 8 36% 14 64%
Both 17 54% 14 46%
BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Interesting argument. It contains several presumptions I disagree with. (1) Active members of WP:LGBT and editors who watch WT:LGBT are not the same groups, and may differ quite substantially. (2) If the active members of WP:LGBT were found to hold different views on average than the broader community, you have assumed that is the result of partisanship and not due to any other cause. If members of WP:MEDICINE were demonstrated to have significantly different views on a topic than the broader community, I might at least consider some other factor, such as subject matter expertise, as a potential cause. (3) You assume your non-members group is representative of the broader community. Given that it is composed of editors interested enough in LGBT issues to respond to LGBT-related RFCs but excluding any who choose to be active members of WP:LGBT, that is a rather dubious assumption. (4) You have entirely glossed over the difference of opinions within your binary groups. I, for example, am an active member of WP:LGBT, disagree quite strongly with the essay at issue, but believe WP:ESSAY does not support deleting essays just because we disagree with them.
If you want to make the argument that WP:CANVASS should be amended to prevent notifying certain WikiProjects on their topics of interest - which would have the practical effect of nearly entirely shuttering affected WikiProjects - this is not the venue for such a monumental change.--Trystan (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
(1) That is why I included editors who have participated on the WikiProject talk page. It doesn't perfectly capture who is engaged with the WikiProject, but it is close enough given the scale of the disparity in !voting patterns.
(2) and (4) The reasons their opinions differ are not relevant to whether they are partisan; see this ArbCom ruling which discusses how participation needs to be representative, and an influx of biased or partisan editors disrupt that and produce a false consensus.
(3) This is why I limited my sample to CENT-listed discussions at the Village Pump. These are, virtually by definition, representative of the broader community - or as representative as we can get. I've also now added rows that combine the two groups together (although this value should be taken with a large degree of skepticism, as WikiProject LGBT was notified of all three discussions and thus participation will not be representative); you will see there is still a significant difference in opinion between members of the WikiProject and the broader community.
If you want to make the argument that WP:CANVASS should be amended to prevent notifying certain WikiProjects on their topics of interest The current situation is that CANVASS already forbids notifying WikiProjects of discussions they are partisan on. Most WikiProjects are not partisan, and notifying them is encouraged - no one is making the argument that a general ban on notifying WikiProjects on their topic of interest is either necessary or desirable. BilledMammal (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Not only is notifying any Wikiproject not canvassing per WP:APPNOTE, any public notification in a central on-Wiki space is not canvassing. Read WP:VOTESTACK more carefully: it is clearly only about selective notification.
This is regardless of whether Wikiproject members are partisan. The experiment is flawed to begin with because people listed as members of WP:LGBT are not the only people who are able to read it or watchlist it. Since a notification of any Wikiproject, or in fact any noticeboard whatsoever, could be read or watchlisted by any Wikipedian, it's not a selective notification.
To do a selective notification on-wiki, you basically need to ping people. Or at least approach them on their talk page directly. Loki (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
I've already addressed the APPNOTE argument; APPNOTE explicitly rejects the notion that the listed examples are exceptions to INAPPNOTE.
To do a selective notification on-wiki, you basically need to ping people. Or, as ArbCom has made clear, you provide a notice in a forum mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience. It doesn't matter that a different audience could, in theory, join the forum; if they don't, and in this case they didn't as my analysis has proven, then notifying the forum is a CANVASS violation. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
By the very definition of most Wikiprojects, they have members that have some vested interest in the topic at the center of that Wikiproject and pages related to it, whether its medical people being interested in WP:MEDICINE, people interested in trains following WP:TRAINS or here, people interested in topics related to LGBT issues following WP:LGBT.
Essays don't usually have Wikiprojects associated with them as Talk page projects, but it is very normal procedure to inform the Wikiprojects most closely linked to a topic, which for LGBT related issues is most commonly WP:LGBT as the name suggests.
It is absurd to say that we should stop notifying a group that has shown interest in a topic when that is the very purpose of Wikiprojects.
You should also re-read WP:CANVASS as only WP:APPNOTE on appropriate notification calls out The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion., whereas WP:INAPPNOTE makes no specific mention that informing the Wikiproject that has interest in the topic under discussion is inappropriate (as that would be in direct contradiction of the first line of APPNOTE).
So really you should take this to RFC if you believe that WP:CANVASS should be re-written to say that the Wikiproject most closely related to a topic under discussion should not be informed in the future, as that is the current consensus of the guideline as written.
