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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm not sure where you got indef everyone who does not agree with all of the LGBT community's demands. The essay does not imply such an extreme statement, let alone enforce it. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the main author's user space, then redirect the WP title (and the various other WP shortcuts that have already been put in place) to WP:Hate is disruptive. I don't think this would be a problem as a user space essay, reflecting one editor's (or one group of editors') views on the subject. I do not think that it has been through the level of community scrutiny and consensus building that would warrant a WP: namespace title. GirthSummit (blether)08:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what (if anything) is implied by the 'lol' at the end of your question. From WP:ESSAY: Essays may be moved into userspace as user essays (see below), or even deleted, if they are found to be problematic. This discussion will establish whether or not the essay is problematic; I am proposing the first option as an alternative to the second, if that is indeed found to be the case. GirthSummit (blether)17:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zillenial texting habits sorry - in this case the lol was meant to convey conviviality and gently acknowledge my own confusion. Gotcha, I'd thought I missed something and was supposed to take it to an essay wikiproject or something - I now get from your comment and the essay essay that it's presumed non-problematic until an MFD shows otherwise. Personally, the reason I didn't want to have it as a userspace essay is because I want it to truly be a community essay and gain that level of consensus - I want it to be open for everyone to edit rather than presumed mine. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: I don't think that essays in the Wikipedia namespace are expected to have any consensus behind them, see Wikipedia:Essays#Wikipedia namespace essays. Anecdotally, deciding whether to put an essay in userspace or projectspace is more a question of intent: do you imagine others editing it and it gaining consensus one day? Or is it purely an expression of your own opinion? – Joe (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that WP:ESSAYS is itself an essay; meta. I'm not aware of any actual policy or guideline that covers this. ESSAY is rather vague in what it suggests - it does indeed say that anyone can write an essay in project space, but then it goes on to say that they can be moved to userspace or deleted 'if they are found to be problematic', and it specifically recommends MfD as a venue to determine that, so here we are. GirthSummit (blether)07:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz makes a similar observation below. I suppose it's another one of those troublesome unwritten rules. But you can also look to the text of {{Essay}}, which explicitly applies to both namespaces and describes them as the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors or the sheer number of pages in Category:Wikipedia essays, for evidence that the community has historically not seen consensus as a prerequisite for putting something in projectspace.
We can of course discuss whether there are problematic aspects of this essay that would justify it being moved (and are), I just don't think a lack of "community scrutiny and consensus building" is sufficient reason in itself. – Joe (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template says what it says, I can't argue with that. I can remember reading, and possibly taking part in, a discussion similar to this in the dim and distant past from which I drew the impression that some degree of wider community scrutiny is desirable in project space essays. Wish I could remember where that was and what it was - if only we knew what we know. Let me put it a slightly different way then: I'm not confident that this essay is going to do anything positive, and I think it risks doing something negative. It's not going to help us to identify and block trolls, vandals or harassers, but I fear that it's going to further alienate a certain sector of our editorship. It's a whack, or perhaps just a gentle tap, from the mallet onto a wedge that is driving people apart. GirthSummit (blether)08:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keepa 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.
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. GirthSummit (blether)17:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's not canvassing to notify people who would be affected by a decision. If this was on the talk page of WP:NOQUEERPHOBES, this would be an obviously appropriate notification. Loki (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only people I notified where those who discussed/edited the essay who didn't comment here. I'd like to note I pinged people who opposed the essay as well. Many I pinged had issues with the essay they noted or boldly fixed rather than go straight to MFD. This is not WP:CANVASSING by any stretch of the imagination. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This definitely looks like it meets the WP:VOTESTACKING threshold for WP:INAPPNOTE. Posting a MfD discussion there is bound to attract people of a particular viewpoint, thus influencing the outcome of a discussion, as BilledMammal has already outlined. It's no coincidence that as of time of posting, 100% of the LGBT studies WikiProject members have voted to "keep", and overwhelmingly vote in similar ways on related topics. Durchbruchmüller00:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that discussion has reopened, I can note that it looks like YFNS followed WP:APPNOTE in terms of who was contacted; the only variation from that was the use of pinging rather than posting on their user talk pages. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is "insulting your intelligence", we're pointing out policy. No comment on keeping yet, as I haven't read the article thoroughly enough for that. That said, and as others have mentioned at length here, there's plenty of precedent for keeping them around, and if you think they're getting out of hand, it's probably better to tackle them all at once rather than singling out the most recent one, the latter of which being almost guaranteed to end in a no consensus close at best. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. No real argument has been made for deletion of this essay. The standards for keeping an essay are extremely low: just that it doesn't contradict widespread wiki consensus. As long as that's not the case, any random editor's opinion can be a mainspace essay. Indeed, this is not even just one editor's opinion, as several editors have endorsed it on its talk page. This is a prime example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Loki (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Orientem, I'd urge you to let the discussion run it's course. I don't see this as improper canvassing - these people were all already discussing the essay on its talk page, it's only fair for them to be notified of this discussion. Non-endorsers were pinged as well as endorsers. As for the Wikiproject, there was an active-ish discussion on the project talk page about it (which is how I first came to know of the essay), so again it's probably within the bounds of acceptable notification. Let's not make this an us and then situation, let's see if we can actually come to a consensus on whether pages like this server any useful purpose, or if they just serve to divide otherwise productive editors who ought to be working towards the same goal. GirthSummit (blether)18:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 5412919:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ♡ | speak21:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Sundostundmppria(talk / contribs)21:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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...