WP:LGBT is the project with interest in the topic of queerphobia, that is unequivocal fact and thus falls under APPNOTE. Raladic (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Being a interested in a topic and being partisan on a topic are not the same thing, and it is a strawman to equate the two and make arguments on that basis. I've already addressed the rest of your points and I won't repeat myself. BilledMammal (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Not to add even more text to this discussion, but I don't see how a rudimentary bias analysis you performed on one talk page after the alleged canvassing already happened is going to prove that this person did it intentionally, or that notifying a wikiproject obviously and immediately relevant to the discussion ISN'T what WP:APPNOTE explicitly endorses, or that the notified wikiproject is indeed inappropriately biased, or even that the wiki-project is biased at all. In short, I agree with the others that the correct venue for this is a future RFC, as opposed to making aspersions towards a single editor. To go even further, I think you are, at the core, making a false balance argument here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
I've already addressed the APPNOTE argument, and I've presented strong evidence that the WikiProject is partisan/biased.
As for the rest:
  • prove that this person did it intentionally - I'm not alleging that they did. However, it's important for the closer to be aware that canvassing - even unintentional canvassing - took place, and for the editor to be aware that they should not issue such notifications in the future.
  • the notified wikiproject is indeed inappropriately biased - The reason a group is biased or partisan isn't relevant to CANVASS
BilledMammal (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
And we have already addressed your arguments about each of these points multiple times, so I don't think there's any point in repeating why what you're saying doesn't match policy. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
You actually haven’t; you just keep repeating that APPNOTE allows this, without any attempt to explain why APPNOTE’s instruction not to send notices that violate INAPPNOTE doesn’t apply to APPNOTE’s examples.
I might write an essay on this, if only to give us an entire talk page to discuss on. BilledMammal (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
I strongly encourage you to write said essay. The Wikiproject pinging very obviously constitutes canvassing, and even your rudimentary analysis has demonstrated the partisan nature and ramifications of such conduct on this website. I would be very interested in seeing a more comprehensive discussion and analysis of this subject. Users with partisan agendas brigading various areas of this site is an underexamined dynamic of Wikipedia's inner functions. Clique behavior tends to lead to canvassing and other forms of brigading, as your MOS:GENDERID example all but confirms. Durchbruchmüller 20:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
That suggest that you can never actually contact a Wikiprojects, because you cannot know in advance which of the project page's followers will participate in the discussion, and if they end up leaning in one direction (or even before they do), you will be accused of canvassing, That's an unworkable angle. The Wikiproject is not a private or closed forum, A look through the long talk page history will show that it is not a source of constant agreement. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Arbitrary break 3[edit]
Read through the arguments again. If you surmised that it is a don't like it argument you misread. Most of the arguments are - we already have guides for this. We do not need to spell out every marginalized group in an essay, guideline or policy. We protect these groups already to the point where this group has arbitration remedies. Lightburst (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Discussion here has swung me towards the Keep poisition. It is clear that we need this essay and that it is better as a stand alone document, building on and supporting the others, rather than being rolled into them. Things that had might have seemed too obvious to require detailed and explict documentation clearly do. I'm unsure that the title is optimal but that is a discussion for another day. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
No essay, no policy, nothing short of a block, is going to stop a determined troll acting in intentional bad faith. What policies and essays can do is guide those who are willing to be guided. In particular, setting out a list of unacceptable tropes and behaviours serves three purposes. First, it helps editors to hold the line against POV pushing, particularly if they are not very familiar with the POVs in question and need some guidance. Secondly, it can serve to discourage casual trolling by showing the trolls that we have already heard their spiel, recognise it for what it is, and are entirely unimpressed by it. Thirdly, it helps to give our LGBT editors confidence that we have their backs and that we will not tollerate people seeking to use Wikipedia against them or their communities. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Again, I fail to see what this essay does that isn't already covered by existing policies and essays. WP:HID already discusses all the root issues this essay attempts to expound on, but better. Your final point just confirms the suspicion I expressed that this article is some sort of opiate being served to those in the LGBT camp. Nowhere in Wikipedia's mission statement is it listed that the project is meant to coddle specific groups because they feel victimized. If this essay remains up, it opens the door to a near infinite numbering of "No 'x'-phobe" essays being written ad nauseam. This is made tenfold worse by how this essay attempts to misconstrue perfectly valid viewpoints, that can be held in good faith, as being not compatible with Wikipedia. It will simply encourage people to uncritically accept any material labeled as "queer". Durchbruchmüller 02:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