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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".
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete or userfy: The idea of having a specific WP:NONAZIS fork for sexuality is already dodgy, and of questionable utility (some people have already mentioned this). But this page, specifically, is a partisan political screed about how we need to purge editors who believe in "narratives" the author does not like. I've gone a hundred thousand edits under my real name without being asked about my sexual orientation, but sources close to JPxG say that all LGBT editors are not spoken for here. We should not have an essay asserting confidently that everyone who argued against its author in a MoS debate should be ejected summarily from the project. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a political thunderdome -- I am opposed to any outcome that involves any chance of people reading this and thinking that it represents official Wikipedia doctrine. jp×g🗯️22:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be just terrible if one were to read this, or any essay for that matter, and mistake it for an official Wikipedia policy or guideline. This must be rectified at once, so that any visitor to this page is immediately aware that an essays only contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors and are not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines nor thoroughly vetted by the community. Perhaps with a template of some kind...? –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 14:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An essay, like WP:ATA, or like WP:CIR and WP:NONAZIS, all technically denoted as being essays, and routinely cited in arguments onwiki as the basis for procedural and policy decisions (the latter two specifically cited routinely in block summaries as being the reason why someone is blocked)? jp×g🗯️19:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I don't have any strong objection to this being in project space. We give people a fair amount of latitude on essays. But keep in mind that when it's in project space, people also have greater freedom to edit it, as I did in Special:Diff/1221268945 to remove what strikes me as inappropriate targeting of specific organizations. You might want to consider moving it to your userspace, where you'll have a greater ability to control the content and revert changes you don't agree with. RoySmith(talk)22:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move Per Radalic, Brilov, and Nat Gertler above. This essay definitely needs some more flesh and has kinks to work out, but it is currently being worked on by a large number of editors, so I'm confident that this will happen, other than that, it is, in my opinion a fairly unremarkable extension to Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive, listing a bunch of common fringe claims about the subject and behaviours of the editors pushing them, none of which are particularly new to Wikipedia in general or AE in particular. removed the "move" part, to reflect NatGertler changing their vote--Licks-rocks (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. In this case I say it should be kept and would be a good addition to the WP:HID page you mentioned. I have to fundamentally disagree with those such as jpxg, Queen of Hearts, and the original nominating statement. Historyday01 (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would be very leery of any quick decisions on this-especially because we can all acknowledge at a level that there are currently many queerphobes who would like this removed as quickly as possible. User:sock-the-guy (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2024 (MST)
Editing from my phone. I implore you look at the talk page of any queer individual's article on here for many examples of homophobic and transphobic editors. To imply that Wikipedia has somehow solved queerphobia is laughable 2600:8800:7180:8D:B9A7:9B74:FF22:45B4 (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here are some direct yes-no questions:
1) Do you think that making insulting comments based on someone's sexual orientation is currently permitted by existing policies?