We need a wide range of good editors to write an encyclopaedia. The POV pushers want to push the good editors out and damage the quality of Wikipedia. If we do not stand behind our good editors then why should they volunteer their time with us? Protecting editors from abuse, and protecting Wikipedia from being abused, is not "codling" any more than taking a strong line against racism is "codling" our BAME editors. It is protecting Wikipedia. Nobody is "misconstru(ing) perfectly valid viewpoints, that can be held in good faith" here. This is about detecting and dealing with intentional POV pushing and trolling. DanielRigal (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia currently has a plenty diverse range of editors on it. And I agree, POV pushers do want to push the good editors out and damage the quality of Wikipedia, however the push is coming from the opposite direction you believe it is. Editors are already protected from abuse as well as a user-operated website is able to, and it already made abundantly clear what sorts of behavior are permissable. You say: Nobody is "misconstru(ing) perfectly valid viewpoints, that can be held in good faith" here yet the essay lists:
•That being LGBT is a conscious choice
•That LGBT children cannot know their identities
•gender dysphoria [is] the result of mental illness
•That transgender healthcare is unsafe and should be banned or otherwise made inaccessible for adults and/or youth
all views that are perfectly valid and can be held without some sort of inherent hatred of queer people, as being "queerphobic", and implying anyone who believes these things isn't allowed on Wikipedia. This essay is a bunch of hogwash, and a sad exercise in attempting to pigeonhole vast swathes of people as "queerphobes". Durchbruchmüller 03:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Oh dear. You really think that that list of debunked conspiracy theories is "perfectly valid"? I think you just demonstrated why this essay is needed far better than any of its advocates ever could. You've convinced me. I'm switching my !vote to Keep. DanielRigal (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
I can't help but laugh at the absurdity of your reply. If you earnestly think that anyone who believes something as common as sex changes should be inaccessible for youths is party to some "debunked conspiracy theory", then you've spent far too much time in your ideological echo-chamber. Someone who believes an individual who is too young to legally purchase a beer is also too young to undergo a sex change is not "queerphobic" by proxy, like you and this essay are trying to insinuate. Attempting to foist this ideology into projectspace does not improve Wikipedia, it merely divides its userbase further, and appears to be a concerted effort to expand the boundaries of what is considered 'wrongthink' on this site. No need to grandstand and announce your vote change either, as if the whole project holds its breath to see what DanielRigal casts their vote for. Durchbruchmüller 19:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
By sex changes are you referring to bottom surgery, which are basically impossible to get as a minor unless your parents are very supportive and rich? And are certainly not routine anywhere in the world as basically all health orgs tend to recommend hormones only until the age of majority except in rare circumstances (if you're actually unaware: guidelines for transgender health are based on age and pubertal stage). Or are you referring to things like social transition per your comment that LGBT children cannot know their identities is a perfectly valid viewpoint? Or are you commenting about things like hormone replacement therapy and think that transgender minors should be forced to go through an incongruent puberty? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
By "sex change" I meant, as an umbrella term, any medical procedure administered to change ones sexual perception of themselves, be it surgical, administration of drugs, etc. So yes, these are most certainly becoming more and more routine in the developed nations, particularly European and North American ones. I also made reference to LGBT children cannot know their identities as being an example of a good faith viewpoint being vilified by the essay. No one questions and lambasts parents who tell their underage children "no" when they ask to get a tattoo, as the parent is just looking out for what they believe is in the best interest of their child, and they believe the child does not yet have the life experience to grasp the permanence of such a choice. Likewise, a parent may refuse to allow their child to be administered hormones (or some similar treatment), because they do not believe it to be in that child's best interest. That does not automatically make that parent a hateful "queerphobe". That I'm even having to articulate this so exhaustively shows how far the POV of so many of this site's users has been skewed. Durchbruchmüller 20:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
By "sex change" I meant, as an umbrella term, any medical procedure administered to change ones sexual perception of themselves, be it surgical, administration of drugs, etc. So - you believe transgender minors should be forced through an incongruent puberty? That's what happens when transgender youth are denied medical care - I'm not going to sugarcoat that as anything other than medical abuse.