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)[reply]
Keep. There are loads of essays I disagree with, or that I don't think add anything to the encyclopedia. There are many that are contentious. And the essay itself says This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. right at the top, like all essays in wp-space. So I'm not really sure what the reason for deletion is here. The idea that WP:HATEDISRUPT already covers this topic doesn't make much sense to me as a deletion reason either. Look at how many redundant essays we have on notability! -- asilvering (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For a start, it's an essay. Editors are free to write these to express an argument about whatever topic they like, as long as it's relevant to editing and doesn't fall afoul of any conduct policies. That really should be the end of the discussion: talk of whether the essay is needed or useful entirely missed the purpose and established use of the project namespace. But for what it's worth I do also think that this is a useful essay that doesn't just duplicate WP:HATESPEECH. It puts the issue in the context of previous discussions and lists specific examples of queerphobic attitudes and behaviours, including things like deadnaming which are unlikely to come up in pages about other forms of bigotry. Those are the kind of things that an editor or admin can easily overlook if, like me, they're not personally very familiar with the struggles faced by queer people. The objection that the essay compares queerphobia to Nazism seems to be entirely based on the fact that it has a similar title to WP:NONAZIS. But with all due respect to Tony for a great essay, I don't think he invented the "No X" formulation. – Joe (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the misgivings I see in some comments here is that having this essay in project space somehow represents an "official" Wikipedia stance. When has that ever been a valid assumption? There are thousands of user essays, many of which I think are silly or dumb. If project space is considered official representative of Wikipedia project, well, then I have dozens and dozens of essays I'd like to send to MFD for discussion because they are useless or stupid or joke essays that are just not funny and are juvenile. I find them more embarrassing that this essay. If we are going to have some new purity test for essays, we have to clear out a lot of deadwood. LizRead!Talk!06:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to find something as obscene as WP:YOURMAJESTYYOURSLIPISSHOWING in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Apart from this shortcut, the article itself contains two images depicting sexual intercourse, entirely for humorous purposes (so I think it goes against WP:GRATUITOUS). Interestingly, this essay isn't even tagged as a "humorous essay", just as a normal one. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Loki and Raladic. This clearly passes WP:ESSAY and the arguments against mainly appear to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As Liz has already explained, essays do live in the Wikipedia: namespace, not userspace and it's pretty disappointing to see people trying to claim that this one is somehow special and should not follow that long-established policy. Equally, it is normal for related WikiProjects to be informed of relevant deletion discussions; posting there and tagging contributors to the page under discussion does not amount to WP:CANVASSING, no matter how much detectors may not like it. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk)09:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the main purpose of having essays is to represent significant minority viewpoints on topics relevant to editing, which this one does. Saying an essay should be deleted because you disagree with it, or because it could be mistaken for a guideline, seems to be expressing fundamental disagreement with the sort of page WP:PG explicitly allows. Essays generate and further discussion by allowing a position to be set out in a detailed way. If you think an essay is wrong, the best response is to write an essay that gives better advice.--Trystan (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As other editors have already said, there is no requirement that essays, even those in projectspace, reflect either consensus or a majority viewpoint. WP:POLICIES does say that essays that contradict widespread consensus should be userfied, but I don't think that's the case here. Hatman31 (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Essays by good-faith contributors should be given wide latitude. Per WP:ESSAY "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints". It seems like most of those favouring deletion simply don't agree with the content of the essay which does not justify deletion. In fact, it's quite concerning anyone believes essays they disagree with should be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on canvassing I wasn't canvassed but saw this at MfD. However allegations of inappropriate canvassing are simply wrong and frankly should be struck. WP:APPNOTE lists appropriate examples of notification to interested editors including "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion" and "On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article." AusLondonder (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:CANVASSING article also says that notifications should be limited in scope and not broad. I'm not going to go to the trouble of tracking down all the places this discussion was linked but "Partisan" is one of the concerns listed, and one could easily argue that the groups and editors notified could be seen as having a particular bias towards the subject and this has lead to what I could only describe above as votestacking. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An announcement was placed on WP:LGBT, and previous participants on the article itself were tagged. This was stated explicitly by the person who did it in this very discussion. The wording of that announcement was also included here. The scope then, was the relevant noticeboard, and people already involved in discussions about this article. The methodology and reasons for notifying were placed right here. Seems like the job of falsifying your hypothetical has been made easy for you indeed. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over 1,000 editors watch the LGBT noticeboard, but it's not really up to me whether that could be construed as mass-canvassing. Were there any other general noticeboards where this discussion was posted? Perhaps Wikipedia_talk:Essays or Village Pump? I'm not aware of any. So perhaps not so easy, I guess? My point is, the notice seemed quite partisan as it didn't even attempt to include any potentially dissenting voices. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone got banned very recently for posting discussion notices to Wikipedia article talk pages (which, just like with regular articles, are for discussing the article they are attached to), so that one is right out, and this isn't even remotely relevant enough for a village pump notice (which is low-hanging fruit anyway, since VP is the most general discussion platform we have). There's probably a couple boards out there that deserve a notification but didn't get one, but like you, I'm struggling to come up with any, and WP:AGF suggests we should assume the same was true for Your friendly neighborhood sociologist. As I pointed out on your talk page, these are aspersions. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I don't believe this rises to the level of aspersions though, as I'm simply discussing an argument and position. It could be said that accusations of aspersions here could rise to aspersions, so let's not go there. AGF, and all. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you removed the discussion from the more appropriate venue (your tp), I'll answer here: "I'm simply making an argument" about what. You're making an argument about the conduct of another editor without any evidence, and you by your own admission didn't check for evidence. That is a textbook aspersion. Assuming you made it in good faith, it's still an aspersion, so the correct course of action here is to tell you it's an aspersion so you can avoid making them going forward. That is the last time I'll respond here. if someone feels the need to hat this, go ahead. heat, light, etc . --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...the notice seemed quite partisan as it didn't even attempt to include any potentially dissenting voices. Suggestions that notifying WP:LGBT on LGBT issues inherently constitutes canvassing? Almost makes me feel nostalgic for the early 2010s when that issue was settled. If an editor wants to be notified about LGBT-related discussions, they should watch WT:LGBT. Not sure how capturing dissenting voices fits into that equation.--Trystan (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience, anti-LGBT editors do watchlist WT:LGBT as that is the page that will notify them of discussions they are interested in. There's an irony here in that the essay lists as queerphobic the belief: That LGBT editors have a conflict of interest and cannot write or speak neutrally about LGBT-related topics because of their identity. — Bilorv (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a misunderstanding of how WIkiprojects work. Following a Wikiproject is not limited to people who are pro- that subject; it's for anyone with an interest or concern about the coverage of that topic on Wikipedia, and that often includes anti-topic folks. The page is open to reading and posting by anyone -- indeed the person who launched this deletion discussion as posted there (although that is a somewhat different thing from following the page.) Quoting that canvassing should be limited in scope and not broad and then using the Village Pump as an example of places that could have been notified is not the presentation of a coherent argument. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While anyone can join a WikiProject, it doesn’t mean the membership is reflective of the broader community, and thus it is possible for a Wikiproject to be partisan (ie. it is significantly more likely to support/oppose a position than the broader membership body).
If a WikiProject is partisan then it would be against WP:CANVASS to notify it. I haven’t looked at whether WikiProject LGBT is partisan on this topic, but perhaps someone else contributing here will know if they are? BilledMammal (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CANVASSspecifically lists "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion" as one of the appropriate places to place notice. Really, we want people interested in the topic on hand. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the appropriate places, so long as doing so doesn’t violate WP:INAPPNOTE; Do not send inappropriate notices, as defined in the section directly below.