Likewise, a parent may refuse to allow their child to be administered hormones (or some similar treatment), because they do not believe it to be in that child's best interest. - That is only ever because they do not believe their child is actually transgender. I have never once met, read anything written by, or heard anything about any parent who believes their child is trans and denies them medical care. The only reason to deny it is, as you said, worries about permanence of such a choice - which you're only worried about if you think your kid isn't actually trans. It is 100% queerphobia (and, often results in needing to spend more on medical care years later to undue the damage of the incongruent puberty).
permanence of such a choice - the amazing double standard by which permanent pubertal changes are ok if the trans kid very explicitly doesn't want them, but obviously not ok if the trans kid explicitly does (because they might change their mind and apparently only trans puberty has permanent changes...) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
I'm not saying I believe anything myself on the matter, I'm simply holding that up as an example of how someone who believes in not administering children hormones is not necessarily a hateful "queerphobe" by default, contrary to what this essay is postulating. You can think whatever you want about it, I've already made point clear. I daresay however, the vast majority of the world would disagree with your assertion not giving a child puberty blockers when requested constitutes "abuse". Durchbruchmüller 21:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Arbitrary break 4[edit]
Extended content
Despite its protestations, it serves as a tool for policing belief, not conduct, and casts aspersions by purporting to know what some editors frequently think.
It goes far beyond being merely opinion (which has been cited as a reason that it can remain in essayspace). Rather, it positions itself as a charter for excluding editors. The effect is to ratchet down the range of expressable opinions, and to institute a chilling effect on heterodox beliefs. HID avoids this problem by focusing on behaviour, not on beliefs.
Why is it so disruptive? Because it mixes beliefs which are uncontroversial and widely accepted as hateful, such as LGBT people... should be denied rights and protections, with highly contested vague and dogwhistley statements such as trans people should be ... restricted ... from accessing gender-affirming healthcare and transgender healthcare ... should be ... made inaccessible for ... youth - these are particularly egregious because the terms are slippery and the phrases admit all kinds of readings, everything from "trans people should be denied all types of healthcare" (very widely agreed to be hateful) to "genital surgery should not be prescribed to children" (which is the legitimate recommendation of nearly every MEDORG). There is currently a major international debate in the medical literature (not just in polemical media articles) about the rights and wrongs of transgender healthcare, and there are broad ranges of opinions that aren't in the least bit hateful, yet are manifestly within the scope of what this essay brands as hate. The effect will be to silence legitimate expression for fear of being branded a phobe.
Thus, although it purports to be a precision strike against hate, it is actually a cluster munition causing significant collateral damage. Its effect is to crystallise a POV as normative, and there is no version of it that would be better than simply redirecting to HID.
I unfortunately feel the need to stress that I am in no way arguing that hate should be allowed in some circumstances, or that just a little bit of hate is OK, or that hate is a legitimate POV. I am arguing that this essay will be used to shut down discussion that is fundamentally not hateful. It will be used to insinuate that editors are hate-adjacent. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[]
It isn't possible to clearly separate legitimate expression from discriminatory views, so it seems to me that the price of expressing a view on Wikipedia is opening oneself up to having that view criticized. If someone feels the need to share their view that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry, and someone else feels the need to share their view that opposing SSM is anti-LGBT discrimination, I don't think either of those statements should be sanctionable. (Of course, sharing such views is unlikely to be particularly beneficial to writing an encyclopedia, and the only way this project works is if we all agree to keep our opinions to ourselves 99.9% of the time.)
For a more practical example, I support our guidelines that allow deadnaming in certain circumstances. If someone wants to argue that those guidelines are transphobic, I think that is a legitimate argument to make (though in past discussions, one that by itself has not been particularly effective or persuasive). I'm not going to get defensive and offended; I'm going to make a good faith effort to consider the criticism.
In my opinion, "no queerphobia" doesn't work as a rule, because it requires either defining queerphobia in an overly restrictive way, or defending the validity of some queerphobia to exist. I don't think either of those outcomes are constructive, so the whole framework is unhelpful. But it doesn't follow for me that an essay proposing "no queerphobia" as a rule shouldn't be allowed to exist and try to make the best case it can.--Trystan (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Given how controversial deleting WP:NONAZIS would be (it was a Speedy Keep the last time this was proposed), we should postpone proposals for sweeping merges which would affect more than just this essay. Otherwise, each related essay should be templated and notified of this discussion. I would have suggested placing a neutral notification at WP:WikiProject Judaism and WP:WikiProject Discrimination but I now realize this would be a wildly inappropriate WP:VOTESTACK as these projects are of course highly partisan and biased on the topic of Nazism... –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[]
I am not clear on why an editor who may have been involved in many discussions where editors may have expressed a given view should not be allowed to express that editors frequently hold that view. - Nat Gertler (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Closure[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:No_queerphobes&oldid=1222995306"