We want editors interested in the topic at hand, but not at any expense - a non-partisan WikiProject is an excellent choice to notify, but a partisan one should not be notified, as that can result in a false consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one has yet demonstrated any actual partisanship. As has been noted elsewhere, people who follow the project seem to have an array of views. No one has pointed to a better place to notify those interested in the topic.... but apparently, it upsets some to have interested people involved in the discussion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one has yet demonstrated any actual partisanship - I’m aware of that, and said as much in my reply to you. My point is just that it is possible for notifying a WikiProject to be a CANVASS violation. BilledMammal (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just idly speculating, based on no evidence, that maybe an 18-year-old WikiProject, one of the top 10 most active on Wikipedia, should no longer be allowed to be notified of relevant discussions? Not sure that is likely to be a terribly productive line of exploration.--Trystan (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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
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
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've already addressed the APPNOTE argument; APPNOTE explicitly rejects the notion that the listed examples are exceptions to INAPPNOTE.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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 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. Durchbruchmüller20:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is editorializing and pontificating. Many people are drawn to edit Wikipedia in order to promote anti-LGBT views, mistakenly believing that their beliefs are protected by the WP:NPOV policy. ...says who? I find myself agreeing with ——Serial Number 54129 here. This is not needed. Lightburst (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an essay, and it's ok for essays to explain minority viewpoints. Anyone is welcome to write Wikipedia:Some queerphobia is allowed here for a contrasting viewpoint. Blocks for expressing anti-LGBT views are common, but they are frequently controversial. Often some dogwhistling needs explanation. It is sensible to have an essay making the case for such blocks and providing such explanations. If it were just one author's view, I would support userfication, but it's not. I can't agree with delete rationales based on coatracking, editorializing, pontificating, etc., since this is an essay, a place where all such things are permissible (what would coatracking even mean here?). Ditto for the strawman arguments about, e.g., this essay equating anti-LGBT sentiment with Nazism or it calling for all editors who disagree with the LGBT community to be indeffed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone thinks hate is constructive. The more logical counterpoint to WP:Hate is disruptive would be not caring about what views someone expresses as long as their contributions are otherwise constructive. And that (apparently minority) viewpoint could be turned into a perfectly reasonable essay IMO. * Pppery *it has begun...23:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HID is a completely reasonable essay, which makes accurate claims and comports with the normal functioning of the project. This one is, too -- if you read the title and then stop. jp×g🗯️01:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userspace: The whole essay looks like an excuse to ask for any sort of dissenting opinion to be blocked, which is not healthy for any sort of constructive debate or the Wikipedia environment. The "nutshell" box at the top is especially concerning, as it says this: It is well within the scope of the disruptive editing policy to block editors for queerphobia per WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE and WP:NORACISTS. This essay expands them by laying out common queerphobic beliefs and how to handle users who consistently express and advance them. The biggest problem is that the "queerphobic beliefs" listed on this poorly-written slop are not even related to editing, but rather their viewpoint. Additionally, a couple of the "queerphobic beliefs" can easily be in good faith; most notably transgender rights conflict with feminism, the rights of cisgender women being listed as "queerphobia" is problematic. For example, as a common debate is mixing trans women and cisgender women in prisons, where I can easily see the argument for why trans rights genuinely conflict with feminism in this case (separating them would invalidate the trans identity to some opinions, while other opinions would say that the trans women are a danger for potentially getting the cisgender women pregnant). While queerphobia is a real thing, this page takes it way too far with what is considered "queerphobia". This essay page just brushing potential good faith beliefs off with extreme hostility is very unconstructive; it claims that it is trying to combat hate, but it is only doing so by using its own hatred. As for the common "keep" argument that essays are allowed to follow fringe viewpoints, read the top pf WP:ESSAY: “Essays…that contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace”, and it is clear that this essay does not reflect a widespread consensus with the amount of people who have requested its deletion. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Does not reflect" and "contradict" are different things. The essay may or may not reflect a widespread consensus but it certainly doesn't contradict widespread consensus either. Instead it's in that gray zone that the vast majority of essays are in, where it has some support but not universal support. Loki (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Unnamed anon I ask that you revert your edits removing links to WP:No queerphobia from the sister essays WP:No Nazis[5] and WP:No racists[6] (I see @Licks-rocks already reverted the removal[7] from WP:No Confederates). Your edit summary for the No Nazis removal was That page isn't fit for mainspace and it's not even related anyways, and Licks-rocks' summary for the reversion of your was page still exists, so this seems premature. That page isn't fit for mainspace has not been proven - if this MFD concludes that, feel free to remove the links then, but until then that is your opinion rather than consensus. it's not even related anyways also just doesn't make sense given 1) the nazis weren't particularly LGBT friendly 2) the essay was inspired by No Nazis (and the essays it inspired). As such, please self-revert. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant, the core idea behind this is already encompassed by WP:NPA. Moreover, this essay just seems like a vehicle for certain users to discredit dissenting views. Durchbruchmüller18:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The specific views are immaterial. My point was that nothing in this essay is original or constructive. Everything it purports to address is already addressed by the codified Wikipedia policy. It goes even further in fact, trying to tell people who could easily hold certain views in good faith that "Wikipedia is not for them". This essay just seems like something for someone to link to in order to 'checkmate' others in a discussion by pigeonholing them as "queerphobic". Durchbruchmüller22:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of the arguments against the essay seem to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is a bad reason to delete an essay about the intersection of bigotry and disruptive editing. Simonm223 (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep or merge. Clearly there is something of value here which should not be lost. Whether it needs to be a separate essay from the more general ones swings on how much distinct material there is here and how easy it would be to fold that into the others without losing anything important or making them too big. The most obvious value here is that it sets out what anti-LGBT POV pushing looks like. A lot of anti-LGBT rhetoric seeks to disguise itself as other things, sometimes out of self-delusion but more commonly in intentional bad faith. Sometimes editors genuinely fail to recognise it when they see it. It is good to have a list of common tropes and dog-whistle phrases to look out for. WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding, the fact that we have an essay for Wikipedia:No Confederates (an issue pretty much specific to the USA) suggests that this (a worldwide issue) is more likely to be worth keeping as a separate essay but I could see it go either way. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Homophobia, transphobia, queerphobia and similar gender and sexuality based discrimination are serious specific challenges in Wikipedia. I am a organizer of meta:Wikimedia LGBT+ and LGBT+ people are the most targeted demographic for harassment, stalking, aggression, and misconduct in the Wikimedia community. We continously get reports of this. This essay is merited because this demographic is extraordinarily persecuted. I advise anyone organizing in-person Wikipedia meetups in the United States to seriously take caution of the possibility that a crazy homophobic person would Mass shootings in the United States the attendees, especially if there is anything LGBT+ advertised about the event. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🔫🔫 😵😵🏳️🌈🏳️🌈 Security of LGBT+ people is a concern at every Wikimania (the international conference), and arises at other conferences. On Wikipedia the situation is crazy too in lots of ways that essays like this take steps to address. Bluerasberry (talk)00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you legitimately believe that someone determined to perpetrate "harassment, stalking, aggression, and misconduct" against LGBT people would be deterred by a... Wikipedia essay? This essay seems mostly self-serving for people in the LGBT camp, and elucidates nothing that isn't already codified in existing Wikipedia policy (WP:NPA) and already existing essays (WP:HID). I fail to see what value this essay holds, and certainly don't see how it would prevent a mass shooting. Durchbruchmüller00:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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". Durchbruchmüller02:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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". Durchbruchmüller03:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't recall anyone using Wikipedia to "promote anti-LGBT views". There must have been a few cases but without evidence to the contrary, there is no need to have a project essay suggesting the promotion of anti-LGBT views is a common problem which needs a specific remedy. The reason Wikipedia:No Nazis exists is that there are organized groups of thugs who infiltrate websites to spread a particularly horrific form of nonsense. They have symbols and text-codes to recognize each other and people have been indeffed for using them based on the No Nazis principle. No essay is needed for people to be blocked when they promote hateful views. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is a common problem. Once you get a few LGBT related articles on your watchlist you quickly accumulate a whole lot more as you chase vandals and trolls from article to article. It's actually pretty relentless, particularly for anything related to trans people. Often it is casual trolling but sometimes it is organised and, like the Nazis, they have their distinctive tropes and the dog-whistle phrases which it is very worthwhile to document, whether here or merged into another essay. DanielRigal (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cases that led to ArbCom arbitration like WP:GENSEX (and its regular enforcement required to raise articles page protections) or the daily vandalism of LGBTQ+ articles are most certainly not imaginary.
Having a central essay that outlines to new (and sometimes even experienced) editors some of the policies and regular occurrences is useful. I’ve even had admins at RPP that didn’t know GENSEX policies or the extent of some vandalism when I’ve flagged pages there that required protection after RD2 level vandalism.
Since you’re asking for evidence, The most recent large scale influx of people flowing to Wikipedia to spread their anti-LGBT views was the lead up to this years International Transgender Day of Visibility, which led to a barrage of vandalism’s for a few days and page protections to eventually shut it down or when some users tried to recently add some undue FRINGE news to WPATH. Or Transgender History which I had to send to RPP and report some RD2 vandalism and required two separate admins as one only added PC, but didn’t delete the RD2 level vandalism.
Those were just some notable occasions over the past two months right off the top of my head.
It is most certainly not a rare occasion of why users are drawn to Wikipedia to try to promote anti-LGBT views. Raladic (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Essays are allowed to contain a wide variety of viewpoints and opinions, even minority ones. Personally disagreeing with its thesis is not a valid reason for deletion. Pinguinn🐧03:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems rather disingenuous and reductive to characterize all of the lengthy, well-reasoned arguments that are in favor of deletion as mere "personal disagreements", don't you think? Durchbruchmüller03:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
